Construction and demolition waste management contributing factors coupled with reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies for effective waste management: A review

Abstract

Construction and demolition waste (C&DW) as a direct consequence of rapid urbanization is increasing around the world. C&DW generation has been identified as one of the major issues in the construction industry due to its direct impacts on the environment as well as the efficiency of construction industry. It is estimated that an overall of 35% of C&DW is landfilled globally, therefore, effective C&DW management is crucial in order to minimize detrimental impacts of C&DW for the environment. As the industry cannot continue to practice if the resources on which it depends are depleted, C&DW management needs to be implemented in an effective way. Despite considering many well-developed strategies for C&DW management, the outputs of the implementation of these strategies is far from optimum. The main reason of this inefficiency is due to inadequate understanding of principal factors, which play a vital role in C&DW management. Therefore, the aim of this research is to critically scrutinize the concept of C&DW and its managerial issues in a systematic way to come up with the effective C&DW management. In order to achieve this aim, and based on a systematic review of 97 research papers relevant to effective C&DW management, this research considers two main categories as fundamental factors affecting C&DW management namely, C&DW management hierarchy including reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies, and effective C&DW management contributing factors, including C&DW management from sustainability perspective, C&DW stakeholders’ attitudes, C&DW project life cycle, and C&DW management tools. Subsequently, these factors are discussed in detail and findings are scrutinized in order to clarify current and future practices of C&DW management from both academic and practical perspectives.

Full text

1
Construction and demolition waste management contributing factors coupled with 1
reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies for effective waste management: A Review 2
Kamyar Kabirifar a*, Mohammad Mojtahedi b, Changxin Wang c, Vivian W. Y. Tam d 3
a,b,c Faculty of Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia 4
d School of Built Environment, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia 5
6
a Faculty of Built Environment, University of New South Wales; Sydney, Australia; kamyar.kabirifar@unsw.edu.au 7
b Faculty of Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; m.mojtahedi@unsw.edu.au 8
c Faculty of Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; cynthia.wang@unsw.edu.au 9
d Department of Built Environment, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia; v.tam@westernsydney.edu.au 10
*Correspondence: kamyar.kabirifar@student.unsw.edu.au 11
Abstract: 12
Construction and demolition waste (C&DW) as a direct consequence of rapid urbanization is increasing around the 13
world. C&DW generation has been identified as one of the major issues in the construction industry due to its 14
direct impacts on the environment as well as the efficiency of construction industry. It is estimated that an overall 15
of 35% of C&DW is landfilled globally, therefore, effective C&DW management is crucial in order to minimize 16
detrimental impacts of C&DW for the environment. As the industry cannot continue to practice if the resources on 17
which it depends are depleted, C&DW management needs to be implemented in an effective way. Despite 18
considering many well-developed strategies for C&DW management, the outputs of the implementation of these 19
strategies is far from optimum. The main reason of this inefficiency is due to inadequate understanding of principal 20
factors, which play a vital role in C&DW management. Therefore, the aim of this research is to critically scrutinize 21
the concept of C&DW and its managerial issues in a systematic way to come up with the effective C&DW 22
management. In order to achieve this aim, and based on a systematic review of 97 research papers relevant to 23
effective C&DW management, this research considers two main categories as fundamental factors affecting C&DW 24
management namely, C&DW management hierarchy including reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies, and effective 25
C&DW management contributing factors, including C&DW management from sustainability perspective, C&DW 26
stakeholders’ attitudes, C&DW project life cycle, and C&DW management tools. Subsequently, these factors are 27
discussed in detail and findings are scrutinized in order to clarify current and future practices of C&DW 28
management from both academic and practical perspectives. 29
Keywords: Construction and Demolition Waste Management, Construction and Demolition Waste Management 30
Hierarchy, Effective Construction and Demolition Waste Management Contributing Factors, Effective 31
Construction and Demolition Waste Management 32
1. Introduction33
One of the most widespread definitions of construction and demolition waste (C&DW) provided by 34
(Tchobanoglous et al., 1977) emphasizes on demolition wastes as wastes arise from razed structures, 35
however, regarding construction waste, it is defined as wastes from construction, renovation, and 36
repairing of individual premises, commercial buildings, and other types of buildings. Skoyles and 37
Skoyles (1987) defined C&DW as a material or a by-product of the construction process, which is 38
generated due to non-conformity with the specifications, non-use or excessive utilization of resources, 39
and damage of the resources and infrastructure and this material should be evacuated from 40
construction site to another place or it can be utilized on construction site but rather than the initial aim 41
of the project. It is difficult to estimate the quantities of produced C&DW and they are various in 42
composition, however, may include concrete, bricks, dirt, stones, plaster, lumber, shingles, plumbing, 43
and electrical parts (Gavilan and Bernold, 1994). Another definition of C&DW is introduced by (Shen 44
et al., 2004) as “Debris generated in buildings, earth, rubble, steel, concrete, wood, and mixed materials 45
in construction sites, generating from different activities in construction sites encompassing excavation 46
For citationa:
Kabirifar, K.,Mojtahedi, M.,Wang, C. and Tam, V. W.Y. (2020), Construction and demolition waste management
contributing factors coupled with reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies for effective waste management: A
review, Journal of Cleaner Production, April, 2020 (263). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121265

2
of lands, construction of buildings and structures, clearance of site, activities pertaining to demolition, 47
roadwork, and renovation of buildings”. In addition, (Poon and Chan, 2007) described C&DW as a 48
compound of inert and non-inert materials. For instance, soil and slurry are classified as soft inert 49
materials, while concrete particles and rocks are classified as hard inert materials. Meanwhile, inert 50
materials include materials such as packaging waste, plastics, and timber. C&DW is also defined as 51
solid waste, which is produced within construction activities, particularly, the waste that stems from 52
the processes of construction, renovation and demolition (Yuan and Shen, 2011, Park and Tucker, 2017). 53
In general, C&DW is explained as a combination of various materials, containing non-inert waste, inert 54
waste, non-hazardous waste and hazardous waste. C&DW is also referred to the materials that might 55
inadvertently be engendered by natural disasters, such as floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, and 56
tsunamis (Menegaki and Damigos, 2018). Furthermore, some other researchers define or classify 57
C&DW in a similar way with regard to the types of materials including in each category, the potential 58
for reusing, recovering and recycling of materials, or within a localized context (del Río Merino et al., 59
2010, Coelho and de Brito, 2011, Yuan and Shen, 2011, Mercante et al., 2012, Saez et al., 2013, Marzouk 60
and Azab, 2014, Butera et al., 2015, Karunasena and Amaratunga, 2016, Esa et al., 2017a, Ghafourian et 61
al., 2017, Ulubeyli et al., 2017, Won and Cheng, 2017, Yuan, 2017, Chen et al., 2018, Gálvez-Martos et 62
al., 2018, Yazdanbakhsh, 2018, Menegaki and Damigos, 2018, Bandeira et al., 2019, Blaisi, 2019, Jin et 63
al., 2019, Wu et al., 2019b, Wu et al., 2019c). Meanwhile, EPA America (Environmental Protection 64
Agency) defines C&DW as a classification of waste which is autonomous from municipal solid waste. 65
Bases on this definition, C&DW include materials, such as steel, concrete, asphalt, asphalt shingles, 66
wood, drywall and plaster, brick and clay tile (Prairie Village, 1998). These types of materials are 67
applied in buildings, roads and bridges, and other infrastructures (Akhtar and Sarmah, 2018). EPA 68
Australia (Environment Protection Authority) describes C&DW as; solid waste caused by C&D works, 69
containing waste from building and demolition activities, asphalt and excavated material (Pickin et al., 70
2018). 71
Based on the most recent available data, it is estimated that 333 million tonnes of C&DW (excluding 72
soils) was generated in European Union in 2014 (Menegaki and Damigos, 2018).In this context, C&DW 73
is categorized into nine groups including ferric metals, non-ferric metals, mixed ferric and non-ferric 74
metals, wood, plastic, glass, polychlorinated biphenyl waste, mineral wastes containing asbestos, and 75
finally, waste from C&D from all activities. In addition, Germany with 85 million tonnes, France with 76
65 million tonnes, and the United Kingdom with 58 million tonnes were the top three C&DW generators 77
in European Union (Menegaki and Damigos, 2018). 78
China generated 1130 million tonnes of C&DW in 2014 and is ranked as the first C&DW generator 79
worldwide, while, 534 million tonnes of C&DW was engendered in the United States in 2014 including 80
building activities, construction of road and bridges and other construction activities, from which 28.9 81
million tonnes through construction and 505.1 million tonnes through demolition activities 82
encompassing concrete, steel, wood products, brick and clay tile, drywall and plasters, and asphalt 83
shingles (Menegaki and Damigos, 2018). Meanwhile, in 2016-2017 Australia generated more than 20 84
million tonnes of C&DW approximately (Pickin et al., 2018). Table1 presents the top nine C&DW 85
generators worldwide. 86
Table1: C&DW generation worldwide (Menegaki and Damigos, 2018, The World Bank, 2018a, The World Bank, 87
2018b, The World Bank, 2018c) 88
ID Country
C&DW generation
(million tonnes) Area (km2)
Population 2018
(million)
GDP 2018 (billion
USD)
1
Hong Kong
20
1,050
7.4
363

3
2
Australia
20.4
7,692,020
25
1,434
3
Netherlands
22
33,690
17.2
914
4
Italy
39
294,140
60.5
2,084
5
United Kingdom
58
241,930
66.5
2,855
6
France
65
547,557
67
2,778
7
Germany
86
349,360
83
3,948
8
United States
534
9,147,420
327
20,544
9
China
1130
9,388,210
1393
13,608
From the above-mentioned statistics, it is concluded that there is a direct relationship between 89
population size, and economy-related activities with the quantity of generated C&DW, as the top 90
C&DW generators worldwide are among the big economies. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that 91
evidence indicates that the construction industry generates about 44% of landfill waste in the United 92
Kingdom, 44% in Australia, 40% in Brazil, 29% in the United States, 27% in Canada and 25% in Hong 93
Kong (Ann et al., 2013, Yeheyis et al., 2013, Ajayi et al., 2016, Menegaki and Damigos, 2018). Generally, 94
it is estimated that the overall global average of C&DW is about 35% (Solís-Guzmán et al., 2009, Ajayi 95
et al., 2016), which is alarming when considering both the quantities of C&DW and detrimental impacts 96
of C&DW on the environment. 97
Managing C&DW in an effective way is a critical component in order to save our environment, natural 98
resources, economy, society, etc. Many researches have been carried out in the area of C&DW 99
management by focusing on C&DW management hierarchy including reduce, reuse, and recycle 100
strategies, which is known as a fundamental principal of C&DW management and by considering one 101
or a combination of these factors (Huang et al., 2018), however, this seems not to be adequate in order 102
to effectively manage C&DW (Ajayi et al., 2015, Esa et al., 2017a). Moreover, several other researches 103
have focused on C&DW management influencing factors, however, most of these studies (Li and Yang, 104
2014, Wang et al., 2014, Ramlee et al., 2016, Akinade et al., 2017, Banihashemi et al., 2017, Chen and Lu, 105
2017, Kalutara et al., 2017, Nikmehr et al., 2017, Udawatta et al., 2018, Yuan et al., 2018) lack of organized 106
and systematic classification, especially with regard to effective C&DW management. Despite these 107
previous researches in the area of C&DW management, less attention has been paid to the identification 108
and categorization of factors contributing to the effective C&DW management in a systematic way. It 109
is impossible to effectively manage C&DW without considering C&DW management hierarchy and 110
C&DW management contributing factors, because they both have same directions, and overlaps 111
regarding C&DW management and should be incorporated. Therefore, this research aims at critically 112
discuss the concept of effective C&DW and its contributing factors from managerial perspective. The 113
following research questions need to be addressed in the context of C&DW management hierarchical 114
strategies and C&DW management contributing factors. 115
1. What are the factors that affecting C&DW management? and; 116
2. What is the proposed model for effective C&DW management? 117
This review has an impressive value from both academic and practical point of view. Firstly, because 118
by the identification and categorization of effective C&DW management factors, a clear picture of 119
current and future status and practices in the domain of C&DW management research is drawn, which 120
helps academics to direct their future research on C&DW management by considering these factors. 121
Next, organizations engaged in C&DW management, can benefit from this research by considering 122
factors that affect C&DW management efficiency within their organizations in order to enhance their 123
level of performance. 124

4
2. Construction and Demolition Waste Management Literature Taxonomy 125
Based on the aim of this research, C&DW management literature taxonomy should be formed in order 126
to answer two main questions, including the factors that affect C&DW management and the proposed 127
model for effective C&DW management. In order to answer these questions, this research initially 128
considers C&DW definitions and generation, then, the research areas of previous studies in C&DW 129
management are discussed, which give a clear picture about the domain of previous research practices 130
in the area of C&DW management. In this step and based on the research gap of this study, research 131
questions and research aim of this study are discussed in detail. In the next step, research methodology 132
is described and subsequently, in the following steps of this research, discussions and conclusions will 133
be conducted. In order to effectively manage C&DW, incorporation of effective C&DW management 134
contributing factors and C&DW management hierarchy is essential. Figure1 represents the proposed 135
C&DW literature taxonomy. 136
137
138
Figure1: Proposed Taxonomy for construction and demolition waste management literature review 139
3. Construction and Demolition Waste Management Research Background140
The C&DW issues during the past decades have gained growing awareness from industry and 141
researchers around the world. Despite lots of efforts in the past couple of years, it is evaluated that the 142
construction industry is still in its early phases and yet to mature to effectively help alleviate the 143
environmental burden (Li, 2011). The strategy to minimize the C&DW generation in an effective and 144
efficient manner is a dilemma encountered with many countries around the world. Significant research 145
efforts have been dedicated to C&DW minimization since 1980s, in order to reduce detrimental effects 146
of C&DW of building structures (Yuan, 2012). 147

5
In order to have a clear understanding of previously conducted researches in the area of C&DW 148
management and research boundaries of C&DW, considering the C&DW management frameworks 149
developed by researchers is necessary. For instance, (Couto and Couto, 2010) developed a framework 150
to improve C&DW management in Portugal considering C&DW project life cycle and project 151
stakeholders. Another framework was developed by (Lu and Yuan, 2011), in which, research 152
boundaries for C&DW management were described. This framework covers amounts, origins, and 153
impacts of C&DW management, C&DW reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies, C&DW tools, humans’ 154
role, performance and regulatory environment. In addition, C&DW management with regard to project 155
life cycle and stakeholders have also been addressed in this framework. Similarly, (Yuan and Shen, 156
2011), considered a framework for C&DW management hierarchy including reduction, reuse, recycling 157
and disposal. Moreover, (Yeheyis et al., 2013) developed a framework for C&DW life cycle assessment 158
in Canada, utilized. Similarly, (Calvo et al., 2014) developed a framework for C&DW management in 159
Spain, and (Karunasena and Amaratunga, 2016) considered a framework for post disaster C&DW 160
management in Sri Lanka, and (Huang et al., 2018) developed a framework for C&DW management in 161
China through 3Rs principle. Furthermore, (Gálvez-Martos et al., 2018) developed a framework for 162
environmental management practices of C&DW in Europe. In the meantime, in order to effectively 163
manage C&DW, (Wu et al., 2019c) conducted a research to assess C&DW management effectiveness 164
based on three different levels namely, national level, city level and project level. For instance, in the 165
national level, the effectiveness of methods in the construction industry of Hong Kong was 166
investigated. In that study, gained benefits, critical difficulties and important measures to encourage 167
C&DW management were identified (Tam, 2008). In another study, a framework was proposed by 168
(Yuan, 2013b) in order to assess C&DW effectiveness. In a research carried out by (Saez et al., 2013), 169
effectiveness of best practices of C&DW management was evaluated, including industrialised system 170
utilization, contract issues with suppliers managing C&DW, and containers distribution in the working 171
area. Another study conducted by (Ajayi et al., 2015) at the industry level, explored hampering factors 172
for effective C&DW management regarding developing plans for reducing waste in the construction 173
industry. Other studies have focused on performance measurement of C&DW management (Reza et 174
al., 2011, Mercante et al., 2012, Wu et al., 2015, Butera et al., 2015, Kucukvar et al., 2016, Marrero et al., 175
2017, Vitale et al., 2017, Lu et al., 2017, Neto et al., 2017, Yuan et al., 2018, Borghi et al., 2018, Wu et al., 176
2019a), however, in the domain of effectively manage C&DW, considering effective contributing factors 177
and their systematic classification and categorization is crucial, which has not fully been carried out in 178
the previous researches. 179
Some scholars have considered C&DW management from hierarchical perspective including C&DW 180
reduction strategy, C&DW reuse strategy, and C&DW recycle strategy. For instance, (Park and Tucker, 181
2017) considered waste reduction strategy as the most efficient waste minimization strategy. However, 182
some C&DW are inevitably produced, therefore, C&DW reuse and recycling as pragmatic managerial 183
strategies should be implemented in order to reduce waste going to landfills (Yuan and Shen, 2011). 184
C&DW reuse is called to the process of reusing same construction material more than once even in 185
different roles and if this generated waste cannot be reused, conversion of these materials to new 186
materials through recycling should be performed. The merits of C&DW management are numerous 187
including preserving the environment from pollution and degradation, economic advantages, less 188
energy consumption, less emissions, etc (Guerrero et al., 2013, Park and Tucker, 2017, Huang et al., 189
2018). Some other researchers have studied other contributing factors to C&DW management. For 190
instance, identifying the construction activities through which, reusable construction materials can be 191
accommodated (del Río Merino et al., 2010), having waste target for all associated trades (Marinelli et 192

6
al., 2014), having recycling targets for each construction project (Oyedele et al., 2013), utilization of 193
facilities with the capacity of safe storage of materials and on-site environmental performance 194
monitoring and control (Dainty and Brooke, 2004, Ekanayake and Ofori, 2004), prevention of over 195
ordering of materials and removing remaining soil in reusable materials (Begum et al., 2007, Begum et 196
al., 2009), prevention of double handling of materials by proper logistic management, promoting reuse 197
of materials, utilization of standard materials in construction, and having separate bins prepared for 198
waste collection for all sub-contractors (Cha et al., 2009, Al-Hajj and Hamani, 2011, Kabirifar and 199
Mojtahedi, 2019), utilization of recovered materials (Domingo et al., 2009), periodic inspections on the 200
use of C&DW containers (Saez et al., 2013), allocation of adequate space for waste sorting (Lu and Yuan, 201
2011, Wang et al., 2014), setting up temporary bins and preventing from mixture of soils (Jingkuang 202
and Yousong, 2011), enough site access for delivery of materials and personnel movement (Nagapan et 203
al., 2012), specific places for cutting and storage of material (Tam, 2008), reuse material scraps (Faniran 204
and Caban, 1998), waste sorting, reusing and recycling (Hassan et al., 2012), and making sub-205
contractors responsible for waste disposal (Domingo et al., 2009). 206
Although the afore-mentioned factors for C&DW management from both hierarchical perspective and 207
influencing factors, have addressed some critical topics related to C&DW management, there is a lack 208
of systematic identification and categorization of these factors in previous researches. Therefore, this 209
study proposes an integrated framework including effective contributing factors to C&DW 210
management and C&DW management hierarchical strategies, in order to effectively manage C&DW 211
concerning all aspects of C&DW management, which is illustrated in Figure2. 212
213
214
Figure2: Relationship between effective C&DW management contributing factors, C&DW management 215
hierarchical strategies and effective C&DW management. 216
In order to achieve the aim of this research which is to critically scrutinize the concept of C&DW and 217
its managerial issues to come up with the effective C&DW management approaches, first, C&DW 218
management hierarchy and its influencing factors should be discussed. Next, effective C&DW 219

7
contributing factors should be identified and categorized and in order to effectively manage C&DW, 220
these factors should be incorporated with contributing factors to C&DW management hierarchy. 221
4. Literature Review Methodology 222
A three-stage strategy is selected in order to identify the most relevant research papers namely, 223
database selection, searching and refining the sample. Literature review methodology is presented in 224
Figure3. 225
4.1. Database Selection 226
In order to track academic publications, several database engines can be utilized such as, Scopus, Web 227
of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar. A research conducted by (Falagas et al., 2008) reveals that 228
Scopus database has a preference over other databases, however, in another study performed by (Wang 229
and Waltman, 2016) journal classification of Web of Science is preferred, therefore this study considers 230
both Scopus database and Web of Science database, meanwhile, Google Scholar is also used as an 231
assistant tool. 232
4.2. Sample Searching 233
For this purpose, “effective construction and demolition waste management” as keyword in article 234
titles, abstracts and keywords is searched among articles and review papers from 2009 to December 235
2019 in both Scopus and Web of Science databases. The initial search returns 163 papers. 236
4.3. Sample Selection 237
By the application of abstract reading of 163 papers in the first step and subsequently, by in-depth 238
reading of the whole paper in circumstances in which it is impossible to identify the suitability of 239
papers, the number of 97 papers with the most relevant content is selected. 240
Results of this search indicates that there are 95 articles and 2 review papers. Among these 97 papers, 241
there are 10 open access articles, whereas, other articles are not open access. Among the years, 2019, 242
2018, 2017, and 2015 have the highest publication number within the years with 14, 11, 11, and 11 243
articles, respectively. Meanwhile, with regard to journals, the three highest number of articles are 244
published in Waste Management journal with 16 articles, 12 published articles in Resources, 245
Conservation and Recycling journal, and 11 articles published in the Journal of Cleaner Production. In 246
addition, the top three affiliations are related to Hong Kong Polytechnic University, the University of 247
Hong Kong, and Western Sydney University. Furthermore, Tam, V.W.Y with 4 articles, Yuan, H. with 248
4 articles and Lu, W. with 3 articles were top three authors. To conclude, it should be mentioned that 249
keyword content analysis of these 97 papers leads to two main factors. First, C&DW management 250
hierarchical strategies and their related topics. Second, by classification of factors affecting effective 251
C&DW management, the effective C&DW management contributing factors are also derived. Figure3 252
presents the literature review methodology of this research. 253
254

8
255
Figure3: Literature Review Methodology 256
5. Discussions 257
5.1 Construction and Demolition Waste Management Hierarchy 258
Dissimilar views on C&DW management has resulted in contradictory and conflicting waste 259
management philosophies (Lu and Yuan, 2011). Therefore, several efforts have been made to reduce, 260
reuse or recycle C&DW. Each type of waste should be managed based on efficient and proper 261
mechanisms of waste prevention. In order to achieve this goal, a waste management hierarchy should 262
be followed. Based on this hierarchy, generated waste should be recovered based on its appropriateness 263
for being reduced, reused or recycled earlier than the final stage, which is waste disposal into landfills 264
(Ashe et al., 2003, Li and Du, 2015, Pickin et al., 2018, Huang et al., 2018, Jin et al., 2019). 265
Over the last couple of years, several research studies have considered the five key steps in the structure 266
of Waste Management Hierarchy (WMH) (e.g. El Haggar, 2010) including reduce, reuse, recycle (3R’s), 267
treat and disposal, however, waste treatment or recovery option is considered in general waste 268
management category and the last step which is disposal is not considered an efficient waste 269
management option. The C&DW management hierarchy rank strategies regarding priority from 270
avoiding the generation of waste, which is the most preferable outcome, and disposal as the least 271
preferable outcome. 272
Although waste management hierarchy includes 5 steps, the 3R’s principle of waste minimization 273
strategy including reduce, reuse, and recycle are considered as main elements of C&DW management 274
strategies in the academic perspective (Lu and Yuan, 2011, Huang et al., 2018). Traditionally, C&DW 275
management hierarchy including reduce, reuse and recycle seemed to be effective for the purpose of 276
C&DW management research. 277
278

9
5.1.1 Reduce 279
Reduction, among the 3Rs C&DW management strategies, is the optimal C&DW management measure 280
because of having the least detrimental effects on our environment. Therefore, reduction strategy is 281
rated as the highest priority in developing C&DW management plans (Huang et al., 2018). It is 282
substantial to reduce the amount of created waste, if created, then it is imperative to identify ways to 283
reuse the materials and finally, if materials cannot be reused then it is important to collect them to 284
recycle and then disposal which is the last step to managing C&DW. Pickin et al. (2018) pointed out 285
some benefits of reducing waste such as, generating income from collecting some materials, reduce 286
costs from purchasing less material, reducing CO2 emissions, reducing cost of transportation of wastes 287
to landfills, etc. It is important to conclude that the best environmental and cost-effective solution is to 288
reduce the amount of waste produced in construction activities by early consideration of using 289
standard sizes and quantities of materials, minimise rework from errors and poor workmanship and 290
plan to reduce off cuts (Osmani et al., 2008, Jaillon et al., 2009, Lu and Yuan, 2013, Bølviken and Koskela, 291
2016, Ding et al., 2016, Llatas and Osmani, 2016). The main barriers in the proper implementation of 292
waste reduction strategy occur when actors in the construction industry are vulnerable to properly 293
communicate and cooperate with each other and stakeholders do not have common understanding 294
among themselves regarding 3Rs C&DW management strategies due to the similarity of reduce, reuse 295
and recycle strategies. Construction actors will take the advantage of all aspects of reduction strategy 296
if reduce strategy is included in the C&DW management cycle for the purpose of waste minimization, 297
therefore, it is vital to pay extra attention to execution of the reduce strategy. Regarding the rapid 298
growth of C&DW generation worldwide, it is crucial to consider high priority in implementation of 299
reduce strategy in the construction industry (Esa et al., 2017a, Esa et al., 2017b). 300
5.1.2 Reuse 301
The action or practice of utilizing pertinent building materials more than once is referred to reusing 302
C&DW, whether these materials are applied in their original purpose or even if they fulfil another 303
function (Huang et al., 2018). Most C&DW can be reused after demolition works. Reduction and reuse 304
are the most effective strategies for the purpose of saving natural resources, environmental protection 305
and saving money. Other benefits of reusing building wastes are to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, 306
which contribute to global climate change, help maintaining the environment for future generations 307
and to allow products to be used to their fullest extent (Oyenuga, 2016, Park and Tucker, 2017). Various 308
types of building materials can be recovered from construction, renovation and demolition sites and 309
then sold, stored for later use or reused on the current project. However, some certain types of materials 310
from C&D is believed to be toxic and classified as hazardous waste including materials that require 311
special handling care such as latex paint, adhesives, chemical solvents (Oyenuga, 2016). In addition, 312
another affective decision making factor in reusing C&DW is the age of structures involved in 313
demolition projects (Tam, 2011b, Akinade et al., 2015). For instance, old buildings may contain materials 314
that are no longer allowed in new construction such as asbestos. Utilizing skilled workers for collecting 315
and sorting C&DW, assigning incentive for reusing construction and demolition waste, using standard 316
design, materials and construction technology, and finally, develop a market for reused material are 317
effective ways of reusing C&DW (Huang et al., 2018). 318
5.1.3 Recycle 319
The action of breaking down of used items in the construction in order to make new materials is called 320
C&DW recycling, however, immature management of C&DW recycling, inappropriate recycling 321

10
technology, and immature market for recycled products are impediments of C&DW recycling (Huang 322
et al., 2018). C&DW can be recycled onsite or offsite at a C&DW processor, depending on the capacities 323
and facilities of the project. Some certain types of materials can be recycled from building sites including 324
concrete, metal, asphalt, wood, roofing materials, plasterboard and corrugated cardboard. By recycling 325
building materials, finally a huge amount of CO2 is saved, which otherwise would be released by 326
removing waste and supplying natural building materials recurrently over large distances (Oyenuga, 327
2016). There are several benefits to C&DW recycling, and these include mitigating greenhouse gas 328
emission’s production and other pollutants by lessening the demand to pull out new raw materials. 329
Also, it maintains landfill capacity, mitigates demand for new landfills utilization and their associated 330
costs as well as energy saving and the environmental adverse impact reduction (Ashe et al., 2003, Fraser 331
et al., 2011, Li and Du, 2015, Pickin et al., 2018). Furthermore, recycling has a great impact in creating 332
job opportunities and economic activities in related industries. There is a huge market for quality-333
assured recycled building materials. Therefore, recycled building materials have been using in the 334
construction of roads, foundations, and sports grounds, for noise protection walls, and in landscape 335
construction (Fatemi and Imaninasab, 2016), however, to warrant successful waste recycling outcome, 336
government participation is also fundamental (Esa et al., 2017a, Esa et al., 2017b). 337
Based on our research aims, we considered the following topics which are associated with C&DW 338
management hierarchy including; benefits of C&DW reduction and effectiveness measures of waste 339
reduction in C&DW generation, C&DW reduction measures and technologies implementation, policies 340
and strategies adopted in C&DW reduction in design stage, benefits of C&DW reuse, barriers of C&DW 341
reuse, considering C&DW reuse from sustainability perspective, the role of stakeholders in C&DW 342
management, the impacts of C&DW management project phases on C&DW reuse, C&DW recycling 343
motivations, drivers, and barriers, C&DW recycled material quality, quantity and future market, 344
C&DW recycling impacts from sustainability perspective, the impacts of C&DW project life cycle in 345
C&DW recycling, the role of stakeholders in C&DW recycling, C&DW management strategies and etc. 346
(Chini and Nasri, 2009, Yuan and Shen, 2011, Arulrajah et al., 2013, Zhang et al., 2012, Saez et al., 2013, 347
Low et al., 2014, Duan et al., 2015, Lu et al., 2015b, Ding et al., 2016, Oyenuga, 2016, Tam and Lu, 2016, 348
Fatemi and Imaninasab, 2016, Won and Cheng, 2017, Park and Tucker, 2017, Jin et al., 2017, Esa et al., 349
2017a, Esa et al., 2017b, Vitale et al., 2017, Marrero et al., 2017, Yuan, 2017, Li et al., 2018, Gálvez-Martos 350
et al., 2018, Ghisellini et al., 2018, Huang et al., 2018, Yazdanbakhsh, 2018, Menegaki and Damigos, 351
2018, Wang et al., 2019, Osmani and Villoria-Sáez, 2019, Blaisi, 2019). 352
5.2 Effective Construction and Demolition Waste Management Contributing Factors 353
After discussing C&DW management hierarchy including reduce, reuse and recycle strategies, in this 354
step, the effective C&DW management contributing factors are introduced. Based on the identified 355
factors, this study classifies effective contributing factors that affect C&DW management into four 356
groups namely; Regulatory framework for sustainable C&DW management (obligation), C&DW 357
stakeholders’ attitudes (who), C&DW project life cycle (when), and finally C&DW management tools 358
(how). Figure4 illustrates effective contributing factors to C&DW management. 359

11
360
Figure 4: Effective C&DW management contributing factors 361
5.2.1 Construction and Demolition Waste Management from Sustainability Perspective 362
Sustainable development has received a significant value since the early 1980s. In this relation, solid 363
waste in the construction industry has attained extensive consideration around the globe (Lu and Yuan, 364
2011). World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) has defined sustainable 365
development as development though which basic needs of the public are met and public aspiration for 366
a better life is satisfied without endangering the ability of future generations (Yuan, 2013b, Yuan, 367
2013a). Sustainable development places emphasis on the significance of the co-development of 368
environment, economics and social, which are also acknowledged as a triple bottom line (Li and Pak, 369
2010, Li, 2011, Yuan, 2013b). 370
The phrase environmental impact has become distinguished, particularly with regard to global 371
warming challenges and commitment to green development, provided a definition for environment 372
sustainability as ‘organizations that are sustainable ecologically use natural resources which do not 373
exceed the speed of producing them and control their emission levels to not go over the limit of the 374
ecosystem to absorb and clean up the atmosphere’. Environmental sustainability is the most extensively 375
researched and defined area in the field of sustainability study. It is based on the notion that the Earth’s 376
resources are finite and depreciated natural capital may not be replenished (Formoso et al., 2002, Poon 377
et al., 2004, Shen et al., 2007, Park and Tucker, 2017). Extreme concerns related to possible harmful 378
effects caused by the development of industrial or infrastructural projects or by the release of a material 379
into the environment are increasing (Epstein, 2018). Environmental benefits of managing construction 380
waste include best use of raw materials, cutting down CO2 emissions and reducing waste going to 381
landfills (Mihelcic et al., 2014, Oyenuga, 2016). 382
The construction industry is recognized as a main contributor to environmental pollution and 383
degradation (Shen and Tam, 2002, Lu and Yuan, 2011). For instance, Fédération Internationale du 384
Recyclage (F.I.R) indicated that each ton of waste going to landfill occupies approximately 0.6 m3 space 385
of a land (Qin, 2012, Ding et al., 2016). In addition to water pollution and soil fertility ruination, 386
landfilling also causes vegetable deterioration and nitrate augmentation which affects human health. 387
An experimental research conducted by (Ding et al., 2016, Qin, 2012) revealed that 1000 m2 construction 388
waste going to landfill is equal to losing 1.5 kilotons of groundwater and causes fertility deterioration 389

12
of 52.5 kg of soil each year. In addition, C&DW often comprises oil, fuel and solvents which could 390
penetrate to underground aquifers and causing water pollution (Seror et al., 2014). C&DW also leads 391
to global warming. For instance, by processing each ton of C&DW in a landfill site, 200 lbs. emissions 392
susceptible for global warming is released (Poon et al., 2004, Levis, 2008, Ding et al., 2016). Yuan (2013b) 393
in his research indicated that when waste decomposes in landfill sites over time, a significant amount 394
of methane gas is released into atmosphere. In terms of global warming impact, methane is 21 times 395
more harmful than carbon dioxide (Yuan, 2013b), therefore, working effortlessly to prevent waste, 396
promote reuse and recycling, and develop markets for valuable recycled products have been top 397
priority of waste pioneers in the construction industry (Oyenuga, 2016). 398
In addition to the above-mentioned facts about environmental aspects of C&DW, the phrase economic 399
impact is gaining more interest and attention among all disciplines. This issue is related to the effect 400
that a phenomenon, changes in policy, or market trends have on economic factors (Epstein, 2018). A 401
high rate of construction materials are wasted with an estimation of 20%-30% of total weight of material 402
during construction as mentioned by (Yahya and Boussabaine, 2006, Oko John and Emmanuel Itodo, 403
2013). In parallel, construction waste management has received low attention from waste practitioners 404
and few resources and incentives are assigned to facilitate C&DW management processes (Teo et al., 405
2000, Osmani et al., 2008). At the end of buildings life cycle, a tremendous amount of construction 406
materials are sent to landfills (Wu et al., 2016). Therefore, with the current alarming rate of generated 407
and landfilled waste, the economic impact of C&DW is crucial. 40% of the material flow in the global 408
economy belongs to construction materials (Reza et al., 2011). Moreover, costs of materials contributes 409
to 50%-60% of a construction project’s costs, thus any reduction in waste generation rate leads to major 410
cost savings on projects (Khanh and Kim, 2015). Meanwhile, disposal costs and costs associated with 411
landfilling play a vital role in financial terms (Hao et al., 2008). The economic advantages to be attained 412
from waste minimization are significant. A few studies have considered both direct and indirect 413
impacts of an escalated rate of waste diversion from landfills on the augmentation in the number of 414
jobs and sales of recycled materials (Jain, 2012, Srour et al., 2013, Wu et al., 2014). This can also prevent 415
natural resources from depletion or being diverted from landfill sites (Hao et al., 2008, Hunt and 416
Shields, 2014, Ahankoob et al., 2015). As a consequence of waste generation, projects bear loss of profit 417
due to engagement in additional delays and overhead costs, productivity loss and significant waste 418
disposal costs (Udawatta et al., 2015a, Udawatta et al., 2015b). 419
Social impact is explained as the procedure of analyzing, controlling and managing the social effects 420
from planned and unplanned ways, both negative and positive, of planned involvements (plans, 421
programs, projects, and policies) and any processes of social change applied by those involvements 422
(Yuan, 2012). Regarding C&DW management, the people’s willingness to alter their behaviour and 423
attitudes pertaining to C&DW generation, collection and disposal is addressed to social impact. The 424
commitment and participation of construction stakeholders are considered as important drivers of 425
C&DW management from social perspective (Manowong, 2012, Udawatta et al., 2015a). In addition, 426
social and human capital deals with the matters pertaining to social sustainability. Human capital deals 427
with employees’ skills and loyalty. On the other hand, social capital encompasses the quality of life and 428
cultural components that are innate in each society (Kulatunga et al., 2006). Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) 429
pointed out the complexity of addressing the anticipation of various stakeholders simultaneously, and 430
trade-offs must constantly be made. Thus, (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002) came up with the following 431
description: “communities gain values through sustainability carried out socially by developing the 432
human resource and advancing the social capital among the people. It is essential to manage social 433
capital so that the stakeholders understand the motivations and accept the organization’s value to the 434

13
system”. Therefore, by proper waste management practices implementation, the construction industry 435
can gain environmental, economic and social benefits. Table2 represents sustainable C&DW 436
management contributing factors. 437
Table2: Sustainable C&DW management contributing factors 438
Sustainable
Construction and
Demolition Waste
Management
Factors
References
1. Environmental
Environmental (water, soil, air, and
noise) pollution and degradation, global
warming challenges, barriers
to green
development, greenhouse gas emission,
fossil fuel emission, resource and raw
materials depletion, i
mpacts of illegal
dumping on neighborhood, etc.
(Shen and Tam, 2002, Formoso et al., 2002,
Poon et al., 2004, Poon, 2007, Shen et al., 2007,
Levis, 2008, Lu and Yuan, 2011, Yuan, 2013b,
Seror et al., 2014, Li and Du, 2015, Oyenuga,
2016, Ding et al., 2016, Park and Tucker, 2017,
Esa et al., 2017a, Esa et al., 2017b, Silva et al.,
2017, Epstein, 2018, Chen et al., 2018)
2. Economic
Cost of materials, energy, waster, labour
and equipment, c
osts associated with
waste transportation, c
osts associated
with disposal, c
osts of valuable lands
filled with C&DW, reuse and recycling
costs, etc.
(Yahya and Boussabaine, 2006, Osmani et al.,
2008, Hao et al., 2008, Lu and Yuan, 2011,
Reza et al., 2011, Jain, 2012, Srour et al., 2013,
Yuan, 2013a, Yuan, 2013b, Dajadian and
Koch, 2014, Ahankoob et al., 2015, Udawatta
et al., 2015a, Udawatta et al., 2015b, Li and
Du, 2015, Wu et al., 2016, Esa et al., 2017a, Esa
et al., 2017b, Silva et al., 2017, Gálvez-Martos
et al., 2018, Chen et al., 2018)
3. Social
Short-term and long-
term health and
safety impacts of C&DW collection,
sorting and disposal, project
stakeholders’ attitude towards C&DW
management, p
ublic view and
awareness alteration towards C&DW
management, t
he role of incentive to
prevent illegal C&DW dumping,
aesthetic impacts of recycling plants and
material stockpiled, etc.
(Teo et al., 2000, Teo and Loosemore, 2001,
Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002, Kulatunga et al.,
2006, Osmani
et al., 2008, Yuan, 2013b,
Udawatta et al., 2015a, Li and Du, 2015, Esa et
al., 2017a, Esa et al., 2017b, Chen et al., 2018)
439
5.2.2 Construction and Demolition Waste Management Regarding Stakeholders’ Attitudes 440
The eminence of human factors in C&DW management has received great attention from researchers 441
(Lu and Yuan, 2011). Initially, all possible ways of waste generation should be identified and 442
consequently immediate proper actions to minimize waste should be carried out by engaged and 443
dedicated stakeholders (Manowong, 2012, Udawatta et al., 2015a) unfortunately, a proper 444
consideration to the elements of waste management has been overlooked by most of the construction 445
stakeholders who concern only about profit (Manowong, 2012). A research carried out by (Osmani et 446
al., 2008) stated that stakeholders engaged in C&DW management have rarely had a clear perception 447
of their roles and responsibilities in mitigating C&DW. For instance, architects as initial designers of 448
building projects, are less involved in strategies of waste minimization because of inadequate level of 449
understanding of the factors that leads to waste generation in the design stage and having false 450
comprehension that liability of waste minimization is contractors’ responsibility and liability. 451

14
Clients play a major role in ensuring waste management and promote communication effectively and 452
support interaction between main contractors and sub-contractors. The client’s role is to establish 453
leadership by securing proper waste consideration, making certain that C&DW reduction is carried out 454
thoroughly by project parties within their roles, communicate on waste requisites with project team 455
and setting rules for material utilization in an efficient manner (Ofori, 2007), however, (Manowong, 456
2012) found out that construction waste management is less important compared to profit 457
maximization from clients’ point of view and clients consider waste management as a factor, which 458
imposes financial burden to project. Because profit maximization is the main objective of many 459
organizations, clients are unwilling to choose efficient C&DW management methods without 460
profitability consideration (Hao et al., 2008). 461
In addition, contractors and sub-contractors play a vital role in elimination or reduction of waste 462
generated by construction activities. One of the strategic approaches towards waste elimination and 463
reduction by contractors and sub-contractors is to estimate required materials of the project and their 464
associated waste accurately and realistically. Main responsibility of contractors is to deliver the 465
requirements of clients by providing and following a waste management plan, which include clear 466
estimation and target of waste that is generated, apparent strategy for waste reduction and a 467
comprehensive strategy to satisfy that generated waste is recycled properly (Tilaye and Van Dijk, 2014). 468
However, site inspection should be carried out on a regular basis and waste management performance 469
should be reviewed periodically in order to point out additional requirements of waste reduction 470
(Udawatta et al., 2015a, Udawatta et al., 2015b, Khanh and Kim, 2015). 471
This approach is further reinforced by other researchers (Esin and Cosgun, 2007, Ghoddousi et al., 2015, 472
Chalker and Loosemore, 2016, Durdyev and Ismail, 2016) who mentioned that waste is generated by 473
involved workforce of a project directly or indirectly, due to low standard workmanship or insufficient 474
training. Training and education of construction workforce as effective ways to minimize waste 475
generation have also been addressed in the work of other researchers (Ding et al., 2016, Llatas and 476
Osmani, 2016). This study categorizes C&DW stakeholders into three groups namely, head-contractors, 477
consultants and sub-contractors. 478
5.2.3 Construction and Demolition Waste Management Regarding Project Life Cycle 479
A research conducted by (Poon et al., 2004) revealed that in order to reduce waste in building projects 480
it is vital that waste management plans be considered by extra attention at the planning phase of project 481
development. A series of measures were suggested by (Dainty and Brooke, 2004) through supply chain 482
management including standardized plans and designs, control of stock, on-time delivery, integrated 483
supply chain, specific sub-contracting packages and prefabrication for the construction industry. 484
Several researchers have focused on the ways through which waste could be reduced during the 485
initiation of a project (planning and design stage) by omitting errors and variations and having detailed 486
specifications (Esin and Cosgun, 2007, Khanh and Kim, 2015, Ding et al., 2016). In addition, (Llatas and 487
Osmani, 2016) considered that waste minimization can be attained via sensible design strategies. 488
However, there are other factors which affect C&DW management in the planning and design stage 489
including; BIM adoption, considering waste estimation in terms of type and volume before project 490
initiation, stakeholder’s engagement, designing waste management plan and to allocate a designated 491
team for monitoring. Other researches have also concentrated on waste minimization strategies in the 492
procurement stage (Levis, 2008, Butera et al., 2015, Akinade et al., 2017, Wang et al., 2019). In addition, 493
in the procurement stage, green procurement, awards and punishment for engaged stakeholders are 494
important factors as well. Moreover, in the construction stage, waste management plan application and 495

15
monitoring, on-site and off-site sorting techniques, collaboration and communication among project 496
teams, awards or punishment for those engaged in C&DW generation and sorting, proper demolition 497
plan, technique and machineries are among the most important factors for C&DW reduction (Poon et 498
al., 2004, Kulatunga et al., 2006, Tam et al., 2007, Wang et al., 2008, Tam, 2008, Arif et al., 2009, Begum 499
et al., 2009, Wang et al., 2010, Tam, 2011b, Tam, 2011a, Yuan, 2012, Poon et al., 2013, Yuan, 2013b, Yuan, 500
2013a). For instance, in a study carried out by (Ajayi et al., 2017), on-site construction waste reduction 501
in the construction phase has been considered. Efficient construction site management is increasingly 502
perceived as the tactical method to achieve the performance required by construction projects. 503
Meanwhile, an important project requirement which has drawn attention of site managers is the 504
comprehensiveness of project sustainability which affect waste output of a project (Udawatta et al., 505
2015a, Ajayi and Oyedele, 2017, Ajayi et al., 2017). The result of study shows that four factors including, 506
waste minimization contractual provisions, waste sorting, maximization of reusing materials and 507
efficient logistic management strategies are among the most significant factors influencing on-site waste 508
minimization. 509
Adequate site space for material storage, equipment, and processed waste have also been addressed in 510
some research (Poon et al., 2004, Wang et al., 2010, Esa et al., 2017b, Ajayi et al., 2017). Availability of 511
local infrastructures for recycling and ease of access to them have a significant impact on results of 512
waste management (Thomas et al., 2002, Dongsheng and Li, 2010). 513
This study categorizes C&DW project life cycle into three groups namely, planning and design phase, 514
procurement phase, and construction and demolition phase. Table3 represents C&DW management 515
concerning the ways to prevent C&DW generation regarding project life cycle. 516
Table3: C&DW management concerning the ways to prevent C&DW generation, and project life cycle. 517
How to prevent C&DW generation?
Project life
cycle
Reference
1. Design for dismantling, standardization
while designing, proper collaboration among
stakeholders, estimation of C&DW and C&DW
generation rate before project initiation,
Allocate enough time for auditing, Accurate
and clear design and detailing, Utilization of
high quality products while designing,
Accurate coordination
and communication
among designers, utilization of proper tools,
strategies and software to depict project in a
real manner, etc.
Planning and
Design phase
(Gavilan and Bernold, 1994, Bossink and
Brouwers, 1996, Ekanayake and Ofori, 2004,
Morgan and Stevenson, 2005, Osmani et al.,
2008, Wang et al., 2008, Arif et al., 2009, El
Haggar, 2010, Al-Hajj and Hamani, 2011,
Kpamma and Adjei-Kumi, 2011, Zhang et
al., 2012, Lehmann and Crocker, 2013, Wang
et al., 2014, Krystofik et al., 2015, Llatas and
Osmani, 2016, Nasiri et al., 2017, Esa et al.,
2017a, Esa et al., 2017b, Gamil and Rahman,
2017, Gálvez-Martos et al., 2018, Ghisellini et
al., 2018)
2. Accurate estimation of materials before
ordering, Proper handling of materials to
construction site, on-site sorting techniques, etc.
Procurement
phase
(Gavilan and Bernold, 1994, Bossink and
Brouwers, 1996, Lingard et al., 2000,
Formoso et al., 2002, Dainty and Brooke,
2004, Ofori, 2007, Osmani et al., 2008, Saaty,

16
2008, Wang et al., 2010, Lu and Yuan, 2011,
Ann et al., 2013, Li and Yang, 2014, Butera et
al., 2015, Clough et al., 2015, Udawatta et al.,
2015a, Udawatta et al., 2015b, Durdyev and
Ismail, 2016, Lu et al., 2016, Neyestani and
Juanzon, 2016, Oyenuga, 2016, Ajayi and
Oyedele, 2017, Ajayi et al., 2017, Esa et al.,
2017b, Park and Tucker, 2017, Yuan, 2017,
Gamil and Rahman, 2017, Ghisellini et al.,
2018, Bandeira et al., 2019)
3. Precise supervision on construction materials
and works, appropriate storage of material, on-
off materials handling, expert sub-contractor,
adequate communication among stakeholders,
proper utilization of materials, equipment and
machineries, etc.
Construction
and
Demolition
phase
(Gavilan and Bernold, 1994, Bossink and
Brouwers, 1996, Faniran and Caban, 1998,
Shen et al., 2004, Hao et al., 2008, Wang et al.,
2010, Ann et al., 2013, Oko John and
Emmanuel Itodo, 2013, Dajadian and Koch,
2014, Gangolells et al., 2014, Marinelli et al.,
2014, Ajayi et al., 2015, Durdyev and Ismail,
2016, Ajayi et al., 2017, Ulubeyli et al., 2017,
Esa et al., 2017b, Bandeira et al., 2019)
It is vital to consider all phases of C&DW project management in order to effectively manage C&DW, 518
because each phase has specific actions to prevent C&DW generation. 519
5.2.4 Construction and Demolition Waste Management Tools 520
Urgent need to mitigate the amount of generated waste drawn attention of many researchers and 521
industry professionals which has led to various research. Therefore, implementation of all contributing 522
C&DW tools have been considered crucial in order to mitigating C&DW. This study categorizes C&DW 523
management tools into three categories, namely information technology tools in C&DW management, 524
C&DW management approaches, and C&DW management technologies (Jin et al., 2019, Wu et al., 525
2019a, Wu et al., 2019b, Wu et al., 2019c). 526
5.2.4.1 Information Technology Tools in Construction and Demolition Waste management 527
5.2.4.1.1 Building Information Modelling 528
One of the most critical aspect of C&DW management is to predict the quantity of waste as it is crucial 529
for C&DW management. For example, the application of Building Information Modelling (BIM) have 530
been considered by some researchers to simulate the design of the buildings before construction 531
(Akinade et al., 2015). It can enable designers to consider material volume at the planning and design 532
phase of a project (Huang et al., 2013, Krystofik et al., 2015). A study conducted by (Cheng and Ma, 533
2013) about the application of building information modelling (BIM) in C&DW estimation and 534
planning reveals that BIM assigns information from multi-disciplinary areas to be applied in a digital 535
building model. In addition, information on material and their quantity can be extracted via BIM 536

17
implementation, which enables participants of the project to improve the technologies and processes in 537
the planning and design phase, procurement phase and construction and demolition phase in order to 538
manage C&DW efficiently (Cheng and Ma, 2013, Hamidi et al., 2014, Wong and Zhou, 2015, Won et al., 539
2016, Won and Cheng, 2017, Xu et al., 2019). 540
5.2.4.1.2 Radio Frequency Identification 541
In Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio signals of different frequencies are utilized as a 542
communication technology in order to a specific target identification in real-time without any direct 543
contact or line-of-sight within harsh environment (Sun et al., 2013). RFID has widely been utilized on-544
site to tackle human errors and is precisely integrated with systems of project management in 545
construction projects in order to manage and track construction materials faster and easier (Gulghane 546
and Khandve, 2015). Many technological projects use RFID technology for the purposes of warehouse 547
control, location of materials and people, control of entry and exit of products, vehicles, people, 548
identification of tools, among others. Its main advantages include speed, precision, reliability in data 549
transmission, high degree of control and inspection (Bandeira et al., 2019). 550
5.2.4.1.3 Geographic Information System and Global Positioning System 551
GIS and GPS technologies have also been addressed by some researchers in order to prevent 552
construction waste and evaluate material layout of construction site (Li et al., 2005, Su et al., 2012, Li 553
and Yang, 2014). A research carried out by (Paz et al., 2018) for the purpose of planning a network for 554
C&DW management in Brazil with the assistance of a geographic information system (GIS), reveals 555
that there are three stages in the process including, mapping the illegal waste disposal points of C&D 556
and waste classification based on its recyclability, representing proper areas for small waste generators 557
to voluntary delivery points to be installed and finally, showing proper areas for trans-shipment 558
installation areas and waste sorting regions. In another research carried out by (Madi and Srour, 2019), 559
a GIS-based framework was proposed in order to manage C&DW in emergency situations in Syria. The 560
suggested framework helps in estimating C&DW quantities, automatically allocate proper land for 561
building the recycling facilities and finally, conducting economic assessment of C&DW recycling. In a 562
study conducted by (Blaisi, 2019) in Saudi Arabia dumping trucks have been proposed to be monitored 563
and checked through global positioning system (GPS). Increasing in transporting cost of C&DW and 564
landfill levies have stipulated some dumping trucks to illegal dumping their load. 565
5.2.4.1.4 Big Data 566
Big Data is a magnificent technology for storing and analyzing large volume of data. Its utilization in 567
C&DW data storage and analysis have been emerging since years ago (Bilal et al., 2016). In a research 568
conducted by (Lu et al., 2015a), waste generation rate used as a key performance indicator to benchmark 569
C&DW performance. In this study in order to exploit data, a Big Data set on construction waste 570
management in Hong Kong was applied. In another study conducted in Hong Kong, data extracted 571
from public and private sectors were analyzed using Big Data for the purpose of construction waste 572
management performance assessment (Lu et al., 2016). Other studies (Bilal et al., 2016, Chen and Lu, 573
2017, Lu et al., 2018, Lu, 2019) have also focused on Big Data utilization in C&DW management through 574
storage and processing of large volume of data in the design, procurement, and construction and 575
demolition stages (Bilal et al., 2016, Ram et al., 2019). 576
5.2.4.2 Construction and Demolition Waste Management Approaches 577

18
5.2.4.2.1 Lean Principle 578
Some researchers have recommended that by the application of lean principles almost all sorts of waste 579
can be omitted because the philosophy of lean production is based on refocusing on the proceed of 580
production and value creation via process authenticity (Thomas et al., 2002, Dongsheng and Li, 2010, 581
Ghisellini et al., 2018). 582
5.2.4.2.2 Circular Economy 583
Pearce and Turner introduced a concept in 1990 (Pearce and Turner, 1990), which was later known as 584
circular economy (CE), however, before 1996, this concept had not been used by any country. In 1996, 585
Germany became the first country worldwide that adopted CE and legislate its implementation in its 586
economy by implementing Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Act (Su et al., 2013, Esa et 587
al., 2017a). CE was later implemented by Japan, China and Finland. The concept of CE emphasizes on 588
supporting of the maximum efficiency of resource utilization, recycling of materials adoption and 589
energy efficiency, in addition to transforming wastes into resources (Esa et al., 2017a). Actually, reduce, 590
reuse, and recycle are the main elements and concepts that build the basis of CE (Huang et al., 2018). 591
CE aims at promoting compatibility among the ecosystem and economic system by organizing a closed 592
loop of materials for economic activities and fostering cleaner production and industrial ecology 593
(Chiveralls et al., 2012). A research conducted by (Pomponi and Moncaster, 2017), has considered 594
several dimensions for CE research including economic, environmental, technological, societal, 595
governmental and behavioural. 596
5.2.4.2.3 Zero Waste Approach 597
According to (Zaman, 2015), a large number of different waste streams left stakeholders no other 598
alternative except selecting environmentally polluting and inefficient waste management solutions 599
such as landfill. Urban areas lack of landfill sites, which has led authorities to look for alternative waste 600
management systems. Zero waste (ZW), which is a perceptive system of waste management, which has 601
been introduced as an alternative solution for waste problems in recent decades in many cities such as 602
Adelaide, San Francisco, and Vancouver (Connett, 2013, Zaman and Lehmann, 2011, Zaman, 2015). 603
Since, ZW concept motivates sustainable consumption and production, optimization of resource 604
recovery and recycling and prevents wastes from incineration and landfilling, it has also been adopted 605
by policymakers. ZW concept has been applied and perceived by waste management authorities in 606
several ways (Li and Du, 2015). For instance, several studies have asserted to attain zero waste aims 607
with utilizing waste-to-energy technology simultaneously, such as incineration, as waste recovery 608
strategy although zero waste concepts ban incineration and landfills and in general, zero waste concept 609
still needs to be expanded in order to achieve its widely applicability (Abbasi et al., 2012, Premalatha 610
et al., 2013, Björk, 2015). A research conducted by (Zaman and Lehmann, 2011) propose that a ZW city 611
should recover 100% of its resources from waste and should reach 100 % recycling rate. 612
5.2.4.2.4 Green Rating System 613
Green rating systems throughout the world are widely applied in order to assess sustainability of 614
construction processes. Some of these sustainability assessment tools including BREEAM (Building 615
Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method), LEED (Leadership in Energy and 616
Environmental Design), and Green Star have widely been utilized to foster construction processes in a 617
more environmentally friendly manner. For instance, BREEAM was introduced in 1990 in United 618

19
Kingdom, LEED came to action in 1996 in United States, and Green Star was introduced in Australia in 619
2003 (Esa et al., 2017a, Esa et al., 2017b). 620
5.2.4.2.5 Site Waste Management Plan 621
Site waste management plan (SWMP) is becoming popular nowadays as a valuable approach for the 622
purpose of assisting construction stakeholders to anticipate and officially note the quantity and type of 623
C&DW and take appropriate decisions in order to manage it when necessary. This plan focuses on the 624
construction project’s lifecycle, starting from the planning and designing stage to the demolition stage. 625
SWMP is a legislative requirement for construction activities in many nations (Esa et al., 2017a, Esa et 626
al., 2017b). For instance, in the United Kingdom, Sie Waste Management Plan regulation, which is a 627
legislative framework, requires projects above £300,000 to develop SWMP before construction phase 628
initiation. Another example for this is the introduction of site waste plan in Hong Kong in 2003 for 629
construction industry, although it received negative feedback from some C&DW practitioners, as it was 630
considered to decrease productivity (Tam, 2008). SWMP is also a mandatory requirement for planning 631
approval of some construction projects in Australia (Hardie et al., 2007). Preconstruction strategies as 632
well as statement of details of proposed strategies for waste management during and after construction 633
should be stated in a standard SWMP. The main purposes of creating SWMP is to set waste diversion 634
target, proper waste sorting, collection and auditing, to improve profitability and efficiency of waste 635
management, and ensuring that waste reduction, reuse and recycling are carried out adequately in a 636
proper manner (Ajayi et al., 2015). 637
5.2.4.3 Construction and Demolition Waste Management Technologies 638
Industrialized building system (IBS) and modular construction have also been considered by several 639
researchers (Tam et al., 2007, Jaillon et al., 2009). Capability of prefabrication in reducing construction 640
waste is undeniable. Based on a research conducted by (Tam et al., 2007), an average of 52% waste 641
reduction through prefabrication is achievable, however, prefabrication has some disadvantages 642
including less flexibility with plans and manufacturing and limitation on transportation (Jaillon et al., 643
2009).Therefore, the application of prefabrication or other off-site construction techniques are not used 644
in many construction projects because waste minimization through utilization of these techniques is 645
practically impossible. Although the significance of site management techniques in driving innovative 646
technologies and project performance enhancement is undeniable, most waste management research 647
have focused on applicable new construction techniques and the application of innovative and unique 648
methods in construction (Poon et al., 2004, Jaillon et al., 2009, Lu and Yuan, 2011). The following table 649
indicates C&DW management tools. 650
Table4: Construction and Demolition Waste Minimization Tools 651
C&DW Minimization Tools
Sub-category
References
1. Information Technology
Tools
1. BIM
2. RFID
3. GIS
4. GPS
5. Big Data
(Formoso et al., 2002, Tam, 2008, Kofoworola and Gheewala,
2009, Chini and Nasri, 2009, Dongsheng and Li, 2010,
Nowosielski et al., 2010, del Río Merino et al., 2010, Coelho and
de Brito, 2011, Al-Hajj and Hamani, 2011, Reza et al., 2011,
Saghafi and Teshnizi, 2011, Jain, 2012, Oko John and Emmanuel
Itodo, 2013, Guerrero et al., 2013, Huang et al., 2013, Lehmann
and Crocker, 2013, Premalatha et al., 2013, Marinelli et al., 2014,
Safa et al., 2014, Akinade et al., 2015, Zaman, 2015, Fatemi and
Imaninasab, 2016, Wu et al., 2016, Tam and Lu, 2016, Lu et al.,
2017, Park and Tucker, 2017, Esa et al., 2017a, Esa et al., 2017b)

20
2. C&DW Approaches
1. Lean
Construction
2. Circular
Economy
3. Zero Waste
4. Green Rating
System
5. Site Waste
Management
Plan
(Faniran and Caban, 1998, Teo and Loosemore, 2001, Martin and
Scott, 2003, Kulatunga et al., 2006, Manowong and Perera, 2008,
Osmani et al., 2008, Wang et al., 2008, Walker, 2008, Blengini,
2009, Jaillon et al., 2009, Wang et al., 2010, Lu and Yuan, 2010, del
Río Merino et al., 2010, Coelho and de Brito, 2011, Banias et al.,
2011, Mercante et al., 2012, Yuan, 2013b)
3. C&DW Management
Technologies
1.
Prefabrication
2.
Modularization
(Johnston and Mincks, 1995, Poon et al., 2004, Osmani et al., 2008,
Arif et al., 2009, Begum et al., 2009, Chini and Nasri, 2009, Huang
et al., 2013, Lu and Yuan, 2010, Wang et al., 2010, Li, 2011,
Lachimpadi et al., 2012, Li and Yang, 2014, Low et al., 2014,
Gangolells et al., 2014, Krystofik et al., 2015, Akinade et al., 2015,
Akinade et al., 2017, Esa et al., 2017a, Esa et al., 2017b)
Table4 indicates that C&DW minimization tools has gained attention among researchers in the last 652
years due to providing assessment criteria and measurement tools for C&DW management. 653
6. Conclusions 654
The associated problems with inefficient C&DW management are still persistent and researchers have 655
devoted lots of efforts to tackle these problems. It is necessary to conduct C&DW management 656
effectively in order to preserve our precious resources from devastation and natural habitat from 657
degradation. In order to effectively manage C&DW, two important parameters should be applied 658
together. First, C&DW management hierarchy including reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies and their 659
associated factors should be followed respectively. Second, effective C&DW management contributing 660
factors including C&DW from sustainability perspective, C&DW stakeholders’ attitudes, C&DW 661
project life cycle, and C&DW management tools should be identified and then be incorporated with 662
the first parameter. 663
This research builds a strong and systematic foundation for C&DW management studies by 664
identification and classification of contributing factors in effective C&DW management. Meanwhile, 665
this review in C&DW management, provides in-depth perception of effective management of C&DW, 666
which is utilized as a reference for scholars for their future research in this area as well as assisting 667
C&DW practitioners to improve their performance by considering and focusing on effective C&DW 668
management in order to mitigate C&DW and its detrimental impacts on environment. 669
To conclude, this research summarizes current research disparities within current status of C&DW 670
management body of knowledge by identifying five major gaps, which clarifies the way towards future 671
research in the area of C&DW management. 672
6.1 C&DW management status in developed and developing countries 673
There is a significant difference between developing and developed countries regarding C&DW 674
management. Most of the challenges faced by C&DW practitioners in developed countries including, 675
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, commitment to carbon policy, improving in C&DW recycling tools 676
and technologies, educating and training programs for waste practitioners to alter their attitudes 677
towards better management of C&DW, implementing circular economy, developing more C&DW 678
recycling facilities in urban and rural areas, and to develop market of recycled products and materials, 679
on the other hand, developing countries are steps ahead, however, they also struggle with insufficient 680

21
and imprecise data on C&DW generation, reuse, recycling, and diversion rate from landfills. There are 681
significant practical, economic, cultural and attitudinal differences between developed and developing 682
countries regarding C&DW management. For instance, in developing countries, C&DW management 683
is seen as a government responsibility, however, in developed countries all C&DW practitioners see 684
themselves as stakeholders and shareholders in C&DW management. Therefore, it is recommended 685
that C&DW management needs to be studied and considered within the specific context of a region or 686
country. 687
6.2 Effectiveness of C&DW management 688
This research contributes to identification and classification of effective C&DW management associated 689
factors, however, there should be a measure to assess C&DW effectiveness. Although some researchers 690
have conducted research on the effectiveness assessment of C&DW management by focusing on some 691
indexes such as; waste generation rate, life cycle assessment from sustainability perspective, etc. the 692
effectiveness of C&DW management has not yet been well benchmarked and there is a great need to 693
develop a more comprehensive mechanism to assess C&DW management performance. 694
6.3 Stakeholder attitudes in C&DW management 695
Although C&DW stakeholders have been addressed in many researches, there is still a great need to 696
study how C&DW stakeholders’ attitudes change C&DW diversion rate by utilizing different methods, 697
such as incentives, fines and penalties, training, etc. Meanwhile, despite considering C&DW 698
minimization only through the construction phase, there should be an equal consideration to C&DW 699
management throughout the whole C&DW project life cycle. 700
6.4 C&DW management tools 701
There is a great need to pay extra attention to C&DW management new tools, technologies, techniques 702
and materials. Some forms of C&DW management IT tools, approaches or techniques have been 703
addressed in previous research solely, e.g. prefabrication or circular economy. However, there is a great 704
need to consider as much C&DW management tools as possible in future practical efforts in order to 705
effectively manage C&DW 706
6.5 C&DW hierarchy management 707
In order to effectively manage C&DW, it is mandatory to consider C&DW management hierarchy 708
including reduce, reuse and recycle strategies and effective C&DW management contributing factors, 709
however, there are a lot of overlaps in their context. It is recommended that the effect of each C&DW 710
management hierarchy (reduce, reuse or recycle) on the effectiveness of C&DW management is studied 711
in the future research. 712
This study of effective C&DW management is limited to its recruited journal articles in English 713
language without considering other publications such as conference proceedings, and magazines and 714
other publications in languages other than English, which are considered as limitations of this research. 715
7. References 716
1. ABBASI, T., PREMALATHA, M. & ABBASI, S. J. C. S. 2012. Masdar City: a zero carbon, zero 717
waste myth. 102, 12. 718
2. AHANKOOB, A., MANLEY, K. & STEINHARDT, D. 2015. The application of building information 719
modeling to enhance organisational learning. 720

22
3. AJAYI, S. O. & OYEDELE, L. O. 2017. Policy imperatives for diverting construction waste from 721
landfill: Experts’ recommendations for UK policy expansion. Journal of cleaner production, 722
147, 57-65. 723
4. AJAYI, S. O., OYEDELE, L. O., AKINADE, O. O., BILAL, M., OWOLABI, H. A., ALAKA, H. A. & 724
KADIRI, K. O. 2016. Reducing waste to landfill: A need for cultural change in the UK 725
construction industry. Journal of Building Engineering, 5, 185-193. 726
5. AJAYI, S. O., OYEDELE, L. O., BILAL, M., AKINADE, O. O., ALAKA, H. A. & OWOLABI, H. A. 2017. 727
Critical management practices influencing on-site waste minimization in construction 728
projects. Waste management, 59, 330-339. 729
6. AJAYI, S. O., OYEDELE, L. O., BILAL, M., AKINADE, O. O., ALAKA, H. A., OWOLABI, H. A. & 730
KADIRI, K. O. 2015. Waste effectiveness of the construction industry: Understanding the 731
impediments and requisites for improvements. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 102, 732
101-112. 733
7. AKHTAR, A. & SARMAH, A. K. 2018. Construction and demolition waste generation and 734
properties of recycled aggregate concrete: a global perspective. Journal of Cleaner 735
Production, 186, 262-281. 736
8. AKINADE, O. O., OYEDELE, L. O., AJAYI, S. O., BILAL, M., ALAKA, H. A., OWOLABI, H. A., BELLO, 737
S. A., JAIYEOBA, B. E. & KADIRI, K. O. 2017. Design for Deconstruction (DfD): Critical success 738
factors for diverting end-of-life waste from landfills. Waste management, 60, 3-13. 739
9. AKINADE, O. O., OYEDELE, L. O., BILAL, M., AJAYI, S. O., OWOLABI, H. A., ALAKA, H. A. & 740
BELLO, S. A. 2015. Waste minimisation through deconstruction: A BIM based 741
Deconstructability Assessment Score (BIM-DAS). Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 105, 742
167-176. 743
10. AL-HAJJ, A. & HAMANI, K. 2011. Material waste in the UAE construction industry: Main 744
causes and minimization practices. Architectural engineering and design management, 7, 745
221-235. 746
11. ANN, T., POON, C., WONG, A., YIP, R. & JAILLON, L. 2013. Impact of construction waste 747
disposal charging scheme on work practices at construction sites in Hong Kong. Waste 748
management, 33, 138-146. 749
12. ARIF, M., EGBU, C., HALEEM, A., KULONDA, D. & KHALFAN, M. 2009. State of green 750
construction in India: drivers and challenges. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology. 751
13. ARULRAJAH, A., PIRATHEEPAN, J., DISFANI, M. M. & BO, M. W. 2013. Geotechnical and 752
geoenvironmental properties of recycled construction and demolition materials in pavement 753
subbase applications. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 25, 1077-1088. 754
14. ASHE, B., NEWTON, P. W., ENKER, R., BELL, J., APELT, R., HOUGH, R., THOMAS, P., 755
MCWHINNEY, S., LOVERIDGE, R. & DAVIS, M. 2003. Sustainability and the building code of 756
Australia. 757
15. BANDEIRA, S. R., MACIEL, J. B. S., DE OLIVEIRA, J. C. S. & SANCHES, A. E. 2019. Construction
758
and Demolition Waste Management Practices at Construction Sites. International Journal of 759
Advanced Engineering Research and Science, 6. 760
16. BANIAS, G., ACHILLAS, C., VLACHOKOSTAS, C., MOUSSIOPOULOS, N. & PAPAIOANNOU, I. 761
2011. A web-based Decision Support System for the optimal management of construction 762
and demolition waste. Waste Management, 31, 2497-2502. 763
17. BANIHASHEMI, S., HOSSEINI, M. R., GOLIZADEH, H. & SANKARAN, S. 2017. Critical success 764
factors (CSFs) for integration of sustainability into construction project management 765
practices in developing countries. International Journal of Project Management, 35, 1103-766
1119. 767
18. BEGUM, R. A., SIWAR, C., PEREIRA, J. J. & JAAFAR, A. H. 2007. Implementation of waste 768
management and minimisation in the construction industry of Malaysia. Resources, 769
Conservation and Recycling, 51, 190-202. 770

23
19. BEGUM, R. A., SIWAR, C., PEREIRA, J. J. & JAAFAR, A. H. 2009. Attitude and behavioral factors 771
in waste management in the construction industry of Malaysia. Resources, Conservation and 772
Recycling, 53, 321-328. 773
20. BILAL, M., OYEDELE, L. O., AKINADE, O. O., AJAYI, S. O., ALAKA, H. A., OWOLABI, H. A., 774
QADIR, J., PASHA, M. & BELLO, S. A. 2016. Big data architecture for construction waste 775
analytics (CWA): A conceptual framework. Journal of Building Engineering, 6, 144-156. 776
21. BJÖRK, H. 2015. Zero Waste Society in Borås City, Sweden Strategies to Action. 777
22. BLAISI, N. I. 2019. Construction and demolition waste management in Saudi Arabia: Current 778
practice and roadmap for sustainable management. Journal of cleaner production, 221, 167-779
175. 780
23. BLENGINI, G. A. 2009. Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: A case study 781
in Turin, Italy. Building and environment, 44, 319-330. 782
24. BØLVIKEN, T. & KOSKELA, L. 2016. Why Hasn’t Waste Reduction Conquered Construction? 783
25. BORGHI, G., PANTINI, S. & RIGAMONTI, L. 2018. Life cycle assessment of non-hazardous 784
Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) management in Lombardy Region (Italy). Journal 785
of cleaner production, 184, 815-825. 786
26. BOSSINK, B. & BROUWERS, H. 1996. Construction waste: quantification and source 787
evaluation. Journal of construction engineering and management, 122, 55-60. 788
27. BUTERA, S., CHRISTENSEN, T. H. & ASTRUP, T. F. 2015. Life cycle assessment of construction 789
and demolition waste management. Waste management, 44, 196-205. 790
28. CALVO, N., VARELA-CANDAMIO, L. & NOVO-CORTI, I. 2014. A dynamic model for 791
construction and demolition (C&D) waste management in Spain: Driving policies based on 792
economic incentives and tax penalties. Sustainability, 6, 416-435. 793
29. CHA, H. S., KIM, J. & HAN, J.-Y. 2009. Identifying and assessing influence factors on improving 794
waste management performance for building construction projects. Journal of construction 795
engineering and management, 135, 647-656. 796
30. CHALKER, M. & LOOSEMORE, M. 2016. Trust and productivity in Australian construction 797
projects: a subcontractor perspective. Engineering, Construction and Architectural 798
Management. 799
31. CHEN, J., SU, Y., SI, H. & CHEN, J. 2018. Managerial areas of construction and demolition 800
waste: A scientometric review. International journal of environmental research and public 801
health, 15, 2350. 802
32. CHEN, X. & LU, W. 2017. Identifying factors influencing demolition waste generation in Hong 803
Kong. Journal of cleaner production, 141, 799-811. 804
33. CHENG, J. C. & MA, L. Y. 2013. A BIM-based system for demolition and renovation waste 805
estimation and planning. Waste management, 33, 1539-1551. 806
34. CHINI, A. R. & NASRI, E. 2009. Sustainable development, engineering education and Iranian 807
academe: strategies and related issues. Bimonthly Journal of Faculty of Engineering 808
(University of Tehran), 43, 191-198. 809
35. CHIVERALLS, K., PALMER, J., ZILLANTE, G., ZUO, J., WILSON, L. & PULLEN, S. 2012. 810
Reconsidering sustainable building and design: lessons from China, Germany and Australia. 811
International Society for Ecological Economics. 812
36. CLOUGH, R. H., SEARS, G. A., SEARS, S. K., SEGNER, R. O. & ROUNDS, J. L. 2015. Construction 813
contracting: A practical guide to company management, John Wiley & Sons. 814
37. COELHO, A. & DE BRITO, J. 2011. Distribution of materials in construction and demolition 815
waste in Portugal. Waste Management & Research, 29, 843-853. 816
38. CONNETT, P. 2013. Zero Waste 2020: sustainability in our hands. Motivating Change: 817
Sustainable Design and Behaviour in the Built Environment. Routledge. 818
39. COUTO, A. & COUTO, J. P. 2010. Guidelines to improve construction and demolition waste 819
management in Portugal. Process Management. IntechOpen. 820

24
40. DAINTY, A. R. & BROOKE, R. J. 2004. Towards improved construction waste minimisation: a 821
need for improved supply chain integration? Structural Survey. 822
41. DAJADIAN, S. A. & KOCH, D. C. 2014. Waste management models and their applications on 823
construction sites. International journal of construction engineering and management, 3, 91-824
98. 825
42. DEL RÍO MERINO, M., IZQUIERDO GRACIA, P. & WEIS AZEVEDO, I. S. 2010. Sustainable 826
construction: construction and demolition waste reconsidered. Waste management & 827
research, 28, 118-129. 828
43. DING, Z., YI, G., TAM, V. W. & HUANG, T. 2016. A system dynamics-based environmental 829
performance simulation of construction waste reduction management in China. Waste 830
Management, 51, 130-141. 831
44. DOMINGO, N., OSMANI, M. & PRICE, A. Con-struction waste minimisation in the UK 832
healthcare industry. IN: Dainty, RJ. Proceedings of the 25th Annual ARCOM Conference, 833
2009. ARCOM (cс ARCOM and the authors) Please cite the published version., 7-9. 834
45. DONGSHENG, Z. & LI, C. The research on the construction of lean project culture. 2010 IEEE 835
International Conference on Advanced Management Science (ICAMS 2010), 2010. 836
46. DUAN, H., WANG, J. & HUANG, Q. 2015. Encouraging the environmentally sound 837
management of C&D waste in China: an integrative review and research agenda. Renewable 838
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 43, 611-620. 839
47. DURDYEV, S. & ISMAIL, S. 2016. On-site construction productivity in Malaysian infrastructure 840
projects. Structural Survey. 841
48. DYLLICK, T. & HOCKERTS, K. 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. 842
Business strategy and the environment, 11, 130-141. 843
49. EKANAYAKE, L. L. & OFORI, G. 2004. Building waste assessment score: design-based tool. 844
Building and Environment, 39, 851-861. 845
50. EL HAGGAR, S. 2010. Sustainable industrial design and waste management: cradle-to-cradle 846
for sustainable development, Academic Press. 847
51. EPSTEIN, M. J. 2018. Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring 848
corporate social, environmental and economic impacts, Routledge. 849
52. ESA, M. R., HALOG, A. & RIGAMONTI, L. 2017a. Developing strategies for managing 850
construction and demolition wastes in Malaysia based on the concept of circular economy. 851
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 19, 1144-1154. 852
53. ESA, M. R., HALOG, A. & RIGAMONTI, L. 2017b. Strategies for minimizing construction and 853
demolition wastes in Malaysia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 120, 219-229. 854
54. ESIN, T. & COSGUN, N. 2007. A study conducted to reduce construction waste generation in 855
Turkey. Building and Environment, 42, 1667-1674. 856
55. FALAGAS, M. E., PITSOUNI, E. I., MALIETZIS, G. A. & PAPPAS, G. 2008. Comparison of
857
PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB 858
journal, 22, 338-342. 859
56. FANIRAN, O. & CABAN, G. 1998. Minimizing waste on construction project sites. Engineering 860
Construction and Architectural Management, 5, 182-188. 861
57. FATEMI, S. & IMANINASAB, R. 2016. Performance evaluation of recycled asphalt mixtures by 862
construction and demolition waste materials. Construction and Building Materials, 120, 450-863
456. 864
58. FORMOSO, C. T., SOIBELMAN, L., DE CESARE, C. & ISATTO, E. L. 2002. Material waste in 865
building industry: main causes and prevention. Journal of construction engineering and 866
management, 128, 316-325. 867
59. FRASER, P., KRUMMEL, P., DUNSE, B., STEELE, P., DEREK, N. & ALLISON, C. 2011. DSEWPaC 868
research projects 2010–11. Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Aspendale. 869

25
60. GÁLVEZ-MARTOS, J.-L., STYLES, D., SCHOENBERGER, H. & ZESCHMAR-LAHL, B. 2018. 870
Construction and demolition waste best management practice in Europe. Resources, 871
Conservation and Recycling, 136, 166-178. 872
61. GAMIL, Y. & RAHMAN, I. A. 2017. Identification of causes and effects of poor communication 873
in construction industry: A theoretical review. Emerging Science Journal, 1, 239-247. 874
62. GANGOLELLS, M., CASALS, M., FORCADA, N. & MACARULLA, M. 2014. Analysis of the 875
implementation of effective waste management practices in construction projects and sites. 876
Resources, conservation and recycling, 93, 99-111. 877
63. GAVILAN, R. M. & BERNOLD, L. E. 1994. Source evaluation of solid waste in building 878
construction. Journal of construction engineering and management, 120, 536-552. 879
64. GHAFOURIAN, K., MOHAMED, Z., ISMAIL, S., ABOLGHASEMI, M. & BAVAFA, A. 2017. 880
Sustainable Construction And Demolition Waste Management In Malaysia: Current Issues. 881
Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 15. 882
65. GHISELLINI, P., JI, X., LIU, G. & ULGIATI, S. 2018. Evaluating the transition towards cleaner 883
production in the construction and demolition sector of China: A review. Journal of Cleaner 884
Production, 195, 418-434. 885
66. GHODDOUSI, P., POORAFSHAR, O., CHILESHE, N. & HOSSEINI, M. R. 2015. Labour 886
productivity in Iranian construction projects. International Journal of Productivity and 887
Performance Management. 888
67. GUERRERO, L. A., MAAS, G. & HOGLAND, W. 2013. Solid waste management challenges for 889
cities in developing countries. Waste management, 33, 220-232. 890
68. GULGHANE, A. & KHANDVE, P. 2015. Management for construction materials and control of 891
construction waste in construction industry: a review. International Journal of Engineering 892
Research and Applications, 5, 59-64. 893
69. HAMIDI, B., BULBUL, T., PEARCE, A. & THABET, W. Potential application of BIM in cost-894
benefit analysis of demolition waste management. Construction Research Congress 2014: 895
Construction in a Global Network, 2014. 279-288. 896
70. HAO, J. L., HILL, M. J. & SHEN, L. Y. 2008. Managing construction waste on-site through 897
system dynamics modelling: the case of Hong Kong. Engineering, Construction and 898
Architectural Management. 899
71. HARDIE, M., KHAN, S., O'DONNELL, A. & MILLER, G. 2007. The efficacy of waste management 900
plans in Australian commercial construction refurbishment projects. Construction Economics 901
and Building, 7, 26-36. 902
72. HASSAN, S. H., AHZAHAR, N., FAUZI, M. A. & EMAN, J. 2012. Waste management issues in 903
the northern region of Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 42, 175-181. 904
73. HUANG, B., WANG, X., KUA, H., GENG, Y., BLEISCHWITZ, R. & REN, J. 2018. Construction and 905
demolition waste management in China through the 3R principle. Resources, Conservation
906
and Recycling, 129, 36-44. 907
74. HUANG, T., SHI, F., TANIKAWA, H., FEI, J. & HAN, J. 2013. Materials demand and 908
environmental impact of buildings construction and demolition in China based on dynamic 909
material flow analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 72, 91-101. 910
75. HUNT, N. & SHIELDS, J. 2014. Waste Management Strategy 2014 and beyond. Loughborough 911
University. 912
76. JAILLON, L., POON, C.-S. & CHIANG, Y. 2009. Quantifying the waste reduction potential of 913
using prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong. Waste management, 29, 309-914
320. 915
77. JAIN, M. 2012. Economic Aspects of Construction Waste Materials in terms of cost savings–A 916
case of Indian construction Industry. International Journal of Scientific and Research 917
Publications, 2, 1-7. 918

26
78. JIN, R., LI, B., ZHOU, T., WANATOWSKI, D. & PIROOZFAR, P. 2017. An empirical study of 919
perceptions towards construction and demolition waste recycling and reuse in China. 920
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 126, 86-98. 921
79. JIN, R., YUAN, H. & CHEN, Q. 2019. Science mapping approach to assisting the review of 922
construction and demolition waste management research published between 2009 and 923
2018. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 140, 175-188. 924
80. JINGKUANG, L. & YOUSONG, W. 2011. Establishment and application of performance 925
assessment model of waste management in architectural engineering projects in China. 926
Systems Engineering Procedia, 1, 147-155. 927
81. JOHNSTON, H. & MINCKS, W. R. 1995. Cost-effective waste minimization for construction 928
managers. Cost Engineering, 37, 31. 929
82. KABIRIFAR, K. & MOJTAHEDI, M. 2019. The impact of Engineering, Procurement and 930
Construction (EPC) Phases on Project Performance: A Case of Large-scale Residential 931
Construction Project. Buildings, 9, 15. 932
83. KALUTARA, P., ZHANG, G., SETUNGE, S. & WAKEFIELD, R. 2017. Factors that influence 933
Australian community buildings’ sustainable management. Engineering, Construction and 934
Architectural Management. 935
84. KARUNASENA, G. & AMARATUNGA, D. 2016. Capacity building for post disaster construction 936
and demolition waste management. Disaster Prevention and Management. 937
85. KHANH, H. D. & KIM, S. Y. 2015. Development of waste occurrence level indicator in Vietnam 938
construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 939
86. KOFOWOROLA, O. F. & GHEEWALA, S. H. 2009. Estimation of construction waste generation 940
and management in Thailand. Waste management, 29, 731-738. 941
87. KPAMMA, E. Z. & ADJEI-KUMI, T. 2011. Management of waste in the building design process: 942
The Ghanaian consultants' perspective. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 943
7, 102-112. 944
88. KRYSTOFIK, M., WAGNER, J. & GAUSTAD, G. 2015. Leveraging intellectual property rights to 945
encourage green product design and remanufacturing for sustainable waste management. 946
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 97, 44-54. 947
89. KUCUKVAR, M., EGILMEZ, G. & TATARI, O. 2016. Life cycle assessment and optimization-948
based decision analysis of construction waste recycling for a LEED-certified university 949
building. Sustainability, 8, 89. 950
90. KULATUNGA, U., AMARATUNGA, D., HAIGH, R. & RAMEEZDEEN, R. 2006. Attitudes and 951
perceptions of construction workforce on construction waste in Sri Lanka. Management of 952
Environmental Quality: An International Journal. 953
91. LACHIMPADI, S. K., PEREIRA, J. J., TAHA, M. R. & MOKHTAR, M. 2012. Construction waste 954
minimisation comparing conventional and precast construction (Mixed System and IBS) 955
methods in high-rise buildings: A Malaysia case study. Resources, Conservation and
956
Recycling, 68, 96-103. 957
92. LEHMANN, S. & CROCKER, R. 2013. Designing for zero waste: consumption, technologies and 958
the built environment, Routledge. 959
93. LEVIS, J. W. 2008. A Life-Cycle Analysis of Alternatives for the Management of Waste Hot-960
Mix Asphalt, Commercial Food Waste, and Construction and Demolition Waste. 961
94. LI, H., CHEN, Z., YONG, L. & KONG, S. C. 2005. Application of integrated GPS and GIS 962
technology for reducing construction waste and improving construction efficiency. 963
Automation in Construction, 14, 323-331. 964
95. LI, M. & YANG, J. 2014. Critical factors for waste management in office building retrofit 965
projects in Australia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 93, 85-98. 966
96. LI, N., HAN, R. & LU, X. 2018. Bibliometric analysis of research trends on solid waste reuse 967
and recycling during 1992–2016. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 130, 109-117. 968

27
97. LI, R. Y. M. 2011. Building our sustainable cities, Common Ground Pub. at On Sustainability, a 969
series. 970
98. LI, R. Y. M. & DU, H. 2015. Sustainable construction waste management in Australia: a 971
motivation perspective. Construction Safety and Waste Management. Springer. 972
99. LI, R. Y. M. & PAK, D. H. A. 2010. Resistance and motivation to share sustainable 973
development knowledge by Web 2.0. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 9, 974
251-262. 975
100. LINGARD, H., GRAHAM, P. & SMITHERS, G. 2000. Employee perceptions of the solid 976
waste management system operating in a large Australian contracting organization: 977
implications for company policy implementation. Construction Management & Economics, 978
18, 383-393. 979
101. LLATAS, C. & OSMANI, M. 2016. Development and validation of a building design 980
waste reduction model. Waste management, 56, 318-336. 981
102. LOW, S. P., GAO, S. & SEE, Y. L. 2014. Strategies and measures for implementing eco-982
labelling schemes in Singapore's construction industry. Resources, conservation and 983
recycling, 89, 31-40. 984
103. LU, H. R., EL HANANDEH, A. & GILBERT, B. P. 2017. A comparative life cycle study of 985
alternative materials for Australian multi-storey apartment building frame constructions: 986
Environmental and economic perspective. Journal of cleaner production, 166, 458-473. 987
104. LU, W. 2019. Big data analytics to identify illegal construction waste dumping: A 988
Hong Kong study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141, 264-272. 989
105. LU, W., CHEN, X., HO, D. C. & WANG, H. 2016. Analysis of the construction waste 990
management performance in Hong Kong: the public and private sectors compared using big 991
data. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 521-531. 992
106. LU, W., CHEN, X., PENG, Y. & LIU, X. 2018. The effects of green building on 993
construction waste minimization: Triangulating ‘big data’with ‘thick data’. Waste 994
management, 79, 142-152. 995
107. LU, W., CHEN, X., PENG, Y. & SHEN, L. 2015a. Benchmarking construction waste 996
management performance using big data. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 105, 49-997
58. 998
108. LU, W., PENG, Y., WEBSTER, C. & ZUO, J. 2015b. Stakeholders’ willingness to pay for 999
enhanced construction waste management: A Hong Kong study. Renewable and Sustainable 1000
Energy Reviews, 47, 233-240. 1001
109. LU, W. & YUAN, H. 2010. Exploring critical success factors for waste management in 1002
construction projects of China. Resources, conservation and recycling, 55, 201-208. 1003
110. LU, W. & YUAN, H. 2011. A framework for understanding waste management studies 1004
in construction. Waste management, 31, 1252-1260. 1005
111. LU, W. & YUAN, H. 2013. Investigating waste reduction potential in the upstream 1006
processes of offshore prefabrication construction. Renewable and Sustainable Energy 1007
Reviews, 28, 804-811. 1008
112. MADI, N. & SROUR, I. 2019. Managing emergency construction and demolition 1009
waste in Syria using GIS. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141, 163-175. 1010
113. MANOWONG, E. 2012. Investigating factors influencing construction waste 1011
management efforts in developing countries: an experience from Thailand. Waste 1012
Management & Research, 30, 56-71. 1013
114. MANOWONG, E. & PERERA, R. 2008. Construction waste management from a 1014
gender perspective. GMSARN (Greater Mekong Sub-region Academic and Research Network) 1015
International Journal, 2, 91-100. 1016
115. MARINELLI, M., DOLAN, M., SPILLANE, J. P. & KONANAHALLI, A. 2014. Material 1017
waste in the Northern Ireland construction industry: On-site management causes and 1018
methods of prevention. 1019

28
116. MARRERO, M., PUERTO, M., RIVERO-CAMACHO, C., FREIRE-GUERRERO, A. & SOLÍS-1020
GUZMÁN, J. 2017. Assessing the economic impact and ecological footprint of construction 1021
and demolition waste during the urbanization of rural land. Resources, Conservation and 1022
Recycling, 117, 160-174. 1023
117. MARTIN, A. & SCOTT, I. 2003. The effectiveness of the UK landfill tax. Journal of 1024
environmental planning and management, 46, 673-689. 1025
118. MARZOUK, M. & AZAB, S. 2014. Environmental and economic impact assessment of 1026
construction and demolition waste disposal using system dynamics. Resources, conservation 1027
and recycling, 82, 41-49. 1028
119. MENEGAKI, M. & DAMIGOS, D. 2018. A review on current situation and challenges of 1029
construction and demolition waste management. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable 1030
Chemistry, 13, 8-15. 1031
120. MERCANTE, I. T., BOVEA, M. D., IBÁÑEZ-FORÉS, V. & ARENA, A. P. 2012. Life cycle 1032
assessment of construction and demolition waste management systems: a Spanish case 1033
study. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17, 232-241. 1034
121. MIHELCIC, J. R., ZIMMERMAN, J. B. & AUER, M. T. 2014. Environmental engineering: 1035
Fundamentals, sustainability, design, Wiley Hoboken, NJ. 1036
122. MORGAN, C. & STEVENSON, F. 2005. Design and detailing for deconstruction. 1037
Scotland Environmental Design Association, SEDA Design Guides for Scotland. 1038
123. NAGAPAN, S., RAHMAN, I. A., ASMI, A., MEMON, A. H. & ZIN, R. M. 2012. Identifying 1039
causes of construction waste–case of Central Region of Peninsula Malaysia. International 1040
Journal of Integrated Engineering, 4. 1041
124. NASIRI, M. M., HEIDARI, R., YAZDANPARAST, R. & AKBARIAN, N. Robust Possibilistic 1042
Programming Approach for the Design of Tehran Municipal Solid Waste Management 1043
System. 13th International Conference on Industrial Engineering (IIEC 2017), Mazandaran, 1044
Iran, 2017. 1045
125. NETO, R. O., GASTINEAU, P., CAZACLIU, B. G., LE GUEN, L., PARANHOS, R. S. & 1046
PETTER, C. O. 2017. An economic analysis of the processing technologies in CDW recycling 1047
platforms. Waste management, 60, 277-289. 1048
126. NEYESTANI, B. & JUANZON, J. B. P. 2016. Developing an appropriate performance 1049
measurement framework for Total Quality Management (TQM) in Construction and Other 1050
Industries. IRA-International Journal of Technology & Engineering (ISSN 2455-4480), 5, 32. 1051
127. NIKMEHR, B., HOSSEINI, M. R., RAMEEZDEEN, R., CHILESHE, N., GHODDOUSI, P. & 1052
ARASHPOUR, M. 2017. An integrated model for factors affecting construction and 1053
demolition waste management in Iran. Engineering, Construction and Architectural 1054
Management. 1055
128. NOWOSIELSKI, R., KANIA, A. & SPILKA, M. 2010. Recycling as an important element 1056
of engineering design. Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, 1057
42, 188-195.
1058
129. OFORI, G. 2007. Construction in developing countries. Construction management 1059
and economics, 25, 1-6. 1060
130. OKO JOHN, A. & EMMANUEL ITODO, D. 2013. Professionals’ views of material 1061
wastage on construction sites and cost overruns. Organization, technology & management 1062
in construction: an international journal, 5, 747-757. 1063
131. OSMANI, M., GLASS, J. & PRICE, A. D. 2008. Architects’ perspectives on construction 1064
waste reduction by design. Waste management, 28, 1147-1158. 1065
132. OSMANI, M. & VILLORIA-SÁEZ, P. Current and emerging construction waste 1066
management status, trends and approaches. Waste, 2019. Elsevier, 365-380. 1067
133. OYEDELE, L. O., REGAN, M., VON MEDING, J., AHMED, A., EBOHON, O. J. & 1068
ELNOKALY, A. 2013. Reducing waste to landfill in the UK: identifying impediments and critical 1069
solutions. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development. 1070

29
134. OYENUGA, A. 2016. Economic and environmental impact assessment of construction 1071
and demolition waste recycling and reuse using LCA and MCDA management tools. London 1072
South Bank University. 1073
135. PARK, J. & TUCKER, R. 2017. Overcoming barriers to the reuse of construction waste 1074
material in Australia: a review of the literature. International Journal of Construction 1075
Management, 17, 228-237. 1076
136. PAZ, D. H. F. D., LAFAYETTE, K. P. V. & SOBRAL, M. D. C. 2018. GIS-based planning 1077
system for managing the flow of construction and demolition waste in Brazil. Waste 1078
Management & Research, 36, 541-549. 1079
137. PEARCE, D. W. & TURNER, R. K. 1990. Economics of natural resources and the 1080
environment, JHU Press. 1081
138. PICKIN, J., RANDELL, P., TRINH, J., GRANT, B. J. D. O. T. E. & ENERGY, M., VICTORIA, 1082
AUSTRALIA 2018. National waste report 2018. 1083
139. POMPONI, F. & MONCASTER, A. 2017. Circular economy for the built environment: A 1084
research framework. Journal of cleaner production, 143, 710-718. 1085
140. POON, C.-S. & CHAN, D. 2007. The use of recycled aggregate in concrete in Hong 1086
Kong. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 50, 293-305. 1087
141. POON, C. 2007. Reducing construction waste. Waste Management, 1715-1716. 1088
142. POON, C., YU, A. T., WONG, A. & YIP, R. 2013. Quantifying the impact of construction 1089
waste charging scheme on construction waste management in Hong Kong. Journal of 1090
construction engineering and management, 139, 466-479. 1091
143. POON, C. S., YU, A. T. W., WONG, S. W. & CHEUNG, E. 2004. Management of 1092
construction waste in public housing projects in Hong Kong. Construction Management & 1093
Economics, 22, 675-689. 1094
144. PRAIRIE VILLAGE, K. 1998. Characterization of building-related construction and 1095
demolition debris in the United States. The US Environmental Protection Agency Municipal 1096
and Industrial Solid Waste Division Office of Solid Waste. 1097
145. PREMALATHA, M., TAUSEEF, S., ABBASI, T. & ABBASI, S. 2013. The promise and the 1098
performance of the world's first two zero carbon eco-cities. Renewable and Sustainable 1099
Energy Reviews, 25, 660-669. 1100
146. QIN, X. 2012. Analytic Research on Construction Waste Classification and the 1101
Related Factors on Environmental Pollution. 1102
147. RAM, J., AFRIDI, N. K. & KHAN, K. A. 2019. Adoption of Big Data analytics in 1103
construction: development of a conceptual model. Built Environment Project and Asset 1104
Management. 1105
148. RAMLEE, N., TAMMY, N., RAJA MOHD NOOR, R., AINUN MUSIR, A., ABDUL KARIM, 1106
N., CHAN, H. & MOHD NASIR, S. Critical success factors for construction project. AIP 1107
Conference Proceedings, 2016. AIP Publishing LLC, 030011. 1108
149. REZA, B., SADIQ, R. & HEWAGE, K. 2011. Sustainability assessment of flooring 1109
systems in the city of Tehran: An AHP-based life cycle analysis. Construction and Building 1110
Materials, 25, 2053-2066. 1111
150. SAATY, T. L. 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International 1112
journal of services sciences, 1, 83-98. 1113
151. SAEZ, P. V., DEL RÍO MERINO, M., GONZÁLEZ, A. S.-A. & PORRAS-AMORES, C. 2013. 1114
Best practice measures assessment for construction and demolition waste management in 1115
building constructions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 75, 52-62. 1116
152. SAFA, M., SHAHI, A., HAAS, C. T. & HIPEL, K. W. 2014. Supplier selection process in an 1117
integrated construction materials management model. Automation in Construction, 48, 64-1118
73. 1119
153. SAGHAFI, M. D. & TESHNIZI, Z. A. H. 2011. Building deconstruction and material 1120
recovery in Iran: an analysis of major determinants. Procedia Engineering, 21, 853-863. 1121

30
154. SEROR, N., HARELI, S. & PORTNOV, B. A. 2014. Evaluating the effect of vehicle 1122
impoundment policy on illegal construction and demolition waste dumping: Israel as a case 1123
study. Waste management, 34, 1436-1445. 1124
155. SHEN, L. & TAM, V. W. 2002. Implementation of environmental management in the 1125
Hong Kong construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 535-543. 1126
156. SHEN, L., TAM, V. W., TAM, C. & DREW, D. 2004. Mapping approach for examining 1127
waste management on construction sites. Journal of construction engineering and 1128
management, 130, 472-481. 1129
157. SHEN, L. Y., LI HAO, J., TAM, V. W. Y. & YAO, H. 2007. A checklist for assessing 1130
sustainability performance of construction projects. Journal of civil engineering and 1131
management, 13, 273-281. 1132
158. SILVA, R., DE BRITO, J. & DHIR, R. 2017. Availability and processing of recycled 1133
aggregates within the construction and demolition supply chain: A review. Journal of Cleaner 1134
Production, 143, 598-614. 1135
159. SKOYLES, E. R. & SKOYLES, J. R. 1987. Waste prevention on site, Mitchell London. 1136
160. SOLÍS-GUZMÁN, J., MARRERO, M., MONTES-DELGADO, M. V. & RAMÍREZ-DE-1137
ARELLANO, A. 2009. A Spanish model for quantification and management of construction 1138
waste. Waste Management, 29, 2542-2548. 1139
161. SROUR, I. M., CHEHAB, G. R., EL-FADEL, M. & TAMRAZ, S. 2013. Pilot-based 1140
assessment of the economics of recycling construction demolition waste. Waste 1141
management & research, 31, 1170-1179. 1142
162. SU, B., HESHMATI, A., GENG, Y. & YU, X. 2013. A review of the circular economy in 1143
China: moving from rhetoric to implementation. Journal of cleaner production, 42, 215-227. 1144
163. SU, X., RAHMAN ANDOH, A., CAI, H., PAN, J., KANDIL, A. & SAID, H. M. 2012. GIS-1145
based dynamic construction site material layout evaluation for building renovation projects. 1146
Automation in construction, 27, 40-49. 1147
164. SUN, C., JIANG, F. & JIANG, S. 2013. Research on RFID Applications in Construction 1148
Industry. JNW, 8, 1221-1228. 1149
165. TAM, V. W.-Y. & LU, W. 2016. Construction waste management profiles, practices, 1150
and performance: a cross-jurisdictional analysis in four countries. Sustainability, 8, 190. 1151
166. TAM, V. W. 2008. On the effectiveness in implementing a waste-management-plan 1152
method in construction. Waste management, 28, 1072-1080. 1153
167. TAM, V. W. 2011a. Cost effectiveness of using low cost housing technologies in 1154
construction. Procedia Engineering, 14, 156-160.
1155
168. TAM, V. W. 2011b. Rate of reusable and recyclable waste in construction. The open 1156
waste management journal, 4. 1157
169. TAM, V. W., TAM, C. M., ZENG, S. & NG, W. C. 2007. Towards adoption of 1158
prefabrication in construction. Building and environment, 42, 3642-3654. 1159
170. TCHOBANOGLOUS, G., ELIASSEN, R. & THEISEN, H. 1977. Solid wastes; engineering 1160
principles and management issues, McGraw-Hill. 1161
171. TEO, M. & LOOSEMORE, M. 2001. A theory of waste behaviour in the construction 1162
industry. Construction Management and Economics, 19, 741-751. 1163
172. TEO, M. M., LOOSEMORE, M., MASOSSZEKY, M. & KARIM, K. Operatives attitudes 1164
towards waste on a construction project. Annual Conference–ARCOM, 2000. 509-517. 1165
173. THE WORLD BANK. 2018a. GDP [Online]. Available: 1166
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD [Accessed]. 1167
174. THE WORLD BANK. 2018b. Land Area [Online]. Available: 1168
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.TOTL.K2 [Accessed]. 1169
175. THE WORLD BANK. 2018c. population [Online]. Available: 1170
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL [Accessed]. 1171

31
176. THOMAS, R., MAROSSZEKY, M., KARIM, K., DAVIS, S. & MCGEORGE, D. The 1172
importance of project culture in achieving quality outcomes in construction. Proceedings 1173
IGLC, 2002. 1-13. 1174
177. TILAYE, M. & VAN DIJK, M. P. 2014. Private sector participation in solid waste 1175
collection in Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) by involving micro-enterprises. Waste management & 1176
research, 32, 79-87. 1177
178. UDAWATTA, N., ZUO, J., CHIVERALLS, K., YUAN, H., GEORGE, Z. & ELMUALIM, A. 1178
2018. Major factors impeding the implementation of waste management in Australian 1179
construction projects. Journal of Green Building, 13, 101-121. 1180
179. UDAWATTA, N., ZUO, J., CHIVERALLS, K. & ZILLANTE, G. 2015a. Attitudinal and 1181
behavioural approaches to improving waste management on construction projects in 1182
Australia: benefits and limitations. International journal of construction management, 15, 1183
137-147. 1184
180. UDAWATTA, N., ZUO, J., CHIVERALLS, K. & ZILLANTE, G. 2015b. Improving waste 1185
management in construction projects: An Australian study. Resources, Conservation and 1186
Recycling, 101, 73-83. 1187
181. ULUBEYLI, S., KAZAZ, A. & ARSLAN, V. 2017. Construction and demolition waste 1188
recycling plants revisited: management issues. Procedia Engineering, 172, 1190-1197. 1189
182. VITALE, P., ARENA, N., DI GREGORIO, F. & ARENA, U. 2017. Life cycle assessment of 1190
the end-of-life phase of a residential building. Waste management, 60, 311-321. 1191
183. WALKER, D. 2008. Sustainability: Environmental management, transparency and 1192
competitive advantage. Journal of Retail & Leisure Property, 7, 119-130. 1193
184. WANG, J., LI, Z. & TAM, V. W. 2014. Critical factors in effective construction waste 1194
minimization at the design stage: a Shenzhen case study, China. Resources, Conservation and 1195
Recycling, 82, 1-7. 1196
185. WANG, J., WU, H., TAM, V. W. & ZUO, J. 2019. Considering life-cycle environmental 1197
impacts and society's willingness for optimizing construction and demolition waste 1198
management fee: An empirical study of China. Journal of cleaner production, 206, 1004-1199
1014. 1200
186. WANG, J., YUAN, H., KANG, X. & LU, W. 2010. Critical success factors for on-site 1201
sorting of construction waste: a China study. Resources, conservation and recycling, 54, 931-1202
936. 1203
187. WANG, J. Y., KANG, X. P. & TAM, V. W. Y. 2008. An investigation of construction 1204
wastes: an empirical study in Shenzhen. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology. 1205
188. WANG, Q. & WALTMAN, L. 2016. Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal 1206
classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10, 347-364.
1207
189. WON, J. & CHENG, J. C. 2017. Identifying potential opportunities of building 1208
information modeling for construction and demolition waste management and 1209
minimization. Automation in Construction, 79, 3-18. 1210
190. WON, J., CHENG, J. C. & LEE, G. 2016. Quantification of construction waste 1211
prevented by BIM-based design validation: Case studies in South Korea. Waste 1212
Management, 49, 170-180. 1213
191. WONG, J. K. W. & ZHOU, J. 2015. Enhancing environmental sustainability over 1214
building life cycles through green BIM: A review. Automation in Construction, 57, 156-165. 1215
192. WU, H., DUAN, H., WANG, J., WANG, T. & WANG, X. 2015. Quantification of carbon 1216
emission of construction waste by using streamlined LCA: a case study of Shenzhen, China. 1217
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 17, 637-645. 1218
193. WU, H., DUAN, H., ZHENG, L., WANG, J., NIU, Y. & ZHANG, G. 2016. Demolition 1219
waste generation and recycling potentials in a rapidly developing flagship megacity of South 1220
China: Prospective scenarios and implications. Construction and Building Materials, 113, 1221
1007-1016. 1222

32
194. WU, H., ZUO, J., YUAN, H., ZILLANTE, G. & WANG, J. 2019a. A review of performance 1223
assessment methods for construction and demolition waste management. Resources, 1224
Conservation and Recycling, 150, 104407. 1225
195. WU, H., ZUO, J., ZILLANTE, G., WANG, J. & YUAN, H. 2019b. Construction and 1226
demolition waste research: a bibliometric analysis. Architectural Science Review, 62, 354-1227
365. 1228
196. WU, H., ZUO, J., ZILLANTE, G., WANG, J. & YUAN, H. 2019c. Status quo and future 1229
directions of construction and demolition waste research: A critical review. Journal of 1230
Cleaner Production, 240, 118163. 1231
197. WU, Z., ANN, T., SHEN, L. & LIU, G. 2014. Quantifying construction and demolition 1232
waste: An analytical review. Waste Management, 34, 1683-1692. 1233
198. XU, J., SHI, Y., XIE, Y. & ZHAO, S. 2019. A BIM-Based construction and demolition 1234
waste information management system for greenhouse gas quantification and reduction. 1235
Journal of Cleaner Production, 229, 308-324. 1236
199. YAHYA, K. & BOUSSABAINE, A. H. 2006. Eco-costing of construction waste. 1237
Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal. 1238
200. YAZDANBAKHSH, A. 2018. A bi-level environmental impact assessment framework 1239
for comparing construction and demolition waste management strategies. Waste 1240
Management, 77, 401-412. 1241
201. YEHEYIS, M., HEWAGE, K., ALAM, M. S., ESKICIOGLU, C. & SADIQ, R. 2013. An 1242
overview of construction and demolition waste management in Canada: a lifecycle analysis 1243
approach to sustainability. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 15, 81-91. 1244
202. YUAN, H. 2012. A model for evaluating the social performance of construction waste 1245
management. Waste management, 32, 1218-1228. 1246
203. YUAN, H. 2013a. Critical management measures contributing to construction waste 1247
management: Evidence from construction projects in China. Project Management Journal, 1248
44, 101-112. 1249
204. YUAN, H. 2013b. Key indicators for assessing the effectiveness of waste 1250
management in construction projects. Ecological Indicators, 24, 476-484. 1251
205. YUAN, H. 2017. Barriers and countermeasures for managing construction and 1252
demolition waste: A case of Shenzhen in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 157, 84-93. 1253
206. YUAN, H. & SHEN, L. 2011. Trend of the research on construction and demolition 1254
waste management. Waste management, 31, 670-679. 1255
207. YUAN, H., WU, H. & ZUO, J. 2018. Understanding factors influencing project 1256
managers’ behavioral intentions to reduce waste in construction projects. Journal of 1257
Management in Engineering, 34, 04018031.
1258
208. ZAMAN, A. U. 2015. A comprehensive review of the development of zero waste 1259
management: lessons learned and guidelines. Journal of Cleaner Production, 91, 12-25. 1260
209. ZAMAN, A. U. & LEHMANN, S. 2011. Challenges and opportunities in transforming a 1261
city into a “zero waste city”. Challenges, 2, 73-93. 1262
210. ZHANG, X., WU, Y. & SHEN, L. 2012. Application of low waste technologies for design 1263
and construction: a case study in Hong Kong. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 16, 1264
2973-2979. 1265
1266