File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Construction Waste Management Profiles, Practices, and Performance: A Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis in Four Countries

TitleConstruction Waste Management Profiles, Practices, and Performance: A Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis in Four Countries
Authors
Issue Date2016
PublisherMDPI. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Citation
Sustainability, 2016, v. 8 n. 2, article no. 190 How to Cite?
AbstractConstruction waste management (CWM) has received worldwide attention for some time. As a result, a plethora of research, investigating a wide array of CWM issues such as their profiles, practices, and performance, has been reported in individual economies around the globe. However, a cross-jurisdictional comparison of these issues is limitedly presented in the literature despite its importance to benchmarking performance and identifying best CWM practices in the context of globalization whereby knowledge sharing has already transcended traditional country boundaries. The aim of this ex post facto research is to compare CWM profiles, practices, and performance in Australia, Europe (Europe refers to EU-27 member countries in the European Union, including Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Denmark, Great Britain, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Malta, Cyprus, Bulgaria, and Romania.), Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom at a national-level, with a view to facilitating CWM knowledge sharing internationally. It does so by triangulating empirical data collected from various national statistical yearbooks with research papers and professional reports on CWM in these economies. It is found that in producing one million (US) dollars’ work, construction contributes a volume of solid waste ranging from 28 to 121 tons among countries. Conscientious CWM practices can make a significant difference in reducing, reusing, or recycling construction waste, as evident in the large variation in the CWM performance. While it might be oversimplified to conclude that the best practices in one country can be applied in another, the research provides insightful references into sharing CWM knowledge across boundaries.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/223895
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.343
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.478

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTam, VWY-
dc.contributor.authorLu, W-
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-18T02:30:44Z-
dc.date.available2016-03-18T02:30:44Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationSustainability, 2016, v. 8 n. 2, article no. 190-
dc.identifier.issn2071-1050-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/223895-
dc.description.abstractConstruction waste management (CWM) has received worldwide attention for some time. As a result, a plethora of research, investigating a wide array of CWM issues such as their profiles, practices, and performance, has been reported in individual economies around the globe. However, a cross-jurisdictional comparison of these issues is limitedly presented in the literature despite its importance to benchmarking performance and identifying best CWM practices in the context of globalization whereby knowledge sharing has already transcended traditional country boundaries. The aim of this ex post facto research is to compare CWM profiles, practices, and performance in Australia, Europe (Europe refers to EU-27 member countries in the European Union, including Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Denmark, Great Britain, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Malta, Cyprus, Bulgaria, and Romania.), Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom at a national-level, with a view to facilitating CWM knowledge sharing internationally. It does so by triangulating empirical data collected from various national statistical yearbooks with research papers and professional reports on CWM in these economies. It is found that in producing one million (US) dollars’ work, construction contributes a volume of solid waste ranging from 28 to 121 tons among countries. Conscientious CWM practices can make a significant difference in reducing, reusing, or recycling construction waste, as evident in the large variation in the CWM performance. While it might be oversimplified to conclude that the best practices in one country can be applied in another, the research provides insightful references into sharing CWM knowledge across boundaries.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherMDPI. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability-
dc.relation.ispartofSustainability-
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License-
dc.titleConstruction Waste Management Profiles, Practices, and Performance: A Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis in Four Countries-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailLu, W: wilsonlu@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityLu, W=rp01362-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/su8020190-
dc.identifier.hkuros257346-
dc.identifier.volume8-
dc.identifier.issue2-
dc.identifier.spagearticle no. 190-
dc.identifier.epagearticle no. 190-
dc.publisher.placeBasel, Switzerland-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats