Keywords

63.1 Introduction

The growth in construction activities over the past two decades has resulted in an increase in the amount of construction waste. This growth has contributed to the reduction of available landfill space, which has become a challenge in terms of the environment (Bakshan et al. 2015).

Effective waste management on construction sites can increase profits for construction firms, lessen the environmental footprint of the construction industry as a whole, and promote sustainability.

There are health and safety (H&S) risks associated with poor construction waste management, these need to be identified so as to reduce incidents on site.

All project stakeholders are affected by the generation of construction waste, and contribute thereto in varying ways. Given the aforementioned, a study was conducted to determine the: level of waste; extent to which factors contribute to material wastage; respondents’ awareness of aspects related to construction waste; impact of waste on various aspects, and perceptions and practices relative to waste management.

63.2 Review of the Literature

63.2.1 Construction Team Influence

Construction in South Africa is firmly established in traditional methods, this is evident in the way that South African buildings are built with the same materials and only slightly improved upon techniques.

Managers play a vital role in the construction process, they ensure all processes are adhered to and that the project will be completed within the required time and budget. This should mean that they should also have an invested interest in the effective management of waste. Ameh and Daniel (2013) mention that material wastage on construction sites accounts for cost overruns and any improvement in building materials management on construction sites has the potential to enhance the construction industry’s performance with cost-saving benefits. Their study also determined that poor supervision was ranked first among fifteen material wastage contributory factors. Furthermore, they determined the average percentage contribution of building material wastage to project cost overruns to be between 21 and 30%.

A study conducted by Yuan (2013) identified that poor workers’ material handling and delivery skills are responsible for a large portion of avoidable construction waste. Yuan also identified that workers who had undergone training became motivated and contributed to a significant reduction in waste.

There are many accidents on construction sites, many of which are avoidable, a percentage of which happen because workers place and dispose materials in a negligent manner (Teo et al. 2005). The incorrect placement of materials (waste and usable materials) and what is known in South Africa as poor ‘housekeeping’, lead to accidents that can be classified as object strikes.

63.2.2 Designers’ and Project Managers’ Contribution to Waste

A study conducted by Osmani et al. (2007) determined that waste management is not a priority in the design process. Furthermore, the responding architects seemed to take the view that waste is mainly produced during site operations and rarely generated during the design stages; however, about one-third of construction waste could essentially arise from design decisions. Greenwood (2004), inter alia, concurs that a substantial amount of waste is generated from the design process. The current focus of construction is on productivity, remaining within in budget and on time. Architects focus design on client brief and artistic taste, however, in the end the client is the decision maker.

It can be deemed the architect and project manager’s function to persuade the client to consider implementing waste reducing techniques (Kofoworola and Gheewala 2009). When designing a structure, an architect will consider the materials necessary to match a client’s taste using their own discretion. It is at the early stages when decisions are made with respect to material specifications. Construction waste is effectively generated throughout the project from inception to completion with the pre-construction stage accounting for a considerable amount (Osmani et al. 2007).

63.2.3 Global Effects of Waste

The generation of construction waste not only causes problems for the construction industry itself, it also affects the wider global state of climate change, as well as pollution (Ma 2011). The construction industry is accountable for environmental damage, as it capitalises on the earth’s renewable and non-renewable natural resources (Dixit et al. 2010).

Landfill sites are becoming more difficult to find in a growing population and communities are not likely to accept landfills near their residences (Reddy 2011). Therefore, it would be counterproductive for the property and construction industry to devalue the aesthetics of a natural area by contributing excessive amounts of construction waste to dump sites.

Esin and Cosgun (2007) state that construction and demolition debris that are dumped into forests, streams, ravines, and empty lots cause erosion, contaminate wells, water tables and surface water, attracts pests, creates fire hazards and detracts from the beauty of natural areas. They also mention that waste may contain hazardous materials such as asbestos, heavy metals, persistent organic compounds and volatile organic compounds, all of which is much more difficult to dispose of than household waste.

The construction industry should also be aware that conventional ‘raw materials’ used in home construction cannot be used without impacting the environment as the emission of pollutants into the atmosphere and water result from the manufacturing of construction materials (Treloar et al. 2003).

63.3 Research Method

The descriptive survey method was adopted, which entailed both electronic delivery and hand to hand courier delivery of a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire was compiled using five-point Likert scale questions to assess the perceptions of construction professionals across various disciplines regarding construction waste, in particular the project parameters, material waste, as well as awareness with respect to waste minimisation. Respondents were also afforded the opportunity to communicate any comments in general with respect to construction waste.

54 questionnaires were distributed, and a total of 30 responses were included in the analysis of the data, which equates to a response rate of 55.5%. Respondents either had some sort of experience in terms of site waste management or they were in a position to change the amount of waste produced on construction sites.

63.4 Research Findings

Table 63.1 indicates the level of wastage of materials in terms of percentage responses to a range of ‘very low’ to ‘very high’, and mean scores (MSs) between 1.00 and 5.00. 5/16 (31.3%) MSs are > 3.00, which indicates that the wastage is high as opposed to low.

Table 63.1 Level of wastage of materials
Full size table

It is notable that no materials have MSs > 4.20 ≤ 5.00. However, 2/16 (12.5%) of MSs are > 3.40 ≤ 4.20 (medium to high/high wastage)—cement plaster, and cement mortar. The materials ranked third to sixth have MSs > 3.40 ≤ 4.20 (low to medium/medium wastage)—timber for other uses, timber for formwork, bricks, and ceramic/vitrified tiles.

The materials ranked seventh to thirteenth (43.8%) have MSs > 1.80 ≤ 2.60 (very low to medium/medium wastage)—concrete, concrete blocks, clay tiles (roofing tiles included), paints, PVC, steel reinforcement, fibre-cement roof sheets.

The results are notable as the most common type of building construction in South Africa, namely masonry construction, entails three of the top five waste inducing materials, namely bricks, and cement mortar, and plaster. In addition to the actual construction waste, such materials impact on sustainability due to the raw materials and energy consumed in their production. The choice of such construction is based upon tradition and ‘culture’, however, such a choice is often made by architects in their design. Furthermore, the use of steel formwork (MS = 1.50), as opposed to timber formwork (MS = 3.19), will promote sustainability as steel formwork is more durable and has a longer lifespan than timber formwork. Construction managers are the key decision makers in this regard, although structural design and details will have an influence on the type of formwork that can be used.

Table 63.2 presents the extent to which the respondents believe seventeen factors contribute to material wastage in terms of percentage responses to a range of 1 (minor) to 5 (major), and MSs between 1.00 and 5.00. 13/17 (76.5%) MSs are > 3.00, which indicates that the contribution is major as opposed to minor. Negligence and care free attitude of workers’ was ranked first out of 17 other factors with a mean score of 4.41 (> 4.20 ≤ 5.00) and therefore the contribution can be deemed to be near major to major/major.

Table 63.2 Extent to which factors contribute to material wastage
Full size table

The factors ranked second to tenth (52.9%) have MSs > 3.40 ≤ 4.20 (contribution to near major/near major contribution)—poor supervision, negligence and care free attitude of management, rework, poor material handling, inadequate workers’ skill, construction related errors/omissions, absence of appointed site waste manager, inadequate integrated waste reduction plan, and inadequate waste management plan. It is notable that the aforementioned are those which are under the direct control of the construction team.

The factors ranked eleventh to seventeenth tenth (41.2%) have MSs > 2.60 ≤ 3.40 (near minor contribution to contribution/contribution)—client design changes (11th), theft and vandalism, inadequate management of the design process (13th), design related errors (14th), inappropriate specification (15th), buildability problems (16th), and improper packaging. It is notable that one of the aforementioned are client originated and four are design originated.

When the surveys completed by the designers were separated and evaluated, design related contributors were ranked thirteenth and fifteenth. This indicates that either the designers’ contributions to waste is negligible, or construction teams and designers themselves are unaware as to designers’ impact on the generation of waste on sites. The literature indicates that the latter is in fact the case.

Table 63.3 presents a comparison between respondents’ awareness of eight aspects related to construction waste versus how enhanced awareness of the aspects could contribute to the reduction of waste in terms of MSs between 1.00 and 5.00, based upon percentage responses to a range of ‘not’ to ‘very’. It is notable that all the ‘contribution’ MSs are greater than the ‘awareness’ MSs, which indicates that the respondents acknowledge that their awareness is not optimum. Although ‘Costs attributable to construction waste’ has the highest ‘contribution’ MS, 6/8 (75%) of the aspects impact directly on sustainability. The findings also indicate the role of designers and constructors, that waste management is a multi-disciplinary issue, which needs to be addressed at industry, organisation, and project level.

Table 63.3 Respondents’ awareness of aspects related to construction waste versus how enhanced awareness of aspects could contribute to the reduction of waste
Full size table

Table 63.4 presents the extent to which waste impacts on eight factors in terms of percentage responses to a range of 1 (minor) to 5 (major), and MSs between 1.00 and 5.00. All the MSs are >3.00, which indicates that the impact is major as opposed to minor.

Table 63.4 Impact of waste on various aspects
Full size table

It is notable that no aspects have MSs > 4.20 ≤ 5.00. However, all eight MSs are >3.40 ≤ 4.20 (impact to near major/near major impact). Although cost is ranked first, it is followed closely by pollution, and health and safety at waste dumping locations. In essence 4/8 (50%) of the aspects are linked directly to sustainability. Furthermore, the aspects highlight the incentives for contractors to manage, or rather, mitigate waste. Secondly, ultimately clients bear the cost as the cost of waste is built into contractors’ cost structures, and estimates. Thirdly, there are internal and external publics’ issues in terms of the impact on image.

Further findings include that 96.7% of the respondents believe that there needs to be more done to prevent waste—only 3.3% being unsure.

53.3% of respondents work for organisations which employ waste management strategies, 30% do not, and 16.7% are not sure, the latter constituting a finding in itself.

63.5 Conclusions and Recommendations

Waste has its origin in the design, procurement, and construction phases of projects. The responsibility for mitigating waste therefore resides with all stakeholders; the client, the designers, as well as the contractors. Factors that contribute to waste range from poor supervision to poor material handling, to more indirect factors such as theft and vandalism. In terms of responsibility for waste management, architects seemed to take the view that waste is mainly produced during site operations and rarely generated during the design stages.

The level of waste relative to materials that are related to wet works indicates that fundamental change is necessary in terms of the materials used to construct elements such as walls.

There is a lack of general awareness with respect to aspects related to construction waste, however enhanced awareness of such aspects could contribute to the reduction of waste.

The benefits for construction waste management far outweigh the cons, which is underscored by the finding that 96.7% of the respondents believe that more needs to be done to prevent waste. The rationale for implementing effective waste management strategies and systems is economic, social, and environmental related, which will benefit all project stakeholders, and in addition, society at large, and ultimately promote sustainability.