Comparison and Analysis of

International Construction Waste Management Policies

Yashuai LI
1
and Xueqing ZHANG
2


Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology, Hong Kong;
1
liys@ust.hk and
2
zhangxq@ust.hk

ABSTRACT
Construction waste frequently comprises a substantial percentage of the total
waste received at the landfills in many cities around the world. To protect the
environment and achieve sustainable development, efficient construction waste
management has drawn more and more attention of various stakeholders especially
government authorities, who are responsible of managing construction waste and
have established a series of construction waste management policies, for example,
landfill charging scheme and compulsory construction waste management plan.
These policy instruments could be examined from three perspectives: construction
waste management hierarchy, complementary policies, and parties impacted by
policy instruments. An effective construction waste management policy framework
should reflect the waste management hierarchy, involve as many parties in the
construction waste management chain as possible, and establish instruments
according to their dependency relationships.

1 INTRODUCTION
Many countries are suffering from substantial amount of construction and
demolition (C&D) waste (referred to as construction waste in this study) although
they are quite different in economic, social and cultural characteristics. Construction
waste is an important source of urban waste and frequently comprises 10-30% of the
total waste received at many landfill sites around the world. In Japan, 20% of the
total waste came from the construction industry in 2003 (Japanese Ministry of
Environment 2005a) and 70% of illegal waste dumping was related to construction
activities in 2004 (Japanese Ministry of Environment 2005b). In Hong Kong,
construction waste accounts for 30~40% of total waste (HKSAR 2010; Hao et al.
2008) and Hong Kong would run out of both public filling areas and landfill space
within this decade with the current waste generation rate (Jaillon et al. 2009). In
Mainland China, construction waste constitutes 30~40% of the total waste and is
increasing quickly due to rapid urbanization and ever-increasing population (Zhao et
al. 2008). In the European Union, construction waste accounts for 30% of the total
waste (European Commission 2010). In the USA, construction waste constitutes 29%
of the total solid waste and 35% of landfill space is taken up by construction waste
(Kofoworola and Gheewala 2009). In So Paulo, the daily generation of construction
waste is 17,240 tons and accounts for 55% of the total waste (Lordsleem and Fucale
1672 Construction Research Congress 2012 ASCE 2012
Construction Research Congress 2012
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

U
N
I
V

O
F

A
U
C
K
L
A
N
D

o
n

0
2
/
2
0
/
1
3
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
2009). Construction waste is 15-30% of all solid waste in Kuwait and more than 90%
is disposed of in landfills (Kartam et al. 2004). Therefore, construction waste is an
urgent issue that should be dealt with in a sustainable manner.
To address the ever-increasing construction waste, most countries/regions have
established a series of policies with the aim of reducing construction waste
generation and finally achieving sustainable development. For example, in 1980, the
Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region issued the Waste Disposal
Ordinance [Chapter (Cap.) 354] (EPD-HK 1980), which is the principal legal
framework; established an incentive scheme for employing green and innovative
building technologies (BD, LD & PD-HK 2001; BD, LD & PD-HK 2002) in 2001
and 2002; developed a practice note titled use of recycled aggregates in concrete in
2003 (cited in Hao et al. 2008) as the technical guideline; implemented the waste
management plan (ETWB-HK 2003) for public construction projects in 2003;
commissioned a pilot recycling plan (CEDD-HK 2004) at Tuen Mun Area 38 in 2004
with the objective of supplying recycled aggregates to a number of public projects;
and enacted the landfill charging scheme (LC-HK 2005) for waste disposal in public
landfills in 2005.
In this paper, seven commonly used policy instruments are examined from three
perspectives: construction waste management hierarchy, complementary policies,
and parties impacted. Moreover, the basic principles for an effective mix of policy
instruments are proposed for relevant authorities to further develop better
construction waste management instruments.
The rest of this paper is arranged as follows. The basic concepts of construction
waste management hierarchy, construction waste management chain, and
international construction waste management policies are presented in Section 2.
Comparison and analysis of different construction waste management policy
instruments are conducted in Section 3. Basic principles for an effective integrated
construction waste management policy framework are introduced in Section 4.
Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 5.

2 PRELIMINARIES
2.1 Construction Waste Management Hierarchy
Different construction waste management methods have been practiced
worldwide. With respect to resource-saving and environment-friendliness, a strategic
hierarchy of the generalized waste management methods in a descending order (Peng
et al. 1997) is reduction, reusing, recycling, compost, incineration, and landfill.
Reduction (referred to as avoidance or prevention) is the most efficient method to
curtail waste generation and minimize waste disposal problems. Reusing refers to
utilizing the waste materials in other applications and is viewed as the most desirable
waste management method following reduction. Recycling means reprocessing
materials into useable products. Compost is a process in which solid organic
materials are broken down by micro-organisms in the presence of oxygen and a rich
and soil-like product is generated (Australian & New Zealand Biosolids Partnership
2010). Incineration is a process that combusts organic materials and converts them
1673 Construction Research Congress 2012 ASCE 2012
Construction Research Congress 2012
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

U
N
I
V

O
F

A
U
C
K
L
A
N
D

o
n

0
2
/
2
0
/
1
3
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
into ash, flue gases, particulates, and heat, which can in turn be used to generate
electric power (Knox 2005). Landfill is the oldest waste management method that
buries waste materials. In particular, reduce, reuse, and recycle, referred to as 3Rs,
are the most environmently-friendly methods encouraged internationally. Ironically,
landfill, regarded as the cheapest and easiest to use in reality, is the most
widely-used method although it is the least sustainable one (Ashford et al. 2000).

2.2 Construction Waste Management Chain
Recently, life-cycle thinking has been applied to investigate the material flow in
the construction waste management chain that involves a number of stakeholders. In
a typical design-bid-build construction project, an owner asks the designer to finish
the design and recruits a responsible contractor through bidding. Then the owner or
the designated contractor purchases construction materials (supplied by retailers or
manufacturers), which are made of raw materials extracted from natural resources by
raw materials suppliers. During the construction process, waste is generated in
various construction activities. Such waste can be separated in the forms of reusable,
recyclable, recoverable materials and residue. These materials and residue are sent by
haulers to contractors, recyclers, inclination plants, and landfill respectively. Other
stakeholders include government, waste management facilities managers, and
environmental waste management solution companies (Mou 2008).
It should be noted that most of these players take the maximum revenue as their
objectives and thus the most effective policy should encourage these stakeholders to
participate in construction waste management through economic instruments.

2.3 Review of International Construction Waste Management Policies
A number of management instruments are established to deal with construction
waste. Typical instruments include minimum recycling rate target, landfill charging
scheme, site waste management plan, waste facility permit scheme, tax on raw
material, product standard, and incentives for innovative green technology.

2.3.1 Minimum Recycling Rate Target (MRRT)
Major purpose of this policy is to encourage source separation. Therefore,
MRRT is also referred to as separate collection scheme. In particular, demolition
projects are paid more attention due to the huge amount of waste generated and
authorities usually require threshold recycling rates for demolition projects.
Countries adopting a mandatory minimum recycling target for the construction waste
include Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Slovenia, the Netherlands,
the USA, and Japan (Eunomia et al. 2008).

2.3.2 Landfill Charging Scheme (LCS)
This scheme charges construction disposed of at landfills in order to reduce the
volume of construction waste. A number of countries/regions adopted this scheme,
e.g., Hong Kong (Hao et al. 2008), Ireland (ECL-Ireland 2011), Norway, and
Denmark (Tam and Tam 2008).
1674 Construction Research Congress 2012 ASCE 2012
Construction Research Congress 2012
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

U
N
I
V

O
F

A
U
C
K
L
A
N
D

o
n

0
2
/
2
0
/
1
3
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
2.3.3 Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP)
SWMP motivates contractors to (1) effectively manage construction waste on
sites through adequate planning, monitoring and reporting of waste and (2) reduce
illegal transportation and disposal of construction waste. A number of
countries/regions have this instrument, including the UK, Hong Kong, Australia, the
USA, Japan, and Singapore (Eunomia et al. 2008).

2.3.3 Waste Facility Permit Scheme (WFPS)
WFPS limits the number and capacity of waste treatment facilities, especially for
landfills and incineration facilities. Belgium implemented a restrictive permitting
policy for landfills and incineration facilities to avoid the overcapacity of treatment
of mixed waste (Belgium Government 2010).

2.3.5 Tax on Raw Material (TRM)
TRM is a financial measure by shifting the price differential against raw material
and in favor of secondary materials in order to reduce resource extraction, increase
recycling rate, and make full use of secondary materials. This instrument is adopted
in Denmark, Sweden, the UK, Belgium, and Italy (Eunomia et al. 2008).

2.3.6 Product Standard (PS)
PS ensures that secondary materials meet minimum quality requirements. It
enlarges the secondary material market through certification of secondary materials.
For example, European Standards for Aggregates were established in 2004 and a
number of countries (including Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Italy, the
Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, and the UK) had mandated the adoption of these
standards (Eunomia et al. 2008).

2.3.7 Incentives for Innovative Green Technology (IIGT)
Incentives such as subsidy and financial support have been provided by some
government authorities to promote the application of innovative green technologies
for effective construction waste management. In particular, some government
authorities have promoted use of green technologies through green procurement. In
Hong Kong, Building Department, Lands Department and Planning Department
(2001 and 2002) established the Joint Practice Notes 1 & 2, which grant gross floor
area exemptions from building developments that employ green and innovative
building technologies.

3 COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF POLICY INSTRUMENTS
3.1 Impacts of Policy Instruments on Construction Waste Management
The above instruments emphasize on different levels of the waste management
hierarchy. As shown in Table 1, (1) MRRT majorly focuses on recycling; (2) LCS
promotes the adoption of other construction waste management methods by a charge
on construction waste disposed of at landfills; (3) SWMP estimates the quantity and
type of construction waste and requires contractors to propose different construction
1675 Construction Research Congress 2012 ASCE 2012
Construction Research Congress 2012
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

U
N
I
V

O
F

A
U
C
K
L
A
N
D

o
n

0
2
/
2
0
/
1
3
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
waste management methods; (4) WFPS aims at reducing the amount of construction
waste through controlling the number and capacity of incineration plants and landfill
sites; (5) TRM and IIGT provide financial incentives to reduce the consumption of
raw materials and reusing and recycling of construction waste; and (6) PS stimulates
and enlarges the secondary market.

Table 1. Focus of Instruments on Construction Waste Management Hierarchy
Policy Reduce Reuse Recycle Compost Incinerate Landfill
MRRT
LCS
SWMP
WFPS
TRM
PS
IIGT

3.2 Complementary Policy Instruments
Among the aforementioned instruments, some can be implemented individually
while others cannot perform well without the implementation of specific instruments.
For example, the predefined minimum recycling rate target will not be achieved
without enforcing the landfill charging scheme, waste facility permitting scheme, and
tax on raw material.
The dependency relationships between these instruments are presented in Table
2. The tick in a specific cell means that the instrument in the corresponding
column helps implement the instrument in the row. It can be seen that (1) MRRT is
complemented by LCS, WFPS, and TRM; (2) LCS and WFPS play important roles
in promoting SWMP; (3) SWMP is a complementary instrument to WFPS; (4) TRM
is facilitated by PS, LCS, and IIGT.
The dependency relationships can be considered from the perspective of the
number of instruments influenced by a specific instrument. It is clear that (1) LCS
influences the implementation of the three instruments, MRRT, SWMP, and TRM; (2)
WFPS impacts the two instruments of MRRT and SWMP; (3) SWMP, TRM, PS, and
IIGT support only one instrument. The number of instruments influenced reflects the
effectiveness of the instrument to some extent.

Table 2. Complementary Policy Instruments (Based on Eunomia et al. 2008)
Policy MRRT LCS SWMP WFPS TRM PS IIGT
MRRT
LCS
SWMP
WFPS
TRM
PS
IIGT
1676 Construction Research Congress 2012 ASCE 2012
Construction Research Congress 2012
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

U
N
I
V

O
F

A
U
C
K
L
A
N
D

o
n

0
2
/
2
0
/
1
3
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
Table 3. Parties Impacted by Different Policies
Party MRRT LCS SWMP WFPS TRM PS IIGT
Owner
Designer
Contractor
Con. Material Manufacturer
Raw Material Supplier
Recycler
Incineration Operator
Landfill Owner
Hauler

3.3 Parties Involved in Each Policy Instrument
Many parties participate in construction waste management and parties impacted
by different instruments vary with respect to individual instruments. In this study,
only parties influenced directly by the instruments are taken into consideration. As
shown in Table 3, in the implementation of MRRT, the contractors are directly
impacted since they are subject to the recycling rate target set by authorities. In LCS,
contractors pay levy for disposing of construction waste at landfills and the revenue
of operating landfills are closely related to the charging level. SWMP is prepared by
the contractor and monitored by the local government authority. The content of a
typical SWMP includes generation and management of construction waste and a
number of stakeholders (the recycler, the incineration operator, the landfill owner,
and the hauler) are involved in the plan. WFPS puts direct impacts on waste
management facilities including recycling facilities, incineration plants, and landfill
sites. TRM charges tax on the extraction of natural resources and increases the cost
of raw materials. This directly influences the business of raw material suppliers,
construction material manufactures, and consequently owners. PS certifies recyclers
products and enlarges the secondary market for construction material manufacturers.
It also influences raw material suppliers by increasing the supply of secondary
materials. IIGT employs innovative design, new green materials, and modern
construction methods to achieve sustainable construction. The parties involved
include contractors and designers.
It is concluded that (1) contractors play the most important role in construction
waste management since they could contribute directly to the implementation of four
instruments; (2) landfill owners, usually local government authorities, are also
important since the level of disposal fee is closely associated with contractors
motivation of reducing construction waste; (3) SWMP requires participation of the
most parties and should be encouraged by the authorities.

4 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 Chronology of Management Instruments
The sequence of appearance of management instruments indicates the change of
attitudes of government authorities. Table 4 shows the various instruments adopted in
1677 Construction Research Congress 2012 ASCE 2012
Construction Research Congress 2012
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

U
N
I
V

O
F

A
U
C
K
L
A
N
D

o
n

0
2
/
2
0
/
1
3
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
different countries/regions and the timeframe. From Table 4, three observations
haven been made. First, in general, countries/regions adopted LCS first and then
implemented instruments that have impacts on the higher levels of the waste
management hierarchy. Second, the newly adopted instruments worldwide include
TBO, RFS, and GP, which tend to extend construction waste management beyond
waste producers to the whole industry. Third, more and more financial instruments
have been taken to deal with construction waste.

Table 4. The Chronology of Management Instruments in Some Countries
(Data is extracted from Alberta Environment 2006; Eunomia 2008; European Topic Centre on
Sustainable Consumption and Production 2009; Hao et al. 2008; Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region 2011a; Hong Kong Special Administrative Region 2011b; Pitts 1999; Tam 2008)
Country/Region MRRT LCS SWMP WFPS TRM PS IIGT
Belgium 1990s 1990 2004 2005
Canada 2008 1990s 1994 2006
Denmark 1990 1987 1990 2005
Finland 1993 1996 1998
France 1999 1992 2004 2005
Germany 2002 2005
Hong Kong 2005 2005 2003 2003 2001
Italy 1997 1996 2004 1997
Norway 2005
Netherlands 2001 1996 1999 2005
Spain 2004 2005
UK 1996 2008 2002 2005
USA 2001 1989 2000 2001 1998

4.2 Developing Efficient Waste Management Instrument Mix
Relevant government authorities need to establish an integrated policy
framework for construction waste management. In addition to considering the current
situation of construction waste, it is essential to define fundamental principles for
effective construction waste management. An effective framework should (1) reflect
the waste management hierarchy; (2) involve as many parties as possible in the
construction waste management chain; and (3) establish policies according to their
dependency relationships.
To improve the performance of waste management policy mix, a government
authority needs to
(1) Review current waste management instruments and waste management
situation. The status quo of waste management is the implementation result of
current waste management instruments. The review of current waste
management situation will provide hints and constraints for further
improvement. A set of potential improvement areas is listed as the output.
(2) Identify the most desirable improvement areas. Once the set of potential
improvement areas is extracting, it is time for the government authority to
1678 Construction Research Congress 2012 ASCE 2012
Construction Research Congress 2012
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

U
N
I
V

O
F

A
U
C
K
L
A
N
D

o
n

0
2
/
2
0
/
1
3
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
decide the priority of these areas and consequently the most desirable ones
are highlighted. Typical areas include increasing the publics awareness of
waste management, advancing the waste management hierarchy, and
enforcing the implementation of existing instruments.
(3) Define a suitable policy set. A suitable policy set could be defined taking into
consideration of economic, social and environmental requirements.
Comparison and analysis of these instruments in the proposed policy set
needs to be conducted to examine the waste management hierarchy,
dependency relationships, and stakeholders involved.
(4) Prepare a plan for implementing the predefined policy instruments. To ensure
the effect of new instruments, a detailed implementation plan needs to take
into account the aforementioned three principles.

5 CONCLUSIONS
The ever-increasing construction waste becomes one of the most serious
economic, social and environmental problems and an efficient construction waste
management policy mix is necessary for municipal government authorities. After
examining the construction waste management hierarchy pertaining to each policy,
analyzing the complementary relationships between different instruments, checking
the parties involved in each policy, and investigating the chronology of waste
management instruments, three basic principles of an integrated construction waste
management framework are identified. These principles are (1) reflecting the waste
management hierarchy; (2) involving as many parties as possible in the construction
waste management chain; and (3) establishing policies according to their dependency
relationships.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study is sponsored by the Environment and Conservation Fund (Grant
Number: ECF Project 16/2010) of the Government of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region, China.

REFERENCES
Alberta Environment (2006). Constrution, renovation and demolition waste
materials: opportunities for waste recuction and diversion. Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada.
Ashford, S. A., Visvanathan, C., Husain, N., and Chomsurin, C. (2000). Design and
construction of engineered municipal solid waste landfills in Thailand. Waste
Management & Research, 18(5), 462-470.
Australian & New Zealand Biosolids Partnership (2010). Glossary of terms used in
association with biosolids. <http://www.biosolids.com.au/glossary-terms-biosoli
ds.php> (July 31, 2010).
Building Department, Lands Department, and Planning Department, Hong Kong
(BD, LD & PD HK) (2001). Green and innovative buildings (joint practice
note no. 1). <www.bd.gov.hk/english/documents/joint/JPN01.pdf > (Sep., 2009).
1679 Construction Research Congress 2012 ASCE 2012
Construction Research Congress 2012
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

U
N
I
V

O
F

A
U
C
K
L
A
N
D

o
n

0
2
/
2
0
/
1
3
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
Building Department, Lands Department, and Planning Department, Hong Kong
(BD, LD & PD HK) (2002). Second package of incentives to promote green
and innovative buildings (joint practice note no. 2). <www.landsd.gov.hk/en/
images/doc/jpn02 _e.pdf> (Sep., 2009).
Civil Engineering and Development Department, Hong Kong (CEDD-HK) (2004).
Management of public fill. <http://www.cedd.gov.hk/eng/services/licences/inde
x.htm> (Sep., 2011).
Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Ireland
(ECL-Ireland). Landfill levy, <http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Waste/L
andfillLevy/> (Sep., 2011).
Environment, Transport and Works Bureau, Hong Kong (ETWB-HK) (2003). Role
of departmental safety and environmental advisor on health, safety and
environmental protection on construction sites. < http://www.devb.gov.hk/filemanag
er/technicalcirculars/en/upload/102/1/c-2003-14-0-1.pdf > (Sep., 2011).
Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland (EPA-Ireland) (2007). Waste
management (facility permit and registration) (Amendment) regulations. <
http://www.epa.ie/whatwedo/advice/waste/registrations/> (Sep., 2011).
Environmental Protection Department, Hong Kong (EPD-HK) (1980). Waste
disposal ordinance. <http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/application_for_licence
s/guidan ce/application_maincontent34.html> (Sep., 2011).
Eunomia, Tobin Consulting Engineers, Oko-Institute, Arcadis, Scuola Agraria del
Parco di Monza, TBU Engineering, Eunomia New Zealand (2009). International
review of waste management policy: annexes to main report. <http://
www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Waste/ReviewofWasteManagementPolicy/>
(September 12, 2011).
European Commission (EC) (2010). Waste statistics. <http://epp.eurostat.ec.europ
a.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Waste_statistics#Industry_and_construction_
waste> (June 18, 2010)
European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (2009).
Country fact sheets on waste policies 2006 edition. <http://scp.eionet.europa.
eu/facts/factsheets_waste/ 2006_edition> (September 18, 2011)
Hao, J. L., Hills, M. J., and Tam, V. W. Y. (2008). The effectiveness of Hong Kong's
construction waste disposal charging scheme. Waste Management & Research,
26(6), 553-558.
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) (2010). Waste reduction
statistics & data. <https://www.wastereduction.gov.hk/en/assistancewizard/wast
e_red_sat.htm> (April 16, 2010)
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) (2011a). Construction waste
disposal charging scheme. <http://sc.epd.gov.hk/gb/www.epd.gov.hk/epd/misc/
cdm/scheme.htm> (April 16, 2010)
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) (2011b). Waste reduction &
recycling. <http://www.gov.hk/en/residents/environment/waste/wasteredrecyc.ht
m> (January 25, 2012)
1680 Construction Research Congress 2012 ASCE 2012
Construction Research Congress 2012
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

U
N
I
V

O
F

A
U
C
K
L
A
N
D

o
n

0
2
/
2
0
/
1
3
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
Jaillon, L., Poon, C. S., and Chiang, Y. H. (2009). Quantifying the waste reduction
potential of using prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong. Waste
Management, 29(1), 309-320.
Japanese Ministry of Environment (2005a). State of Discharge and Treatment of
Industrial Waste in FY 2003. <http://www.env.go.jp/en/press/2005/1108b. html>
(May 10, 2010)
Japanese Ministry of Environment (2005b). Survey on illegal dumping of industrial
waste in FY 2004. <http://www.env.go.jp/en/press/2005/1108a.html> (June 19,
2010)
Kartam. N., Al-Mutairi, N., Al-Ghusain, I., and Al-Humoud, J. (2004).
Environmental management of construction and demolition waste in Kuwait
Waste Management, 24(10), 1049-1059.
Knox, A. (2005). An overview of incineration and EFW technology as applied to
the management of municipal solid waste, University of Western Ontario,
Canada.
Kofoworola, O. F., and Gheewala, S. H. (2009). Estimation of construction waste
generation and management in Thailand. Waste Management, 29(2), 731-738.
Legislative Council, Hong Kong (LC-HK) (2005). Construction and demolition
waste and landfill charging scheme. <http://www.legco.gov.hk/database/english
/data_ea/ea-construction-and-demolition-waste.htm> (Sep. 12, 2011).
Lordsleem, A. C., and Fucale, S. P. (2009). Quantitative assessment of waste
management in Brazilian construction sites. Proceedings Sardinia 2009, Twelfth
International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, S. Margperita di Pula,
Cagliari, Italy.
Mou, K. Y. (2008). The role of government and construction waste management: a
case study of Hong Kong. thesis, presented to The University of Hong Kong, at
Hong Kong, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Science (Urban Planning).
National Construction and Demolition Council (2004). <http://www.ncdwc.ie/index.
html> (Sep. 12, 2011).
Peng, C. L., Scorpio, D. E., and Kibert, C. J. (1997). Strategies for successful
construction and demolition waste recycling operations. Construction
Management and Economics, 15(1), 49-58.
Pitts, P. (1999). UVic researchers assess efficiency of Canada's aging landfills.
<http://ring.uvic.ca/99jan22/landfill.html> (January 11, 2011).
Tam, V. W. Y. (2008). On the effectiveness in implementing a
waste-management-plan method in construction. Waste Management, 28(6),
1072-1080.
Tam, V. M. Y., and Tam, C. M. (2008). Re-use of construction and demolition waste
in housing development. Nova Science Publishers, New York, U.S.
Zhao, W., Leeftink, R. B., and Rotter, S. (2008). Construction and demolition waste
management in China: Analysis of economic instruments for solving a growing
problem. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 109, 471-480.
1681 Construction Research Congress 2012 ASCE 2012
Construction Research Congress 2012
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

U
N
I
V

O
F

A
U
C
K
L
A
N
D

o
n

0
2
/
2
0
/
1
3
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.