Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 931–936

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

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

Critical success factors for on-site sorting of construction waste: A china study
Jiayuan Wang a , Hongping Yuan b,∗ , Xiangping Kang c , Weisheng Lu d
a
College of Civil Engineering, Shenzhen University, Guangdong 518060, China
b
Department of Building & Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong
c
Department of Construction Engineering Management, Henan University of Urban Construction, Pingdingshan, Henan 467044, China
d
Department of Real Estate and Construction, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Benefits of conducting on-site sorting of construction waste, typically including increasing the rates of
Received 30 June 2009 reuse and recycling, reducing the cost for waste transportation and disposal, prolonging the lifespan of
Received in revised form 21 January 2010 landfills designed for receiving non-inert construction waste, and lessening the pollution resulted from
Accepted 31 January 2010
the huge amount of construction waste, have been extensively investigated by previous studies. However,
effective implementation of construction waste sorting requires a wide range of factors involving human
Keywords:
beings, management, technology, environment and resources. So far, we know little about how to conduct
Construction waste
effective construction waste sorting in China. This research therefore aims to identify the critical success
Waste management
Critical success factors factors (CSFs) for on-site sorting of construction waste in China. A set of methods including CSF approach,
Waste sorting pilot study, questionnaire survey and face-to-face interview are adopted to facilitate the identification
China and analysis of the CSFs. Six factors including (1) manpower, (2) market for recycled materials, (3) waste
sortability, (4) better management, (5) site space, (6) equipment for sorting of construction waste, are
considered the CSFs for effective on-site sorting of construction waste in Shenzhen, China. These CSFs
are of great significance both to researchers and industry practitioners.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction up-to-date studies imply that waste management in the con-

The term ‘construction and demolition (C&D) waste’ has been
widely used for referring to the solid waste produced during new
construction, renovation, and demolition of buildings and struc-
tures (Fishbein, 1998; Kofoworola and Gheewala, 2009). C&D waste
frequently accounts for 10–30% of the solid waste received at
many landfill sites around the world (Fishbein, 1998). The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2002) estimated that
approximately 136 million tons of building-related C&D debris was
generated in 1996. In UK, the wastage rates within the construc-
tion industry may be as high as 10–15% (McGrath and Anderson,
2000). In Australia, C&D waste presents a significant proportion
of the industrial solid waste going into landfills (Lingard et al.,
2001). In Hong Kong, from 1993 to 2004, the annual generation
of C&D waste has more than doubled, reaching an amount of about
20 million tons in 2004 a single year (Poon, 2007). The huge vol-
ume of C&D waste generated annually in various economies has
long been an environmental problem around the globe. Although
C&D waste has been receiving increasing attention from indus-
try practitioners and researchers since the early 1980s, however,
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 6182 0697 (Hong Kong); fax: +86 755 2653
6130 (China).
E-mail address: hpyuan2005@gmail.com (H. Yuan).
struction industry is still in its early stages and yet to mature to
effectively help alleviate the environmental burden (Hao et al.,
2007). Management of C&D waste is relatively new compared
to other industries such as municipal solid waste management
(MSWM). In this regard, how to reduce the generation of C&D
waste effectively is a challenging issue faced by many economies
around the world. It is therefore of great significance to manage
C&D waste properly since it could not only save the scarce land
resources, but also mitigate its adverse impacts on the environ-
ment.
Over the past two decades, China has enjoyed a high speed in
its economy development, achieving up to 9.8% annual growth
in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (NBS, 2007). In parallel to the
impressive economic development, the country has also witnessed
a severe degradation of its natural environment. One of the major
contributors to the environmental degradation is the large amount
of C&D waste generated during enormous construction activities.
According to a study by Dong et al. (2001), China produces 29%
of the world’s municipal solid waste each year, amongst which
construction activities contribute for nearly 40%, consuming
about 40% of total natural resources and around 40% of energy
(Lu, 1999; Wang et al., 2008). The majority of the waste has not
been well processed which caused severe ecological damage and
environmental pollution. Environmental issues have received
increasing attention across the country, but currently the level of

0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.01.012
932 J. Wang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 931–936
expertise and application of good waste management in China’s
construction sector is low.
This research aims to investigate the critical success factors
(CSFs) for the implementation of on-site sorting of construction
waste during the construction stage of new projects in Shenzhen,
which is a typical city in China. The remainder of this paper is
mainly divided into four parts. The next section identifies the need
for implementing on-site sorting of construction waste. It is fol-
lowed by a description of the research methodology employed in
this study. Then it moves on to the analyses and discussions based
on the survey results. Finally it reaches a conclusion with the sum-
mary of the key findings. It is anticipated that the CSFs identified
could serve as practical reference to help the contractor establish
plans for on-site sorting of construction waste. With these CSFs,
their understandings about the implementation of on-site sort-
ing of construction waste could also be promoted, and thus the
volume of construction waste disposed of at landfills would be
reduced.
2. The need for on-site sorting of construction waste
So far, numerous studies have been conducted to deal with
construction waste management issues, ranging from source
reduction, waste reuse, recycling, to waste disposal. All these
strategies can be expressed through an integrative hierarchy of con-
struction waste management as mentioned in Peng et al. (1997).
The hierarchy has also been embraced by many subsequent stud-
ies (e.g. Faniran and Caban, 1998; Tam and Tam, 2006). Two central
principles of the hierarchy are minimizing resource consumption
and alleviating environmental pollution, the two pillars of sustain-
ability in construction (Peng et al., 1997). The most three priorities
in the waste management hierarchy (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) are
also known as the “3Rs” principle of cosntruction waste manage-
ment, which classify waste management strategies according to
their desirability. Reduction, as one of the three strategies for min-
imizing the generation of construction waste, offers two major
benefits (Poon, 2007; Esin and Cosgun, 2007): (a) preventing the
generation of construction waste; and (b) reducing the cost of
higher charges for waste recycling, transportation and disposal. It
is therefore regarded as the most effective method for minimizing
the generation of construction waste and eliminating many of the
waste disposal and environmental problems (Peng et al., 1997; Esin
and Cosgun, 2007). In line with this, reducing construction waste
by various methods has received increasing research interest in
the past two decades, and research efforts have been made through
survey, descriptive model and deployment of mathematical models
and information technology (e.g. Esin and Cosgun, 2007; Shen et al.,
2004; Hao et al., 2007; Li et al., 2005a). Reuse means using the same
material in construction more than once, including using the mate-
rial again for the same function (e.g. formwork in construction)
and new-life reuse where the material is used as a raw material
for a new function (e.g. using the cut-corner steel bar for shelves
and stony fraction for road base material). It is the most desirable
option after reduction because a minimum processing and energy
use is achieved (Peng et al., 1997). By recycling, some new materi-
als can be made out of construction waste. A study conducted by
Lauritzen (1998) claimed that recycled materials would normally
be competitive where there is a shortage of both raw materials and
suitable deposit sites. Kartam et al. (2004) and Tam (2008a) stated
that as a key strategy of construction waste management, recycling
could offer the following benefits: (1) reducing the demand for new
resources; (2) cutting down on transport and production energy
cost; (3) utilizing waste which would otherwise be lost to landfill
sites; (4) preserving areas of land for future urban development;
and (5) improving the general state of the environment.
When construction waste cannot be reduced, reuse and recy-
cling will be the options of high priority to minimize its volume
entering landfills. However, in order to ensure a higher rate of
reuse and/or recycling, the generated construction waste should
be sorted on-site before it is further processed, since construc-
tion waste is often the mixture of inert and organic materials, and
mixed and contaminated waste is not suitable for reuse or recycling
but generally disposed of at landfills directly (Shen et al., 2004).
Evidence from both previous studies and on-site experiments con-
ducted on a construction site of Shenzhen have clearly exhibited
the benefits of on-site sorting of construction waste. For exam-
ple, Poon et al. (2001) found that on-site sorting of construction
waste could increase the rates of reuse and recycling, and reduce
the cost for construction waste transportation and disposal. Hao
et al.’s (2008) study revealed that the lifespan of landfills designed
for receiving non-inert construction waste could be prolonged if
construction waste sorting was performed. Furthermore, Shen et
al. (2004) stated that the pollution resulted from the huge amount
of construction waste to the surroundings would be greatly less-
ened through the effective implementation of on-site sorting of
construction waste. Results form a simple on-site experiment car-
ried out by our research team in Shenzhen also showed that merits
of construction waste sorting, particularly in terms of reducing
the volume of construction waste and bringing economic bene-
fits to the contractor, are considerable. In the experiment, wasted
materials typically including steel, formwork, concrete, bricks and
mortar, were sorted on the construction site with the assistance of
some project operatives. The construction waste rates were com-
pared with the ones without implementing sorting measures. The
results showed obviously that through the waste sorting practice,
the overall proportion of wasted materials for reuse and recycling
increases from 14% to 24% by volume, and from 8% to 19% by weight.
From a waste reduction point of view, these figures are sufficient to
drive the construction sector to promote effective on-site sorting
of construction waste.
However, the Chinese construction industry seems slow to
embrace this good practice. More importantly, no related research
works can be found in China to date. Taken together, the identifi-
cation of CSFs that hinder the implementation of on-site sorting of
construction waste in China is significant for uncovering the under-
lying barriers to this practice. Based on the analytic results, some
insights into the solutions can be probably suggested.
3. Critical success factors in construction
In his seminal work, Rockart (1979) proposed that the critical
success factors (CSFs) are “for any business, the limited number of
areas in which results, if they are satisfactory, will ensure success-
ful competitive performance for the organization. They are the few
key areas where ‘things must go right’ for the business to flour-
ish”. At the strategic level, CSFs are defined as those few important
things that an organization must do well to ensure success for a
manager or an organization (Boynton and Zmud, 1984). At the oper-
ational level, CSFs are those key issues that help to define whether
an organization is achieving its goals and objectives in a changing
environment (Yeo, 1991).
The CSF approach has been used as a management measure since
the 1970s (Li et al., 2005b) and now has been a popular research
approach across a wide range of disciplines including the construc-
tion management (Chua et al., 1999; Shen and Liu, 2003; Li et
al., 2005b; Chen and Chen, 2007; Lu et al., 2008). All attempts of
applying CSF approach to the field of construction management
demonstrate its great potential for the identification of some few
but vital factors to help reduce the complex nature of manage-
ment issues, which in turn makes it easier and more efficient to
 J. Wang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 931–936
Table 1
SSFs for on-site sorting of construction waste in Shenzhen, China.
No. SSFs
F1 Construction duration
F2 Site space
F3 Interference with normal construction activities
F4 Market for recycled materials
F5 Environmental considerations
F6 Better management
F7 Waste sortability
F8 Manpower
F9 Equipment for sorting of construction waste
manage those factors by using limited resources. Lu et al. (2008)
suggested that the CSF approach could be an effective method in
the following two situations: (1) when the task is to reduce numer-
ous factors to limited ones, making a complex system manageable;
and (2) if a large number of success factors are competing for limited
resources, the CSF approach could help to identify those vital factors
that should be given more attention. Therefore, the CSF approach is
considered an appropriate method for investigating on-site sorting
of construction waste in this study.
4. Research methodology
The study by Lu et al. (2008) summarized the typical procedures
for identifying CSFs into five steps: (1) identify a full set of selected
success factors (SSFs); (2) conduct a survey to investigate each SSF’s
importance by referring to a given goal; (3) calculate each factor’s
importance index value based on the survey data; (4) extract CSFs
from the pool of SSFs according to the value of importance index;
and (5) interpret and analyze the extracted CSFs. Following this
procedure, a three-folder step is taken to identify the CSFs in this
research. Methods adopted in the three-folder step mainly include
pilot study, questionnaire survey and face-to-face interview.
4.1. Selected success factors for on-site sorting of construction
waste
First, a pilot study was carried out to explore the SSFs for the
implementation of on-site sorting of construction waste. It also
served the purpose of ensuring the devised questionnaire to be
practically feasible and significant. In the pilot study, a sampling
group of 53 industry practitioners, including 15 engineers, 32 con-
tractors, 4 operatives and 2 government officers, was interviewed.
They were carefully selected to make sure that their views could
reflect the underlying factors within the on-site waste sorting pro-
cess. The participants were asked to list the major factors that
were crucial to the effectiveness of on-site sorting of construction
waste according to their experience and expertise. By analyzing the
research results, nine SSFs, namely (1) construction duration, (2)
933
Descriptions
Extra time will be required for conducting construction waste sorting activities. This may
cause time delay to the project.
This factor refers to the limitation of original site space, the layout and the space for
handling construction waste, especially for the poisonous ones. All interviewees stated
that the availability of site space would largely affect on-site waste sorting activities. Since
specified site space should be needed for sorting, less space would lead to less willing of
contractors to implement on-site sorting.
Implementation of on-site construction waste sorting, particularly the use of equipment
for waste collection, transportation and sorting will interfere with other site activities.
Currently, the market for recyclables in China is far from mature to make good use of the
recycled materials. Some contractors agreed that if they could not get economic benefits in
on-site sorting, the ‘short-term profits’ oriented contractors would not take this practice
into consideration.
This factor mainly refers to two aspects. One is the pollution caused by on-site waste
sorting activities, typically including noise and dust. The other is the limitation of external
environment. For example, roads and time selected for waste transportation should abide
by the local regulations.
To promote the effectiveness of on-site sorting of construction waste, it is important to
coordinate among various practitioners involved. This in turn calls for better construction
management.
It means that whether it is possible or easy to sort a material manually out from the
mixture. Contractors stated that the better way is to separate wasted materials when they
were generated. They also argued that it was difficult to sort the poisonous ones out from
the mixture.
This refers to the extra labor arranged for performing the waste sorting work.
This mainly includes two aspects: one is the storage equipment for sorted waste; the other
is the use of some professional equipment for on-site sorting of construction waste.
site space, (3) interference with normal construction activities; (4)
market for recycled materials, (5) environmental considerations,
(6) better management, (7) waste sortability, (8) manpower, and (9)
equipment for sorting of construction waste, were recommended.
All SSFs identified are tabulated in Table 1, and a brief description
of each factor is given in the third column of Table.
4.2. Questionnaire survey
Although the SSFs for on-site sorting of construction waste were
revealed during the pilot study, however, their significances to the
conduct of construction waste sorting might vary greatly from each
other. To reveal the relative importance of these SSFs, it is essen-
tial to rank them based on the opinions of industry practitioners
involved in construction waste sorting activities. Therefore, as the
second step, a questionnaire was devised to facilitate this by gath-
ering the views of related practitioners.
In the questionnaire, respondents were invited to evaluate the
individual factors listed in Table 1 in terms of their constraint on the
effective implementation of on-site sorting of construction waste.
The constraint level is measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 5
denotes extremely high, 4 high, 3 neutral, 2 low, and 1 negligible. At
the end of the questionnaire, a question “whether you are willing
to participate in our in-depth interviews?” was provided. If he/she
opted in, the respondent was required to leave the contact informa-
tion in specified blanks. Given the fact that Chinese is the dominant
language of respondents, the questionnaire was drafted in Chinese.
Meticulous attention was given to the validity of the translation
from Chinese to English, and the translated version was compared
with the original version to ensure accuracy and consistency.
The questionnaire survey was conducted in Shenzhen and the
whole process lasted about two months, from May to June 2008.
Overall, 75 questionnaires were distributed via postal letter to the
survey sample which was randomly selected from the target pop-
ulation, who were all from Grade 1 contractors and supervision
companies in Shenzhen. The main consideration for determin-
ing the target population was that they all participated in the
implementation of on-site sorting of construction waste, and thus
934 J. Wang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 931–936
Table 2
Ranking of the SSFs according to their constraint values.
No. SSFs
F8 Manpower
F4 Market for recycled materials
F7 Waste sortability
F6 Better management
F2 Site space
F9 Equipment for sorting of construction waste
F5 Environmental considerations
F3 Interference with normal construction activities
F1 Construction duration
could enhance the representativeness of perceptions received from
these respondents. In response, 51 questionnaires were received,
reflecting a response rate of 68%, which was considered satisfac-
tory according to Moser and Kalton’s study (1971). The majority of
respondents (around 57%) have experienced more than 10 years in
the construction industry.
4.3. Data calculation
To evaluate the relative importance of SSFs listed in Table 1, an
index value for each factor was calculated by using a quantitative
model as shown in Equation (1).
5
M S
j=1 ij j
Di = 5 (i = 1, 2, . . . 9; j = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
j=1
Mij
where Di = constraint of a factor to the effective on-site sorting of
construction waste; Sj = constraint rating of each factor to the effec-
tive on-site sorting of construction waste (S1 = 1, . . ., S5 = 5); and
Mij = number of respondents that chose the jth constraint rating
(Sj ) for the ith factor. Eq. (1) has been widely adopted to iden-
tify the relative importance of factors/variables by calculating their
importance index values (Shen and Liu, 2003; Tam, 2008b) and it
is therefore used to compute the constraint value of each factor in
this paper.
By feeding the survey results into SPSS 15.0, the total score,
mean, and standard deviation of each factor were calculated. The
SSFs were then ranked according to their mean values. If two or
more factors happened to have the same mean value, the one with
lower standard deviation was assigned a higher rank. The ranking
results are shown in Table 2. The SSFs with constraint values that
are lager than the average constraint value of all factors (2.555) are
identified as CSFs. It can be seen clearly that there are six factors
fitting in this criteria, encompassing F8 (Manpower), F4 (Market
for recycled materials), F7 (Waste sortability), F6 (Better manage-
ment), F2 (Site space), and F9 (Equipment for sorting of construction
waste).
4.4. In-depth interviews
After identification of the CSFs through the questionnaire sur-
vey, in-depth interviews were conducted to help better interpret
them. In the questionnaire survey stage, 12 respondents opted in
and were willing to accept our follow-up interviews. Amongst these
respondents, 8 were from the construction contractors and others
were from supervision companies. These face-to-face interviews
were conducted in July 2008. Each lasted about 30–40 min. The
major aim of these interviews was to gather further elaboration
and explanation about the six CSFs. The data from the interviews
was used as cross reference with the results from questionnaire
survey for the purpose of interpreting the constraint factors.
Di Standard deviation Ranking CSFs
3.261 0.32 1 CSF1
3.118 0.54 2 CSF2
3.092 0.45 3 CSF3
3.022 0.61 4 CSF4
3.022 0.73 5 CSF5
2.604 0.67 6 CSF6
2.534 0.83 7
2.482 0.47 8
2.418 0.69 9
5. Analyses and discussions
Based on the survey results, it can be seen clearly that there
are six CSFs contributing to the effectiveness of on-site sorting of
construction waste in Shenzhen, namely ‘manpower’, ‘market for
recycled materials’, ‘waste sortability’, ‘better management’, ‘site
space’, and ‘equipment for sorting of construction waste’. They are
presented in this section together with the views of the practition-
ers revealed in the interviews.
5.1. CSF1: manpower
It is not surprising to see that manpower is perceived as the
most important factor for affecting the effective implementation
(1) of on-site sorting of construction waste in the Chinese construc-
tion industry. This reflects a fundamental impediment to on-site
sorting of construction waste, which echoes with Poon et al. (2001)
finding that in Hong Kong, manpower plays an important role in
determining the construction waste sorting scheme among differ-
ent alternatives. Manpower is also a major determinant hindering
the effective management of waste in construction, which has
been investigated by previous studies (Teo and Loosemore, 2001;
Saunders and Wynn, 2005; Begum et al., 2009).
The survey results revealed that currently there is by and large
no specific operative arranged for being in charge of on-site sorting
of construction waste in most construction projects of Shenzhen,
China. In this sense, extra labor would be required to work on this
task if it was intended to minimize construction waste through on-
site sorting. In addition, environment is generally of lower priority
compared with other project objectives, namely cost, quality, dura-
tion and safety in the Chinese construction industry (Shen et al.,
2006). A central concern of contractors over the implementation of
construction waste sorting is that whether the investment in this
practice is value-added, in other words, whether they could gain
additional benefits from doing so.
5.2. CSF2: Market for recycled materials
The development of market for recycled materials is ranked
as the second important factor for influencing the effectiveness
of on-site sorting of construction waste in Shenzhen, China. Dur-
ing interviews, most respondents argued that a lack of market for
receiving recycled materials was a notable contributor to the slow
embrace of on-site sorting practices. Without such a market, con-
tractors cannot get profits via selling the recycled materials in the
market, which would result in a lack of incentive for contractors
to promote on-site sorting practices. A contractor provided us an
explanatory example for better understanding this factor. Gener-
ally, excavated soil is not accepted as construction waste by most
landfills in Shenzhen. If the excavated soil in a construction project
cannot be properly handled for formation use, the contractor, there-
fore, has to be subject to a higher charge for disposing of it at
 J. Wang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 931–936
designated landfills. But during a period particularly when there
is a demand of soil for public filling in the region, the wasted soil
can be sold at a considerable price, which will bring extra profits to
the contractor. This example apparently sheds light on the potential
of the construction waste recycling market. By cultivating a mar-
ket for recycled construction materials, contractors will take the
initiative in conducting on-site sorting if they could win profits by
selling recycled materials to the recycling market.
5.3. CSF3: waste sortability
Waste sortability is ranked as the third important factor
amongst the nine constraint factors. This resonates with the inves-
tigation by Poon et al. (2001) which found that it was difficult to
separate the wasted materials after they were mixed. Respondents
told us that the most difficult case is sorting the contaminated
waste out from the mixture to ensure that the remainder could be
sorted for reuse and recycling, since it has been regulated in the Chi-
nese environmental regulations that wasted materials will be not
suitable for reuse, recycling or landfilling once it is contaminated.
During interviews, some contractors suggested that placement of
appropriate refuse chutes for collecting special construction waste
which is harmful to the environment may be a good solution to pre-
venting the waste from being contaminated. But they also stated
that no contractor in Shenzhen adopted such a practice to date, as
it was too inconvenient to operate.
5.4. CSF4: better management
The role of management in minimizing the generation of con-
struction waste has been extensively investigated and highlighted
by previous studies (McDonald and Smithers, 1998; Shen et al.,
2004). The results of this survey revealed that better management
is also crucial to the effective implementation of on-site sorting
of construction waste in Shenzhen, China. All interviewees agreed
that management played a key role in promoting the effective-
ness of on-site sorting of construction waste. Considering that the
management level of the Chinese construction industry is lower
compared with that of some western countries (Wang and Yuan,
2006), there is a great room for improvement. However, some of
the interviewees expressed their concern that the attractiveness of
on-site sorting of construction waste cannot be an effective incen-
tive for contractors in China to change their conventional attitudes
towards improving the management capacity. Actually, they might
consider enhance the management capacity in order to construct
a better public image, promote the competitiveness, and/or reduce
the project cost. It should be admitted that the improvement of
management capacity for construction waste management, includ-
ing on-site sorting of construction waste, is a long procedure. More
importantly, it cannot be realized without the joint efforts of both
managerial staffs (for example, project managers, supervision engi-
neers, site engineers) and operatives.
5.5. CSF5: site space
Site space is perceived as a factor of lower importance com-
pared to the afore-discussed CSFs. This to some extent differs from
the findings by Poon et al. (2001), who found that site space was the
most important factor suggested by the respondents in Hong Kong.
The reason for the difference is probably that there is much less
site space available for arranging construction waste sorting activi-
ties on the construction sites of Hong Kong. Therefore, the effective
implementation of construction waste sorting will largely depend
on the site space that can be used for performing these activities in
Hong Kong. Respondents in this research stated that although no
space is specifically pre-arranged for on-site sorting of construc-
935
tion waste in Shenzhen, contractors willing to conduct it still can
find usable site space with ease. This indicates that compared to
the Hong Kong practice, contractors in China feel less stressed in
finding ample space for on-site sorting of construction waste. This
explains exactly why the site space factor is ranked relatively low
by the respondents from Shenzhen. But it is should be noted that
without a space layout pre-planned for waste sorting, the tempo-
rary placement of sorting facilities and implementation of sorting
activities may disarrange other construction activities.
5.6. CSF6: equipment for sorting of construction waste
Although on-site sorting of construction waste is mainly con-
ducted by manual in Shenzhen, equipment required for conducting
the sorting also has remarkable influence on the effectiveness
of this operation. This factor is perceived as the sixth CSF by the
respondents. A major reason for taking this factor into account is
that investment in the equipment will increase the project cost
directly. A puzzle emerged when analyzing the questionnaire
results. It is clear that both the manpower factor and equipment
for waste sorting factor will lead to an obvious increase on the
project cost, but why the former one is much more important
according to the ranking results? During the interviews, some
respondents helped explain the underlying whys. As aforemen-
tioned, the equipment for waste sorting factor mainly refers to
two aspects, which are the use of some professional equipment for
sorting of construction waste and the storage equipment for sorted
construction waste. At present, the construction waste sorting
activities in Shenzhen are mainly conducted by manual and few
machines are used for storing the wasted materials. Respondents
also expressed that they were reluctance to use equipment for
construction waste sorting due to the lower cost of labor in the
Chinese construction industry.
6. Further discussions on CSFs for on-site sorting of
construction waste
The above-presented investigation shows that there are mainly
six CSFs contributing to the effectiveness of on-site sorting of con-
struction waste in Shenzhen, China. They are CSF1 Manpower, CSF2
Market for recycled materials, CSF3 Waste sortability, CSF4 Bet-
ter management, CSF5 Site space, and CSF6 Equipment for sorting
of construction waste. These CSFs can be generally classified into
three groups. Factors CSF1, CSF2 and CSF6 are highly related to the
cost consideration of construction waste sorting. CSF3 and CSF5 are
relevant to the feasibility of on-site sorting of construction waste,
while CSF4 relates particularly to the managerial issues within
the construction waste sorting process. Therefore, the effective
implementation of on-site sorting of construction waste cannot be
achieved without the joint assistance of the three groups of factors.
It is worth noting that the CSFs identified in this study show
obviously that there are two groups of stakeholders playing crucial
roles in on-site sorting of construction waste, including the govern-
ment department and the contractor. All the six CSFs are to some
extent related to the contractor, which indicates that many prob-
lems with respect to on-site sorting activities, whether managerial
or technical, cannot be well addressed without sufficient support of
the contractor. Furthermore, the factor CSF2 is specifically in rela-
tion to the government department, since the cultivation of the
recycling market for trading recycled materials depends greatly on
the regulations and policies promulgated by the local government.
7. Conclusions
Effective implementation of on-site sorting of construc-
tion waste requires a number of factors involving manpower,
936 J. Wang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 931–936
management, technology, environment and resources. How to
manage all these factors to yield the maximum outcomes by
using the limited resources is a challenging issue. CSF approach
enables us to identify the few but vital factors contributing to
the effectiveness of on-site sorting of construction waste. This
study identified six CSFs among the nine SSFs for on-site sorting
of construction waste through a series of analytic procedures.
They are CSF1 Manpower, CSF2 Market for recycled materials,
CSF3 Waste sortability, CSF4 Better management, CSF5 Site space,
and CSF6 Equipment for sorting of construction waste. These CSFs
indicate clearly that cost consideration, management capacity, and
feasibility of on-site sorting are the major determinants of effective
on-site sorting of construction waste in China. Moreover, on-site
sorting cannot be successfully implemented without sufficient
support of the local government and the contractor.
The six CSFs identified in this study is of great benefit both
to researchers and industry practitioners. Researchers could use
these factors as a basis for carrying out economic analysis of on-
site sorting activities and exploring potential measures to develop
recycling market for construction waste. With the CSFs, industry
practitioners could better understand what are the crucial factors
to the implementation of on-site sorting of construction waste, and
thus strategies could be taken to improve the effectiveness of this
practice.
It is worth noting that although the six CSFs in this study pro-
vide valuable information on the factors affecting the effectiveness
of on-site sorting of construction waste, however, some of the CSFs
are interrelated with each other. For example, CSF4 Better man-
agement is to some degree connected to CSF3 Waste sortability
and CSF5 Site space. Generally, if the capacity of construction man-
agement is improved, it would be much easier to sort a wasted
material out from the mixed construction waste. Meanwhile, spec-
ified space would be pre-planned for performing waste sorting
work. Similarly, increased waste sorting rates and pre-arranged
space for conducting on-site sorting exhibit an improved manage-
ment capacity. Therefore, quantitative methods should be further
explored to reveal such interrelationships between the CSFs.
It should be highlighted that the CSFs for on-site sorting of con-
struction waste are identified in the context of Shenzhen, China.
While acknowledging its value of providing useful reference for
similar regions, it should be noted that the findings fitting in
Shenzhen cannot be simply applied to other parts of China with-
out the consideration of the local practices. Considering that the
development level of construction practices may differ from each
other, it is recommended that future research in other regions
could be carried out on the basis of the CSFs identified in this
study.
References
Begum RA, Siwar C, Pereira JJ, Jaafar AH. Attitude and behavior factors in waste
management in the construction industry of Malaysia. Resour Conserv Recycl
2009;53(6):321–8.
Boynton AC, Zmud RW. An assessment of critical success factors. Sloan Manag Rev
1984;25(4):17–27.
Chen WT, Chen TT. Critical success factors for construction partnering in Taiwan. Int
J Project Manag 2007;25(5):474–84.
Chua DKH, Kog YC, Loh PK. Critical success factors for different project objectives. J
Construct Eng Manag 1999;125(3):142–50.
Dong SS, Tong KW, Wu YP. Municipal solid waste management in China: using com-
mercial management to solve a growing problem. Utilities Policy 2001;10:7–11.
Esin T, Cosgun N. A study conducted to reduce construction waste generation in
Turkey. Build Environ 2007;42(4):1667–74.
Faniran OO, Caban G. Minimizing waste on construction project sites. Eng Construct
Architect Manage 1998;5(2):182–8.
Fishbein BK. Building for the future: strategies to reduce construction and
demolition waste in municipal projects; 1998. Available online at:
<http://www.informinc.org/buildforfuture.php>.
Hao JL, Hills MJ, Huang T. A simulation model using system dynamic method for con-
struction and demolition waste management in Hong Kong. J Construct Innovat
2007;7(1):7–21.
Hao JL, Hills MJ, Shen LY. Managing construction waste on site through system
dynamic modeling: the case of Hong Kong. Eng Construct Architect Manag
2008;15(2):103–13.
Kartam N, Al-Mutairi N, Al-Ghusain I, Al-Humoud J. Environmental man-
agement of construction and demolition waste in Kuwait. Waste Manag
2004;24(10):1049–59.
Kofoworola OF, Gheewala SH. Estimation of construction waste generation and man-
agement in Thailand. Waste Manag 2009;29(2):731–8.
Lauritzen EK. Emergency construction waste management. Saf Sci
1998;30(1–2):45–53.
Li H, Chen Z, Yong SCWK. Application of integrated GPS and GIS technology
for reducing waste and improving construction efficiency. Automat Construct
2005a;14(3):323–31.
Li B, Akintoye A, Edwards PJ, Hardcastle C. Critical success factors for PPP/PFI projects
in the UK construction industry. Construct Manag Econ 2005b;23(5):459–71.
Lingard H, Gilbert G, Graham P. Improving solid waste reduction and recy-
cling performance using goal setting and feedback. Construct Manag Econ
2001;19(8):809–17.
Lu KA. Construction waste actuality and integrated utilization in China. Construct
Technol 1999;28(5):44–5 (in Chinese).
Lu WS, Shen LY, Yam MCH. Critical success factors for competitiveness of contrac-
tors: China study. J Construct Eng Manage 2008;134(12):972–82.
McDonald B, Smithers M. Implementing a waste management plan during the con-
struction phase of project: a case study. Construct Manag Econ 1998;16(1):71–8.
McGrath C, Anderson M. Waste minimizing on a construction site. Building Research
Establishment Digest no. 447; 2000.
Moser CA, Kalton G. Survey methods in social investigation. London: Heinemann
Educational; 1971.
NBS (National Bureau of Statistics of China). Shanghai statistical yearbook 2007.
Beijing: Beijing Statistics Press; 2007 (in Chinese).
Peng CL, Scorpio DE, Kitbert CJ. Strategies for successful construction and demolition
waste recycling operations. Construct Manag Econ 1997;15(1):49–58.
Poon CS. Reducing construction waste. Waste Manag 2007;27(12):1715–6.
Poon CS, Yu ATW, Ng LH. On-site sorting of construction and demolition waste in
Hong Kong. Resources. Conserv Recyc 2001;32(2):157–72.
Rockart JF. Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard Business Review;
1979. March–April:81–93.
Saunders J, Wynn P. Attitudes towards waste minimization amongst labour only
sub-contractors. Structural Survey 2005;22(3):148–55.
Shen LY, Tam VWY, Tam CM, Drew D. Mapping approach for examining waste man-
agement on construction sites. J Construct Eng Manag 2004;130(4):472–81.
Shen LY, Yao H, Alan G. Improving environmental performance by means of empow-
erment of contractors. Manag Environ Quality Int J 2006;17(3):242–57.
Shen QP, Liu GW. Critical success factors for value management in construction. J
Construct Eng Manag 2003;129(5):485–91.
Tam VWY. Economic comparison of concrete recycling: a case study approach.
Resour Conserv Recyc 2008a;52(5):821–8.
Tam VWY. On the effectiveness in implementing a waste-management-plan method
in construction. Waste Manag 2008b;28(6):1072–80.
Tam VWY, Tam CM. Evaluation of existing waste recycling methods: a Hong Kong
study. Build Environ 2006;41(12):1649–60.
Teo MMM, Loosemore M. A theory of waste behavior in the construction industry.
Construct Manag Econ 2001;19(7):741–51.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Waste Wise Update: Building For the
Future; 2002. http://www.epa.gov/wastewise/pubs/wwupda16.pdf.
Wang JY, Kang XP, Tam VWY. An investigation of construction wastes: an empirical
study in Shenzhen, Journal of Engineering. Design Technol 2008;6(3):227–36.
Wang JY, Yuan HP. Integrated analysis of the current situation of construction indus-
try in Chinese eight major provinces and cities. Construct Economy 2006;9:5–8
(in Chinese).
Yeo KT. Forging new project value chains—a paradigm shift. J Manag Eng
1991;7(2):203–11.