CHAPTER

Evaluate the Effective Construction Waste Management System for Other

Countries

In recent years, reuse and recycling of waste have been promoted in order to
reduce waste and protect the environment. The economic and environmental
benefits to be gained from waste minimization and recycling are enormous (Guthrie
et al., 1998), since it will benefit both the environment and the construction firms in
terms of cost reduction. Today, in most European countries, it is economically
feasible to recycle up to 8090% of the total amount of CW and most demolition and
recycling technologies are generally easy to implement and control (Lauritzen,
1998). The economic benefits of waste minimization and recycling include the
possibilities of selling specific waste materials and the removal from site of other
wastes at no charge or reduced cost, with a subsequent reduction in materials going
to landfill at a higher cost (Snook et al., 1995). Therefore, it can increase
contractors competitiveness through lower production costs and a better public
image. However, very few contractors have spent efforts in considering the
environment and developing the concept of recycling building materials (Lam,
1997). Because contractors rank timing as their top priority, their effort is always
focused on completing the project in the shortest time, rather than the environment
(Poon, 2001).Managing building material waste can in fact achieve higher
construction productivity, save in time and improvement in safety (Skoyles and
Skoyles, 1987) while disposal of extra waste takes extra time and resources that
may slow down the progress of construction. It has been stated by Bernold et al.
(2006) that the construction industry would greatly benefit by sorting waste
materials on site. This method for organization provides the builder an opportunity
to reassess waste materials for their usefulness.
Weisleder and Nasseri (2007) were studied themes of construction and demolition
(C & D) waste in Germany, Sweden, Denmark and the UK as part of the COWAM
project. Figure 4 gives the data they stated.

Landfilled

Incinerated

Recycled

Figure 1 C & D waste management ratio in different countries (Weisleder and Nasseri, 2007)

While it is clear that higher land filling costs produce incentives for the recycling of
C & D wastes, regulation plays at least as important a role (Weisleder and Nasseri,
2007).
The European countries are more disciplinary in C & D waste handling due to the
rules and regulations. While in Sri Lankan studies has shown different results while
comparing with above disciplines. It discussed in CHAPTER 2.6.
Varying estimates of the job creation potential inherent in recycling exist. Despite
these varying estimates, it is clear that of all waste management options, bulk
disposal in landfills and incineration sustain the fewest jobs. For example, according
to Macdonald (1998) citing the World watch Institute report for every 150,000 tons
of waste, recycling creates nine jobs, incinerating creates two, and land filling just
one. However, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (2002),
incinerating 10,000 tons of waste creates one job, land filling 10,000 tons of waste
creates six jobs and recycling 10,000 tons of waste creates 36 jobs.