Study of Muncipal Solid Waste Management Scenario of Kadapa City
Solid Waste Management Final Essay FINAL(1).pdf
1.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
SAURABHA IYER (0320569)
MUHAMMAD MUBARAK (0319984)
MELISSA ANNE MEI HONG LI (0320729)
5TH
JUNE 2015
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SUSTAINABLE DESIGN (BLD 60203)
PROJECT 1
TUTOR: MRS. TAMIL SALVI MARI
3. 2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Composition of municipal solid waste in South East Asian nations ……………….4
Table 2. Composition of municipal solid waste (percentage of wet weight) ………………..5
in Malaysia for 1975-2005.
Table 3. Generation of municipal solid waste in major urban areas in ……………………. 5
Peninsular Malaysia (1970-2006).
Table 4. Methods of municipal solid waste disposal in Malaysia …………………………...7
Table 5. Causes of waste in different project phases ………………………………………..8
Table 6. Generation of construction waste and predicted amounts in ……………………..8
Kuala Lumpur
Table 7. Summary of construction waste generation rates at sites A, B and C ………….. 9
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig 1. Dumpsite for municipal solid waste ……………………………………………………..4
Fig 2. Disposal of construction waste …………………………………………………………..7
Fig 3. Wood for formwork ……………………………………………………………………...10
Fig 4. Broken bricks that have been discarded ……………………………………………....10
Fig 5. RCC reinforcement poorly stored ……………………………………………………...11
4. 3
1.0 Introduction
Solid Waste according to (Smith 2013, p. 393), “is generally made up of objects or particles that
accumulate on the site where they are produced as opposed to water and airborne wastes that
are carried away from the site of production.” (Smith, 2013) further states that solid waste is
divided into the sector of economy responsible for producing it. Municipal, agricultural, mining
and construction are some such sectors. It includes items that people or companies no longer
have any use for, which they either intend to get rid of or have already discarded (Nguyen Ngoc
& Schnitzer, 2009).
Solid waste has become a fairly serious environmental problem among South East Asian
Nations (ASEANs) in particular the urban areas. There has been a rapid rate of urban growth
since the late 1980’s. Increase in population, economic development, urbanization and
industrialization have all resulted in the increase of solid waste generation (Nguyen Ngoc &
Schnitzer, 2009).
Some governments have already formulated policies that help protect the environment but in
reality only national capital cities have begun implementing them. Many cities still find it difficult
to manage produced waste due to shortcomings in financial support, technical capability,
adequate knowledge and public participation. The result is major environmental damage due to
improper solid waste disposal techniques. In rural areas, the situation is far more concerning as
open dumping is still one of the most practiced methods of solid waste disposal (Nguyen Ngoc
& Schnitzer, 2009). Not only is this method of disposal harmful to the environment, obtaining
land for such disposal sites also comes at a very high cost. Moreover, the public are unwilling to
accept landfill sites near to their location due to the many inconveniences caused such as
reduction in values of housing etc.
1.1 Objectives
This essay aims to focus on two types of solid waste: Municipal and Construction waste
generated in some South East Asian Nations in particular Malaysia. While addressing these two
types of solid waste, their methods of disposal and the impact made on the environment too will
be discussed. Furthermore, the essay also provides sustainable solutions for the management
of solid waste.
5. 4
2.0 Municipal Solid Waste
Fig.1: Dumpsite for municipal solid waste
Source: (Khor, 2014)
(Smith, 2013) defines Municipal Solid Waste as materials that have no further use that are
generated from residences, commercial establishments and different institutions such as shops,
hotels, schools etc. According to (Nguyen Ngoc & Schnitzer, 2009), municipal solid waste does
not include waste generated by mining, construction or demolition processes. Food waste,
paper, plastic, metal and glass are some types of municipal solid waste. Table 1 below, shows
the different types/compositions of municipal solid waste generated in South East Asian
Nations. As indicated, high amounts of organic waste is produced by these nations and their
respective cities in particular the more urbanized cities. Table 2 highlights the composition of
waste generated in Malaysia for the years 1975-2005.
Country Waste Composition (%)
Organic
waste
Paper
Cardboard
Plastic Glass Metal Others
Brunei 44 22 12 4 5 13
Cambodia 55 3 10 8 7 17
Indonesia 62 6 10 9 8 4
Laos 46 6 10 8 12 21
Malaysia 62 7 12 3 6 10
Myanmar 54 8 16 7 8 7
Philippines 41 19 14 3 5 18
Singapore 44 28 12 4 5 7
Thailand 48 15 14 5 4 14
Vietnam 60 2 16 7 6 9
Table 1: Composition of municipal solid waste in South East Asian nations.
Source: (Nguyen Ngoc & Schnitzer 2009, p. 1984)
6. 5
Waste Composition
(% of weight)
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Organic 63.7 54.4 48.3 48.4 45.7 43.2 44.8
Paper 7.0 8.0 23.6 8.9 9.0 23.7 16.0
Plastic 2.5 0.4 9.4 3.0 3.9 11.2 15.0
Glass 2.5 0.4 4.0 3.0 3.9 3.2 3.0
Metal 6.4 2.2 5.9 4.6 5.1 4.2 3.3
Others 0.9 0.3 8.8 32.1 4.3 12.3 8.4
Table 2: Composition of municipal solid waste (percentage of wet weight) in Malaysia for 1975-
2005.
Source: (Mohd. Dinie & Mashitah 2013, p. 96)
Malaysia’s urban population constitutes about 65% of its total population. And like many other
countries its urban population generates a great amount of municipal solid waste (Jalil, 2010).
This increase in municipal solid waste generation is due to the rapid urbanization, increase in
income and in turn, increase in consumption rates. Table 3 shows the amount of waste
generated in some urban areas of Malaysia from the years 1970-2006. What is interesting to
note is, that there is a 90% increase in the generation of residential and supermarket waste
every decade in the country’s major urban cities (Jalil, 2010). With the increase in amounts of
solid waste generated around South East Asia including Malaysia, concerning questions
regarding where all this municipal solid waste is sent to and the impact it has on the
environment are brought to mind.
Urban Centre Solid Waste Generated (tons/day)
1970 1980 1990 2002 2006
Kuala Lumpur 98.9 310.5 586.8 2754.0 3100.0
Johor Bharu (Johor) 41.1 99.6 174.8 215.0 242.0
Ipoh (Perak) 22.5 82.7 162.2 208.0 234.0
Georgetown (P. Pinang) 53.4 83.0 137.2 221.0 249.0
Klang (Selangor) 18.0 65.0 122.8 478.0 538.0
Kuala Terengganu (Terengganu) 8.7 61.8 121.0 137.0 154.0
Kota Bharu (Kelantan) 9.1 56.5 102.9 129.5 146.0
Kuantan (Pahang) 7.1 45.2 85.3 174.0 196.0
Seremban (N. Sembilan) 13.4 45.1 85.2 165.0 186.0
Melaka 14.4 29.1 46.8 562.0 632.0
Table 3: Generation of municipal solid waste in major urban areas in Peninsular Malaysia
(1970-2006).
Source: (Jalil 2010, p. 101)
2.1 Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste
Due to the large amounts of municipal solid waste being produced in South East Asian
countries, the open landfill method is the most common method of waste disposal. It has been
used for many years as it is one of the cheapest means of disposal and easiest in terms of the
large quantity of inorganic waste produced by these countries. On the contrary, many such open
landfill sites prove to be unsanitary and have no proper leachate management systems (Nguyen
Ngoc & Schnitzer, 2009). This results in leachate leaking through the waste and contamination
of ground water. Furthermore decomposing waste turns toxic and produces methane gas that is
harmful to the air (Smith, 2013). It is true however, that governments are starting to develop
7. 6
sanitary landfill sites in urban cities but the usage of these sites proves to be difficult for a
number of reasons. One being that they are located too far from generators as opposed to open
landfills, and the other being that there are no proper ways to transport the waste to such far off
locations and as a result, additional cost for transportation is incurred. The result is that waste
gets dumped into public areas such as rivers and roadways. This is also where much damage
to the environment is caused (Nguyen Ngoc & Schnitzer, 2009).
Another method of disposal common to these countries is incineration. (Smith, 2013) defines
incineration as “the process of burning refuse in a controlled manner.” Singapore makes use of
incineration effectively. Malaysia too has a municipal waste incinerator and is planning for
another in Kuala Lumpur (Nguyen Ngoc & Schnitzer, 2009). Despite this, there is much concern
over the use of incineration as a disposal technique. (Nguyen Ngoc & Schnitzer, 2009) further
elaborates that there are toxic compounds such as POPs-dioxins, furan, PCBs and hexane that
are emitted during the process of incineration.
Composting is a technique that requires less technology to be carried out. According to (Nguyen
Ngoc & Schnitzer, 2009), it is not very common among South East Asian countries because of
the high cost required for operation and maintenance. However, governments like Malaysia are
still in favour of this particular method of disposal.
Recycling is another eco-friendly method used by high income countries like Singapore. About
44.4% of Singapore’s municipal solid waste is recycled. For middle income nations the
percentage is about 12% and for low income nations, 8-11% (Nguyen Ngoc & Schnitzer, 2009).
The process of recycling involves removal of valuable materials from waste by ‘waste-pickers.’
These valuable materials are then sold to mills where they are recycled into new products.
Recycling of materials is always improving and is predicted to grow so that it can be of
beneficial economic impact on the nations that make use of it (Nguyen Ngoc & Schnitzer, 2009).
2.11 Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste in Malaysia
In Malaysia, segregation of waste is not practiced in households. Instead, one bag is used for all
types of solid waste. Once waste is collected from homes, offices or other industries, the public
are unaware of how it is being disposed. Waste is transported in collection vehicles to transfer
stations and loaded into compacting containers for the distant journey to landfills (Solid Waste
Management-Issues and Challenges in Asia, 2007).This is where the major problem lies, for
Malaysia is facing serious landfill problems. There are concerns regarding shortage and over-
usage of landfills, poor management etc.
During recent times, Malaysia has been committed to minimizing waste and has begun
implementing methods of organized management and disposal. Recycling has been given
priority but very little is being done to reuse and reduce waste generated. (Solid Waste
Management-Issues and Challenges in Asia, 2007) further elaborates that government
programs regarding recycling were initiated in the 1900’s with the first official recycling
campaign being launched in October 1991 by the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
The government re-launched the national recycling campaign in December 2000 with the
second phase being implemented in November two years later. Each time the participation of
local authorities increased. “The target was to reduce waste generation to a minimum rate of
22% by the year 2020” (Solid Waste Management-Issues and Challenges in Asia 2007, p.133).
Table 4 shows the methods of municipal solid waste treatment since 2002 in Malaysia and a
proposed target of waste disposed by the year 2020. What is very promising to note is the use
of recycling as a disposal method, for the impacts caused to the environment are minimal in
comparison to methods like incineration which can be of risk.
8. 7
Treatment Waste Disposed (%)
2002 2006 Target 2020
Recycling 5.0 5.5 22.0
Composting 0.0 1.0 8.0
Incineration 0.0 0.0 16.8
Inert landfill 0.0 3.2 9.1
Sanitary landfill 5.0 30.9 44.1
Other disposal methods 90.0 59.4 0.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table 4: Methods of municipal solid waste disposal in Malaysia
Source: (Jalil 2010, p. 101)
Therefore, after the many campaigns carried out by the government, non-governmental
organizations and many other institutions, Malaysians have begun to understand the importance
of waste management and with regard to recycling. However, in order to move forward at a
better pace, the number of recycling industries must also increase.
3.0 Construction Waste
Fig.2: Disposal of construction waste
Source: (Khor, 2014)
“Construction waste are in the forms of building debris, rubble, earth, concrete, steel, timber and
mixed site clearance materials, arising from various construction activities including land
excavation or formation, civil and building construction, site clearance, demolition activity,
roadwork and building renovation.” (Shan 2011, p. 25)
According to (Shafii, 2007), the composition of construction waste basically includes concrete,
metal, gypsum wallboard, asphalt, roofing material and wood. About 10% of materials delivered
to a construction site go unused. (Shan, 2011) further elaborates stating that construction and
demolition waste is made of about 40-50% materials like concrete, brick, and blocks, 20-30%
wood related materials like pallets, forming and framing lumber, 20-30% miscellaneous wastes
like plaster, glass, tar based products and insulation materials. (Shafii, 2007) continues stating
that South East Asian countries have their own definition of construction waste in terms of
components of construction waste in their respective construction industries.
Construction and demolition activities generate large quantities of solid waste. This mainly
occurs in areas where urbanization is on the rise (Shan, 2011). This type of waste is generated
9. 8
right throughout the entire construction process from site clearing to the end of the building’s
roof construction process. (Shafii, 2007) states that the construction industry makes a significant
negative impact on the environment. Table 5 lists some of the phases in projects where
construction waste is likely generated.
Project Phase Cause of waste
Design Plan errors
Detail errors
Design changes
Procurement Shipping error
Ordering error
Materials handling Improper storage
Deterioration
Improper handling on and off site
Construction/Renovation Human error
Tradesperson
Other labour
Equipment error
Demolition Tipping
Table 5: Causes of waste in different project phases
Source: (Shan 2011, p. 36)
In Malaysia too, due to the increase in urbanization and hence commercial building and housing
development, a large quantity of construction waste is generated. This has not only affected the
country’s natural environment but also the health of the public. In the city of Kuala Lumpur,
construction waste takes up about 4% of the total amount of solid waste produced (Mohd.
Osman, Mohd. Nasir, & Abdul Mujeebu, n.d.)Table 6 shows the amount of construction waste
generated per day from the year 2009 to the amounts predicted to be produced in the year
2023. It can be observed that since there is an increment in the generation of construction
waste, its potential effect on the environment would also be magnified.
Year Amount of Construction Waste Generated
(tons/day)
2009 161.19
2011 181.39
2013 204.12
2015 299.69
2017 258.86
2019 290.86
2021 327.30
2023 368.31
Table 6: Generation of construction waste and predicted amounts in Kuala Lumpur
Source: (Mohd. Osman et al. n.d., p. 4)
Case Study
The information below shows data collected via a case study to find out the composition,
characteristics and amount of waste generated in a residential construction project in Miri City,
Sarawak. Shown below is a summary of the construction waste generated at the 3 sites.
“The three main pilot-study sites selected are located at Desa Senadin Housing Estate, Promin
Jaya Development and Piasau Residential Development. They are labelled as Sites A, B and C,
10. 9
respectively. Generation of construction waste covers almost every construction stage.
Common causes of construction waste generation observed on the studied sites are off cuts
from cutting materials to desired length, improper handling, stacking and storage, end of life
cycles, spillage and leftover materials.” (Lau, Whyte & Law 2008, p. 262)
Site A B C
Waste type Rate (t/ha)
Wood 97.99 55.28 80.71
Concrete 18.37 17.91 85.71
Brick 19.28 7.87 42.50
Metal 4.29 2.12 3.57
Others 1.03 3.16 17.22
Total 140.95 86.34 229.72
Table 7: Summary of construction waste generation rates at sites A, B and C
Source: (Lau, Whyte & Law 2008, p. 265)
3.1 Disposal of Construction Waste.
In most South East Asian countries in particular urban cities, the 3R principles have been
implemented in the management of construction waste. There is awareness raised by
respective governments for their countries. These 3R practices focus on technology,
management and the involvement of key organizations. However, these South East Asian
nations are still very much in the process of development in terms of technology. On the aspect
of Management, Singapore has shown good demonstration of its 3R practices. Thailand,
Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam are still in the process of forming guidelines in terms of
management (Shafii, 2007).
3.11 Disposal of Construction Waste in Malaysia.
Malaysia’s problem with illegal dumping of construction waste is quite evident. (Nagapan,
Rahman & Asmi, n.d.) indicates that according to a study conducted in the Johor district, out of
46 illegal dumping sites, 42% consists of construction waste. Furthermore, there was also an
instance where around 30 tons of construction waste was illegally dumped into a mangrove
swamp in Malacca. (Nagapan et al., n.d.) also stresses that there is great damage caused to the
environment and human health due to these methods of dumping. Again, such illegal cases are
prevalent due to the distance of the landfill site from the project location. Transportation costs
are avoided and profits maximized due to such illegal actions.
Case Studies
A survey was conducted to focus on the amounts of construction waste generated at three sites
in the Batu Pahat District. A copy of this case study can be found in Appendix A. Two of these
sites were residential projects while the other was an administration block consisting of two
swimming pools. After observing and collecting data for a few months the types and amounts of
construction waste generated were obtained. Of all the waste materials generated, the amount
of timber wasted was the highest - 46%, 50% and 80% for sites A, B and C respectively. The
second highest was bricks followed by packaging material.
The project managers at these sites regarded poor handling and management of materials as
the one of main causes for such amounts of waste to be produced. Furthermore they also said
that ordering of construction materials is important in terms of expenditure and the amounts that
end up not being used. Therefore, ordering of the correct quantity of materials is vital. Workers
11. 10
also need to be aware of how they handle, use these materials and store them. In terms of
waste management strategy, attention was paid to on-site sorting, recycling and reusing of only
certain construction materials. However, sites A and B preferred to burn the rest of their waste
material which makes a negative impact on the environment. Site C made use of another
temporary dumpsite to dispose of its unwanted waste. The most concerning factor amongst all
was that site C also made use of an illegal dumping site to dispose its soil waste which again
reveals the problems Malaysia faces with illegal dumping. The study concluded that these
methods used are not sustainable and cause negative impacts on the environment.
In addition to the case study given in Appendix A, a construction site was also visited and an
interview was conducted with the contractor in order to get a better understanding of how
construction waste is handled. The site, Desa Villa Hills consists of 165 units all of which are at
different levels of construction. Waste components found on site were earth excavates,
granules, cement, timber, iron and bricks. Again, timber was the main component among the
waste materials produced. According to the interview as given in Appendix B, timber is used in
formwork and to make temporary structures and in doing so can be later dismantled and reused
again. Earth extracts too are saved up and reused for other purposes or projects like in the
making of retaining walls etc. The figures shown below show some of the construction waste
generated at the site. Fig 3 shows the timber that is used as formwork. According to the
contactor, the timber used cannot be made use of more than three times. Fig 4 depicts how
broken bricks have been wasted. Due to the lack of proper supervision and handling of such
materials an unwanted amount of waste is generated. Fig 5 also shows the improper storage
methods of materials. Here, metal reinforcement needed for concrete beams and columns has
turned rusty due to its exposure to rain.
Fig 3: Wood for formwork Fig 4: Broken bricks that have been discarded
Fig 5: RCC reinforcement poorly stored
12. 11
Therefore, from this site visit it can be observed that Malaysia does not give the necessary
priority to correct means of disposal of construction waste. It is an area that needs serious
consideration as there is a major impact caused on the environment.
4.0 Sustainable Solutions - The Waste Management Hierarchy
Sustainable construction focuses on 3 aspects: environmental, economic and social. One such
sustainable method is Prevention, the highest level in the sustainable waste management
hierarchy. In construction, architects/designers must be aware of technical information and
processes of construction during the design stage so that changes in design will not occur.
Malaysia is currently making use of the prefabrication technique in order to try and prevent
wastage. This process must be carefully planned or else the risk of more waste being generated
rises. Minimization is also important as reducing factors of waste generation can be helpful and
also help minimize damage caused to the environment. Reusing of waste requires the correct
technology to implement, which can be quite costly as well. Malaysia rarely practices reusing.
Recycling however, is used by Malaysia, though not fully developed. Many recycling campaigns
are underway and spreading awareness within the country. Recovery is the removal of certain
materials from the waste so that they can be kept in their original form and reused. This method
reduces the amount of waste being sent into landfills and also reduces the impact made on the
environment. Lastly is Disposal, the lowest method to reaching sustainability. This is because
the role of sustainability is to reduce the quantity of waste discharged to the environment.
Disposal is currently the most common method of waste management in Malaysia which proves
that the country like many other South East Asian Nations is still far behind the journey towards
sustainability (Nagapan, et al., 2012).
5.0 Conclusion
As discussed previously, the effect of solid waste on the environment is a deeply concerning
matter. The rates at which the amount of municipal solid waste and construction waste being
generated are alarming and do not show any signs of slowing down in the immediate future.
Many South East Asian nations have begun addressing the issues of solid waste management
and are well on their way into implementation. However it is only the urbanized cities of these
nations that have the resources and ways to implement proper waste management systems.
For the rest, it must all begin with their respective authorities creating public awareness and
getting the public to actively participate in such practices.
Unlike its ever improving urbanization, the level of solid waste management in Malaysia in
particular is still behind. There is much room for improvement. The country’s solid waste
disposal methods are still poor and this in turn is keeping it from moving forward with green
practices such as the 3R system.
“Solid waste management in Malaysia has a long way to go and this does not mean that we
have to switch to capital-intensive and sophisticated systems because they are not necessarily
more effective and efficient. At the end of the day, we may have to go back to the basics.”
(Hassan, Chong, Rahman, Salleh, Zakaria & Awang, 2001)
13. 12
References
Hassan, M., Chong, T., Rahman, M., Salleh, M., Zakaria, Z., & Awang, M. (2001). Solid Waste
Management in South East Asian Counstries with Special Attention to Malaysia. Italy:
CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre.
Jalil, D. M. (2010). Sustainable Development in Malaysia: A Case Study on Household Waste
Management. Journal of Sustainable Development, 3, 91-102.
Khor, S. (2014, November 17). Why Is It Necessary to Implement A Compulsory Waste
Separation System For Malaysians. Retrieved from Says.com: http://says.com/my
Lau, H., Whyte, A., & Law, P. (2008). Composition and Characteristics of Construction Waste
Generated by Residential Housing Project. 261-268.
Mohd Dinie, M. S., & Mashitah, M. D. (2013). Municipal Solid Waste Management in Malaysia:
Current Practices, Challenges and Prospect. Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering),
95-101.
Mohd. Osman, S., Mohd. Nasir, H., & Abdul Mujeebu, M. (n.d.). Development of Municipal Solid
Waste Generation and Recycable Components Rate of Kuala Lumpur: Perspective
Study.
Nagapan, S., Rahman, I. A., Asmi, A., & Nur Fadhilah, A. (2013). Study of Site's Construction
Waste in Batu Pahat, Johor. Procedia Engineering, 99-103.
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2013.02.015
Nagapan, S., Rahman, I. A., Asmi, A., Memon, A. H., & Latif, I. (2012). Issues on Construction
Waste: The Need for Sustainable Waste Management. Colloquim on Humanities,
Science and Engineering Research, 329-334.
Ngoc, U. N., & Schnitzer, H. (2009). Sustainable solutions for solid waste management in
Southeast Asian countries. Waste Management, 1982-1995.
Sasitharan Nagapan, I. A. (n.d.). Construction Waste Management: Malaysian Perspective. 1-
11.
Shafii, A. P. (2007). Status of Sustainable Building in South-East Asia. Melbourne.
Shan, S. Y. (2011). Waste Recycling in the Construction Industry.
Smith, E. (2013). Environmental Science: A Study of Interrelationships (13th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
(2007). Solid Waste Management: Issues and Challenges in Asia. Mumbai: Asian Productivity
Organization.
14. 13
Appendix A
Three sites of construction projects in Batu Pahat District had been selected for this study. Two
sites were residential housing and the other, a building that contained 2 swimming pools. All the
sites were under construction phase during the survey. For confidential purposes, the entire
sites are labeled as Site A, Site B and Site C.
Site A
Site A is a construction project for residential housing as
in Figure 1. This development was confined in an area
about 2 acres and had a contract period of 17 months.
About 20 units of semi D houses, 7 units of low cost
houses and 2 units of bungalow houses were to be built
in site A. This development project was constructed by
the contractor Class B which was already established for
about 12 years. The project development had started on
2011 and was expected to finish in 2013.The project
manager of this project had 11 years of construction
experience.
Site B
Site B is a construction project for residential house as in
Figure 2. This development was confined to 4 acres and
had a contract period of 17 months. This development
project was constructed by the contractor Class B. This
project development had started on 2011 and was
expected to finish in 2013. Project site B comprised of
49 units of terrace houses and 10 units of double storey
houses. The project manager for this site was the same
person in charge at site A.
Site C
Site C is a building project which was constructed by
contractor Class A. The size of the development is about
10,000 acre which comprises of 2 swimming pools and
one administration block. The contract duration was 18
months which started from 2009 and was to be
completed in 2010. However, until now the project is still
incomplete due to financial problems. Two people in-
charge at this site are the project manager and site
supervisor. The project manager had 10 years
experience in construction field.
15. 14
After studying the site for months they found the different types of waste, how much do they
amount to and their reasons.
There are several causes of waste generation identified and mentioned by the project managers
of the three sites. The causes are as follows:
1. Wrong material storage
2. Poor materials handling
3. Poor quality of materials
4. Ordering errors
5. Mistakes in quantity surveys
6. Poor attitudes of workers
7. Poor supervision
8. Lack of waste management plans
Waste Management Strategy (WMP)
All the sites were identified as implementing partial WMP in their construction waste
management strategy. They applied on-site sorting and also recycled and reused certain
construction materials such as timber and metal. Despite of that, site A and B tend burn all
waste material that cannot be reused or recycled and whereas site C dumped these unwanted
waste at a temporary dumpsite which is located near to it. It was also observed that at site C,
they dumped soil waste illegally in an area nearby. Thus, it can be summarized that the
methods adopted by the three sites are not sustainable which causes negative impact to the
environment. “
Source: (Nagapan et al., 2013, pp.100-103)
16. 15
Appendix B
Our interview with the contractor Mr. Chin Laww who has 8 years of experience in construction:
Q- What constitutes the largest non-renewable construction waste?
A- Timber, since it is used to make the columns beams and walls can only be used for certain
amount of time.
Q- How do you use the earth extracts?
A- The excessive mud, stone, earth extraction etc. are stored at different site for other project
and used to make retaining walls at sloppy site. This earth is also used for garden beautification
at last stage of construction.
Q- Why do think lot construction waste is produced?
A- Sometimes unskilled labor leads to wrong construction and hence has to be demolished.
Demolish of preexisting buildings, damage to the pipelines during construction needs
replacements, faults in planning.
Q- What have you done to reduce this waste?
A- We try to use the wood at places for temporary structures. Temporary structures like toilets,
site office, contractor’s office, engineer office etc. are usually temporary and can be dismantled.
We try to hire skilled labor for skilled requiring jobs to reduce unwanted demolitions.
(Chin Laww, personal communication, April 24, 2015)
