MARATTO

article · Ain Shams Engineering Journal

An environmental management plan for construction waste management

202338 citationsOpen accessBritish University in Egypt

In plain language

Construction waste management requires structured frameworks across the entire lifecycle of a building project. A proposed environmental management plan based on life cycle thinking integrates three distinct components: waste minimisation through source control strategies, tracking of incoming building materials and outgoing waste, and quantitative input-output assessment of management strategies. This approach outlines specific actions, methods, and procedures across different project phases. The plan was evaluated using two sets of case studies, contrasting waste management practices in green-certified projects against non-certified projects. Results indicate that integrating environmental management with practical waste handling methods provides a structured pathway to improve operational practices. Ultimately, this framework supports construction initiatives in meeting international environmental benchmarks and satisfying requirements for sustainable building rating systems.

Key takeaways

  • A life cycle thinking environmental management plan organises construction waste management into source control, material tracking, and quantitative evaluation.
  • The framework identifies procedures and specific actions across all phases of the building construction process.
  • Application across case studies highlights operational differences between green-certified and non-certified construction projects.
  • The approach assists project teams in complying with international standards and formal green building rating systems.

Why it matters

Construction generates substantial physical waste, straining disposal infrastructure and increasing environmental impacts. Providing a systematic framework to track materials from input to disposal helps builders cut unnecessary waste at the source. This enables more sustainable building practices and makes it easier for construction projects to achieve recognised green certifications and adhere to international environmental standards.

Commercialisation angle

This management framework targets construction firms, project managers, and sustainability auditors seeking compliance with international environmental standards and green building rating schemes. Having been tested on green-certified and non-certified case studies, the framework sits at an applied stage of development. Practical uptake would involve embedding its tracking and assessment procedures into standard site operating workflows or project management software.

AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.

Abstract

This study presents a proposed environmental management plan (EMP) for construction waste management (CWM). This life cycle thinking (LCT)- based EMP for CWM is set to constitute three sections. The former investigates means of waste minimization via source control strategies. The second section discusses CWM by monitoring and tracking the path of input building materials and output construction waste. The final section presents an input–output quantitative assessment of the CWM strategies undertaken. The proposed LCT-based EMP defines actions and activities for different phases and pinpoints the methods and procedures across the entire building process. Finally, it is applied to two groups of case studies showing the difference between CWM practices for green-certified and non-certified projects. The outcome shows how the proposed plan can present a novel approach integrating environmental management and best practices for CWM. This shall facilitate complying with international standards and building rating systems for achieving environmental stewardship.

Research topics

  • Recycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
  • Sustainable Building Design and Assessment
  • Municipal Solid Waste Management

Sustainable Development Goals

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.1016/j.asej.2023.102244

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.