WASTE MANAGEMENT IN CONSTRUCTION ...

International Conference on Environmental Research and Technology (ICERT 2015)

WASTE MANAGEMENT IN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY: A REVIEW ON THE ISSUES AND CHALLENGES 1

Mohd Reza Esa, 1Dr Anthony Halog and 1Farrah Zuhaira Ismail

1

School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia *Corresponding author email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT Under the 10th Malaysia Plan (10MP), RM63 billion has been allocated to improve the infrastructure in Malaysia and 78,000 affordable houses have been targeted to be built by 2015 to cater the housing needs of Malaysian people. Due to rapid economic development, the waste generation has increased and thus becomes a burden to landfills, which is the common way of waste disposal in Malaysia. This paper is aimed at critically reviewing the issues and challenges that are faced by the construction actors when developing a comprehensive construction waste management (CWM). The issues surrounding the generation of construction wastes need to be identified in order to create awareness among the construction actors about the importance of construction waste management and the challenges in developing construction waste management. Carefully selected papers are critically reviewed to identify the issues and challenges that are relevant to the waste management in the construction industry. In our review, a lot of issues have been identified whereby the amount of waste generated is the pressing issue due to the limited landfills in Malaysia. Furthermore, we also found that the main challenge in developing a construction waste management is the managing organizations involved (e.g. contractors), which are not giving a high priority to proper waste management. Thus, this paper will provide a good basis in developing a construction waste management and strategy which will significantly help the minimization of environment impacts and indirectly enhance the socio-economic benefits within Malaysia. Keywords: Guideline, issues and challenges, systematic review, waste management. INTRODUCTION The construction industry plays a vital role in the economic growth of developing countries like Malaysia. In 2013, construction industry contributes 10.9% of the country’s Gross Domestic Products (GDP) and provides employment to about 10% (1.2 million) of the total workforce in Malaysia [1]. The construction industry helps the government to translate the socio-economic development plan for constructing building and infrastructure projects (including housing, schools, highways, airports, ports etc.); which significantly improve the quality of life in the country. However, construction industry is also reported as one of the pollution generators that destroy the environment which will lead to undesirable impacts towards economy and social aspects of the country [2]. This is partly due to the way the construction industry continues to encourage the linear-based practices of “take-make-consume-dispose”; this means that since the resources are abundant and widely available, it is cheaper to dispose. Nowadays, the construction industry is now getting serious in addressing the environmental impacts of its operations [3], due to rising problems of resource depletion, global warming, high pollution level, and an increased legislation. In line with achieving a sustainable future, Malaysia has come up with a national agenda of environmental protection. It started when the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment [4] introduced the “Cleaner Production Blueprint for Malaysia” with the objective of implementing the best practices towards environmental management. The effort of protecting the environment was being further enhanced in the construction industry with the introduction of “Strategic Recommendation for Improving Environmental Practices in Construction Industry” [5]. Additionally, the element of sustainability has become a key component of the 10th Malaysia Plan (10MP) as announced by the Prime Minister in 2010 by including it in the “Strategic Thrust 5: Building an Environment that Enhances Quality of Life” [6]. Construction waste is not only a pressing issue in Malaysia, it is a worldwide concern including the developed countries like the UK, Singapore and Japan. A lot of studies have been done in focusing on the development of construction waste management. The most common strategies used in waste minimization studies are the 3R principles (reduce, reuse and recycle) [7]. The strategies are derived from the waste minimization hierarchy to ensure that waste should be managed effectively. Figure 1 shows that waste should be treated according to the suitability of the waste to be reduced, reused and recycled before finally disposing the waste into the landfill. Based on the hierarchy, it is important to manage the waste circularly, which means that the waste minimization should start at the planning stage (e.g. selection of materials) in the context of construction industry [8, 9]. Instead of disposing the waste into the landfills, an early planning of selecting the most suitable materials would help in promoting the recycling mechanism. The idea of “turning the waste to wealth” should be put as early as the planning stage of construction projects. Limited studies have been done to explore the whole life-cycle of the construction industry in managing wastes. For the past 10 years, there were studies conducted that reflect the construction waste situation in Malaysia, but limited to a certain aspect of construction waste. For instance, Begum et al. [10] studied on the potential of adopting reuse and recycle strategies in utilizing wastes in institutional building in Bangi, Malaysia. There were studies that focusing on the influencing factors of waste generation as the main contributors of waste generation in Malaysia is due to the dependency on labour100


intensive methods which produce a low level productivity and quality of construction works [11-14]. However, there is a lack of study on waste minimization throughout the construction cycle, starting from the planning, designing, procurement, construction and demolition stage in Malaysia. A more circular approach is required to ensure the waste should be controlled at the planning stage of the construction industry, rather than emphasizing end-of-pipe strategies where wastes are managed after they are generated. This study is a good basis towards developing a more circular approach of CWM in Malaysia. Low

Environmental Impact

Desirability

High

Figure 1: Waste Management Hierarchy (Source: [8, 9])

RESEARCH METHOD A systematic review is an essential feature in any research activity. It provides the foundation for enhancing the knowledge of the research area by summarizing the previous studies and looking for a gap in prior published studies [15, 16]. Creswell [17] argued that the main objective of carrying out a literature review is to expose the researcher to the previous studies and serve as a basis for future studies. Figure 2 illustrates the sequence that need to be followed in conducting a literature review adopted from Levy et al. [18]. Select

Know

Comprehend

Apply

Analyse

Synthesise

Evaluate

Figure 2: Flow of Literature Review Literatures were taken from the databases gathered from highly recognized publishers including ABI Inform Global (Proquest Direct), ScienceDirect (Elsevier), Emerald Insight, Scopus, Springer Link and Wiley Online Library (Wiley) in the areas of construction waste. A large amount of papers has been generated related to the area, in which a lot of papers were too technical and advance in terms of CWM. In order to narrow down the relevant papers reflecting the topic, a number of criteria has been developed as shown in Table 1.

Area

Period of Analysis Databases Keyword used

Targeted journals

Selective Methods

Total number of selected articles

Table 1: Summary of Research Method Relevant books, peer-reviewed papers, government documentation and reports published that are related with the area of CWM and frequently cited in the literature. Dissertation, unpublished publications and conference proceedings were excluded 2004 – 2014 (10 years) ABI Inform Global (Proquest Direct), ScienceDirect (Elsevier), Emerald Insight, Scopus, Springer Link and Wiley Online Library (Wiley) Construction waste management, construction and demolition waste, construction debris, issues in construction waste, challenges in construction waste, problems related to construction waste, barriers in construction waste. Journal of Waste Management, Waste Management & Research, Building Research & Information, Construction Innovation, Construction Engineering & Management, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Industrial Ecology, Cleaner Production, Environmental Management, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Environmental Policy and Planning, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Energy and Environmental Science The suitable papers are selected based on the title and abstract that included a discussion of the issues and challenges of CWM. The introduction of selected papers was read to initially identify the issues. Additionally, the conclusion section of selected papers also was reviewed in order to identify the challenges. 57

101


Issues and Challenges of Construction Waste Based on the chosen criteria, suitable papers were identified and used in this study. There were limited papers focused on the issues and challenges of CWM, though several studies were carried out in developed countries such as the US, the UK and Japan, which have been mainly focused on increasing recycling rate from waste generation. In this study, we have collected and summarized the issues that are being identified to develop an effective CWM. We have tabulated here the possible challenges in overcoming the issues in developing the CWM. Table 2 and 3 summarize the issues and challenges related to the CWM respectively. Table 2: Summary of Issues Related to Construction Waste Source [7, 10, 19-45]

Issues Amount of Waste

[2, 12, 19, 22, 30, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45-56]

Environmental Impact

[32, 39]

[7, 19, 30, 33, 49, 57-59]

Illegal Dumping

Management

Description The increasing amount of waste has led to a significant change of perception towards managing wastes. Disposing waste in the landfill is not a first option, thus a more sustainable waste minimization strategies need to be adopted. Due to rapid economic development especially in developing countries as well as the growing populations globally, these have led to a higher amount of waste and putting much pressure to already limited space at landfills. Environmental protection has become a worldwide issue as construction waste is now considered as one of the contributors to environmental degradation. In recent years, the construction industry has depleted natural resources and this is naturally followed by environmental degradation. The distance of site location to landfill; the limited landfill in the area; and the high fees levied by the local authorities to dispose the waste at landfill have influenced the construction actors to dispose the waste illegally. Implementing effective CWM is difficult without the support of top management. Currently, construction cost and time are the priorities to most top management whereby CWM has become a secondary factor.

Table 3: Summary of Challenges Related to Construction Waste Source [2, 7, 22, 43, 47, 49, 54, 60-67]

[22, 29, 30, 32, 33, 46, 49, 55, 57, 59, 68-71]

[10, 21, 28, 34, 36, 38, 41, 53, 72]

Challenges Regulations

Awareness and Mindset

Lack of Information

Description An improved regulation needs to be introduced in order to enhance the development of CWM. There is a need for intervention from the local authorities to ensuring that waste generation is handled properly. Furthermore, the role of government is imperative in implementing the CWM, for instance, the introduction of charging scheme in controlling waste going to the landfill. Modern method of construction is proven to be effective in reducing waste generation. The challenge is the complexity to create awareness and change the mindset of construction actors who are comfortable with the traditional linear, business-as-usual method. The availability of cheap foreign labour has thwarted the effort to apply a more modern method of construction in Malaysia. A lot of information is required to implement CWM including the source of waste, waste composition, type of waste and amount of waste. This information is essential to ensure the viability of the strategies to be implemented in waste minimization. However, the related information is very difficult to produce because it could be different depending on the type and size of the projects.

102


CONCLUSION Based on our initial systematic review, it shows that there is a need to develop a comprehensive CWM in Malaysia. The identified issues have provided the current situation of CWM in Malaysia. The amount of waste is increasing in Malaysia due to rapid infrastructure development especially the high-level demand for housing and infrastructure projects as well as increasing population in urban areas. Urbanization has influenced the waste generation and added pressure to the relevant bodies to ensure minimization of waste in protecting the environment. Furthermore, the construction industry if not properly managed would cause significant environmental impacts. For example, the construction materials will generate carbon dioxide and other gas emissions from construction materials that significantly pollute the environment. An issue of illegal dumping is common in Malaysia as shown in the study conducted by Mahayuddin et al. [73] and Nagapan et al. [74]. Increasing amount of waste and the limited availability of landfills have contributed to illegal the dumping of wastes, which is easy though irresponsible decision made by the construction actors. Finally, a skill development for better management is needed to implement CWM in Malaysia effectively. Many organizations are involved in the construction process and sometimes a lack of communication skill has led to a confusion to who should be responsible in managing wastes. In developing a more sustainable CWM in Malaysia, we have identified three (3) key challenges that need to be overcome; which are regulations, awareness and mindset, and lack of information. The governmental participation is vital in ensuring the implementation of CWM by making modification to the existing regulation. In the case of the construction industry in Malaysia, Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) should create training and courses in enhancing the awareness and knowledge about CWM among the construction actors involved. Nonetheless, information (e.g. source of waste, waste composition, type of waste and amount of waste) regarding construction waste is lacking in Malaysia, but based on our review, it is not necessary to have all those information as it is proven that construction industry has contributed to high level of waste generation, which should be managed responsibly and sustainably. In conclusion, CWM is vital for achieving a sustainable Malaysia’s future and this study provides an impetus to develop a more circular economy/systems approach of CWM. The concept of circular economy is an emerging green growth strategy that could be considered in managing construction waste. The notion of circular economy endeavours to ensure that the waste, that is being produced by the construction industry can be efficiently managed. Currently, there is no specific policy, framework or guideline that is focused on the way the construction waste is being managed in Malaysia. Therefore, Malaysia has to benchmark on what’s happening in other Asian countries like Hong Kong and Japan in line with the idea of sustainable construction. Rigorous and extensive efforts should be made to make sure that construction waste in Malaysia is managed efficiently by looking at the possibility of introducing the concept of circular economy, which could lead to a more sustainable and greener construction practices. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Education and Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) for providing financial support to pursue this PhD project.

REFERENCES 1.

Department of Statistics, Quarterly Construction Statistics 2014, Department of Statistics, Editor. 2014: Malaysia.

2.

Tam, C.M., V.W.Y. Tam, and S.X. Zeng, Environmental Performance Evaluation (EPE) for construction. Building Research & Information, 2010. 30(5): p. 349-361.

3.

Teo, M.M.M. and M. Loosemore, A theory of waste behaviour in the construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 2001. 19(7): p. 741-751.

4.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Cleaner Production Blueprint for Malaysia, Department of Environment, Editor. 2007.

5.

Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB), Strategic Recommendation for Improving Environmental Practices in Construction Industry. 2007, Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB), Malaysia: National Library Malaysia. p. 1-34.

6.

Ministry of Finance, The 2010 Budget Speech. 2012.

7.

Lu, W. and H. Yuan, A framework for understanding waste management studies in construction. Waste Manag, 2011. 31(6): p. 1252-60.

8.

Pheng, L.S. and S.K.L. Tan, The measurement of just in time wastage for a public housing project in Singapore. Building Research & Information, 1997. 25(2): p. 67-81.

9.

Wolsink, M., Contested environmental policy infrastructure: Socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2010. 30(5): p. 302-311. 103


10.

Begum, R.A., et al., A benefit–cost analysis on the economic feasibility of construction waste minimisation: The case of Malaysia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2006. 48(1): p. 86-98.

11.

Akhir, N.S.M., et al. Factors of Waste Generation throughout Construction Life Cycle. in Malaysian Technical Universities Conference on Engineering & Technology (MUCET). 2013. Kuantan, Pahang.

12.

Begum, R.A., et al., Implementation of waste management and minimisation in the construction industry of Malaysia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2007. 51(1): p. 190-202.

13.

Hassan, S.H., et al., Waste Management Issues in the Northern Region of Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012. 42: p. 175-181.

14.

Nagapan, S., et al., Identifying Causes of Construction Waste - Case of Central Region of Peninsula Malaysia. International Journal of Integrated Engineering, 2012. 4(2): p. 22-28.

15.

Petticrew, M., Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions. Bmj, 2001. 322(7278): p. 98-101.

16.

Webster, J. and R.T. Watson, Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Quaterly, 2002. 26(2): p. 13-23.

17.

Creswell, J.W., Research design: Qaulitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Third Edition ed. 2009: SAGE Publications, Inc.

18.

Levy, Y. and T.J. Ellis, A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science: International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 2006. 9(1): p. 181212.

19.

Begum, R.A., et al., Factors and values of willingness to pay for improved construction waste management--a perspective of Malaysian contractors. Waste Manag, 2007. 27(12): p. 1902-9.

20.

Cochran, K. and T.G. Townsend, Estimating construction and demolition debris generation using a materials flow analysis approach. Waste Manag, 2010. 30(11): p. 2247-54.

21.

de Guzman Baez, A., et al., Methodology for quantification of waste generated in Spanish railway construction works. Waste Manag, 2012. 32(5): p. 920-4.

22.

del Rio Merino, M., P. Izquierdo Gracia, and I.S. Weis Azevedo, Sustainable construction: construction and demolition waste reconsidered. Waste Manag Res, 2010. 28(2): p. 118-29.

23.

Environmental Protection & Heritage Council, Characterization of building-related construction and demolition debris in the United States, EPHC, Editor. 2009, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USA,: National Waste Overview, November. Franklin Associates.

24.

Environmental Protection Department, Environmental Report, EPD., Editor. 2006: Hong Kong SARG.

25.

Environmental Protection Department (EPD), Monitoring of Solid Waste in Hong Kong – Waste Statistics for 2005, E.o.H. Kong, Editor. 2006, Hong Kong.

26.

Environmental Protection Department (HKEPD), Monitoring of Solid Waste in Hong Kong – Waste Statistics for 2010, E.o.H. Kong, Editor. 2011, Hong Kong.

27.

Hashimoto, S., H. Tanikawa, and Y. Moriguchi, Framework for estimating potential wastes and secondary resources accumulated within an economy--a case study of construction minerals in Japan. Waste Manag, 2009. 29(11): p. 2859-66.

28.

Hiete, M., et al., Matching construction and demolition waste supply to recycling demand: a regional management chain model. Building Research & Information, 2011. 39(4): p. 333-351.

29.

Jaillon, L., C.S. Poon, and Y.H. Chiang, Quantifying the waste reduction potential of using prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong. Waste Manag, 2009. 29(1): p. 309-20.

30.

Jones, J., et al., Strategies to enhance waste minimization and energy conservation within organizations: a case study from the UK construction sector. Waste Manag Res, 2012. 30(9): p. 981-90.

31.

Katz, A. and H. Baum, A novel methodology to estimate the evolution of construction waste in construction sites. Waste Manag, 2011. 31(2): p. 353-8. 104


32.

Kofoworola, O.F. and S.H. Gheewala, Estimation of construction waste generation and management in Thailand. Waste Manag, 2009. 29(2): p. 731-8.

33.

Lachimpadi, S.K., et al., Construction waste minimisation comparing conventional and precast construction (Mixed System and IBS) methods in high-rise buildings: A Malaysia case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2012. 68: p. 96-103.

34.

Llatas, C., A model for quantifying construction waste in projects according to the European waste list. Waste Manag, 2011. 31(6): p. 1261-76.

35.

Lu, W., et al., An empirical investigation of construction and demolition waste generation rates in Shenzhen city, South China. Waste Manag, 2011. 31(4): p. 680-7.

36.

Martinez Lage, I., et al., Estimation of the annual production and composition of C&D Debris in Galicia (Spain). Waste Manag, 2010. 30(4): p. 636-45.

37.

Poon, C.S., et al., Management of construction waste in public housing projects in Hong Kong. Construction Management and Economics, 2004. 22(7): p. 675-689.

38.

Solis-Guzman, J., et al., A Spanish model for quantification and management of construction waste. Waste Manag, 2009. 29(9): p. 2542-8.

39.

Tam, V.W., J. Li, and H. Cai, System dynamic modeling on construction waste management in Shenzhen, China. Waste Manag Res, 2014. 32(5): p. 441-53.

40.

Vossberg, C., K. Mason-Jones, and B. Cohen, An energetic life cycle assessment of C&D waste and container glass recycling in Cape Town, South Africa. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2014. 88: p. 39-49.

41.

Wu, Z., et al., Quantifying construction and demolition waste: an analytical review. Waste Manag, 2014. 34(9): p. 1683-92.

42.

Yates, J.K., Sustainable methods for waste minimisation in construction. Construction Innovation, 2013. 13(3): p. 281-301.

43.

Yu, A.T., et al., Impact of Construction Waste Disposal Charging Scheme on work practices at construction sites in Hong Kong. Waste Manag, 2013. 33(1): p. 138-46.

44.

Yuan, H., A SWOT analysis of successful construction waste management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2013. 39: p. 1-8.

45.

Yuan, H. and L. Shen, Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste management. Waste Manag, 2011. 31(4): p. 670-9.

46.

Coelho, A. and J. de Brito, Distribution of materials in construction and demolition waste in Portugal. Waste Manag Res, 2011. 29(8): p. 843-53.

47.

Kucukvar, M., G. Egilmez, and O. Tatari, Evaluating environmental impacts of alternative construction waste management approaches using supply-chain-linked life-cycle analysis. Waste Management and Research, 2014. 32(6): p. 500-508.

48.

Laurent, A., et al., Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems - Part I: Lessons learned and perspectives. Waste Management, 2014. 34(3): p. 573-588.

49.

Manowong, E., Investigating factors influencing construction waste management efforts in developing countries: an experience from Thailand. Waste Manag Res, 2012. 30(1): p. 56-71.

50.

Ortiz, O., J.C. Pasqualino, and F. Castells, Environmental performance of construction waste: Comparing three scenarios from a case study in Catalonia, Spain. Waste Manag, 2010. 30(4): p. 646-54.

51.

Sassi, P., Defining closed-loop material cycle construction. Building Research & Information, 2008. 36(5): p. 509519.

52.

Tam, V.W. and C.M. Tam, Waste reduction through incentives: a case study. Building Research & Information, 2008. 36(1): p. 37-43.

53.

Villeneuve, J., et al., Process-based analysis of waste management systems: a case study. Waste Manag, 2009. 29(1): p. 2-11. 105


54.

Wilson, D.C., et al., Business waste prevention: a review of the evidence. Waste Manag Res, 2012. 30(9 Suppl): p. 17-28.

55.

Yuan, F., L.Y. Shen, and Q.M. Li, Emergy analysis of the recycling options for construction and demolition waste. Waste Manag, 2011. 31(12): p. 2503-11.

56.

Yuan, H., et al., A dynamic model for assessing the effects of management strategies on the reduction of construction and demolition waste. Waste Manag, 2012. 32(3): p. 521-31.

57.

Hamid, Z.A. and K.A.M. Kamar, Aspects of off-site manufacturing application towards sustainable construction in Malaysia. Construction Innovation, 2012. 12(1): p. 4-10.

58.

Kourmpanis, B., et al., Preliminary study for the management of construction and demolition waste. Waste Management & Research, 2008. 26(3): p. 267-275.

59.

Osmani, M., J. Glass, and A.D. Price, Architects' perspectives on construction waste reduction by design. Waste Manag, 2008. 28(7): p. 1147-58.

60.

Arif, M., et al., Construction waste management in India: an exploratory study. Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management, 2012. 12(2): p. 133-155.

61.

Cochran, K.M. and T.G. Townsend, Estimating construction and demolition debris generation using a materials flow analysis approach. Waste Manag, 2010. 30(11): p. 2247-54.

62.

Malia, M., et al., Construction and demolition waste indicators. Waste Manag Res, 2013. 31(3): p. 241-55.

63.

Pitt, M., et al., Towards sustainable construction: promotion and best practices. Construction Innovation, 2009. 9(2): p. 201-224.

64.

Sha, K., J. Yang, and R. Song, Competitiveness assessment system for China's construction industry. Building Research & Information, 2007. 36(1): p. 97-109.

65.

Sreenivasan, J., et al., Solid Waste Management in Malaysia – A Move Towards Sustainability, in Waste Management - An Integrated Vision, Dr. Luis Fernando Marmolejo Rebellon, Editor. 2012. p. 55-70.

66.

Tam, V.W.Y. and C.M. Tam, Waste reduction through incentives: a case study. Building Research & Information, 2008. 36(1): p. 37-43.

67.

Yeheyis, M., et al., An overview of construction and demolition waste management in Canada: a lifecycle analysis approach to sustainability. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 2013. 15(1): p. 81-91.

68.

Bleck, D. and W. Wettberg, Waste collection in developing countries--tackling occupational safety and health hazards at their source. Waste Manag, 2012. 32(11): p. 2009-17.

69.

Poon, C.-S., A.T. Yu, and L. Jaillon, Reducing building waste at construction sites in Hong Kong. Construction Management and Economics, 2004. 22(5): p. 461-470.

70.

Sandberg, E. and L. Bildsten, Coordination and waste in industrialised housing. Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management, 2011. 11(1): p. 77-91.

71.

Yuan, H., A model for evaluating the social performance of construction waste management. Waste Manag, 2012. 32(6): p. 1218-28.

72.

Cheng, J.C. and L.Y. Ma, A BIM-based system for demolition and renovation waste estimation and planning. Waste Manag, 2013. 33(6): p. 1539-51.

73.

Mahayuddin, S.A., J.J. Pereira, and W.H.W. Badaruzzaman, Construction Waste Management in a Developing Country: Case Study of Ipoh, Malaysia. WIT Transaction on Ecology and the Environment, 2008. 109: p. 481-489.

74.

Nagapan, S., I.A. Rahman, and A. Asmi, Construction Waste Management Malaysian Perspective. The International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering Sustainability (IConCEES 2011), 3-5 April 2012, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 2012.

106