Attitudes and perceptions ofconstruction workforce on

construction waste in Sri LankaUdayangani Kulatunga, Dilanthi Amaratunga and Richard HaighResearch Institute for the Built and Human Environment, University of Salford,

Salford, UK, and

Raufdeen RameezdeenDepartment of Building Economics, Faculty of Architecture,

The University of Moratuwa, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka

Abstract

Purpose The construction industry consumes large amounts of natural resources, which are notproperly utilised owing to the generation of waste. Construction waste has challenged the performanceof the industry and its sustainable goals. The majority of the causes underlying material waste aredirectly or indirectly affected by the behaviour of the construction workforce. Waste occurs on site fora number of reasons, most of which can be prevented, particularly by changing the attitudes of theconstruction workforce. Therefore, the attitudes and perceptions of the construction workforce caninfluence the generation and implementation of waste management strategies. The research reportedin this paper is based on a study aimed at evaluating the attitudes and perceptions of the constructionworkforce involved during the pre- and post-contract stages towards minimising waste.

Design/methodology/approach A structured questionnaire survey was carried out tounderstand and evaluate the attitudes and perceptions of the workforce. Four types ofquestionnaires were prepared for project managers/site managers, supervisors, labourers, andestimators.

Findings The findings indicate the positive perceptions and attitudes of the construction workforcetowards minimising waste and conserving natural resources. However, a lack of effort in practisingthese positive attitudes and perceptions towards waste minimisation is identified. The paper furtherconcludes that negative attitudes towards subordinates, attitudinal differences between differentworking groups, and a lack of training to reinforce the importance of waste minimisation practiceshave obstructed proper waste management practices in the industry.

Originality/value The paper reveals the effect of the attitudes and perceptions of the constructionworkforce towards waste management applications, which would be of benefit to constructionmanagers in designing and implementing better waste management practices.

Keywords Attitudes, Construction industry, Employees, Waste management, Sri Lanka

Paper type Research paper

Introduction and background to the studyConstruction output is increasing rapidly in most countries, resulting in acorresponding increase in the utilization of natural resources. Holm (1998) arguesthat approximately 40 percent of the materials produced are utilized in building andconstruction work. Further, the construction industry consumes 25 percent of virgin

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-7835.htm

The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of A.N. Hewamanage in collecting thedata for this paper.

Constructionwaste in

Sri Lanka

57

Management of EnvironmentalQuality: An International Journal

Vol. 17 No. 1, 2006pp. 57-72

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1477-7835

DOI 10.1108/14777830610639440

wood, and 40 percent of the raw stone, gravel, and sand used globally each year.Ganesan (2000) states that materials account for the largest input into constructionactivities, in the range of 50-60 percent of the total cost. In addition, a wide variety ofmaterials is used in the construction industry. Unfortunately, this large portion ofmaterials is not utilized efficiently by the industry. Evidence shows that approximately40 percent of the waste generated globally originates from the construction anddemolition of buildings (Holm, 1998) and this forms a major portion of the solid wastediscarded in landfills around the world. For instance, in the USA it is approximately 29percent (Bossink and Brouwers, 1996) and in Australia 44 percent of landfills by mass(McDonald, 1996).

Further, research indicates that 9 percent of the total purchased materials end up aswaste (by weight) and 1-10 percent of every single material contributes to the solidwaste stream of the site (Bossink and Brouwers, 1996). Many researchers have shownthat there is a positive correlation between waste prevention and environmentalsustainability (Federle, 1993; Lingard et al., 2001).

Construction and demolition waste have become a burden to clients, as they haveto bear the costs of waste eventually (Skoyles and Skoyles, 1987). The cost of wasteblunts the competitive edge of contractors, making their survival more difficult in acompetitive environment (Macozoma, 2002). CIRIA (1995, cited in Teo andLoosemore, 2001) estimates that companies that produce a higher level of wasteare at a 10 percent disadvantage in tendering. Thus, Alwi et al. (2002) argue thatconstruction waste can significantly affect the performance and productivity of anorganisation. Moreover, the generation of waste is a loss of profits for the contractorsdue to extra overhead costs, delays and extra work in cleaning, lower productivity,etc. (Skoyles and Skoyles, 1987).

Construction waste is also a cost to the environment that threatens itsresilience. The unavailability of dumping sites to accommodate the higher volumesof debris from construction sites is becoming a serious problem (Chan and Fong,2002), and a day may come when restrictions are imposed on construction wastedisposal.

The above context illustrates the problems associated with construction waste.Improving the quality and efficiency of the construction industry is highlighted byEgan (1998), where one way of achieving this target is stated as the reduction of wasteat all stages of the construction process. Further, the report Better Public Buildings(Department of Culture, Media and Sport, 2002) identifies measuring efficiency andwaste as one of the priority areas for the industry to improve its performance. Thus, itcan be seen that construction waste management has become an important area toimprove the performance of the industry in terms of economic, quality, andsustainability aspects. Accordingly, this paper reports the findings of a survey carriedout in Sri Lanka to evaluate the attitudes and perceptions of construction workforcetowards waste management practices. The next section describes construction wastewith particular reference to the Sri Lankan context, with a literature review on theorigins of construction waste and attitudes of construction workforce. This is followedby the research methodology. The paper concludes with the findings of the survey anda discussion based on them.

MEQ17,1

58

Construction wasteEven though there is widespread recognition across the world of the importance ofmoving towards sustainability, the construction industry is notorious for producinghuge amounts of construction and demolition waste (Kwan et al., 2003). The BuildingResearch Establishment (1982, cited in Skoyles and Skoyles, 1987) defines constructionwaste as the difference between the purchased materials and those used in a project.According to Hong Kong Polytechnic (1993) construction waste is the by-productgenerated and removed from construction, renovation and demolition work places orsites of building and civil engineering structures. Further, construction waste hasbeen defined as building and site improvement materials and other solid wasteresulting from construction, re-modeling, renovation, or repair operations (HarvardGreen Campus Initiative, 2004).

Although resource optimization is one of the main objectives of any organization,less attention is paid to construction waste minimisation even though it makes a greatcontribution to the aforesaid objective. This is due to the perception regarding waste,which has no value and which the junkman can take away (Leenders et al., 1990).However, it can be argued that construction waste does not fall under this definition, asit is has a residual value and is avoidable.

Construction waste in the context of the Sri Lankan construction industryCost of waste has a significant impact on the Sri Lankan construction industry. Thus, anumber of studies have been carried out in this context. According to Jayawardane(1994), concrete and mortar showed 21 and 25 percent of wastage, respectively, due tothe excess use of materials in the rectification of inaccuracies. Even though it has beenidentified that minimisation of waste to a certain extent is unavoidable (Skoyles andSkoyles, 1987), Jayawardane (1994) states that the wastage of materials in mostconstruction sites in Sri Lanka is beyond acceptable limits. This fact has been furtherproved by a study carried out by Rameezdeen and Kulatunga (2004), as shown inFigure 1. The box plot indicates the spread of wastages of materials and their meanvalues as sand (25 percent), lime (20 percent), cement (14 percent), bricks (14 percent),ceramic tiles (10 percent), timber (10 percent), rubble (7 percent), steel (7 percent),cement blocks (6 percent), paint (5 percent) and asbestos sheets (3 percent).

Origins of construction wasteConstruction waste stems from construction, refurbishment, and repair work, and canemerge at any stage of a project from inception to completion. Generation of the streamof waste is influenced by various factors. Gavilan and Bernold (1994) classify thecauses of waste into six categories:

(1) design;

(2) procurement;

(3) handling of materials;

(4) operation;

(5) residual-related; and

(6) other.

Constructionwaste in

Sri Lanka

59

As waste impairs the efficiency, effectiveness, value, and profitability of constructionactivities, there is a need to identify the causes of waste generation and to control themwithin reasonable limits. Ekanayake and Ofori (2000) classified the causes of wasteinto four major categories, as shown in Table I.

The construction industry is labour-intensive. Thus, activities initiating from theinception to completion of a project are backed up by the human component. It can beargued that a majority of the aforementioned causes of waste are directly or indirectlyaffected by the attitudes and perceptions of the personnel involved in the constructionindustry. Accordingly, the human factor involved during the pre-contract stage has asignificant influence on the prevention of waste. Ekanayake and Ofori (2000) identifieddesign change during the construction project as the most significant cause of thegeneration of site waste. Awareness of waste generation factors and the attitudes ofdesigners can help to minimise the generation of waste that originates from thedesign cause. For instance, proper identification of a clients requirements, properdetailing of the documents, etc. can avoid most of the changes during the design stage,thus avoiding the rework which generates waste.

Furthermore, the human factor involved during the post-contract stage caninfluence the minimisation of waste in ordering materials according to the appropriatequantity and quality, the use of proper storage facilities, proper handling of materials,etc. Formoso et al. (1999) argued that the lack of attention of site management todetermining waste is a major barrier for the minimisation of waste. Teo and Loosemore(2003) highlighted the inadequate contribution of site managers to the developmentand implementation of waste management plans. Further, research has shown that theattitudes of construction labourers towards waste minimisation activities are negative(Formoso et al., 1999; Alwi et al., 2002).

Figure 1.Box plot for wastage ofmaterials

MEQ17,1

60

In the Sri Lankan context, it has been identified that cutting and management are themost significant causes of waste (Rameezdeen and Kulatunga, 2004). Therefore it isargued that in any waste prevention programme, cutting and management wasteshould be given priority over other causes by means of design interventions (such asdimensional coordination) and by providing adequate supervision and properorganization of site activities to avoid design and management waste, respectively.

The above discussion highlights the relationship between the attitudes andperceptions of the construction workforce and the generation of waste. Skoyles andSkoyles (1987) suggest that waste occurs on site for a number of reasons, most ofwhich can be prevented, particularly by changing attitudes. Accordingly, this study isfocused on identifying the attitudes and perceptions of the construction workforceduring the pre- and post-contract stages. The following section discusses the attitudesand perceptions of the construction workforce.

Attitudes of the construction workforceAttitudesAttitudes are an important concept in helping people to understand their social world.They help us to define how we perceive and think about others, as well as how webehave towards them (Wayne State University, 2004).

Design Lack of attention paid to dimensional co-ordination of productsChanges made to the design while construction is in progressDesigners inexperience in method and sequence of constructionLack of attention paid to standard sizes available on the marketDesigners unfamiliarity with alternative productsComplexity of detail in drawingsErrors in contract documentsIncomplete contract documents at commencement of projectSelection of low-quality products

Operational Errors by tradespersons or labourersAccidents due to negligenceDamage to work done caused by subsequent tradesUse of incorrect material, thus requiring replacementRequired quantity unclear due to improper planningDelays in passing information to the contractor on types and sizes of products tobe usedEquipment malfunctioningInclement weather

Material handling Damages during transportationInappropriate storage leading to damage or deteriorationMaterials supplied in loose formUse of materials which are closed to working placeUnfriendly attitude of project team and labourersTheft

Procurement Ordering errorsLack of possibilities to order small quantitiesPurchased products that do not comply with specification

Source: Ekanayake and Ofori (2000)

Table I.Sources and causes of

construction waste

Constructionwaste in

Sri Lanka

61

Judd et al. (1991; cited in Wayne State University, 2004) define attitudes as theevaluation of various objects that are stored in memory. In a simpler manner, anattitude can be defined as a psychological tendency to evaluate a particular object orsituation in a favourable or unfavourable way, which causes someone to behave in acertain way towards it (Ajzen, 1993; cited in Teo and Loosemore, 2003). This wasfurther supported by Teo and Loosemore (2003), who emphasised the importance ofattitudes to those who hold them, as they help people to categorise, structure andprioritise the world around them. Thus, attitudes are important to managers as theydetermine peoples behaviour and provide an insight into their motivating values andbeliefs. According to the tri-component model (Table II), an attitude includes affect(feeling), cognition (thought), and behaviour (Spooncer, 1992).

There are basically two schools of thoughts regarding the development of attitudes(Wayne State University, 2004):

(1) By changing the environment Some people say that matters are arranged sothat people have to behave in a certain manner, eventually their attitudes willchange in line with that way. For example, re-use of materials can be made arule on site.

(2) By changing attitudes In the second school of thought, it is said that if onecould change peoples attitudes, their behaviour would change accordingly. Forexample, the importance of waste management practices can be conveyed toemployees.

In practice, considering both points of view is significant, i.e. reuse of materials shouldbe made a rule as well as better knowledge being given to employees regarding theimportance of waste management practices.

In terms of the formation of attitudes, five steps can be listed as part of the process(Spooncer, 1992):

(1) Knowledge of the correct procedures and the ability to carry them out.

(2) Knowledge of the reasons behind the correct procedures and practices.

(3) Examples set by managers, sometimes called the culture of the organisationor the way we do things here.

(4) The reinforcement of important messages.

(5) Support of these attitudes through the procedures and reward systems of theorganisation.

This highlights the importance of attitudes in the social environment and the influencethat attitudes can have on human behaviour. Further, it identifies the possible ways

Component Characteristics

Affect Emotional reactionsCognition Internalised mental representations, beliefs, thoughtsBehaviour The tendency to respond or overtly act in a

particular wayTable II.Components of attitudes

MEQ17,1

62

and means of developing and changing human attitudes by applying certainapproaches. Accordingly, the following section discusses the attitudes and perceptionsof the construction workforce.

Attitudes and perceptions of the construction workforceWaste has been accepted as an inevitable by-product, with a strong belief that wastereduction activities will not be able to eliminate the generation of waste completely(Teo and Loosemore, 2001). These negative perceptions are the main barriers toeffective waste management.

As the construction industry is labour-intensive, the attitudes and perceptions ofpeople influence its growth. This fact is unquestionably true for the generationand controlling of waste. The importance of attitudes in waste management wasidentified by Hussey and Skoyles as early as 1974, when they asserted that it is achange in this attitude rather than a change in technique which is likely to havemost effect overall (Hussey and Skoyles, 1974). Teo and Loosemore (2001) foundthat attitudes towards waste reduction have become one of the reasons behind thedifficulties of the management of waste in the construction industry. Loosemoreet al. (2002) and Skoyles and Skoyles (1987) highlight the importance of humanfactors in the minimisation of waste, and argue that waste can be prevented bychanging peoples attitudes. However, according to Skoyles and Skoyles (1987,cited in Teo and Loosemore, 2001), the involvement of people is being ignored inthe waste management equation.

The structure of the construction industry itself influences the attitudes of thepeople involved in it. For example, the construction industry rewards fast workersand bonuses are paid for early completion (Teo and Loosemore, 2001). Thus theattitudes of people are formed in such a way as to obtain rewards even byforegoing waste management practices. Further, due to the high involvement ofsubcontractors in projects for a shorter period, adaptation of procedures cannot beidentified. For example, Jayawardane (1994) found that the wastage of materials bysubcontract labour is higher than that by direct labour.

For the successful implementation of waste management measures on a project,collective effort and responsibility from all parties involved in it is important.According to Teo and Loosemore (2001), attitudes regarding waste differ from oneorganization to another, depending on their culture and waste managementpolicies. In addition, various occupational groups have different attitudes towardsthe generation and control of waste (Teo and Loosemore, 2001).

The above arguments support the view that the waste generated by construction isnot something to be ignored and the attitudes of the people involved in the industryplay a major role in controlling waste. Graham and Smithers (1996) state that forsuccessful waste management practices, interdisciplinary approaches between allstakeholders are essential. Therefore, by identifying the attitudes and perceptions ofthe construction workforce, areas that require special attention can be identified,leading to the identification of better waste management practices. In the Sri Lankancontext, research is limited in this area; thus, this study is aimed at identifying theattitudes and perceptions of different individuals at pre- and post-construction stagesin the Sri Lankan construction industry. Accordingly, the following section briefly

Constructionwaste in

Sri Lanka

63

identifies the specific aims and objectives of this study, followed by the researchmethodology adopted.

Aims and objectives and research methodologyAims and objectivesThe principal aim of the study is to identify the attitudes and influence of theconstruction workforce during pre- and post-contract stages towards wastemanagement practices in the Sri Lankan construction industry. To achieve this aim,the following objectives were formulated:

. to identify the attitudes of contractors during the pre-contract stage (estimators)towards construction waste management practices on various issues;

. to identify the attitudes of different levels of employees of contractororganisations (site managers, supervisors, skilled and unskilled labourers)regarding issues pertaining to construction waste management practices;

. to compare and contrast the differential attitudes of employees at thepre-construction stage with employees at the post-construction stage; and

. to identify the possible ways of developing waste management practices withinthe construction industry.

Research methodologyA structured questionnaire survey was carried out to understand and evaluate theattitudes and perceptions of the workforce. The sample for the questionnaire surveywas selected from building contractors in the Sri Lankan construction industry. Fourtypes of questionnaires were prepared for project managers/site managers,supervisors, labourers and estimators. The sample of the questionnaire survey isshown in Table III.

Results and discussionLikert scales are commonly used in attitudinal measurements (Ryerson University,2004). Since this research is also focused on ascertaining the attitudes of theconstruction workforce, the questionnaires were prepared based on the Likert scalewith a five-point scale ranging from strongly agree, agree, neither agree nordisagree, disagree, to strongly disagree. Data is analysed using the median andmode of the results where appropriate. Data gathered through the questionnaires leadsto the following findings.

Category

Number ofquestionnaires

issuedNumber of

respondentsPercentageresponse

Estimators 24 20 83Project managers/site managers 55 55 100Supervisors 107 107 100Workers 586 586 100

Table III.Sample of thequestionnaire survey

MEQ17,1

64

Perception of contractors during the pre-construction stageIn a construction organization, the estimator plays a major role, as he/she is the keyperson who is responsible for success in securing contracts. According to the datacollected, 55 percent of estimators presumed that their organisations performed well inthe area of waste management, while 30 and 15 percent stated their response asdisagree and not sure, respectively. Despite this, 75 percent of estimators believedthat the cost of waste severely affects the cost of projects. However, the perception of 95percent of estimators is that wastage of materials is unavoidable. A majority of theestimators state that waste management strategies do not exist in their organisations,as shown in Figure 2.

During the estimating process, there is an allowance for waste to compensate thecost of waste during the construction stage. Unfortunately, the results of the survey didnot support this argument. It can be clearly seen from Figure 3 that the amountsobtained from the actual waste are greater than the waste allowances at thepre-construction stage. Thus, it can be argued that most contractors are unable torecover the loss arising due to wastage of materials.

Figure 3.Difference between actual

waste and the wastageallowances made during

the pre-construction stage

Figure 2.Responses of estimators

regarding companyperformance towardswaste, knowledge of

existing strategy andeffect of cost of waste

Constructionwaste in

Sri Lanka

65

Further, the research identified that 75 percent of estimators agreed that actualwastage is higher than the allowance they consider at the pre-construction stage. Thecompetitive nature of the industry (65 percent) and the unavailability of actual datafrom previous projects (75 percent) have prevented them from using actual amounts intheir tenders.

The lack of attention to the material waste allowances was further proven by theranks given by the estimators to their priorities at the pre-construction stage. Table IVclearly shows that profits and overheads of the project govern estimators priorities,while they pay least attention to construction wastage allowances. Thus, during thepre-construction stage less attention is paid to construction waste, and more priority isgiven to other bidding strategies.

Estimators apply various mechanisms to build up the norm for material wastageallowances. This research revealed that past experience and norms in the BuildingSchedule of Rates are used by the majority of estimators, while about 30 percent go forwork studies. Even though frequent updating is essential to build up reliable norms, alack of data flow from construction sites to estimators was identified, which impairsthe knowledge of estimators regarding actual material wastage.

Perceptions of contractors during the post-contract stageIt is during the post-contract stage that waste-controlling tools and managementstrategies are actually implemented. Thus, the attitudes and perceptions of thepersonnel involved during the post-contract stage are vital for effective wastemanagement.

Almost all the personnel that responded agreed that natural resources should beconserved, (100 percent agreement from both managers and supervisors, and 99percent agreement from workers). This indicates that all the respondents have apositive perception regarding the degradation natural resources and the importance ofpreserving them.

As discussed earlier, for the development of attitudes and the environment of theorganisation can be arranged in such a way as to direct the behaviours of people in acertain manner. For example, organisational strategies and company policies can beintroduced to influence workers attitudes in positive directions. To comply with this,knowledge regarding the existence of a waste management strategy in theorganisation was evaluated (Figure 4). Supervisors have the highest positiveperception regarding this, followed by managers. However, workers knowledge ofsuch strategies is comparatively low only 10 percent of them strongly agreed withthis fact. Further, 19 percent of workers were not sure about this. This shows the

Factor Rank

Profit 1Overheads of the project 2Location 3Type of client 4Contingencies 5Waste allowance 6

Table IV.Priorities at thepre-construction stage

MEQ17,1

66

different awarenesses of various working groups regarding the environment or theculture of the organisation. Further, understanding of the organisational strategiesdiminishes from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy. In addition, this gives a betterpicture of communication standards within the organisation. Due to a lack ofawareness of such strategies, workers do not accept them as explicit activities inorganisations. Thus, it can be suggested that as construction workers are the ultimatehandlers of construction materials, the optimum usage of such strategies cannot beachieved.

To establish waste management practices within all the levels of working groups inan organization, proper recognition should be given and it should be incorporatedwithin all other operations on the site (Cole, 2000). The importance given by differentpersonnel to waste management was assessed as part of this survey. Although theoverall attitude to the importance of waste management is highly positive in all theworking groups, the attention paid to waste management in actual practice is not soapparent, as highlighted in Figure 5. This may be due to the lack of time devoted towaste management practices in the real-life context. It can also be identified that

Figure 4.Existence of waste

management strategy

Figure 5.Importance of waste

management

Constructionwaste in

Sri Lanka

67

labourers gave the least attention to waste management practices. The reason behindthis is suggested to be the time constraints of the construction industry and the lack ofbenefits gained by such practices. From the perspective of labourers, few personalbenefits are gained by adopting waste management practices. As construction work isorganised in a way to reward fast workers, and in most of circumstances payments aremade on piece rate basis, tradesmen are more ready to use a fresh piece of materialrather than spending little more time with cut pieces.

When managers were asked to rank the perceived barriers to the implementation ofwaste management principles, attitudes of people and difficulty in changing existingwork practices were identified as the main barriers, while cost ineffectiveness wasidentified as the barrier that had the least impact (Table V).

When implementing a strategy and moving towards a specific target, a betterunderstanding between the parties involved is important. Negative attitudes and lackof confidence may not yield the maximum benefits. According to the research reportedin this paper, the majority of supervisors and workers believe that their managementand co-workers have a positive perception regarding the importance of constructionwaste management. In contrast, the management of the organizations do not have agood perception regarding workers attitudes. Table V further highlights this fact, asthe majority of the managers believe that the main barrier to better waste managementare the attitudes of workers. This shows the negative attitudes of managers towardstheir workers and the positive attitudes of workers towards their managers. In such asituation, the effectiveness of the managerial functions will not come in to practiceproperly due to the lack of confidence between parties.

As discussed earlier, five steps are involved in the formation of positive attitudeswithin an organisation or in making people behave in a certain way. Two of these areproviding knowledge about correct procedures and the reinforcement of importantmessages. This can be done mainly through the implementation of trainingprogrammes. Hence, the level of training and knowledge provided to workers about theconsequences and opportunity costs of wasteful practices can influence their attitudestowards waste management practices. Forty-two and 60 percent of supervisors andlabourers, respectively, answered that waste management applications were notincluded in their training sessions. This indicates a lack of knowledge and

Barrier Rank

Attitudes of the workers cannot be changed 1Difficulty in changing existing work practices 2There is no stated company policy on waste management 3Lack of industry norms 4Time-consuming (rather than reusing a broken brick, it is easier to use a new one) 5There is no incentive to manage waste 6Requires more personnel 7It is not perceived as part of the managers job 8Waste management is not cost-effective 9

Table V.Barriers to wastemanagement practices

MEQ17,1

68

reinforcement of ideas to the workforce regarding the importance of wastemanagement practices.

Even though 98 percent of managers identified waste management as being asimportant as other site activities (Figure 5), the least priority was given to wastemanagement in actual practice, whereas the highest priority was given to monitoringquality, followed by progress and cost factors (Table VI).

Comparison of attitudes of construction estimators and contractorsA difference in the perception of estimators and site managers was identified relatingto the performance of organisations in the area of waste management (Figure 6). Themajority of site managers (85 percent) believe that their organisations perform well inthe area of waste management, while only 55 percent of estimators believe this.However, only 45 percent of site managers and 60 percent of estimators believe thattheir company has a waste management strategy.

This indicates the differences in attitudes and perceptions of different groups ofpeople within the same organisation, one group having a negative perception and theother having a positive perception regarding the performance of waste managementapplications and the existence of an associated company policy. Therefore it can be

Activity Rank

Monitoring the quality of work 1Monitoring the progress of work 2Cost control 2Assessing the resource requirements, procurement and incorporating them in the work 4Safety management 5Holding site meetings to discuss issues and problems 6Waste management 7

Table VI.Priorities of site activities

Figure 6.Comparison of perceptions

of estimators and sitemanagers

Constructionwaste in

Sri Lanka

69

argued that these contradictory perceptions negatively influence effective wastemanagement practices at the organization level.

ConclusionMinimisation of construction waste has been emphasised in terms of improvingperformance while achieving the sustainable goals of the industry. Since theconstruction industry is labour-intensive, the attitudes and perceptions of theworkforce affect its growth, and minimisation of waste is not an exception. Therefore, achange in the attitudes and perceptions of the construction workforce is vital to gainthe maximum benefits from waste management practices. Thus, this research hasfocused on the Sri Lanka construction workforce to evaluate and identify the influenceof their attitudes and perceptions on waste management strategies. The researchreported in this paper indicates the positive perceptions and attitudes of theconstruction workforce towards minimising waste and conserving natural resources.However, the behaviour of construction workforce in the actual scenario indicates alack of effort in practising their positive attitudes and perceptions towards wasteminimisation. The reasons behind this lack of practice of waste managementapplications were found to be other priorities during the pre- and post-constructionstages, such as profit, time, cost, etc.

It can also be concluded that negative attitudes towards subordinates, attitudinaldifferences between different working groups, and a lack of training to reinforce theimportance of waste minimisation practices have obstructed proper wastemanagement practices in the construction industry. Further, inadequatecommunication of strategies from the top level to the bottom level of theorganisation, and a lack of data flow from construction sites to estimators, havenegatively affected waste management applications. Thus, the development of bettercommunication channels within the organisation, the use of reliable practices (workstudies) to establish waste allowances, providing proper training to the constructionworkforce regarding waste management practices, and introducing incentives forbetter waste management practices would help to develop and implement wastemanagement applications in the construction industry and thereby improve itsperformance.

References

Alwi, S., Hampson, K. and Mohamed, S. (2002), Waste in the Indonesian construction projects,Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Creating a Sustainable ConstructionIndustry in Developing Countries, November 11-13, Stellenbosch, pp. 305-15.

Bossink, B.A.G. and Brouwers, H.J.H. (1996), Construction waste: quantification and sourceevaluation, Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 122 No. 1, pp. 55-60.

Chan, H.C.Y. and Fong, W.F.K. (2002), Management of construction and demolition materialsand development of recycling facility in Hong Kong, Proceedings of the InternationalConference on Innovation and Sustainable Development of Civil Engineering in the 21stCentury, Beijing, pp. 172-5.

Cole, R.J. (2000), Building environmental assessment methods: assessing constructionpractices, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 949-57.

MEQ17,1

70

Department of Culture, Media and Sport (2002), Better Public Buildings, Department of Culture,Media and Sport, London.

Egan, J. (1998), Rethinking Construction: Report from the Construction Task Force, Departmentof the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London.

Ekanayake, L.L. and Ofori, G. (2000), Construction material waste source evaluation,Proceedings of Strategies for a Sustainable Built Environment, Pretoria, August 2,available at: www.sustainablesettlement.co.za/event/SSBE/Proceedings/ekanyake.pdf

Federle, M.O. (1993), Overview of building construction waste and its potential for materialsrecycling, Building Research Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 31-7.

Formoso, T.C., Hirota, E.H. and Isatto, E.L. (1999), Method for waste control in the buildingindustry, available at: http://construction.berkeley.edu/, tommelein/IGLC-PDF/Formoso&Isatto&Hirota.pdf

Ganesan, S. (2000), Employment, Technology and Construction Development, Ashgate PublishingCompany, Aldershot.

Gavilan, R.M. and Bernold, L.E. (1994), Source evaluation of solid waste in buildingconstruction, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 120 No. 3,pp. 536-52.

Graham, P.M. and Smithers, G. (1996), Construction waste minimization for Australianresidential development, Asia Pacific Building and Construction Management Journal,Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 14-19.

Harvard Green Campus Initiative (2005), Construction waste management, available at: http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:KDlWMburqfUJ:www.greencampus.harvard.edu/hpbs/documents/CDWaste.pdf %22construction waste%22 and definitions&hl=en

Holm, F.H. (1998), Ad Hoc Committee on Sustainable Building, Norwegian Building ResearchInstitute, Blinderm.

Hong Kong Polytechnic (1993), Reduction of Construction Waste: Final Report, The Hong KongConstruction Association, Hong Kong.

Hussey, H.J. and Skoyles, E.R. (1974), Wastage of materials, Building, Vol. 22, February,pp. 91-4.

Jayawardane, A.K.W. (1994), Are we aware of the extent of wastage on our buildingconstruction sites?, Engineer, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 41-5.

Kwan, M.M.C., Wong, E.O.W. and Yip, R.C.P. (2003), Cultivating sustainable construction wastemanagement, Journal of Building and Construction Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 19-23.

Leenders, M.R., Fearon, H.E. and England, W.B. (1990), Purchasing and Management, Irwin,Homewood, IL.

Lingard, H., Gilbert, G. and Graham, P. (2001), Improving solid waste reduction and recyclingperformance using goal setting and feedback, Construction Management and Economics,Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 809-17.

Loosemore, M., Lingard, H. and Teo, M.M.M. (2002), In conflict with nature wastemanagement in the construction industry, in Best, R. and Valance, G. (Eds), Post DesignIssues Innovation in Construction, Arnold, London, pp. 256-76.

McDonald, B. (1996), RECON waste minimization and environmental programme, Proceedingsof the CIB TG16 Commission Meeting and Presenataions, RMIT, Melbourne.

Constructionwaste in

Sri Lanka

71

Macozoma, D.S. (2002), Construction site waste management and minimisation: internationalreport, International Council for Research and Innovation in Buildings, Rotterdam,available at: www.cibworld.nl/pages/begin/Pub278/06Construction.pdf

Rameezdeen, R. and Kulatunga, U. (2004), Material wastage in construction sites: identificationof major causes, Journal of Built-Environment Sri Lanka, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 35-41.

Ryerson University (2004), Ordinal scale, available at: www.ryerson.ca/,mjoppe/ResearchProcess/741process10a2.htm

Skoyles, E.R. and Skoyles, J.R. (1987), Waste Prevention on Site, Mitchell Publishing, London.

Spooncer, F. (1992), Behavioural Studies for Marketing and Business, Stanley Thornes,Leckhampton.

Teo, M.M.M. and Loosemore, M. (2001), A theory of waste behavior in the constructionindustry, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 741-9.

Teo, M.M.M. and Loosemore, M. (2003), Changing the environmental culture of the constructionindustry, paper presented at the ASCE Construction Research Congress Conference,University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, pp. 345-76.

Wayne State University (2004), Attitude, Detroit, MI, available at: http://sun.science.wayne.edu/,wpoff/cor/grp/change.html

Corresponding authorUdayangani Kulatunga can be contacted at U.Kulatunga@salford.ac.uk

MEQ17,1

72

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints