Waste Management 102 (2020) 722–731

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Cost implications of obtaining construction waste management-related

credits in green building
I.M. Chethana S. Illankoon a,⇑, Weisheng Lu b
a
School of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Newcastle, Australia
b
Department of Real Estate and Construction, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This research was motivated by the intriguing phenomena across several economies that green building
Received 15 May 2019 clients/developers are observably lukewarm in pursuing construction waste management (CWM). Recent
Revised 6 October 2019 studies, most of them in a qualitative nature, reported that to obtain CWM-related credits is ‘‘costlier”
Accepted 17 November 2019
than obtaining credits from other green building aspects such as sites, lighting, and so on. Yet, there is
a clear lack of empirical analysis of such cost implications with a view to providing convincing explana-
tion to the phenomena. This research aims to identify the cost implications of achieving CWM-related
Keywords:
credits as stipulated in green building rating tools by focusing in Hong Kong. The costs for using materials
Construction waste
Waste management
required for green certification were calculated and compared against conventional materials by intro-
Green building ducing a life cycle perspective. It is discovered that to obtain the CWM-related credits, one needs to
Life cycle costing pay a higher cost ranging from 0.4% to 6%.
Hong Kong Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction a major theme as stipulated in the global green building

movement.
Construction waste, sometimes used interchangeably with con- Green building (GB) is the construction industry’s responses to
struction and demolition (C&D) waste, is the solid waste that arises contemporary challenges such as natural resource depletion, pollu-
from construction, renovation and demolition activities (Roche and tion, greenhouse gas emissions, and human-induced global warm-
Hegarty, 2006). In the U.S., Europe, UK, Australia, Hong Kong and ing. GB advocates going beyond the traditional building codes to
other major construction-strong economies with a strong con- improve overall building performance and minimize lifecycle envi-
struction sector, C&D waste is often well defined. Construction ronmental impacts and cost (Gowri, 2004). The USEPA (2018)
waste normally constitutes a prodigious portion of total solid defines that ‘‘green, or sustainable, building is the practice of creat-
waste that contributes to degradation of the environment (Lu ing and using healthier and more resource-efficient models of con-
et al., 2018). For example, the USEPA (2018) estimated that 548 struction, renovation, operation, maintenance and demolition”. Lu
million tons of C&D debris were generated in the U.S. in 2015, et al.’s (2018) elaborations on ‘building’ widen the scope of the
which is more than twice the amount of generated MSW in the concept; in their elaborations, ‘building’ is a polysemous word
same year. Lu et al. (2016) estimated that approximately 1.13 bil- which can be used as either a noun to represent a physical facility,
lion tons of C&D materials were generated in China during 2014. In or a gerund to represent the building process.
Hong Kong, the EPD reported that the quantity of C&D waste land- Evaluation of GB is conducted via various green building rating
filled in 2017 was 1.54 million tons, equivalent to 4207 tons per tools/systems (GBRTs or GBRSs), which are on a voluntary yet
day. Landfilling not only causes environmental deterioration due market-based premise. Numerous options for GB evaluation exist,
to CO2, methane and leachate produced from anaerobic decay pro- e.g., the UK-developed Building Research Establishment Environ-
cess, but also rapidly exhausts invaluable landfill space, particu- ment Assessment Method (BREEAM), U.S.-developed Leadership
larly in compact urban areas. Construction waste management in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Mainland China’s
(CWM) is thus often at the top of governments’ agenda. It is also Green Building Evaluation Label (GBEL), Australia’s Green Star
and Hong Kong’s Building Environmental Assessment Method
(BEAM Plus), and more are gaining market recognition.
⇑ Corresponding author. CWM is one of the major sustainability deliverables as
E-mail addresses: chethana.illankoon@newcastle.edu.au, cillankoon@gmail.com stipulated in various GBRTs. Researchers (e.g., Wu et al., 2016)
(I.M. Chethana S. Illankoon), wilsonlu@hku.hk (W. Lu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.11.024
0956-053X/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 I.M. Chethana S. Illankoon, W. Lu / Waste Management 102 (2020) 722–731 723

discovered that construction waste-related credits, normally under any competitive advantages that might discourage conservation
the category of ‘‘Materials”, account for 8–12% of all the attainable and impact contractor’s overall economic performance
credits in these systems; a significant portion of the credits not to (Showalter et al., 1997). Similarly, Marrero and Ramirez-De-
be neglected. Yet, in 88 LEED, GBEL, and BEAM Plus certified green Arellano (2010) also developed a building cost structure to include
building projects, Lu et al. (2019) discovered that CWM scored con- construction and demolition waste practices. However, neither of
sistently lower than other sustainability deliverables such as site these two cost studies focused on calculating the cost implications
selection, energy use, and indoor environmental quality. They went from CWM in green buildings or the costs while achieving a
on to investigate the reasons behind and discovered that ‘‘to obtain required standard of CWM.
CWM-related credits is costlier and more burdensome than achiev- Yuan et al. (2011) carried out a cost benefit analysis to get a bet-
ing other ‘easy’ credits” (Lu et al., 2019). However, using a qualita- ter understanding on the dynamics of CWM activities throughout
tive approach, their research falls short in providing empirical the waste chain. It was identified that in China, with the higher
evidence of such cost implications. To GB researchers and practi- landfill charge leads to a higher environmental cost caused by ille-
tioners, this empirical evidence is rather important as there is a gal dumping (Yuan et al., 2011). da Silva Bezerra et al. (2015) car-
widely perceived, yet inconclusive notion that GB are costlier than ried out a survey to considering 15 buildings, to calculate unit cost
their ‘‘conventional” counterparts. This notion actually forms the of disposal at the processing plant. The main issue of this research
legitimacy for numerous GB cost benefit analyses conducted was that different contractors followed different CWM policies.
(Fuerst and McAllister, 2011; Shuai et al., 2018; Zhang and Altan, Doan and Chinda (2016) conducted a feasibility study for an infras-
2011). tructure project with a recycling program for CWM. It suggested
Therefore, this research aims to quantify the cost implications that saving in landfill charges and green image are the two key
of achieving CWM-related credits as stipulated in GBRTs. For prac- benefits in the recycling program, and it took 17 years for the pro-
tical reasons, this research focuses on BEAM Plus version 1.2 rating gram to be considered feasible (Doan and Chinda, 2016). Liu et al.
tool for new buildings, which is a dominant GBRT in Hong Kong. (2018) developed a compensation model for construction and
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. Subsequent to this demolition waste in China. In this model Liu et al. (2018) detailed
Introduction section is a review of the literature on achieving formulas for calculating the costs of four typical kinds of disposal
CWM through green building accreditation and life cycle costing routes of construction and demolition waste, namely illegal dump-
(LCC) of GB credits. Section 3 introduces the detailed methodology, ing, controlled dumping (landfill), centralized recycling, and on-
which entails a LCC analysis of GB credit in Hong Kong BEAM Plus. site recycling. However, none of these models and cost studies
Each credit occurs a certain cost to attain. The key is to link the focused on GB.
credits with CWM and examining the LCC implications of such A series of recent studies (e.g., Lu et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2018;
credits by obtaining reliable cost data. Section 4 is the results Lu et al., 2019) observed that GB developers consistently scored
and analyzes, followed by an in-depth discussion on high material low in CWM and attempted to attribute the lukewarm perfor-
cost and weightage of credits in a GBRT in Section 5. Conclusions mance to a higher cost of obtaining CWM-related credits in a GBRT.
are drawn and further studies are recommended in Section 6. In a business world, the phenomenon is not to be blamed as long as
the GB developers ‘stay in the game’, and they can obtain sufficient
credits to meet the GB criteria. Their research did report the qual-
2. Literature review itative evidence, mainly stemmed from their interviewees,
whereby CWM credits are largely costlier than other credits. GB
2.1. Construction waste management in green building developers and their consultants often play their GB tactics by
carefully considering the credits obtained and their respective
In simple terms, CWM focuses on managing waste materials in costs. However, their research only provided qualitative evidence.
such a way (e.g., reduce, reuse, or recycle) to minimize their Amidst the global trend of exploring empirical, quantitative evi-
adverse impacts on environment and society. With the sustainable dence between GB costs and their tangible benefits, these research
development practices, incineration and landfill are no longer findings are apparently insufficient.
acceptable ways to dispose of construction waste (Hao et al.,
2007). Reduce, recycle and reuse are the three main acceptable 2.2. Life cycle costing of green building credits
policies in CWM (Huang et al., 2018). These ‘‘3R” policies are
adopted by many GBRTs when developing material aspects related A promising way to obtain the quantitative evidence of GB and
criteria. In LEED, for example, there are credits such as ‘building CWM costs is to calculate the costs of obtaining GB credits. The
reuse’, ‘material reuse’, ‘recycled content’ and ‘rapidly renewable logic is simple – to obtain a GB credit, one needs better materials
material’ directly influencing CWM in green building through re- (e.g., metal instead of wooden formwork), construction technolo-
using, recycling and reducing the use of building materials gies (e.g., prefabrication instead of cast in-situ), and better
(USGBC, 2014). Likewise, in Green Star, there are credits such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) systems, which nor-
‘life cycle impacts’, ‘responsible building materials’ and ‘sustain- mally incur higher costs. To calculate and compare GB and conven-
able products’ focusing on recycling and re-using materials tional building will be able to obtain such quantitative evidence.
(Australian GBC, 2015). All these credits have various require- For example, Chong et al. (2017) identified the cost implications
ments. Some credits encourage using recycled materials, such as of obtaining green certification using Green Building Index, which
recycled aggregates in concrete. Some encourages modular and is a GBRT prevailing in Malaysia. Similarly, Latief et al. (2017)
prefabrications as a method of reducing construction and demoli- developed a model to optimize building construction performance
tion waste end up in landfills. towards GB premium cost in parallel with achieving GB certifica-
The GB initiatives, included those related to CWM, need to have tion. Kim et al. (2016) develop an optimization model for the opti-
a business case to sustain themselves in the business world. After mal green systems by considering the thermal comfort in and
all, GBRTs are voluntary but they are very much market driven energy consumption of an educational facility. In addition, the
nowadays. There are few cost studies in the literature focusing optimal design scenarios were analyzed considering their eco-
on CWM. Showalter et al. (1997) focused on developing a cost nomic and environmental effects and for which life-cycle costing
effective CWM plan. The main aim of this plan was to address is also used (Kim et al., 2016). Similarly, Illankoon et al., 2018a
the environmental conservation through CWM without losing developed a cost model to optimise cost for green office buildings
724 I.M. Chethana S. Illankoon, W. Lu / Waste Management 102 (2020) 722–731

for Green Star certification in Australia. The key to such cost anal- the ‘objective’ of the credit given in the BEAM Plus. Most of the
ysis is to find the proper cost data as prevailing in a market and to credits aim to use recycle or reuse material to reduce waste. There-
link the data to specific GB credits. fore, different types of commonly used material and materials
A notable advancement in this stream of research is the intro- complying with the requirements of green credits are compared
duction of life cycle costing (LCC). In status quo, there is a trend against each other. The cost data is obtained from the schedule
in focusing on LCC for GBs. According to Levander et al. (2009), ini- of rates for term contracts for building works (HKASD, 2016).
tial cost can be determined easily and reliably, but maintenance Since most of the materials are recycled or reused material with
and operational cost data are not widely available. This issue pre- repeated life-cycles, it is necessary to set up boundaries for the
vents the clients from focusing on a long-term perspective such study, which is illustrated in Fig. 1. The client/developer bears
that initial cost remains the main basis for decision-making the costs from gate to gate. Once the material is manufactured, it
(Levander et al., 2009). As a result many long-term viable options has a selling price which includes all the costs incurred for the
can be eliminated due to higher initial costs, and also client might manufacturing of the material. This is included in the selling price
choose option with lower initial costs completely disregarding sig- to the client. Once it is brought to the construction site it is fixed
nificantly higher operational costs. Therefore, to make informed into the building which includes the cost of labour, machinery,
decisions, LCC plays a significant role. and others. This is termed as cost of supplying and fixing the par-
Tam et al. (2015) conducted a study on cost implications of pho- ticular component. During the demolition stage, components of
tovoltaic panels and Tam et al. (2017) also focused on LCC for tim- materials are taken down, sorted and sent for recycling or re-
ber applications in GBs. Similarly, there are studies on LCCs for using. However, the client/developer incurs a cost for demolition
obtaining credits of concrete (Illankoon et al., 2018c), insulation setting aside before proceeding to the re-using or recycling. This
credits (Illankoon et al., 2018b) vertical greening systems (Perini cost is termed as ‘cost for demolition and setting aside before re-
and Rosasco, 2016), optimal thermal comfort designs (Kim et al., using’. If the materials are reused or recycled, they will further
2016) and TI- facades (Wong et al., 2010) in relation to GB. The incur a cost, but it is not borne by the Client. If the Client buys recy-
maintenance cost is found to be significant compared to others cled materials, then again he/she pays a selling price which is
such as disposal and initial cost (Peri et al., 2012). Similarly, borne by the Client. This study focuses on the costs incurred by
Illankoon et al., 2018c mentioned that the cost of demolition of the Client when obtaining green credits. Therefore, the boundary
the larger columns is approximately 61–68% of the LCC, which is of the study is from gate to gate cost analysis.
greater than the initial cost. The most significant strength of LCC The building life-cycle is set as 60 years. Therefore, the demoli-
is that it considers the costs that occurs throughout the life-cycle tion takes place 60 years after the construction completed. As a
rather than confining to the initial cost only. According to Zuo result, the time value of money needs to be considered when cal-
et al. (2017), LCC is one of the widely used methods to evaluate culating the demolition cost. The net present value (NPV) is consid-
various options in green buildings, but certain issues such as lack ered for calculating the time value for money. Eq. (1) shows the
of appropriate and reliable data act as one of the main hindrances formula for the NPV calculation.
in life-cycle approach. The key to such LCC is to define the bound- NPV calculation
ary of such analysis and compare the LCC without such GB initia-
tives using convincing data. XN Rt
NPV ði; NÞ ¼ t ð1Þ
t¼0
ð1 þ iÞ

3. Research methodology where i denotes the discount rate, t denotes the time of cash flow, Rt
denotes the net cash flow, and N is the total number of periods. ‘The
For practical reasons, this research focuses on BEAM Plus, which discount rate is established considering the time value of money
is a green building rating tool established by the Hong Kong Green and the associated risk. The minimum attractive rate of return is
Building Council (HKGBC). Initially this is identified as the Building commonly used as the discount rate Dell’isola and Kirk, 2003 .
Environmental Assessment Method (HK-BEAM) scheme which was The inflation rate in Hong Kong is 2.7% as at October 2018
established in 1996. There was a significant upgrade to the previ- (Trading Economics, 2018a) and the interest rate on a 10-year gov-
ous BEAM documents in 2004 (HKGBC, 2015). In 2009, with ernment bond is 1.6% per annum (Trading Economics, 2018b). The
response to the critical global environmental issue, BEAM was fur- discount rate considered in this research is 2.75%. However, this
ther developed to meet higher expectations of the public and rate changes for each user, because the associated risk differs from
community. one to another. Therefore, in order to calculate the life-cycle cost, a
In BEAM Plus there are two major divisions, namely, BEAM Plus user should identify the associated discount rate. LCC significantly
for Existing and New Buildings, and BEAM Plus for Interiors. BEAM depend on the discount rate, especially if there are operational costs
Plus for Existing Building and New Buildings were launched in incurring throughout the life-cycle. Therefore, for LCC studies it is
November 2009. After reviewing feedbacks from industry stake- essential to carry out a sensitivity analysis. Credits related to oper-
holders, the BEAM Faculty has made minor refinements to the ational waste, incur costs throughout the life-cycle. A sensitivity
assessment criteria, developing the new BEAM Plus version 1.1 to analysis also presented for the changes in discount rates.
replace the previous BEAM Plus in April 2010 (HKGBC, 2015). As mentioned earlier this research study focused on CWM cred-
Finally, BEAM Plus version 1.2 was launched in November 2012, its in BEAM Plus. Certain credits only incurred and initial cost,
which is currently in use. For BEAM Plus Existing and new build- whilst certain credits incurred both initial and operational costs.
ings rating tools, there are mainly six credit criteria which are eval- Re-used and recycled materials incurred additional costs for han-
uated. These criteria are Site Aspects, Energy use, IEQ, Materials dling during the demolition stage. Therefore, various credits are
aspects, Water use and Innovations and additions. The CWM composed of various cost components. Table 1 below illustrates
related credits are included in ‘Material aspect” criteria, which is the composition of costs for each credit.
further explained in the latter section of this paper. Credits related to construction and demolition waste reduction,
To start, the authors analyzed the BEAM Plus credits and dis- such as ‘MA 10 Demolition waste reduction’ and ‘MA11 Construc-
cerned the credits related to CWM. It was discovered that CWM- tion waste reduction’, specifically focused on cost for taking down
related credits mainly reside in the ‘material aspects’ in BEAM Plus. and setting aside for re-use. This is an additional cost incurred by
When identifying the credits relating to CWM, authors looked in to reusable material opposed to conventional material. Therefore, it
 I.M. Chethana S. Illankoon, W. Lu / Waste Management 102 (2020) 722–731 725

Fig. 1. Life-cycle of a recycle/reused building material.

Table 1 The second type of costs is the maintenance costs. Certain cred-
Cost composition of CWM credits. its in BEAM Plus triggers different regular maintenance require-
Credit Initial Operational Demolition ments and regular processes to maintain the facilities (for
cost cost cost* example operational waste credits). These maintenance and other
Minimum or no use for temporary X – – relevant costs are based on maintenance manuals, government
works requirements and industry reports on specific products and mate-
Modular or prefabrication X – – rials. Cost of demolition is prominent in CWM credits. In CWM
Operational waste X X –
credits, it is required to reuse materials used in the structure.
Rapidly renewable material X – X
Construction and demolition waste X – X Therefore, for all re-usable material, an additional cost is added
reduction for the extra care required during demolition. As an example, the
* life-cycle cost calculation includes the cost of preparing timber
Demolition cost referred to the additional cost incurred taking down and
stacking aside for re-using. framing for reuse.

is worth identifying the percentage of increments in the total cost 4. Results and analyses
(or the present value) due to re-using the material. Eq. (2) calcu-
lates the percentage increase in cost. 4.1. Credits allocated to CWM
Percentage of increase in cost
BEAM Plus has six key criteria, namely, ‘site aspects’, ‘material
aspects’, ‘energy use’, ‘water aspects’, and ‘indoor environment
Percentage of increase in cost quality (IEQ)’. Each of these key criteria comprises of different
attainable points, including bonus or professional points. Each
Present v alue of cost for 0 demolition0
¼  100 ð2Þ key criteria is given a weightage to reflect its importance
Initial cost (HKGBC, 2012). BEAM Plus has a weightage of 8% for material
When calculating the LCC, researchers considered three types of aspect credits, which is the lowest compared to other remaining
costs namely; (1) initial cost, (2) maintenance, replacement and key criteria. This practice is different from LEED wherein credits
other costs, and (3) disposal and other related costs. Most of the share the same weightage. CWM mainly focuses on the 3R, namely,
initial costs are available on Schedule of Rates published by the reduce, reuse and recycle. Many credits in material aspect focus on
HKASD (2016). The rates given in the schedules included for mate- reducing, recycling and re-using the material. In total, there are
rial (including wastage, cutting, and the like), labour, and plant/- 17 + 1B credit points allocated to CWM. ‘Material aspects’ key cri-
tools. Some of the rates required for this research was not teria has a total of 22 + B credit points. Therefore, majority (approx-
available from the schedule. In such instances, Quarterly Construc- imately 77%) of material aspect credits are allocated to CWM. This
tion Cost Update published by the Rider Levitt and Bucknell (RLB) is in consistent with previous studies (Wu et al., 2016; Lu et al.,
(2018) was referred. It needs to point out that the rates given in 2019).
the Schedule of Rates and Quarterly Construction Cost Update have Al the CWM-related credits in BEAM Plus is given in Annex-1.
followed different approaches in developing the costs, e.g., the From the credits given in Annex-1, ‘MAP1 Timber used for tempo-
inclusions and exclusions are different, making the rates different rary works’ focuses on reducing the use of virgin timber. ‘MAP3
from each other. Therefore, the preference is given to the Schedule Construction and demolition waste management plan’ credit
of Rates while the Quarterly Construction Cost Update is referred as a focuses on documenting the CWM plan and it is not considered
guide. Certain credits require special requirements, leading to for cost calculations. When a building operates, there are opera-
unique materials and techniques, the cost of which may not be tional wastes generated by the occupants. ‘MA P4 Waste recycling
available in both references. First cost principles are used to facilities’ focuses on the operational waste. Although the opera-
develop the rates from the scratch in such instances. tional waste does not represent the CWM, the operational was
726 I.M. Chethana S. Illankoon, W. Lu / Waste Management 102 (2020) 722–731

itself pose a considerable threat to environment similar to the con- fore, the cost is included in the precast sections, which is illustrated
struction and demolition waste. in the latter sections of this research study. Further, to Poon and
‘MA1 Building reuse’ credit aims to use the major elements of Yip (2005), large steel formworks can be used approximately 100
existing building to reduce waste. The cost significantly depends times and the conventional timber formwork can be used about
on the extent to which the elements are incorporated in the new 35 times.
design. Therefore, this credit is not considered for the cost calcula- The next element discussed in this credit is hoardings. The cost
tions. ‘MA2 Modular and standardised design’ and ‘MA3 Prefabri- of a simplified corrugated metal hoarding costs approximately
cation’ credits aim to use standardised components to enhance around 1200–1400 HKD/m yet a particularly designed metal
buildability and reduce waste. Generally, the prefabricated units hoarding costs up to 16,000 HKD/m2 (HKASD, 2016). Further, the
are used in the modular design. costs of hoarding includes but not limited to delivering to and
‘MA4 Adaptability and deconstruction’ credit focuses on adapt- erecting on site, repairing and maintaining throughout the period
ability of interiors to reduce waste during refurbishments. This of metal/aluminium use in first or subsequent positions, and taking
credit solely depends on the building design. Therefore, additional down and setting aside for re-erection (HKASD, 2016). A bamboo
costs are not calculated. Use of bamboo and its cost as a rapidly protective fence cost with 600–900 mm height cost around 51
renewable material is discussed focusing on ‘MA5 Rapidly renew- HKD/m. There is a significant difference between the cost and
able materials’ credit. As the name suggests, ‘MA7 Recycled mate- the usage of these two fencing systems. Bamboo protective fencing
rials’ focuses on the recycled materials. Finally, ‘MA10 Demolition provides minimal security, yet the hoardings are more sophisti-
waste reduction’ and ‘MA11 Construction waste reduction’ identi- cated and much preferred in construction in congested areas
fies the waste generating materials and this study calculates the where security is a priority.
cost of the construction waste categories separately.
4.3. Modular and prefabrications
4.2. Minimal or no use of timber for temporary works
There are two credits in BEAM Plus discuss on the modular and
According to HKGBC, 2012, ‘MAP1 Timber used for temporary prefabrications. The two credits are ‘MA2 Modular and standard-
works’ credit focused on eliminating the use of virgin forest prod- ised design’ and ‘MA3 Prefabrication’ (HKGBC, 2012). The cost
ucts. This credit is related to temporary works such as scaffoldings, impact is discussed focusing on the prefabrication units and the
formwork and hoardings. Therefore, in this research study, metal in-situ cast units in a building. Table 2 reports the cost of prefabri-
scaffoldings, hoardings and walkways are compared against the cated and in-situ cast units for various elements. However, the pre-
normal timber components. fabrication costs should consider the design cost as well, which is
According to HKASD (2016, p. 18/10), Metal scaffolding com- not considered in this research study.
promising a single framework of upright and horizontal rails (i.e. According to Table 2, all the prefabricated structural elements
the GB option) costs 116 HKD/m2 and timber scaffolding (the cost higher than the in-situ cast units. However, these units can
non-GB option) of similar costs 39 HKD/m2. Further, metal scaf- be reused with a minimal cost. Taking-out and setting aside for
folding comprising double layers of framework of uprights and reuse for precast concrete units costs approximately 133–186
horizontal rails of free standing scaffolding costs 155 HKD/m2 HKD/m3 (HKASD, 2016). Therefore, the prefabricated units directly
and timber scaffolding of similar nature costs 50 HKD/m2. The contribute to the reduction of demolition waste. Further, when
rates for metal scaffoldings include for delivery to and erection using prefabricated units, the time taken for the construction can
on site, repairing and maintaining throughout the period of use also be reduced, leading to decrease the overall project costs.
in first or subsequent positions and taking down and setting aside There are various options available for architectural and façade
for re-erection or removing from site (HKASD, 2016, p. 18/16). Sim- elements. However, usually, the door and window sets are less
ilarly, timber scaffolding rates include repairing and maintaining
throughout the period of use in first or subsequent positions. The
metal scaffolding is approximately three times the cost of timber Table 2
Cost of prefabricated units.
scaffolding. However, in Hong Kong, bamboo is mainly used for
scaffoldings (Ramanathan, 2008). The framework of the scaffolding Description Unit *Prefabricated ^
In-situ
including the poles and braces are made using bamboo and the Units (HKD) cast units
(HKD)
working platforms are made with plywood (Ramanathan, 2008).
Bamboo is considered as a sustainable rapidly renewable material, Structural elements
Beams and the like (20 MPa) m3 3011 1212–1227
yet according to Chan et al. (2017) over 50,000 tonnes of bamboo
Slabs (including ground slabs, m3 2745 1227–1236
scaffolding is dumped annually as construction waste from Hong suspended slabs and sloping slabs)
Kong’s building and construction projects. Therefore, when com- (20 MPa)
paring metal scaffolding with the bamboo scaffolding in terms of Walls/retaining walls m3 2876 1222–1234
cost, it is necessary to focus on the number of uses as well. Simi- Façade elements/Architectural elements
larly, Fang et al. (2004) mentioned that the cost of bamboo scaf- Galvanised steel doors including all m2 994–1172 N/A
folding is low compared to metal scaffolding and the rent of the components and openable
sashes
metal scaffolding is generally 2–2.5 times of that of bamboo scaf-
50 mm Solid core flush door faced No N/A 6300
folding, leading to a lower payback periods for the bamboo scaf- both sides with 5 mm timber
folding compared to metal. veneered plywood including door
The use of conventional timber formwork dominates the con- frame, architrave, mouldings and
painting (excluding ironmongery)
struction market in Hong Kong, yet steel formwork integrated with
Composite aluminium cladding units m2 1303 N/A
pre-cast concrete units are used as a low waste technology (Poon Ceramic mosaic external wall tiling; m2 N/A 440
and Yip, 2005). Further, in generally the formwork is reused. Usu- adhesive fixed (45  45 or
ally the formwork qualifies for this credit. The sawn formwork for 45  95 mm tiles)
various building elements such as concrete beams, walls, columns Source: (HKASD, 2016; RLB, 2018)).
and soffits of slabs/stairs varies from 371 to 427 HKD/m2 (HKASD, *
GB option.
^
2016). Steel formwork is used in pre-cast construction and there- Non-GB option.
 I.M. Chethana S. Illankoon, W. Lu / Waste Management 102 (2020) 722–731 727

expensive compared to separate timber door and windows. In LCC for operational waste calculation includes annual opera-
Table 2, galvanised steel door set is compared a timber flush door. tional waste managing costs. Fig. 2 below shows the sensitivity
Similarly, an Aluminium door set costs around 1570 HKD/m2. Sim- analysis of LCC to the changes in discount rate.
ilar to the precast structural elements, the door and window units According to Fig. 2, LCC reduces when the discount rate
can be reused after the demolition stage and for taking down the increases. When the discount rate changes from 2% to 3.5%, LCC
galvanised doors, setting aside for reuse costs around 26–31 changes from 417 HKD/m2 to 299 HKD/m2.
HKD/m2 (HKASD, 2016). Table 2 reports on the Aluminium clad-
ding and the ceramic mosaic external wall tiling. However, costs
4.5. Rapidly renewable material
for external finishes largely depend on the type of cladding/finishes
used. If a prefabricated cladding is used, it can be once again
Bamboo is a widely used material in Hong Kong. A 14 mm thick
reused. Taking-out and setting aside for reuse in cladding units
bamboo flooring will cost approximately 459 HKD/m2 (HKASD,
cost approximately 148 HKD/m2 (HKASD, 2016).
2016). This composite price includes the including 12 mm ply-
wood, gum paper and asphalt paper with adhesive, which explains
the slightly higher cost. Cork is also identified as a rapidly renew-
4.4. Operational waste
able material. The cost of cork flooring is around 124–208 HKD/m2.
Similarly, a paraquet flooring costs around 111–124 HKD/m2.4
Construction and demolition waste, as its name implies, arises
depending on the type of wood used (HKASD, 2016). If artificial
during the construction or demolition periods. In between the con-
granite floor tiling is used, the cost is approximately around 188–
struction and demolition periods, there is an operational phase of a
217 HKD/m2 (HKASD, 2016). When comparing the cost of using
building which generates significant amounts of operational waste.
rapidly renewable material for flooring options, the costs are
Therefore, ‘MAP4 Waste recycling facilities’ building credits
within the same range. However, apart from the initial cost, it is
focuses on the operational waste management of the building.
necessary to look in to maintenance and replacement of material
According to Chan and Lee (2005), there are two types of conven-
as well.
tional refuse collection systems, one with the refusal chute and the
other is without the refusal chute. The prevailing charge for dispos-
ing waste by a private waste hauler to a refuse transfer station cost 4.6. Recycled materials
around 30–110 HKD/t (Rinsatitnon, Dijaroen, Limpiwun, Suktavee,
and Chinda, 2018). Further, in a residential building the cost spent The main objective of ‘MA7 Recycled materials’ is to promote
on the operational management is not explicit, yet it is included in the use of recycled material in order to reduce the consumption
the building management fees and estimated at about 20–50 HKD of virgin resources (HKGBC, 2012). This credit has three sub-
per household per month (Environmental Protection Department, sections classifying usage of recycled material in outside surface
2014). Based on that fact, the annual average cost for operational works and structures, building structure and interior components.
waste disposal is 420 HKD ((20 + 50)/2)*12). Therefore, if a 60- Table 3 reports the cost considerations on all these sub-sections.
years life-cycle for residential unit is considered the total life cycle Similar to the recycled glass pavers, it is possible to use clay or
cost for the unit would be 12,275 HKD (420 * 29.226; 29.226 is the brick pavers for flooring, which cost 155 HKD/m2 (HKASD, 2016).
present value of annuity for 60 years when the discount rate is This paving option is much cheaper than the recycled block option.
2.75%. According to Hong Kong Transport and housing bureau Similarly, in concrete, pulverized fuel ash is a commonly used recy-
(2017), majority of the renting houses has an internal floor area cled aggregate in concrete, which can be much cheaper when the
of 30–40 m2. Approximate average internal floor area of a residen- replacement percentages are high (Illankoon et al., 2018c).
tial unit would be 35 m2. Therefore, the life-cycle cost for approx- For interior components, there is wide range of interior compo-
imate floor area would be 351 HKD/m2 (HKD 12274.92/35 m2) nents that can be considered for this option. When focusing on
considering a 60-years period. benches and chairs there can be many cheaper options for chair,

Fig. 2. Sensitivity analysis to the changes in discount rate.

728 I.M. Chethana S. Illankoon, W. Lu / Waste Management 102 (2020) 722–731

Table 3 complying to green building requirements on construction demo-

Cost of recycled material. lition waste reduction can vary from 0.4% to 6%. However, it is
Description Unit Cost interesting to note that costs arising from the demolition waste
(HKD) occur during the end of the building life-cycle. Therefore, there is
Outside surface works and structure a higher possibility that these costs are not included in the initial
Recycled glass pavers (60 mm thick) m2 349 cost calculations.
Recycled glass block walling (100 mm thick) m2 169
(300  150 mm Recycled glass blocks 534 HKD per 100
blocks - supply only)
Building structure
Concrete with use of pulverized fuel ash (refer to Table 2, m3 Increase
5. Discussion
in-situ cast costs for concrete rates) of 2%
Concrete with recycled coarse aggregates (refer to Table 2, m3 Increase 5.1. Higher material costs
in-situ cast costs for concrete rates) of 9%
Interior components Most of the credits focusing on C&D waste require to use recy-
Seating bench, 1200–1500 mm long  600–750 mm wide No 5607 cled or reused materials in construction. However, it is clear that
Recycled plastic chairs with or without backs and with No 1695
the costs of recycled materials are considerably higher than the
slats in recycled plastic and polyester powder coated
finish similar conventional materials. It is true that recycled materials
can have higher number of uses than conventional materials. Yet,
Source: HKASD (2016).
the industry practice does not count the cost saving for using recy-
cled materials more than once. As an example, according to Sec-
tion 4.6, recycled paver cost approximately 349 HKD/m2, yet a
which largely depend on the selection of the occupants and their
similar clay or brick paver would cost around 154 HKD/m2
requirements. Certain recycled contents can be reused after the
(HKASD, 2016). However, recycled paver can be used for several
demolition of the works. Table 4 illustrates the additional costs
times. The actual cost should be the life-cycle costs (which
that incur, if the units are reused. When a recycled component is
includes the initial cost and the recycling cost) divided by the num-
reused, it increases the number of uses of that particular compo-
ber of uses. However, current practice only buys or sells recycled
nent leading to a reduction in cost over the life-cycle of the compo-
materials by calculating the overall initial and recycling costs,
nent. However, it is necessary to identify the optimum number of
which are considerable higher than conventional virgin materials.
uses of a component to achieve the lower costs.
When focusing on temporary works, if the contractor owns the
temporary works, he can get cost savings from using materials
4.7. Construction and demolition waste reduction with longer life-cycles. As an example, even though the metal scaf-
foldings are significantly higher in costs compared to bamboo scaf-
As mentioned in the literature, Hong Kong has significant con- foldings, the number of uses for metal scaffoldings are around
cerns on C&D wastemanagement. According to HKGBC (2012), three times higher compared to the bamboo scaffoldings. There-
there are two credits directly focusing on construction and demo- fore, if the contractor owns his own scaffolding sets, he will benefit
lition waste namely; ‘MA 10 Demolition waste reduction’ and from using the re-usable material.
‘MA11 Construction waste reduction’. The commonly reused and The green building certification focuses on modular designs and
recycled material categories are focused in this research study. Fur- prefabricated units. However, to incorporate prefabricated units in
ther, as illustrated in Section 3, this research study focuses on a the structure, it needs to ponder the design carefully in the initial
gate-to-gate analysis. Table 5 reports the supplying and fixing costs stages. This will increase the design costs, yet it will derive many
and the additional costs that need to be incurred to segregate the benefits. According to Ferdous et al. (2019), modular construction
waste and set aside for reuse. offers faster construction with better predictability of completion
When referring to Table 5, there is an additional cost for sorting time, less workers on site and many more benefits. Further,
out and preparing the waste for reuse. Further, it is interesting to Ferdous et al. (2019) mentioned that modular construction cost
identify the percentage of increment of cost to the initial cost. reduction will unlock the potential growth of prefabricated modu-
Fig. 3 illustrates the increment percentage of additional cost. The lar buildings. However, according to the cost calculations, the pre-
cost figures for additional cost are discounted values using NPV fabricated units are costlier than the in-situ cast units. This echoes
technique. with previous studies (e.g., Tam et al., 2017, Poon and Yip, 2005).
According to Fig. 3, the lowest cost increment is from bamboo These benefits are once again not considered in the cost
flooring and corrugated aluminium steel sheet cladding. However, calculations.
this research study only considered a small number of prevailing The higher costs of materials used in green buildings might be
options only. When all these re-using options are considered, it offset when considering other factors such as number of uses
is possible to depict that the percentage increment on cost when and non-monetary benefits. However, these cost savings are not
directly included in the initial cost. As a result, the material cost
is considered as higher compared to conventional building materi-
Table 4 als. According to the calculations, the clients has to pay around
Cost for taking down and set-aside for re-using recycled material. 0.4–6% higher cost for taking down and preparing the material
Description Unit Cost for re-using (refer to Section 4.7).
(HKD) Re-using materials and construction and demolition waste
Outside surface works and structure reduction lead to a reduction in carbon emissions. This is a saving
Recycled glass pavers m2 349 to the client if it can be monetised. Lam et al. (2015) recommended
Interior components setting up an emission exchange centre as a trading market cover-
Seating bench, 1200–1500 mm long  600–750 mm wide No 221 ing Mainland China and Hong Kong. In 2018, Hong Kong Shanghai
Recycled plastic chairs with or without backs and with slats No 79 Banking Corporation (HSBC) launched a new lending programme
in recycled plastic and polyester powder coated finish
supporting the low carbon emissions in businesses and supply
Source: HKASD (2016). chains. Illankoon and Lu (2019) illustrated that if there is system
 I.M. Chethana S. Illankoon, W. Lu / Waste Management 102 (2020) 722–731 729

Table 5
Additional costs for managing construction waste.

Description Unit Cost (Supply and fixing Take down and set aside
only) (HKD) for reuse (HKD)
Concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics
Concrete/Canton Tiling laid with 15 mm wide open joints and bedded solid and pointed in cement m2 96–122 9
mortar (1:4) on screed or roof covering (not included)
Precast concrete unreinforced pipes laid in trenches 150 mm diameter m 488 24
Vitrified clay pipes and fittings to BS 65, chemical resistant, laid in trenches 100 mm diameter m 394 21
Close-coupled W.C. suite complete with low or high level cistern with lever flush or push button litre No 1045 92
single flush or 6/4 L dual flush and ‘‘P” or ‘‘S”-trap
Vitreous china wall urinal bowl complete with outlet grating, trap and concealed brackets or hanger No 711 45
Wood, glass and plastic
Wood block flooring m2 172–241 21
Parquet flooring m2 111–125 19
Bamboo flooring (plywood backing is not included) m2 459 21
Wrot timber frames to windows, doors, exposed partition or panel frames, transoms, mullions styles, m 42–66 20
rails or sills, etc., (width not exceeding 50 mm)
Vinyl plastic handrail capping to 50 mm core rail m 44 11
Polyethylene (PE) pipes laid in trench – 90 mm diameter m 79 15
PE pipe fixed to floor, wall or soffits m 89 17
Glass and glazing to wood with putty including beads – 3 mm thick clear float glass m2 140 31
Glass and glazing to wood with putty including beads – 6 mm thick clear float glass m2 409 34
Metal
Hot rolled steel sections Grade S 275 including bars, plates, angular sections, rods, hollow sections and kg 26–30 6–8
the like
Cold rolled steel to be EN 10162 including hollow sections, purlins and the like kg 34–41 6–8
Mild steel rolled sections including bars, plates, angular sections, rods, hollow sections and the like kg 10–20 6
Galvanised mild steel rolled sections including bars, plates, angular sections, rods, hollow sections and kg 21–30 6–9
the like
Corrugated steel sheet cladding n.e. 0.60 mm thick in any corrugation and colour fixed to timber/steel m2 86–105 14–15
framing (not included)
Corrugated aluminium sheet cladding in any corrugation and colour m2 363–549 10–12
Insulation materials
Thermal insulation to pipework – 80–125 mm diameter m 232 37
Other
Random rubble walling of any thickness m3 928 194
Ashlar walling or facing not exceeding- 100 mm thick m2 142 20

Source: HKASD (2016).

Fig. 3. Percentage increase in cost.

730 I.M. Chethana S. Illankoon, W. Lu / Waste Management 102 (2020) 722–731

that can be used to monetise these reductions, it will act a signif- Acknowledgement
icant enabler.
This research is jointly supported by the Hong Kong Research
5.2. Higher cost vs weightage of credits Grants Council (RGC) General Research Fund (GRF) (Project No.:
17201917) and the Public Policy Research Funding Scheme from
In BEAM Plus, the credits focusing on C&D waste contributes to the Policy Innovation and Co-ordination Office of the Government
17 credits together with one bonus credit (HKGBC, 2012). Further- of the Hong Kong SAR (Project Number: 2018.A8.078.18D).
more, the MA credits only have 8% of weightage in credit calcula-
tion, which is the lowest of all the key criteria. According to
HKGBC (2012), the weightage is given based on its importance, Appendix A. Supplementary material
and by providing the lowest weightage factor, material aspects
are often given the least importance by the GB rating tools. Further, Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
majority of the material aspect credits (17 out of 22) directly https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.11.024.
related to C&D waste management.
Other key criteria such as water and energy have higher weigh-
tages of 35% and 12%, respectively. Also, energy credits have to References
obtain a minimum performance credits for the building to be eligible
Architectural Services Department (HKASD) (2016). Schedule of rates for term
for BEAM Plus certification (HKGBC, 2012). These key criteria such as contracts for building works. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2o5fkBo.
energy and water have direct savings as well. On the other hand, Chan, C.L.S., Lau, K.S.T., Allen, S.J., McKay, G., 2017. Production of high surface area-
material aspect credits have higher costs and it does not reflect activated carbons from waste bamboo scaffolding. HKIE Trans. 24 (3), 133–140.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1023697X.2017.1345330.
any monetary savings during the operational life of the green build- Chan, E.H., Lee, G. (2005). Refuse collection facilities and health concerns in dense
ing. Considering these facts, it is not surprising that the building urban residential buildings: Technical Research Centre of Finland: Association
owners seeking green certification might ignore or rather do not give of Finnish Civil Engineers.
Chen, X., Lu, W.S., Xue, F., Xu, J.Y., 2018. A cost-benefit analysis of green buildings
priority for credits in the material aspect key criteria. with respect to construction waste minimization using big data in Hong Kong. J.
Green Build.. 13 (4), 61–76.
Chong, H.Y., Tam, V.W.Y., Lai, W.C., Sutrisna, M., Wang, X., Illankoon, I.M.C.S. (2017).
6. Conclusions
Cost implications for certified Green Building Index buildings. Proc. Instit. Civ.
Eng. – Waste Resour. Manage., 170(1), 29–40. doi:http://doi.org/10.1680/
This research quantified the costs to obtain construction waste jwarm.16.00019
management (CWM)-related credits in green building, with a view da Silva Bezerra, J., Lafayette, K.P.V., de Castro Costa, L.A.R., da Paz, D.H.F., Ferreira,
E., 2015. Analysis of costs associated with construction and demolition waste
to providing explanation to the widespread phenomenon of devel- management in construction sites in Recife, Brazil. Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 20
opers/clients being inactive in pursuing CWM. For practical reason, (16), 6807–6821.
this research focused on Hong Kong BEAM Plus version 1.2 rating Dell’isola, A.J., Kirk, S.J., 2003. Life cycle costing for facilities : economic analysis for
owners and professionals in planning, programming, and real estate
tool for new buildings. It did so by firstly combing out all CWM- development : designing, specifying, and construction, maintenance,
related credits, which are put under ‘‘Material Aspects” of the Hong operations, and procurement. Reed Construction Data, Kingston MA.
Kong BEAM Plus. It is found that construction related credits take up Doan, D.T., Chinda, T., 2016. Modeling construction and demolition waste recycling
program in Bangkok: Benefit and cost analysis. J. Construct. Eng. Manage. 142
17 + 1B (Bonus) points, but the overall ‘‘Material Aspects” only has a (12). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001188.
weightage of 8%, which is the lowest amongst all the aspects as pre- Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department (HKEPD) (2014). Chapter 2 - The
scribed by HK-BEAM. To obtain the CWM-related credits, it requires problem - Need for Firm Action. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2n70dqR.
Fang, D., Wu, S., Wong, F.K., Shen, Q., 2004. A Comparative Study on Safety and use
‘‘green” materials and carefully performing 3R (i.e., Reduce, Reuse, of Bamboo and Metal Scaffolding in Hong Kong Construction Safety
and Recycle). This study then used the cost data of ‘‘green” and con- Management Systems. Spon Press London, pp. 373–385.
ventional materials, and cost data of 3R from Schedule of Rates pub- Ferdous, W., Bai, Y., Ngo, T.D., Manalo, A., Mendis, P., 2019. New advancements,
challenges and opportunities of multi-storey modular buildings–A state-of-the-
lished by the HKASD and Quarterly Construction Cost Update by RLB
art review. Eng. Struct. 183, 883–893.
and calculated their present value. It is discovered that to obtain Fuerst, F., McAllister, P., 2011. The impact of Energy Performance Certificates on the
the CWM-related credits, one needs to pay a higher cost ranging rental and capital values of commercial property assets. Energy Policy 39 (10),
from 0.4% to 6% than conventional building. The benefits of using 6608–6614.
Gowri, K., 2004. Green building rating systems: an overview. ASHRAE J. 46 (11), 56.
these materials are not monetised or rather the cost saving is not Green Building Council Australia. (2015). About GBCA. Retrieved from http://www.
borne by the user. These may explain why developers are observably gbca.org.au/about/
lukewarm in pursuing CWM through green building. The low weigh- Hao, J.L., Hills, M.J., Huang, T., 2007. A simulation model using system dynamic
method for construction and demolition waste management in Hong Kong.
tage of the attainable credits related to Material Aspects may further Construct. Innovat. 7 (1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/14714170710721269.
exacerbate developers’ willingness to pay due endeavour. HKGBC (HKGBC) (2012). BEAM Plus New Buildings. Version 1.2 HKGBC [HKGBC].
This research study provides evidences for developers on the HKGBC (2015). About HKGBC. Retrieved from https://www.hkgbc.org.hk/eng/
Huang, B., Wang, X., Kua, H., Geng, Y., Bleischwitz, R., Ren, J., 2018. Construction and
costs of obtaining green building material and also provides useful demolition waste management in China through the 3R principle. Resour.
information for policy makers in green building industry with Conserv. Recycl. 129, 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.029.
regards to costs to improve and re-shape the green building tools Illankoon, I.M.C.S., Lu, W., 2019. Optimising choices of ‘building services’ for green
building: interdependence and life cycle costing. Build. Environ. 161,. https://
to deal with the effect of higher costs. It is recommended to doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106247 106247.
develop a costing strategy to include the cost savings in initial cost Illankoon, I.M.C.S., Tam, V.W., Le, K.N., Weerakoon, S.V., 2018a. Life-cycle cost model
calculations. The developers can be encouraged to look into a cost- for green star office buildings in Australia. In: International Conference on
Sustainability in Energy and Buildings. Springer, pp. 189–198.
benefit analysis rather than confining in initial cost calculations.
Illankoon, I.M.C.S., Tam, V.W.Y., Le, K.N. (2018). Life cycle costing for insulated
Further, green building rating systems can evaluate the importance pitched roof structures. In: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 21st
and the related costs of obtaining the credits and continually International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and
improve the credit weightage so that the impact of higher costs Real Estate, 2016.
Illankoon, I.M.C.S., Tam, V.W.Y., Le, K.N., Wang, J.Y., 2018c. Life cycle costing for
is neutralized or at least minimized. obtaining concrete credits in green star rating system in Australia. J. Cleaner
Prod. 172, 4212–4219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.202.
Declaration of Competing Interest Kim, J., Hong, T., Jeong, J., Koo, C., Jeong, K., 2016. An optimization model for
selecting the optimal green systems by considering the thermal comfort and
energy consumption. Appl. Energy 169, 682–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
The authors declared that there is no conflict of interest. apenergy.2016.02.032.
 I.M. Chethana S. Illankoon, W. Lu / Waste Management 102 (2020) 722–731 731

Lam, P.T.I., Chan, E.H.W., Yu, A.T.W., Cam, W.C.N., Yu, J.S., 2015. Applicability of Showalter, W.E., Mills, T., Jarman, D. (1997). Construction and demolition waste
clean development mechanism to the Hong Kong building sector. J. Cleaner management: Developing a cost effective plan. In: Paper presented at the
Prod. 109, 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.141. Hazardous and Industrial Wastes - Proceedings of the Mid-Atlantic Industrial
Latief, Y., Berawi, M.A., Van, B., Riswanto, & Budiman, R. (2017). Construction Waste Conference.
Performance Optimization toward Green Building Premium Cost Based on Shuai, C., Chen, X., Wu, Y., Tan, Y., Zhang, Y., Shen, L., 2018. Identifying the key
Greenship Rating Tools Assessment with Value Engineering Method. In: Paper impact factors of carbon emission in China: Results from a largely expanded
presented at the Journal of Physics: Conference Series. pool of potential impact factors. J. Cleaner Prod. 175, 612–623.
Levander, E., Schade, J., Stehn, L., 2009. Methodological and other uncertainties in Tam, V.W.Y., Le, K.N., Zeng, S.X., Wang, X., Illankoon, I.M.C.S., 2015. Regenerative
Life Cycle Costing. In: Atkin, B. (Ed.), Performance Improvement in construction practice of using photovoltaic solar systems for residential dwellings: an
management. Taylor and Fancis, London and New York, pp. 233–246. empirical study in Australia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/
Liu, J., Teng, Y., Jiang, Y., Gong, E., 2018. A cost compensation model for construction 10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.040.
and demolition waste disposal in South China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. https:// Tam, V.W.Y., Senaratne, S., Le, K.N., Shen, L.Y., Perica, J., Illankoon, I.M.C.S., 2017.
doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2887-0. Life-cycle cost analysis of green-building implementation using timber
Lu, W.S., Chen, X., Peng, Y., Liu, X.J., 2018. The effects of green building on applications. J. Cleaner Prod. 147, 458–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
construction waste minimization: triangulating ‘big data’ with ‘thick data’. jclepro.2017.01.128.
Waste Manage. 79 (9), 142–152. Trading Economics. (2018a). Hong Kong inflation rate. Retrieved from
Lu, W.S., Chi, B., Bao, Z., Zetkulic, A., 2019. Evaluating the effects of green building on //tradingeconomics.com/hong-kong/inflation-cpi
construction waste management: A comparative study of three green building Trading Economics. (2018b). Hong Kong interest rates. Retrieved from
rating systems. Build. Environ. 155, 247–256. https://tradingeconomics.com/hong-kong/interest-rate
Lu, W.S., Webster, C., Peng, Y., Chen, X., Zhang, X.L., 2016. Estimating and calibrating Transport and housing bureau. (2017). Housing in figures 2017. Retrieved from
the amount of building-related construction and demolition waste in urban https://www.thb.gov.hk/eng/psp/publications/housing/HIF2017.pdf
China. Int. J. Construct. Manage. 17 (1), 13–24. U.S. Environment Protection Agency (USEPA). (2018). Advancing Sustainable
Marrero, M., Ramirez-De-Arellano, A., 2010. The building cost system in andalusia: Materials Management: 2015 Fact Sheet. EPA, U.S., Available from: https://
Application to construction and demolition waste management. Construct. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-07/documents/2015_smm_
Manage. Econ. 28 (5), 495–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446191003735500. msw_factsheet_07242018_fnl_508_002.pdf (accessed on 17/03/2019).
Peri, G., Traverso, M., Finkbeiner, M., Rizzo, G., 2012. The cost of green roofs disposal U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) (2014). LEED V4 for building design and
in a life cycle perspective: covering the gap. Energy 48 (1), 406–414. https://doi. construction. Washington, DC: US Green Building Council.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.02.045. Wong, I.L., Perera, S., Eames, P.C., 2010. Goal directed life cycle costing as a method
Perini, K., Rosasco, P., 2016. Is greening the building envelope economically to evaluate the economic feasibility of office buildings with conventional and
sustainable? An analysis to evaluate the advantages of economy of scope of TI-façades. Construct. Manage. Econ. 28 (7), 715–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/
vertical greening systems and green roofs. Urban For. Urban Greening 20, 328– 01446191003753867.
337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.08.002. Wu, Z., Shen, L., Yu, A.T.W., Zhang, X., 2016. A comparative analysis of waste
Poon, C., Yip, R. (2005). Comparison of the use of traditional and low waste management requirements between five green building rating systems for new
formwork systems in Hong Kong. In: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the residential buildings. J. Cleaner Prod. 112 (P1), 895–902.
2005 World Sustainable Building Conference. Yuan, H.P., Shen, L.Y., Hao, J.J.L., Lu, W.S., 2011. A model for cost-benefit analysis of
Ramanathan, M. (2008). Hong Kong – bastion of bamboo scaffolding. Proc. Instit. Civ. construction and demolition waste management throughout the waste chain.
Eng. – Civil Eng., 161(4), 177–183. doi:http://doi.org/10.1680/cien.2008.161.4.177 Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (6), 604–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Rider Levitt and Bucknell (RLB). (2018). Quarterly construction cost update, Hong resconrec.2010.06.004.
Kong. Retrieved from Hong Kong: https://www.rlb.com/en/index/publications/ Zhang, Y., Altan, H., 2011. A comparison of the occupant comfort in a conventional
RLB (2018). Hong Kong Report Quarterly construction cost update. Retrieved from high-rise office block and a contemporary environmentally-concerned building.
https://www.rlb.com/en/index/publications/ Build. Environ. 46 (2), 535–545.
Rinsatitnon, N., Dijaroen, W., Limpiwun, T., Suktavee, G., Chinda, T., 2018. Reverse Zuo, J., Pullen, S., Rameezdeen, R., Bennetts, H., Wang, Y., Mao, G., Duan, H., 2017.
logistics implementation in the construction industry: Paper waste focus. Green building evaluation from a life-cycle perspective in Australia: a critical
Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 40 (4), 798–805. https://doi.org/10.14456/sjst- review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 70, 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psu.2018.113. rser.2016.11.251.
Roche, T., Hegarty, S. (2006). Best practice guidelines on the preparation of waste
management plans for construction and demolition projects. Department of the
Environment, Community and Local Government: Dublin, Ireland.