Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120749

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Construction waste minimization in green building: A comparative

analysis of LEED-NC 2009 certified projects in the US and China
Bin Chi a, Weisheng Lu a, Meng Ye b, *, Zhikang Bao a, Xiaoling Zhang c
a
Department of Real Estate and Construction, Faculty of Architecture, Knowles Building, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong
b
School of Economics and Management, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
c
Department of Public Policy, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong

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

Article history: Construction waste minimization is a key sustainability goal in green building rating systems. Although
Received 19 July 2019 these rating systems traverse countries’ boundaries, no research so far has compared construction waste
Received in revised form minimization performance in such systems across countries. This research aims to investigate and
19 February 2020
compare the construction waste minimization performance of green building projects in the US and
Accepted 23 February 2020
Available online 24 February 2020
China by focusing on the widely adopted LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) cer-
tification system. Data on 599 and 297 LEED-New Construction (NC) 2009 certified projects in the US and
^ as de
Handling editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bo China, respectively, were sourced from the US Green Building Council project directory. Their con-
Almeida struction waste minimization-related points were compared using the Mann-Whitney U and effect size
test, and semi-structured interviews were conducted to identify the possible causes behind statistical
Keywords: analysis results. We found no significant difference in construction waste minimization performance of
Green building LEED platinum-level projects in the US and China, but the magnitude of the difference between two
Green building rating system countries increased as the certification level went lower. The enforcement on regulations, recycling
Leadership in energy and environmental
market development, public consciousness and advanced technologies lead to the differences while the
design
influence of the political, economic, social, and technological context increased when the projects were
Construction waste minimization
certified with lower LEED levels. An amenable context should be fostered to achieve a better construction
waste minimization performance in green building and a sustainable development goal.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction has received considerable attention, with many construction-

related institutions now prioritizing sustainable, or green, building.
Construction is a pillar industry that materializes the built Buildings are designed, built, and operated according to codes.
environment, boosts economies, and provides jobs (Hillebrandt, Green buildings go beyond conventional codes, having higher
1984). It also has a negative impact on the natural environment, sustainability goals in energy saving, carbon emission reduction,
for instance through land depletion and degradation, solid waste and indoor air quality improvement. As a result, green building
generation, dust and gas emissions, and consumption of non- rating systems have been developed to evaluate and certify projects
renewable natural resources (Lu et al., 2015b; Shen et al., 2007). on a voluntary yet market-based premise (Illankoon and Lu, 2019).
For example, the construction and operation processes of buildings Prominent are China’s Green Building Evaluation Label (GBEL),
were responsible for 39% of energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) Australia’s Green Star, the European Building Research Establish-
emissions in 2017 (Global ABC, 2018), while in most developed ment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), and Hong
countries construction contributes 20e30% of solid waste ending Kong’s Building Environmental Assessment Method (BEAM) Plus.
up in landfills (Lu et al., 2018). The question of how to maximize the The US-led Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
positive role of construction while minimizing its negative impacts has the greatest market penetration globally (MacNaughton et al.,
2018). As of 2018, over 94,000 commercial buildings in 165 coun-
tries including the US, China, India, Brazil, Turkey and Germany had
subscribed to LEED certification (USGBC, 2019a).
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: E-mail address: meganye.w@outlook.com (M. Ye).megan828@
Stewardship of construction resource, material and waste is an
connect.hku.hk (M. Ye). important aspect of ‘going green’. The term ‘construction waste’

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120749
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 B. Chi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120749

refers to surplus and abandoned materials resulting from building well as Adler et al.’s (2016) characterization of green building as a
activities including construction, renovation, and demolition holistic practice aimed at achieving sustainability in planning,
(HKEPD, 1998). All green building standards have credits assessing design, construction, operation and maintenance, demolition and
waste management and minimization, with the aim of reducing waste treatment.
virgin resource consumption and landfill use. To obtain points To promote design and construction beyond regulatory mini-
related to construction waste minimization, building clients can mums towards a green standard (Fowler and Rauch, 2006), various
reuse original building components, use green materials, adopt rating systems, sometimes called ‘sustainability assessment rating
low-waste design and construction technologies, and devise better systems’ (Berardi, 2012), have emerged recently to serve as
waste management plans. Since waste minimization initiatives comprehensive mechanisms for assessing and recognising the level
normally contribute 8e12% of all attainable points in a green of ‘greenness’ achieved by a building (Shan and Hwang, 2018). A
building rating system (Wu et al., 2016), examining the perfor- green building rating system includes a set of explicit performance
mance in this area is of relevance, interest and importance. categories as well as criteria that can help ensure buildings meet or
Many studies have compared green building rating system exceed designated performance thresholds (Mattoni et al., 2018),
performance categories. For example, Roderick et al. (2009) and is structured to cope with diverse aspects of building perfor-
investigated energy consumption within the LEED, BREEAM and mance relating to energy, site, indoor air quality, materials and
Green Star schemes. Orova and Reith (2013) evaluated neighbour- other attributes of sustainable design (Doan et al., 2017; Gowri,
hood sustainability across five rating systems. Wu et al. (2016) 2004; Lu et al., 2019).
compared construction waste minimization assessment principles Researchers have examined the effects of green building rating
in five green building rating systems, and Lu et al. (2019) evaluated systems on a variety of aspects, including energy efficiency
waste minimization performance under LEED, BEAM Plus and (Castleton et al., 2010), indoor environmental quality (Abbaszadeh
GBEL. Some studies have compared the rating system performance et al., 2006; Allen et al., 2015), residents’ health (Colton et al., 2015;
within a country; for example, Pushkar and Verbitsky (2019) Zhang and Altan, 2011), and carbon emissions (Shuai et al., 2017;
discovered that the cross-certification performance in LEED pro- Zhang et al., 2014). Some researchers have extended their studies
jects in the US reflected the same strategy in the same state. to explore green building rating system effects on sustainable
However, there appears to be minimal research comparing the ef- development, since they are regarded as a ‘sustainable manage-
fect of a particular rating system on minimization of construction ment tool’ to assist green or sustainable building development (Zuo
waste in different economies. Uncovering how the same rating and Zhao, 2014). For example, Berardi (2015) classifies green
system performs differently in different regions will provide sup- building rating system into total quality assessment systems to
port for the argument that green building rating systems need to be evaluate dimensions of sustainability, including ecological, eco-
adapted for the local context in which they are applied (Albino and nomic, and social aspects; Ismaeel (2018) addresses approaches
Berardi, 2012; Gou and Lau, 2014). It also presents an opportunity to adopted by green building rating systems for environmental
examine how different political, economic, social, and technolog- problems; and several studies have explored the management or
ical (PEST) conditions influence the implementation of construc- minimization of construction waste via investigations of green
tion waste minimization practices within rating systems. Since it is building rating systems (e.g. Wu et al., 2016; Lu et al., 2019).
the world’s most widely recognized green building rating system,
this study probes waste minimization performance under LEED. 2.2. Construction waste minimization
This research aims to investigate and compare construction
waste minimization performance of LEED-certified projects in the Construction waste is the solid waste resulting from construc-
US and China. We choose these two contexts for two reasons. tion, renovation and demolition activities, normally classified as
Firstly, LEED has the most registered green building projects in inert or non-inert depending on stability of its chemical properties
these countries. As of 2018, 33,632 projects in the US and 1,494 (HKEPD, 1998). Landfilling is the usual means of dealing with non-
projects in China were LEED-certified (USGBC, 2019b). Secondly, inert waste (Lu et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2019), but is criticized for its
the two countries are of a similar geographic size but dissimilar in negative socio-economic effects and causing environmental
PEST context, allowing for potentially revealing comparisons to be degradation (Lu et al., 2015a). Inert waste, on the other hand, can be
made. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Subsequent to reused or recycled for land reclamation and site formation (Lu et al.,
this introductory section is a literature review on green building 2017), but a proper means of construction waste management is
and green building rating system, and construction waste mini- needed for the reused or recycled purpose.
mization. Section 3 introduces the research method, a combination Many studies have been conducted on construction waste
of quantitative analyses and semi-structured interviews. Data an- management (e.g. Shen et al., 2004; Lu and Yuan, 2011; Lu et al.,
alyses, results, and findings are presented in Section 4. Section 5 2015a). Over time, the focus has refined into the discipline of
discusses the findings and conclusions are presented in Section 6. construction waste minimization defined by Osmani (2012) as “the
reduction of waste at source by understanding its root causes and
2. Literature review re-engineering current processes and practices to alleviate its
generation”. Wang et al. (2019) define construction waste mini-
2.1. Green building and green building rating system mization as “taking all feasible technical means and management
measures for reducing or avoiding the generation of construction
The concept of green building still lacks a clear definition. Kibert waste in the whole process of construction implementation”.
(2016) defines green building as “healthy facilities designed and Emerging studies (e.g. Wu et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2018; Lu et al.,
built in a resource-efficient manner, using ecologically based 2018; Lu et al., 2019) have examined construction waste minimi-
principles”. Howard, 2003 definition emphasizes the efficient use zation of green building. This is a major sustainability goal pre-
of energy, water and materials and reduced impacts on human scribed by most green building rating systems, usually embedded
health and the environment throughout the building life cycle. This in the material utilization category and accounting for a non-
life cycle perspective factors into the US Environmental Protection negligible portion of credits. For example, 23 points in BEAM Plus
Agency (USEPA) (2016) definition of green building, which em- are allocated to the material aspect, of which 18 are attainable via
phasizes environmental responsibility and resource efficiency, as construction waste minimization. For GBEL, which has 510 points in
 B. Chi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120749 3

total, 84 of the 100 points allocated to materials are construction 3.2. Statistical methods for comparative analysis
waste minimization related (Lu et al., 2019). Under LEED-New
Construction (NC) 2009, the focus of this study, 14 out of 110 To compare construction waste minimization performance of
points are allocated to materials and resources (see the yellow the sampled LEED-certified projects in the US and China, several
square in Fig. 1). Credits associated with construction waste mini- statistical tests were applied to see whether a statistically signifi-
mization are based on the 3Rs (reduce, reuse and recycle) (Wu et al., cant difference exists at each certification level or not. Normality of
2016). For example, MR6 (Rapidly renewable materials) is designed the groups of data was checked first using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov
to reduce use of finite raw materials and instead install specified (KeS) test and the Shapiro-Wilk test. The KeS test compares the
short-cycle materials. MR1.1, MR1.2, MR2, MR3, MR4, and MR6 (the cumulative distribution of the data with the expected cumulative
blue squares in Fig. 1), are identified as construction waste €
normal distribution (Oztuna et al., 2006). The Shapiro-Wilk test
minimization-related credits, totalling 11 points. depends on the correlation between given data and their corre-
sponding normal scores. We apply these tests in the study
3. Research methods assuming the null hypothesis of a normal distribution. The results
in Table 2 indicate that all groups of data reject the null hypothesis
3.1. Data and samples with p-values less than 0.5 and are distributed non-normally.
Due to the non-normal distribution results, the non-parametric
Given that so few projects have so far achieved LEED v4 certifi- Mann-Whitney U test is applied to determine if the construction
cation, this research considers green building projects certified un- waste minimization performance of LEED-certified projects in the
der LEED-NC 2009. Data on these projects in the US and China were US and China are significantly different from each other at different
sourced from the project directory of the US Green Building Council certification levels. This test initially indicates the calculation of a U
(USGBC), resulting in a sample of 599 and 297 projects from the US statistic of each group. Mathematically, the statistics are defined by
and China respectively (896 in total) plotted on maps, in Fig. 2. The the following equations for each group:
sampled green buildings in the US are located across states with
California having the highest concentration, while those in China are n1 ðn1 þ 1Þ
U1 ¼ n1 n2 þ  R1 Equation 1
concentrated in economically developed eastern coastal provinces 2
and cities such as Jiangsu, Guangdong, Beijing, and Shanghai. The
numbers of projects, average attained construction waste minimi- n2 ðn2 þ 1Þ
zation (CWM)-related points, and average attained overall points are U2 ¼ n1 n2 þ  R2 Equation 2
2
shown in Table 1. Under LEED, there are four certification levels:
platinum, gold, silver and certified. The overall score attained of where n1 and n2 are the sample sizes of the two groups, and R1 and
projects at each certification level in the US and China are equal, R2 indicate the respective sum of ranks assigned to the two groups.
which ensures that the two sets of samples are comparable. We obtain two different values from Equations (1) and (2), i.e. U1

Fig. 1. Construction waste minimization-related credits under LEED-NC 2009. (The numbers in brackets denote the attainable points).
4 B. Chi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120749

Fig. 2. Distribution of sampled LEED-certified projects in the US and China.

Table 1
Overall score and CWM-related points of sampled LEED-certified projects based on certification levels.

Certification US China
Level
No. of Average CWM-related points Overall score No. of Average CWM-related points Overall score
projects obtained obtained projects obtained obtained

Platinum 55 4.036 82.00 32 3.781 82.56

Gold 190 3.968 64.00 147 3.578 64.64
Silver 247 3.619 54.00 89 3.180 54.16
Certified 107 3.598 45.00 29 2.793 45.07
Total 599 e e 297 e e

Data source: The USGBC project directory (https://www.usgbc.org/projects).

Table 2
Results of normality tests for CWM-points obtained.

Country Certification level Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df p-value Statistic df p-value

US Platinum 0.328 55 2.14e-16 0.836 55 3e-6

Gold 0.270 190 9.12e-39 0.908 190 1.77e-9
Silver 0.253 247 3.93e-44 0.897 247 6.32e-12
Certified 0.213 107 6.12e-13 0.933 107 4.5e-5
China Platinum 0.396 32 3.03e-14 0.733 32 3e-6
Gold 0.310 147 8.37e-40 0.740 147 7.62e-15
Silver 0.227 89 2.58e-12 0.853 89 6.36e-8
Certified 0.258 29 3.3e-5 0.896 29 7.88e-3
a
Lilliefors Significance Correction.

and U2 . The final value of U is taken as the minimum between U1 practices in the US and China and uncover possible causes of the
and U2 , U ¼ minðU1 ; U2 Þ. construction waste minimization performance of projects at
To further illustrate the magnitude of differences and comple- different LEED certification levels. We conducted a combination of
ment the results of the Mann-Whitney U test, Cliff’s delta (d) re- face-to-face and Skype interviews between October 2018 and
ports effect size without requiring any assumptions about the March 2019 with a total of 16 green building experts, consultants,
shape of the two distributions (Cliff, 1993). It is linearly related to contractors and directors of construction waste recycling com-
the Mann-Whitney U statistic, expressed as: panies. The interviewees’ basic profiles are summarized in Table 3.
Each interview lasted around one hour, and five to ten pre-arranged
2U open-ended questions were asked. Based on the interviewees’ re-
d¼ 1 Equation 3
n1 n2 sponses, the questions were extended to mine further insights.
A complete list of LEED credits was provided along at the
where d is Cliff’s delta, U is the Mann-Whitney U statistic, and n1 interview so that we could confirm if we omitted any relevant
and n2 are the sample sizes of the two groups. Magnitude is usually CWM-related credits identified. The interviewees interpreted the
assessed using the thresholds provided in Romano et al. (2006), i.e. rationales of these credits one by one, and then shared practical
|d|<0.147 “negligible”, |d|<0.33 “small”, |d|<0.474 “medium”, and experience and difficulties achieving these credits in real-life pro-
otherwise “large”. jects. The interviewees further shared their views on barriers to
improving construction waste minimization performance in LEED-
3.3. Semi-structured interview certified projects and other important institutional factors arising
from their PEST context, such as building codes, regional con-
Semi-structured interviews were undertaken to probe industry struction standards, economic development, social awareness of
 B. Chi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120749 5

Table 3
Profiles of the interviewees.

No Role Country Relevant working experience

1 Representative in the US Environmental Protection Agency and in charge of green building policy US >20 years
2 GBC spokesman & vice president in a construction firm US >15 years
3 Program manager in an engineering team & multiple LEED project US >15 years
4 Green building expert and sustainability director in an architecture firm, AIA, LEED AP US >8 years
5 GBC spokesman & vice president in a construction firm US >5 years
6 Consultant in an engineering consultancy firm, LEED AP China >8 years
7 Consultant in a green building consultancy firm, LEED AP China >5 years
8 Consultant in an architecture institute, LEED AP China >6 years
9 Consultant in a comprehensive design firm, engineer China >15 years
10 Green building expert in an architecture firm, architect, LEED AP China >12 years
11 Green building expert in an architecture institute, LEED AP, engineer China >15 years
12 Green building expert in the GBC, architect, LEED AP China >8 years
13 Project manager in a construction firm, engineer China >20 years
14 Director in a real estate development firm, engineer China >12 years
15 Construction waste minimization researcher in an architecture institute China >5 years
16 Director in a construction waste recycling firm China >10 years

Note: GBC denotes the US Green Building Council; AIA denotes the American Institute of Architects; LEED AP denotes LEED Accredited Professional.

construction waste treatment, and technical obstacles for the in Table 5. There is no significant difference for the projects at the
recycling industry. platinum level, which implies that when the project is awarded
After reviewing the construction waste minimization data platinum, construction waste minimization performance is fully
garnered from these interviews, we formulated more specific considered whether the project is located in the US or China. At the
questions for a second round of interviews, e.g.: certification levels of gold (U ¼ 11903, p ¼ 0.0114), silver (U ¼ 8854,
p ¼ 0.0041), and certified (U ¼ 1092.5, p ¼ 0.011), the US projects
 Which credits were most difficult to obtain in the context of perform significantly better than those in China at the 0.05 level,
China? although the effect sizes represented by Cliff’s delta estimates are
 What are the obstacles? small based on the thresholds provided in Romano et al. (2006),
 How is construction waste minimization considered at each which shows that the magnitude of difference is small. However,
stage in the project lifecycle? the thresholds as generic descriptions of the magnitude of effect
 Is on-site sorting of construction waste well executed? size may be misleading, since some research areas are likely to have
 How is data collection undertaken in line with LEED smaller effect sizes than others (Valentine and Cooper, 2003).
requirements? Therefore, following Cohen (1988) in interpreting effect size esti-
 Do you have any novel approaches to encourage stakeholders to mates relative to other effect sizes, the effect sizes of the four cer-
adopt recycled building products? tification levels are compared. We find that the effect size increases
when the certification level is lower; in other words, there is no
significant difference in construction waste minimization perfor-
4. Data analyses, results and findings
mance in the US and China at the platinum level, but the magnitude
of the difference between the two countries increases when the
4.1. The Mann-Whitney U test on construction waste minimization
performance at four certification levels projects are awarded lower certification level.

The descriptive statistics of the two groups (i.e. the US and 4.2. Detailed CWM-related points
China) at the four LEED certification levels are presented in Table 4
with the number of projects in each country, the median and To better understand construction waste minimization perfor-
interquartile ranges. The medians of CWM-related points for green mance in the US and China under each assessment credit, details of
building projects in the US and China are the same point (i.e. 4) at CWM-related points obtained by the 896 green buildings were
platinum and gold certification levels, whereas the medians of US sourced from the official webpages of the USGBC. Table 6 compares
projects are higher than China projects at the lower levels: silver CWM-related credit distribution of LEED-certified projects in the
and certified. The maximum CWM-related points of the US projects US and China. The meanings of the credits are provided in Fig. 1. To
are higher than those in China at all certification levels. reflect construction waste minimization performance for each
The Mann-Whitney U and effect size test results are presented assessment credit, the scoring rate (obtained points/attainable
points) instead of obtained points is used, since attainable points
for each credit varies, e.g., there are 3 attainable point(s) for MR1.1
Table 4
and 1 for MR1.2.
Descriptive statistics of the construction waste minimization performance for LEED-
certified projects at each certification level in the US and China. At the platinum level, US projects scored higher than projects in
China in MR1.1, MR1.2, and MR3 (all of which concern building or
Certification levels Country No. of projects Min Q1 Median Q3 Max
material reuse), but the projects in China perform better in MR2,
Platinum US 55 1 3 4 4 8 MR4 and MR6 (regarding waste management and recycled con-
China 32 2 4 4 4 5
tent). This may be why there is no significant difference between
Gold US 190 0 3 4 4 9
China 147 0 3 4 4 7 the two countries overall for platinum-level projects as shown in
Silver US 247 0 3 4 4 9 Table 5. While the US projects remain a good performance at the
China 89 1 3 3 4 6 levels of gold, silver, and certified in MR1.1, MR1.2, MR4, and MR6,
Certified US 107 0 2.5 4 4 8 the scoring rate for China projects decreases significantly at these
China 29 0 2 3 4 5
certification levels. These four credits account for a large
6 B. Chi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120749

Table 5
The Mann-Whitney U and effect size test results under each certification level.

Mann-Whitney U testa Effect size test

Certification level Mann-Whitney U statistic p-value Cliff’s Delta estimate Assessmentsb

Platinum 886 0.9572 0.0068 negligible

Gold 11903 0.0114* 0.1477 small
Silver 8854 0.0041** 0.1945 small
Certified 1092.5 0.011* 0.2958 small

*, **, *** indicate significance at the 0.05, 0.01, 0.001 levels, respectively.
a
Alternative hypothesis: true location shift is not equal to 0.
b
The assessments are based on the thresholds provided in Romano et al. (2006).

Table 6
The scoring rate of CWM-related credits of LEED-certified projects in the US and China.

CWM-related credits (Attainable points) Country The scoring rate

Platinum Gold Silver Certified

MR1.1 (%) US 16.67 20.18 13.63 20.56

(3) China 0 2.74 1.12 2.3
MR1.2 (%) US 3.7 0 1.01 1.87
(1) China 0 0.34 0 0
MR2 (%) US 90.74 88.16 88.46 78.04
(2) China 96.88 94.9 91.01 84.48
MR3 (%) US 6.48 0.79 1.21 0.47
(2) China 1.56 0 0 1.72
MR4 (%) US 75.93 78.16 69.64 68.22
(2) China 87.5 78.91 66.29 50
MR6 (%) US 3.7 2.11 0.4 0.93
(1) China 6.25 1.36 0 0

Data source: The USGBC project directory (https://www.usgbc.org/projects).

proposition of CWM-related credits: there are 7 attainable points their reuse value; a possible explanation for why even platinum-
for these four credits, and 11 attainable points for CWM-related accredited projects in China have not obtained points under
credits in total. The scoring rate for projects in China is slightly MR1.1 or MR1.2 (see Table 6).
higher than that for the US projects in MR2 (2 attainable points) at Being at a different stage in its socio-economic development
the certification levels of gold, silver, and certified. In summary, compared to China, the speed of urbanization in the US has
while the US projects perform similarly at all four certification decreased in recent decades. US public authorities may employ
levels, there is a great disparity in construction waste minimization different strategies and have different priorities for urban devel-
performance of projects in China at different certification levels. opment, e.g., undertaking old building renovation and urban
This is why the magnitude of the difference between the two regeneration instead of large-scale ‘destruction and build’, and
countries increases when the projects have been awarded a lower making full use of existing land and resources in line with sus-
certification level. tainable urbanism. Sharing his experience of building project reuse,
a US project manager said, “Roughly half of major projects concern
4.3. Discrepancies in construction waste minimization performance foundation and structural reuse”. Unlike China, the volume of pro-
explained jects is limited in the US. Said one interviewee, “Height restrictions
are enforced by using the urban land outside the central business
As shown in Table 6, the biggest differences between green district which limit the overall volume of a project”. Due to the limited
buildings in the US and China are seen in the credits MR1.1 volume of projects in the US, it is easier to reach the component
(Building reuse -Maintain existing walls, floors and roof) and MR1.2 reuse thresholds set in the LEED than in projects in China.
(Building reuse -Maintain existing interior non-structural ele- There are several other barriers to achievement of MR1.1 and
ments). LEED-certified projects in China, especially those with a MR1.2, which largely rely on the detailed and complex design of
low certification level, barely obtain these two credits. According to demolition/deconstruction works with reference to original design
LEED criteria, these credits are meant to encourage the reuse of documentation (Couto and Couto, 2010). However, lack of design
existing or previously occupied building components, with the drawings, lack of regulations, and potential extra time cost hinder
reuse portion for structural and non-structural components the implementation of demolition works in accordance with LEED
reaching the thresholds of 55% and 50%, respectively. Interviewees criteria in China. Interviewees from the China projects mentioned
suggested that the volume of new construction projects in China these problems frequently, while American interviewees rarely did.
makes it hard to reach these reuse thresholds. According to a green The credits MR3 (Materials reuse) and MR4 (Recycled content)
building consultant and architect based in China, “The majority of promote the use of salvaged, refurbished or reused materials and
top-ranked LEED buildings are new construction projects in large adoption of building products incorporating recycled content. As
scale. Some projects are considered as landmark projects aiming at ‘the per the interviews, there are a few possible causes for the relatively
bigger, the better’ to showcase their business value and responsibility low points scored by the China projects, especially for MR3. Firstly,
to the society”. Moreover, China’s rapid urbanization and economic project stakeholders distrust the quality and durability of recycled
expansion leads to urban renewal. Most old buildings are materials. Secondly, some interviewees mentioned the vast ma-
dismantled to free up land for new buildings without considering jority of developers prefer brand-new building products,
 B. Chi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120749 7

influenced by the typical Chinese conceptions, “fond of the new and at the beginning of a project. In other words, points under CWM-
tired of the old” and “new is better”. Thirdly, there is a lack of related credits are always regarded as a supplementary when the
labelling for construction materials with reused components in the project is targeted to be awarded a silver certification or above. In
market. One interviewee, the director of a construction waste this regard, platinum-level projects in the US and China consider
recycling company, pointed out the immaturity of the construction get as much more points as possible even from CWM-related
waste recycling industry in China, indicating that “the construction credits resulting in no difference in construction waste minimiza-
waste recycling business is kind of public welfare instead of profitable tion performance between the two countries; however, when a
business.” It has many risks, such as “heavy regulations, high initial project is at a low certification level, the CWM-related credits may
investment, sporadic supplies of recycled materials, immature market, not be regarded as the first priority to be obtained for China pro-
less competitive product price, and other risk factors”. The director jects. This is one possible explanation to the discrepancies shown in
regarded this kind of business “the inherent responsibility of the the Table 5.
government”. Based on the feedback of several interviewees, the
construction waste recycling industry in China remains stagnant 5. Discussion
due to the lack of sufficient policy and economic incentives.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) interviewee Our statistical analyses reveal a difference in construction waste
referred to its program focusing on sustainable lifecycle manage- minimization scoring between LEED-certified projects in the US
ment of various materials. In regard to end-of-life management of and China. At the platinum level, there is no significant difference.
construction materials, the USEPA’s role includes providing tech- However, US projects perform better than those in China under the
nical assistance and tools to help US states manage and track certification levels of gold, silver and certified, and the effect size
amounts of construction materials within their jurisdictions; esti- increases when the certification level is lower. The analyses of
mating the national amount of construction materials; and interview data imply that the PEST profiles of the two contexts
educating stakeholders about benefits of and best practices for provide clues accounting for the differences. The detailed PEST
using construction materials. As a result, the societal attitudes in profiles of construction waste minimization within the US and
the US have definitely become positive towards using recycled China are summarized in the Table 7.
building materials. From a political perspective, US waste management regulations
Other issues shared by interviewees in relation to real-life are strict enough to fulfil LEED requirements. The USEPA regulates
projects should be noted. CWM-related credits evaluation is waste management with dedicated efforts from state, regional, and
solely dependent on data and evidence submitted by the project local entities. The USEPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
applicant. For example, MR2 (Construction waste management) (U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 82, Sections 6901 et seq.) is a federal
requires the recording of waste generated on site and calculation of public law creating the framework for the proper ‘cradle-to-grave’
the salvaged portion to indicate CWM performance. In China, management of construction waste, while state regulations help to
specifications in a few major metropolitan areas, e.g., Beijing, boost waste minimization. In China, development of construction
Shanghai and Shenzhen, mandate proper waste management waste minimization is rather low level overall and distinctively
procedures, but there are no regulations specifying data collection uneven across regions. There is no national law directly mandating
on the amount of total construction waste and recycled/salvaged proper management of construction waste, and the one relevant
component. The data may often be imprecise and unreflective of regulation entitled Regulations on Urban Construction Waste Man-
the true construction waste minimization performance of the agement provides general and vague prohibitions. Only a few
registered projects due to the lack of any verification process. In advanced cities, such as Shenzhen and Shanghai, have regional
contrast, the treatment of waste is more formalized in the US. In regulations and guidance stipulating appropriate waste treatment
Massachusetts, where most of this study’s American interviewees procedures. In many cities, a considerable amount of construction
are based, the state government has some of the strictest regula- waste still ends up in landfills without proper source separation.
tions on waste management in the country, demanding on-site Sakai et al. (2011) indicate that China may need to improve its
sorting, recycling, waste data recording and smart disposal. In ability to implement legislation to achieve better waste manage-
1990, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ment outcomes. Laws and regulations can be one approach to
introduced its first waste ban regulations, prohibiting disposal of promote or guarantee construction waste minimization perfor-
recyclable construction and demolition waste at solid waste facil- mance, so that CWM-related credits are still obtained even when a
ities. According to several interviewees, these regulations are “near- project is granted with low certification level.
equivalent or tougher than LEED standards for achieving CWM-related China’s rapid urbanization and urban renewal has led to a large
credits”. Therefore, the documentation process in accordance with volume of new building, demolition, or reconstruction projects.
LEED is generally rigorous. According to ex-Vice Minister of the Ministry of Construction,
There are other factors possibly contributing to the discrep- China, Qiu, 2010, new buildings are typically demolished after
ancies in construction waste minimization performance which 25e30 years even though the designed service life is 50 years or
apply not just to specific credits but the whole process of applying more. Except for a few iconic buildings, most old buildings become
the “green” concept to a project. In China, suggestions of green dilapidated or are dismantled without consideration of reuse value
building consultants may be given low priority by project con- (Liu et al., 2010). In these circumstances, it is difficult for projects to
tractors. Also, LEED objectives may not be completely achieved reach the LEED component reuse percentage thresholds. The US, in
because unskillful frontline workers cannot execute them. This contrast, is a developed country facing fewer problems caused by
problem seems to be especially prominent in the private sector. In ultra-urbanization due to an emphasis on building renovation and
the US, by contrast, project managers communicate well with green urban regeneration. Moreover, local market’s potential and con-
building consultants. Some interviewees indicated that some LEED straints are one more concern affecting the adoption of recycled
objectives were incorporated into their contracts in the US to building products (Ismaeel, 2019). The infancy of China’s con-
enforce compliance by project stakeholders to follow them. struction waste recycling market and uncompetitive price of
Given the difficulties in obtaining CWM-related points, many eligible recycled building products have contributed to the diver-
green building consultants in China will try to obtain other easier gence of construction waste minimization performance between
LEED points instead of earning points under CWM-related credits China and the US (Couto and Couto, 2010; Lu et al., 2019). In
8 B. Chi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120749

Table 7
PEST profiles for construction waste minimization (CWM) within the US and China.

PEST factors US China

Political  At federal level, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (U.S. Code Title  At national level, there is no law directly mandating proper management of
42, Chapter 82, Sections 6901 et seq.) is the public law that creates the construction waste.
framework for the proper management of construction waste.  At regional level, there are some regulations mandating proper CWM
 At regional level, there are around 17 regulations in Massachusetts procedures only in few advanced cities, e.g. Regulations on Construction
mandating proper CWM procedures, e.g. 310 CMR 19.000: Solid Waste Waste Management in Shenzhen, Regulations on Disposal of Construction
Facility Regulations. Waste in Shanghai.
 States’, regional and local regulations are near equivalent with or tougher  Lack of consolidated classification of construction waste, normally
than LEED standards, such as creating a waste management plan and classified into hazardous/non-hazardous, dry/wet
building specifications for managing CWM, source separation, e.g. asphalt,  Ambiguous standards for demolition/deconstruction work
brick and concrete, steel, wood products, drywall and plaster, etc. (DEP,  Lack of political support in advocating the adoption of recycled
2014). construction materials
 Tax deductions are available when reusable materials are donated to  Lack of standards for necessary data collection and archiving.
nonprofit organizations
Economic  Urbanization rate is 82.30% in 2018 with an annual growth rate of 0.24%  Urbanization rate is 59.59% in 2018 with an annual growth rate of 1.06%
 Advocacy of sustainable urbanism under slowdown of urban expansion  Huge amount of new construction projects under rapid urbanization
 A relatively limited volume of construction projects  Immature market for a construction waste recycling industry
 Mature construction waste recycling industry structure  Limited economic incentives to adopt recycled construction materials
Social  Positive societal attitudes towards using recycled building materials  Poor public awareness of CWM
 Emphasis on old building renovation and urban regeneration  Poor appreciation of reuse value of old buildings
 Effective communication with green building consultants  Distrust of the quality and durability of recycled material
 Preserving existing buildings rather than constructing new ones and  The mindsets of “fond of the new and tired of the old”, “new is better” and
optimizing the size of new buildings “the bigger, the better”.
 Inferior position of green building consultants in the construction industry
Technological  More options of qualified building technologies  Unskilled on-site workforce
 CWM treatment included in bid specifications  Insufficient funds to support CWM research
 Consideration of a pre-demolition clean-out and some level of decon-  Deficient standard operation procedures for demolition/deconstruction
struction rather than demolition work

Data source: US Census Bureau, National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) of China.

summary, the highly developed construction waste recycling 6. Conclusion

market in the US can guarantee a good construction waste mini-
mization performance for all the green building projects; in China, This research compares construction waste minimization per-
there are large project volumes due to its fast-growing economy formance of green building projects in the US and China at four
while the development of construction waste recycling industry LEED certification levels. The Mann Whitney U and effect size tests
cannot ensure all the projects perform well on construction waste found that at the LEED platinum level, there was no significant
minimization. difference in the US and China construction waste minimization
While the societal attitudes in the US are positive about the use performance. However, the magnitude of the difference between
of recycled building materials, Chinese society doubts the quality of the two countries increased with projects at lower certification
“old things” (Couto and Couto, 2010; Lu et al., 2019). It is hard for levels.
Chinese project stakeholders to trust the quality of recycled ma- We triangulated our quantitative results with interview data to
terials (Yuan, 2013), and brand-new building materials are the first understand the causes of this difference in construction waste
choice for Chinese contractors. More importantly, public awareness minimization performance. We found that the differences in the
of construction waste minimization is relatively weak in China. PEST profiles of the two countries go a long way to explaining the
Clients unfamiliar with best practices in construction and con- performance disparity. A key factor is that the laws and regulations
tractors uninterested in waste management are barriers to be concerning construction waste minimization have not been well
responsible for construction waste minimization. Due to the efforts developed, particularly for enforcement, in China. Economic
of public authorities in the US, attitude towards construction waste development in China has created a boom in construction projects,
minimization are rather more positive, especially for frontline but the low reuse rate of construction components affects con-
practitioners (e.g. on-site haulers). Therefore, unlike the US green struction waste minimization performance in green building pro-
building projects, CWM-related credits are always treated difficult jects, especially projects with lower certification levels. The greater
to be obtained in China and they are regarded as supplementary consciousness of “going green” in the US improves its overall
credits in green building projects especially at low certification construction waste minimization performance; while China is still
levels. catching up in this sustainable development cause, only a few
Off-site design and construction technologies such as prefabri- projects with a higher green building certification level have the
cation, unitization, and modularization are trusted in the US (NRC, consciousness of increasing their construction waste minimization
2009; Grosskopf et al., 2017). In China, the unskilled workforce, performance. From a technological perspective, construction
unregulated demolition/deconstruction work procedure, and rapid technology in China has much space for enhancement to guarantee
and rough construction management remain technical constraints a better construction waste minimization performance. The influ-
for construction waste minimization (Lu and Tam, 2013; Poon et al., ence of PEST profiles on construction waste minimization perfor-
2004; Tam and Tam, 2008; Wang et al., 2008). Technical factors mance increased when the projects were certified with lower green
increase the difficulties for construction waste minimization in building levels. The green building movement improves construc-
China, green building projects in China may obtain other points tion waste minimization performance and an amenable PEST
than CWM-related credits when they do not need to be awarded context should be fostered to achieve better construction waste
with a platinum certification level. minimization performance and sustainability goals.
 B. Chi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120749 9

The research further emphasizes the significance of the context Castleton, H.F., Stovin, V., Beck, S.B., Davison, J.B., 2010. Green roofs; building energy
savings and the potential for retrofit. Energy Build. 42 (10), 1582e1591.
applying a sustainability assessment tool. A particular green
Chen, X., Lu, W., Xue, F., Xu, J., 2018. A cost-benefit analysis of green buildings with
building rating system should fully consider the laws and regula- respect to construction waste minimization using big data in Hong Kong.
tions within the context. Assessment tools should also be devel- J. Green. Build. 13 (4), 61e76.
oped with the engagement of stakeholders. The local green Cliff, N., 1993. Dominance statistics: ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions.
Psychol. Bull. 114 (3), 494e509.
building council can work with state and local officials, salvage and Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, second ed.
reuse outlets, contractors, waste processors and haulers, architects, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
and other stakeholders to develop consensus-based guidance. Colton, M.D., Laurent, J.G.C., MacNaughton, P., Kane, J., Bennett-Fripp, M.,
Spengler, J., Adamkiewicz, G., 2015. Health benefits of green public housing:
Integration between expert-led and citizen-led evaluation criteria associations with asthma morbidity and building-related symptoms. Am. J.
make it possible to uncover region-specific and hidden local pro- Publ. Health 105 (12), 2482e2489.
files, successful for measuring the performance of sustainability. Couto, A., Couto, J.P., 2010. Guidelines to improve construction and demolition
waste management in Portugal. In: Process Management: IntechOpen.
This research has its limitations. Firstly, the 599 US projects DEP, M., 2014. Solid Waste Management Facility Regulations, 310 CMR 19.000.
considered are only a sample of the 10,000þ LEED-certified pro- Doan, D.T., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Naismith, N., Zhang, T., Ghaffarianhoseini, A.,
jects in that country. It would have been too onerous to source Tookey, J., 2017. A critical comparison of green building rating systems. Build.
Environ. 123, 243e260.
detailed data on their construction waste minimization perfor- Fowler, K.M., Rauch, E.M., 2006. Sustainable Building Rating Systems Summary. the
mance to pursue a full coverage of the projects. Secondly, it is Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
recommended to compare the effects of LEED in economies other Global ABC (Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction), 2018. Towards a Zero-
Emission, Efficient, and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector: Global Status
than the US and China under different PEST conditions. Thirdly,
Report 2018. UN Environment and International Energy Agency.
building performance under fields other than construction waste Gou, Z., Lau, S.S.-Y., 2014. Contextualizing green building rating systems: case study
minimization, e.g. energy consumption, waste efficiency and in- of Hong Kong. Habitat Int. 44 (C), 282e289. https://doi.org/10.1016/
door environment quality could be examined to discover the dif- j.habitatint.2014.07.008.
Gowri, K., 2004. Green building rating systems: an overview. ASHRAE J. 46 (11), 56.
ferences in various contexts. Grosskopf, K.R., Elliott, J.W., Killingsworth, J.E., 2017. Offsite constructiondUS
market trends in prefabrication, 397. In: Challenges for Technology Innovation,
vol. 393, pp. 393e397 (ROUTLEDGE in association with GSE Research).
CRediT author statement
Hillebrandt, P.M., 1984. Analysis of the British Construction Industry. Springer.
HKEPD, 1998. Monitoring of Solid Waste in Hong Kong. Environmental Protection
Bin Chi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Curation, Department, Hong Kong. Available at: https://bit.ly/2XvsJ1q. Accessed on 17/06/
Investigation, Writing-Original draft, Writing - Review & Editing; 2019.
Howard, J.L., 2003. The Federal Commitment to Green Building: Experiences and
Weisheng Lu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Expectations. Federal Executive, Office Of The Federal Environmental Executive,
Funding acquisition; Meng Ye: Methodology, Formal analysis, Washington.
Investigation, Writing-Original draft, Writing - Review & Editing; Illankoon, I.C.S., Lu, W., 2019. Optimising Choices of ‘building Services’ for Green
Building: Interdependence and Life Cycle Costing. Building and Environment,
Zhikang Bao: Conceptualization, Data Curation; Xiaoling Zhang: 106247.
Writing - Review & Editing. Ismaeel, W.S., 2018. Midpoint and endpoint impact categories in Green building
rating systems. J. Clean. Prod. 182, 783e793.
Ismaeel, W.S., 2019. Drawing the operating mechanisms of green building rating
Declaration of competing interest systems. J. Clean. Prod. 213, 599e609.
Kibert, C.J., 2016. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery.
The authors declare that they have no known competing John Wiley & Sons.
Liu, Y., He, S., Wu, F., Webster, C., 2010. Urban villages under China’s rapid urban-
financial interests or personal relationships that could have ization: unregulated assets and transitional neighbourhoods. Habitat Int. 34 (2),
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. 135e144.
Lu, W., Tam, V.W., 2013. Construction waste management policies and their effec-
tiveness in Hong Kong: a longitudinal review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 23,
Acknowledgement 214e223.
Lu, W., Yuan, H., 2011. A framework for understanding waste management studies
This research is jointly supported by the Hong Kong Research in construction. Waste Manag. 31 (6), 1252e1260.
Lu, W., Yuan, H., Li, J., Hao, J.J., Mi, X., Ding, Z., 2011. An empirical investigation of
Grants Council (RGC), General Research Fund (GRF) (Project No.: construction and demolition waste generation rates in Shenzhen city, South
17201917) and Public Policy Research (PPR) (Project No.: China. Waste Manag. 31 (4), 680e687.
2018.A8.078.18D) and Strategic PPR (Project Number: Lu, W., Chen, X., Peng, Y., Shen, L., 2015a. Benchmarking construction waste man-
agement performance using big data. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 105, 49e58.
S2018.A8.010) Funding Schemes from the Policy Innovation and Co- Lu, W., Ye, M., Flanagan, R., et al., 2015b. Corporate social responsibility disclosures
ordination Office of the Government of the Hong Kong Special in international construction business: trends and prospects. J. Construct. Eng.
Administrative Region. Manag., 04015053 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001034.
Lu, W., Webster, C., Peng, Y., Chen, X., Zhang, X., 2017. Estimating and calibrating the
amount of building-related construction and demolition waste in urban China.
References Int. J. Construct. Manag. 17 (1), 13e24.
Lu, W., Chen, X., Peng, Y., Liu, X., 2018. The effects of green building on construction
Abbaszadeh, S., Zagreus, L., Lehrer, D., Huizenga, C., 2006. Occupant satisfaction waste minimization: triangulating ’big data’ with ’Thick data. Waste Manag. 79,
with indoor environmental quality in green buildings. Proc. Healthy. Build. 142e152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.07.030.
365e370, 2006, Lisbon. Lu, W., Chi, B., Bao, Z., Zetkulic, A., 2019. Evaluating the effects of green building on
Adler, A., Armstrong, J., Fuller, S., Kalin, M., Karolides, A., Macaluso, J., Walker, H.J.K., construction waste management: a comparative study of three green building
Massachusetts, 2006. Green Building: Project Planning and Cost Estimating. rating systems. Build. Environ. 155 (5), 247e256.
Wiley. MacNaughton, P., Cao, X., Buonocore, J., Cedeno-Laurent, J., Spengler, J.,
Albino, V., Berardi, U., 2012. Green buildings and organizational changes in Italian Bernstein, A., Allen, J., 2018. Energy savings, emission reductions, and health co-
case studies. Bus. Strat. Environ. 21 (6), 387e400. benefits of the green building movement. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 28
Allen, J.G., MacNaughton, P., Satish, U., Santanam, S., Vallarino, J., Spengler, J.D., (4), 307.
2015. Associations of cognitive function scores with carbon dioxide, ventilation, Mattoni, B., Guattari, C., Evangelisti, L., Bisegna, F., Gori, P., Asdrubali, F., 2018.
and volatile organic compound exposures in office workers: a controlled Critical review and methodological approach to evaluate the differences among
exposure study of green and conventional office environments. Environ. Health international green building rating tools. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82,
Perspect. 124 (6), 805e812. 950e960.
Berardi, U., 2012. Sustainability assessment in the construction sector: rating sys- NRC (National Research Council), 2009. Advancing the Competitiveness and Effi-
tems and rated buildings. Sustain. Dev. 20 (6), 411e424. ciency of the US Construction Industry. National Academies Press.
Berardi, U., 2015. Sustainability assessments of buildings, communities, and cities. Orova, M., Reith, A., 2013. Comparison and evaluation of neighbourhood sustain-
In: Assessing and Measuring Environmental Impact and Sustainability. Butter- ability assessment systems. In: Paper presented at PLEA2013, 29th Conference,
worth-Heinemann, pp. 497e545. Sustainable Architecture for a Renewable Future. Munich, Germany.
10 B. Chi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120749

Osmani, M., 2012. Construction waste minimization in the UK: current pressures for Res. Inf. 36 (1), 37e43.
change and approaches. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 40, 37e40. USEPA, 2016. Green building. Available at: https://bit.ly/2G0soOw. Accessed on 06/
€
Oztuna, D., Elhan, A.H., Tüccar, E., 2006. Investigation of four different normality 05/2019.
tests in terms of type 1 error rate and power under different distributions. Turk. USGBC (The U.S. Green Buiding Council), 2019a. Leadership in energy and envi-
J. Med. Sci. 36 (3), 171e176. ronmental design. Available at: https://new.usgbc.org/leed. Accessed on 10/06/
Poon, C.-S., Yu, A.T., Jaillon, L., 2004. Reducing building waste at construction sites in 2019.
Hong Kong. Construct. Manag. Econ. 22 (5), 461e470. USGBC (The U.S. Green Buiding Council), 2019b. U.S. Green building council an-
Pushkar, S., Verbitsky, O., 2019. LEED-NC 2009 silver to gold cretified projects in the nounces top 10 countries and regions for LEED green building. Available at:
US in 2012-2017: an appropriate statistical analysis. J. Green. Build. 14 (2), https://bit.ly/2Ielp7Z. Accessed on 02/09/2019.
83e107. Valentine, J.C., Cooper, H., 2003. Effect Size Substantive Interpretation Guidelines:
Qiu, B., 2010. Six areas for China’s building energy saving and my prospects. In: Issues in the Interpretation of Effect Sizes. What Works Clearinghouse, Wash-
Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the Keynote Speech on the 6th Inter- ington, DC, pp. 1e7.
national Conference of Green Buildings and Energy-Efficiency (Beijing, China). Wang, J., Kang, X.-P., Wing-Yan Tam, V., 2008. An investigation of construction
Roderick, Y., McEwan, D., Wheatley, C., Alonso, C., 2009. Comparison of energy wastes: an empirical study in Shenzhen. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 6 (3), 227e236.
performance assessment between LEED, BREEAM and Green Star. In: Eleventh Wang, J., Yu, B., Tam, V.W., Li, J., Xu, X., 2019. Critical factors affecting willingness of
International IBPSA Conference, pp. 27e30. July. design units towards construction waste minimization: an empirical study in
Romano, J., Kromrey, J.D., Coraggio, J., Skowronek, J., Devine, L., 2006. October. Shenzhen, China. J. Clean. Prod. 221, 526e535.
Exploring methods for evaluating group differences on the NSSE and other Wu, Z., Shen, L., Yu, A.T.W., Zhang, X., 2016. A comparative analysis of waste
surveys: are the t-test and Cohen’s d indices the most appropriate choices. In: management requirements between five green building rating systems for new
Annual Meeting of the Southern Association for Institutional Research, residential buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 112 (P1), 895e902. https://doi.org/10.1016/
pp. 1e51. j.jclepro.2015.05.073.
Shan, M., Hwang, B.-g., 2018. Green building rating systems: Global reviews of Wu, H., Zuo, J., Zillante, G., Wang, J., Yuan, H., 2019. Status quo and future directions
practices and research efforts. Sustain. Cities Soc. 39, 172e180. of construction and demolition waste research: a critical review. J. Clean. Prod.
Sakai, S.I., Yoshida, H., Hirai, Y., Asari, M., Takigami, H., Takahashi, S., et al., 2011. 240 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118163, 118163.
International comparative study of 3R and waste management policy de- Yuan, H., 2013. A SWOT analysis of successful construction waste management.
velopments. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 13 (2), 86e102. J. Clean. Prod. 39, 1e8.
Shen, L.Y., Tam, V.W., Tam, C.M., Drew, D., 2004. Mapping approach for examining Zhang, Y., Altan, H., 2011. A comparison of the occupant comfort in a conventional
waste management on construction sites. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 130 (4), high-rise office block and a contemporary environmentally-concerned building.
472e481. Build. Environ. 46 (2), 535e545.
Shen, L., Hao, J.L., Tam, V.W.Y., Yao, H., 2007. A checklist for assessing sustainability Zhang, B., Gao, J., Yang, Y., 2014. The cooling effect of urban green spaces as a
performance of construction projects. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 13 (4), 273e281. contribution to energy-saving and emission-reduction: a case study in Beijing,
Shuai, C., Shen, L., Jiao, L., Wu, Y., Tan, Y., 2017. Identifying key impact factors on China. Build. Environ. 76, 37e43.
carbon emission: evidences from panel and time-series data of 125 countries Zuo, J., Zhao, Z.Y., 2014. Green building researchecurrent status and future agenda:
from 1990 to 2011. Appl. Energy 187, 310e325. a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 30, 271e281.
Tam, V.W., Tam, C.M., 2008. Waste reduction through incentives: a case study. Build.