Reusing and Reducing Construction Wood

Waste: A Waste Audit of Savic Homes Limited,

Kitchener, Ontario

Report Prepared by:

Bojana Savic (20248121) & Maria Legault (20266913)
For Completion of ERS 317
Professor Jim Robinson
Monday, April 25th, 2011

Table of Contents
1.0. Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 4
1.1.

Research Question ............................................................................................................ 4

1.2.

Study Rationale ................................................................................................................ 4

1.3.

Relevant Definitions ......................................................................................................... 5

2.0.

Context ................................................................................................................................. 7

2.1. Study Boundaries ................................................................................................................. 7

2.2. Target Audience ................................................................................................................... 7
2.3. Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................ 8
3.0. Literature Review ..................................................................................................................... 8
4.0. Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 11
4.1. Site Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 11
4.2. Waste Audit Methodology ................................................................................................. 11
5.0. Results and Discussion .......................................................................................................... 13
5.1. Waste Audit Results ........................................................................................................... 13
5.2. Future Steps for Minimizing and Managing Wood Waste ................................................ 16
6.0. Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 17
7.0. References .............................................................................................................................. 19

List of Tables:
Table 1: Results of Wood Waste Visual Audit, February 2011...................................................14

List of Figures:
Figure 1: Categories of Wood Waste used in Audit.....................................................................13
Figure 2: Image of Framing Waste in Audit, February 2011.......................................................14

1.0. Introduction
1.1. Research Question
Wastes generated from construction activities are emerging as a significant problem in
Canada and worldwide (Osmani, et al. 2006; Kofoworola and Gheewala 2009; Katz and Baum
2011). It is estimated that industrialized countries produce 7.5 million tons of construction waste
per year (Katz and Baum 2011: 353), while in Canada these wastes consume 75% of landfill
space (Kofoworola and Gheewala 2009: 731). The primary question of this research study is:
what methods could be used to decrease or reuse construction wastes in Ontario? Quantifying
the volume of wood waste produced during construction and suggesting improved management
strategies is this studys goal. Consequently, a waste audit is conducted in Kitchener-Waterloo, a
city with a growing population and thriving construction industry. A case study of Savic Homes
Limited, a local construction company, is used (Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 2002).
1.2. Study Rationale
The construction industry is beginning to realize that, despite the barriers, wood waste must
be reduced in volume (Schachermayer, et al. 2000; Taylor, et al. 2009). It has been estimated
that the construction of an average-sized home can result in about 8,000 pounds of construction
waste (Alterman 2005: 20). Wastes are frequently created from design changes during
construction, unused materials, improper storage methods, and unskilled labour (Schachermayer,
et al. 2000; Osmani, et al. 2006; Katz and Baum 2011). Purchase of virgin materials, as well as
their disposal in landfills, places a high financial burden on construction companies and harms
the environment (Kofoworola and Gheewala 2009). As these unnecessary costs mount, more
research funding is being devoted to the identification of strategies for waste prevention and
reduction (Banias, et al. 2010; Merino, et al. 2010).
4

1.3. Relevant Definitions

The key definitions of this research project include waste, construction, and the hierarchy
of wood waste disposal. First, waste in the construction industry can be broadly defined as
surplus material which has no value and generates direct or indirect costs (Yahya and
Boussabaine 2006; Kofoworola and Gheewala 2009; Banias, et al. 2010). More specifically,
construction and demolition (C&D) wastes are the materials generated from building
construction and demolition; examples include concrete, bricks, tiles, ceramics, glass, wood, and
insulation materials (Huang, et al. 2002; Lu and Yuan 2010). The quantity and quality of this
waste typically depends on the type, shape, and use of the building under construction
(Kourmpanis, et al. 2008). These factors, in turn, determine the intensity of environmental
impacts caused by the construction project (Dainty and Brooke 2004).
Second, construction can be defined as the creation of physical infrastructure (Ibrahim, et
al. 2010). The pollution generated by the construction industry is accepted by many stakeholders
as inevitable and even necessary for economic growth (Ibrahim, et al. 2010). However,
management techniques are required when the relevant stakeholders determine that the wastes
involved have unacceptable environmental or social impacts (Tam, et al. 2009). This research
therefore attempts to show that well-managed construction projects can contribute positively to
local social and environmental conditions (Yahya and Boussabaine 2006).
Third, the hierarchy of wood product disposal is reduction, reuse, recycling, composting,
incineration, and landfills; the first three options are considered in-depth here because of their
desirability for solving wood waste problems (Huang, et al. 2002; Harris, et al. 2006). Source
reduction can occur during the design or construction of a building (Lu and Yuan 2010).
However, disposing of wood at landfill sites is cheap and easy, and the competitive nature of
5

construction companies makes them hesitant to alter the status quo without sufficient financial
incentives (Merino, et al. 2010; Ortiz, et al. 2010). Therefore, it must be made obvious to
construction companies that well-handled waste minimization efforts can save money and
increase client satisfaction (Ibrahim, et al. 2010; Harris, et al. 2006; Vandecasteele 2011).
Barriers to recycling wood are similar and include its low value, high transportation costs, and
technical difficulties in processing (Daian and Ozarska 2009). Overcoming these issues will
depend on developing new technologies to make recycling more efficient (Harris, et al. 2006).
Reuse is thought to be one of the better solutions for wood waste because of its
economic, social, and environmental benefits (Wojno 1991; Bullen 2007; Taylor, et al. 2009;
Vandecasteele 2011). When a material is put back into use without alteration, despite being near
the end of its life cycle, it is said to be reused (Lu and Yuan 2010). This differs from recovery,
which can also include the generation of energy from materials near the end of their useable life
(Roussat, et al. 2009; Werner, et al. 2010). Reuse cuts back on carbon emissions and demands
on landfill space; the largest barrier against reuse of wood is contamination or destruction of the
material during demolition (Powrie and Dacombe 2006; Essex and Whelan 2010; Li-yin and
Langston 2010). If the quality of the wood is conserved, however, its reuse lessens the need for
virgin resource extraction and the tipping fees paid for disposal (Bossink and Brouwers 1996;
Huang, et al. 2002; Tam, et al. 2009; Banias, et al. 2010). This research study evaluates the
reuse of wood in the Canadian context.

2.0.Context
2.1. Study Boundaries
This research project was guided by a focus on a specific C&D material, timeframe, and
construction company. Wood materials were investigated because they are produced in high
volumes during the construction process (B. Savic, personal communication, February 2011).
Temporally, the waste audit occurred over a two-week period in March because framing of the
home took place at this time. Framing, one of the most resource-intensive components of
construction, provided a sample of the typical wood waste caused by construction (B. Savic,
personal communication, February 2011). Savic Homes was investigated because of its
connection to one of the student researchers and plans to build a LEED-certified home. Material
reuse and waste diversion are two key components of LEED certification, making this study
valuable to future work by Savic Homes (Da Silva and Ruwanpura 2009).
2.2. Target Audience
This research targets those involved in designing and constructing buildings, with a
particular focus on Savic Homes. In its entirety, the construction industry includes companies
that construct, reconstruct, alter, or maintain buildings (Ibrahim, et al. 2010). This research
specifically applies to architects, construction companies, and contractors. Each group has an
integral role to play in the generation of construction wastes (Powrie and Dacombe 2006).
Therefore, this study investigates how collaborative learning between stakeholders could
stimulate waste reduction in the construction industry. Collaborative learning occurs when all
stakeholders have similar goals and are able to work together in achieving those goals (Blassino,
et al. 2002). This mode of learning is also a key feature of sustainability initiatives (Merrild and
Christensen 2009).
7

2.3. Theoretical Framework

Two theories guided the literature and practical research of this study. First,
sustainability requires that adherents maintain biodiversity and human health in the interests of
current and future generations (Bakker and Kooy 2008; Stahls, et al. 2010). It creates broad
goals which are operational in daily activities through concrete objectives (Rimmington, et al.
2006). Although the definition of sustainability is interpreted differently by various
stakeholders, it illustrates the need for greater awareness of construction wastes (Ceridon 2010).
Sustainability is also an underlying feature of waste audits (Ministry of the Environment [MOE]
2008). Waste audits describe the type and volume of different wastes produced in a facility, with
the end goal of changing current waste management techniques (MOE 2008). Waste audit
methodology, the second guiding framework for this study, is fully described in Section 4.0.

3.0. Literature Review

There are multiple views within the literature on how to reduce wood waste in the
construction industry. Reduction strategies should be based on sustainability principles and
related implementation measures, but these principles are often ignored by the construction
industry due to their limited awareness of waste management issues. Sustainable waste
management also faces the challenge of conflicting stakeholder views.
Two sustainability principles which should be used in the construction industry can be
implemented in practice by Environmental Management Systems (EMS) and Green Building
Specifications (GBS) (Powrie and Dacombe 2006). The first principle is that wastes should not
damage the environment or compromise the use of other resources (Powrie and Dacombe 2006;
Tam, et al. 2009). EMS is a valuable tool for achieving this principle because it involves

actively controlling the release of wastes into the environment to minimize negative impacts
(Lam, et al. 2011). Second, a coordinated effort is required to achieve sustainable construction
(Tam, et al. 2009). GBS are written guidelines for construction projects which can range from
broad to targeted environmental information (Poon, et al. 2003; Lam, et al. 2011). These
specifications could lead to collaborative learning within the construction industry, if they are
properly disseminated to relevant stakeholders (Lu and Yuan 2010; Lam, et al. 2011). However,
very few construction companies are aware of the importance of their environmental impacts.
Few contractors are aware of the environmental costs incurred during each stage of a
buildings life; currently, their primary focus is on the financial implications of construction and
demolition (Wojno 1991; Saunders and Wynn 2004; Werner, et al. 2010). Educating
construction companies on their environmental impacts through the use of a Life Cycle Analysis
(LCA) is therefore required. An LCA consists of four steps which quantify the environmental
performance of a product or process (Blom, et al. 2010). For a building, materials are extracted,
transported, and processed during the construction phase (Jambeck, et al. 2007; Blom, et al.
2010). Katz and Baum (2011) found that wastes are produced in the greatest volume during the
construction phase; however, several methods exist for reducing waste throughout this process.
Waste reduction during construction is based on several factors (Huang, et al. 2002).
Management support, employee knowledge, and positive perceptions towards waste issues are
primary determinants in successful reduction strategies (Teo and Loosemore 2001; Saunders and
Wynn 2004). Researchers have found that companies which accept waste as inevitable during
construction are major barriers to reducing overall levels of construction waste (Poon, et al.
2003). Stewardship of waste amongst contractors would create a sense of ownership during the
building process, leading to enhanced waste management (Patterson 1999). This is important for
9

expanding the current focus of construction companies beyond the sustainable design of
buildings, to the processes involved in creating them (Poon, et al. 2003; Department of
Environment and Climate Change [DECC] 2007; McMahon, et al. 2009). Also problematic for
altering waste generation during construction is stakeholders conflicting perspectives of waste.
Osmani et al. (2006) interviewed both architects and contractors to determine what
factors they thought caused waste during construction activities. Architects regarded the overordering of materials and design changes for client satisfaction as the primary reasons for
excessive waste generation during construction (Osmani, et al. 2006). In contrast, contractors
identified the causes of waste generation as untrained labour, material damage, and poor waste
management by sub-contractors (Osmani, et al. 2006). These differences suggest that both
groups should be involved in waste-related management decisions; this could contribute to
agreement on mutual problems and effective strategies for waste reduction (Osmani, et al. 2006).
This literature review has provided information on several key features of waste
management within the construction industry. In particular, the importance of educating those
working in the construction industry and fostering cooperative support for waste management
was highlighted. These issues have not yet been discussed within the University of Waterloo
student community. Previous WATgreen projects have focused on issues such as green
building materials and improved building design on campus. No waste audits on construction
sites have been done, nor have there been any recommendations on how to reduce construction
waste. Therefore, this research attempts to fill this gap.

10

4.0. Methodology
4.1. Site Characteristics
Characteristics of the study site affected the design of this waste audit. The following
information is drawn from discussions with Bob Savic, President of Savic Homes, throughout
February 2011. The building studied is situated in a newly-emerging subdivision in the Stanley
Park area of Kitchener. Construction projects for Savic Homes typically last for a period of three
months. The framing process, which is carried out by sub-contracted tradesman, generally takes
two weeks; however, weather delays can extend the process. Wood waste from framing is
collected in a central container, which is taken to a waste management facility when it is full.
Left-over wood that can be used for other construction projects is saved. For example, lumber
over 6 feet in length is never thrown out. Smaller wood pieces left over from wood cutting
activities are not considered reusable and are thus discarded. The wood waste from the site is
taken to a waste management facility which recycles waste, called S.E.L. Recycling Services.
4.2. Waste Audit Methodology
Waste audit methodology used here is based on the Waste Management Guide provided
for ERS 317 Waste Management. This waste audit consisted of four stages: preliminary
research, site visit, audit design and preparation, and on-site visual categorization. First,
preliminary research for this project involved reading peer-reviewed journal articles and past
WATgreen projects. These articles established a context for the waste audit and allowed for a
comparison between the current work and similar student-run projects. Interviews with Bob
Savic also occurred in the early stages of this research. Through his advice, the student
researchers decided to use a waste audit to evaluate the volume and type of wood waste being

11

generated during the framing of housing projects. The end goal of this audit was to identify
potential waste reduction or diversion initiatives.
During the second stage of the research methodology, there was a site visit of the housing
project. The site visit allowed the student researchers to do a quick visual survey of wood waste
present, and determine potential methods of classification. The visual survey indicated that
results would be most accurate if the audit were conducted when the wood waste container was
emptied at the S.E.L facility. This process occurred regularly once each week. In attempting to
classify the different wood present, the student researchers were challenged by the range of
shapes, lengths, and forms of wood present.
After the site visit, it was possible to begin the audit design and preparation phase of the
research. Problems generated by the various shapes of wood present contributed to a simple
classification scheme based on wood type. The three types used in construction include Oriented
Strand Boards (OSB) aspenite, plywood, and lumber. A description and associated image of
each wood type can be seen in Figure 1, below. A visual audit was used due to the importance of
knowing the shape and size of wood involved in reuse activities (Bossink and Brouwers 1996).
A weighed audit would not have provided sufficient data for this purpose. Additionally, a visual
audit was required due to the limited time that wood waste is held at the waste management
facility.
The last phase of the methodology consisted of an on-site, visual categorization of waste.
Over a two-week period, two waste mini audits were conducted during the framing of the home
being constructed. The findings from the waste audit are summarized in Section 5.0.

12

Figure 1: Categories of Wood Waste used in Audit

A) OSB Aspenite is created by gluing wood chips together to create sheets of material. Source: Allan Building
Centre, http://allenbuildingcentre.com/catalogue_home/?CATEGORY=Lumber

B) Lumber is harvested from virgin trees. Source: Allan Building Centre,

http://allenbuildingcentre.com/catalogue_home/?CATEGORY=Lumber

C) Plywood consists of sheets of wood glued together. Source: Allan Building Centre,
http://allenbuildingcentre.com/catalogue_home/?CATEGORY=Lumber

5.0. Results and Discussion

5.1. Waste Audit Results
The audit revealed that the wastes produced during framing activities by Savic Homes are
comprised primarily of lumber and plywood. Data in Table 1 shows that the first audit found
60% of the waste to be lumber, while the second audit found 50% lumber. Plywood made up
30% and 40% of the waste during the first and second audit, respectively. OSB apsenite was the

13

least significant wood type, as it contributed only 10% to the overall wood waste volume in both
audits. It is thought that there is very little variation in these results over time and between
construction projects due to the specific material requirements of framing activities (B. Savic,
personal communication, February 2011).
Table 1: Results of Wood Waste Visual Audit, February 2011

Waste Audit 1
Waste Audit 2

Lumber
60%
50%

OSB Aspenite
10%
10%

Plywood
30%
40%

Total
100%
100%

Figure 2: Image of Framing Waste in Audit, February 2011

B. Savic, 2011

Figure 2 illustrates to the reader the large volume and weight of wood waste typically
generated during framing activities. Very few problems were encountered during this waste
audit because of its straightforward nature and focus on a specific type of waste. However, when
14

investigating methods for dealing with these wood wastes, the student researchers learned that
certain contexts preclude the reuse of wood. In these instances, recycling is the most feasible
and economically viable option.
In the Region of Waterloo, recycling may be more appropriate than reuse as a method for
dealing with wood waste. This is because few local markets exist for reusing the specific shape
and type of waste generated from local construction projects. Habitat for Humanitys ReStore
was the only reuse facility found in the Region of Waterloo. However, the ReStore requires that
any lumber donated to them be a minimum of 8 feet in length, and Savic Homes does not discard
anything less than 6 feet in length (Habitat for Humanity, 2011). Additionally, the wood waste
generated from framing is of such diverse sizes and shapes that it would be challenging to reuse
this material without alteration. Finally, reused wood is not ideal as a source of construction
material because it lacks certification for use in physical structures (Timeless Material Company,
personal communication, April 2011). Reused wood is better for interior housing features, such
as flooring, doors, and kitchen cabinets.
Given the challenges of reusing wood for construction, recycling appears to be the most
valid and prominent waste management approach for the Region of Waterloo. Currently, over
50% of all construction-generated wood waste in the region is recycled into particle board,
animal bedding, landscape mulches, or fire logs (Regional Municipality of Waterloo 2002). This
waste management approach has become so popular over the past 10 years that current wood
products contain 20 to 75% recycled content, on average (Regional Municipality of Waterloo
2002). These issues are taken into consideration in the following section on future approaches to
dealing with wood waste.

15

5.2. Future Steps for Minimizing and Managing Wood Waste

Minimization and management techniques are two viable options for dealing with future
wood waste volumes. Minimizing waste at the source can occur by altering production
processes with the end goal of environmental benefits (Osmani, et al. 2006). Dainty and Brooke
(2004) identified several methods for lowering the waste volumes produced during construction,
including: standardized design, stock control, workforce education, and just-in-time material
delivery. Waste management deals with existing waste by changing how it is transported, stored,
handled, and disposed (Essex and Whelan 2010; Parker 2010). Specific techniques discussed
here include selective demolition and eco-costing; both are applicable to Savic Homes as well as
the larger community of construction companies.
Selective demolition could help improve the reuse of wood and thus reduce waste
volumes. Traditional demolition processes generate high volumes of contaminated or damaged
wood waste, rendering it unusable (Yahya and Boussabaine 2006). In selective demolition, more
materials are preserved because workers manually remove pieces of the building before it is
destroyed (Kourmpanis, et al. 2008; Roussat, et al. 2009). The advantage of this technique is
that by preserving the form of wood, it increases the possibility of its reuse. The nature of
selective demolition means that it is expensive and labour intensive (Huey-Jin and Zhi-Teng
2010). Therefore, incentives and policies should be offered to encourage its use (Taylor, et al.
2009; Lu and Yuan 2010). Policies are also important in the eco-costing of construction wastes.
Eco-costing evaluates the direct and indirect environmental impacts of construction
activities based on the processes, policies, and technology involved (Ortiz, et al. 2010).
Depending on the current and desired level of environmental impacts, the framework can assist
in the identification of improved management strategies (Werner, et al. 2010). It is also a useful
16

framework for achieving sustainable construction methods because it helps to preserve resources
(Yahya and Boussabaine 2006).
Eco-costing also contributes to the creation of Waste Management Plans (WMPs) and
waste management goals (Mills and Showalter 1999). WMPs identify preferred methods of
waste disposal and outline the responsibilities of each stakeholder group involved (Parker 2010).
They are beneficial because they shift attitudes in favour of closed-loop systems of waste
management, in which the use of virgin materials is replaced by existing materials (Bossink and
Brouwers 1996). Companies with multiple on-site material demands struggle to create
comprehensive WMPs (Mills and Showalter 1999). Waste management goals are useful in such
situations. These goals provide guidance for stakeholder action and are based on the waste
classifications involved in each unique situation (Schachermayer, et al. 2000; Merino, et al.
2010). Both selective demolition and eco-costing shift the focus away from recycling wood
waste to reducing and reusing this waste, which are higher on the waste management hierarchy.

6.0. Conclusions and Recommendations

This report has provided a comprehensive discussion on methods for decreasing or
reusing construction wastes in Ontario. From the waste audit of Savic Homes, it appears that
reuse was not a feasible option in the Region of Waterloo. Reuse was the primary focus of this
report because of its significant economic, social, and environmental benefits. However,
management techniques such as selective demolition and eco-costing have similar potential for
alleviating the burden of wood waste on landfills. From these findings, three key
recommendations for Savic Homes were created and prioritized to promote implementation
(MOE 2008). From most to least important, they are:

17

1. Contract a professional agency to conduct a thorough waste audit. This report has
provided only a microcosm view of the wood wastes generated each year by Savic
Homes. Waste management is a particularly important issue for Savic Homes
because their next project will attempt to reach LEED certification (B. Savic, personal
communication, April 2011). One of the requirements of LEED certification is to
reduce waste and increase material reuse (Da Silva and Ruwanpura, 2009). A waste
audit would be greatly beneficial in achieving this aim and could also help Savic
Homes write a WMP for their daily operations.
2. Engage in collaborative learning between stakeholders. With the upcoming focus on
LEED certification, Savic Homes is in an ideal position to initiate discussions
amongst construction companies in Waterloo Region on how to improve their waste
management practices. Additionally, these discussions could contribute to an
enhanced public image for the companies involved.
3. Consider the methods proposed here for minimizing wood waste at the source. These
are very straightforward changes to make and could result in significant economic
savings (Ortiz, et al. 2010).
It is hoped that the information in this report will reach the architects, construction
companies, and contractors who comprise the target audience. These stakeholders are
encouraged to initiate studies on alternative solutions for managing wood waste. Ultimately, the
construction industry should be striving to achieve more sustainable methods in the interests of
current and future generations. Barriers towards achieving sustainability include a lack of waste
management awareness and conflicting perspectives between these three stakeholders. Thus,
future research is needed on how to overcome these specific barriers.
18

7.0. References
Allan Building Centre. N.D. Building Materials Catalogue: Lumber. Retrieved February 3,
2011 from http://allenbuildingcentre.com/catalogue_home/?CATEGORY=Lumber
Alterman, T. 2005. Save money with used building materials. The Mother Earth News, 211: 20.
Bakker, K., and Kooy, M. 2008. Governance failure: Rethinking the institutional dimensions of
urban water supply to poor households. World Development, 36(10):1891-1915.
Banias, G., Achillas, C., Vlachokostas, C., Moussiopoulos, N., and Tarsenis, S. 2010. Assessing
multiple criteria for the optimal location of a construction and demolition waste
management facility. Building and Environment, 45(10): 2317-2326.
Blassino, M., Solo-Gabriele, H., and Townsend, T. 2002. Pilot scale evaluation of sorting
technologies for CCA treated wood waste. Waste Management & Research, 20(3): 290301.
Blom, I., Itard, L., and Meijer, A. 2010. Environmental impact of dwellings in use: Maintenance
of faade components. Building and Environment, 45(11): 2526-2538.
Bossink, B.A.G. and Brouwers, H.J.H. 1996. Construction waste: Quantification and source
evaluation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 12(1), 55-60.
Bullen, P.A. 2007. Adaptive reuse and sustainability of commercial buildings. Facilities,
25(1/2): 20-31.
Bullen, P.A., and Love, P.E.D. 2009. Residential regeneration and adaptive reuse: learning from
the experiences of Los Angeles. Structural Survey, 27(5):351-360.
Bullen, P.A., and Love, P.E.D. 2010. The rhetoric of adaptive reuse or reality of demolition:
Views from the field. Cities, 27(4):215-224.
Ceridon, K. 2010. Fuelling product innovation. Appliance Design, 58(8):14-17.
Daian, G., and Ozarska, B. 2009. Wood waste management practices and strategies to increase
sustainability standards in the Australian wooden furniture manufacturing sector. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 17(17): 1594-1602.
Dainty, A.R.J., and Brooke, R.J. 2004. Towards improved construction waste minimization: A
need for improved supply chain integration? Structural Survey, 22(1), 20-29.
Da Silva, L., and Ruwanpura, J.Y. 2009. Review of LEED points obtained by Canadian building
projects. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 15(2), 38-54.
Department of Environment and Climate Change. 2007. Report into the Construction and
Demolition Waste Stream Audit 2000-2005. Sydyney Metropolitan Area, Australia.

19

Retrieved February 3, 2011 from

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/warr/cndwastestream.htm
Essex, J., and Whelan, C. 2010. Increasing local reuse of building materials. Proceedings of the
ICE. Waste and Resource Management, 163(4), 183-189.
Habitat for Humanity. 2011. How to Donate. Retrieved April 3, 2011 from
http://www.habitatwaterlooregion.on.ca/web/cmsRestores.aspx?P=3
Harris, F., McCaffer, R., and Edum-Fotwe, F. 2006. Modern Construction Management (6th
Edition). Blackwell Publishing; MA.
Huang, W.L., Lin, D.H., Chang, N.B., and Lin, K.S. 2002. Recycling of construction and
demolition waste via a mechanical sorting process. Resources Conservation and
Recycling, 37(1):23-37.
Huey-Jin, W., and Zhi-Teng, Z. 2010. A multi-objective decision-making process for reuse
selection of historic buildings. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(2):1241-1249.
Ibrahim, A.R.B., Roy, M.H., Ahmed, Z.U., and Imtiaz, G. 2010. Analyzing the dynamics of the
global construction industry: past, present and future. Benchmarking: An International
Journal, 17(2):232-252.
Jambeck, J., Weitz, K., Solo-Gabriele, H., Townsend, T., and Thorneloe, S. 2007. CCA- treated
wood disposed in landfills and life-cycle trade-offs with waste-to-energy and MSW
landfill disposal. Waste Management, 27(8), 21-28.
Katz, A., and Baum, H. 2011. A novel methodology to estimate the evolution of construction
waste in construction sites. Waste Management, 31(2), 353-358.
Kofoworola, O.F., and Gheewala, S.H. 2009. Estimation of construction waste generation and
management in Thailand. Waste Management, 29(2): 731-738.
Kourmpanis, B., Papadopoulos, A., Moustakas, K., Stylianou, M., Haralamousm, K.J., and
Loizidou, M. 2008. Preliminary study for the management of construction and demolition
waste. Waste Management and Research, 26(3): 267-275.
Lam, P.T.I., Chan, E.H.W., Chau, C.K., and Poon, C.S. 2011. Environmental management
system vs green specifications: How do they complement each other in the construction
industry. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(3):788-795.
Li-yin, S., and Langston, C. 2010. Adaptive reuse potential. Facilities, 28(1/2):6-16.
Lu, W., and Yuan, H. 2010. Exploring critical success factors for waste management in
construction projects of China. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 55(2):201-208.
McMahon, V., Garg, A., Aldred, D., Hobbs, G., Smith, R., and Tothill, I.E. 2009. Evaluation of
the potential of applying composting/bioremediation techniques to wastes generated
within the construction industry. Waste Management, 29(1), 186-196.
20

Merino, M.R., Gracia, P.I., and Azevedo, I.W. 2010. Sustainable construction: Construction and
demolition waste reconsidered. Waste Management and Research, 28(2): 118-129.
Merrild, H. and Christensen, T. 2009. Recycling of wood for particle board production:
Accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributors. Waste Management &
Research, 27(8): 781-788.
Mills, T.H., and Showalter, E. 1999. A cost-effective waste management plan. Cost Engineering,
41(3), 35-44.
Ministry of the Environment. 2008. A Guide to Waste Audits and Reduction Workplans for
Construction and Demolition Projects as Required by Ontario Regulation 102/94.
Retrieved February 3, 2011 from
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/resources/STD01_076175.html
Ortiz, O., et al. 2010. The environmental impact of the construction phase: An application to
composite walls from a life cycle perspective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
54(11), 832-840.
Osmani, M., Glass, J., and Price, A. 2006. Architect and contractor attitudes to waste
minimisation. Waste and Resource Management, 159: 65-72.
Parker, D. 2010. Briefing: Remanufacturing and reuse- trends and prospects. Proceedings of the
ICE. Waste and Resource Management, 163(4), 141-147.
Patterson, C.J. 1999. Guide for Construction Waste Audits. Prepared for Resource Efficiency
Unit, Auckland Regional Council. Mount Eden, Auckland. Retrieved February 3, 2011
from
http://www.branz.co.nz/cms_show_download.php?id=f340e11084bc1d711c7d8628f67d1
fe5d4a9010e
Poon, C.S., Yu, A.T.W., and Ng, L.H. 2003. Comparison of low-waste building technologies
adopted in public and private housing projects in Hong Kong. Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management, 10(2), 88-98.
Powrie, W., and Dacombe, P. 2006. Sustainable waste management- What and how? Waste and
Resource Management, 159: 101-116.
Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 2002. Transport and Environmental Services Waste
Management. Report Number E-02-072. Retrieved February 3, 2011 from
http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/region.nsf/0/3BF1AE850CFEF47985256F460069
6053/$file/E-02-072.pdf?openelement
Rimmington, M., Smith, J.C., and Hawkins, R. 2006.Corporate social responsibility and
sustainable food procurement. British Food Journal, 108(10):824-837.
Roussat, N., Dujet, C., and Mehu, J. 2009. Choosing a sustainable demolition waste management
strategy using multicriteria decision analysis. Waste Management, 29(1):12-20.

21

Roussat, N., Mehu, J., and Dujet, C. 2009. Indicators to assess the recovery of natural resources
contained in demolition waste. Waste Management & Research, 27: 159-166.
Saunders, J., and Wynn, P. 2004. Attitudes towards waste minimization amongst labour only
sub-contractors. Structural Survey, 22(3):148-155.
Schachermayer, E., Lahner, T., and Brunner, P. 2000. Assessment of two different separation
techniques for building wastes. Waste Management and Research, 18(1):16-24.
Stahls, M.H., Mayer, A.L., Tikka, P.M., and Kauppi, P.E. 2010. Disparate geography of
consumption, production, and environmental impacts: Forest products in Finland 19912007. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(4):576-585.
Tam, V., Kotrayothar, D., and Loo, Y.C. 2009. On the prevailing construction waste recycling
practices: A South East Queensland study. Waste Management and Research, 27(2):167174.
Taylor, J.A., Herr, A., and Siggins, A.W. 2009. The influence of distance from landfill and
population density on degree of wood residue recycling in Australia. Biomass and
Bioenergy, 33(10): 1474-1480.
Teo, M.M.M., and Loosemore, M. 2001. A theory of waste behaviour in the construction
industry. Construction Management and Economics, 19(7), 741-751.
Vandecasteele, C. 2011. Sustainable management of waste and recycled materials in
construction. Waste Management, 31(2), 199-200.
Werner, F., Taverna, R., Hofer, P., Thurig, E., and Kaufmann, E. 2010. National and global
greenhouse gas dynamics of different forest management and wood use scenarios: A
model-based assessment. Environmental Science and Policy, 13(1): 72-85.
Wojno, C. 1991. Historic preservation and economic development. Journal of Planning
Literature, 5(3): 296-306.
Yahya, K., and Boussabaine, A.H. 2006. Eco-costing of construction waste. Management of
Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 17(1):6-19.

22