CSF1 likely to occur when the cost of landfilling

CSF1 – Establish A Recycling Law for Construction
Waste

It not surprising to see that law is
ranked as the most significant success factor for promoting recycling
construction waste in Selangor. This is in line with Lu & Yuan (2010) and Poon (2007a) who suggested that government generally pays a crucial role in
promoting construction waste management practice by enforcing policy for the
whole industry. Another similar study found that the major factors to
effectively handle waste recycling in the construction industry is the top
management support (Tam, Tam, & Zeng, 2002). It must be pointed out that, on the surface of it, strengthening
construction waste management is just a mere management and technical work, but
its essence is a system engineering requiring the participation of the whole
society, which should be multi-pronged and 
comprehensively treated (Hu, 2011). In order to have an
effective construction waste recycling, it is suggested that the government to
benchmark a country such as Japan and Hong Kong in regard to the recycling law
for construction waste.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

CSF2 – Higher Landfill Charging Scheme

Imposing higher
landfill charging scheme is ranked as the second CSF for construction waste
recycling in Selangor. The result consistent with Tam (2008) which considered imposing charges for
construction waste dumping is an effective measure to encourage polluter to divert
their waste from landfill. This is proofed by (Yuan
& Hao, 2008) that when the charging rate rises per
ton, more than 90% of respondents are willing to reduce construction waste by methods
other than dumping directly into the landfill. The study also similar with Duran,
Lenihan, & O’Regan (2006) that stated economic viability is likely
to occur when the cost of landfilling exceeds the cost of bringing the waste to
the recycling center. This implies that more research should be conducted to
devise an effective landfill charge for reducing the generation of construction
waste and opt for recycling practice.

CSF3 – On Site Sorting Practice

On site sorting practice is ranked as
the third important success factor amongst the nine factors. This resonates
with the investigation by Ajayi et al. (2016) which described waste segregation is another important measure for
conducting waste management on construction site. In fact, after taking on-site
waste sorting practices, the overall proportion of wasted materials for reused
and recycling could increase from 14% to 24% by volume and from 8% to 19% by
weight (Wang, Yuan, Kang, & Lu, 2010). It is important that recyclable waste is separated from
non-recyclable waste (Akinade et al., 2015; Cha, Kim,
& Han, 2009),
while inert and non-inert waste are also separated for proper treatment. The
most difficult case is the mixture of contaminates waste as it is not suitable
for reuse, recycling or landfilling. Hence, it is recommended to reinforce the
importance of on-site sorting practice as a requisite for an effective materials
recycle activities.

CSF4
– Contractual Provision of Recycling Construction Waste

The contractual provision of recycling
construction waste is ranked as the fourth CSF for recycling construction
waste. The result is in line with Ajayi et al. (2016)
which stated that waste management could only be achieved through contractual
clauses. This is rational as waste management receives little or no attention
in projects due to lack of its considerations in project contracts. Because of
this, site managers and stakeholders give their priority to activities that
could directly contribute to factors upon which their performance is measure
such as time, cost and quality. Thus, this factor support the need for using
contractual clauses as underlying requisites for conducting recycling on construction
waste.

CSF
5 – Establish a Standard for Recycled Construction Waste

The establishment of a standard for
recycled construction waste is ranked the fifth CSF for successful recycling of
construction waste. The result is similar with Tam & Tam (2006) which
suggested that by developing a clear standard or technical specification for
recycled construction waste for the use structural applications; this could
encourage recycling activities of construction waste. In Japan, three types of
recycled coarse aggregate (C1, C2 and C3) and two types of recycled fine
aggregate (F1 and F2) are employed for non-structural applications (Tomosawa & Noguchi, 2000). To optimize the use of recycled aggregate, the Japanese Industrial
Standards (JIS) issued two standards on the use of recycled aggregate and
recycled aggregate concrete for high-grade concrete applications. This factor
indicates that there is opportunity for recycled materials to be used in
higher-grade application if its standard is developed clearly and uniformly,
thus encourage contractors to recycle their waste.  

CSF6
– Setting up a Centralized recycling plant

The centralized recycling plant is ranked the sixth CSF of recycling
construction waste in Selangor. The result is similar with Tam & Tam (2006)
which suggested setting up a centralized centre for recycling materials to
encourage various recycling parties. The reason could due to the actual administering of construction waste recycling is limited
to a few types of solid wastes. Since the construction organizations found
difficulties in searching suitable recyclers in receiving various types of
recyclable construction materials, a centralized centre should be set up for
recycling various types of materials (Tam & Tam, 2006).

CSF7
– Establish recycling system for construction waste within companies

The establishment of recycling system
for construction waste within companies is ranked as the seventh CSF for
recycling construction waste. The result is consistent with Poon et al., (2001)
suggesting that a system can provide guidance to conduct construction waste
management. In addition, the effective waste management system usually involves
scheduling the waste clearance, arranging collection and scheming removal to
appropriate disposal sites (W. Lu & Yuan, 2010). This factor suggested that it is important to develop recycling
system for construction projects in order to increase the adoption of recycling
practices among construction companies.

CSF8
– Location of recycling plant

The location of recycling plant is
ranked as the eighth which is the second lowest CSF for recycling construction
waste in Selangor. The result is in line with Achillas et al. (2010) which stated the optimal location of recycling unit represent a
vital factor for waste management efficiency. The study also similar with Peng
et al. (1997) which described the location of recycling plant must be
satisfactory in terms of where is situated in the jurisdiction it serves.
Therefore, it is suggested that recycling plant must be located at reasonable
proximity to the construction operations it serves in order to be competitive
with landfills.

CSF9
– Awareness of recycling benefit

Awareness of recycling benefits is
ranked as the ninth which is the CSF for recycling construction waste in
Selangor. This resonates with the studies which have pointed out that the
practitioners’ awareness of resource saving and environment protection is a
vital driver for construction waste minimization (Osmani, Glass, & Price, 2008; Yuan
& Hao, 2008). It
is because most of the construction players perceived that conducting
construction waste management usually means increased projects costs and
therefore a reduction of company profits (W. Lu & Yuan, 2010). Hence, it is suggested that raising awareness about recycling
construction will be more effective if economic concerns can be recognized as
one of the major benefits.