4.7 Review

A review of performance assessment methods for construction and demolition waste management

Journal

RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING
Volume 150, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104407

Keywords

Construction and demolition waste; Waste management; Performance assessment methods; System thinking; Life cycle assessment

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71573216]
  2. Shenzhen Science and Technology Plan [JCYJ20160520173631894]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Significant efforts have been devoted to assessing construction and demolition waste management (CDWM). However, there is little knowledge to understand the utilisation of the developed models for assessing CDWM performance, thus limiting the comparison and generalization of recognized methods and tools. By reviewing the prior published literature, this study assesses the current research methods, in particular, data collection. It also reviews the range of critical indicators for CDWM performance assessment considered by the literature and put forwards a new framework for better assessing CDWM performance. The proposed framework summarises the system boundary, research scale and performance assessment aspects documented by previous studies, and further integrate an integrated framework with procedures for better assessing CDWM performance. The literature review found that while some studies adopt a system thinking and life cycle thinking to assess CDWM performance, other research they adopt a sustainability based model to finalize CDWM performance assessment. The results also demonstrate that compared with environmental and economic aspects, the social aspect has attracted less attention. Social factors, however are crucial in CDWM. The findings about current performance assessment practices in CDWM and the proposed procedures are possible to implement for researchers and practitioners to develop sound CDWM approaches.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available