Analysis of factors affecting construction and demolition waste reduction in Egypt

Figures & data

Figure 1. The theoretical framework of the study.

Table 1. Independent and dependent variables with their relevant items and corresponding codes.

Construct (i.e. variable)		Type	Indicator (i.e. item)	Code	References
Materials procurement models (MPMO)		IDV	Specialty contractor procurement model (SCPM) (i.e. the specialty contractor is responsible for procuring materials for the project owner)	MPMO.1	(Daneshgari and Harbin 2003)
			Owner procurement model (OPM) (i.e. the project owner directly procures the required materials from the vendors)	MPMO.2
Materials procurement measures (MPMR)	Suppliers’ low waste commitment (SLWC)	IDV	Suppliers’ flexibility in supplying small quantities or modification to products in conformity	MPMR.SLWC.1	(Ajayi et al. 2017)
			Commitment to take back scheme (packaging, unused, reusable and recyclable materials)	MPMR.SLWC.2
			Supply of quality and durable products	MPMR.SLWC.3
			Usage of minimal packaging (without affecting materials safety)	MPMR.SLWC.4
	Low waste purchase management (LWPM)		Procurement of waste-efficient materials/technology (pre-assembled/cast/cut)	MPMR.LWPM.1
			Purchase of secondary materials (recycled and reclaimed)	MPMR.LWPM.2
			Purchase of quality and suitable materials	MPMR.LWPM.3
			Avoidance of variation orders	MPMR.LWPM.4
			Correct materials purchase	MPMR.LWPM.5
	Effective materials delivery management (EMDM)		Effective protection of materials (during transportation, loading & unloading)	MPMR.EMDM.1
			Effective onsite access (for ease of delivery)	MPMR.EMDM.2
			Efficient delivery schedule	MPMR.EMDM.3
			Usage of Just in Time (JIT) delivery system	MPMR.EMDM.4
	Waste-efficient bill of quantity (WEBOQ)		Accurate materials take-off	MPMR.WEBOQ.1
			Prevention of over/under ordering	MPMR.WEBOQ.2
			Reduced waste allowance	MPMR.WEBOQ.3
Green building practices representing green materials procurement (GBPR)		IDV	Utilising renewable materials and materials manufactured using renewable energy.	GBPR.1	(Housing and Building National Research Center (HBRC) 2011) (HBRC 2017)
			Using regionally procured materials and products extracted or manufactured within a distance of 500 km of the project site with no less than 50% of the total materials value based on cost.	GBPR.2
			Reducing overall material use by: (1) using standard assemblies and reducing customised spaces, (2) using materials that do not need finishing, or (3) using materials that possess high durability and require low maintenance.	GBPR.3
			Using alternative building prefabricated elements not less than 10% of the total element quantity.	GBPR.4
			Using environment – friendly, sound and thermal insulation materials which have specific requirements as follows: (1) free from chlorofluorocarbons, (2) does not release toxic fumes when burned, (3) the percentage of volatile organic compound is less than 0.1, and (4) thermal insulation materials should have ozone-depleting materials of zero and a low global warming potential which does not exceed 5.	GBPR.5
Legislation (LG)		IDV	Local governments are authorised to involve CDWM in the permits needed for construction activities. These laws also authorise local governments to gather fees from contractors and owners to provide or pay for CDW collection and disposal.	LG.1	(Zaki and Khial 2014)
			When carrying out exploration, digging construction, or demolition work, or while transporting waste substances or soil, all bodies and individuals shall take necessary precautions to store or transport this waste in a safe way to prevent it from being dispersed.	LG.2
Awareness (AW)		IDV	Promoting public awareness campaigns SW and its negative impacts.	AW.1	(United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)) 2009; El-Sherbiny et al. 2011; Zafar 2016; Aden 2017)
			Encouraging cooperation between the public, service providers, and government officials to participate in SWM activities.	AW.2
			Increasing the awareness about SWM at the workplace.	AW.3
Culture & behaviour (CB)		IDV	Fostering WR via financial incentives to encourage municipalities and industry practitioners to act.	CB.1	(UNEP 2009; El-Sherbiny et al. 2011; Zafar 2016; Nassour et al. 2016; Aden 2017; Arif and Abaza 2012)
			Establishing educational content about SWM in schools’ curriculum.	CB.2
			Implementing training and educational programmes about SWM and governance, including officials from central and regional governments.	CB.3
			Arranging information exchange trips for SW officials to share their experiences and knowledge, improve policies, and learn about new green techniques and practices.	CB.4
			Implementing SWM educational and research programmes at universities.	CB.5
Construction and demolition waste reduction (CDWR)		DV	Reducing unnecessary wasted project cost and eliminate project cost overruns.	CDWR.1	(Hussin et al. 2013; Caldas et al. 2014; Memon et al. 2015)
			Delivering the project within the specified schedule with minimal possible delays.	CDWR.2
			Delivering the project according to the desired quality and specifications.	CDWR.3

Table 2. Profiles of the participants in the pilot study.

Respondent	Position	Years of Experience
1	Assistant professor	11
2	Assistant professor	13
3	Associate professor	16
4	Professor	20
5	Professor	22
6	Professor	26
7	Professor	28
8	Professor	25
9	Associate professor	15
10	Associate professor	13
11	Associate professor	18
12	Assistant professor	11
13	Assistant professor	10
14	Assistant professor	12
15	Assistant professor	14
16	Project manager	25
17	Project manager	23
18	Procurement manager	18
19	Civil engineer	14
20	Architect	10
21	Construction manager	15
22	Construction manager	20
23	Architect	12
24	Civil engineer	12
25	Project manager	27
26	Construction manager	17
27	Project manager	21
28	Procurement manager	29
29	Procurement manager	32
30	Architect	15

Table 3. Number of different construction firms in Greater Cairo.

Classification of Firms	Number of Firms
1st-grade	79
2nd-grade	57
3rd-grade	62
4th-grade	154
5th-grade	161
6th-grade	100
7th-grade	787

Table 4. Stratified sampling of construction firms in Greater Cairo.

Classification of Firms	Stratified Sample Size
1st-grade	9
2nd-grade	7
3rd-grade	7
4th-grade	17
5th-grade	18
6th-grade	11
7th-grade	87

Table 5. Importance levels.

Importance Levels	Abbreviation	Range
High	H	0.8 < RII < 1.0
High–Medium	H–M	0.6 < RII < 0.8
Medium	M	0.4 < RII < 0.6
Medium–Low	M–L	0.2 < RII < 0.4
Low	L	0.0 < RII < 0.2

Table 6. Descriptive statistics and ranking of different items based on applicability levels.

Construct		Item	Mean	SD	RII	Ranking by Category	Overall Ranking	Importance Level
MPMO		MPMO.AP.1	3.098	0.659	0.620	1	5	H–M
		MPMO.AP.2	2.557	0.498	0.511	2	17	M
MPMR	SLWC	MPMR.SLWC.AP.1	2.984	0.726	0.597	2	8	M
		MPMR.SLWC.AP.2	2.107	0.809	0.421	3	22	M
		MPMR.SLWC.AP.3	4.074	0.761	0.815	1	3	H
		MPMR.SLWC.AP.4	1.541	0.499	0.308	4	28	M–L
	LWPM	MPMR.LWPM.AP.1	2.057	0.784	0.411	4	24	M
		MPMR.LWPM.AP.2	1.648	0.479	0.330	5	27	M–L
		MPMR.LWPM.AP.3	4.041	0.763	0.808	2	4	H
		MPMR.LWPM.AP.4	2.730	0.445	0.546	3	10	M
		MPMR.LWPM.AP.5	4.557	0.498	0.911	1	1	H
	EMDM	MPMR.EMDM.AP.1	2.041	0.785	0.408	3	25	M
		MPMR.EMDM.AP.2	3.008	0.775	0.602	1	7	H–M
		MPMR.EMDM.AP.3	2.713	0.453	0.543	2	12	M
		MPMR.EMDM.AP.4	1.721	0.449	0.344	4	26	M–L
	WEBOQ	MPMR.WEBOQ.AP.1	4.525	0.500	0.905	1	2	H
		MPMR.WEBOQ.AP.2	3.016	0.770	0.603	2	6	H–M
		MPMR.WEBOQ.AP.3	2.730	0.445	0.546	3	10	M
GBPR		GBPR.AP.1	2.582	0.701	0.516	5	16	M
		GBPR.AP.2	2.779	0.416	0.556	2	9	M
		GBPR.AP.3	2.615	0.672	0.523	3	14	M
		GBPR.AP.4	2.598	0.662	0.520	4	15	M
		GBPR.AP.5	3.008	0.622	0.602	1	7	H–M
LG		LG.AP.1	2.234	0.424	0.447	1	21	M
		LG.AP.2	1.467	0.500	0.293	2	29	M–L
AW		AW.AP.1	2.721	0.449	0.544	2	11	M
		AW.AP.2	2.697	0.461	0.539	3	13	M
		AW.AP.3	2.730	0.445	0.546	1	10	M
CB		CB.AP.1	1.721	0.449	0.344	5	26	M–L
		CB.AP.2	2.516	0.501	0.503	2	19	M
		CB.AP.3	2.090	0.791	0.418	4	23	M
		CB.AP.4	2.541	0.499	0.508	1	18	M
		CB.AP.5	2.500	0.501	0.500	3	20	M

Table 7. Descriptive statistics and ranking of different items based on effectiveness levels.

Construct		Item	Mean	SD	RII	Ranking by Category	Overall Ranking	Importance Level
MPMO		MPMO.EF.1	3.988	0.872	0.798	2	29	H-M
		MPMO.EF.2	4.061	0.842	0.812	1	26	H
MPMR	SLWC	MPMR.SLWC.EF.1	4.299	0.804	0.860	4	19	H
		MPMR.SLWC.EF.2	4.398	0.710	0.880	1	15	H
		MPMR.SLWC.EF.3	4.357	0.770	0.871	3	17	H
		MPMR.SLWC.EF.4	4.391	0.766	0.878	2	16	H
	LWPM	MPMR.LWPM.EF.1	4.549	0.698	0.910	1	8	H
		MPMR.LWPM.EF.2	4.516	0.728	0.903	4	11	H
		MPMR.LWPM.EF.3	4.520	0.740	0.904	3	10	H
		MPMR.LWPM.EF.4	4.533	0.699	0.907	2	9	H
		MPMR.LWPM.EF.5	4.504	0.729	0.901	5	12	H
	EMDM	MPMR.EMDM.EF.1	4.160	0.997	0.832	3	23	H
		MPMR.EMDM.EF.2	4.152	0.959	0.830	4	24	H
		MPMR.EMDM.EF.3	4.193	0.916	0.839	1	20	H
		MPMR.EMDM.EF.4	4.164	0.942	0.833	2	22	H
	WEBOQ	MPMR.WEBOQ.EF.1	4.418	0.665	0.884	2	14	H
		MPMR.WEBOQ.EF.2	4.467	0.693	0.893	1	13	H
		MPMR.WEBOQ.EF.3	4.332	0.754	0.866	3	18	H
GBPR		GBPR.EF.1	4.654	0.752	0.931	4	6	H
		GBPR.EF.2	4.687	0.711	0.937	3	5	H
		GBPR.EF.3	4.807	0.537	0.961	1	1	H
		GBPR.EF.4	4.725	0.687	0.945	2	3	H
		GBPR.EF.5	4.520	0.927	0.904	5	10	H
LG		LG.EF.1	4.180	0.754	0.836	1	21	H
		LG.EF.2	4.061	0.791	0.812	2	26	H
AW		AW.EF.1	4.730	0.552	0.946	1	2	H
		AW.EF.2	4.635	0.722	0.927	3	7	H
		AW.EF.3	4.697	0.684	0.939	2	4	H
CB		CB.EF.1	4.086	0.613	0.817	1	25	H
		CB.EF.2	4.057	0.706	0.811	3	27	H
		CB.EF.3	4.053	0.738	0.811	4	28	H
		CB.EF.4	4.061	0.817	0.812	2	26	H
		CB.EF.5	4.086	0.829	0.817	1	25	H

Table 8. Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations among Variables.

	MPMO	MPMR	GBPR	LG	AW	CB	CDWR
MPMO	1	0.313***	0.335***	0.020	0.467***	0.649***	0.533***
		0.000	0.000	0.751	0.000	0.000	0.000
MPMR		1	0.361***	0.021	0.515***	0.367***	0.452***
			0.000	0.749	0.000	0.000	0.000
GBPR			1	−0.099	0.528***	0.380***	0.509***
				0.124	0.000	0.000	0.000
LG				1	−0.008	0.072	0.086
					0.904	0.263	0.183
AW					1	0.467***	0.566***
						0.000	0.000
CB						1	0.563***
							0.000
CDWR							1
Mean	4.0246	4.3648	4.6787	4.1209	4.6872	4.0689	4.0594
SD	0.78529	0.55914	0.53223	0.71199	0.57619	0.592	0.647

* $P$ < 0.05,

** $P$ < 0.01,

*** $P$ < 0.001

Daneshgari P, Harbin SJ. 2003. Procurement chain management in the construction industry, Mechanical contracting education and research foundation. Rockville, MD.

 Google Scholar

Ajayi SO, Oyedele LO, Akinade OO, Bilal M, Alaka HA, Owolabi HA. 2017. Optimising material procurement for construction waste minimization: an exploration of success factors. Sustain Matertechnol. 11:38–46.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Housing and Building National Research Center (HBRC). 2011. The green pyramid rating system – first version. (Vol. 2011, Issue May 2010).

 Google Scholar

Housing and Building National Research Center (HBRC). 2017. The green pyramid rating system – second version. (Issue 2).

 Google Scholar

Zaki T, Khial A. 2014. Country report on the solid waste management in Egypt (Issue April). http://www.sweep-net.org/sites/default/files/EGYPTRAANG14_1.pdf.

 Google Scholar

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2009. Arab regional strategy for sustainable consumption and production (final draft). http://www.unep.fr/scp/marrakech/publications/pdf/FinalDraftArabStrategyonSCP–06-10-09.pdf.

 Google Scholar

El-Sherbiny R, Gaber A, Riad M. 2011. 2011 Report of the Arab forum for environment and development. http://www.afedonline.org/Report2011/PDF/En/chapter7Waste.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Zafar S. 2016. Waste management challenges in Middle East. https://www.bioenergyconsult.com/waste-management-middle-east/.

 Google Scholar

Aden A. 2017. Waste prevention in Middle East – prospects and challenges | EcoMENA. https://www.ecomena.org/waste-prevention/.

 Google Scholar

Nassour A, Elnaas A, Hemidat S, Nelles M. 2016. Development of waste management in the Arab Region. In Thomé-Kozmiensky KJ, Thiel S, editors. Waste management – waste-to-energy. Vol. 6. Munich: Universal Medien GmbH; p. 117–128. http://www.vivis.de/phocadownload/Download/2016_wm/2016_WM_117-128_Nassour.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Arif S, Abaza H. 2012. Towards greening the solid waste sector in the Middle East and North Africa Region.

 Google Scholar

Hussin J, Rahman IA, Memon AH. 2013. The way forward in sustainable construction: Issues and challenges. Int J Adv Appl Sci (IJAAS). 2(1):31–42. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijaas.v2i1.1321.

 Google Scholar

Caldas CH, Menches CL, Reyes PM, Navarro L, Vargas DM. 2014. Materials management practices in the construction industry. Pract Period Struct Des Constr. 20(3):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000238.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Memon NA, Akram M, Khahro SH, Nicolae P. 2015. Reduction of construction waste at site. 3rd International Conference on Energy and Environment: Innovation, Research & Sustainability 2015 (ICEE’15), February.

 Google Scholar