CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 69BIM and Construction IntegrationRecycled Aggregate Concrete PerformanceInnovations in Concrete and Construction Materials

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Quantifying construction waste reduction through the application of prefabrication: a case study in Anhui, China

Hao, Jianli, Chen, Zhikun, Zhang, Zihan, Loehlein, Gisela·2021·Environmental Science and Pollution Research
DOI 10.1007/s11356-020-09026-2
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Due to the rapid pace of urbanization in China, there has been a significant increase in construction work, which has resulted in the generation of more waste. Reducing the waste at source is the most efficient way to reduce its negative impacts, and prefabrication is a construction method that does exactly that. Since prefabricated construction generates less waste compared to conventional cast-in-situ construction, it is being promoted by the Chinese government. This study investigates the benefits of prefabrication and quantifies the percentage of construction waste reduction through its application in China. It does so by using a 26-storey concrete-brick residential building as a case study, and by conducting uncertainty analysis with Oracle Crystal Ball simulation software to assess the reduction of waste when using prefabricated components in place of cast-in-situ elements. Simulation results demonstrated that the waste generation rate for in-situ timber formwork and masonry work was 10.52 and 4.77 kg/m 2 respectively, and that the use of prefabricated components reduced those figures by 36.04% and 25.53% respectively. This study quantifies the benefits of prefabrication as a method for reducing the generation of construction waste in China. Not only would extensive use of prefabrication decrease the cost related to construction waste management in China, but it could also mitigate the environmental and social impacts of construction waste globally.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11356-020-09026-2

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Aluminum exhibits the highest durability with 300 cycles, followed by plastic at 120 cycles, steel ranging from 80 to 100 cycles, plywood at approximately 50 cycles, and hardwood, the least durable material, with roughly 10 cycles.

    “Aluminum exhibits the highest durability with 300 cycles, followed by plastic at 120 cycles, steel ranging from 80 to 100 cycles, plywood at approximately 50 cycles, and hardwood, the least durable material, with roughly 10 cycles [1,52].”

    From Assessment of Sustainable Hybrid Formwork Systems Using Life Cycle Assessment and the Wear-Out Coefficient—A Case Study (2025) · cites this paper as [52]

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Bakchan A, Faust KM (2019) Construction waste generation estimates of institutional building projects: leveraging waste hauling tickets. Waste Manag 87:301–312 · DOI
  2. Bakshan A, Srour I, Chehab G, El-Fadel M (2015) A field based methodology for estimating waste generation rates at various stages of construction projects. Resour Conserv Recycl 100:70–80 · DOI
  3. Barbudo A, Ayuso J, Lozano A, Cabrera M, López-Uceda A (2020) Recommendations for the management of construction and demolition waste in treatment plants. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:125–132 · DOI
  4. Cao X, Li X, Zhu Y, Zhang Z (2015) A comparative study of environmental performance between prefabricated and traditional residential buildings in China. J Clean Prod 109:131–143 · DOI
  5. Chen Z, An C, Boufadel M, Owens E, Chen Z, Lee K, Cao Y, Cai M (2019) Use of surface-washing agents for the treatment of oiled shorelines: research advancements, technical applications and future challenges. Chem Eng J:123565 · DOI
  6. Chen Z, An C, Fang H, Zhang Y, Zhou Z, Zhou Y, Zhao S (2020) Assessment of regional greenhouse gas emission from beef cattle production: a case study of Saskatchewan in Canada. J Environ Manag 264:110443 · DOI
  7. Ding Z, Gong W, Tam VW, Illankoon ICS (2019) Conceptual framework for renovation waste management based on renovation waste generation rates in residential buildings: An empirical study in China. J Clean Prod 228:284–293 · DOI
  8. Guerra BC, Bakchan A, Leite F, Faust KM (2019) BIM-based automated construction waste estimation algorithms: the case of concrete and drywall waste streams. Waste Manag 87:825–832 · DOI
  9. Hong J, Shen GQ, Li Z, Zhang B, Zhang W (2018) Barriers to promoting prefabricated construction in China: a cost–benefit analysis. J Clean Prod 172:649–660 · DOI
  10. Jaillon L, Poon CS (2008) Sustainable construction aspects of using prefabrication in dense urban environment: a Hong Kong case study. Constr Manag Econ 26:953–966 · DOI
  11. Jaillon L, Poon CS, Chiang Y (2009) Quantifying the waste reduction potential of using prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong. Waste Manag 29:309–320 · DOI
  12. Kofoworola OF, Gheewala SH (2009) Estimation of construction waste generation and management in Thailand. Waste Manag 29:731–738 · DOI
  13. Lau HH, Whyte A, Law P (2008) Composition and characteristics of construction waste generated by residential housing project. Int J Environ Res 2:261–268
  14. Li J, Ding Z, Mi X, Wang J (2013) A model for estimating construction waste generation index for building project in China. Resour Conserv Recycl 74:20–26 · DOI
  15. Li Z, Shen GQ, Alshawi M (2014) Measuring the impact of prefabrication on construction waste reduction: an empirical study in China. Resour Conserv Recycl 91:27–39 · DOI
  16. Liu Y, Sun T, Yang L (2017) Evaluating the performance and intellectual structure of construction and demolition waste research during 2000–2016. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:19259–19266 · DOI
  17. Liu J, Gong E, Wang D, Lai X, Zhu J (2019) Attitudes and behaviour towards construction waste minimisation: a comparative analysis between China and the USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:13681–13690 · DOI
  18. Lu W, Yuan H (2013) Investigating waste reduction potential in the upstream processes of offshore prefabrication construction. Renew Sust Energ Rev 28:804–811 · DOI
  19. Lu W, Yuan H, Li J, Hao J, Mi X, Ding Z (2011) An empirical investigation of construction and demolition waste generation rates in Shenzhen city. South China Waste Manag (Oxford) 31:680–687 · DOI
  20. Nie Z, Yang Z, Fang Y, Yang Y, Tang Z, Wang X, Die Q, Gao X, Zhang F, Wang Q (2015) Environmental risks of HBCDD from construction and demolition waste: a contemporary and future issue. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:17249–17252 · DOI
  21. Poon CS, Yu AT, Jaillon L (2004) Reducing building waste at construction sites in Hong Kong. Constr Manag Econ 22:461–470 · DOI
  22. Solís-Guzmán J, Marrero M, Montes-Delgado MV, Ramírez-de-Arellano A (2009) A Spanish model for quantification and management of construction waste. Waste Manag 29:2542–2548 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Sun W, An C, Li G, Lv Y (2014) Applications of inexact programming methods to waste management under uncertainty: current status and future directions. Environ Syst Res 3:15 · DOI
  24. Tam VW, Hao JJ (2014) Prefabrication as a mean of minimizing construction waste on site. Int J Constr Manag 14:113–121
  25. Tam VW, Tam C, Chan JK, Ng WC (2006) Cutting construction wastes by prefabrication. Int J Constr Manag 6:15–25
  26. Tam VW, Tam CM, Zeng S, Ng WC (2007) Towards adoption of prefabrication in construction. Build Environ 42:3642–3654 · DOI
  27. Tam VW, Fung IW, Sing MC, Ogunlana SO (2015) Best practice of prefabrication implementation in the Hong Kong public and private sectors. J Clean Prod 109:216–231 · DOI
  28. Umar UA, Shafiq N, Malakahmad A, Nuruddin MF, Khamidi MF (2017) A review on adoption of novel techniques in construction waste management and policy. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 19:1361–1373 · DOI
  29. Wong R, Hao J, Ho CM (2003) Prefabricated building construction systems adopted in Hong Kong, Proc. of the International Association for Housing Science on Word Congress of Housing: Process and Product, Montreal, Canada
  30. Zhang N, Zheng L, Duan H, Yin F, Li J, Niu Y (2019) Differences of methods to quantify construction and demolition waste for less-developed but fast-growing countries: China as a case study. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:25513–25525 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hao, J., Chen, Z., Zhang, Z., & Loehlein, G.
Affiliations
  • Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (CN)
  • Concordia University (CA)
Corresponding author
Hao, Jianli
ORCID
Venue
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-05-01
Volume
28
Issue
19
Pages
24499-24510
ISSN
  • 0944-1344 (ISSN-L)
  • 1614-7499
DOI
10.1007/s11356-020-09026-2
OpenAlex
W3022603950
Cited by
69
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
FWCI
5.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Environmental Science and Pollution Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (RDF2016-01-32; SURF201705)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › BIM and Construction Integration
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Recycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Innovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
Keywords
construction waste reduction, prefabrication, prefabricated building components, cast-in-situ construction, waste generation rate, timber formwork, masonry work, residential buildings, waste management costs, uncertainty analysis, urbanization, Anhui Province
MeSH terms
China, Computer Simulation, Construction Materials, Waste Management, Construction Industry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review