Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Research Methods

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Effective Front-End Strategies to Reduce Waste on Construction Projects

  • 534 Accesses

Abstract

An exhaustive detailed international literature review on front-end site waste reduction summarized in this chapter pointed to the most appropriate research method to address the research question. Qualitative research using a pragmatic framework approach, using thematic analysis to interpret the data harvested from participant surveys became the adopted method. It was necessary deemed to also study potential sources of waste as a critical adjunct to the primary research of front-end construction waste minimization strategies. The 1998 seminal Faniran and Caban model for sources of potential waste was selected as the survey template to undertake this part of the research. An adaption of the 2013 Yates model was used for the construction waste minimization research data collation by the survey. The framework for a pragmatic qualitative research approach was developed, in depth. Criteria such as validity , sampling strategy, data analysis procedure and the like were prepared, and parameters were provided, where necessary.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alarcon, L. F. (1994). Tools for the identification and reduction of waste in construction projects. In L. Alarcon (Ed.), Lean construction. The Netherlands: A.A., Balkema Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alarcon, L. F. (1997). Lean construction processes. Chile: Catholic University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Antill, J. M., & Ryan, P. W. S. (1979). Civil engineering construction. Australia: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Construction Industry Forum (ACIF). (2017). Latest Forecast, viewed March to April 2017. https://www.acif.com.au/forecasts/summary.

  • Australian Constructors Association (ACA). (2017). Australian Constructors Association Construction Outlook at June 2017, Australian Constructors Association, viewed June to September 2017. http://www.constructors.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Construction-Outlook-June-2017.pdf.

  • Bloland, H. G. (1995). Postmodernism and higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 66, 521–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bossink, B. A. G., & Brouwers, H. J. H. (1996). Construction waste—Quantification and source evaluation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(1), 55–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, R. (2015). Mixed methods research workshop, Australia New Zealand academy of management conference, July 2. Paper presented to Curtin University School of Business, South Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherryholmes, C. H. (1992). Notes on pragmatism and scientific realism. Educational Researcher, 21(6), 13–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coakes, S. J., & Ong, C. (2011). SPSS: Analysis without anguish version 18.0 for windows. Milton, QLD: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conseil International du Bâtiment. (2017). Home Page, viewed April to August 2017. http://www.cibworld.nl/site/home/index.html.

  • Creswell, J. W. (Ed.). (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design—Choosing among five approaches. USA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Guttman, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (Eds.). (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design—Choosing among five approaches. USA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dukes, S. (1984). Phenomenological methodology in the human sciences. Journal of Religion and Health, 23(3), 197–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ezo, H. R., Halog, A., & Rigamonti, L. (2017). Strategies for minimizing construction and demolition wastes in Malaysia. Conservation & Recycling, 120, 219–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faniran, O. O., & Caban, G. (1998). Minimizing waste on project construction sites. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 17(1), 57–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, J. (1995). Managing and minimizing construction waste: A practical guide. London, UK: Institute of Civil Engineers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Formoso, C. T., Isatto, E. L., & Hirota, E. (1999, July). Method for waste control in the building industry. Paper presented to the 7th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, University of California, Berkley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, A., & May, S. (2003). Re-engineering construction—Going against the grain. Building Research and Information Journal, 31(2), 97–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gudmundsson, S. V., & Lechner, C. (2013). Cognitive biases, organization and entrepreneurial firm survival. European Management Journal, 31(3), 278–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hao, J. L., Hill, M. J., & Shen, L. Y. (2008). Managing construction waste on-site through system dynamics modelling: The case of Hong Kong. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 15(2), 103–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiete, M., Stengel, J., Ludwig, J., & Schultmann, F. (2011). Matching construction and demolition waste supply to recycling demand: A regional management chain model. Building Research & Information, 39(4), 333–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, M. (2016). Estimating the sustainability returns of recycling construction waste from building projects. Sustainability Cities & Society, 23, 78–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kibert, M. (2008). Sustainable construction: Green building design and delivery. USA: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kish, L. (1995). Survey sampling. USA: Wiley.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Koskela, L. (2000). An exploration towards a production theory and its application to construction. Finland: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. USA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, W., Webster, C., Chen, K., Zhang, X., & Chen, X. (2017). Computational building information modelling for construction waste management: Moving from rhetoric to reality. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 68(1), 587–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxcy, S. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In A. Tashakorri & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 51–90). Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. USA: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, J. M. (1994). Designing funded qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 220–235). Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagapan, S., Rahman, I., & Asmi, A. (2012). Factors contributing to physical and non-physical waste generation in construction. International Journal of Advances in Applied Sciences, 1(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nazech, E. M. (2008). Identification of construction waste in road and highway projects. In: Paper Presented to the East Asia—Pacific Conference on Engineering and Construction, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, B., Harris, I., Beckman, T., Reed, D., & Cook, D. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research—A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1145–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakley, A. (1999). Paradigm wars: Some thoughts on a personal and public trajectory. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2(3), 247–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. (Ed.). (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. UK: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polkinghorne, D. (2011). Phenomenological research methods. In R. Vale & R. Halling (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology (pp. 41–46). New York, USA: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pope, C., Ziebland, S., & Mays, N. (2000). Analysing qualitative data. British Medical Journal, 320, 114–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poulikakos, L., Papadaskalopoulou, C., Hofk, B., Gchhosser, F., Cannone-Falchello, A., Bueno, M. … Partl, M. (2017). Harvesting the unexpected potential of European waste products for road construction. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 116, 32–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riemen, D. (1986). The essential structure of a caring interaction: Doing phenomenology. In P. Munhall & C. Oiler (Eds.), Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (pp. 85–105). USA: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, M. (2016). State of waste 2016—Current and future Australian trends. MRA Consulting Newsletter, 20 April, viewed March to April 2018. https://blog.mraconsulting.com.au/2016/04/20/state-of-waste-2016-current-and-future-australian-trends/.

  • Rodrigues, F., Carvalho, R., Evangelista, M., & de Brito, J. (2013). Physical–chemical and mineralogical characterization of fine aggregates from construction and demolition waste recycling plants. Journal of Cleaner Production, 52, 438–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, A. (1966). Pragmatic philosophy—An anthology. USA: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossman, G., & Wilson, B. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in a single large scale evaluation. Evaluation Review, 9(5), 627–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. UK: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Song, Y., Wang, Y., Liu, F., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Development of hybrid model to predict construction & demolition waste: China as a case study. Waste Management, 59, 350–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, D. (1974). Construction solid waste. Journal of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Construction Division, 100, 501–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugiharto, A., Hampson, K., & Sherid, M. (2002). Non value adding activities in Australian construction projects. In: Paper presented to the International Conference for Advancement in Design, Construction, Construction Management and Maintenance of Building Products, Griffith University, Australia, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinburne University. (2016). How to write a research question, SU School of Electrical Engineering, viewed March to October 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJS03FZj4K.

  • Tam, V. (2009). Comparing the implementation of concrete recycling in the Australian and Japanese construction industries. Journal of Cleaner Resources, 17(7), 688–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tam, V., & Tam, M. (2006). A review of viable technology for construction waste recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 47(3), 209–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, A., Peteraf, M., Gamble, E., & Strickland, A. J., III. (2014). Crafting & executing strategy. New York: McGraw Hill/Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treloar, G., Gupta, H., Love, P., & Nguyen, B. (2003). An analysis of factors influencing waste minimisation and use of recycled materials for the construction of residential buildings. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 14(1), 134–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Udawatta, A., Zuo, J., Chiveralls, K., & Zillante, G. (2015). Improving waste management in construction projects: An Australian study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 101, 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahi, N., Joseph, C., Tawie, R., & Ikau, R. (2016). Critical review on construction waste control practices: Legislative and waste management perspective. Procedia—Social and Behavioural Sciences, 224, 276–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waste Management World. (2016). State of the Nation, Waste Management World periodical, viewed November 2017 to February 2018. https://www.waste-management-world.com/au/report-state-of-waste-2016-current-and-future-trends.

  • Wu, Z., Yu, A., & Shen, L. (2017). Investigating the determinants of contractor’s construction and demolition waste in Mainland China. Waste Management, 60, 290–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates, J. (2008). Sustainable design and construction for industrial construction. Austin, TX, USA: The Construction Industry Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates, J. (2013). Sustainable methods for waste minimisation in construction. Construction Innovation, 13(3), 281–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Environment, Science and Engineering, Southern Cross University, East Lismore, NSW, 2480, Australia

    Peter G. Rundle, Alireza Bahadori & Ken Doust

Authors
  1. Peter G. Rundle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alireza Bahadori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ken Doust
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter G. Rundle .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rundle, P.G., Bahadori, A., Doust, K. (2019). Research Methods. In: Effective Front-End Strategies to Reduce Waste on Construction Projects. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12399-4_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12399-4_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12398-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12399-4

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation