Waste Management 29 (2009) 731–738

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Estimation of construction waste generation and management in Thailand

Oyeshola Femi Kofoworola, Shabbir H. Gheewala *
The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment (JGSEE), King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study examines construction waste generation and management in Thailand. It is estimated that
Accepted 9 July 2008 between 2002 and 2005, an average of 1.1 million tons of construction waste was generated per year
Available online 6 September 2008 in Thailand. This constitutes about 7.7% of the total amount of waste disposed in both landfills and open
dumpsites annually during the same period. Although construction waste constitutes a major source of
waste in terms of volume and weight, its management and recycling are yet to be effectively practiced in
Thailand. Recently, the management of construction waste is being given attention due to its rapidly
increasing unregulated dumping in undesignated areas, and recycling is being promoted as a method
of managing this waste. If effectively implemented, its potential economic and social benefits are
immense. It was estimated that between 70 and 4,000 jobs would have been created between 2002
and 2005, if all construction wastes in Thailand had been recycled. Additionally it would have contributed
an average savings of about 3.0  105 GJ per year in the final energy consumed by the construction sector
of the nation within the same period based on the recycling scenario analyzed. The current national inte-
grated waste management plan could enhance the effective recycling of construction and demolition
waste in Thailand when enforced. It is recommended that an inventory of all construction waste gener-
ated in the country be carried out in order to assess the feasibility of large scale recycling of construction
and demolition waste.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Construction and demolition (C&D) waste is the waste pro-
duced during new construction, renovation, and demolition of
buildings and structures. It is most often disposed of in landfills;
however, recent recognition of the potential for the diversion of
waste components from landfills has led to C&D waste becoming
a target of interest for recycling. Several researchers have at-
tempted to estimate the amount of construction and demolition
waste in various countries. About one-third of the volume of mate-
rials in landfills in the US is C&D waste (Chun-Li et al., 1994; Kibert,
2000). Data available for some European countries also indicate
that the amount of C&D waste varies from country to country
depending on how it is defined. In 1996, the amount of C&D waste
in Austria, Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands were about
300, over 500, about 2600 and about 900 kg/cap, respectively
(Brodersen et al., 2002). It has also been reported that C&D waste
took up about 65% of Hong Kong’s landfill space at its peak in
1994–1995 (Stokoe et al., 1999).
Construction waste is the waste generated from various activi-
ties such as clearing of sites, and the building of new structures or
infrastructure (Fatta et al., 2003). A lot of research has been carried
out on its minimization, management and potential utilization (Al-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +66 247 083 09; fax: +66 287 298 05.
E-mail address: shabbir_g@jgsee.kmutt.ac.th (S.H. Gheewala).
Mutairi and Haque, 2003; Bossink and Brouwers, 1996; Donovan,
1991; Lauritzen, 1994; Peng et al., 1997; Poon et al., 2002; Trankler
et al., 1996). In the US, estimates by the Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) indicated that approximately 136 million tons of
building-related construction waste was generated in 1996 (US
Environmental Protection Agency, 1998). Another study stated that
construction waste constitutes about 29% of the solid-waste
stream in the USA (Rogoff and Williams, 1994). In Canada, 35% of
the space in landfills is taken up with construction waste, and over
50% of waste in a typical UK landfill could be construction waste
(Ferguson et al., 1995). Similarly, studies of Australian landfills
have revealed that construction activity generated about 20–30%
of all deposited wastes (Craven et al., 1994). In most of these coun-
tries, increasing attention is being given to the diversion of as
much construction waste from landfills as possible through waste
reduction, recovery, reuse and recycling.
Thailand is a country experiencing economic growth (World
Bank Group, 2007). Associated with this, it has also been experi-
encing rapid urbanization, with the projected proportion of the to-
tal population living in urban areas growing from 21.5% in 1990 to
24.3% by 2010, and expected to continue increasing (United Na-
tions Environment Program, 2001; United Nations University,
1996; US Energy Information Administration, 2004). The rapid
urbanization of Thailand has generated an increased demand for
housing and infrastructure which in turn generates huge quantities
of construction waste. In many countries including Thailand, the

0956-053X/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2008.07.004
732 O.F. Kofoworola, S.H. Gheewala / Waste Management 29 (2009) 731–738
increasing unregulated dumping of construction waste and the
scarcity of landfill space are becoming very serious issues. The
management of construction waste is therefore a major priority,
especially in Bangkok and the Northern provinces of Thailand
where the population is much denser and the rate of building con-
struction is higher than in other parts of the country as reflected by
the number of new construction permits per year (Fig. 1) (National
Statistics Organization of Thailand, 2007).
However, very little is known about the volume of construction
waste generated in Thailand and its management. Therefore, the
principal objective of this paper is to bridge this information gap
by estimating the quantities of construction waste generated in
Thailand from 2002–2005 as an incentive for: (a) the development
of an integrated waste management system, and (b) the imple-
mentation of policies for managing construction waste in Thailand.
The current status of construction waste management in Thailand
is discussed. Key issues related to the feasibility and benefits of
recycling construction waste in Thailand are also highlighted.
2. Construction waste management in Thailand: current
practice and problems
In Thailand, construction waste is classified as part of municipal
solid waste (MSW). It is manually collected and dropped through a
temporarily erected refuse chute to the ground floor. It is then
cleared out of the work site by the main contractor or by a subcon-
tractor. A survey of 32 construction sites in Bangkok by Chanchorn
(2002) revealed that about 69% of construction companies usually
manage the disposal of these wastes themselves, while 31% con-
tract the disposal to subcontractors or other individuals. Also,
available information indicates that the majority of construction
waste is disposed of either in uncontrolled sites or in other inap-
propriate sites (Ashford et al., 2000; Padungsirikul, 2003). There-
fore, it is important to formulate laws and policies to motivate
these companies to record and report the volume of construction
waste they generate as well as the method(s) of treatment and
disposal.
Usually, a material like wood is reused by contractors within
the project as many times as possible to avoid the cost of collection
and disposal and the extra cost of virgin material. Scrap dealers
usually collect scrap metals (mostly off-cuts of metal sheets and
bars), as well as other salvageable materials generated. These are
resold to secondhand buyers or, if metals, to metal smelting com-
panies. Although the collection and sale of these materials by col-
lectors is a positive application of reuse and recycling, it is not a
system that functions at an efficient level (Esin and Cosgun,
2005). As is the fate of most MSW components, some construction
Bangkok & Vicinity
120,000
100,000
Number of permit
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2002
Fig. 1. Distribution of new construction permits by region, 2002–2005.
wastes end up in landfills, while the majority is disposed of either
in uncontrolled sites or in other inappropriate sites (Ashford et al.,
2000; Padungsirikul, 2003). According to a survey of solid waste
disposal systems in Thailand, in 2004, 77.6% of the 425 disposal
sites in the country were open dumps (Table 1), the rest being
landfills (Chiemchaisri et al., 2006).
It was estimated that in 2000, 16–34% of collected MSW in Thai-
land had recyclable materials but only 7% (or 2,360 tons/day) was
actually recycled (Padungsirikul, 2003). This is very low when
compared with the recycling rates for C&D waste of other coun-
tries. In Denmark the percentage of recycling is more than 80%.
Germany and The Netherlands, Finland, Ireland and Italy recycle
30–50%, while the recycling percentage in Luxembourg is 10%
(Brodersen et al., 2002). Even building rubble (including concrete,
brick, tile and asphalt), which is usually disposed of in open dumps
in Thailand, can be recycled. In Australia, building rubble is by far
the most recycled material. Calculations based on data from the
Australian Government Productivity Commission (2006) also
showed that in 2002–2003, approximately 50% of all recycled
waste in Australia was C&D waste. There are many available tech-
nologies for recycling construction waste (Tam and Tam, 2006a).
These could prolong the life of landfill sites, minimize transport
needs and reduce the primary resource requirements (minerals
and energy). Although there are many material-recycling schemes
recommended by the government of Thailand, actual implementa-
tion of waste recycling is limited to a few components of MSW
such as glass, plastic, paper and metals, which do not necessarily
originate from construction activities.
The problem of construction waste management in Thailand is
similar to that of Hong Kong in a number of aspects, namely; (1)
insufficient budgetary allocation for MSW management and also,
ineffective collection of service fee; (2) no active planning on
establishing common disposal facility among adjacent communi-
ties; (3) no definite regulation and guidelines for construction
waste management hierarchy starting from source separation, col-
lection, transportation, disposal and monitoring; (4) lack of skilled
personnel in operating an efficient waste collection and disposal
practice; (5) absence of waste recycling programs in most commu-
nities; (6) associated existing legislation does not adequately facil-
itate the construction waste management in an effective direction;
(7) lack of public co-operation and participation; and (8) lack of
government legal enforcement, amongst others (Shen and Tam,
2002). It is noted that although some of these problems are similar
in a number of areas, there could be quite a lot differences concern-
ing possible management measures (e.g., distances, availability of
skilled personnel, technologies etc.). Nevertheless, the availability
of adequate information on certain parameters such as the volume
Central East West North Northeast South
2003 2004 2005
 O.F. Kofoworola, S.H. Gheewala / Waste Management 29 (2009) 731–738 733

Table 1 Table 2
Solid waste disposal sites in Thailand Municipal solid waste generation in Thailand (kg/cap/day)

Region Number of sites Disposal area (km2) Amount of waste Area 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
(tons/day)
1 Bangkok Metropolitan 8,990 9,131 9,317 9,458 9,640
Landfill Open Landfill Open Landfill Open Administrations
dumping dumping dumping 2 Municipalities and Pattaya City 12,328 11,893 11,903 12,216 12,451
3 Outside of municipality 16,561 17,256 17,420 17,734 18,074
Northern 22 70 1.4 2.0 854 950
4 Total (tons) 37,879 38,280 38,640 39,408 40,165
Eastern 8 23 0.6 0.8 229 904 a
5 Total population of Thailand 61.8 62.4 62.9 63.4 63.9
Southern 17 56 1.3 2.6 477 1214
(106 persons)
North- 30 100 2.2 2.2 1162 2263
6 MSW (kg/cap/day) 0.613 0.613 0.614 0.622 0.628
Eastern
Central 16 81 0.7 2.3 455 2373 a
Association of South East Asian Nations ASEAN (2005).
Bangkok 2 – 6.4 – 9000 –
Total 95 330 12.6 10.0 12177 7704

Source: Chiemchaisri et al. (2006).
and characteristics of construction wastes is crucial for evaluating
and facilitating the effective implementation of possible measures
as well as existing waste management plans.
Several environmental management laws which prohibit illegal
waste dumping and also give full responsibility to local adminis-
trations in developing ordinances and regulating solid waste man-
agement systems including collection fees in Thailand. One of
these is the 1992 Environmental Protection Act (Ministry of Natu-
ral Resources and Environment of Thailand, 2007; Thongkaimook,
2005). A National Integrated Waste Management Plan also exists
for Thailand. The plan is focused on the sustainable consumption
of natural resources and the application of the ‘cradle to cradle’
concept, including control of waste generation at sources, in-
creased waste separation to facilitate recycling and enhancement
of waste utilization efficiently prior to final disposal; and a reduc-
tion by 30% of total waste generated by 2009 (Thongkaimook,
2005). To make the law more effective, the Government also aims
to promote the private sector’s role in research and development
for the recycling of raw materials and clean technologies; and dis-
courage the importation of industrial waste. In addition to this,
Thailand’s energy strategy and policy makes a provision for the
integration of recycling into the energy conservation plan. One of
the key objectives of this plan is to achieve a national recycling
target of 50% by the year 2008 (Energy Research Institute, 2000).
To enhance the successful implementation of these plans, in the
context of construction waste management, it is also necessary
that an assessment of the volume and characteristics of construc-
tion waste being generated in the country be conducted as the
information obtained for such a study could be a vital input for
analyzing the feasibility of wide-scale construction waste recycling
in Thailand.
(2006) indicates that about 84% of the total solid waste in Thailand
is MSW and 12% is industrial waste (of which 8% is hazardous
waste). The characteristics of MSW as summarized in Fig. 2 shows
that putrescibles, paper and plastic constitute a large proportion of
MSW (Pollution Control Department of Thailand, 2006; World
Bank Group, 1999).
Although some materials such as wood, glass and metals, which
are components of MSW, are building materials, it is unclear if
these materials wastes were generated from construction activity
as they could also originate from activities unrelated to construc-
tion. It is interesting to note that although detailed studies of
MSW exists in Thailand (Pollution Control Department of Thailand,
2006; World Bank Group, 1999), there is a dearth of information on
the management and recycling of construction waste as no system
to record the amount of collected construction waste exists. Thus,
there is an obvious need for a waste management system which
tracks wastes from their origin as well as details their composition
and other relevant parameters (e.g., volume).
The main components of construction waste in Thailand, as ob-
served by visits to construction sites and supported by previous
studies (Chanchorn, 2002), are steel reinforcement, wood, con-
crete, cement, bricks, and tiles. Waste generation at a construction
site may result from lack of attention being paid to the size of the
products used, lack of interest of contractors, and lack of knowl-
edge about construction during design activities. Other factors
such as poor materials handling, which may lead to broken parts
(e.g., of bricks), are also important. About 1% to 10% by weight of
purchased construction materials, depending on the type of mate-
rial, is left at the site as waste. Generally, 50–80% of construction
waste is reusable or recyclable (Ferguson et al., 1995). In the
context of sustainability, the management and reduction of
construction waste can be considered as an important issue
Others Mixed plastic

3. Construction waste generation in Thailand

Putrescible
Construction waste is generated from various activities such as
clearing of sites, and the building of new structures or infrastruc-
ture (Fatta et al., 2003). Construction waste is generally considered
as an integral part of MSW in Thailand. MSW management has
been recognized as a huge problem, and its quantities and charac-
teristics have been documented. The total MSW generation in Thai-
land increased from 11.2 million tons in 1993 to 14.3 million tons
in 2002. Also, the average per capita generation rate increased from Textiles

0.53 kg/cap/day in 1993 to 0.62 kg/cap/day in 2002. This indicates

that the quantity of the generated MSW in Thailand and the per ca-
pita generation rate are both increasing with time, pointing to the
need for a sustainable approach to disposal and management
(Chiemchaisri et al., 2006). In 2003 the total amount of MSW gen-
erated in Thailand was approximately 40,165 tons/day (Table 2).
Data available from the Pollution Control Department of Thailand Fig. 2. Composition of municipal solid waste of Thailand, 2000.
734 O.F. Kofoworola, S.H. Gheewala / Waste Management 29 (2009) 731–738
because it addresses landfilling and land use related to resource
consumption. In construction waste, a larger percentage of paper,
plastic, etc. is expected due to packaging materials and wood re-
tired from formwork and scaffolding. This is in addition to signifi-
cant amounts of concrete, masonry, limestone, sandstone, metal,
and wood, depending on the construction type (Bossink and
Brouwers, 1996).
In Thailand, the main reason for steel reinforcement waste is
that some short unusable pieces are produced when core iron is
cut. This results from poor structural design and detailing. Many
problems related to poor material handling also result in waste
generation at construction sites. Deviations in the dimensions of
cast-in-place structural elements such as slabs, beams, and col-
umns are an important source of concrete waste. This arises due
to poor design of concrete formwork systems, and flaws in the
formwork assembling process. Some site managers also often order
additional amounts of concrete in order to avoid interruptions in
the concrete-pouring process. Sometimes this results in a surplus
of concrete that is not used. A combination of factors contributes
to the generation of waste from bricks and blocks. These are prob-
lems related to material delivery, such as the lack of control in the
amount of bricks or blocks actually delivered and the damage of
bricks or blocks during the unloading operation. Thus, poor han-
dling and transportation could be said to be the major source of
waste for bricks and blocks. The main cause of tile wastage is quite
similar to those of blocks and bricks and, mainly arises because of
the need to resize them due to flaws in the integration of architec-
tural and structural design. Most often, the off-cut pieces are left as
debris (Chanchorn, 2002).
3.1. Estimation of construction waste generation in Thailand
The direct determination of generated quantities and composi-
tion of construction waste in Thailand is a challenging task. This is
largely because construction companies are not obliged to record
and report the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the
waste they generate. Consequently, in order to estimate the quan-
tities of construction waste generated, data relevant to the type of
building activity and the number and area (m2) of construction
permits (see Table 1) obtained from the database of the National
Statistics Organization of Thailand (2007) were utilized.
In order to evaluate the quantity of construction waste gener-
ated, the following assumptions were made: (a) new residential
building activity generated 21.38 kg/m2 of waste, and (b) new
non-residential building generated 18.99 kg/m2 (HQ Air Force Cen-
ter for Environmental Excellence, 2006). The amount of construc-
tion waste was determined according to the method outlined by
the HQ Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (2006). Only
waste generated as a result of construction activity from 2002–
2005 was estimated in this study. The construction and mainte-
nance of infrastructure (such as bridges and highways) were not
considered due to the lack of data on these activity types. Demoli-
tion in any form was also not considered for the same reason.
The results obtained indicated that Thailand’s construction
industry generated an average of 1.1 million tons of construction
waste per year (see Table 3). On the basis of Thailand’s population
from 2002–2005 (ASEAN, 2005), and using the construction activ-
ity time-series data for the same period (National Statistics
Organization of Thailand, 2007), it was observed that the amount
of construction waste generated in Thailand has grown over time.
Approximately 12 kg of construction waste was generated per per-
son in 2002; this amount had risen to approximately 18 kg in 2003
and 22 kg in 2004, with a slight decrease to about 20 kg/cap in
2005 (Table 3). This implies an average rate of construction waste
generation of about 18 kg/cap/year for Thailand within this period.
The slight decrease in the amount of waste produced in 2005 could
Table 3
Thailand’s construction waste profile, 2002–2005
2002 2003 2004 2005
Total number of construction permitsa
174,909 245,448 284,026 268,293
Total area construction (106 m2) a 37.48 54.64 66.96 62.01
Total construction waste generated 0.77 1.13 1.38 1.28
(106 tons) b
Total population of Thailand (106 63.4 63.9 64.5 65.0
persons) c
Estimated construction waste 12.2 17.7 21.5 19.7
generation (kg/cap)
a
National Statistics Organization of Thailand (2007).
b
Calculated based on method proposed by HQ Air Force Center for Environ-
mental Excellence (2006).
c
Association of South East Asian Nations ASEAN (2005).
be traced to the decrease in the area of new construction in 2005
when compared to that of 2004.
The computed value of construction waste generation per
inhabitant for Thailand cannot be compared to international fig-
ures for construction and demolition waste generation per inhabi-
tant, which range from about 200 kg/cap for Greece in 1996 to over
2000 kg/cap for Luxembourg and about 2800 kg/cap for Germany
in the same year as available in Brodersen et al. (2002), as this
study did not include waste from construction and maintenance
of infrastructure (such as bridges, highways, etc.) or from any form
of demolition activity as accounted for by other countries in
Brodersen et al. (2002). Also, excavated soil and stones were not
accounted for in this study as included in the waste data of some
countries like Germany (Brodersen et al., 2002). Detailed figures
available for Germany indicate that from the total amount of
C&D generated in 2002, the main part corresponded to excavation
material (65.9%), followed by building demolition waste (24.3%),
road demolition waste (7.8%) and construction site waste (2.0%)
(TuTech Innovation GmbH, 2006). Thus if these other waste cate-
gories had been considered in this study, the average waste gener-
ated per capita per year would substantially increase and most
probably be comparable with the data of other countries. The
country’s construction waste generation showed an increasing
trend parallel to the development of the economy, urbanization,
and rapid population growth as evidenced by government statis-
tics and observed in many other studies (National Economic and
Social Development Board of Thailand, 2006; Organization for Eco-
nomic Cooperation and Development, 1998; Visvanathan et al.,
2004). This correlation between economic growth and the genera-
tion of construction waste has also been observed in many coun-
tries (Christiansen and Fischer, 1999).
3.2. Potential benefits of recycling construction waste
In order to highlight the amount of potentially useful resources
inherent in the waste emanating from construction activities in
Thailand, the composition of waste by material type was computed
according to the methodology outlined by HQ Air Force Center for
Environmental Excellence (2006). However, the rounded average
composition of construction waste as specified in the methodology
was not adequately disaggregated to reflect the nature of construc-
tion waste obtained in Thailand. Therefore, the percentage compo-
sition of construction waste as stated in Bergsdal (2007) was
utilized as it closely reflected the types of wastes observed at con-
struction sites in Thailand. It must be noted that a limitation of this
method is that certain materials such as asbestos, which have a rel-
atively low fraction of the total waste, appear to be insignificant
when analysis is carried out on a national scale. The estimated
quantity of construction waste by material type for each construc-
tion type for each year was obtained according to the equation:
 O.F. Kofoworola, S.H. Gheewala / Waste Management 29 (2009) 731–738 735

Q x ¼ A  Gav  Px ¼ Q p  Px ð1Þ and 4000 jobs would be created through recycling construction
waste during 2002–2005.
where Qx is the quantity of construction waste material x tons, A is
To illustrate the economic potential of recycling construction
the area of construction in m2, Qp the project construction waste
waste, the energy savings throughout the nation was estimated
generated in tons, Gav the average waste generation rate
when construction waste materials such as ferrous metals, wood
(21.38 kg/m2 of waste for new residential buildings and 18.99 kg/
wastes, and concrete were recycled. Concrete is usually crushed
m2 for new non-residential buildings), and Px the average composi-
and reused in place of virgin aggregate in a wide variety of con-
tion of waste material x in %.
struction applications, such as road base, fill, and as an ingredient
To illustrate this, for a new residential building with an area of
in concrete and asphalt pavement (Conchran and Villamizar, 2007).
25,029,094 m2, it is expected that the total construction waste gen-
Doing so reduces the energy associated with producing concrete
erated will amount to 25,029,094 m2  21.38 kg/m2 = 535.1  106
using virgin aggregate material. Therefore, the benefit of concrete
kg (or 535.1  103 tons). Based on this, and using the average com-
recycling results from the avoided energy associated with mining
position of waste wood of 14% given in Bergsdal (2007), it is esti-
and processing aggregate that it replaces (US Environmental Pro-
mated that about 75  103 tons of wood would be generated as
tection Agency, 2003a). To calculate the benefit of recycling con-
waste. This procedure was applied for all the different construction
crete to displace virgin aggregate, the following assumptions
types in Thailand within the period 2002 to 2005. The results ob-
were made based on information obtained from the US Environ-
tained are presented in Table 4, which shows the distribution of
mental Protection Agency (2003a):
the estimated quantity of construction waste by material type.
These are enormous quantities of resources which, if recycled,
(a) Process energy for the production of 1 ton of virgin aggre-
would be economically and environmentally beneficial to the
gate = 51.3 MJ/ton
country. Based on the total amount of solid waste generated in
(b) Process energy for the production of 1 ton of recycled aggre-
Thailand (Table 2) as well as the estimated amount of construction
gate = 37.1 MJ/ton
waste (Table 3), this study estimated that about 7.7% of all wastes
disposed of (whether in landfills or In open dumps) are construc-
Construction wood waste is not homogeneous, due to the di-
tion wastes. This figure is expected to increase when wastes from
verse range of types of activities which can take place. For example
the construction of infrastructure as well as maintenance and
wood waste could be arising from scaffolding, off-cuts, formwork
demolition activities are considered.
and rejects. Although there may be considerable scope to recover
Recycling, one strategy of waste minimization, offers three
significant quantities of wood waste from this source, not all wood
main benefits: (i) reduction of demand for new resources; (ii)
residues produced are recyclable due to the condition or quantity
reduction of transport and production energy costs; and (iii) reduc-
of material produced (US Environmental Protection Agency,
tion of space required for landfill (Tam and Tam, 2006b). Further-
2003b). Chipped or shredded wood is used as a composting bul-
more, the social impacts of solid waste management systems are
king agent, sewage sludge bulking medium and animal bedding.
reflected in the employment, health, and quality of life of residents
Recovered wood can be used to manufacture value-added prod-
in the region. Recycling, reusing, and salvaging construction waste
ucts such as medium density fiberboard and particleboard. How-
can save money, and also create employment related to salvaging
ever, these industries demand clean and consistent feedstock,
and recycling of construction waste. Additionally, the health and
which can be difficult to achieve with wood from the construction
quality of life of residents is improved as less pollution is generated
waste stream. Consequently, most wood waste usually ends up as
by reducing manufacturing and transportation energy related
input for products such as mulch, or used as fuel (Falk and McKe-
emissions when salvaging and recycling is practiced.
ever, 2004).
Varying estimates of the job creation potential inherent in recy-
In this analysis, we assume that 50% of all construction wood
cling exist. Despite these varying estimates, it is clear that of all
waste is recovered and used to substitute non-renewable fossil
waste management options, bulk disposal in landfills and inciner-
fuels in power generating plants by combustion in biomass-fired
ation sustain the fewest jobs. For example, according to Macdonald
plants. It was also assumed that the lower heating value of biomass
(1998) citing the Worldwatch Institute report ‘‘for every 150,000
pellets from wood waste is 16.9 MJ/kg (Rakos, 2004; Hikiert, 2007).
tons of waste, recycling creates nine jobs, incinerating creates
The electric efficiency of biomass combustion plants ranges from
two, and landfilling just one”. However, according to the US Envi-
20–30% (Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Depart-
ronmental Protection Agency (2002), incinerating 10,000 tons of
ment Environmental Research, 2006). In this paper it is considered
waste creates one job, landfilling 10,000 tons of waste creates six
that the electric efficiency of biomass combustion plants is about
jobs and recycling 10,000 tons of waste creates 36 jobs. By apply-
20%; therefore, about 0.94 kWhe is obtainable from 1 kg of wood.
ing these assumptions to Thailand, based on the estimated annual
Some of the assumptions made for the calculation are shown in
construction waste generated, it was calculated that between 70
Table 5.

Table 4
Total construction waste amounts by material (in 103 tons) 2002–2005

No Material (103 tons) Average (%) Table 5

Calculation assumptions for the recycling of construction waste
2002 2003 2004 2005
Material Embodied energy Percentage Energy
1 Asbestos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(MJ/kg)a recycledc savings (%)
2 Hazardous waste 1.8 2.6 3.2 2.9 0.0
3 Concrete/bricks 354.8 517.2 634.1 586.7 46.0 Steel 8.9 30c 60b
4 Gypsum 48.4 70.6 86.5 80.1 6 (reinforcement)
5 Glass 3.6 5.3 6.5 6.0 0.0 Wood 16.9 MJ/kgd 50c 100% Substitution of use of
6 Insulation/EPS 14.5 21.1 25.9 24.0 2.0 (primary energy) non- renewable fossil fuels
7 Metal 10.2 14.9 18.3 16.9 1.0 a
8 Paper/cardboard/plastics 34.9 50.8 62.3 57.6 5.0 Alcorn (1998).
b
9 Wood 105.9 154.4 189.2 175.1 14.0 US Environmental Protection Agency (2003b).
c
10 Unknown composition 200.6 292.4 358.4 331.6 26.0 Assumed.
d
Rakos (2004), Hikiert (2007).
736
The results obtained indicate that an average primary energy
savings of about 3.0  105 GJ per year during 2002–2005 could
be achieved by recycling the construction materials examined.
Fig. 3 shows the relative contribution of the three materials as-
sessed to this savings. This amount is expected to increase if other
building materials are recovered and recycled efficiently.
It was observed that the use of waste wood for electric energy
had the largest contribution to the total energy savings with about
89%. The recycling of ferrous metals followed next with 8%, and the
down-cycling of concrete to aggregates contributed about 3%. One
factor responsible for the relatively low contribution of concrete to
this energy savings could be attributed principally to the low dif-
ference in energy requirements between virgin and recycled pro-
duction of aggregates. Another reason for the relatively low
contribution of ferrous metals and concrete materials was because
this study did not include the quantities of these materials gener-
ated from demolition activity. If these had been accounted for, then
it is expected that the energy savings attributable to their recycling
could be expected to be much higher. This is because, according to
Myhre (2003), both materials have the largest percentages when
all the waste generated from construction, renovation and demoli-
tion activities are accounted for. This is clearly illustrated when the
material contribution to energy savings as a result of recycling
demolition waste from a 60,000 m2 commercial building (as-
sumed) is assessed. It should be noted that this estimation is sim-
ply for illustrative purpose and is based on scenario analysis as the
data required to actually model waste generation from demolition
activity within Thailand’s building stock is unavailable as men-
tioned earlier. The composition of demolition waste as obtained
in Bergsdal (2007) was utilized. The assumptions for recycling
the recovered materials are as stated earlier and also in Table 5.
An assessment of the recycling of recovered demolition waste
materials was made for a typical commercial building in Thailand
with an assumed gross floor area of 60,000 m2 and concrete enve-
lope. The average quantities of the different materials from demo-
lition of the building were computed using Eq. (1) and the same
procedure as that for utilized for determining waste materials
generated from new construction. Wood was assumed to be used
for process heat, ferrous metals substituted virgin materials and
the down-cycling of concrete was used as aggregates in concrete
or backfilling in new construction. For example the average
quantity of metal generated from demolition was computed
according to Eq. (1) based on an assumed area of construction of
60,000 m2, an average waste generation rate of 18.99 kg/m2 for
new non-residential buildings and an average composition of
waste metal of 4%. Substitution in (1) yields 1.14  103 tons of
waste generated from the building demolition, of which approxi-
mately 50 tons is metals. Assuming 30% of all metal waste is recov-
ered and recycled (Table 5), then the total amount of metal
Wood Concrete
4.0E+05
Contribution to energy savings (GJ)
3.5E+05
3.0E+05
2.5E+05
2.0E+05
1.5E+05
1.0E+05
5.0E+04
0.0E+00
2002 2003
Fig. 3. Potential relative contribution of recycling of construction waste material to
energy savings (GJ) 2002–2005.
O.F. Kofoworola, S.H. Gheewala / Waste Management 29 (2009) 731–738
recovered would be 15 tons. The production of virgin metals re-
quires 8.9 MJ/kg (Table 5). Therefore the energy required to pro-
duce 15 tons of virgin metal is 15,000 kg  8.9 MJ/kg = 1.34  105
MJ. Recycling the metals results in energy savings of up to 60%.
Thus, the production of recycled metals would result in an energy
savings of 1.34  105 MJ  0.60 = 7.9  104 MJ of energy. The same
procedure was applied in determining the savings obtainable for
all the materials considered in the scenario and the results
aggregated.
For the scenario assessed, the results indicated that about
2.2  102 GJ of energy could be saved for the assumed case study
60,000 m2 building. Of this amount, the largest share of about
57% originated from the recycling of wood. Ferrous metals and
concrete followed next with contributions of about 37% and 6%,
respectively. This result shows an increased contribution of both
ferrous metals and concrete recycling to energy savings when com-
pared to their relative proportions obtained for the recycling of
their construction waste scenario. The difference in relative pro-
portions of energy savings between the construction and demoli-
tion scenarios is principally due to the fact that the waste
fractions of these two materials are much higher during demolition
than construction as explained earlier. Also because demolition
clearly dominates total waste amounts, the profile of the relative
contributions of recycling different materials to energy savings in
Thailand is expected to be different from the result presented in
Fig. 3 when C&D waste data based on a national scale characteriza-
tion study is utilized for the analysis. It should be noted that the
results obtained from this scenario analysis are largely dependent
on the composition of C&D waste utilized, which varies in different
countries.
It is important to realize that the computation was carried out
simply to illustrate the benefit of recycling. This, however, does
not imply that other strategies cannot be applied to manage con-
struction waste. For example, the recycling of wood waste for fuel,
pulpwood, and feedstock for products such as particleboard de-
pends on the quantity and quality of the recovered material as well
as economic and environmental considerations (US Energy Infor-
mation Administration, 2006). Consequently the benefits of recy-
cling some materials such as construction wood waste should
only be assessed within an integrated waste management model
for which adequate information is presently unavailable.
Recycling, being one of the strategies in the minimization of
waste, offers several benefits – reduction in demand for new re-
sources, reduction of transport and production energy costs and
use of waste which would otherwise be lost to landfill sites.
Although there are many material recycling schemes recom-
mended, actual administering of C&D waste recycling is limited
to a few types of solid wastes. Therefore, when considering a recy-
clable material, the economy, compatibility with other materials
and material properties are three major considerations. Many via-
ble technologies for recycling construction waste exist (Tam and
Ferrous metals Tam, 2006b). However, there is a lack of knowledge within the con-
struction industry regarding these. Education awareness cam-
paigns could serve as vehicles to promote the use of these
technologies.
4. Conclusions and recommendations
Thailand’s construction industry generated an average of 1.1
million tons of construction waste per year during 2002–2005.
Most of these wastes were dumped illegally and others were land-
filled. This is a loss of valuable economic resources. To develop a
2004 2005 sustainable construction industry in Thailand, the Integrated Na-
tional Waste Management plan must be fully implemented to-
gether with measures that encourage the recovery and recycling
 O.F. Kofoworola, S.H. Gheewala / Waste Management 29 (2009) 731–738
of construction waste. Effort must also be directed at minimizing
construction waste generation by improving the managerial capac-
ity of companies at the design, procurement, and production
stages. This can be achieved by educating stakeholders on the
importance and benefits (e.g., reduction of transportation and
landfill disposal costs) of implementing cleaner production in
waste management as an opportunity for the effective reduction
of waste generation and its disposal. Effective recovery and recy-
cling of construction waste has the potential to create jobs and also
reduce energy consumption in the country. One of the key limita-
tions to this study was the lack of construction and demolition
waste data in Thailand. Without this, it is hard to plan future
requirements for construction waste management or even improve
the performance of the construction industry. To attain the goals of
the national waste management plan and enhance the recycling of
construction waste in Thailand, it is recommended that an inven-
tory of all construction and demolition waste generated in the
country be created. This will provide information that can be used
to assess the feasibility of large scale recycling of construction
waste. Finally, there must be fruitful cooperation between the
waste management authorities, and management initiatives
should include effective measures for the documentation of waste
streams and focus on the main cities from which these wastes
originate.
References
Alcorn, A., 1998. Embodied energy coefficients of building materials. Centre for
Building Performance Research, Victoria University of Wellington. Available
from: <http://ww.vuw.ac.nz/cbpr/documents/pdfs/ee-finalreport-vol2.pdf>
(accessed, November 2006).
Al-Mutairi, N., Haque, M., 2003. Strength and durability of concrete made with
crushed concrete as coarse aggregates. In: Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Advances in Waste Management and Recycling. Concrete
Technology Unit, University of Dundee, UK, pp. 16–18.
Ashford, S.A., Visvanathan, C., Husain, N., Chomsurin, C., 2000. Design and
construction of engineered municipal solid waste landfills in Thailand. Waste
Management and Research 18, 462–470.
Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), 2005. Statistical Yearbook,
Estimates of Population by Year Chapter I: Population and Demography.
Available from: <http://www.aseansec.org/SYB2005/Chapter-1.pdf>.
Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2006. Waste Management.
Productivity Commission Inquiry Report No. 38, p. 20.
Bergsdal, H., 2007. Projection of construction and demolition waste in Norway.
Journal of Industrial Ecology 11 (3), 27–39.
Bossink, B., Brouwers, H., 1996. Construction waste: quantification and source
evaluation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 122, 55–60.
Brodersen, J., Juul, J., Jacobsen, H., 2002. Review of Selected Waste Streams: Sewage
Sludge, Construction and Demolition Waste, Waste Oils, Waste from Coal-Fired
Power Plants and Biodegradable Municipal Waste. European Topic Centre on
Waste European Environment Agency. Available from: <http://reports.eea.
europa.eu/technical_report_2001_69/en/tech_rep_69.pdf>.
Chanchorn, C., 2002. Study of Construction Waste Management in Thailand. Master
of Engineering Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Chulalongkorn University
Thailand (in Thai).
Chiemchaisri, C., Juanga, J. P., Visvanathan, C. 2006. Municipal solid waste
management in Thailand and disposal emission inventory. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment. doi:10.1007/s10661-007-9707-1.
Christiansen, K., Fischer, C., 1999. Baseline Projections of Selected Waste Streams:
Development of a Methodology. Technical Report No. 28, European
Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Available from: <http://reports.
eea.europa.eu/TEC28/en/tech28.pdf> (accessed July 2006).
Chun-Li, P., Grosskopf, K.R., Kibert, C.J., 1994. Construction Waste Management and
Recycling Strategies in the United States in Proceedings of the First Conference
of CIB TG 16 on Sustainable Construction. In: Kibert, C.J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the
First Conference of CIB TG 16 on Sustainable Construction. Tampa, FL, pp. 689–
696.
Conchran, K., Villamizar, N., 2007. Recycling Construction Materials: An Important
Part of the Construction Process. United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) <http://www.constructionbusinessowner.com/topics/environ
ment-and-compliance/recycling-construction-materials-an-important-part-of-
the-construction-process.htm>l (accessed, August 2007).
Craven, D.J., Okraglik, H.M., Eilenberg, I.M., 1994. Construction waste and a new
design methodology. In: Kibert, C.J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the First Conference of
CIB TG 16 on Sustainable Construction. Tampa, FL, pp. 89–98.
Donovan, C.T., 1991. Construction and demolition waste processing: New solutions
to an old problem. Resource Recycling (8), 146–155.
737
Energy Research Institute, 2000. Thailand Energy Strategy and Policy Phase 3
Executive Summary-Integration of Recycling into the Energy Conservation Plan.
Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Available from: <http://
www.teenet.chula.ac.th/plan/ph3-estrategy.asp>.
Esin, T., Cosgun, N., 2005. Ecological analysis of reusability and recyclability of
modified building materials and components at use phase of residential
buildings in Istanbul. In: UIA ISTANBUL XXII World Congress of Architecture-
Cities: Grand Bazaar of Architectures, Istanbul, Turkey.
Falk, R., McKeever, D., 2004. Recovering wood for reuse and recycling a United
States perspective. In: Christos, Gallis (Ed.), Proceedings of the European COST
E31 Conference Management of Recovered Wood Recycling Bio-energy and
other Options. Thessaloniki. Available from: <http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/
documnts/pdf2004/fpl_2004_falk001.pdf> (accessed, August 2007).
Fatta, D., Papadopoulos, A., Avramikos, E., Sgourou, E., Moustakas, K., Kourmoussis,
F., Mentzis, A., Loizidou, M., 2003. Generation and management of construction
and demolition waste in Greece-an existing challenge. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling 40, 81–91.
Ferguson, J., Kermode, N., Nash, C.L., Sketch, W.A.J., Huxford, R.P., 1995. Managing
and Minimizing Construction Waste: A Practical Guide. Institute of Civil
Engineers, London.
Hikiert, M.A., 2007. Material and energy use of wood in Europe. Wood: source of
material and energy InnovaWood /ITD Conference Poznan, Poland. Available
from: <http://www.itd.poznan.pl/pl/M&E%20_use_%20of_%20wood_%20Ost.pdf
> (accessed, August 2007).
HQ Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, 2006. Construction and
Demolition Waste Management Pocket Guide. Prepared by 3D/International.
Available from: <https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/Library/Sustain/BDC/
Documents/Pocket_Guide.pdf>.
Kibert, C.J., 2000. Deconstruction as an essential component of sustainable
construction. In: Proceedings of the Second Southern African Conference on
Sustainable Development in the Built Environment, Pretoria, pp.1–5. Available
from: <http://www.sustainablesettlement.co.za/event/SSBE/Proceedings/kibert
.pdf>.
Lauritzen, E.K., 1994. Economic and environmental benefits of recycling waste from
the construction and demolition of buildings. In: Waste Recycling, UNEP
Industry and Environment, pp. 26–31.
Macdonald, C., 1998. Preparing for 21st-Century Opportunities. A Presentation to
the 1998 P.E.I. Employment Summit Panel. Available from: <http://www.cop.
com/emsweb1.html>.
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Thailand, 2007. Executive
Summary: Preparation of Environmental Management Plan B.E. 2550-2554
(2007–2011). Available from: <http://www.onep.go.th/eng/download/PEMP_
2007P–11_Summary.pdf>.
Myhre, L., 2003. The state of deconstruction in Norway in deconstruction and
materials reuse. In: Chini, A.R., (Ed.), CIB Publication 287 Proceedings of the
11th Rinker International Conference Gainesville, Florida, USA. Available from:
<http://www.cibworld.nl:600/pages/ftp/Pub287.pdf>, accessed, August 2007.
National Economic and Social Development Board of Thailand, 2006. Gross
Domestic Product Tables, Available from: <http://www.nesdb.go.th/econSocial
/macro/NAD/menu/io.htm>.
National Statistics Organization of Thailand, 2007. Population and Labor Statistics.
Available from: <http://wwwweb.nso.go.th/eng/stat/stat.htm>.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 1998. Case Study
on the German Packaging Ordinance. ENV/EPOC/PPC (97)21/REV2, Paris. 2001b,
OECD Environmental Outlook, Paris.
Padungsirikul, P., 2003. Sustainable solid waste landfill management research and
development in Thailand. Pollution Control Department of Thailand.Available
from: <http://www.swlf.ait.ac.th/data/Kasetsart%20University%20National%
20Seminar% 20on%20Solid%20Waste%20Landfill%20Ma/PCD%20Report.pdf>.
Peng, C., Scorpio, D., Kibert, C., 1997. Strategies for successful construction and
demolition waste recycling operations. Journal of Construction Management
and Economics 15, 49–58.
Pollution Control Department of Thailand, 2006. Terms of Reference Thailand:
Partnership for Development Waste Management: Realization of waste to
energy and beyond. Available from: <http://www.pcd.go.th/count/wastedl.cfm
?FileName=TORWaste2Energy.pdf&
BookName=TOR%20Waste%20to%20Energy>.
Poon, C.S., Yu, T.W., Wong, S.W., 2002. Minimization of Building Waste in Hong
Kong Public Housing Projects. International Conference: Appropriate
environmental and solid waste management and technologies for developing
countries. International Solid Waste Association, Istanbul, 8–12 July 2002, vol.
1, pp. 515–524.
Rakos, C., 2004. Process heat from pellets. Austrian Energy Agency. Available from:
<http://www.sei.ie/uploadedfiles/Energyandbusiness/CRakosPellets.pdf>
(accessed, August 2007).
Rogoff, M.J., Williams, J.F., 1994. Approaches to Implementing Solid Waste Recycling
Facilities. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, NJ.
Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department Environmental
Research, 2006. Review of Greenhouse Gas Life Cycle Emissions, Air Pollution
Impacts and Economics of Biomass Production and Consumption in Scotland.
Available from: <http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/149415/0039781.
pdf> (accessed, September 2007).
Shen, L.Y., Tam, V.W.Y., 2002. Implementation of environmental management in the
Hong Kong construction industry. International Journal of Project Management
20, 535–543.
738 O.F. Kofoworola, S.H. Gheewala / Waste Management 29 (2009) 731–738
Stokoe, M.J., Kwong, P.Y., Lau, M.M., 1999. Waste reduction: a tool for sustainable
waste management for Hong Kong. In: Barrage, A., Edelman, Y., (Eds.),
Proceedings of R’99 World Congress, vol. 5. Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 165–170.
Tam, V.W.Y., Tam, C.M., 2006a. A Review on the Viable Technology for Construction
Waste Recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47, 209–221.
Tam, V.W.Y., Tam, C.M., 2006b. Evaluations of existing waste recycling methods: a
Hong Kong study. Building and Environment 41, 1649–1660.
Thongkaimook, A., 2005. 3R Portfolio-good practices to promote the 3R’s. Pollution
Control Department of Thailand, Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environment Thailand. Available from: <http://www.env.go.jp/recycle/3r/en/
info/05_15.pdf>.
Trankler, J., Walker, I., Dohman, M., 1996. Environmental impact of demolition
waste- an overview on 10 years of research and experience. Journal of Waste
Management 16, 21–26.
TuTech Innovation GmbH, 2006. Study construction and demolition waste
management in Germany. Available from: <http://www.cowam-project.org/
cms/Content/download/Germany_CD_Waste.pdf>.
United Nations Environment Program, 2001. Bangkok State of the Environment.
United Nations Environment Program. Available from: <http://www.rrcap
.unep.org/reports/soe/bangkok_toc.pdf>.
United Nations University, 1996. Urban Population, Settlement Patterns, and
Employment Distribution in Emerging World Cities in Pacific Asia. In: Lo, F.,
Yeung, Y. (Eds.), A United Nations University Press. Available from: <http://
www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu11ee/uu11ee0w.htm> accessed, 20
January 2007.
US Energy Information Administration, 2004. Country Analysis Briefs: Thailand.
Available from: <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/thailand.pdf>, accessed,
20 April 2007.
US Energy Information Administration (2006). Recycling metals. Available from:
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/saving/recycling/solidwaste/
metals.html#SteelRecycling> (accessed, August 2007).
US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Characterization of Building-Related
Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States. Prepared by Franklin
Associates. Available from: <http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/sqg/c&d-
rpt.pdf>.
US Environmental Protection Agency, 2003a. Background Document for Life-Cycle
Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for Clay Brick Reuse and Concrete
Recycling EPA530-R-03-017 . Available from: <http://epa.gov/climatechange/
wycd/waste/downloads/ClayBrickandConcrete_11_07.pdf>.(accessed, August
2007).
US Environmental Protection Agency, 2003b. Municipal Solid Waste Generation,
Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2003.
Available from: <http://www.epa.gov/msw/pubs/msw03rpt.pdf> (accessed,
August 2007).
US Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. Resource Conservation Challenge:
Campaigning Against Waste, EPA 530-F-02-033. Available from: <http://
nepis.epa.gov> (accessed, August 2007).
Visvanathan, C., Trankler, J., Joseph, K., Chiemchaisri, C., Basnayake, B.F.A.,
Gongming, Z., (2004). Municipal solid waste management in Asia. Asian
Regional Research Program on Environmental Technology (ARRPET). Asian
Institute of Technology Publications. ISBN: 974-417-258-1.
World Bank Group, 2007. East Asia and Pacific Update - Ten Years after Asia’s
Financial Crisis. In: East Asia PREM (Ed.), World Bank Group. Available
from: <http://web.worldbank.org/wbsite/external/countries/eastasiapacificext/
exteaphalfyearlyupdate/0,menupk:550232~ pagepk:64168427~pipk:64168435
~thesitepk:550226,00.html> (accessed February 20 2007).
World Bank Group/The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development,
1999.What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia. Prepared by Hoornweg,
D., Available from: <http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/urbanenvironment/
resources/references/pdfs/WhatAWasteAsia.pdf>.