Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
net/publication/268589565
CITATIONS READS
20 11,430
5 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) for Construction Safety Applications View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Masoud Gheisari on 22 March 2016.
ABSTRACT
Since construction is considered as one of the main sources of environmental
pollution in the world, the level of knowledge and awareness of project participants,
especially project managers, with regards to environmental impacts of construction
processes needs to be enhanced. This paper aims to assess the most common
environmental impacts due to the construction process in Malaysia. To achieve this
aim, a structured interview was conducted with an expert panel group in Malaysia.
Experts were invited to identify the frequency and severity of environmental impacts
caused by construction processes in residential buildings. It was found that
‘Transportation Resource’, ‘Noise Pollution’, and ‘Dust Generation with Construction
Machinery’ are the greatest environmental impacts in Malaysia respectively. The
results of this study are useful for construction managers and other participants in
construction sites to become aware of construction processes impacts on the
environment.
Keywords: Environmental Pollution, Construction activities, Environmental
impacts Assessments.
INTRODUCTION
Environmental protection is an important issue throughout the world (Tse and
Raymond, 2001). Compared with other industries, construction is a main source of
environmental pollution (Shen et al., 2005). Building construction and operations
have a massive direct and indirect effect on the environment (Levin, 1997). Pollution
sources from the construction process include harmful gases, noise, dust, solid and
liquid waste (Chen et al., 2000). This issue has prompted many construction
participants to attempt to control the impacts of their activities by adopting
environmental management systems (Lam et al., 2011).
Awareness and knowledge are the main factors to intensify the sustainability
movement (Zainul Abidin, 2010). The Malaysian government, professional bodies
and private organizations have started several programs in order to enhance the
awareness and knowledge of construction practitioners, and also to promote the
application of sustainable principles within construction projects (Zainul Abidin,
2010). Unfortunately, the sustainability movement is a new concept for the
construction industry in Malaysia and there is no comprehensive reference to inform
construction practitioners of the riskiest environmental impacts due to the
construction process. This study aimed at prioritizing the most frequent
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 03/22/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
METHODOLOGY
A structured interview with an expert panel group which consisted of 15
construction professionals was conducted to investigate the frequency and severity of
environmental impacts across construction of residential buildings in Malaysia. The
interview included two main sections, section A covered the background and general
information of the respondents, and Section B invited respondents to rate the
frequency and severity of the environmental impacts using the five-point Likert Scale
(Table 1).
Table 1: Likert Scale Used to Determine the Level of Frequency and Severity
Scale Severity Description Frequency
1 Insignificant Minimal impact Never
2 Minor Short-term impact Unlikely
3 Moderate Significant impact Possible
4 Major Major short-term impact Likely
5 Catastrophic Major long-term impact Always
series of impacts that could result in damage to the environment. The severity of the
consequences is defined as the extent of damage that could result from an impact on
the environment.
Risk can be assessed and presented, using matrices, by estimating
probabilities and consequences in a qualitative manner or with quantitative values
(Ayyub, 2003). A risk matrix has been used to rank various risks in order of
importance (Jeong et al., 2010). A risk matrix is a table that includes several
categories of probability, frequency, or likelihood for its rows (or columns) and
several categories of severity, consequences, or impact for its columns (or rows) as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 03/22/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
shown in Table 2 (Cox, 2008). Table 2 demonstrates that risk will increase if either
probability or severity rise, or both rise concurrently.
Probability
1 Insignificant 1 Never 4 4 8 12 16 20
2 Minor × 2 Unlikely = 3 3 6 9 12 15
3 Moderate 3 Possible 2 2 4 6 8 10
4 Major 4 Likely 1 1 2 3 4 5
5 Catastrophic 5 Always 1 2 3 4 5
Consequence
R=F×S (1)
Respondents’ Background
An expert panel was interviewed to rank the frequency and severity of
common environmental impacts across construction of residential buildings in
Malaysia based on the five-point Likert Scale. About 72 percent of the interviewees
(n=15) had more than 15 years of experience, and approximately 16 percent had less
than five years of experience. The annual revenue of about 23 percent of the
companies (n=15) was more than USD 3.3 million which is approximately 10 million
SD
SDb
Environmental Impacts FOCa SEVc ILd Priority
(FOC)
(SEV)
Operations with
Priority
Vegetation 3.23 1.3 3.08 1.16 9.96
10
Removal
Emission of
Volatile Organic Priority
3.3 1.06 3 0.94 9.9
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 03/22/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Compounds (VOC) 11
and CFC
Generation of Inert Priority
3.3 0.67 2.92 1.08 9.63
Waste 13
Operation with
Priority
High Potential Soil 3.2 0.92 3 0.82 9.6
14
Erosion
Priority
Water pollution 3.27 0.8 2.93 0.96 9.58
15
Priority
Waste generation 3.27 1.1 2.83 1.11 9.26
17
Priority
Dust Generation 2.91 0.83 3.17 1.03 9.21
18
Priority
Inert water 3.17 1.19 2.64 1.21 8.35
20
Priority
Chemical Pollution 2.75 1.14 3 1.04 8.25
21
Landscape Priority
2.79 0.89 2.69 0.95 7.5
Alteration 23
Priority
Toxic generation 3.08 1 2.36 1.36 7.29
24
Waterborne Priority
2.64 1.03 2.58 1.08 6.81
Toxicities 25
Green House Gas Priority
2.73 1.19 2.22 1.09 6.06
Emission 26
Total Impact Level 165.69
Site Hygiene Priority
3.25 1.14 3.31 1.03 10.75
Condition 5
Public Health Priority
Public 3.14 1.29 3.07 1.14 9.65
Effects 12
Impact
Priority
Social Disruption 2.77 1.17 2.77 1.09 7.67
22
Total Impact Level 28.07
a
FOC, Frequency of Occurring
b
SD., Standard Deviation
c
SEV, Severity of the impacts of on the environment or consequences
d
Impact Level
2008). The noise generated during construction and its influence vary, depending on
the nature of the activities, the type and the status of equipment being used, the nature
of the surrounding environment, and consideration of environmental and health
regulations (Gannoruwa and Ruwanpura, 2007).
Noise control can be performed at noise source, noise path, or noise receiver
(Pelton, 1993). Noise control at source is to select less noisy equipment (e.g. Using
bored piles instead of driven piles) (Pelton, 1993). To control the noise along the
path, the noise source should be moved far from the receiver. It also can be performed
by construction of a barrier (e.g. wall) between noise source and receiver (Barron,
2003). The noise control at receiver could be performed using protective tools such as
ear plug or canal cap (Barron, 2003).
The third important impact which was defined based on the interview’s results
is ‘Dust Generation with Construction Machinery’ (IL=11.45). Some construction
activities expose dust which is dangerous for workers’ health. For instance,
sandblasting, grinding, cutting concrete and bricks produce silica, which can result in
silicosis and lung cancer in workers exposed to these activities (Bergdahl et al., 2004 ;
Dement et al., 2010 ; Peters et al., 2009). Exhaust ventilation systems, wet dust
suppression, use of personal protective equipment are common ways to reduce dust
exposure in the construction industry (Nij et al., 2003).
Furthermore, it can be seen that ‘Green House Gas Emission’ contributes the
smallest portion of total impact (IL=6.06) compared with any other subcategories and
it is followed by ‘Waterborne Toxicities’ (IL=6.81). Even though their shares are
small, it is important to decrease their environmental impacts. There is a potential to
decrease their impacts by applying advanced technologies or changing construction
equipment.
Risk level and percentage of environmental impacts are shown in Table 3 and
Figure 2. ‘Ecosystem Impacts’ (IL=165.69) was identified as highly significant,
accounting for about 67.5% of the total impact. It is followed by the ‘Natural
Resources Impacts’ (IL=52.23) with the contribution of 21% and ‘Public Impact’
(IL=165.69) with 11.5%. A research on environmental impacts assessment in China
reveals about the same proportion for ‘Ecosystem Impacts’ (65%). However, the
percentage of ‘Public Impact’ (27%) and ‘Natural Resources Impacts’ (8%) was
different (Li et al., 2010). This difference may be the result of different construction
techniques and materials since environmental impacts may vary significantly when
different construction techniques and materials are used during the construction
process (Li et al., 2010).
Environmental Impacts
12%
21% Na tura l Resources
Impa ct
Ecosystem Impa ct
Public Impa ct
67%
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 03/22/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
CONCLUSION
This study investigated the environmental impacts due to construction
processes in residential building in Malaysia in order of their impact levels. An
interview with an expert panel group was conducted to determine the frequency and
severity of the environmental impacts in the Malaysian construction industry. The
results demonstrate that ‘Transportation Resources’, ‘Noise Pollution’, and ‘Dust
Generation with Construction Machinery’ are the most risky environmental impacts
on construction sites in Malaysia.
Among the three environmental impacts, ‘Ecosystem Impacts’ has the greatest
impact on the environment (67.5% of total impacts). ‘Natural Resources Impact’
accounts for 21%, while ‘Public Impact’ consists of only 11.5%.
The results of this research can be an influential assessment tool to assist
construction practitioners to improve the on-site environmental performance. The
construction practitioners will be able to achieve a comprehensive perception of the
environmental impacts of construction processes during the pre-construction stage.
Furthermore, the risk level of environmental impacts is an appropriate measure for
understanding the impact level of construction processes on the environment and for
mitigation of such impacts, which may lead to successful sustainable performance
and management.
The outcome of this study can help organizations and managers prepare
proper sustainability plans and also to increase the knowledge of partners in
construction sites through training and awareness programs. Further research needs to
investigate the on-site sustainable performance measurements using identified
environmental impacts in advance.
REFERENCES
Ayyub B.M. (2003). "Risk Analysis in Engineering and Economics" United States :
Chapman & Hall, University of Maryland at College Park.
Barron R.F. (2003). "Industrial Noise Control and Acoustics" Marcel Dekker, New
York.
Bergdahl I., Toren K., Eriksson K., Hedlund U., Nilsson T., Flodin R., Järvholm B.
(2004). "Increased mortality in COPD among construction workers exposed to
inorganic dust". European Respiratory Journal 23:402–6.
Gangolells M., Casals M., Gassó S., Forcada N., Roca X., Fuertes A. (2009). "A
methodology for predicting the severity of environmental impacts related to
the construction process of residential buildings". Building and Environment
44:558-571.
Gangolells M., Casals M., Gassó S., Forcada N., Roca X., Fuertes A. (2011).
"Assessing concerns of interested parties when predicting the significance of
environmental impacts related to the construction process of residential
buildings". Building and Environment 46:1023-1037.
Gannoruwa A., Ruwanpura J.Y. (2007). "Construction noise prediction and barrier
optimization using special purpose simulation", Simulation Conference. pp.
2073-2081.
Haron Z., Oldham D., Yahya K., Zakaria R. (2008). "A Probabilistic Approach for
Modelling Of Noise from Construction Site for Sustainable Environment ".
Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering 20:58-72.
Jeong K.-S., Lee K.-W., Lim H.-K. (2010). "Risk assessment on hazards for
decommissioning safety of a nuclear facility". Annals of Nuclear Energy
37:1751-1762.
Lam P.T.I., Chan E.H.W., Chau C.K., Poon C.S., Chun K.P. (2011). "Environmental
management system vs green specifications: How do they complement each
other in the construction industry?". Journal of Environmental Management
92:788-795.
Levin H. (1997). "Systematic Evaluation and Assessment of Building Environmental
Performance (SEABEP)". paper for presentation to ‘‘Buildings and
Environment’’:Paris, 9–12 June,1997.
Li X., Zhu Y., Zhang Z. (2010). "An LCA-based environmental impact assessment
model for construction processes". Building and Environment 45:766-775.
Modarres M. (2006). "Risk Analysis in Engineering: Techniques, Tools, and Trends"
Boca Raton, FL :CRC.
Morel J.C., Mesbah A., Oggero M., Walker P. (2001). "Building houses with local
materials: means to drastically reduce the environmental impact of
construction". Building and Environment 36:1119-1126.
Nij E.T., Hilhorst S., Spee T., Spierings J., Steffens F., Lumens M., Heederik D.
(2003). "Dust Control Measures in the Construction Industry". The Annals of
Occupational Hygiene 47:211-218.
Pelton H. (1993). "Noise Control Management" Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Peters S., Thomassen Y., Fechter-Rink E., Kromhout H. (2009). "Personal exposure
to inhalable cement dust among construction workers". Journal of
Environmental Monitoring 11:174–80.
Shen L.-Y., Lu W.-S., Yao H., Wu D.-H. (2005). "A computer-based scoring method
for measuring the environmental performance of construction activities".
Automation in Construction 14:297-309.
Tam V.W.Y., Tam C.M., Zeng S.X., Chan K.K. (2006). "Environmental performance
measurement indicators in construction". Building and Environment 41:164-
173.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 03/22/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Tse Y., Raymond V. (2001). "The implementation of EMS in construction firms: case
study in Hong Kong". Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
Management 3:94 -177.
Zainul Abidin N. (2010). "Investigating the awareness and application of sustainable
construction concept by Malaysian developers". Habitat International 34:421-
426.