Developing a Strategic Approach to Construction Waste

Transcription

1 AEAT in Confidence Developing a Strategic Approach to Construction Waste Report to Defra, Business Resource Efficiency and Waste (BREW) Programme August 2006 AEAT in Confidence The Construction Resources & Waste Platform (CRWP) is funded by DEFRA's Business Resource Efficiency and Waste (BREW) Programme and managed by AEA Energy & Environment and BRE

2 Task 3 Gap Analysis Title Customer Developing A Strategic Approach to Construction Waste DEFRA, BREW Programme Customer reference Confidentiality, copyright and reproduction File reference Reference number Address for Correspondence AEAT In Confidence This document has been prepared by AEAT Technology in connection with a contract to supply goods and/or services and is submitted only on the basis of strict confidentiality. The contents must not be disclosed to third parties other than in accordance with the terms of the contract M:\Projects\DEFRA\ED02414 BREW Construction Waste\Deliverables\Reports\Final AEA Technology Environment Gemini Building Harwell Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0QR Telephone: Facsimile Kate.McCartney@aeat.co.uk AEA Technology Environment is a business division of AEA Technology plc AEA Technology is certificated to ISO9001 & ISO Name Signature Date Author Kathryn 15 Aug 2006 Rushton/ Dawn Jones Reviewed by Kate McCartney 21 Aug 2006 Approved by Kate McCartney 21 Aug 2006 AEAT In Confidence AEA Technology ii

3 Executive Summary The main objective of this task was to prepare a gap analysis of what is currently provided through BREW and what is required by the construction sector in terms of support. Task 2 provided the data relating to BREW support and the following pages outline the views of industry. The report conclusions then bring these elements together. Resource efficiency and construction waste were generally regarded as mid-high priorities within the construction industry, with most organisations having in-house policies in place to deal with construction waste. This priority status was largely driven by legislation, with the Landfill Tax Regulations and Landfill Directive being amongst the most influential. Other key drivers included the Hazardous Waste Regulations, Waste Management Regulations, the Duty of Care and Site Waste Management Plans. Legislation was the most popular new measure suggested by respondents, which is consistent with the drive towards legislation mentioned in the Task 2 report. One suggested legislative change was increasing the Landfill Tax. Other important incentives included resource efficiencies leading to cost reductions on-site and discounts for segregating waste on-site. Positive reinforcement was much more popular than fining organisations for not recycling. Government Departments, including Defra, were the most common choices for delivering new measures, such as legislation and incentives. A key barrier to resource efficiency, however, was red tape in the regulatory framework. Care should therefore be taken to ensure bureaucracy is kept to a minimum. There was also a call for more sources of information and educational workshops. This is consistent with the findings in the Task 2 report that there is a skills gap in the construction sector and that training and information is provided by too many organisations. Respondents only identified 23 of the 198 information sources from the Task 2 report: WRAP, BRE and Envirowise were the most well known. There is therefore a need to bring these sources together in one place as Lack of knowledge/ awareness of how to reduce waste, or the benefits of doing so emerged, as the main barrier to resource efficiency and reducing construction waste. The Task 2 report anticipated that regional variances in information provision/ training would be an issue, however it did not emerge as a key finding from the questionnaire analysis. This may be part of the reason for the gap between the number of sources available and those cited by respondents. Greater coordination of sources would overcome this issue. AEAT In Confidence iii

4 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Gaps Identified from Task 2 Overview of Relevant Activities GAPS BARRIERS 3 3 Questionnaire Development 4 4 Questionnaire Marketing 4 5 Questionnaire Analysis 5 6 Questionnaire Results QUESTION QUESTION QUESTION QUESTION QUESTION QUESTION QUESTION QUESTION QUESTION QUESTION QUESTION QUESTION Conclusions 51 Appendices APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 3 PRINTABLE VERSION OF WEB-BASED QUESTIONNAIRE. LIST OF INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANISATIONS INVITED TO COMPLETE THE QUESTIONNAIRE. LIST OF INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANISATIONS WHO COMPLETED THE QUESTIONNAIRE AEAT In Confidence iv

5 Introduction AEAT In Confidence v

6 1 Introduction AEAT, in partnership with the Building Research Establishment (BRE), has secured funding from Defra s Business Resource Efficiency and Waste (BREW) Programme to carry out a pilot project on developing a strategic approach to construction waste. The key aim of this pilot project is to better align the role of BREW with the business needs of the construction industry. This will be achieved by developing an effective road-map for change that could be implemented over the next 5-10 years. Development of this road-map will be achieved through extensive industry consultation (including the formation of an industry-backed steering group), a gap analysis of existing support initiatives, and the commissioning of a series of short research projects to plug immediate gaps in understanding and data. The resultant industry-owned and derived road-map will reflect all areas of the construction industry and all relevant types of waste. It will be used to set clear targets and timescales for construction resource efficiency and to identify opportunities and actions for increasing resource efficiency. This report is the outcome of the gap analysis. AEAT In Confidence 1

7 Gaps identified from Task 2 Overview of Relevant Activities AEAT In Confidence 2

8 2 Gaps Identified from Task 2 Overview of Relevant Activities The following sections lists a number of gaps and barriers, identified from the Task 2 Activity Overview of relevant activities. 2.1 GAPS Training It was identified on many occasions that there is a large skills gap in the construction sector with regards to environmental issues, which includes resource efficiency. Many sources of training exist; however, these seem to be undertaken on a localised/regional basis. Co-ordination of these activities on a national level and/or national rollout is required. Some organisations, notably, Envirowise in partnership with Regional Development agencies and local centres of excellence are working on this so the situation is likely to improve. The skills gap is more pronounced in certain areas of the country (e.g. the Northeast). There is the possibility of linking waste minimisation/resource efficiency training into the CITB Construction Skills certification scheme. Packaging The issue of packaging wastes on construction sites was identified on several occasions as requiring more data/information. Research A lot of research is currently ongoing or has been undertaken by a large number of different organisations, however it is not always clear how this research is applied in practice. Effective Co-ordination of Activities There are many ongoing activities but these are not always co-ordinated effectively. For example, there is guidance/information/work being undertaken for distinct stages of the construction process (e.g. product design, manufacture, design construction, demolition) but it is not clear how the various stages of the construction process link together, e.g. are product designers aware of the requirements of building designers/architects/civil engineers and are products sizes updated to reflect continuing change in design requirements? How is waste minimisation incorporated into "off spec/bespoke" builds? 2.2 BARRIERS During the Overview of relevant activities time/money was identified as a barrier to reducing construction waste, particularly on demolition sites. Demolition contractors do not see the value in waste segregation/sorting on site as it increases time on the job and there is the potential for vandalism of equipment if it is left on site. The potential delays caused by the time taken to undertake waste minimisation can also cost them money. Finally, the use of demolition materials on regeneration projects can lead to delays and higher cost implications due to the requirement for testing suitability for use. AEAT In Confidence 3

9 3 Questionnaire Development The questionnaire was developed to cover the following questions: Name, address, organisation and organisation type. To what extent do you and your organisation consider construction waste and resource efficiency? Does your organisation have specific in-house policies relating to construction waste and resource efficiency? What do you see as being the key drivers, policies and regulations that have had a significant impact upon construction waste and resource efficiency? What sources of information and support are you aware of in relation to reducing construction waste and improving resource efficiency? Which have you used and how effective do you find them? What incentives/penalties are important to your organisation to encourage reductions in construction waste and improvements in resource efficiency? Which of these have you used and how effective were they? What barriers are there to reducing construction waste and improving resource efficiency? What new measures would you like to see introduced to help reduce construction waste and improve resource efficiency? Who should provide these new measures? Further comments were also invited and people were asked if they would like to have further involvement with the if they did, what their preferred method of contact would be. A web-based questionnaire was used for ease of completion by industry and to streamline the analysis. With a web-based questionnaire the information is inputted into the on-line form, the data then goes directly into a database which can be used to analyse the data. With paper questionnaires and other electronic questionnaires there is a requirement to enter the data into a database before the results can be analysed and a web-based questionnaire cuts out this step. A printable version of the on-line questionnaire is included in Appendix 1. 4 Questionnaire Marketing FES promoted the questionnaire by sending an explaining the the role of the on-line questionnaire to the individuals listed in Appendix 2. We also contacted a number of organisations and asked if they could promote the questionnaire to their members. The organisations contacted and the methods of communication with their members (for example, including information about the questionnaire on their websites) are also listed in Appendix 2. BRE asked the following groups to ask their member and contacts to complete the survey: - the SmartWaste user group - relevant project partners - resource efficiency mailing list - BRE staff AEAT In Confidence 4

10 - Construction National Platform A banner directing people to the questionnaire was also put on the BRE home page. All sectors of the construction industry were covered. The questionnaire was also promoted in the project Press Release that was sent out to BRE's mailing list, all Construction Products Association members and the mailing list of Recycling News. The BRE website also published a link to the questionnaire on their homepage for the duration of the consultation period. 5 Questionnaire Analysis In Section 6 Questionnaire Results, each question has an overall summary of each question and has also been analysed by organisation type. The answers to each question are categorised as either: Clear consensus. Majority view Supporting themes, or Divergent themes. The results from questions with multiple-choice answers have been presented in pi-chart format. Organisations were categorised into the following sectors (the number of responses from each organisation type is given in brackets): Academic estates (2) Architect (4) (47) Building Materials Manufacturer/Supplier (9) Civil/ Structural Engineer/ Consultant (7) Demolition Contractor (2) Energy and Environmental Management (7) Other (8) Professional Body (3) Research Organisation (5) RSL/HA (6) Trade Association (8) The organisations in the Other category were: Dealer in reclaimed building materials Environmental charity Equity Provider / Investment Company Industry/Government funded company whose role is to promote best practice in construction. Local Authority Recycler Surveyor Water Company AEAT In Confidence 5

11 6 Questionnaire Results 108 responses were received in total. 99 of these were complete, 1 was almost complete and 8 were around 50% complete. 44% of the responses were from builders/contractors/developers. The results of the questionnaire analysis are given in the sections below. 6.1 QUESTION 1. Question 1 Contact Details. A full list of those who completed the questionnaire is given in Appendix QUESTION 2. Question 2 - To what extent does your organisation consider construction waste and resource efficiency? Response Number of responses A lot 63 Some 39 A little 5 No consideration 1 To what extent does your organisation consider construction waste and resource efficiency? 5% 1% 36% 58% A lot Some A little No consideration Chart Summary of all responses: There is a majority view amongst respondents, with over half (63 of 108) responding affirmatively to a lot, and most of the remaining respondents (39, over a third of the total) responding some. AEAT In Confidence 6

12 Many, across different sectors, cite the costs associated with waste disposal as a positive incentive for resource efficiency and construction waste minimisation. Within different categories of respondents the focus of the responses varies slightly. Architects focus on how to reduce waste from the design stage, for example, by using Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) and recycled materials. The civil/structural engineers/consultants all have specialised niche approaches to the issue, and for energy and environmental managers these issues are at the core of their businesses. Many building materials suppliers & manufacturers see cost as a driving factor. The majority of builders, contractors & developers responded a lot or some, many (7) have internal policies in place to address these issues and many (9) also quote cost as a driving factor, however they are also the only group where cost is cited as a barrier to waste management and minimisation (2 respondents). Regional Social Landlords and Housing Associations (RSLs & HAs) tend to address issues by incorporating them into their internal policies and design briefs. Responses by organisation type: Academic estates (2 responses: 1 some & 1 a little ) One academic estate responded a little and the other some. The former also commented that waste issues tended to be addressed in large-scale projects but overlooked in smaller projects. Architects (4 responses: 3 a lot & 1 some ) Three of the architects responded a lot and one responded some. Measures used to address the issue of waste include using MMC & off-site assembly, and specifying standard components where possible. One of the three a lot respondents expressed frustration at the perceived lack of importance given to these issues by colleagues and industry. Builders/Contractors/s (47 responses) Responses were divided as follows: 24 responded a lot, 20 some and three a little. Builders/contractors/developers 6% 0% 43% 51% A lot Some A little No consideration Chart AEAT In Confidence 7

13 Of the 24 respondents in the a lot category, five cited the cost of waste disposal as a motivating factor for increasing efficiency and reducing waste output, and one of these also quoted environmental concerns as a motivating factor. Seven companies had policies in place to address the issues of waste, and three companies had integrated waste management into their work such that the issues were addressed at the project design stage. Two companies have a zero-waste by 2010 objective. Four companies said they recycled waste and construction materials wherever possible. Of the 20 respondents in the some category, four cited the cost of waste disposal as a motivating factor for increased efficiency & reduced waste output, but two companies stated that waste disposal was not a prime priority due to economic constraints. One company also stated that waste issues are not as high a priority as health & safety issues. Only four companies had policies addressing waste issues, and only one company addressed the issues of waste & resource efficiency at the project design stage. Building Materials Supplier/Manufacturers (9 responses: 7 a lot & 2 some ). For two of the companies recycling is an integral part of their production process. Two companies quote cost as a motivating factor for reducing waste output, and one company cites customer and client priorities as a motivating factor. One company comments that it can only influence waste in terms of product design, not application. Civil/Structural Engineers/Consultants (7 responses: 4 a lot and 3 some ) Comments for this section centre around the different ways in which the civil/structural engineers/consultants address the issue of waste. One is responsible for producing & managing environmental management plans, including Sustainable Waste Management Programmes. Another has set waste reduction targets under which all sites will have resource efficiency audits carried out. One cites small-scale sites as a problem, since there is less scope for waste segregation, re-use & recycling. Cost and customer demands are cited as factors driving resource efficiency. Demolition Contractors (2 responses, both a lot ). One respondent comments that waste is viewed as a commodity in the demolition industry. Energy and Environmental Management (7 responses: 5 a lot and 2 some ). For several (3) companies in this category, reduction of construction waste is a core element of their business. Other (8 responses: 5 a lot, 2 some, 1 no consideration ). Within the a lot contingent, two cited cost and one sustainability issues as factors driving reduction of construction waste. Two respondents concentrate their efforts on salvaging & re-using construction materials. The two some companies both stated they are beginning to take into consideration the issues of construction waste reduction. The only company to respond no consideration did so because they consider it doesn t apply to them, since they do not produce anything (their business is in recycling). Professional Bodies (3 responses: 1 a lot, 2 some ). AEAT In Confidence 8

14 One of the bodies provides advice to its members on how to improve resource efficiency and reduce construction waste. Research Establishments (5 responses: 4 a lot, 1 some ). All four research establishments that answered a lot have their prime focus on minimising waste from construction & improving resource efficiency. Two quoted cost and one environmental concerns as drivers for increased resource efficiency. RSL/HA (6 responses: 2 a lot, 3 some, 1 a little ). All but one respondent have measures in place to encourage increased resource efficiency & reduced construction waste, be it through KPIs or internal policies such as their Design brief. The one a little respondent states they are currently evaluating how best to include these issues in their design briefs. Trade Associations (8 responses: 6 a lot, 2 some ). The six associations that responded a lot are all emphatic about the importance of reducing construction waste, and consider that the industry has already taken and will continue to take significant and positive steps to ensure this. The two that responded some are less emphatic about steps already taken by industry, but equally emphatic about the importance of the issue. 6.3 QUESTION 3. Question 3 To what extent do you consider construction waste and resource efficiency in your own work? Response Number of responses A lot 76 Some 26 A little 5 No consideration 1 To what extent do you consider construction waste and resource efficiency in your own work? 5% 1% 24% A lot Some A little No consideration 70% Chart AEAT In Confidence 9

15 Summary of all responses: There is a clear consensus in the answer to this question, with almost threequarters (76 of 108) of respondents choosing a lot and most of the remainder selecting some (26 of 108). Many of the respondents are environmental managers or health, safety & environment managers within their organisations and consider that addressing these issues is a core part of their job. Cost is again frequently cited as a driver for waste minimisation and resource efficiency. Many of those in the architects, the builders, contractors & developers, the civil/structural engineers/consultants and the energy and environment management groups consider that addressing these issues is an integral part of their job descriptions. The research establishments focus on educating & informing the public, whereas some of the trade associations are involved in research into the issues. Responses by organisation type: Academic estates (2 responses, 1 a lot, 1 some ) The academic estate that responded a lot stated that waste was monitored under BREEAM requirements as undertaken by their company. Architects (4 responses, all responded a lot ) One of the respondents lectures and runs workshops on this subject matter, another tries to always re-use materials, a third believes in leading by example and the fourth believes there is scope for a lot more to be done in this area. Builders/Contractors/s (47 responses, 31 a lot, 16 some ) 16 out of the 31 a lot respondents commented that environmental issues were central to their role many of them Environmental Managers or similar postholders. Three respondents quoted cost as a factor driving resource efficiency and waste reduction. Several (3) had internal policies in place to address these issues. Two companies stressed their use of reclaimed or recycled materials where possible. Within the some respondents, 3 remarked these issues as central to their job, one quoted cost as a driver for increased resource efficiency, while another quoted cost as a barrier to the same. Building Materials Supplier/Manufacturers (9 responses: 7 a lot, 2 some ) Two of the respondents consider that increased resource efficiency & waste minimisation are an integral part of the job roles. One respondent states high levels of awareness of the re-use, reduce & recycle motto within their company. Another respondent cites cost of raw resources as a factor driving resource efficiency. Civil/Structural Engineers/Consultants (7 responses: 5 a lot, 1 some, 1 a little ). All five a lot respondents consider these issues to be a core part of their job description and/or their company s mission. The one some respondent considers more actions & resources are required in this area. Demolition Contractors (2 responses: both a lot ) AEAT In Confidence 10

16 One respondent remarked upon the importance of advanced project planning in order to allow for waste segregation and reuse of materials. Energy and Environmental Management (7 responses: 6 a lot, 1 a little ) One of the respondents in the a lot category commented that clients expect the company to act upon these issues and become more sustainable. The respondent who answered a little said the economic drivers were too low to stimulate change. Other (8 responses: 6 a lot, 1 a little, 1 no consideration ) Three of the six respondents who answered a lot stated that addressing these issues was their full-time occupation. The single respondent in the no consideration category classed itself in this category because it considered the question wasn t applicable. Professional Bodies (3 responses: 1 a lot, 2 some ) One of these bodies provides advice on resource efficiency and waste minimisation to its members. Research Establishments (5 responses: 5 a lot ) Two of the respondents commented on their work educating and informing the industry. RSL/HA (6 responses: 1 a lot, 4 some, 1 a little ) Two of the respondents relied on KPIs to monitor their progress on these issues, and 2 others have incorporated these issues into their design briefs. Trade Associations (8 responses: 6 a lot, 1 some, 1 a little ) Two of the organisations that responded a lot are involved in research to address the issues of waste minimisation and resource efficiency, e.g. researching solutions to problematic waste streams. 6.4 QUESTION 4. Question 4 Does your organisation have any specific in-house policies relating to construction waste and resource efficiency? Reply Number Yes 74 No 34 AEAT In Confidence 11

17 Does your organisation have any specific inhouse policies relating to construction waste and resource efficiency? 31% Yes No 69% Chart Summary of all responses: There was clear consensus that organisations did have specific in-house policies relating to construction waste. 4b: Please describe: Acedemic estates (2 respondents) Neither had in house policies Architects (4 respondents, 3 had policies) 2 had a less formal approach of either encouraging all they came in contact with to be more efficient or by doing it themselves. The third had policies in place on MMC and off site manufacture. Building/Contractor/ (47 respondents, 32 had policies) The majority (25 of the 32 that said yes ie 78%) said they had policies/ plans/ guidance or procedures in place. A minority (4 out of the 32 that said yes) mentioned that they monitor the amount of waste produced and a few 9 3 out of the 32 that said yes) said that they separate waste onsite. Building Materials Manufacturer/Supplier (9 respondents, 9 had policies) Two thirds of respondents (6 of the 9) implied that they recycle some or all products where possible, the remainder have some sort of environmental policy in place. Civil/ Structural Engineer/ Consultant (7 respondents, 5 had policies) Of the 5, two were very proactive and managed waste and reduce, reuse, recycled were possible, the others had waste plans in place but did not give any details. Demolition Contrator (2 respondents, 2 had policies) Both had waste policies in place Environmental management (7 respondents, 5 had policies) Little detail given AEAT In Confidence 12

18 Other (8 respondents, 4 had policies) Their responses ranged from encouraging action, to targets to high level policies. Professional body (3 respondents, 2 had policies) One looked at aspects of resource efficiency, the other was developing plans. Research organisation (5 respondents, 4 had policies) All were focussing on office based efficiency such as recycling paper and car sharing. RSL/HA (6 respondents, 4 had policies) One had a policy of using factory prefabricated construction systems, another had solid waste management policy and other used Eco-homes ratings. Trade associations (8 respondents, 4 had policies) One had a general policy and other had actions for specific problems. 6.5 QUESTION 5. Question 5 What do you see as being the key drivers, policies and regulations that have a significant impact upon construction waste and resource efficiency? Respondents were asked to choose ALL that apply from the following list: Environmental Protection Act 1990, and Environmental Act 1995 Duty of Care under Section 34 of Environmental Protection Act (1991) Waste Management Regulations 1996 Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (as amended) Landfill Directive and Landfill Regulations 2003 Landfill Tax Regulation 1996 (as amended) Hazardous Waste Regulations July 2004 (and the European Waste Catalogue 2002) Building Regulations and Construction Regulations 1994 The Packaging Regulations 2003 Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for sustainable waste management Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003 (i.e., relating to fly tipping) Clean Neighbourhoods Bill Pollution Prevention Guidance documentation Site Waste Management Plans (voluntary code of practice) ISO or EMAS BREEAM/ EcoHomes and other client requirements WEEE Directive Other AEAT In Confidence 13

19 They responded as follows: EPA and EA Duty of care WM Regs WM Licensing Landfill directive Landfill Tax Academic estates Haz Waste Architect Building Materials Manufacturer/Supplier Civil/ Structural Engineer/ Consultant Demolition Contractor Energy and Environmental Management Other Professional body Research organisation RSL/HA Trade association Total Building Regs Packaging Planning Policy ASBO Clean N'bours Pollution Prev Site WM plans ISO BREEAM WEEE Other The key driver identified by the majority of respondents was the Landfill Directive and Landfill Regulations Others that were identified as having influence were : Hazardous Waste Regulations July 2004 (and the European Waste Catalogue 2002) Landfill Tax Regulation 1996 (as amended) Waste Management Regulations 1996 Duty of Care under Section 34 of Environmental Protection Act (1991) Site Waste Management Plans AEAT In Confidence 14

20 90 80 Key drivers, policies and regulations that have a significant impact upon construction waste and resource efficiency Trade association RSL/HA Research organisation Number of respondents Prof essional body Other Energy and Environmental Management Demolition Contractor Civil/ Structural Engineer/ Consultant Building Materials Manuf acturer/supplier EPA and EA Duty of care WM Regs WM Licensing Landfill directive Landfill Tax Haz Waste Building Regs Packaging Planning Policy ASBO Clean N'bours Pollution Prev Site WM plans Drivers, policies and regulations ISO BREEAM WEEE Other Architect Academic estates Chart AEAT In Confidence 15 AEA Technology 15

21 5b: If Other, please describe: There were individual mentions of the following divergent themes: Housing Corporation funding criteria Sustainable construction policies CEEQUAL (CEEQUAL is an awards scheme assessing the environmental quality of civil engineering projects - a civil engineering equivalent to BREEAM for buildings. It is being promoted by ICE, BRE, CIRIA and a group of committed industry organisations. Its objective is to encourage the attainment of environmental excellence in civil engineering projects, and thus to deliver improved environmental performance in project specification, design and construction. Visit for more information) 5c: Any other comments: There was no consensus of opinion here. Divergent themes included: The industry pays lip service to reducing waste. It is interesting that you have left out the regulation which should have caused the plasterboard presently going to landfill in the UK to be put into separate cells. The Reclassification of Gypsum EC legislation had an effective date of July The EA needs to go further to support the recycling of waste materials, in particular assisting in the definition of waste and products form waste. I am very interested to see how Site Waste Management Plans will help when it becomes compulsory. It is important to proceed in logical steps as otherwise all improvements get filed as 'too difficult'. The code for sustainable homes and new Green guide will have a major effect with planning departments demanding better building standards than in the Building Regulations. AEAT In Confidence 16

22 Source 6.6 QUESTION 6. Question 6 What sources of information and support are you aware of in relation to reducing construction waste and improving resource efficiency? Responses to this question have been grouped into categories according to organisation type, and are given in the table below. Academic Estates (2) Architects (4) Builder/ Contractor/ (47) Building materials manufacturer/ supplier (9) Civil/ structural engineer/ consultant (7) Demolition Contractor (2) Energy and Environmental Management (7) Other (8) Professional body (3) RSL / HA (6) Research organisation (5) Trade Association (8) AggRegain 1 1 Association for 1 1 Environment Conscious Building Association for 1 1 Public Sector Excellence BigREc Survey 1 1 BREW 1 1 British Coatings 1 1 Confederation British Safety Council Building Research Establishment Carbon and Energy 1 1 Forum Carbon Trust Central and Local 1 1 Government Information Partnership Centre for the Built 1 1 Environment Chartered Institute of Waste Management Conferences/ workshops Total AEAT In Confidence 17 AEA Technology 17

23 Source Academic Estates (2) Architects (4) Builder/ Contractor/ (47) Building materials manufacturer/ supplier (9) Civil/ structural engineer/ consultant (7) Demolition Contractor (2) Energy and Environmental Management (7) Other (8) Professional body (3) RSL / HA (6) Research organisation (5) Trade Association (8) Constructing Excellence Construction 1 1 Confederation Construction Industry Research and Information Association Construction Industry 1 1 Training Board Corporate 1 1 Responsibility Coalition (CORE) CSR reports 1 1 Defra DTI EcoHomes Ecoscan External Adviser Energy Saving Trust Environment Agency Environment and Heritage Service Northern Ireland 1 1 Environmental 1 1 Consultancies Environmental 1 1 Services Association Envirowise Forest Stewardship 1 1 Council Green Futures 1 1 GreenSpec Health and Safety Executive 1 1 Total AEAT In Confidence 18 AEA Technology 18

24 Source Academic Estates (2) Architects (4) Builder/ Contractor/ (47) Building materials manufacturer/ supplier (9) Civil/ structural engineer/ consultant (7) Demolition Contractor (2) Energy and Environmental Management (7) Other (8) Professional body (3) RSL / HA (6) Research organisation (5) Trade Association (8) Hyder Resource 1 1 Efficiency Group Institute of 1 1 Demolition Institute of 2 2 Environmental Management and Assessment ISO 14001: Journals Kotuku 1 1 Letsrecycle.com 1 1 Local Authorities National Federation of Builders National Industrial Symbiosis Programme Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (now Department for Communities and Local Government) Recovinyl 1 1 Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors Guide on Construction Waste SEPA Trade Organisations 3 3 UK CEED 1 1 Wales Environment Trust Waste and Resources Action Programme Total AEAT In Confidence 19 AEA Technology 19

25 Summary of all responses The majority view highlighted WRAP as the most frequently listed source of information and support (56 respondents). Other popular information sources included BRE (30 respondents), Envirowise (29 respondents), the Environment Agency (22 respondents), CIRIA (19 respondents) and the DTI (12 respondents). There were a number of other sources of information listed by smaller numbers of respondents. The graph below gives a comparison of the total numbers of respondents listing each source of information. Responses by organisation type Academic Estates (2 respondents) The most popular sources of information with respondents in this category were Envirowise and WRAP, which were listed by both respondents. Architects (4 respondents) A range of information sources were listed by respondents in this category. However, no sources were cited by more than one respondent. Builders/Contractors/s (47 respondents) The most commonly cited source of information by respondents in this category was WRAP (27 respondents). Other sources of information listed by a large number of respondents were BRE (16 respondents), CIRIA (11 respondents), EA (12 respondents) and Envirowise (15 respondents). A number of other sources of information were given by fewer numbers of respondents. Building Materials Manufacturers/Suppliers (9 respondents) The most commonly listed source of information for respondents in this category was WRAP (4 respondents), followed by BRE (3 respondents). A number of other sources of information were also listed by a smaller numbers of respondents. Civil/Structural Engineers/Consultants (7 respondents) The most commonly listed source of information for respondents in this category was WRAP (7 respondents). This was followed by Envirowise (4 respondents) and BRE and the EA (3 respondents). Demolition Contractors (2 respondents) Both respondents listed WRAP and the EA amongst their information sources. Both respondents also each listed several other information sources, which can be seen in the table above. Energy and Environmental Management (7 respondents) BRE and WRAP were the most commonly listed sources of information amongst respondents in this category (both were listed by 3 respondents). Other (8 respondents) The most commonly listed source of information for respondents in this category was WRAP (4 respondents), followed by BRE (2 respondents). Professional Bodies (3 respondents) The most commonly cited source of information by respondents in this category was Envirowise (2 respondents). AEAT In Confidence AEA Technology 20

26 Registered Social Landlord s/housing Associations (6 respondents) The most popular source of information with respondents in this category was WRAP (2 respondents). Research Organisations (5 respondents) The most frequently listed sources of information for respondents in this category were CIRIA, DTI, Envirowise and WRAP (each with 2 respondents listing them). Trade Associations (8 respondents) The most frequently listed sources of information for respondents in this category were the EA and WRAP, both listed by two respondents. AEAT In Confidence AEA Technology 21

27 What Sources of Inform ation and Support are you Aw are of in Relation to Reducing Construction Waste and Im proving Resource Efficiency? Information Source Waste and Resources Action Programme Building Research Establishment Envirow ise Environment Agency Construction Industry Research and Information Association DTI Constructing Excellence Journals Defra Trade Organisations Energy Saving Trust Carbon Trust Wales Environment Trust SEPA Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors Guide on Construction Local Authorities Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment GreenSpec Ecoscan External Adviser EcoHomes Conferences/w orkshops Chartered Institute of Waste Management British Safety Council UK CEED Recovinyl ODPM (now Department for Communities and Local Government) National Industrial Symbiosis Programme National Federation of Builders Letsrecycle.com Kotuku ISO 14001:2004 Institute of Demolition Hyder Resource Efficiency Group Health and Safety Executive Green Futures Forest Stew ardship Council Environmental Services Association Environmental Consultancies Environment and Heritage Service Northern Ireland CSR reports Corporate Responsibility Coalition (CORE) Construction Industry Training Board Construction Confederation Centre for the Built Environment Central and Local Government Information Partnership Carbon and Energy Forum British Coatings Confederation BREW BigREc Survey Association for Public Sector Excellence Association for Environment Concious Building AggRegain Num ber of Respondents Listing Source Chart AEAT In Confidence AEA Technology 22

28 6.7 QUESTION 7. Question 7 Which sources of information and support have you used and how effective did you find them? Respondents to this question were asked to give each information source a number according to how effective they have found it, as follows: 1 = Very Ineffective 2 = Somewhat Ineffective 3 = Neither Effective Nor Ineffective 4 = Somewhat Effective 5 = Very Effective No answer = Source not used In order to compare the respondents views on the effectiveness of each information source, the numbers assigned have been treated as a score, which increases with level of usefulness. From the results of the survey an average (mean) score has been calculated for each source of information. This is given below with the mean score for each information source shown against the number of respondents contributing to the score. Summary of all responses The table below shows the mean effectiveness score across all organisation types for each information source. The mean score has been associated with the number of respondents listing the source in order to both retain the original meaning of the numbering system (i.e. 5=very effective) and to demonstrate the number of respondents contributing to the result. Where a number is followed by (no score given), at least one of the respondents suggesting the source did not assign it a score. Number of Respondents Information Source AggRegain 3 Association for Environment 2 Conscious Building Association for Public Sector 3 Excellence BigREc Survey 5 BREW No score given British Coatings Confederation 3 British Safety Council 3 (no score given) Building Research No score 3.9 Establishment given Carbon and Energy Forum 5 Carbon Trust 4 Central and Local Government Information Partnership No score given Centre for the Built Environment 4 Chartered Institute of Waste Management 4 (no score given) Conferences/workshops 3.5 Constructing Excellence 3.3 Construction Confederation 2 Construction Industry Research and Information Association No score given 3.5 Construction Industry Training 3.5 Board Corporate Responsibility Coalition (CORE) No score given CSR reports 3 Defra 2.25 DTI 4 (no score given) AEAT In Confidence AEA Technology 23

29 Number of Respondents Information Source EcoHomes 3.5 Ecoscan External Adviser 5 (no score given) Energy Saving Trust 4.8 Environment Agency No score 3.6 given Environment and Heritage 4 Service Northern Ireland Environmental Consultancies No score given Environmental Services Association No score given Envirowise No score 3.9 given Forest Stewardship Council 4 Green Futures 5 GreenSpec 3.5 Health and Safety Executive No score given Hyder Resource Efficiency 4 Group Institute of Demolition No score given Institute of Environmental 3 Management and Assessment ISO 14001: Journals 3.7 Kotuku No score given Letsrecycle.com 4 Local Authorities 3.5 National Federation of Builders No score given National Industrial Symbiosis Programme No score given Office of the Deputy Prime 3 Minister (now Department for Communities and Local Government) Recovinyl 5 Royal Institute of Chartered 4.5 Surveyors Guide on Construction Waste SEPA 3.5 Trade Organisations 4.3 UK CEED 4 Wales Environment Trust 4.5 Waste and Resources Action Programme No score given The majority view is shown by those sources of information, that both scored highly and were represented by a large number of respondents. These were: BRE (3.9), CIRIA (3.5), the Environment Agency (3.6), Envirowise (3.9) and WRAP (3.7). Several other sources of information e.g. ISO14001 and Recovinyl achieved higher scores (5), but were listed only by one respondent and therefore these scores can only be attributed to a minority viewpoint. 3.7 Responses by organisation type: The mean effectiveness score of each information source, identified by respondents in each sector, are shown in the tables below. Academic Estates Number of Respondents Information Source 1 2 BRE No score given DTI 4 Envirowise 4 WRAP 4 AEAT In Confidence AEA Technology 24

30 Architects Number of Respondents Information Source 1 Conferences/workshops 5 EST 4 Forest Stewardship Council 4 GreenSpec 4 Journals 4 WRAP 4 It is clear from the results that conferences/ workshops were considered to be most effective by respondents in this category. Builders/Contractors/s Number of Respondents Information Source AECB 2 AggRegain 3 BRE 4 Carbon Trust 4 Centre for the 4 Built Environment CIRIA 3.4 CITB 3 Constructing 3 Excellence Construction 2 Confederation Defra 2.5 DTI 4 EA 3.9 EcoHomes 3 EHSNI 4 Envirowise 3.8 HSE 2 IEMA 3 ISO14001: Journals 3.7 National 3 Federation of Builders ODPM 3 SEPA 3 Trade 4.3 Organisations UK Ceed 4 Wales 4.5 Environment Trust WRAP 3.9 Building Materials Manufacturers/Suppliers AEAT In Confidence AEA Technology 25

31 Number of Respondents Information Source BigREc Survey 5 BRE 3 British Coatings 3 Federation Conferences/Workshop 2 s Constructing Excellence 4 Defra 1 Envirowise 4 EST 5 Journals 3 Local Authorities 2 Recovinyl 5 RICS Guide on 4 Construction Waste WRAP 3.8 Civil/Structural Engineers/Contractors Number of Respondents Information Source BRE 4 British Safety No score Council given CIRIA 3.5 DTI 3 EA 2 No score given EA 3 No score given Ecoscan No score given Envirowise No score 4 given EST 5 Hyder Resource 4 Efficiency Journals 4 Letsrecycle.com 4 WRAP No score given 3.8 Demolition Contractors Number of Respondents Information Source 1 2 British Safety Council 3 CIWM 4 EA 3.5 Ecoscan 5 ESA 4 WRAP 4 AEAT In Confidence AEA Technology 26

32 Energy and Environmental Management Number of Respondents Information Source 1 2 BRE No score given 4 BREW No score given CCEF 5 CIRIA 4 CSR Reports 3 DTI No score given Environmental Consultancies No score given Envirowise 4 WRAP No score given 4 Other Number of Respondents Information Source APSE 3 BRE 3 (no score given) Carbon Trust 4 CIRIA 3 (no score given) DTI 5 EA 3 Envirowise 3 Green Futures 5 Kotuku No score given RICS Guide on 5 Construction Waste WRAP No score given 3.7 Professional Bodies Number of Respondents Information Source 1 BRE 5 CIRIA 4 CITB 4 CIWM Constructing Excellence 4 DTI 5 No score given EA 5 Envirowise 5 (no score given) Research Organisations Number of Respondents Information Source 1 2 BRE 4 CIRIA 4 Constructing Excellence 3 DTI No score given EA 4 (no score given) Envirowise 4.5 GreenSpec 3 Local Authorities 5 SEPA 4 AEAT In Confidence AEA Technology 27

33 WRAP 4 Registered Social Landlords/ Housing Associations Number of Respondents Information Source 1 2 CIRIA 3 EcoHomes 4 WRAP 4 Trade Associations Number of Respondents Information Source 1 2 Defra 3 EA 2.5 Envirowise 3 WRAP QUESTION 8. Question 8 What incentives/penalties are important to your organisation to encourage reductions in construction waste and improvements in resource efficiency? Which of these have you used and how effective were they? Number of organisations that this type of incentive is important to No. of organisations that the incentive is important to Landfill tax exemption for contaminated soils Aggregate Levy Landfill Tax Discounts for waste segregation on-site from waste management companies Resource efficiency produces cost reductions Incentives/penalties built into contract Other Chart AEAT In Confidence AEA Technology 28

34 Number of organisations that have used the incentive No. of organisations that have used the incentive Landfill tax exemption for contaminated soils Aggregate Levy Landfill Tax Discounts for waste segregation on-site from waste management companies Resource efficiency produces cost reductions Incentives/penalties built into contract Other Chart How effective was the incentive/ penalty? Landfill tax exemption for contaminated soils Aggregate Levy Landfill Tax Discounts for waste segregation on-site from waste management companies Resource efficiency produces cost reductions Effectiveness score Incentives/penalties built into contract Other Chart AEAT In Confidence AEA Technology 29

35 Summary of all responses: The majority view is that the landfill tax is important (69% of respondents) and most organisations have used it. It is also regarded as the second most effective tool, marginally behind the landfill tax exemption for contaminated soils. Resource efficiency producing cost reductions, and Discounts for waste segregation onsite, were also rated as important by over 50% of respondents. These were among the most used tools across all sectors, however they were rated 3 rd and 4 th respectively in terms of effectiveness. Incentives/ penalties being built into the contract were the 5 th most effective tool. Responses by organisation type: Academic Estates (2 respondents) Incentive Landfill tax exemption for contaminated soils Number of organisations of this type that the incentive is important to. (affected by it either directly or indirectly) Number of organisations of this type that have used the incentive (affected by it directly) How effective was the incentive/penalty? Each individual score is recorded Aggregate Levy Landfill Tax 2 0 Discounts for waste 0 0 segregation on-site from waste management companies Resource efficiency produces cost reductions Incentives/penalties built into contract Other: 1 1 Details of other: Important that all waste coming from university site is traceable, even though contracted company directly responsible. Ties into image and general policy of university, responsibility. Although five of the six incentives were considered important to at least one of the Academic Estates, in the most part these incentives did not directly affect them and those that did were considered to have had only low or no effectiveness in reducing construction waste. Architects (4 respondents) Incentive Number of organisation of this type that the incentive is important to. (affected by it either directly or indirectly) Number of organisations of this type that have used the incentive (affected by it directly) How effective was the incentive/penalty? Each individual score is recorded AEAT In Confidence AEA Technology 30