IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i11p4496-d366106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Landfill Levy Imposition on Construction and Demolition Waste: Australian Stakeholders’ Perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Salman Shooshtarian

    (School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, 124 La Trobe St, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia)

  • Tayyab Maqsood

    (School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, 124 La Trobe St, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia)

  • Malik Khalfan

    (School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, 124 La Trobe St, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia)

  • Rebecca J. Yang

    (School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, 124 La Trobe St, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia)

  • Peter Wong

    (School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, 124 La Trobe St, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia)

Abstract

With increased construction activities in capital cities of Australia, the sustainable management of construction and demolition (C&D) has become an important item in the federal and state government agendas. According to the universally accepted concept of waste hierarchy waste disposal is the worst preferred waste management option due to environmental issues. Currently, in most Australian jurisdictions, a landfill levy is applied to discourage waste disposal and to further encourage waste recovery. However, there is an ongoing debate as to whether the levy regime could achieve the desired outcome. Therefore, this study, funded by the Australian Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre, explored the effectiveness of the current landfill levy across Australian jurisdictions. The paper presents the findings of this study that were obtained from a questionnaire survey aiming to capture the main C&D waste management stakeholders on landfill taxing imposition in Australia. The study collected 132 responses from professionals in the construction industry and other industries dealing with C&D waste management and resource recovery. The results demonstrated that those who believed in market incentive approaches outweigh people that were in favour of pecuniary impost approach. Among those who favoured pecuniary imposts, almost 90% of participants agreed with the effectiveness of landfill levies in any waste management system. Other results provided a useful insight into the actual implications of the current levy scheme. It is expected that the findings in this study contribute to developing sound policies that provide a level field for all key stakeholders and to ensure that resource recovery is further encouraged.

Suggested Citation

  • Salman Shooshtarian & Tayyab Maqsood & Malik Khalfan & Rebecca J. Yang & Peter Wong, 2020. "Landfill Levy Imposition on Construction and Demolition Waste: Australian Stakeholders’ Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-15, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:11:p:4496-:d:366106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/11/4496/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/11/4496/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chun-Li Peng & Domenic Scorpio & Charles Kibert, 1997. "Strategies for successful construction and demolition waste recycling operations," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 49-58.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Israt Jahan & Guomin Zhang & Muhammed Bhuiyan & Satheeskumar Navaratnam & Long Shi, 2022. "Experts’ Perceptions of the Management and Minimisation of Waste in the Australian Construction Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Hosang Hyun & Young-Min Lee & Hyung-Geun Kim & Jin-Sung Kim, 2021. "Framework for Long-Term Public Housing Supply Plan Focusing on Small-Scale Offsite Construction in Seoul," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-15, May.
    3. Salman Shooshtarian & Tayyab Maqsood & Peter SP Wong & Malik Khalfan & Rebecca J. Yang, 2021. "Extended Producer Responsibility in the Australian Construction Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-20, January.
    4. Savindi Caldera & Tim Ryley & Nikita Zatyko, 2020. "Enablers and Barriers for Creating a Marketplace for Construction and Demolition Waste: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-19, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abbate, Stefano & Centobelli, Piera & Cerchione, Roberto, 2023. "From Fast to Slow: An Exploratory Analysis of Circular Business Models in the Italian Apparel Industry," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    2. Udawatta, Nilupa & Zuo, Jian & Chiveralls, Keri & Zillante, George, 2015. "Improving waste management in construction projects: An Australian study," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 73-83.
    3. Esa, Mohd Reza & Halog, Anthony & Rigamonti, Lucia, 2017. "Strategies for minimizing construction and demolition wastes in Malaysia," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 219-229.
    4. Begum, Rawshan Ara & Siwar, Chamhuri & Pereira, Joy Jacqueline & Jaafar, Abdul Hamid, 2006. "A benefit–cost analysis on the economic feasibility of construction waste minimisation: The case of Malaysia," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 86-98.
    5. Lu, Weisheng & Webster, Chris & Chen, Ke & Zhang, Xiaoling & Chen, Xi, 2017. "Computational Building Information Modelling for construction waste management: Moving from rhetoric to reality," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 68(P1), pages 587-595.
    6. Animesh Ghosh & Prabha Bhola & Uthayasankar Sivarajah, 2022. "Emerging Associates of the Circular Economy: Analysing Interactions and Trends by a Mixed Methods Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-41, August.
    7. Haoxuan Zheng & Xingwei Li & Xiaowen Zhu & Yicheng Huang & Zhili Liu & Yuxin Liu & Jiaxin Liu & Xiangye Li & Yuejia Li & Chunhui Li, 2022. "Impact of Recycler Information Sharing on Supply Chain Performance of Construction and Demolition Waste Resource Utilization," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-22, March.
    8. Cristian Silviu BANACU & Vasile ZECHERU & Bianca Georgiana OLARU, 2016. "Project Management In Organic Waste Recycling," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 10(1), pages 101-106, November.
    9. Yuan, H.P. & Shen, L.Y. & Hao, Jane J.L. & Lu, W.S., 2011. "A model for cost–benefit analysis of construction and demolition waste management throughout the waste chain," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 55(6), pages 604-612.
    10. Lu, Weisheng & Yuan, Hongping, 2010. "Exploring critical success factors for waste management in construction projects of China," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 201-208.
    11. Lachimpadi, Suresh Kumar & Pereira, Joy Jacqueline & Taha, Mohd Raihan & Mokhtar, Mazlin, 2012. "Construction waste minimisation comparing conventional and precast construction (Mixed System and IBS) methods in high-rise buildings: A Malaysia case study," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 96-103.
    12. Helen Lingard & Guinevere Gilbert & Peter Graham, 2001. "Improving solid waste reduction and recycling performance using goal setting and feedback," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(8), pages 809-817.
    13. Zhen Liu & Tzuhui Wu & Fenghong Wang & Mohamed Osmani & Peter Demian, 2022. "Blockchain Enhanced Construction Waste Information Management: A Conceptual Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-35, September.
    14. Tong Huang & Shicong Kou & Deyou Liu & Dawang Li & Feng Xing, 2022. "Evaluation of the Techno-Economic Feasibility for Excavated Soil Recycling in Shenzhen, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, March.
    15. Tam, Vivian W.Y. & Tam, C.M., 2006. "A review on the viable technology for construction waste recycling," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 209-221.
    16. Vivian Wing-Yan Tam & Weisheng Lu, 2016. "Construction Waste Management Profiles, Practices, and Performance: A Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis in Four Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-16, February.
    17. Zezhou Wu & Kaijie Yang & Xiaofan Lai & Maxwell Fordjour Antwi-Afari, 2020. "A Scientometric Review of System Dynamics Applications in Construction Management Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-16, September.
    18. Ajayi, Saheed O. & Oyedele, Lukumon O. & Bilal, Muhammad & Akinade, Olugbenga O. & Alaka, Hafiz A. & Owolabi, Hakeem A. & Kadiri, Kabir O., 2015. "Waste effectiveness of the construction industry: Understanding the impediments and requisites for improvements," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 101-112.
    19. Reza Esmaeilifar & Mohammad Iranmanesh & Mohd Wira Mohd Shafiei & Sunghyup Sean Hyun, 2020. "Effects of low carbon waste practices on job satisfaction of site managers through job stress," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 115-136, February.
    20. Mircea Raul Tudorica & Mihaela Teodora Toadere & Corneliu Ioan Bob, 2023. "The Sustainability Study Done for a Consolidation Work on a Historical Building," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-15, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:11:p:4496-:d:366106. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.