IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i19p12145-d925022.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Blockchain Enhanced Construction Waste Information Management: A Conceptual Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Zhen Liu

    (School of Design, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China)

  • Tzuhui Wu

    (School of Design, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China)

  • Fenghong Wang

    (School of Design, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China)

  • Mohamed Osmani

    (School of Architecture, Building and Civil Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK)

  • Peter Demian

    (School of Architecture, Building and Civil Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK)

Abstract

Despite the large quantities of secondary materials flowing within the built environment, their actual volume and respective waste management processes are not accurately known and recorded. Consequently, various sustainability and material efficiency policies are not supported by accurate data and information-reporting associated with secondary materials’ availability and sourcing. Many recent studies have shown that the integration of digital technologies such as city information management (CIM), building information modeling (BIM), and blockchain have the potential to enhance construction waste management (CWM) by classifying recycled materials and creating value from waste. However, there is insufficient guidance to address the challenges during the process of CWM. Therefore, the research reported in this paper aims to develop a blockchain-enhanced construction waste information management conceptual framework (BeCW). This paper is the first attempt to apply the strengths of integrated information-management modeling with blockchain to optimize the process of CWM, which includes a WasteChain for providing a unified and trustworthy credit system for evaluating construction-waste-recyclability to stakeholders. This is enabled through the use of blockchain and self-executing smart contracts to clarify the responsibility and ownership of the relevant stakeholders. As a result, this study provides a unified and explicit framework for referencing which quantifies the value-contribution of stakeholders to waste-recovery and the optimization of secondary construction materials for reuse and recycling. It also addresses the issue of sustainable CWM through information exchange at four levels: user, application, service, and infrastructure data levels.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:12145-:d:925022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12145/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12145/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan Chiu & Thorsten V Koeppl, 2019. "Blockchain-Based Settlement for Asset Trading," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 32(5), pages 1716-1753.
    2. Lin William Cong & Zhiguo He & Jiasun Li & Wei Jiang, 2021. "Decentralized Mining in Centralized Pools [Concentrating on the fall of the labor share]," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 34(3), pages 1191-1235.
    3. William Nikolakis & Lijo John & Harish Krishnan, 2018. "How Blockchain Can Shape Sustainable Global Value Chains: An Evidence, Verifiability, and Enforceability (EVE) Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, October.
    4. Bruno Biais & Christophe Bisière & Matthieu Bouvard & Catherine Casamatta, 2019. "The Blockchain Folk Theorem," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 32(5), pages 1662-1715.
    5. Cheng-Te Tseng & Shari S. C. Shang, 2021. "Exploring the Sustainability of the Intermediary Role in Blockchain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-21, February.
    6. Abdulrazak F. Shahatha Al-Mashhadani & Muhammad Imran Qureshi & Sanil S. Hishan & Mohd Shamsuri Md Saad & Yamunah Vaicondam & Nohman Khan, 2021. "Towards the Development of Digital Manufacturing Ecosystems for Sustainable Performance: Learning from the Past Two Decades of Research," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-17, May.
    7. Dominique Guegan, 2017. "Public Blockchain versus Private blockhain," Post-Print halshs-01524440, HAL.
    8. 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.
    9. Ana Barbosa & Sara Vallecillo & Claudia Baranzelli & Chris Jacobs-Crisioni & Filipe Batista e Silva & Carolina Perpiña-Castillo & Carlo Lavalle & Joachim Maes, 2017. "Modelling built-up land take in Europe to 2020: an assessment of the Resource Efficiency Roadmap measure on land," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(8), pages 1439-1463, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Lin William Cong & Zhiguo He, 2019. "Blockchain Disruption and Smart Contracts," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 32(5), pages 1754-1797.
    12. Dominique Guegan, 2017. "Public Blockchain versus Private blockchain," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 17020, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    13. Adegboyega Ojo & Samuel Adebayo, 2017. "Blockchain as a Next Generation Government Information Infrastructure: A Review of Initiatives in D5 Countries," Public Administration and Information Technology, in: Adegboyega Ojo & Jeremy Millard (ed.), Government 3.0 – Next Generation Government Technology Infrastructure and Services, pages 283-298, Springer.
    14. Dominique Guegan, 2017. "Public Blockchain versus Private blockhain," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01524440, HAL.
    15. Emine Mine Thompson & Paul Greenhalgh & Kevin Muldoon-Smith & James Charlton & Michal Dolník, 2016. "Planners in the Future City: Using City Information Modelling to Support Planners as Market Actors," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(1), pages 79-94.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Yuxuan Lu & Qian Qi & Xi Chen, 2023. "A Framework of Transaction Packaging in High-throughput Blockchains," Papers 2301.10944, arXiv.org.
    2. Lin William Cong & Zhiguo He & Jiasun Li & Wei Jiang, 2021. "Decentralized Mining in Centralized Pools [Concentrating on the fall of the labor share]," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 34(3), pages 1191-1235.
    3. Michael Sockin & Wei Xiong, 2023. "Decentralization through Tokenization," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 78(1), pages 247-299, February.
    4. Aysan, Ahmet Faruk & Caporin, Massimiliano & Cepni, Oguzhan, 2024. "Not all words are equal: Sentiment and jumps in the cryptocurrency market," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    5. Jing Jian Xiao & Chunsheng Tao, 2020. "Consumer finance/household finance: the definition and scope," China Finance Review International, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 11(1), pages 1-25, June.
    6. Zongxi Li & A. Max Reppen & Ronnie Sircar, 2019. "A Mean Field Games Model for Cryptocurrency Mining," Papers 1912.01952, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    7. Roman Kräussl & Alessandro Tugnetti, 2024. "Non‐Fungible Tokens (NFTs): A Review of Pricing Determinants, Applications and Opportunities," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 555-574, April.
    8. Thomas J. Chemmanur & Michael B. Imerman & Harshit Rajaiya & Qianqian Yu, 2020. "Recent Developments In The Fintech Industry," Journal of Financial Management, Markets and Institutions (JFMMI), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(01), pages 1-31, June.
    9. Nikhil Malik & Manmohan Aseri & Param Vir Singh & Kannan Srinivasan, 2022. "Why Bitcoin Will Fail to Scale?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(10), pages 7323-7349, October.
    10. Michael Sockin & Wei Xiong, 2021. "A Model of Cryptocurrencies," Working Papers 2021-67, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    11. Vincent, Nishani Edirisinghe & Skjellum, Anthony & Medury, Sai, 2020. "Blockchain architecture: A design that helps CPA firms leverage the technology," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    12. Zhang, Zhiming & Ren, Da & Lan, Yanfei & Yang, Shanxue, 2022. "Price competition and blockchain adoption in retailing markets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 300(2), pages 647-660.
    13. Jia, Yuecheng & Wu, Yangru & Yan, Shu & Liu, Yuzheng, 2023. "A seesaw effect in the cryptocurrency market: Understanding the return cross predictability of cryptocurrencies," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    14. Romi Kher & Siri Terjesen & Chen Liu, 2021. "Blockchain, Bitcoin, and ICOs: a review and research agenda," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1699-1720, April.
    15. Itay Goldstein & Deeksha Gupta & Ruslan Sverchkov, 2024. "Utility Tokens as a Commitment to Competition," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 79(6), pages 4197-4246, December.
    16. Gryglewicz, Sebastian & Mayer, Simon & Morellec, Erwan, 2021. "Optimal financing with tokens," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(3), pages 1038-1067.
    17. Lan Di & George X. Yuan & Tu Zeng, 2021. "The consensus equilibria of mining gap games related to the stability of Blockchain Ecosystems," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(4-5), pages 419-440, March.
    18. Borri, Nicola & Shakhnov, Kirill, 2023. "Cryptomarket discounts," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    19. Michael Brolley & Marius Zoican, 2019. "Liquid Speed: On-Demand Fast Trading at Distributed Exchanges," Papers 1907.10720, arXiv.org.
    20. Jiri Chod & Nikolaos Trichakis & Gerry Tsoukalas & Henry Aspegren & Mark Weber, 2020. "On the Financing Benefits of Supply Chain Transparency and Blockchain Adoption," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(10), pages 4378-4396, 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:14:y:2022:i:19:p:12145-:d:925022. 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.