Transactions Template JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 4, DECEMBER 2016 92 FACTORS AFFECTING INCREASING WASTE IN GAZA STRIP CONSTRUCTION SITES Eyad Haddad, Ali Tayh Abstract— Waste has been recognized as a major problem in the construction industry. Not only does waste have Waste has been recognized as a major problem in the construction industry. Not only does waste have an impact on the efficien- cy of the construction industry but also on the overall economy of the country. The main objective of this study is to identify the main waste causes in Gaza Strip construction industry. The current research primarily employed the method of questionnaire surveys to collect the required data. Following a thorough literature review and structured interviews with professionals who have work experience in the field of construction in Gaza Strip. Comprehensive list of factors were identified and categorized into five groups with total thirty- five factors. Then, eighty- four questionnaires were distributed to contracting companies working in the field of construction projects in Gaza Strip. This study focused on material waste in construction sites in Gaza strip including building work. A statistical analysis was conducted to calculate mean, standard deviation (SD) and standard error (SE) for each factor. The results were accepted when the value of the standard error is less than 0.2. A comment on the results that have been reached is shown in order to illus- trate the extent of the impact of those factors on increasing waste on construction projects in Gaza Strip. Index Terms— Construction projects, Gaza Strip construction industry, Waste construction, factors. 1. INTRODUCTION The increasing quantities of waste have created a bad image for the construction industry. In addition, an ineffective planning and control of materials on sites could lead to poor performance and undesirable project outcomes [1]. Neverthe- less, the economic impact, contributions to employment and the benefits of investment in construction industry are very enormous. Construction activity forecasts the general direction of an economy and for this reason the industry is often de- scribed as a leading economic sector. According to Horvath (1999), the construction industry is one of the largest and most important industries, being at the same time the main con- sumer of natural resources and one of the largest polluters. Construction material contributes significantly to the cost of construction project; therefore, material wastage has adverse impact on construction cost, contractor’s profit mar- gin, construction duration and can be a possible source of dispute among parties to a project [2]; Fellows, Langford and Newcombe, 2002) [3]. The cost of material waste generated on building sites represents avoidable cost in construction which can ei- ther be eliminated or reduced. Hoe (2005) stated that the ex- tent to which waste can be prevented in the construction in- dustry has been a long-debated issue [4]. Whereas it is impossible to completely eliminate all wastage, the concern should be how practices in the local in- dustry can be managed to minimize waste. The main objective of this study is to identify the main waste causes in Gaza Strip construction industry in order to establish an initial framework for future studies to develop methods for prevention and elimination of waste causes in- herent in the construction process. The objectives of this re- search have been achieved through eighty- four questionnaires received from construction firms operating in Gaza Strip. Enshassi (1996) found from a study of 86 housing projects in the Gaza strip that the materials losses resulting from direct and indirect wastes were about 3.6–11%, which was signifi- cantly higher than the values that were normally allowed (2– 4.5%) [5]. 2. METHODOLOGY A quantitative approach is selected to determine the importance of the factors which affect the causes of materials waste in construction projects in Gaza Strip. In this research, site visits, structured questionnaire, interviews and literature research related to the construction industry used for data gathering. This study has been conducted to show the degree of influence of 35 factors divided into five groups, namely, On Site practice group, Materials handling group, materials/ transportation group, site management group, site supervisor group. These factors have been selected by a careful review of literature and previous researches in the field of waste in con- struction. The population of this study includes contracting companies of first, second and third category that have a valid Eyad Haddad, Ali Tayh / FACTORS AFFECTING INCREASING WASTE IN GAZA STRIP CONSTRUCTION SITES (2016) 93 94% 37% 50% 6% 38% 40% 0% 25% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % Main Secondary Unspecialized Field Field of company specialization Buildings Water and sewage Roads and transportation Fig. 1: Field of company specialization Mean and ranking for main group On site practice Group (1). M=3.62. Rank(5) Site management Group (4). M=3.64. Rank(4) Materials handling Group (2). M=3.84. Rank(3) Transportation Group (3). M=4.01. Rank(2) Site supervisor Group (5). M=4.59. Rank (1) Group (5) Site supervisor Group (3) Transportation Group (2) Materials handling Group (4) Site management Group (1) On site practice Fig. 2: Mean and ranking for main group registration by Palestinian Contractors Union (PCU) in Gaza Strip. The target population was distributed between three levels of contracting companies: the first class has 34 compa- nies; the second class has 21 companies; the third class has 29 companies. A statistical analysis was conducted to calculate mean, standard deviation (SD) and standard error (SE) for each factor. 3. RESULT AND DISCUTION 3.1 WORK EXPERIENCE OF RESPONDENT Figure 1 shows that 94% of contracting companies are involved mainly in construction building works, while 6% of them are involved secondarily in building works. This gives a high confidence in the quality of answers, because the study involved building construction projects. . 3.2. FACTORS OF CAUSING MATERIAL WASTE In this part, the respondents were asked to identify the main causes of material waste. 3.2.1 Main group The questionnaire of this study considered 35 factors which cause material waste in construction, and those factors were distributed into five groups, namely, on site practice; materials handling; material transportation; site management; and Site supervision. Figure 2 gives the result of a collected data, namely, causes of materials waste and illustrates the mean and ranking of each group. The survey revealed that the site supervisor group is the major causes of materials waste with mean 4.59 and highest ranking, while the lowest mean 3.16 is for onsite practice group. 3.2.3 Mean and ranking of On Site practice group (G1) The mean of each of the sub-factors of the On Site practice group which causes materials waste are presented in Table (1) in a descending order. Rank of each factor is also listed. ―Materials damage on site; improper cutting of materi- als; manufacturing defects‖ had the highest means 4.26, 3.915, and 3.790 respectively. While ―lack of materials (due to closure); burglary, theft and vandalism; over sizing structural elements during execution‖ had the lowest rank with means 2.74, 3.42 and 3.50 respectively. Table 1 Mean and ranking of On Site practice (G1) The result in Table (1) shows that "materials damage on site" factor was ranked in the first position with mean val- ue 4.263. It was ranked in the fourth position among the ten factors that caused material waste at materials/on site factors group done by Al-Moghany study [2]. It was also ranked in the first position among the thirty five factors that caused ma- terial waste, see Table 6. And, the results showed that ―lack of materials due to closure" was ranked as the lowest factor which increasing waste with mean value 2.742, but this factor was ranked in the ninth position with mean value 3.33 by Al- Moghany study [2]. 3.2.4 Mean and ranking of Materials handling group (G2) Table 2 shows the mean of each of the sub-factors of the materials/ handling group which causes material waste in a descending order. Rank of each factor is also listed. Improp- er handling of materials on site with mean 3.975 had the high- est ranking. And insufficient instructions about handling mate- Factor Mean Rank Materials damage on site. 4.263 1 Improper cutting of materials. 3.915 2 Manufacturing defects. 3.79 3 Poor quality of materials. 3.765 4 Existence of unnecessary materials on site. 3.69 5 Overproduction/Production of a quanti- ty greater than required or earlier than necessary. 3.638 6 Lack of onsite materials control. 3.615 7 Poor storage of materials. 3.541 8 Using excessive quantities of materials. 3.514 9 Over sizing structural elements during execution. 3.501 10 Burglary, theft and vandalism. 3.417 11 Lack of materials (due to closure). 2.742 12 Eyad Haddad, Ali Tayh / FACTORS AFFECTING INCREASING WASTE IN GAZA STRIP CONSTRUCTION SITES (2016) 94 rials on site with mean 3.701 had the lowest rank. The results in Table 2 showed that ―Improper han- dling of materials on site ―factor was ranked in the first posi- tion with mean value 3.975. It was also ranked in the third position among the thirty five factors that caused material waste (Table 6). This problem is due to lack of training, lack of manuals for dealing with materials at the construction sites, and insufficient instructions about handling materials on site. Table 2 Mean and ranking of Materials handling group (G2) 3.2.5 Mean and ranking of materials/ transportation group (G3) Table 3 shows the mean of each of the sub-factors of the materials/ transportation group which cause materials waste in a descending order. Rank of each factor is also listed. The results in Table 3 showed that ―Improper materials ―factor was ranked in the first position with mean value 4.156. It was also ranked in the second position among the thirty five fac- tors that caused material waste as shown in (Table 6). The results in Table 3 showed that ―storing materials in faraway stores ―factor was ranked in the second position with mean value 3.863. It was also ranked in the sixth position among the thirty five factors that caused material waste as shown in (Table 6). Table 3 Mean and ranking of materials/ transportation group (G3) 3.2.6 Mean and ranking of site management group (G4) The mean of each of the sub-factors of site manage- ment group which causes materials waste are presented in Table 4 in a descending order. Rank of each factor is also listed. ―Poor qualification of the contractor’s technical staff assigned to the project; shortage of technical professionals in the contractor’s organization; lack of material and time waste management plan‖ had the highest means 3.878, 3.782and 3.775 respectively. While ―Lack of a quality management system aimed at waste minimization; providing project team with insufficient information; contractors’ slowness in taking decisions‖ had the lowest rank with means 3.415, 3.516 and 3.564 respectively. The results in Table 4 showed that ―poor qualifica- tion of the contractor’s technical staff assigned to the project. ―Factor was ranked in the first position with mean value 3.878. It was also ranked in the fifth position among the thirty five factors that caused material waste (Table 6). Lack of supervision and poor qualification of the contractor’s technical staff was identified as variables that had detrimental effect when they occurred [6]. Alwi et al. (2002) considered the lack of supervision as a major factor causing waste in construction projects, and was ranked in sixth position in group (1), human resource category [6]. Table 4 Mean and ranking of site management group (G4) Factor Mean Rank Poor qualification of the contrac- tor’s technical staff assigned to the project. 3.878 1 Shortage of technical profession- als in the contractor’s organization. 3.782 2 Lack of material and time waste management plan. 3.775 3 Ineffective control of the project progress by the contractor. 3.692 4 Poor site layout. 3.626 5 Delay in project commencement. 3.578 6 Contractors’ slowness in taking decisions. 3.564 7 Providing project team with insuffi- cient information. 3.516 8 Lack of a quality management sys- tem aimed at waste minimization. 3.415 9 3.2.7 Mean and ranking of site supervisor group (G5) The mean of each of the sub-factors of site manage- ment group which causes materials waste are presented in Table 5 in a descending order. Rank of each factor is also listed. ―Suspension of work by the owner; poor control of supervision and delay in giving instructions; change orders‖ had the highest means 3.741, 3.707 and 3.627 respectively. While ―Owner's delay in handing over the site to the contrac- tor; poor coordination and communication among the consult- ant, the owner and the contractor; slow response from the consultant team to contractor inquiries‖ had the lowest rank with means 3.441, 3.45 and 3.463 respectively. The results in Table 5 showed that ―Suspension of work by the owner ―fac- tor was ranked in the first position with mean value 3.741. It was also ranked in the twelfth position among the thirty five factors that caused material waste (Table 6). Al Mogany (2006) mentioned that suspension of work by the owner was ranked in fifth position among ninety-two factors that caused material waste [2]. Factor Mean Rank Improper handling of materials on site. 3.975 1 Duplication of transporting material on site. 3.854 2 Insufficient instructions about handling materials on site. 3.701 3 Factor Mean Rank Improper materials. 4.156 1 storing materials in faraway stores 3.863 2 Eyad Haddad, Ali Tayh / FACTORS AFFECTING INCREASING WASTE IN GAZA STRIP CONSTRUCTION SITES (2016) 95 The results showed that ―Owner's delay in handing over the site to the contractor " was ranked as the lowest fac- tor which increasing waste with mean value 3.441, but this factor was ranked in the seventh position with mean value 3.03 at [2]. Al-Khalil ,etal (1999) mentioned that delay to de- liver the site to the contractor by the owner was ranked in twenty-sixth position among sixty factors which cause waste and project delay [1] . Table 5 Mean and ranking of site supervisor group (G5) 3.3 OVER-ALL RANKS OF ALL FACTORS CAUSING MA- TERIAL WASTE Table 6 outlines the factors causing material waste in descending manner. It indicate that the highest five factors are ―Materials damage on site; Improper materials; Improper handling of materials on site; Improper cutting of materials; Poor qualification of the contractor’s technical staff assigned to the project ‖ with mean ranks 4.263, 4.156, 3.975, 3.915, and 3.878 respectively. It has been noticed that the ―Poor coordination and communication among the consultant; the owner and the con- tractor; Owner's delay in handing over the site to the contrac- tor; Burglary, theft and vandalism; Lack of a quality manage- ment system aimed at waste minimization; and lack of materi- als (due to closure) are the lowest five factors that causing materials waste with mean ranks 3.45, 3.441, 3.417, 3.415 and 2.742. Table 6 Mean and rank of over-all factors causing material waste Factor Mean Rank Suspension of work by the owner. 3.741 1 Poor control of supervision and delay in giving instructions. 3.707 2 Change orders. 3.627 3 Poor cooperation of the owner to- wards settling contractors payments and claims 3.641 4 Delay in performing inspection and testing by the consultant team. 3.565 5 Poor qualification of consultant engi- neer’s staff assigned to the project. 3.517 6 Slow response from the consultant team to contractor inquiries. 3.463 7 Poor coordination and communication among the consultant, the owner and the contractor. 3.45 8 Owner's delay in handing over the site to the contractor. 3.441 9 Factor Group No. Mean Rank Materials damage on site. G1 4.263 1 Improper materials. G3 4.156 2 Improper handling of mate- rials on site. G2 3.975 3 Improper cutting of materi- als. G1 3.915 4 Poor qualification of the contractor’s technical staff assigned to the project. G4 3.878 5 storing materials in faraway stores G3 3.863 6 Duplication of transporting material on site. G2 3.854 7 Manufacturing defects. G1 3.79 8 Shortage of technical pro- fessionals in the contrac- tor’s organization. G4 3.782 9 Lack of material and time waste management plan. G4 3.775 10 Poor quality of materials. G1 3.765 11 Suspension of work by the owner. G5 3.741 12 Poor control of supervision and delay in giving instruc- tions. G5 3.707 13 Insufficient instructions about handling materials on site. G2 3.701 14 Ineffective control of the project progress by the contractor. G4 3.692 15 Existence of unnecessary materials on site. G1 3.69 16 Poor cooperation of the owner towards settling con- tractors payments and claims G5 3.641 17 Overproduction/Production of a quantity greater than required or earlier than necessary. G1 3.638 18 Change orders. G5 3.627 19 Poor site layout. G4 3.626 20 Eyad Haddad, Ali Tayh / FACTORS AFFECTING INCREASING WASTE IN GAZA STRIP CONSTRUCTION SITES (2016) 96 4. CONCLUSIONS The construction industry has been found to be a ma- jor generation of waste. This study focused on material waste in construction sites in Gaza strip including building work, it also identified the major causes of waste in construction sites and resented a comprehensive analysis of these causes. A questionnaire-based survey was used to elicit the attitude of contracting companies towards major factors which causes waste in Gaza Strip construction sites and resented a comprehensive analysis of these causes. 84 questionnaires were distributed between three levels of contracting compa- nies: the first class has 34 companies; the second class has 21 companies; the third class has 29 companies. The respondents were asked to indicate the degree of influence of 35 factors which increasing waste divided into five groups, namely, On Site practice group, Materials han- dling group, materials/ transportation group, site management group, site supervisor group. The results indicated that materials damage on site, improper materials, improper handling of materials on site, improper cutting of materials and poor qualification of the contractor’s technical staff assigned to the project are the highest factors which cases increasing waste in construction sites in Gaza Strip. Also, the results indicated that lack of materials (due to closure), lack of a quality management system aimed at waste minimization, burglary, theft and vandalism, owner's delay in handing over the site to the contractor and poor coor- dination and communication among the consultant, the owner and the contractor are the least factors affecting increasing waste on Gaza Strip construction sites. 5. REFERENCES [1] Jayamathan, J. & Rameezdeen, R. (2014). Influence of Labour Arrangement on Construction Material Waste Genera- tion. Structural Survey, 32(2): 76-88. [2] Al-Moghany, S. S. (2006). Managing and Minimizing Construction Waste for Gaza Strip (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Faculty of Engineering, Deanery of Graduate Studies, Construction Management Programme, The Islamic Universi- ty of Gaza, Gaza, Palestine. [3] Fellows. R., Langford, D., Newcombe, R. & Urry, S. (2002). Construction Management in Practice. 2nd ed., United Kingdom: Blackwell Science Limited, pp. 180 - 181. [4] Hoe, L.K. (2005). Causal Model for Management of Sub- contractors in Waste Minimization (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Department of Building, National University of Singapore, Singapore. [5] Enshassi, A., (1996). Materials Control and Waste on Building Sites. Building Research and Information, 24 (1): 31–34. [6] Alwi, S., Hampson, K. and Mohamed, S., (2002). Non Value-Adding Activities. A Comparative Study of Indonesian and Australian Construction Projects. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction IGLC-10, Gramado, Brazil. [7] Eyad Haddad (2015). A construction resources manage- ment system for Gaza Strip building contractors. Published Ph.D. Thesis. Al Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt. [8] Al-Khalil, M. I., and Al-Ghafly, M. A., (1999). Important Factor Group No. Mean Rank Lack of on site materials control. G1 3.615 21 Delay in project com- mencement. G4 3.578 22 Delay in performing inspec- tion and testing by the con- sultant team. G5 3.565 23 Contractors’ slowness in taking decisions. G4 3.564 24 Poor storage of materials. G1 3.541 25 Poor qualification of con- sultant engineer’s staff as- signed to the project. G5 3.517 26 Providing project team with insufficient information. G4 3.516 27 Using excessive quantities of materials. G1 3.514 28 Over sizing structural ele- ments during execution. G1 3.501 29 Slow response from the consultant team to contrac- tor inquiries. G5 3.463 30 Poor coordination and communication among the consultant, the owner and the contractor. G5 3.45 31 Owner's delay in handing over the site to the contrac- tor. G5 3.441 32 Burglary, theft and vandal- ism. G1 3.417 33 Lack of a quality manage- ment system aimed at waste minimization. G4 3.415 34 Lack of materials (due to closure). G1 2.742 35 Eyad Haddad, Ali Tayh / FACTORS AFFECTING INCREASING WASTE IN GAZA STRIP CONSTRUCTION SITES (2016) 97 causes of delay in public utility projects in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Construction Engineering and Economics, Vol. 17, 647- 655. [9] Eyad Haddad (2006). A construction materials manage- ment system for Gaza Strip building contractors. Unpublished Msc Thesis. The Islamic University of Gaza (IUG). [10] Horvath, A. (1999). Construction for Sustainable Devel- opment – A Research and Educational Agenda. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Califor- nia, Berkeley, USA. Retrieved from http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~tommelein/CEMworkshop/Horv ath.pdf retrieved December 16, 2011. [11] Enshassi, A., Mohamed, S. & Abushaban, S. (2009). Fac- tors Affecting the Performance of Construction Projects in the Gaza Strip. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 15(3): 269–280. [12] Garas, G.L., Anis A. R., and El Gammal, A., (2001). Ma- terials Waste in the Egyptian Construction Industry. Proceed- ings of the ninth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction IGLC-9, Singapore. Eyad Haddad. Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Palestine. Gaza, Gaza Strip Ali Tayh Assosiated Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Palestine. Gaza, Gaza Strip