Peer ReviewedPostprint (author’s final draft

Introduction: Research and practice have demonstrated that decisions made prior to work at construction\ud sites can influence construction worker safety. However, it has also been argued that most architects and\ud design engineers possess neither the knowledge of construction safety nor the knowledge of construction\ud processes necessary to effectively perform Construction Hazards Prevention through Design (CHPtD).\ud Method: This paper introduces a quantitative methodology that supports designers by providing a way to\ud evaluate the safety-related performance of residential construction designs using a risk analysis–based\ud approach. The methodology compares the overall safety risk level of various construction designs and ranks\ud the significance of the various safety risks of each of these designs. The methodology also compares the\ud absolute importance of a particular safety risk in various construction designs. Results: Because the\ud methodology identifies the relevance of each safety risk at a particular site prior to the construction stage,\ud significant risks are highlighted in advance. Thus, a range of measures for mitigating safety risks can then be\ud implemented during on-site construction. Impact on industry: The methodology is specially worthwhile for\ud designers, who can compare construction techniques and systems during the design phase and determine\ud the corresponding level of safety risk without their creative talents being restricted. By using this\ud methodology, construction companies can improve their on-site safety performance.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

No abstract

In this paper, the implementation of effective waste management practices in construction projects and sites is analyzed, using data from a survey answered by 74 Spanish construction companies based in Catalonia. Most commonly implemented practices were found to be on-site cleanliness and order, correct storage of raw materials, and prioritization of the nearest authorized waste managers. The least widespread practices were the use of a mobile crusher on site, the creation of individualized drawings for each construction site, and the dissemination of the contents of the waste management plan to all workers, to help them to meet its requirements. Waste regulations for construction and demolition, and the corresponding construction waste management facilities, were designed before the recession in the Spanish construction sector. Current waste generation rates are still below predicted levels, and the infrastructure was designed for five times more waste generation. Even so, the percentage of reused and recycled waste currently amounts to 43%. Survey respondents highlighted various instruments and measures that would make the management of construction and demolition waste more sustainable. Most of the opportunities identified by construction firms are within the scope of government and related to a combined system of bonus and penalties and the establishment of environmental awareness and training programmes for all the stakeholders. Within the scope of authorized waste managers, firms suggested improvements such as the standardization of fees, a reduction of the time until the issue of waste management certificates, a higher number of inspections, and a change in the current model of a few large construction waste management facilities. This research is useful to better understand the current status of construction and demolition waste management in construction projects and sites. Thus, the results of this research will guide policy makers and relevant stakeholders such as contractors, clients, architects and engineers to achieve the EU target of recovering 70% of construction and demolition waste in 2020. In this sense, reliable information can help governments and professional associations to set future C&D waste management regulations, training programmes and dissemination tools, inspections, etc.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Although inspections occur during construction or at handover, customers do not normally participate. This situation creates a gap between quality perceived by contractors and customers. An analysis of 52,552 handover defects in 2,179 flats in Spain is presented which identified their nature, the building element and trade where these defects are located. These results are compared to previous studies that analyzed defects detected during the construction stage and those that remain after handing over the building to the client. The research reveals that structural defects are resolved during construction due to existing quality standards. However, other aesthetic and functional defects remain and/or arise at handover. Some defects are not resolved until customers complain after they first occupy the dwelling. Many functional defects arise due to the lack of involvement of end users in the early project stages.