Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Investigating the determinants of contractors construction

and demolition waste management behavior in Mainland China
Zezhou Wu a, Ann T.W. Yu b,, Liyin Shen c
a
Department of Construction Management and Real Estate, College of Civil Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China
b
Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
c
Faculty of Construction Management and Real Estate, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The abundant generation of construction and demolition (C&D) waste presents a significant challenge to
Received 29 April 2016 the sustainable development of the construction industry in Mainland China. As the implementer of con-
Revised 5 August 2016 struction activities, the contractors C&D waste management performance plays an important role in C&D
Accepted 1 September 2016
waste minimization. This paper aims to investigate the determinants of the contractors C&D waste man-
Available online xxxx
agement behavior in Mainland China. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) was selected as the basis of
the theoretical model. In addition, three contextual constructs (i.e., economic viability, governmental
Keywords:
supervision, and project constraints) were introduced, formulating the initial model. Based on the initial
Construction and demolition waste
management
model, eight constructs were identified and seven hypotheses were proposed. A questionnaire survey
Determinant was conducted to collect data and a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis was employed to test
Intention the proposed hypotheses. Results showed that the C&D waste management intention is not a significant
Behavior determinant of contractors C&D waste management behavior. The most important determinant is eco-
nomic viability, followed by governmental supervision as the second most important determinant.
Nevertheless, the construct of project constraints is an insignificant determinant for contractors adoption
of C&D waste management behavior. The research findings imply that, in Mainland China, the govern-
ment, at this stage, plays an important role in guiding and promoting the contractor to exhibit better
C&D waste management behavior.
2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
Construction and demolition (C&D) waste refers to the aban-
doned substances generated in the building and infrastructure
activities of construction, renovation, and demolition (HKEPD,
2013; USEPA, 2013). According to the chemical characteristics,
the materials involved in C&D waste can be divided into the cate-
gories of inert materials and non-inert materials. The inert materi-
als (e.g., concrete, bricks, sub-soil) are the components that hardly
participate in chemical reactions under common circumstances.
The non-inert materials are readily involved in chemical reactions,
such as rebar, and wood. As a by-product of construction activities,
C&D waste is unavoidably produced and improper treatment can
create negative environmental impacts.
The generation of C&D waste, however, can be minimized
through effective management. In addition, C&D waste has a great
possibility for producing useful resources after appropriate
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bsannyu@polyu.edu.hk (A.T.W. Yu).
treatment. Dahln and Lagerkvist (2010) claimed that wastes can
be viewed as resources in the wrong place. Existing studies have
shown that effective C&D waste management can bring economic
benefits to the construction project stakeholders (Coelho and de
Brito, 2013; Zhao et al., 2010). To give a holistic picture, Lu and
Yuan (2011) divided C&D waste management practices into hard
technical measures and soft managerial measures. The hard tech-
nical measures refer to the environmentally friendly construction
technologies, such as prefabrication, steel framework, recycled
aggregates, etc. The soft managerial measures comprise regional
economic instruments such as waste disposal charging scheme
and on-site management measures (i.e., on-site sorting).
Echoing with these academic studies, C&D waste management
measures are also recommended in industrial guidelines. For
instance, C&D waste management performance is a crucial assess-
ment component within green building rating systems. In terms of
the green building rating systems in the US, UK and China, the
weight of C&D waste management is 10%, 8.16% and 11.84%,
respectively (Wu et al., 2016). Effective C&D waste management
is also considered to be essential for achieving the visions of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.001
0956-053X/ 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article in press as: Wu, Z., et al. Investigating the determinants of contractors construction and demolition waste management behavior in
Mainland China. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.001
2 Z. Wu et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx
landfill space conservation, environmental impact reduction, job
opportunity creation, and project expense reduction (USEPA,
2013). It is of importance, therefore, to urge construction stake-
holders to promote and implement effective C&D waste
management.
In construction projects, there are a number of key elements
involved, such as manpower (human beings), machines, materials
and money. The most important element is considered to be the
human beings who participate in direct construction activities
(Wu et al., 2011). This is because human beings are the only ones
able to connect all the other resources together so as to achieve the
final project objectives. However, in the current circumstance,
though C&D waste management regulations have been set and
mature technologies have been developed, C&D waste manage-
ment practice on real-life projects is regarded as inadequate
(Ajayi et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2015). It is, therefore, necessary to
investigate the determinants which can promote the adoption of
C&D waste management measures.
This paper aims to investigate the determinants of contractors
C&D waste management behavior in Mainland China. Mainland
China is focused in this study because it contains the most
dramatic and the largest construction market in the world.
Construction spending in Mainland China reached almost US $1.8
trillion in 2013 (Sito, 2014). It was estimated that the C&D waste
generation was about 1.13 billion tons in 2014 (Lu et al., 2016).
Despite the enormous amount of C&D waste, the corresponding
management is not mature at present (Lu and Yuan, 2010). Since
the contractor is the direct C&D waste producer and waste
management implementer on real projects, this research study
selected the contractor rather than other stakeholders as
fundamental in this investigation.
2. Literature review
This section presents the existing studies on contractors atti-
tude and behavior towards C&D waste management. The Theory
of Planned Behavior is introduced subsequently. Based on the liter-
ature review, the research gap and innovation of this research are
clarified at the end of this section.
2.1. Attitude and behavior research on C&D waste management
The research on investigating construction stakeholders atti-
tudes and behavior towards C&D waste management has been
conducted in existing studies. Lingard et al. (2000) found that the
managerial staff in a large Australian contracting organization
had a less positive perception of the waste management climate
than the site workers. The managerial staff regarded cost, time
and quality objectives are more important than potential environ-
mental issues. In Malaysia, Begum et al. (2009) investigated the
factors affecting contractors attitude and behavior regarding
waste management and found that a positive attitude towards
waste management can lead to satisfactory behavior. Echoing with
Begum et al. (2009), Al-Sari et al. (2012) examined how the local
contractor waste management attitude and behavior is influenced
in the occupied Palestinian territory. The authors observed that in
the absence of a regulatory framework, the C&D waste manage-
ment behavior of the local contractors was mostly driven by direct
economic considerations. In Europe, the influencing factors of C&D
waste management behavior were investigated as well. For exam-
ple, Calvo et al. (2014) tested the influence of governmental poli-
cies (i.e., economic incentives and penalties) in recycling of C&D
waste aggregates in Spain. Sun et al. (2015) investigated the waste
management practices and opinions of small builders in the UK.
From the literature review, it can be seen that the contractors
Please cite this article in press as: Wu, Z., et al. Investigating the determinants of contractors construction and demolition waste management behavior in
Mainland China. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.001
attitude and behavior towards C&D waste management have been
investigated worldwide. In the existing studies, there is a common
assumption that the contractors C&D waste management attitude
is equal to the actual C&D waste management behavior. However,
according to the attitude and behavior theories, it is inappropriate
to assume an attitude towards behavior simply determines the
final behavior.
2.2. Theory of Planned Behavior
In the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), there are three main
predictors towards a particular behavior. They are (1) attitude
towards behavior (i.e., favorable or unfavorable evaluation of the
behavior), (2) subjective norm (i.e., the perception of the expecta-
tions of relevant others), and (3) perceived behavioral control (i.e.,
perceived own capability to successfully exhibit the behavior). The
TPB framework is illustrated in Fig. 1.
In the presented framework, it can be seen that an individuals
behavior is directly affected by his/her behavioral intention. The
behavioral intention is directly affected by his/her attitude, subjec-
tive norm, and perceived behavioral control. The more positive the
personal attitude, the more support from relevant persons, and the
more perceived the autonomic control, the more possible that the
individual has corresponding behavioral intention and the actual
behavior. The TPB has got successful applications in many research
fields, such as internet purchasing (George, 2004), green hotel
choice (Han et al., 2010), doing physical exercise (Carmen Neipp
et al., 2015). However, Ajzen (1991) admitted that the actual
behavioral control was more important than the perceived behav-
ioral control, because the actual control contains the feasibility of
opportunities and resources which is the prerequisite of perform-
ing behavior. The actual control is different from the perceived
behavioral control because the individuals perceived behavior
cannot be exact. For example, a student has a large extent of con-
trolling himself to attend a class; however, his actual behavior may
be affected by unanticipated accidents (e.g., snowstorm or traffic
accident). In such situation, the particular behavior cannot be exe-
cuted even though the individual has strong perceived behavioral
control. To solve this problem, contextual constructs were sug-
gested to be added based on the basic TPB model (Chu and Chiu,
2003; Guagnano et al., 1995).
2.3. Research gap and innovation in this study
From the above literature review, it can be identified that there
is a research gap that the contractors C&D waste management
behavior has not been investigated based on the attitude and
behavior theories. The objective of this study is to investigate the
determinants of C&D waste management behavior based on a
mature attitude and behavior theory (i.e., TPB). The innovation
of this study is that contextual constructs (i.e., governmental
Attitude towards
behavior
Behavioral
Subjective norm Behavior
intention
Perceived
behavioral control
Fig. 1. Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1985).
 Z. Wu et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx
supervision, economic viability, and project constructs) are intro-
duced combining the basic TPB model.
3. Research methodology
This section introduces the research methodology used in this
study. The development of the preliminary theoretical model is
firstly presented; this is followed by the explanation of data collec-
tion process. The data analysis procedures are also introduced at
the end of this section.
3.1. The theoretical model
The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) was selected as the basis
to formulate the initial theoretical model. As the implementation
of C&D waste management is behavior in the context of the con-
struction industry, particular construction related factors can
directly influence C&D waste management behavior, such as gov-
ernmental supervision (GS), economic viability (EV), and project
constraints (PC). Thus, the initial theoretical model was estab-
lished, as shown in Fig. 2.
In the initial theoretical model, a total of eight constructs were
involved, including attitude towards behavior (AB), subjective
norm (SN), perceived behavioral control (PBC), behavioral inten-
tion (BI), governmental supervision (GS), economic viability (EV),
project constraints (PC), and behavior (B). The contextual con-
structs introduced are explained as follows.
Governmental supervision was included in the developed
model because governmental regulations and corresponding
supervision can significantly affect the behavior of contractors
(Ding et al., 2016). The influencing path is often direct: if some-
thing is forbidden by the government, the contractor must comply
with the regulatory requirements. In terms of C&D waste manage-
ment, if the government requires the contractor to dump C&D
waste at landfills combined with hard punishment for illegal
dumping, the illegal dumping behavior will significantly decrease
(Lu et al., 2015).
Economic viability was involved because the nature of the con-
tractor is earning profits. Thus the primary objectives for the con-
tractor are decreasing project cost and making profit (Hao et al.,
2008). If there is a conflict between the environment and the profit,
the project decision-makers often opt for the latter rather than the
former. In practice, C&D waste management measures are usually
adopted, only incompletely, in order to cut the construction cost,
regardless of the potential environmental problems (Zhao et al.,
2010).
Project constraints can also directly affect the adoption of C&D
waste management measures. In real-life construction projects,
there are many practical and unpredictable constraints, such as
time, money, material, machine, and labor. The contractor must
select the most appropriate measures based on the project con-
straints. For instance, if the construction duration is very limited,
the contractor may implement fewer C&D waste management
Attitude towards
behavior
Subjective norm Behavioral intention
Perceived behavioral
control
Fig. 2. The preliminary theoretical model.
Please cite this article in press as: Wu, Z., et al. Investigating the determinants of contractors construction and demolition waste management behavior in
Mainland China. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.001
3
Table 1
Hypotheses in the preliminary theoretical model.
Hypothesis Description
H1 Attitude towards behavior has a direct positive effect on the
behavioral intention
H2 Social norm has a direct positive effect on the behavioral
intention
H3 Perceived behavioral control has a direct positive effect on the
behavioral intention
H4 Behavioral intention has a direct positive effect on the behavior
H5 Governmental supervision has a direct positive effect on the
behavior
H6 Economic viability has a direct positive effect on the behavior
H7 Project constraints have a direct negative effect on the behavior
measures to save time. Similarly, if the number of construction
workers is not adequate, less focus will be paid to effective C&D
waste management.
Based on the initial theoretical model, seven hypotheses can be
proposed, as shown in Table 1.
3.2. Data collection
A questionnaire survey was implemented for data collection.
The initial measurement scales in the questionnaire were proposed
based on academic literature review, as published in Wu et al.
(2015). Then, a focus group meeting and a pilot study were con-
ducted to improve the reliability and validity of the measurement
scales. Improvements were made by adding and deleting investiga-
tion questions. In addition, the wording of the questions was also
improved in order to make the measurement scales more under-
standable. The measurement scales in the formal questionnaire
are presented in Appendix A.
The questions in the formal questionnaire consist of three parts.
The first investigates the background of the respondents, such as
working category, gender, education level, the number of projects
participated in, etc. The second part deals with the measurement
of the eight constructs. In the questionnaire designed, the proposed
constructs were measured by items evaluated on 5-point Likert
scales, where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral,
4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. A reverse question (i.e., the
third question in the behavioral intention investigation) was
designed to test whether the respondents replied to the question-
naire carefully. The third part was an open question, inquiring the
respondents to provide suggestions and make comments on the
questionnaire.
The questionnaires were distributed via two channels. The first
channel was to publish the questionnaire on the internet, and to
distribute the website link in construction-related professional for-
ums. Nevertheless, the responses collected from this channel were
limited, only 24 responses were collected. The second channel was
to distribute the questionnaire to professionals in construction
companies through emails. A snowball sampling strategy was
Governmental
supervision
Behavior Economic viability
Project constraints
4 Z. Wu et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx

implemented by inviting the respondents to distribute the ques-
tionnaire to their colleagues. The snowball sampling was employed
because it enables the investigators to obtain a comparatively large
number of completed questionnaires more quickly and economi-
cally (Sambasivan and Soon, 2007). From these two channels, a
total of 262 responses were collected. A filtering process was then
conducted in order to guarantee the quality of the responses. The
questionnaires with blank answer(s) and conflicting reverse ques-
tion responses were filtered out. After the filtering process, 207
responses were left, representing 79% of the total responses.
3.3. Data analysis process
The collected data were analyzed using Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM) with the software of AMOS 20. A structural equa-
tion model generally involves a measurement model and a struc-
tural model. Observed variables are used to measure latent
variables in the measurement model, and the relationships
between latent variables are tested in the structural model.
Before testing the structural model, it is essential to conduct
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the validity of the mea-
surement models (Hair et al., 2006). Observed variables may be
deleted during this procedure. After the CFA, the next step is to test
and improve the goodness-of-fit of the structural model; modifica-
tion indices can be used to improve the structural model. Once the
optimized model is derived, the significant influencing factors and
the regression weights can be determined.
In this study, individual telephone interviews were further con-
ducted to validate the derived results from the SEM analysis. Five
experienced professionals who have participated in the question-
naire survey were invited. These interviewees were invited
because they all had more than five years C&D waste management
experiences and provided their contact information during the
questionnaire survey.
4. Results and discussions
This section presents the statistical analysis and the results
derived from the collected data. Discussions are further made
based on the derived results.
4.1. Descriptive statistics
Information of the 207 respondents is shown in Table 2.
Respondents engaging in cost control and project management
were the two main components, representing 60% of the total.

Table 2
Personal background information of the respondents.

Variable Category Frequency Percentage (%) Cumulative percentage (%)

Working category Company management 8 3.9 3.9
Project management 55 26.6 30.5
Construction engineering 33 15.9 46.4
Cost control 72 34.8 81.2
Quality control 5 2.4 83.6
On-site construction 24 11.6 95.2
Other 10 4.8 100
Working experience (year) 05 123 59.4 59.4
610 55 26.6 86
1115 16 7.7 93.7
16 years or above 13 6.3 100
Gender Male 154 74.4 74.4
Female 53 25.6 100
Education level PhD 1 0.5 0.5
Master 9 4.3 4.8
Bachelor 165 79.7 84.5
Senior high school or below 32 15.5 100
Number of participated project (s) 15 141 68.1 68.1
610 34 16.4 84.5
1120 12 5.8 90.3
21 or above 20 9.7 100
Company ranking Premium 93 44.9 44.9
Rank 1 90 43.5 88.4
Rank 2 10 4.8 93.2
Rank 3 2 1 94.2
Other 12 5.8 100
Project type Residential 89 43 43
Commercial 30 14.5 57.5
Office 18 8.7 66.2
Industrial 8 3.9 70
Infrastructure 52 25.1 95.2
Other 10 4.8 100
Project price (million RMB) 010 5 2.4 2.4
1150 18 8.7 11.1
51100 43 20.8 31.9
101500 90 43.5 75.4
5011000 25 12.1 87.4
Above 1000 26 12.6 100
Staff number 150 58 28 28
51100 35 16.9 44.9
101200 44 21.3 66.2
Above 200 70 33.8 100

Please cite this article in press as: Wu, Z., et al. Investigating the determinants of contractors construction and demolition waste management behavior in
Mainland China. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.001
 Z. Wu et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx 5

Male respondents were more than female respondents, represent-
ing 74.4%. Nearly 80% of the respondents had a bachelor degree
and 4.8% of the respondents had a master degree or above. A total
of 88.4% of the respondents worked in a high ranking company,
44.9% for a premium contractor and 43.5% for companies ranked
1. Most respondents were working in residential, public and com-
mercial projects, accounting for 43%, 21.5% and 14.5% respectively.
Around three-quarter of the respondents were working in projects
worth more than 50 million RMB. One third of the respondents
were working in projects employing more than 200 staff.
4.2. Confirmatory factor analysis
During the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the observed
variables with factor loadings less than 0.5 were deleted for the
subsequent multiple regression analysis. Through the CFA, the

Fig. 3. Standardized regression weights of the full measurement model.

Please cite this article in press as: Wu, Z., et al. Investigating the determinants of contractors construction and demolition waste management behavior in
Mainland China. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.001
6 Z. Wu et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx

observed variables of SN6, PC5 were deleted because their corre- constructs in the model; each latent variable has several observed
sponding factor loadings were 0.47 and 0.44 respectively. The variables to measure. The initial hypotheses underlying this model
CFA for all of the constructs was employed after deleting SN6 are shown Table 1. A normality assessment was conducted prior to
and PC5, as shown in Fig. 3. The estimation method used in the modeling. The results showed that the absolute values of skewness
CFA was maximum likelihood. Correlations have been made coefficient were lower than 2 and the absolute values of the kurto-
between the errors of the observed variables as the modification sis were lower than 7, thus maximum likelihood can be used as the
indices suggested. It can be seen that there were a total of 34 estimation method in this study (Hair et al., 2006).
observed variables in the measurement model. The number of dis- The initial model analysis results are shown in Tables 4 and 5.
tinct sample moments was 595 and the number of distinct param- From Table 4, it can be seen that some paths exist with insignifi-
eters to be estimated was 99. The degrees of freedom of the default cant p-values. Table 5 indicates that the initial model does not fit
model, therefore, was 496 (i.e., 59599), which means the model is the data very well. Thus it is necessary to modify the initial model.
identifiable. All of the factor loadings are higher than 0.5, thus no The modification indices of regression weights are presented in
observed variable needs to be deleted. The goodness-of-fit indices Table 6. It can be seen that there are no significant suggestions for
of the full measurement model are shown in Table 3. From Table 3, adding a new path between the latent variables. In order to modify
most of the goodness-of-fit indices satisfy their corresponding the initial model, the insignificant paths need to be deleted.
acceptable requirements. According to Table 4 and the theoretical assumptions, the con-
struct of PBC was deleted to formulate a new model because the
path from PBC to BI is not significant, with a p-value of 0.668. This
4.3. Multiple regression analysis
means H3 is rejected, i.e., perceived behavioral control cannot have
a direct positive effect on the behavioral intention.
Following the confirmatory factor analysis, the preliminary
After similar modeling procedures, the paths BI ? B, PC ? B
structural model was derived, as shown in Fig. 4. There are eight
were deleted and the modified structural model was derived, as
shown in Fig. 5. The results of the final model analysis are shown
Table 3 in Tables 7 and 8. From Table 7, it can be seen that the two paths
Goodness-of-fit of the initial measurement model. from GS and EV to B are significant at the levels 0.05 and 0.001
Goodness-of-fit measure Level of acceptance fit Fit statistics
respectively. From Table 8, the goodness-of-fit indices indicate that
the final model fits the data very well. Therefore, it can be con-
Absolute fit v2/df <5 acceptable; <3 good 1.571
cluded that there are two main determinants affecting the extent
GFI >0.8 acceptable; >0.9 good 0.835
AGFI >0.8 acceptable; >0.9 good 0.802 to which the contractor will conduct C&D waste management,
RMSEA <0.1 acceptable; <0.08 good 0.053 namely governmental supervision (GS) and economic viability
Incremental fit NFI >0.9 0.801 (EV). The relationships between these two determinants and the
RFI >0.9 0.775 C&D waste management behavior are shown in Fig. 5. The path
IFI >0.9 0.917 weight from construct GS to B is 0.19, which means that when gov-
TLI >0.9 0.905
ernmental supervision goes up by 1 standard deviation, C&D waste
CFI >0.9 0.916
management behavior goes up by 0.19 standard deviations.

Fig. 4. Determinants of C&D waste management initial model.

Please cite this article in press as: Wu, Z., et al. Investigating the determinants of contractors construction and demolition waste management behavior in
Mainland China. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.001
 Z. Wu et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx 7

Table 4
Regression weights in the initial model.

Estimate S.E. C.R. P

BI < AB 0.439 0.109 4.036
BI < SN 0.414 0.098 4.237
BI < PBC 0.034 0.080 0.428 0.668
B < GS 0.198 0.102 1.936 0.053
B < PC 0.076 0.062 1.228 0.220
B < EV 0.463 0.112 4.149
B < BI 0.067 0.091 0.741 0.459
AB1 < AB 1.000
AB2 < AB 1.152 0.143 8.053
AB3 < AB 1.253 0.143 8.751
AB4 < AB 1.288 0.142 9.038
AB5 < AB 1.025 0.123 8.309
SN1 < SN 1.000
SN2 < SN 1.152 0.107 10.745
SN3 < SN 1.119 0.116 9.643
SN5 < SN 1.011 0.106 9.572
PBC1 < PBC 1.000
PBC2 < PBC 1.036 0.113 9.171
PBC3 < PBC 1.293 0.118 10.948
PBC4 < PBC 1.172 0.116 10.113
PBC5 < PBC 1.040 0.114 9.109
GS1 < GS 1.000
GS2 < GS 1.222 0.135 9.055
GS3 < GS 1.516 0.151 10.007
GS4 < GS 1.369 0.147 9.325
EV2 < EV 1.000
EV3 < EV 1.129 0.182 6.206
PC1 < PC 1.000
PC2 < PC 1.025 0.069 14.755
PC3 < PC 0.916 0.067 13.741
PC4 < PC 0.525 0.068 7.754
BI1 < BI 1.000
BI2 < BI 0.890 0.097 9.159
BI3 < BI 0.522 0.075 6.945
BI4 < BI 0.669 0.095 7.032
B1 < B 1.000
B3 < B 1.050 0.135 7.772
B4 < B 1.283 0.139 9.253
B5 < B 1.346 0.141 9.572
B6 < B 1.429 0.147 9.686
B7 < B 1.203 0.126 9.516

Table 5 be because C&D waste management behavior is different in nature

Goodness-of-fit of the initial model. from other kinds of waste management. The C&D waste manage-
ment behavior has to be collective, not necessarily the same as that
Goodness-of-fit measure Level of acceptance fit Fit statistics
of individual. There are influencing factors at company level. For
Absolute fit v2/df <5 acceptable; <3 good 1.829
example, company actions must comply with relevant regulations.
GFI >0.8 acceptable; >0.9 good 0.806
AGFI >0.8 acceptable; >0.9 good 0.771 Contractors must also consider whether benefits will accrue from
RMSEA <0.1 acceptable; <0.08 good 0.063 their actions. After all, the ultimate goal of most contractors is to
Incremental fit NFI >0.9 0.764 make profits. This may be the underlying reasons why governmen-
RFI >0.9 0.738 tal supervision and economic viability are the significant determi-
IFI >0.9 0.877 nants for C&D waste management behavior.
TLI >0.9 0.862 With these speculations in mind, a triangulation analysis was
CFI >0.9 0.875
conducted to explore the underlying reasons. Five interviewees
were invited to attend individual telephone interviews for collect-
ing their comments on the structural equation modeling results.
Similarly, the path weight from construct EV to B is 0.40, which The five interviewees shared similar opinions, all agreed that an
means that when economic viability goes up by 1 standard devia- individuals intention is not a significant determinant leading to
tion, C&D waste management behavior goes up by 0.40 standard the organization adopting C&D waste management measures.
deviations. The interviewees agreed that they do not want to intentionally pol-
lute the environment and would like to see a clean and sustainable
4.4. Discussion world. This does not mean that, however, they are very willing to
employ C&D waste management measures. They regarded C&D
From the results, it is surprising that H4 is not supported, waste management as the province of company policy. In a real-
because it was regarded as a significant determinant for other life project, they decide whether to take C&D waste management
kinds of waste management, i.e., household waste (Pakpour actions based mainly on project needs and requirements.
et al., 2014) and food waste (Quested et al., 2013). However, from The five interviewees agreed that governmental supervision is a
this study, behavioral intention is regarded as an insignificant fac- significant factor affecting a C&D waste management decision.
tor for the contractor to employ C&D waste management. This may They said local regulations exist clauses requiring the contractor

Please cite this article in press as: Wu, Z., et al. Investigating the determinants of contractors construction and demolition waste management behavior in
Mainland China. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.001
8 Z. Wu et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Table 6
Modification indices of regression weights initial model.

M.I. Par change M.I. Par change

BI < EV 6.423 0.176 GS1 < BI3 5.618 0.185
B < PBC 4.421 0.17 GS1 < GS2 19.43 0.225
B7 < SN 6.229 0.216 GS1 < PBC5 4.015 0.1
B7 < PBC1 7.033 0.146 GS1 < PBC3 4.627 0.11
B7 < SN2 5.362 0.133 GS1 < PBC1 5.807 0.13
B7 < SN1 10.22 0.188 PBC5 < B 6.779 0.191
B6 < SN1 6.389 0.17 PBC5 < B6 7.48 0.111
B5 < SN1 6.76 0.168 PBC5 < B5 6.533 0.108
B5 < AB1 5.522 0.17 PBC5 < B3 7.203 0.112
B4 < GS1 4.152 0.13 PBC5 < B1 8.449 0.129
B1 < BI2 4.234 0.17 PBC5 < SN5 4.626 0.128
BI4 < PC 7.64 0.17 PBC4 < B 6.537 0.17
BI4 < EV 4.632 0.177 PBC4 < B7 9.34 0.13
BI4 < PC3 5.905 0.13 PBC4 < B4 6.393 0.1
BI4 < PC2 11.1 0.17 PBC4 < B3 4.211 0.08
BI4 < EV3 5.601 0.118 PBC4 < B1 4.638 0.09
BI4 < GS2 4.181 0.104 PBC4 < BI2 6.628 0.15
BI3 < PBC1 4.182 0.09 PBC4 < PC2 5.423 0.11
BI2 < EV 6.07 0.181 PBC4 < PBC3 4.605 0.105
BI2 < EV3 11.55 0.152 PBC4 < PBC2 6.69 0.13
BI2 < PBC1 5.04 0.109 PBC3 < PBC4 7.954 0.125
BI2 < AB4 4.606 0.12 PBC3 < SN5 6.158 0.12
BI1 < PC4 10.92 0.144 PBC3 < SN1 4.104 0.1
BI1 < PC2 4.661 0.082 PBC2 < SN 6.868 0.233
PC4 < AB 4.107 0.227 PBC2 < B 4.515 0.153
PC4 < BI 4.744 0.195 PBC2 < B7 4.278 0.096
PC4 < BI1 8.097 0.195 PBC2 < B4 9.491 0.129
PC4 < PBC1 4.642 0.12 PBC2 < BI2 5.167 0.144
PC4 < AB4 5.678 0.15 PBC2 < PBC4 4.87 0.12
PC3 < B1 4.123 0.07 PBC2 < PBC1 9.415 0.173
PC3 < PBC3 4.507 0.09 PBC2 < SN5 6.589 0.151
PC2 < B6 7.551 0.085 PBC2 < SN2 5.729 0.141
PC2 < BI4 4.504 0.1 PBC2 < SN1 7.788 0.168
PC2 < PBC2 6.733 0.107 PBC1 < PC2 4.594 0.103
PC2 < PBC1 5.667 0.104 PBC1 < PBC2 9.98 0.156
PC1 < GS1 11.42 0.17 SN5 < B1 4.206 0.08
EV3 < BI 8.277 0.274 SN5 < AB3 4.441 0.115
EV3 < BI4 8.733 0.203 SN3 < EV2 4.624 0.1
EV3 < BI2 17.84 0.288 SN3 < AB5 4.375 0.142
EV3 < BI1 4.788 0.16 SN2 < GS1 4.331 0.09
GS4 < GS2 4.343 0.11 SN2 < SN1 4.676 0.104
GS3 < AB 4.336 0.2 SN2 < AB5 5.568 0.13
GS3 < BI3 7.336 0.19 SN1 < B7 5.554 0.094
GS3 < GS1 5.296 0.12 SN1 < B5 7.834 0.1
GS3 < SN1 4.073 0.11 SN1 < BI4 6.614 0.14
GS3 < AB4 6.042 0.13 SN1 < PBC4 4.488 0.1
GS2 < BI 4.89 0.188 SN1 < AB4 5.766 0.13
GS2 < BI4 6.1 0.151 AB5 < SN2 5.872 0.11
GS2 < BI3 12.22 0.27 AB4 < EV3 4.07 0.083
GS2 < GS1 26.49 0.281 AB4 < AB2 4.91 0.11
GS2 < PBC3 4.909 0.11 AB2 < AB1 6.381 0.157
GS2 < SN5 4.393 0.118 AB1 < B5 4.704 0.08
GS2 < SN1 6.587 0.148 AB1 < AB2 6.075 0.122
GS1 < PBC 4.496 0.17

to move C&D waste from the site and dispose of it at appointed
locations. Generally, they would follow the related regulation
requirements. However, as the majority of the produced C&D
waste is soil, they usually sell it to companies operating soil trades.
Because cities are currently experiencing fast urbanization and
there are many active construction sites in any particular city,
there are demands from some sites for soil to level the ground.
In this circumstance, soil is sold to companies in the soil trades
rather than delivering it to governmental appointed discharging
locations. In many cases, contractors may use the soil themselves
at their own sites. Two interviewees mentioned that they rarely
send C&D waste to landfills or public disposal places. They dealt
with C&D waste with little recycling value by burying it at the con-
struction site and building public areas (e.g., community park) at
the burying places. They admitted that such actions may cause
soil pollution and other problems (e.g., ground settlement).
Nevertheless, they said it is a very common phenomenon in
practice because the government does not exercise supervision of
such an activity. It is suggested, therefore, that the government
can promote more detailed specifications for C&D waste
management and impose strict supervision on the C&D waste
management behavior.
Together with governmental supervision, the interviewees
agreed that economic viability is a significant influencing factor
when making C&D waste management decisions. One interviewee
even stressed that if violating regulations is the most profitable
choice to take, there is a large possibility that they will take that
choice, especially when they regard the consequences will not be
severe. The example presented in the last paragraph is also evi-
dence supporting this statement. All five interviewees mentioned
that making profit is their first priority. This is echoed by research
conducted by Wu et al. (2016) which indicated that project
decision-makers often choose economic benefit rather than
environmental protection due to the companys benefit-earning

Please cite this article in press as: Wu, Z., et al. Investigating the determinants of contractors construction and demolition waste management behavior in
Mainland China. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.001
 Z. Wu et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx 9

Fig. 5. Standardized estimation of the final model.

Table 7
Regression weights in the final model.

Estimate S.E. C.R. P

B < GS 0.226 0.099 2.273 0.023
B < EV 0.447 0.109 4.100
GS1 < GS 1.000
GS2 < GS 1.209 0.127 9.493
GS3 < GS 1.436 0.140 10.235
GS4 < GS 1.302 0.137 9.486
EV2 < EV 1.000
EV3 < EV 1.271 0.263 4.840
B1 < B 1.000
B3 < B 1.049 0.135 7.779
B4 < B 1.285 0.139 9.277
B5 < B 1.350 0.141 9.600
B6 < B 1.431 0.147 9.708
B7 < B 1.202 0.126 9.520

Table 8 constraints are not usually a significant factor affecting the adop-
Goodness-of-fit of the final model. tion of C&D waste management measures in Mainland China.
These interviews validated the SEM analysis results. From the
Goodness-of-fit measure Level of acceptance fit Fit statistics
SEM and interview results, it can be concluded that the govern-
Absolute fit v /df
2
<5 acceptable; <3 good 2.160
ment plays a very important role in promoting contractors C&D
GFI >0.8 acceptable; >0.9 good 0.919
AGFI >0.8 acceptable; >0.9 good 0.876 waste management behavior. Strict supervision and proper eco-
RMSEA <0.1 acceptable; <0.08 good 0.075 nomic incentives are the most effective measures encouraging con-
Incremental fit NFI >0.9 0.909 tractors to employ C&D waste management.
RFI >0.9 0.882
IFI >0.9 0.949
5. Conclusions
TLI >0.9 0.933
CFI >0.9 0.948
The contractor plays an important role in C&D waste minimiza-
tion. Effective C&D waste management measures have been
culture. It is suggested, therefore, that the government must either reported in the existing literature. The implementation of these
provide attractive incentives to stimulate the contractor to employ waste minimization measures, however, is inadequate in Mainland
proper C&D waste management or increase the punishment of China. A theoretical model was initially established based on The-
companies which violate regulations. Of course, the prerequisite ory of Planned Behavior in this study. The Structural Equation
of the latter measure is a good supervisory mechanism. Modeling was employed as the analysis method. The results
The insignificance of project constraints in influencing C&D showed that whether a contractor adopts an effective waste mini-
waste management decisions is also confirmed from the inter- mization policy is not related to the possibly good intentions. In
views. The interviewees clarified that C&D waste management is addition, project constraints are not important when the contrac-
only one aspect of concern in a project. Actually, C&D waste man- tor making C&D waste management decisions. Economic viability
agement is not very expensive compared with other expenses, and and governmental supervision, however, are the two significant
the C&D waste management measures regularly employed do not factors influencing the contractor to make C&D waste minimiza-
involve advanced technologies. The main problem encountered tion decisions, sharing weights of 0.40 and 0.19 respectively.
might be the lack of storage area for sorting the C&D waste. Therefore, in order to guide the contractor towards better imple-
However, as the current projects are generally very large, there mentation of C&D waste management measures, increasing con-
are usually several development phases in a real estate project tractors profits and enhancement of governmental supervision
and it is not too difficult to solve the space problem. Thus project are two effective measures.

Please cite this article in press as: Wu, Z., et al. Investigating the determinants of contractors construction and demolition waste management behavior in
Mainland China. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.001
10 Z. Wu et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx
There are some limitations in this study. Firstly, the sample
size of the SEM analysis is not ideally adequate. The sample size
used in this study is 207, just satisfies the minimum requirement
of employing structural equation modeling. Secondly, the region
of the respondents should be narrower. Different cities in
Mainland China may have different C&D waste management
requirements, thus the responses from the respondents may
differ significantly. Therefore, future improvement is recom-
mended to implement such research in a more specific region
with a larger sample size.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to
Prof. Michael Anson for his careful proofreading of this paper.
Appendix A. Measurement scales in the formal questionnaire
Construct Measurement scales
Attitude towards Effective C&D waste management can
behavior improve the environmental quality
Effective C&D waste management can
promote the sustainability development
of the society
Effective C&D waste management can
improve the companys brand benefit
Effective C&D waste management can
improve the social image of the project
Effective C&D waste management is
worthy to be advocated
Subjective norm My project manager expects me to
employ effective C&D waste management
My colleagues expect me to employ
effective C&D waste management
My family and friends expect me to
employ effective C&D waste management
My project owner expects me to employ
effective C&D waste management
The potential customers expect me to
employ effective C&D waste management
The local government expects me to
employ effective C&D waste management
Perceived I have adequate opportunities to employ
behavioral effective C&D waste management
control I have adequate supports to employ
effective C&D waste management
I have adequate time to employ effective
C&D waste management
I have adequate space to employ effective
C&D waste management
I have adequate experiences to employ
effective C&D waste management
Behavioral I intend to take actions to avoid C&D
intention waste generation
I intend to take actions to reuse or recycle
C&D waste
I intend to see the inappropriate dumping of
C&D waste
I intend to attend trainings on C&D waste
minimization
Please cite this article in press as: Wu, Z., et al. Investigating the determinants of contractors construction and demolition waste management behavior in
Mainland China. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.001
Appendix A (continued)
Construct Measurement scales
Governmental The government has complete and clear
supervision regulations on C&D waste management
The government has particular
department(s) for C&D waste
management
The government has a comprehensive
supervision system for C&D waste
management
The government imposes strict
punishment to illegal C&D waste
dumping
Economic On-site C&D waste management can
viability reduce construction cost
Decreasing C&D waste can save
construction cost
Effective C&D waste management can
bring benefits to the company
The current fee for discharging C&D waste
is high
The government has attractive policies to
encourage minimizing C&D waste
Project The project has enough workers for
constraints effective C&D waste management
The project has enough money for
effective C&D waste management
The project has enough time for effective
C&D waste management
The project has enough space for effective
C&D waste management
The project has enough equipment for
effective C&D waste management
The current C&D waste recycling market
is mature
Behavior I used to minimize C&D waste through
appropriate on-site management
I used to minimize C&D waste through
appropriate material procurement
I used to minimize C&D waste through
advanced construction technologies
I used to minimize C&D waste through
on-site sorting
I used to directly reuse C&D waste in my
project
I used to recycle C&D waste in my project
I used to minimize C&D waste through
other measures in my project
References
Ajayi, S.O., Oyedele, L.O., Bilal, M., Akinade, O.O., Alaka, H.A., Owolabi, H.A., Kadiri, K.
O., 2015. Waste effectiveness of the construction industry: understanding the
impediments and requisites for improvements. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 102,
101112.
Ajzen, I., 1985. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl, J.,
Beckmann, J. (Eds.), Action Control. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 1139.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
50 (2), 179211.
Al-Sari, M.I., Al-Khatib, I.A., Avraamides, M., Fatta-Kassinos, D., 2012. A study on the
attitudes and behavioural influence of construction waste management in
occupied Palestinian territory. Waste Manage. Res. 30 (2), 122136.
 Z. Wu et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx
Begum, R.A., Siwar, C., Pereira, J.J., Jaafar, A.H., 2009. Attitude and behavioral factors
in waste management in the construction industry of Malaysia. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 53 (6), 321328.
Calvo, N., Varela-Candamio, L., Novo-Corti, I., 2014. A dynamic model for
construction and demolition (C&D) waste management in Spain: driving
policies based on economic incentives and tax penalties. Sustainability 6 (1),
416.
Carmen Neipp, M., Jose Quiles, M., Leon, E., Tirado, S., Rodriguez-Marin, J., 2015.
Applying the theory of planned behavior: which factors influence on doing
physical exercise? Aten. Primaria 47 (5), 287293.
Chu, P.-Y., Chiu, J.-F., 2003. Factors influencing household waste recycling behavior:
test of an integrated Model1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 33 (3), 604626.
Coelho, A., de Brito, J., 2013. Economic viability analysis of a construction and
demolition waste recycling plant in Portugal - Part I: location, materials,
technology and economic analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 39, 338352.
Dahln, L., Lagerkvist, A., 2010. Pay as you throw: strengths and weaknesses of
weight-based billing in household waste collection systems in Sweden. Waste
Manage. 30 (1), 2331.
Ding, Z., Yi, G., Tam, V.W.Y., Huang, T., 2016. A system dynamics-based
environmental performance simulation of construction waste reduction
management in China. Waste Manage. 51, 130141.
George, J.F., 2004. The theory of planned behavior and Internet purchasing. Internet
Res. 14 (3), 198212.
Guagnano, G.A., Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., 1995. Influences on attitude-behavior
relationships a natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environ. Behav.
27 (5), 699718.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2006. Multivariate
Data Analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Han, H., Hsu, L.-T.J., Sheu, C., 2010. Application of the theory of planned behavior to
green hotel choice: testing the effect of environmental friendly activities. Tour.
Manage. 31 (3), 325334.
Hao, J.L., Hills, M.J., Tam, V.W.Y., 2008. The effectiveness of Hong Kongs
Construction Waste Disposal Charging Scheme. Waste Manage. Res. 26 (6),
553558.
HKEPD, 2013. Construction waste <http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/misc/cdm/
introduction.htm#> (8 December 2013).
Lingard, H., Graham, P., Smithers, G., 2000. Employee perceptions of the solid waste
management system operating in a large Australian contracting organization:
implications for company policy implementation. Constr. Manage. Econo. 18
(4), 383393.
Please cite this article in press as: Wu, Z., et al. Investigating the determinants of contractors construction and demolition waste management behavior in
Mainland China. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.001
11
Lu, W., Chen, X., Peng, Y., Shen, L., 2015. Benchmarking construction waste
management performance using big data. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 105 (Part A),
4958.
Lu, W., Webster, C., Peng, Y., Chen, X., Zhang, X., 2016. Estimating and calibrating
the amount of building-related construction and demolition waste in urban
China. Int. J. Constr. Manage. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.15622016.
11166548.
Lu, W.S., Yuan, H.P., 2010. Exploring critical success factors for waste management
in construction projects of China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (2), 201208.
Lu, W.S., Yuan, H.P., 2011. A framework for understanding waste management
studies in construction. Waste Manage. 31 (6), 12521260.
Pakpour, A.H., Zeidi, I.M., Emamjomeh, M.M., Asefzadeh, S., Pearson, H., 2014.
Household waste behaviours among a community sample in Iran: an
application of the theory of planned behaviour. Waste Manage. 34 (6), 980986.
Quested, T.E., Marsh, E., Stunell, D., Parry, A.D., 2013. Spaghetti soup: the complex
world of food waste behaviours. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 79, 4351.
Sambasivan, M., Soon, Y.W., 2007. Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian
construction industry. Int. J. Project Manage. 25 (5), 517526.
Sito, P., 2014. China to Lead Growth in Construction Spending in Asia <http://www.
scmp.com/property/international/article/1494304/china-lead-growth-
construction-spending-asia> (24 August 2014).
Sun, M., Geelhoed, E., Caleb-Solly, P., Morrell, A., 2015. Knowledge and attitudes
of small builders toward sustainable homes in the UK. J. Green Build. 10 (2),
215233.
USEPA, 2013. Construction & Demolition Materials <http://www.epa.gov/osw/
nonhaz/industrial/cd/index.htm> (19 August 2013).
Wu, Z., Shen, L., Yu, A.T.W., Zhang, X., 2016. A comparative analysis of waste
management requirements between five green building rating systems for new
residential buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 112 (Part 1), 895902.
Wu, Z., Xiang, R., Liu, G., 2011. Minimization management of construction and
demolition waste under systemic view. Constr. Econo. 2, 101104.
Wu, Z., Yu, A.T.W., Wei, Y., 2015. Predicting Contractors Behavior Toward
Construction and Demolition Waste Management. In: Proceedings of the 19th
International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and
Real Estate. Springer, pp. 869875.
Zhao, W., Leeftink, R.B., Rotter, V.S., 2010. Evaluation of the economic feasibility for
the recycling of construction and demolition waste in China-the case of
Chongqing. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (6), 377389.