Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121841

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

A model for investigating construction workers’ waste reduction

behaviors
Binxin Yang a, Xiangnan Song b, Hongping Yuan b, *, Jian Zuo c
a
School of Economics and Management, Southwest Jiaotong University, Sichuan, 610031, PR China
b
School of Management, Guangzhou University, Guangdong, 510006, PR China
c
School of Architecture & Built Environment, The University of Adelaide, Australia

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

Article history: Construction workers’ waste reduction behaviors (CWWRBs) have been critical given that workers
Received 9 September 2019 directly use building materials and carry out on-site construction activities. However, to date, the un-
Received in revised form derlying causations of CWWRBs have not yet been well revealed. This paper thus aims to identify major
1 April 2020
factors affecting CWWRBs based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and develop a simulation
Accepted 19 April 2020
Available online 29 April 2020
model to explore the causation of CWWRBs through a system dynamics (SD) approach. Based on
simulation results of three typical groups of management measures, namely, reactive actions (RAs),
Handling Editor: Prof. Bing-Jie Ni prioritization (P) and preventive actions (PAs), it is found that overall RAs and P are more effective in
improving CWWRBs, while the effect of RAs is the most significant. Besides, RAs would be more effective
Keywords: in the early period of construction processes while PAs more effective in the later period. This study not
Construction waste only, for the first time, presents a deeper explanation of causations of CWWRBs, but also provides a
Theory of planned behavior model through which construction waste management policies and measures can be simulated in
System dynamics advance to effectively improve CWWRBs.
Waste reduction behavior
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
A huge amount of construction waste (CW) has been generated
from ever-increasing construction activities across the world. Sta-
tistics in China show that approximately one billion tons of CW has
been produced annually but the overall recycling rate is just only 5%
(NDRC, 2015). CW has occupied 38% of the landfill, causing
considerable waste and pollution to land resources, groundwater
and air (Ding et al., 2016; Tam and Hao, 2014). As a consequence,
managing and minimizing CW has been a pressing issue and
attracted significant attention (Yuan and Shen, 2011). In line with
the widely recognized “3R” (i.e., waste reduction, reuse, recycling)
principle in circular economy, waste reduction is regarded as a
management measure of the highest priority in minimizing CW
(Yuan et al., 2018). A survey of literature shows that previous
research on promoting CW reduction can be generally divided into
four categories which include technical-based measures,
management-based measures, laws and regulations and human
factors (Li et al., 2015; Yuan et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019a,b).
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hpyuan@gzhu.edu.cn (H. Yuan).
There are a series of studies on human factors since the research
of Yuan and Shen (2011) calling for more research on under-
standing the impact of various participants on CW management
(such as Ann et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2015; Yuan et al., 2018). A
recent review-based study by Jin et al. (2019) reinforced the
statement by claiming that human factors have been more and
more critical when designing and assessing CW reduction policies
and measures, considering that the effectiveness of CW manage-
ment largely depends upon the degree of change in construction
participants’ behaviors and goals in relation to CW reduction
(Lingard et al., 2000). According to the literature, human factors
normally involve perceptions, attitudes, expectations and behav-
iors of stakeholders in CW reduction activities (Yuan and Shen,
2011; Wu et al., 2019). Studying the relationship between human
factors and CW reduction can help identify main barriers and
motivators for better waste reduction, and thus are critical for
promoting participants’ waste reduction behaviors (Lingard et al.,
2000; Mak et al., 2019). The existent studies have covered various
participants, for instance, project designers’ attitudes and behav-
iors (Wang et al., 2015), project managers’ perceptions (Yuan et al.,
2018), and contractors’ willingness to reduce CW (Ann et al., 2013;
Wang et al., 2010). Normally major participants’ perceptions,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121841
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 B. Yang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121841
attitudes and behaviors are explained and investigated by
employing some classical behavioral theories such as the theory of
planned behavior (TPB) (Li et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2017; Yuan et al.,
2018).
Construction worker is the main labor force carrying out activ-
ities on construction sites and occupies key positions in the entire
CW management chain and it is thus important to concern more
about their attitudes and behaviors toward CW reduction (Ahmed
et al., 2018; Jin et al., 2019). Prior literature revealed that con-
struction workers are more concerned about the environmental
problems caused by construction activities and more willing to take
waste reduction actions compared with managers (Lingard et al.,
2000). However, in the absence of management commitment and
adequate CW management infrastructure, construction workers’
waste reduction behaviors (CWWRBs) are not as effective as ex-
pected (Lingard and Rowlinson, 1997). The study by Cameron and
Duff (2007) added that construction workers’ professional skills,
past experience and management status are also important in CW
reduction. Recently, Bakshan et al. (2017) explored major decisive
factors affecting workers’ behaviors of CW reduction, which
revealed that the probability of workers acting effectively in CW
reduction on-site can be as high as 83% when they have positive
attitudes toward waste management.
Despite the important role of construction workers’ attitudes
and behaviors in reducing CW (Jiang et al., 2014; Shin et al., 2014;
Ding et al., 2016; Guo et al., 2018), three research shortcomings are
observed. The first is that the existent research mostly investigates
factors affecting construction workers’ waste reduction attitudes
and behaviors from a static perspective. The second is that prior
empirical survey (i.e. questionnaire, interview) and statistical
analysis based on classic behavioral theory (such as TPB) often fail
to tell the significant relevance and interdependence among iden-
tified factors (Al-Sari et al., 2012; Wang and Yuan, 2011), and
consequently the mechanism uncovering how such factors jointly
affect CWWRBs still remains unclear (Liu et al., 2019a,b). The third
is that the current behavioral theory-based models merely list
some broad factors/parameters that may affect CWWRBs without
thoroughly analyzing the underlying cause-effect relationships
(Bakshan et al., 2017; Mak et al., 2019). Actually, there are complex
internal relationships between major influential factors (e.g.,
regulation, government supervision, attitude and behavior of
relevant stakeholders, internal/external conditions) and CWWRBs.
This implies that CW reduction can be treated as a complex and
dynamic system involving several individual, management, and
environmental conditions as mentioned.
In order to explain how the change of major policies and mea-
sures (either independently or jointly) can influence the system
behavior (i.e., CWWRBs) as a whole, it is crucial to characterize the
paths through which major policies and measures can exert influ-
ence on CWWRBs, so as to facilitate the improvement of policies
and measures for promoting CW reduction (Ding et al., 2018; Yuan
et al., 2012). System dynamics (SD), as one of most commonly used
methods to solve complex system problems, has been widely
appreciated in CW management, such as assessing the impact of
integrated management strategies on waste reduction (Yuan et al.,
2012), simulating the environmental impact caused by CW emis-
sion (Ding et al., 2016), evaluating the social effects of waste
management (Yuan, 2012), and analyzing the cost-benefit of CW
reduction (Yuan et al., 2011). In addition, in recent years, SD has
been widely applied in explaining individual behavior. The de-
signers’ awareness and behavior are considered into the whole
complex system to explore the efficiency of CW reduction (Ding
et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2015). Specifically Ding et al. (2016) tried
to introduce workers’ sorting behaviors into the CW reduction
model and evaluated environmental benefits, which was a great
progress in drawing human factors into the dynamic and compli-
cated CW system. In terms of construction safety behavior, SD is
also widely used to investigate how unsafe behaviors affect
workers, project managers and contractors (Guo et al., 2018; Jiang
et al., 2014; Shin et al., 2014). The studies in existing literature
have already proven the capability and fitness of SD to make up for
the disadvantage of TPB; that is, with SD it is capable of analyzing
interactions among influential factors dynamically and character-
izing the paths through which major policies and measures can
exert influence on CWWRBs, so as to facilitate the improvement of
policies and measures (Yuan et al., 2012; Ding et al., 2018).
Bearing the above in mind, the aim of this study to investigate
factors influencing CWWRBs by developing a SD model, and major
influential factors integrated in the model will be identified and
analyzed based on the TPB. These key influential factors, together
with their correlation, can deepen the existing understanding of
construction workers’ behaviors toward minimization. The core
research question we are going to answer is: What are the effects of
major influential factors on CWWRBs?
The SD model will consider the impact of CWWRBs on the
whole CW reduction system and characterize the path of major
management factors affecting workers’ behaviors, which serves to
come up with more targeted strategies for improving CWWRBs. In
addition, the background parameters used for scenario simulations
can be fine-tuned according to specific policy settings to promote
policy effectiveness.
2. Methodologies
2.1. The theory of planned behavior (TPB)
Ajzen (1991) introduced the TPB for demonstrating that human
behavioral intention can be predicted with great accuracy from
attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control, and
human behavior is directly affected by the behavioral intention and
perceived behavioral control. In the classic TPB model, the attitude
refers to a person’s positive or negative feeling or appraisal about
the behavior. The subjective norm refers to a person’s perceived
pressure from influential individuals or groups to take the action or
not. The perceived behavioral control refers to a person’s resources
and opportunities contributing to the occurrence of behavior
(Ajzen, 1991, 2002). Fig. 1 describes the main relationship between
these components, in which the dotted line indicates the perceived
Fig. 1. The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991).
 B. Yang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121841
behavioral control can be used as an alternative indicator to predict
the possibility of behavior when actual control conditions are
incomplete (Ajzen, 1991).
Construction workers’ perception in particular is reflected in
their behaviors towards waste management with recently reported
evidence ascertaining that attitudes and behaviors play important
roles in CW management, such as improving CW recycling rate and
reducing CW generation (Bakshan et al., 2017; Ding et al., 2018).
Therefore, it is critical to understand how construction workers’
behaviors are formed before they can be dealt with. The TPB il-
lustrates intentions are governed by attitudes, subjective norms
and perceived behavioral control, and how these four factors
determine actual behaviors from perceptual aspects (Ajzen, 1991;
Mak et al., 2019). TPB has been widely applied for investigating and
explaining causations of human behavior including many other
mediating influences upon participants’ behaviors in CW man-
agement. This, in CW management area, mainly covers antecedent
variables hindering construction workers from implementing CW
reduction (Teo and Loosemore, 2001), designers’ attitude and be-
haviors in CW reduction (Li et al., 2015), and project managers’
intention to reduce CW (Yuan et al., 2018). The TPB has serves as a
base for identifying major variables affecting participant attitudes
and behaviors toward CW reduction, particularly various ante-
cedent variables that have important influences on the basis of
attitude, subjective norm, and perceptual behavior control (Teo and
Loosemore, 2001; Wu et al., 2017; Yuan et al., 2018). Thus, it is
adopted in this paper to identify main factors affecting the system
behavior of CWWRBs.
2.2. System dynamics (SD)
Originated by Professor Jay Forrester in 1958, SD is capable of
investigating main causal interactions between various compo-
nents of complex systems. The SD approach, contrasting with other
sequential models, highlights the feedback and complex in-
teractions between variables, where causes and effects are often
indiscernible. It has nowadays been appreciated as a mature
modeling method for interpreting main nature of complex systems
and exploring its dynamic behavior trends (Forrester, 1958). The
purpose of applying SD is to help understand the relationship be-
tween the behavior of a system over time and its underlying
infrastructure and decision rules (Sterman, 1989; Wolstenholme,
1990). In SD models, three basic processes are critical, i.e., rein-
forcing feedbacks, balancing feedbacks, and delays, which are
detailed in many SD modeling studies (see Sterman (1989); Senge
and Forrester (1980)).
Over the years, SD has been widely used in various fields
including economics, business, agriculture, and ecology.
Kollikkathara et al. (2010) built some subsystems based on SD for
exploring the dynamic interrelationship between landfill capacity,
environmental impact, fiscal expenditure and CW, which is claimed
to be able to interpret the complexity of processes of waste gen-
eration and management. By employing the SD approach, Yuan
et al. (2012) built the dynamic effects of implementing different
management strategies and measures on the economic, social, and
environmental performance of CW management. Recently, Wang
et al. (2015) regarded designers’ attitude and behavior as one of
the key factors and established the SD model to evaluate the effect
of waste management strategies in the whole design stage. These
studies in the literature have already shown the capability and
fitness of using SD to understand the complex system of CWWRBs,
and consequently to enhance CW reduction. Based on the motiva-
tional variables and their antecedent variables identified by TPB,
this paper establishes the SD model, which can not only explore the
endogenous relationship between multiple variables, but also
3
dynamically study how workers’ reduction behaviors change with
time.
3. Model development
To better investigate and analyze the factors influencing
CWWRBs, this paper follows a four-stage principle of establishing
SD model as suggested by Forrester (1997) and Sterman (2000),
which include model description, causal feedback diagram estab-
lishment, model development and model validation.
3.1. Model description
The TPB has become one of the most influential models for
explanation and prediction of human behavior (Ajzen, 2002). How-
ever, as Ajzen (2011) reflected on the classic TPB model, human be-
haviors may be determined not only by attitudes, subjective norms,
perceived behavioral control and intentions but also by other addi-
tional variables (i.e., management support, education and skills, per-
sonality traits and depression). Literature has determined that CW
reduction is a complex dynamic system involving multiple processes
such as waste generation, sorting, recycling, and disposal (including
landfilling and illegal dumping). Similarly, in this study, CWWRBs
mainly involves in the waste generation and sorting process, and also
should be affected by more comprehensive variables. According to
Ajzen (1991) and Jia et al. (2015), attitude, subjective norm and
perceived behavioral control are perceptual factors identified based
on the TPB, while construction workers’ perceptual factors are jointly
influenced by “motivational factors” (Teo and Loosemore, 2001; Yuan
et al., 2018). Then these “motivational factors” influence CWWRBs
indirectly by perceptual factors. The so-called “motivational factors”
are usually divided into internal (e.g., knowledge and skill training)
and external (e.g., incentive measures, workers’ overload work) (Jiang
et al., 2014; Ramayah et al., 2012; Udawatta et al., 2015). Besides,
construction workers’ attitude and perceived behavioral control will
be positively influenced by improved construction conditions; for
example, facilitating advanced equipment and technical measures on
construction sites will improve workers’ perceptions and attitudes
toward waste reduction (Jiang et al., 2014; Wang and Yuan, 2011). In
addition, work overload or not is a vital consideration for workers to
raise CW reduction perceptual factors (Ng et al., 2005). Finally,
incentive mechanisms (i.e., awards or penalties for reduction per-
formance and increase of rest time) rooted in workers’ own interests
could improve their CW reduction perceptual factors and encourage
them to implement waste reduction (Lingard et al., 2000; Udawatta
et al., 2015).
Some researches pointed out there are a number of factors have
a significant and direct influence on workers’ reduction behaviors,
such as on-site supervision and management, self-interest and site
space (Bakshan et al., 2017; Ramayah et al., 2012). Among them, on-
site supervision and management and self-interest also affect
behavioral intention (Liu et al., 2019a,b). According to Poon et al.
(2001) and Yuan (2013), site space is the most influential envi-
ronmental factor on workers’ reduction behaviors in the con-
struction process. Their study also stated that without pre-planned
site space, the original construction activities will be disrupted by
temporary stacking of facilities. In line with Udawatta et al. (2015),
on-site supervision and management and self-interest are crucial to
directly improve CWWRBs throughout the whole process of
construction.
Based on the above interpretation, identified factors that could
directly or indirectly affect workers’ reduction behaviors also
depend on other antecedent variables. In this way, it is useful to
enrich the connotation of these identified variables and deepen
understanding of workers’ reduction behaviors. In specific, taking
4 B. Yang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121841
waste reduction as a target of priority among others is very critical
for enhancing waste reduction. That is to say, if managers did not
even care the issue of waste reduction, it would be more difficult for
workers to take it seriously (Mak et al., 2019). Once the priority of
waste reduction increases, the reduction training, incentives, in-
vestment, and on-site supervision and management will be natu-
rally enhanced with supports. Meanwhile, regulations and
government supervision are of great importance for encouraging
construction enterprises to devoted to more waste reduction efforts
(Maani and Cavana, 2000). Studies also revealed that production
pressure not only leads to overload work for workers, but also
reduce managers’ awareness towards waste management (Tam and
Tam, 2008; Teo and Loosemore, 2001). All the identified factors
potentially affecting CWWRBs are summarized through Fig. 2.
3.2. Causal-loop diagram
Normally causal-loop diagrams are used to depict the structure
of SD models. It is a conceptual tool that qualitatively reflects the
main feedback mechanism in models through revealing a series of
chain reactions so that original causes in a dynamic process can be
traced (Maani and Cavana, 2000). The causal loop diagram, which
reflects the feedback relationships of factors affecting CWWRBs, is
shown in Fig. 3. It should be noted that the diagram is based on the
factors identified in Fig. 2. It is observed that there are 15 loops
including two positive feedbacks (i.e., R1 and R2) and 13 negative
feedbacks (i.e., B1~B13). In a positive feedback loop, an increase (or
decrease) of any variable will enhance the effect of this increase (or
decrease) through a series of interactions in the loop; on the con-
trary, in a negative feedback loop, an increase (or decrease) of any
variable will cause the decrease (or increase) of this variable
through variable interactions.
In the positive feedback loop R1 (i.e., the impact of on-site waste
collection: on-site waste collection / illegal disposal / on-site
Fig. 2. Potential factors affecting CWWRBs.
waste collection), part of CW was collected and the other part
was illegally dumped. If the total amount of CW generation remains
the same, increased on-site waste collection will naturally lead to
decreased amount of illegal waste disposal, which in turn results in
increased on-site waste collection (Yuan et al., 2011). That is to say,
the on-site waste collection in this loop realizes positive influence
on itself.
In the positive loop R2 (i.e., the impact of site space on workers’
reduction behaviors: on-site waste generation / constraint of site
space / workers’ CW reduction behaviors / CW generation), a
change of any variable will affect itself in a positive way through the
R2 loop. In specific, the reduction of CW will accelerate under the
influence of workers’ CW reduction behaviors and adoption of low-
waste technology (Ding et al., 2016), thus the amount of CW
generated will also decrease. As a consequence, the dilemma of
constraint in site space can be alleviated (Yuan et al., 2012). Then, the
less CW is generated, the fewer sites are needed to handle the waste.
According to Wang et al. (2010), the less space for waste sorting on
site, the lower the willingness of contractor to carry out on-site
sorting, thereby reducing CWWRBs and ultimately reducing the
effectiveness of overall waste management (Lingard et al., 2000). As
a result, the availability of site space will greatly affect CWWRBs.
In the negative feedback loop B1 (i.e., the direct impact of on-
site supervision and management on workers’ reduction behav-
iors: waste management priority / on-site supervision and
management / worker’s CW reduction behaviors / on-site waste
generation / on-site waste collection / on-site waste sorting /
waste management priority), assuming that the increase of waste
management priority enhances on-site supervision and manage-
ment related to waste reduction (Teo and Loosemore, 2001),
CWWRBs will be strengthened (Udawatta et al., 2015). Under other
conditions unchanged, the amount of CW generation will be
reduced, which leads to reduction of on-site waste collection and
sorting. Ultimately, reduced amount of sorting waste will lower the
 B. Yang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121841
Fig. 3. The causal-loop diagram of CWWRBs.
priority requirements for waste management (Wilson et al., 2012;
Yuan et al., 2011). As a result, waste management priority will
become stable and balanced in this loop.
In view of the B2 loop (i.e., direct impact of on-site supervision
and management on workers’ reduction behaviors: waste man-
agement priority / on-site supervision and management /
workers’ CW reduction behavioral intention / worker’s CW
reduction behaviors / on-site waste generation / on-site waste
collection / on-site waste sorting / waste management priority)
is similar to the B1 loop, the B2 loop can be analyzed similarly. The
difference between them is that the enhancement of on-site su-
pervision and management leads to an increase in workers’
reduction behavioral intention and further enhances CWWRBs
(Udawatta et al., 2015). Both B1 and B2 loops describe how on-site
supervision and management directly affect CWWRBs.
In the loop B3 (i.e., the impact of training on workers’ reduction
behaviors: waste management priority / CW reduction invest-
ment / CW reduction training / workers’ CW reduction attitude/
subjective norm/perceived behavioral control / workers’ CW
reduction behavioral intention / workers’ CW reduction behaviors
/ on-site waste generation / on-site waste collection / on-site
waste sorting / waste management priority), the change of
management priority and CW reduction training are introduced to
analyze the final change of behaviors, which is the difference
compared with the loop of B2. The increasing priority of waste
management makes managers invest more in waste reduction
(Yuan et al., 2012), and large part of the increased investment is
reflected in the training for construction workers. Bakshan et al.
(2017) pointed out that strengthening training can enhance
workers’ attitude and perceived behavioral control. Besides,
Udawatta et al. (2015) demonstrated that training can promote
subjective norm. And both the intention and action will strengthen
with the enhancement of attitude, subjective norm and perceived
behavioral control, resulting in reduction of waste generation and
growth of on-site waste sorting, which, however, reduces the
requirement for waste management priorities.
5
The B4 loop (i.e., the impact of facilities and low-waste tech-
nology on workers’ reduction behaviors: waste management pri-
ority / CW reduction investment / facilities and low-waste
technology supporting / construction conditions of CW reduction
/ workers’ CW reduction attitude/perceived behavioral control /
workers’ CW reduction behavioral intention /workers’ CW
reduction behaviors / on-site waste generation / on-site waste
collection / on-site waste sorting / waste management priority)
is similar to the B3 loop. The difference between them is that
another part of the increased investment is mainly reflected in
improving facilities and applying low-waste technology (Ding et al.,
2016; Wang et al., 2010). The better facilities, the more advanced
low-waste technology, the more positive effect on construction
conditions, which makes workers’ attitudes and perceived behav-
ioral control enhanced (Teo and Loosemore, 2001).
Similarly, the B5 loop (i.e., the impact of incentive measures on
workers’ reduction behaviors: waste management priority / CW
reduction incentive measures / workers’ CW reduction attitudes/
subjective norm/perceived behavioral control / workers’ CW
reduction behavioral intention / workers’ CW reduction behaviors
/ on-site waste generation / on-site waste collection / On-site
waste sorting / waste management priority) resembles the B3
loop too. The difference between them is waste management pri-
ority makes managers pay more attention to CW reduction incen-
tive measures (Tam and Tam, 2008), which can enhance workers’
attitudes (Begum et al., 2009), subjective norms (Bakshan et al.,
2017) and perceived behavioral control (Kulatunga et al., 2006).
In fact, incentive measures also encourage workers to improve their
performance at work by prompting and reinforcing specific be-
haviors (Lingard et al., 2001).
The B6 loop (i.e., the impact of workers’ managers’ awareness on
workers’ reduction behaviors: workers’ CW reduction behaviors /
workers’ production pressure / project managers’ awareness to-
wards CW management / waste management priority / on-site
supervision and management / workers’ CW reduction behav-
iors) reflects the impact of production pressure on the overall waste
6 B. Yang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121841
reduction management. Without adding extra working hours, the
increase of workers’ CW reduction behaviors will result in a
decrease in their construction production behaviors, which means
that their production pressure will increase when they complete
assigned production schedule (Jiang et al., 2014; Tam and Tam,
2008). Once the production schedule delayed, managers will tend
to be reluctant to devote efforts in reducing waste (Teo and
Loosemore, 2001). As a result, waste management has become a
low priority in construction projects and the requirements of on-
site supervision and worker’s CW reduction behaviors will be
reduced.
Based on the B6 loop, the variable of workers’ CW reduction
behavioral intention is added to form the B7 loop (i.e., the impact of
managers’ awareness on workers’ reduction behaviors: workers’
CW reduction behaviors / workers’ production pressure /
project managers’ awareness towards CW management / waste
management priority / on-site supervision and management /
workers’ CW reduction behavioral intention / workers’ CW
reduction behaviors). Similarly, after a series of changes caused by
the increase of CWWRBs, the requirements of on-site supervision
and management are lowered, thus workers’ CW reduction
behavioral intention will be reduced too (Udawatta et al., 2015),
which finally leads to the decrease of waste reduction behavior.
The negative feedback loop B8 (i.e., the impact of self-interest on
workers’ reduction behaviors: workers’ CW reduction behaviors /
workers production pressure / work overload / self-interest of
workers / workers CW reduction behaviors) reflects the impact of
construction production pressure on self-interest of workers and its
further impact on CWWRBs. As mentioned in the loop B6, CWWRBs
will lead to increase of production pressure. If workers want to
complete project tasks on time, they can only work overload (Ng
et al., 2005), which will inevitably damage their own benefits
(Wang and Yuan, 2011). Consequently, workers’ CW reduction be-
haviors will decrease.
The feedback loop B9 indicates a similar influence loop as B8.
The only difference is that work overload will decrease workers’
CW reduction attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral
control (Ng et al., 2005), making workers’ intention of reducing CW
become low and ultimately leading to the actual CW reduction
behaviors decrease.
The negative feedback loop B10 resembles loop B9 but charac-
terizes the effect of perceived behavioral control on behavior
(Ajzen, 1991). When workers only have tight time to complete
construction activities, they experience tremendous pressure and
work overload which will decrease their CW reduction perceived
behavioral control and further lower their reduction behaviors (Ng
et al., 2005).
In the negative feedback loop B11 (i.e., the impact of workers’
CW reduction skills on behaviors: waste management priority /
CW reduction investment / CW reduction training / workers’
CW reduction skills / on-site waste generation / on-site waste
collection / on-site waste sorting / waste management priority),
as described in the loop B3, the enhancement of waste manage-
ment priority will lead to increase in waste management invest-
ment and training, and the level of workers’ technical skills for
waste reduction will be enhanced subsequently, which will directly
reduce CW generation (Ding et al., 2016; Tam and Hao, 2014). And
then the collection and sorting of waste will be also reduced, thus
the requirement of waste management priority will be decreased.
In the negative feedback loop B12 (i.e., the impact of regulation
on illegal disposal: regulation / illegal disposal / regulation),
regulation plays a core role in waste management. For example,
strict regulations may contribute low illegal dumping, while loose
regulations certainly lead to high illegal waste dumping. When
illegal disposal reaches to a certain level, the government
supervision and regulation are activated (Yuan, 2012; Yuan et al.,
2011).
In the negative feedback loop B13 (i.e., the impact of on-site
supervision and management on illegal disposal: regulation /
waste management priority / on-site supervision and manage-
ment / workers’ CW reduction behaviors / on-site waste gen-
eration / on-site waste collection / illegal disposal /
regulation), government regulation will stimulate managers to
strengthen their requirement for waste management (Yuan et al.,
2011), and thus make waste management priority increase. As
stated in B1, the increase in management priority will eventually
lead to an increase in the amount of on-site waste collection. As
described in loops of R1 and B12, the increase of on-site waste
collection reduces the amount of illegal disposal, as well as reduces
the regulatory enforcement.
3.3. Stock-flow diagram
Next, qualitative relationships among the factors involved in the
above causal-loop diagrams are detailed with the help of Vensim®,
which is a commonly used software package for SD modeling and
simulations. Causal-loop diagrams and stock-flow diagrams are
different means of expressing factor interactions in the same
model. The fundamental difference is that the former is repre-
sented by arrows and descriptive words so that the model can be
understood in a qualitative manner, while the latter is presented
using variables and equations so that quantitative simulations and
analysis can be facilitated (Coyle, 1996). As a rule, flow, stock,
auxiliary variables and constants are commonly used forms in
stock-flow diagrams to express variables and their interactions in
causal-loop diagrams. Fig. 4 is a stock-flow diagram established
based on the SD approach to explore the effects of identified factors
on CWWRBs. To facilitate better understanding, detailed de-
scriptions of the main variables are listed in Appendix A.
4. Model simulation and results analysis
4.1. Methods for variable quantification
In order to simulate with the model, variables in the stock-flow
diagrams should be quantified. Generally, the variables involved in
SD models are often divided into three categories: quantitative
variables, dependent variables and qualitative variables, and each
variable has its corresponding data source. Quantitative variables
often remain constant with the attribute of affecting but being not
affected by other variables. The values of this kind of variables can be
obtained by references and records of research projects, as well as
existing literature and government reports (Method for quantifica-
tion: M1). For example, considering that different building materials
have diverse weighing methods, as well as different recycling rates
and market prices, this study mainly selects the data of concrete and
aggregate which rank the top two among CW generation (Wu et al.,
2016). According to the existing literature and reports, the waste
production per unit area is 0.037 ton/m2 (Ding et al., 2016).
Another type is dependent variables whose values are deter-
mined by one or more other variables in the function (Quantifica-
tion method: M2). The uncertain relationship between variables
can be represented by the Table functions in Vensim® software. For
instance, the space limitation of on-site waste management will
increase with the increase of generated waste (Poon et al., 2001);
reversely, it will be alleviated if waste generation reduces with the
enforcement of management strategies and government regula-
tions (Yuan et al., 2012), which has been shown in Fig. 5.
The last type is qualitative variables. The value of this kind of
variables can be only obtained through surveys, interviews, and on-
 B. Yang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121841 7

Fig. 4. A stock-flow diagram of CWWRBs.

Fig. 5. The relationship between Time and Limit of site space.

site visits based on specific actual projects (Quantification method: obtained by field investigations. The values, units, and sources of
M3). For instance, the unit landfill charge for waste, which has a quantitative and qualitative variables of the SD model are sum-
direct impact on the increasing rate of illegal dumping percentage marized in Table 1.
(Poon et al., 2013), varies by regions, and it thus needs to be
8 B. Yang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121841

Table 1
The information of quantitative and qualitative variables.

Variables Unit Variable types Quantification methods Values Sources

Unit landfill charge yuan/ton Constant M3 60 Interviews

Funds for environmental protection yuan Constant M3 3200000 Interviews
Facility and training rate dmnl Constant M3 0.3 Interviews
training scheme yuan Constant M3 300000 Interviews
Maintenance costs yuan Constant M3 200000 Interviews
Technology rate dmnl Constant M3 0.4 Interviews
Corporate waste management culture dmnl Constant M1/M3 0.32 Yuan et al. (2012) and interviews
Low-waste technology expectation dmnl Constant M1 0.4 Yuan et al. (2012)
Constructed floor area monthly m2/month Constant M3 10100.4 Interviews
Waste generation per floor area ton/m2 Constant M1 0.037 Ding et al. (2016)
Regulation (INIT) dmnl Stock e 0.1 Yuan et al. (2011)
Illegal dumping percentage (INIT) dmnl Stock e 0.2 Yuan et al. (2011)
Waste management priority (INIT) dmnl Stock e 0.089 Li et al. (2015)
Workers’ CW reduction attitudes (INIT) dmnl Stock d 0.7 Ding et al. (2016)
Workers’ CW reduction subjective norms (INIT) dmnl Stock d 0.3 Ding et al. (2016)
Workers’ CW reduction perceived behavioral control (INIT) dmnl Stock d 0.5 Ding et al. (2016)

4.2. Model validation 4.2.4. Extreme condition test

Combined with the test methods proposed in existing literature
(Senge and Forrester, 1980; Sterman, 2000), the rules for model
validation in this paper include boundary-adequacy test, structure
verification, dimension consistency check, extreme condition test,
and sensitivity analysis. To facilitate variable quantification in these
tests, a high-rise residential project in Chengdu of western China
was taken as a case study. The project occupies a floor area of
303,012 square meters with covering an area of 71,788 square
meters, and each building has 35 floors. Its total investment is
about 800 million yuan, of which the environmental protection
investment is 3.2 million yuan. The expected construction period is
30 months, which also functions as the realistic basis for the
simulation period (i.e., 30), and each interval for simulation is set at
1 month in the model.
4.2.1. Boundary-adequacy test
The variables within the model boundary should be well used to
solve endogenous problems. If the boundary is too large, too many
variables with no significant influence on the system behavior have
been included; otherwise, the research problem cannot be suffi-
ciently reflected and analyzed. So it is important to check the sys-
tem to ensure that the variables involved in the model can
accurately reflect influential factors in CWWRBs in a concise and
comprehensive manner. This task is conducted through manual
scan and check by one author.
4.2.2. Structure verification
Structure verification is to ensure that the established model is
logical and thus can reflect the real system and practice. The veri-
fications are mainly based on a check of the causal-loop diagram as
shown in Fig. 3. The outcomes tell that all qualitative relationships
as depicted in the diagrams are all based on comprehensive liter-
ature and actual project practice, and therefore meet the re-
quirements of structural verification.
The SD model is examined for investigating CWWRBs by
assigning extreme values to verify that: (1) whether each equation
is reasonable after plugging extreme values into it; and (2) whether
it is consistent with the reality. Only when the model meets the
above two points can the structure and parameter settings of the
model be reasonable. This paper chooses the change between the
constructed floor area monthly and the waste generated after
reduction behaviors monthly under extreme circumstances as test
scenarios. As shown in Fig. 6, there is no CW generation when the
completed floor area monthly is 0. And as the completed floor area
monthly increases, the amount of CW generation also increases.
Meanwhile, it can also be seen that the amount of waste generation
monthly decreases more with the increase of the completed floor
area, which indicates that the effects of the workers’ reduction
behaviors are more effective. The results show that the responses of
variables and models are reasonable, and other variables in the
model have passed the extreme condition test too.
4.2.5. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis is an important step to verify the robust-
ness of the model developed. On the one hand, it detects how the
model reacts when variable values change within a reasonable
range, and on the other hand, it tests whether the change of the
variables will change the model’s behavioral pattern (Maani and
Cavana, 2000; Senge and Forrester, 1980). Fig. 7 demonstrates
the impact of changes in unit landfill charge on illegal dumping
percentage, which indicates that the increase of unit landfill
charge will increase illegal dumping percentage. What’s more,
combined Figs. 4 and 7, the growth rate of illegal dumping per-
centage becomes slow in the later construction process because
regulation and government supervision efforts increase the
improvement of illegal dumping decreasing rate. The results are in
accordance with the actual construction situation, as mentioned
by Tam et al. (2014). The sensitivity analysis results state that this
model is valid.

4.2.3. Dimension consistency check 4.3. Simulation results and discussions

Dimension consistency check is to ensure the consistency of
units at both sides of each equation. In addition, although each
parameter in the model should be reasonable and realistic, it
should not be pieced together for dimension consistency. The
Vensim® software has the function to check dimensional consis-
tency, and the model of this study has passed the test.
As mentioned above, CW reduction management is a complex
system involving multiple processes such as waste generation,
sorting, recycling, and disposal. This study identifies different key
antecedent variables that influence CWWRBs based on TPB about
perceptual factors, and develops the SD model to quantitatively
explore the effects of interaction among these variables in CW
 B. Yang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121841 9

Fig. 6. Results of extreme condition tests.

Fig. 7. Results of sensitivity analysis.

reduction management. It helps to optimize managers’ decision-
making and CWWRBs, leading to effective waste reduction man-
agement. Besides, the effect of CWWRBs can be observed by the
amount of waste generated and sorted. Fig. 8 shows the amount of
waste generated and sorted per month after implementation of
CWWRBs. It can be seen that waste generation decreases and waste
sorting increases during the simulation period. Table 2 describes
the specific changes of waste generated and sorted per month
before and after implementing waste reduction behaviors. Waste
generated per month decreases by 36.53% and waste sorted
10 B. Yang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121841
Fig. 8. The amount of waste generated and sorted per month.
Table 2
Comparison of waste before and after implementing workers’ reduction behaviors.
Variable
Waste generated under reduction behaviors per month
Waste sorted per month
increases by 144.22%, which means CWWRBs are effective and the
SD model is reasonable.
Project managers have the most frequent contacts with workers
and are directly responsible for individuals to ensure onsite CW
reduction performance (Fang et al., 2015). One limitation of the
previous studies is that the explanation of the endogenous inter-
relationship among project manager’s management measures on
workers’ reduction behavior tends to be simple (Bakshan et al.,
2017; Wu et al., 2017). Therefore, it is essential to further explore
how management measures affect workers’ waste reduction
behavior, including revealing the specific impact path. According to
principal component analysis, Zohar (2002) divided management
measures into preventive actions (PAs), reactive actions (RAs) and
prioritization (P), which almost cover all dimensions of leaders’
behaviors and depict these behaviors on the group level from
workers’ perspectives. This method of classification helps project
managers quickly agree on relative priorities of various aspects of
tasks and behave accordingly (Zohar, 2000). These categories are
used in this study to distinguish different behaviors that con-
struction workers take to respond to different policies and man-
agement measures (such as attitudes of managers). PAs such as CW
reduction training and low-waste equipment and technologies aim
to make workers have motivation and competence in waste
reduction. RAs refer to monitoring and rectifying behaviors of
workers as well as providing assistance and support when neces-
sary (i.e., on-site inspection, penalties or rewarding measures and
site space limitation). P is assigned by higher managers to accord
with corporate production objectives such as waste reduction pri-
ority and investment (Fang et al., 2015; Zohar, 2002). In this paper,
CW reduction construction conditions, incentive measures, and
Initial value(t) Final value(t) Variation ratio(%)
357.18 226.72
36.53
59.2 144.58 144.22
investment are respective key variables from PAs, RAs and P, which
are used to observe the impacts on behaviors.
Two main conclusions can be drawn from Figs. 9e11. One is that
although CW reduction incentive measures, construction condi-
tions, and investment all have different effects on CWWRBs, in-
centives have the greatest impact on behaviors. The other is that
changing incentive measures have already played a significant role
in CWWRBs in the early period (almost in 12th month); investment
and construction conditions have an impact on CWWRBs in the
later period of the construction process (almost in 26th month).
Reasonable reason is that workers are more restricted by reduction
investment and construction conditions in the later period given
that more and more waste will be accumulated on site (Tam and
Hao, 2014). This is to say, managers should pay more attention to
improving reduction incentive measures in the early period
meanwhile strengthening low-waste technologies and equipment
in the later period.
Previous literature related to construction management mea-
sures has widely applied the classification method that Zohar
(2002) mentioned. Chen et al. (2016) constructed a schema to de-
pict reactive, preventive, and proactive postures in strategic envi-
ronmental management. Fang et al. (2015) discovered certain
management measures that can significantly impact worker safety
behaviors in construction projects and depict the exact impacting
paths. In order to further understand the PAs, RAs and P, Table 3
lists some managers’ specific management measures through
summarizing the previous studies.
Combined with Table 3, in the SD model, PAs include CW
reduction training and construction conditions, RAs include on-site
supervision and management, CW reduction incentive measures
 B. Yang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121841 11

Fig. 9. Results of various CW reduction construction conditions on behaviors.

Fig. 10. Results of various CW reduction incentive measures on behaviors.

and site space limitation, and P includes waste management pri-
ority and CW reduction investment. The variable of the three types
of management measures involved are listed in Table 4. Scenario 1
is to maintain the balance among these three types of management
measures, Scenario 2 is to enhance the PAs, Scenario 3 is to enhance
the RAs, Scenario 4 is to prioritize reduction management priority
and investment over other construction target while maintaining a
balance between PAs and RAs, and Scenario 5 is to enhance overall
management measures. In specific, the initial weight of each vari-
able in the model is 1, to simplify the scenario analysis, the weight
of enhancement management measures increases to 3 (Jiang et al.,
2014). Table 4 describes the management measures under five
different weighting combinations to explore which management
measures have greater impact on CWWRBs.
12 B. Yang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121841

Fig. 11. Results of various CW reduction investment on behaviors.

Table 3
Three types of management measures in prior literature.

Dimensions Variable Source(s)

Preventive actions (PAs)
Reactive actions(RAs)
Prioritization (P)
CW reduction training Fang et al. (2015); Cambraia et al. (2010)
CW reduction requirements Fang et al. (2015)
CW reduction communication Fang et al. (2015); Zohar (2000)
CW reduction management commitment Tam and Tam (2008)
CW reduction equipment Fang et al. (2015)
CW reduction emerging technologies lvez-Martos et al. (2018)
Jin et al. (2019); Ga
CW reduction on-site inspection Liu et al. (2019); Fang et al. (2015)
CW reduction awards and incentives Liu et al. (2019); Fang et al. (2015)
CW reduction penalties for poor performance Dainty and Brooke (2004)
CW reduction site space layout Galvez-Martos et al. (2018); Tam and Tam (2008)
Feedback on workers’ performance (controlling and rectifying) Fang et al. (2015); Cambraia et al. (2010)
Regulating the management of construction materials Galvez-Martos et al. (2018)
CW reduction dedicated specialist sub-contract package Dainty and Brooke (2004)
CW reduction management priority Zohar (2000)
CW reduction investment Hart and Dowell (2011); Zohar (2000)
Cost pressure Hart and Dowell (2011)

Table 4
Five scenarios of management measures.

Management conditions Scenario1 (Base) Scenario2 (PA) Scenario3 (RA) Scenario4 (P) Scenario5 (Overall)

CW reduction training weight 1 3 1 1 3

Construction conditions of CW reduction weight 1 3 1 1 3
CW reduction incentive measures weight 1 1 3 1 3
On-site supervision and management weight 1 1 3 1 3
Limit of site space weight 1 1 3 1 3
Waste management priority weight 1 1 1 3 3
CW reduction investment weight 1 1 1 3 3

Fig. 12 shows CWWRBs are promoted in other scenarios based contribute to CWWRBs, though to varying variable weightings. It is
on scenario 1, which indicates that under current regulations and worth mentioning that CWWRBs under scenario 3 are promoted
construction environment, all management measures can faster than that under scenario 2, which indicates that RAs (e.g.,
 B. Yang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121841
Fig. 12. Results of scenario analysis.
supervision, site space, incentives) are more effective in driving
CWWRBs than PAs (e.g., lectures, knowledge and skills training,
application of advanced technology and equipment). Besides, a
comparison of simulation results under scenario 2 and 4 implies
that CWWRBs will be improved correspondingly when waste
management P is raised, and its degree will even be better than
situation of PAs. In accordance with Figs. 10e12, scenario 3 states
that RAs play a significant role in enhancing CWWRBs in the early
period of construction processes, while scenario 2 states that PAs
work effectively since the later period. And also, based on scenarios
2, 3, and 4, scenario 5 indicates CWWRBs are greatly promoted after
improving the three types of management measures at the same
time. This is, managers are able to achieve better reduction results
by improving the strength of three kinds of management measures
at the same time.
5. Discussions
From the above results, it can be seen that waste generation is
effectively controlled and waste sorting is promoted significantly.
The results tell that under the current regulation and construction
environment, RAs (such as supervision, inspection, and incentives)
are more effective than preventive actions (such as lectures,
knowledge and skills training, application of advanced technology
and equipment) in improving the performance of workers’ waste
reduction behaviors. At the present stage, due to the deficiency of
laws and corresponding regulatory system, management commit-
ment to waste reduction appears more necessary. For instance,
workers’ waste reduction behaviors will increase significantly
when they were supervised and inspected by managers. And if they
are encouraged or rewarded when the amount of waste generation
and illegal dumping are reduced to a certain level, they will further
improve their waste reduction behaviors. Therefore, government
and managers are suggested to pay more attention to drawing up
integrated countermeasures, implementing on-site supervision
13
and inspection, fulfilling their incentive promises, and combining
supervision and incentive management mechanisms in order to
promote workers’ waste reduction behaviors. On the basis of RAs,
managers should begin to lay stress on preventive actions. In view
of lectures, training and other measures being essential to improve
workers’ CW reduction of knowledge and awareness, managers
should make attempts to create a corporate climate of low-carbon
emissions for encouraging workers to actively report reduction
incidents onsite and enhance workers’ skills and abilities. More-
over, managers should also launch a series of initiatives to raise the
low-carbon competency of the organization given that the ade-
quacy of resources is critical for providing advanced and adequate
facilities and technologies. From the perspective of government,
the laws and regulations on municipal solid waste, as well as cor-
responding supervision and punishment measures, should be
vigorously developed to better supervise and promote contractors’
waste management.
Results of scenario analysis indicate different effectiveness of
management measures with different compositions. Overall the
effect of measures compounded of the PAs, P and RAs would be
more significant than that of any one single stream of measures.
This indicates that the effects of CW reduction management mea-
sures can be limited when managers only focus on any single
stream of management measures. For example, when on-site su-
pervision and management (RA) has achieved remarkable results,
managers can focus on the knowledge and skill training (PA) and
increase investment in waste reduction (P). However, when con-
ditions are restricted and three kinds of management measures
cannot be improved at the same time, managers can improve RAs in
the early period while improving PAs and P in the later period to
achieve maximum effects of waste reduction. In addition, the
model considers the effects of different participants (including
workers, managers and government) on workers’ waste reduction
behaviors.
14 B. Yang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121841

6. Conclusions CWWRBs. Secondly, the established model in the stock-flow dia-

gram serves as an experimental platform for dynamically simu-
This study offers an insight into the dynamics and in- lating the effects of different management measures on CWWRBs
terrelationships of major factors affecting CWWRBs. A model over time. Finally, this study for the first time applies Zohar’s
comprising several closed feedback loops is developed based on the classification method of management measures to analyze the
TPB and principles of SD approach, and tests were conducted to impact of management measures on CWWRBs. This can enhance
ensure that the model is structurally and behaviorally valid and the effectiveness of policy analysis because it helps managers
reliable. Through the model CW reduction measures and individual quickly reach an agreement on relative priorities of various man-
perceptual factors can be simulated in advance to effectively pro- agement measures and behave accordingly.
mote CWWRBs.
The simulation results of the case study indicate that CW in the Declaration of competing interest
studied project generated per month decreases by 36.53% and
waste sorted increases by 144.22%, demonstrating that CWWRBs The authors declare that they have no known competing
are effective in minimizing CW. The findings also show that among financial interests or personal relationships that could have
CW reduction incentive measures, construction conditions, and appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
investment, incentives have the greatest impact on CWWRBs.
Changing incentive measures have already played a significant role
in CWWRBs in the early period (almost in 12th month); investment CRediT authorship contribution statement
and construction conditions have an impact on CWWRBs in the
later period of the construction process (almost in 26th month). Binxin Yang: Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original
The simulation results of scenarios analysis tell that the effect of draft. Xiangnan Song: Conceptualization, Validation, Writing -
management measures compounded of the PAs, P and RAs would review & editing. Hongping Yuan: Conceptualization, Supervision,
be more significant than that of any one single stream of man- Writing - review & editing, Project administration, Funding
agement measures. In addition, the effect of RAs (e.g., supervision, acquisition. Jian Zuo: Writing - review & editing.
site space, and incentives) on CWWRBs is the most significant
among the three streams, while the effect of P is more obvious than
Acknowledgements
PAs on improving CWWRBs. The findings also reveal the rationale
of adopting different types of management measures in different
The work was financially supported by the national natural
construction stages for maximizing policy effectiveness; for
science foundation of China (No. 71573216), the Natural Science
instance, RAs (such as sufficient space for CW reduction operation)
Foundation of Guangdong Province (2019A1515011794), and “The
play a significant role in enhancing CWWRBs in the early period of
Guangdong Province Universities and Colleges Pearl River Scholar
construction processes, while PAs (such as introducing advanced
Funded Scheme (GDUPS)" (Yuan Hongping).
reduction equipment and low-waste technology) work effectively
in the later period.
This study makes contributions to current literature. Firstly, the Appendix A. Model variables description
causal-loop diagram delineating the interconnected relationships
among major variables could enrich research on understanding

No. Variable name Unit Variable type Quantification method

1 Regulation changing dmnl Flow M2

2 Regulation dmnl Stock e
3 Government supervision dmnl Auxiliary variable M2
4 Decreasing rate dmnl Flow M2
5 Increasing rate dmnl Flow M2
6 Illegal dumping percentage dmnl Stock e
7 Unit landfill charge yuan/ton constant M3
8 Managers’ awareness towards CW management dmnl Auxiliary variable e
9 Managers’ incentive to manage CW dmnl Flow M2
10 Waste management priority dmnl Stock e
11 CW reduction incentive measures dmnl Auxiliary variable M2
12 environmental investment yuan constant M3
13 CW reduction investment yuan Auxiliary variable e
14 CW reduction training dmnl Auxiliary variable e
15 Facility and training rate dmnl constant M3
16 training scheme yuan constant M3
17 Facility maintenance dmnl Auxiliary variable e
18 Maintenance costs yuan constant M3
19 Technology rate dmnl constant M3
20 Facility efficiency dmnl Auxiliary variable e
21 limit of site space dmnl Auxiliary variable M2
22 Impact of space limitation dmnl Auxiliary variable M2
23 Low-waste technology status dmnl Auxiliary variable e
24 Corporate waste management culture dmnl constant M1/M3
25 Low-waste technology expectation dmnl constant M1
26 changing of low-waste technology dmnl Flow e
27 Low-waste technology application dmnl Stock e
28 Impact of low-waste technology dmnl Auxiliary variable M2
 B. Yang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121841 15

(continued )

No. Variable name Unit Variable type Quantification method

29 construction conditions of CW reduction dmnl Auxiliary variable e

30 CW reduction incentive measures dmnl Auxiliary variable M2
31 Work overload dmnl Auxiliary variable e
32 Changing of reduction attitudes dmnl Flow e
33 Changing of reduction subjective norms dmnl Flow e
34 Changing of reduction perceived behavioral control dmnl Flow e
35 Workers’ CW reduction attitudes dmnl Stock e
36 Workers’ CW reduction subjective norms dmnl Stock e
37 Workers’ CW reduction perceived behavioral control dmnl Stock e
38 Workers’ CW reduction behavioral intention dmnl Stock e
39 Changing of reduction behavioral intention dmnl Flow e
40 Workers’ CW reduction behaviors dmnl Stock e
41 Impact of self-interest dmnl Auxiliary variable
42 Self-interest of workers dmnl Stock e
43 Impact of reduction behaviors dmnl Auxiliary variable M2
44 Impact of supervision and management dmnl Flow M2
45 On-site supervision and management dmnl Stock e
46 Workers’ production pressure dmnl Auxiliary variable e
47 Gaining experience dmnl Flow e
48 workers’ CW reduction skills dmnl Stock e
49 Impact of reduction skills dmnl Auxiliary variable M2
50 sorting percentage dmnl Auxiliary variable e
51 Constructed floor area monthly m2/month constant M3
52 Waste generation per floor area ton/m2 constant M1
53 Waste generated per month ton Stock e
54 Waste generated under reduction behaviors monthly ton/month Auxiliary variable e
55 Waste collected per month ton/month Flow e
56 Waste dumped per month ton/month Flow e
57 On-site waste collection ton Stock e
58 Waste illegal dumping ton Stock e
59 Waste sorted per month ton/month Flow e
60 On-site waste sorting ton Stock e

Note: dmnl denotes dimensionless.

Appendix B. Supplemental key equations and data in the SD
model
Increasing rate ¼ WITH LOOKUP (Unit landfill charge, ([(0,0)-
(100,0.01)],(0,0.001),(10,0.00155),(20,0.00245),(30,0.00325),(40,
0.00405),(50,0.0051),(60,0.0063),(70,0.00745),(80,0.00835),(90,0.0
0915),(100,0.00995)))
Decreasing rate ¼ WITH LOOKUP (Government supervision,
([(0,0)-(1,0.01)],(0,0.001),(0.1,0.00165),(0.2,0.00275),(0.3,0.00365),
(0.4,0.00445),(0.5,0.00565),(0.6,0.0067),(0.7,0.00765),(0.8,0.
00855),(0.9,0.00935),(1,0.01))).
Illegaldumping percentage ¼ INTEG (Increasing rate-Decreasing
rate,0.2).
Regulation changing ¼ WITH LOOKUP (Illegal dumping per-
centage, ([(0,0)-(1,0.2)],(0,0),(0.1,0.0095),
(0.2,0.0215),(0.3,0.0355),(0.4,0.0515),(0.5,0.0705)
,(0.6,0.0865),(0.7,0.1045),(0.8,0.1215),(0.9,0.1345),(1,0.1445))).
Managers’ incentive to manage CW]IF THEN ELSE(“On-site
waste sorting"1000,Managers’ awareness towards CW manage-
ment/8, Managers’ awareness towards CW management/16).
Waste management priority ¼ INTEG (Managers’ incentive to
manage CW,0.089).
CW reduction training ¼ IF THEN ELSE(CW reduction invest-
ment*Facility and training rate/training scheme  1,1, CW reduc-
tion investment*Facility and training rate/training scheme).
Construction conditions of CW reduction ¼ 1/2*(“Impact of low-
waste technology"þFacility efficiency).
CW reduction incentive measures ¼ WITH LOOKUP (Waste
management priority, ([(0,0)-(1,1)],(0,0.3),(0.0909,0.45),(0.18
2,0.505),(0.273,0.55),(0.364,0.615),(0.455,0.66),(0.545,0.735)
,(0.636,0.79),(0.727,0.84),(0.818,0.875),(0.909,0.982),(1,1))).
Work overload ¼ IF THEN ELSE(Workers’ production
pressure  0.02, (Workers’ production pressure-0.02)/(1-0.02), 0).
Changing of reduction attitudes¼(DELAY1I(Construction con-
ditions of CW reduction, 45, 0)þDELAY1I(CW reduction incentive
measures, 45, 0)þDELAY1I(CW reduction training, 45, 0) -
DELAY1I(Work overload, 45, 0))/4.
Changing of reduction subjective norms¼(DELAY1I(CW reduc-
tion incentive measures, 45, 0)þDELAY1I(CW reduction training,
45, 0)-DELAY1I(Work overload, 45, 0))/3.
Changing of reduction perceived behavioral con-
trol¼(DELAY1I(Construction conditions of CW reduction, 45, 0)þ
DELAY1I(CW reduction incentive measures,45, 0)þDELAY1I(CW
reduction training, 45, 0)-DELAY1I(Work overload, 45, 0))/4.
Changing of reduction behavioral intention¼(DELAY1I(Workers’
CW reduction subjective norms, 60, 0)þDELAY1I(Workers’ CW
reduction attitudes, 60, 0)þDELAY1I(Workers’ CW reduction
perceived behavioral control, 60, 0)þDELAY1I(“Self-interest of
workers”, 60, 0)þDELAY1I(“On-site supervision and management”,
60, 0))/5.
Workers’ CW reduction behaviors ¼ 0.2þ(DELAY1I(Impact of
space limitation, 10, 0)þDELAY1I(Workers’ CW reduction behav-
ioral intention, 10, 0)þDELAY1I(Workers’ CW reduction perceived
behavioral control, 10, 0)þDELAY1I(“Self-interest of workers”, 10,
0)þDELAY1I(“On-site supervision and management”, 10, 0))/5.
Impact of supervision and management ¼ WITH LOOKUP
(Waste management priority, ([(0,0)-(2,0.4)],(0,0),(0.12,0.02)
,(0.24,0.05),(0.36,0.07),(0.48,0.1),(0.6,0.13)
,(0.72,0.15),(0.84,0.18),(0.96,0.21),(1.08,0.24),(1.2,0.28)))
Impact of self-interest ¼ DELAY1I(CW reduction incentive
measures*(1-Work overload), 90, 0).
Waste generated under reduction behaviors per month ¼ Waste
generated per month*(1-(Impact of reduction skills þ Impact of
reduction behaviors)/2).
16 B. Yang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 265 (2020) 121841
Waste sorted per month ¼ Waste collected per month*sorting
percentage
References
Ahmed, S., Islam, H., Hoque, I., Hossain, M., 2018. Reality check against skilled
worker parameters and parameters failure effect on the construction industry
for Bangladesh. Int. J. Construct. Manag. 1e10.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
50 (2), 179e211.
Ajzen, I., 2002. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the
theory of planned behavior 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 32 (4), 665e683.
Ajzen, I., 2011. The Theory of Planned Behaviour: Reactions and Reflections. Taylor &
Francis.
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 Manag. Res. 30 (2), 122e136.
Ann, T., Poon, C., Wong, A., Yip, R., Jaillon, L., 2013. Impact of construction waste
disposal charging scheme on work practices at construction sites in Hong Kong.
Waste Manag. 33 (1), 138e146.
Bakshan, A., Srour, I., Chehab, G., El-Fadel, M., Karaziwan, J., 2017. Behavioral de-
terminants towards enhancing construction waste management: a Bayesian
Network analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 117, 274e284.
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), 321e328.
Cambraia, F.B., Saurin, T.A., Formoso, C.T., 2010. Identification, analysis and
dissemination of information on near misses: a case study in the construction
industry. Saf. Sci. 48 (1), 91e99.
Cameron, I., Duff, R., 2007. A critical review of safety initiatives using goal setting
and feedback. Construct. Manag. Econ. 25 (5), 495e508.
Chen, P.-H., Ong, C.-F., Hsu, S.-C., 2016. The linkages between internationalization
and environmental strategies of multinational construction firms. J. Clean. Prod.
116, 207e216.
Coyle, R.G., 1996. System Dynamics Modelling: a Practical Approach. CRC Press.
Dainty, A.R., Brooke, R.J., 2004. Towards improved construction waste minimisation:
a need for improved supply chain integration? Struct. Surv. 22 (1), 20e29.
Ding, Z., Yi, G., Tam, V.W., Huang, T., 2016. A system dynamics-based environmental
performance simulation of construction waste reduction management in China.
Waste Manag. 51, 130e141.
Ding, Z., Zhu, M., Tam, V.W., Yi, G., Tran, C.N., 2018. A system dynamics-based
environmental benefit assessment model of construction waste reduction
management at the design and construction stages. J. Clean. Prod. 176,
676e692.
Fang, D., Wu, C., Wu, H., 2015. Impact of the supervisor on worker safety behavior in
construction projects. J. Manag. Eng. 31 (6), 04015001.
Forrester, J.W., 1958. Industrial Dynamics. A major breakthrough for decision
makers. Harv. Bus. Rev. 36 (4), 37e66.
Forrester, J.W., 1997. Industrial dynamics. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 48 (10), 1037e1041.
Galvez-Martos, J.-L., Styles, D., Schoenberger, H., Zeschmar-Lahl, B., 2018. Con-
struction and demolition waste best management practice in Europe. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 136, 166e178.
Guo, B.H., Goh, Y.M., Wong, K.L.X., 2018. A system dynamics view of a behavior-
based safety program in the construction industry. Saf. Sci. 104, 202e215.
Hart, S.L., Dowell, G., 2011. Invited editorial: a natural-resource-based view of the
firm: fifteen years after. J. Manag. 37 (5), 1464e1479.
Jia, J.S., Khan, U., Litt, A., 2015. The effect of self-control on the construction of risk
perceptions. Manag. Sci. 61 (9), 2259e2280.
Jiang, Z., Fang, D., Zhang, M., 2014. Understanding the causation of construction
workers’ unsafe behaviors based on system dynamics modeling. J. Manag. Eng.
31 (6), 04014099.
Jin, R., Yuan, H., Chen, Q., 2019. Science mapping approach to assisting the review of
construction and demolition waste management research published between
2009 and 2018. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 140, 175e188.
Kollikkathara, N., Feng, H., Yu, D., 2010. A system dynamic modeling approach for
evaluating municipal solid waste generation, landfill capacity and related cost
management issues. Waste Manag. 30 (11), 2194e2203.
Kulatunga, U., Amaratunga, D., Haigh, R., Rameezdeen, R., 2006. Attitudes and
perceptions of construction workforce on construction waste in Sri Lanka.
Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 17 (1), 57e72.
Li, J., Tam, V.W., Zuo, J., Zhu, J., 2015. Designers’ attitude and behaviour towards
construction waste minimization by design: a study in Shenzhen, China. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 105, 29e35.
Liu, J., Nie, J., Yuan, H.P., 2019a. To expand or not to expand: a strategic analysis of
the recycler’s waste treatment capacity. Comput. Ind. Eng. 130, 731e744.
Lingard, H., Gilbert, G., Graham, P., 2001. Improving solid waste reduction and
recycling performance using goal setting and feedback. Construct. Manag. Econ.
19 (8), 809e817.
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. Construct. Manag. Econ. 18
(4), 383e393.
Lingard, H., Rowlinson, S., 1997. Behavior-based safety management in Hong Kong’s
construction industry. J. Saf. Res. 28 (4), 243e256.
Liu, J., Gong, E., Wang, D., Lai, X., Zhu, J., 2019b. Attitudes and behaviour towards
construction waste minimisation: a comparative analysis between China and
the USA. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 26 (14), 13681e13690.
Maani, K.E., Cavana, R.Y., 2000. Systems Thinking and Modelling: Understanding
Change and Complexity. Prentice Hall.
Mak, T.M., Iris, K., Wang, L., Hsu, S.-C., Tsang, D.C., Li, C., Yeung, T.L., Zhang, R.,
Poon, C.S., 2019. Extended theory of planned behaviour for promoting con-
struction waste recycling in Hong Kong. Waste Manag. 83, 161e170.
NDRC, 2015. NDRC (national development and reform commission). In: Annual
Report of the Comprehensive Utilization of Resources in China 2014. http://
www.ndrc.gov.cn/xwzx/xwfb/201410/W020141009609573303019.pdf.
Ng, S.T., Skitmore, R.M., Leung, T.K., 2005. Manageability of stress among con-
struction project participants. Eng. Construct. Architect. Manag. 12 (3),
264e282.
Poon, C., Ann, T., Ng, L., 2001. On-site sorting of construction and demolition waste
in Hong Kong. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 32 (2), 157e172.
Poon, C., Yu, A.T., Wong, A., Yip, R., 2013. Quantifying the impact of construction
waste charging scheme on construction waste management in Hong Kong.
J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 139 (5), 466e479.
Ramayah, T., Lee, J.W.C., Lim, S., 2012. Sustaining the environment through recy-
cling: an empirical study. J. Environ. Manag. 102, 141e147.
Senge, P.M., Forrester, J.W., 1980. Tests for building confidence in system dynamics
models. System dynamics, TIMS Studies in Management Sciences 14, 209e228.
Shin, M., Lee, H.-S., Park, M., Moon, M., Han, S., 2014. A system dynamics approach
for modeling construction workers’ safety attitudes and behaviors. Accid. Anal.
Prev. 68, 95e105.
Sterman, J.D., 1989. Modeling managerial behavior: misperceptions of feedback in a
dynamic decision making experiment. Manag. Sci. 35 (3), 321e339.
Sterman, J.D., 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a
Complex World.
Tam, V.W., Hao, J.J., 2014. Prefabrication as a mean of minimizing construction
waste on site. Int. J. Construct. Manag. 14 (2), 113e121.
Tam, V.W., Li, J., Cai, H., 2014. System dynamic modeling on construction waste
management in Shenzhen, China. Waste Manag. Res. 32 (5), 441e453.
Tam, V.W., Tam, C.M., 2008. Waste reduction through incentives: a case study. Build.
Res. Inf. 36 (1), 37e43.
Teo, M., Loosemore, M., 2001. A theory of waste behaviour in the construction in-
dustry. Construct. Manag. Econ. 19 (7), 741e751.
Udawatta, N., Zuo, J., Chiveralls, K., Zillante, G., 2015. Improving waste management
in construction projects: an Australian study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 101,
73e83.
Wang, J., Li, Z., Tam, V.W., 2015. Identifying best design strategies for construction
waste minimization. J. Clean. Prod. 92, 237e247.
Wang, J., Yuan, H., 2011. Factors affecting contractors’ risk attitudes in construction
projects: case study from China. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29 (2), 209e219.
Wang, J., Yuan, H., Kang, X., Lu, W., 2010. Critical success factors for on-site sorting
of construction waste: a China study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (11), 931e936.
Wilson, D.C., Rodic, L., Scheinberg, A., Velis, C.A., Alabaster, G., 2012. Comparative
analysis of solid waste management in 20 cities. Waste Manag. Res. 30 (3),
237e254.
Wolstenholme, E.F., 1990. System Enquiry: a System Dynamics Approach. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Wu, H., Duan, H., Zheng, L., Wang, J., Niu, Y., Zhang, G., 2016. Demolition waste
generation and recycling potentials in a rapidly developing flagship megacity of
South China: prospective scenarios and implications. Construct. Build. Mater.
113, 1007e1016.
Wu, H.Y., Zuo, J., Zillante, G., Wang, J.Y., Yuan, H.P., 2019. Status quo and future di-
rections of construction and demolition waste research: a critical review.
J. Clean. Prod. 240, 118163.
Wu, Z., Ann, T., Shen, L., 2017. Investigating the determinants of contractor’s con-
struction and demolition waste management behavior in Mainland China.
Waste Manag. 60, 290e300.
Yuan, H., 2012. A model for evaluating the social performance of construction waste
management. Waste Manag. 32 (6), 1218e1228.
Yuan, H., 2013. Key indicators for assessing the effectiveness of waste management
in construction projects. Ecol. Indicat. 24, 476e484.
Yuan, H., Chini, A.R., Lu, Y., Shen, L., 2012. A dynamic model for assessing the effects
of management strategies on the reduction of construction and demolition
waste. Waste Manag. 32 (3), 521e531.
Yuan, H., Shen, L., 2011. Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste
management. Waste Manag. 31 (4), 670e679.
Yuan, H., Shen, L., Hao, J.J., Lu, W., 2011. A model for costebenefit analysis of con-
struction and demolition waste management throughout the waste chain.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (6), 604e612.
Yuan, H., Wu, H., Zuo, J., 2018. Understanding factors influencing project managers’
behavioral intentions to reduce waste in construction projects. J. Manag. Eng. 34
(6), 04018031.
Zohar, D., 2000. A group-level model of safety climate: testing the effect of group
climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. J. Appl. Psychol. 85 (4), 587.
Zohar, D., 2002. The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned
priorities on minor injuries in work groups. J. Organ. Behav. 23 (1), 75e92.