ECAM 12 2020 1097.R1 - Proof - Hi

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management
ne
er
in
g,
Co
ns
tru
cti
on
Exploring and Reducing Critical Waste Factors for

Sustainable Construction Projects
an
Journal: Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management
Manuscript ID ECAM-12-2020-1097.R1
dA
Manuscript Type: Original Article
Questionaire survey, Construction Site, Project Management, Value

Keywords:
Management, Engineering
Abstract:
rch
ite
ctu
ra
lM
an
a ge
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ecaam
m
Page 1 of 55 Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management
ne
1
er
2 Exploring and Reducing Critical Waste Factors for Sustainable
3
4
in
5 Construction Projects
6
g,
7
8 Abstract
9
Co
10 Purpose – Waste is typically encountered during the building's life cycle, from the design phase,
11
12 through the construction phase, to modification and demolition. Most of these construction wastes are
13
ns
14
15 unnoticed or unattended by project managers which lead to serious environmental problems. Effective
16
tru
17 waste reduction strategies will require a thorough and detailed understanding of the causes of
18
19 construction waste. Hence, this paper aims to explore critical waste factors (CWFs) affecting the
cti
20
21
performance of construction projects.
22
23
on
24 Design/methodology/approach – An extensive literature review was carried out to determine these

25
26
27 factors based on previous studies, from which a questionnaire was developed. Series of statistical
an
28
29 analyses such as reliability analysis, Spearman Correlation, Kruskal Wallis, and factor analysis were
30
dA
31 performed on a total of 330 valid responses to identify latent factors responsible for wastes occurrence.
32
33
34 Findings – This study reveals 31 CWFs through evaluation of prior relevant studies carried out in
rch
35
36 several countries and then adjusted and validated through semi-structured interviews. The significant
37
38
39 differences in views within various groups of respondents with different organizational characteristics
ite
40
41 are highlighted. The results of factor analysis showed that there are six principal components extracted
42
ctu
43 with 66.3% of variance explained (Material related factors; Subcontractors and workers; Planning,
44
45
communication, and coordination; People involvement and Financial issues; People development
46
ra
47
48 strategies; and External factors).
49
lM
50 Originality/value – This study differs from other studies in the literature by gathering all relevant
51
52 waste factors including those related to non-physical waste such as time, budget, workers, and
an
53
54
55 equipment. Furthermore, this paper is of great interest to both practitioners and researchers since it
56
a
57
ge
58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ecaam
m
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management Page 2 of 55
ne
1
er
2 brings various recommendations concerning the prevention/reduction of waste through Lean
3
4
in
Construction for more sustainable construction projects.
5
6
Keywords: Construction waste, Waste reduction, Factor analysis, Lean Construction,
g,
7
8
9 Environmental performance, Sustainable construction.
Co
10
11 1. Introduction
12
13
ns
14 Global urbanization has grown steadily in recent years (Aigbavboa and Thwala, 2020). The
15
16 urbanization expansion has increased globally to 54.3% in 2016 and today the urbanization rate has
tru
17
18 risen to 55% (Aslam et al., 2020). From 2015 to 2035, the expected urban growth will comprise 1.5
19
cti
20
billion new citizens and urbanization will rise to 68 % by 2050 (Kibert, 2013). The process of
21
22
23 urbanization contributes to waste occurrence through different levels and activities such as building
on
24
25 construction, roadwork, rebuilding, extension, remodelling, maintenance, and demolition (Nazech et
26
27
an
al., 2008; Yap et al., 2017). The construction sector can be classified as a wasteful industry with an
28
29
30 average consumption of 40% energy, 16 % freshwater (Carvajal-Arango et al., 2019; Dieste et al.,
dA
31
32 2019; Francis and Thomas, 2020; Hu, 2011; Li et al., 2020; Memon et al., 2015; Wang et al.,
33
34 2008). Besides that, waste generation has a negative impact by reducing the efficiency, productivity,
rch
35
36
37 and value of the construction process (Aslam et al., 2020; Harris and McCaffer, 2013; Koskela, 1992;
38
39 Leong et al., 2020). Construction waste has become a burden on users, as they eventually have to bear
ite
40
41 the cost of waste (Bajjou and Chafi, 2020a, 2018a.; Paez et al., 2005; Salem et al., 2005; Salem and
42
ctu
43
Zimmer, 2005). Waste costs blunt contractors' strategic advantage, rendering their success more
44
45
46 challenging in a competitive environment (Kulatunga et al., 2006). Reduction of waste is an effective
ra
47
48 aspect of sustainable development, as it would benefit both the environment (by minimizing
49
lM
50 environmental pollution) and construction companies (by increasing their performance by lower cost of
51
52
production) (Bajjou and Chafi, 2018b). The waste assessment is a very promising approach for
an
53
54
55 improving the performance of production systems, as it allows identifying potential areas of
56
a
57 inefficiency and, hence, suggesting effective strategies for improvement and waste reduction. To
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 further examine key waste factors affecting the performance of construction projects, this paper reports,
3
4
in
for the first time in Morocco, the perception of 330 construction professionals about the main causes of
5
6
wastes and brings potential waste management strategies. This study attempts to: (1) identify critical
g,
7
8
9 causes of waste occurrence through evaluation of prior relevant studies carried out in several countries
Co
10
11 and semi-structured interviews with experts to pre-test the questionnaire before producing the final
12
13
ns
14 factors list; (2) rank the main causes of waste based on the data collected from construction
15
16 professionals; (3) evaluate the level of correlation within various groups of respondents with different
tru
17
18 organizational characteristics (4) verify of significant differences in views within various groups of
19
cti
20
respondents with different organizational characteristics; (5) determine latent factor structures for
21
22
23 causes of waste by employing factor analysis technique (6) suggest potential improvement strategies
on
24
25 for more sustainable projects by reducing wastes generation.
26
27
an
2. Literature review
28
29
30 2.1. Sustainable construction
dA
31
32 (Manowong, 2012) encouraged the construction sector, as a major source of pollution, to play a leading
33
34 role in managing environmental impacts by introducing new construction methods that are
rch
35
36
37 environmentally efficient. In regards to sustainable construction, this concept not only involves the
38
39 environmental issues but also addresses broader issues related to the health aspects and economic
ite
40
41 performance (Bajjou et al., 2017a). The construction industry has the potential to contribute to society
42
ctu
43
by providing the required infrastructure and employment opportunities. In addition, it can also help
44
45
46 reduce emissions, reduce the consumption of raw materials, and cost-saving by using the material
ra
47
48 waste generated during construction activities (Naji et al., 2020).
49
lM
50 The main objective of sustainable construction is to reduce environmental deterioration through the
51
52
conservation of natural resources throughout the life cycle of the building (raw material, water, fuel,
an
53
54
55 and so on) and maintain social and economic comfort (Caldera et al., 2018). A sustainable and
56
a
57 ecological construction project must necessarily take into consideration the goals of sustainable
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 development throughout each stage of the project life-cycle (design, construction, operation,
3
4
in
maintenance, renovation, and demolition). Furthermore, sustainable construction practices bring
5
6
additional intangible benefits such as enhancing the company's reputation in the market, withstanding
g,
7
8
9 global competition, raising the quality of infrastructure and providing better working conditions for
Co
10
11 employees (Bajjou et al., 2017a).
12
13
ns
14 2.2. Concept of construction waste
15
16 Waste in the construction industry is not only associated with the amount of waste materials on-site,
tru
17
18 but also with a variety of activities such as waiting time, overproduction, material handling, rework,
19
cti
20
inventories, and over-processing (Bajjou et al., 2017b). (Koskela, 1992) defined waste in the
21
22
23 construction field as:
on
24
25 "Any inefficiency that results in the use of equipment, materials, labor or capital in larger quantities
26
27
an
than those considered as necessary in the production of a building".

28
29
30 Waste involves both the loss of material and the occurrence of unnecessary work, which leads to extra
dA
31
32 costs without adding value to the product. Construction waste can be divided into two distinct
33
34 categories, which are physical waste and non-physical waste.
rch
35
36
37 2.2.1. Physical waste
38
39 Physical construction waste is defined as the waste resulting from construction, excavation, demolition,
ite
40
41 renovation, roadwork, and other construction-related activities (Khaleel and Al-zubaidy, 2018;
42
ctu
43
Kofoworola and Gheewala, 2009; Saker Al-Moghany, 2006). Physical waste is also recognized as the
44
45
46 debris that can be generated in any construction project (Khaleel and Al-zubaidy, 2018; Khanh and
ra
47
48 Kim, 2014). It implies the depletion of construction materials since they are irretrievably damaged or
49
lM
50 simply lost. The waste is generally transferred from construction sites to landfill. The physical waste
51
52
could also be categorized as follows: (1) the inert waste on construction sites compromising mainly
an
53
54
55 bricks, steel, sand, concrete, wood, and so on (2) material debris resulting from demolition (e.g. brick,
56
a
57 concrete, plaster, and used timber); (3) garbage and sanitary waste (Faniran and Caban, 1998). Figure 1
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 and figure 2 show two examples of solid material wastes taken during a site visit at “ENNASSER”
3
4
in
construction project in Casablanca in Morocco.
5
6
g,
7
8
9
Co
10
11
12
13
ns
14
15
16
tru
17
18
19
cti
20
21
22 Figure 1. Waste of broken bricks Figure 2. Waste of damaged wood
23
on
24 (Ganesan, 2019) revealed that material is the largest input with 50–60% of the total project budget,
25
26 which increases the need to involve a strategy for material waste reduction in the production system of
27
an
28
construction projects. Moreover, (John and Itodo, 2013) report that, on average, construction processes
29
30
dA
31 incurred 21-30% of budget overruns due to material waste. Similarly, an empirical study undertaken in
32
33 the Netherlands by (Bossink and Brouwers, 1996) reveals that 9 % of the overall purchased materials
34
rch
35 were converted into solid waste and that material loss is estimated to be around 20-30 % of the overrun
36
37
38 budget. Other studies note that 5-10% of the purchased materials end up as solid waste (Saker Al-
39
ite
40 Moghany, 2006). For instance, the estimated physical wastes in the construction field was
41
42 approximately 1130 million tons 534 in China and about 534 million tons in the United States in 2014
ctu
43
44
45 (Aslam et al., 2020). (Bajjou and Chafi, 2020b) indicated that there are enough material wastes to
46
ra
47 build an additional 10 houses for every 100 houses constructed.

48
49
lM
2.2.2. Non-physical Waste

50
51
(Skoyles, 1976) described construction waste as any inefficiency originated from misuse of materials,
52
an
53
54 equipment, employees, and capital or by using a larger amount than the necessary. In other words, this
55
56 implies that besides physical waste (material waste), unnecessary works, cost and time overrun, and
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 quality defects can also be sources of waste occurrence. (Christian and Hachey, 1995) stated that
3
4
in
companies spent no more than 46% of their working time on value-added activities and 54% on non-
5
6
value -added activities. In addition, (Ciampa., 1991) reported even worse findings indicating that only
g,
7
8
9 3 to 20 % of the added value activities, and that their share of the total processing times is still
Co
10
11 negligible from 0.5 to 5 %. Furthermore, (Dupin, 2014) indicated non-added value activities consume
12
13
ns
14 68% of the total time spent on construction sites. Other studies (Khanh and Kim, 2014) found that only
15
16 5 % of the total time is spent on added value activities and the rest of the time is dedicated to two types
tru
17
18 of tasks, pure non-value adding (NVA) activities and non-value adding but required (NVAR) activities.
19
cti
20
Furthermore, (Khanh and Kim, 2015) reported that construction waste costs an average of 9.4% of the
21
22
23 total budget.
on
24
25 2.3. Causes of construction waste generation
26
27
an
Researchers that addressed the issue related to construction waste identified many waste
28
29
30 causes that could arise during a project's life cycle. The causes of constructing waste generation can be
dA
31
32 evaluated and measured using a number of key factors associated with different waste categories, such
33
34 as procurement and management of materials, design and documentation, site management practices
rch
35
36
37 and site supervision, operations, and environmental conditions. Other research classified causes of
38
39 waste into five categories: (1) management/ administration cause; (2) material/equipment cause; (3)
ite
40
41 execution/performance cause; (4) people cause; and (5) information/ communication cause.
42
ctu
43
Furthermore, (Bossink and Brouwers, 1996) classified the main factors leading to waste occurrence in
44
45
46 construction into six categories, which are; (1) Design (2) Operation (3) Residual (4) Procurement (5)
ra
47
48 Materials Handling (6) Other. In the current study a matrix of causative factors has been developed
49
lM
50 with the aims to (1) to provide a preliminary understanding on what factors had been discovered by
51
52
previous researchers around the world, and (2) assess the magnitude of each attribute based on the
an
53
54
55 frequency of factors adopted in previous research studies. Ten research papers were adopted and 27
56
a
57 causative factors of construction waste occurrence were found in the current study. Those elements are
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 classified into six groups: (1) Design and Documentation, (2) People (3) Contractor/Subcontractors (4)
3
4
in
Management/administration/finance (5) Execution/performance (6) External factors. Table 1 illustrates
5
6
an original matrix of causative factors extracted from past research articles worldwide. This matrix can
g,
7
8
9 be the input for producing the questionnaire to determine whether these factors are relevant to the local
Co
10
11 environment.
12
13
ns
Table 1. Matrix of causative factors extracted from previous studies
14
15
16
tru
(Sasitharan Nagapan et al., 2011)

17
(Bossink and Brouwers, 1996)

(Saker Al-Moghany, 2006)
(Bajjou and Chafi, 2019a)
(Bajjou and Chafi, 2020c)

18
(Polat and Ballard, 2004)

(Khanh and Kim, 2014)
(Kulatunga et al., 2006)

(Nazech et al., 2008)
19
(Taylor, 2011)
cti
20
Frequency
21 Groups Causes of construction wastes
22
23
on
24
25
26
27
an
28
29 Frequent design changes/ Last minute client 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Documentation
30 requirements
Design and
dA
31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
32 Errors and inconsistencies in design documents
33
34 Selection of low-quality material in design stage 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
rch
35
36 Unskilled workers 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
37
38 Lack of staff experience 1 1 1 1 1 5
People
39
ite
40 Low labor productivity 1 1 1 3

41
42
ctu
Lack of training for employees 1 1 1 1 4

43
44
1 1 2
Contractor/Subco
45 Insufficient experience of the main contractor

46
ntractors
ra
47 Multiple levels of subcontractors 1 1

48
Frequent change of subcontractors 1 1 2
49
lM
50 Non-qualified subcontractors 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
51
52
Management/
Lack of strategies for material waste reduction 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

administratio
n/ finance
an
53
54 Lack of client involvement 1 1 2
55
56 Lack of supplier involvement 1 1
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2
Disputes/conflicts amongst project stakeholders 1 1 1 1 4
3
4
in
Lack of communication and coordination amongst the 1 1 1 1 1 5
5 project collaborators
6
g,
7 Poor planning and scheduling 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
8
9 1 1 2
Lack of collective planning
Co
10
11 1 1 1 1 4
12 Lack of a strategy for reducing work-related accidents
13
ns
14 1 1 1 3
Insufficient financial resources
15
16
tru
Late payment 1 1 2
17
18
19 Lack of on-site quality control 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Execution/performance
cti
20
21 Late delivery of materials and equipment 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
22
Wrong material storage 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
23
on
24
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
25 Improper material handling
26
27
an
Inappropriate materials/misuse of materials 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

28
29 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
External
Effect of weather
factors
30
dA
31 Inappropriate selection of construction sites 1 1 1 1 4

32
33
34 Table 1 shows that the causative factors with the highest frequency are “Errors and inconsistencies in
rch
35
36 design documents” and “Improper material handling”. These causes of waste are acknowledged by all
37
38 the studies adopted in this work. Generally, the whole factors are considered as input to develop the
39
ite
40
41 questionnaire and, then, assess the relevance of these factors to the local context.
42
ctu
43 In the past, both construction professionals and researchers have assumed that the waste is only
44
45 associated with the debris removed from construction sites (John and Itodo, 2013; Sebastian, 2019;
46
ra
47
48 Taylor, 2011). Among numerous studies conducted worldwide on the management of
49
lM
50 construction waste, only a few research focused on highlighting and analysing the key factors leading
51
52 to waste occurrence including non-physical factors, especially in developing countries. Nowadays,
an
53
54
under modern construction management, there is an increasing need to adopt a deeper understanding of
55
56
a
57 waste management under a sustainable perception. Furthermore, the published literature that has
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 focused on factors influencing both physical and non-physical waste is limited and, moreover, its link
3
4
in
to sustainability criteria for construction projects is not thoroughly explored, particularly in the context
5
6
of developing economies. Therefore, it would be advantageous to deal with this issue more broadly and
g,
7
8
9 to assess the factors that influence the occurrence of waste in all its forms (project delay, cost overrun,
Co
10
11 rework, material loss, and so on) by using reliable statistical analysis such as Spearman Correlation,
12
13
ns
14 Kruskal Wallis, and factor analysis.
15
16 3. Research methodology
tru
17
18 Questionnaires were employed due to its ability to collect data from a large sample of a target
19
cti
20
population, to cover a large number of respondents, and to have better generalizability and lower cost
21
22
23 (Bajjou and Chafi, 2018c; Thietart, 2014). Moreover, this technique is part of a quantitative approach,
on
24
25 which allows the data to be tested statistically to obtain meaningful interpretations that provide a better
26
27
an
understanding of the subject of the survey (Bajjou and Chafi, 2018d; Saker Al-Moghany, 2006).
28
29
30 3.1. Development of preliminary waste factors
dA
31
32 The initial step was to extract the main variables for the questionnaire survey based on a thorough
33
34 assessment of previous theoretical and empirical studies conducted worldwide in the same context.
rch
35
36
37 Secondly, before producing the final version of the questionnaire, a pre-test was conducted with ten
38
39 experts to ensure the relevance of the questionnaire and to examine the adequacy of the extracted
ite
40
41 factors with the context of the Moroccan construction sector. The interviewees included ten experts
42
ctu
43
with more than 10 years of professional experience in the field of project management: four project
44
45
46 managers, four site managers, and two academics. To this end, we tried to verify the following points
ra
47
48 with these experts before producing the final version of the measurement instrument:
49
lM
50
 The length of the questionnaire and the level of complexity;
51
52
 The sequence and structuring of the questions;
an
53
54
55
56
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2  The relevance of the factors extracted from the literature review to the Moroccan construction
3
4
in
context ;
5
6
g,
7  The exhaustiveness and rationality of the initial factor list ;
8
9  The adequacy of the measurement scale with the respondents' ability to understand and
Co
10
11
12
complete the questionnaire.
13
ns
14 Within two months, the pre-test phase allowed us to improve the structure of the questionnaire, and
15
16 thus several revisions were made, mainly concerning the list of factors adopted in our investigation.
tru
17
18 The remarks and suggestions of the interviewees allowed us to better adapt the data collected from the
19
cti
20
21 literature to the context of the Moroccan construction sector.
22
23 The final list includes twenty-seven Critical Waste Factors (CWFs) extracted from previous studies, as
on
24
25 well as four new factors suggested by the Moroccan experts; namely (CWF3: Non-consideration of
26
27
an
28 reusable construction materials in the design stage; CWF8: Accidents due to negligence, carelessness,
29
30 and lack of supervision; CWF14: Unreadiness of top management to adopt sustainable waste
dA
31
32 management; and CWF30: Material price changes). Furthermore, the relationship between sustainable
33
34
construction and major extracted factors is now made clear.
rch
35
36
37 Table 2. The final list of Critical Waste Factors
38
39 Identifier Critical Waste Factor Group
ite
40
41 CWF1 Frequent design changes/ Last minute client requirements
Documentation (A)
42
ctu
CWF2 Ignorance of procedures related to energy savings and environmental issues in the design stage
Design and
43
44
CWF3 Non-consideration of environmental issues during the project design for construction, operation,
45
46 demolition, recycling, and disposal.
ra
47
48 CWF4 Non-consideration of reusable construction materials in the design stage
49
lM
CWF5 Unskilled workers

50
51 CWF6 Lack of staff experience in sustainable construction projects management
52
People (B)
an
53 CWF7 Lack of training raising awareness on social sustainability and environmental impact for
54
employees
55
56
a
CWF8 Accidents due to negligence, carelessness, and lack of supervision

57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 CWF9 Insufficient experience of the main contractor in managing sustainable projects
Contractor/Subcon
3
tractors (C)
4
in
CWF10 Multiple levels of subcontractors
5
6 CWF11 Frequent change of subcontractors
g,
7
8 CWF12 Unawareness of sustainability criteria by subcontractors
9
Co
10 CWF13 Lack of 3Rs - Reduce, Reuse & Recycle- strategies for waste management (minimization,
11 collection, separation, storage, transportation, treatment, and disposal)
12
13 CWF14 Lack of top management commitment to adopt sustainable waste management
ns
14
Management/administration/ finance (D)

15 CWF15 Lack of client involvement
16
tru
CWF16 Lack of supplier involvement
17
18 CWF17 Lack of commitment by project stakeholders to sustainable waste management
19
cti
20 CWF18 Lack of communication and coordination amongst the project collaborators
21
22 CWF19 Poor planning and scheduling
23
on
24 CWF20 Lack of collective planning

25
26 CWF21 Lack of rigorous safety measures & procedures to prevent occurrence of the accidents
27
an
28
CWF22 Insufficient financial resources
29
30
dA
31 CWF23 Late payment

32
33 CWF24 Lack of on-site quality control
34
performance (E)
CWF25 Late delivery of materials and equipment
rch
35
Execution/
36 CWF26 Wrong material storage
37
38 CWF27 Lack of procedures for safely handling construction material
39
ite
40 CWF28 Inappropriate materials/misuse of materials

41
42
ctu
CWF29 Material prices change

43
factors (F)
External
44 CWF30 Effect of weather

45
46 CWF31 Land degradation due to construction activities
ra
47
48
49
lM
3.2. Questionnaire design

50
51
52 The questionnaire includes two main sections. The first section (Section A) is intended to collect
an
53
54 general information and background information on the respondents (level of education, level of
55
56 experience, area of specialization, size of the organization, and principal working activity).
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 The second section (Section B) aims to assess the extent to which causes of waste influence the
3
4
in
occurrence of waste in Moroccan construction projects. A five-point Likert scale was adopted (1-No
5
6
influence, 2-Low influence, 3-Medium influence, 4-High influence, 5-Extreme influence).
g,
7
8
9 3.3. Data collection
Co
10
11 A random sampling approach was adopted to eliminate bias in the selection process and to obtain
12
13
ns
14 representative samples. Thus, the authors used this approach to target professionals from different
15
16 geographical locations in Morocco. According to (Saunders et al., 2011), it is important to have a list of
tru
17
18 potential respondents to apply the random sampling technique.
19
cti
20
A list including 2158 companies active in the Moroccan construction sector has been downloaded from
21
22
23 the official website of the Ministry of National Territorial Management, Development, Housing and
on
24
25 Urban Policy (www.mhpv.gov.ma). In collaboration with the Regional Federation of Building and
26
27
an
Public Works of the region of Fez-Meknes, the contact details of 440 potential respondents for the
28
29
30 survey have been obtained.
dA
31
32 This survey is based on two methods for the distribution of the questionnaires including (1) the internet
33
34 (email and online questionnaire), and face-to-face. These choices can be justified by the following
rch
35
36
37 reasons:
38
39  For distribution via the Internet: With the technological development of information,
ite
40
41 communication, and technologies, this technique has become very operational, especially for
42
ctu
43
44
targeting the most geographically dispersed sample elements. This supports the objective of our
45
46 research, which is to explore the perceptions of construction professionals across all regions of
ra
47
48 Morocco. Besides, this technique requires less cost (almost zero cost for either the respondent
49
lM
50
or the researcher) and avoids wasting time and money by post mailing. To facilitate the
51
52
administration of the questionnaire, we have created a link to the questionnaire through the
an
53
54
55 Google-Forms Tool.
56
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2  Face-to-face: This technique ensures direct interviews with respondents. This mode of
3
4
in
investigation has been adopted to target construction professionals located in the Fez-Meknes
5
6
g,
7 region. Although face-to-face interviews take time to set up appointments and are more
8
9 expensive than the other methods, they ensure greater clarity of questions and answers as well
Co
10
11 as the immediate collection of questionnaires.
12
13
ns
14
15
To increase return rates, respondents were reassured of their anonymity and the confidentiality of their
16
tru
17 companies. Within six months, 361 questionnaires were completed. This represents a return rate of 82
18
19 %. 22 responses were discarded due to an invalid or incomplete assessment. In total, 330 valid
cti
20
21 responses were collected. This represents a response rate of 75%, which is sufficient to carry out the
22
23
on
24 various statistical tests.

25
26
27 3.4. Reliability of questionnaire
an
28
29 Reliability testing is one of the first steps to consider in statistical analysis (Doloi et al., 2012a;
30
dA
31
Enshassi et al., 2010; Thietart, 2014; Ye et al., 2014). Reliability describes the ability of a scale to
32
33
34 reproduce identical results if it is subjected to the same sample several times (Bajjou and Chafi, 2018b;
rch
35
36 Khanh and Kim, 2015; Thietart, 2014). A five-point Likert scale was adopted and, therefore, a
37
38 reliability test was deemed necessary. Cronbach's alpha coefficient (α) was calculated to check the
39
ite
40
41 internal reliability of questionnaire responses using equation 1, as follows (Cronbach, 1951):
42
ctu
43
∑σi2
44
45
k
(
Eq. 1 : α = k ― 1 1 ― σi )
46
ra
47 Where:
48
49
lM
50
σi2 : the variance of the scores for each item; ∑σi2 : the variance of the total score of the observed tests;
51
52 k: the number of items.
an
53
54
55 Theoretically, α ranges from 0 to 1, where a higher value indicates a higher linear internal consistency
56
a
57 (Albalkhy and Sweis, 2019; Doloi et al., 2012a; Jin et al., 2017).
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 3.5. Approach to data analysis
3
4
in
3.5.1. Descriptive statistics
5
6
In some previous project management research, the mean score (MS) approach was used to rank the
g,
7
8
9 relative importance of specific factors (Frimpong et al., 2007; Mao et al., 2015; Odeh and Battaineh,
Co
10
11 2002; Sweis, 2008). In this analysis, this technique was used to assess the influence of waste
12
13
ns
14 occurrence for each item of the 31 CWFs based on perceptions of the respondents. The mean score
15
16 (MS) was calculated through the following equation:
tru
17
18 5
∑i = 1ai .xi
19 Eq. 2 : MS = 5
∑i = 1xi
cti
20
21
22 Where:
23
on
24 MS: is the mean score for each item and i reveals the response category index, ai denotes the numerical
25
26
27 value assigned to the ith response, varying between 1 and 5, and xi indicates the frequency of the ith
an
28
29 response in total responses given to i. If two or more CWFs were found to have the same MS, a higher
30
dA
31 rank was given to the item with a lower standard deviation (SD).
32
33
34
3.5.2. Test of normality
rch
35
36 To select the most appropriate test to perform on the analysis of the data collected, a normality test was
37
38 conducted. This allowed us to determine whether the nature of the data is parametric or non-parametric.
39
ite
40
Since the sample size of the study is less than 2000, the Shapiro-Wilk and Kolmogorov-Smirnov
41
42
ctu
43 normality test was adopted as suggested by (Ghasemi and Zahediasl, 2012). Appendix A shows the
44
45 results of the normality test for the data collected from Section B. The significant value of all items
46
ra
47 assessed is 0.000 for both tests (Shapiro-Wilk and Kolmogorov-Smirnov), which is below the required
48
49
lM
50 normality criterion of 0.05. Therefore, the data collected cannot be analysed using parametric statistical
51
52 techniques requiring the normality condition, as they are non-parametric in nature. Thus, the Kruskal-
an
53
54 Wallis test, a non-parametric test used to determine the significant difference in perceptions of three or
55
56
a
57
more categories of respondents, was used to determine the consistency of perceptions among
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 respondents belonging to various organizational characteristics. As such, the Spearman Correlation
3
4
in
Test, a non-parametric test, was adopted to measure the correlation, magnitude, and direction of the
5
6
relationship between two sets.
g,
7
8
9 3.5.3. Kruskal–Wallis Test
Co
10
11 It was found that for all the variables the distributions were significantly different from the normal
12
13
ns
14 distribution (p < 0.05). Therefore, it is not possible to conduct a parametric analysis for variance
15
16 analysis. Kruskal-Wallis is an alternative to the Anova analysis of variance in cases of ordinal or
tru
17
18 continuous variables that violate some important assumptions of the Anova test such as normality
19
cti
20
(Aghimien et al., 2018; Harpe, 2015; Udawatta et al., 2015). The Kruskal-Wallis test is a non-
21
22
23 parametric test used to determine the significant difference in the perceptions of three or more
on
24
25 categories of respondents. The null hypothesis (H0) and the alternative hypothesis (H1) of the Kruskal-
26
27
an
Wallis test are as follows (Enshassi et al., 2009; Harpe, 2015; Thietart, 2014; Udawatta et al., 2015):
28
29
30
- H0: No statistically significant difference exists between the perceptions of respondents with different
dA
31
32
33 organizational characteristics.
34
rch
35
36 - H1: There is a statistically significant difference exists between the perceptions of respondents with
37
38 different organizational characteristics.
39
ite
40
41 The confidence interval adopted in the analysis is 95% and the significance level was set at 5%. The
42
ctu
43
44 null hypothesis implies that the medians of the compared samples are statistically equal and will be
45
46 rejected if the p-value is less than 0.05 (Khanh and Kim, 2015).
ra
47
48
49 3.5.4. Spearman Correlation Test
lM
50
51
52 Similarly, since the distributions of the collected data were significantly different from the normal
an
53
54
55
distribution (p<0.05), a non-parametric test "Spearman's rank correlation" was established to evaluate
56
a
57 the level of correlation between two sets. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) is calculated to
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 measure the correlation, magnitude, and direction of the relationship between the rankings of two
3
4
in
groups while ignoring the third group (Bajjou and Chafi, 2018c). The rs coefficient can be calculated as
5
6
follows (Assaf and Al-hejji, 2006; Mpofu et al., 2017):
g,
7
8
9
Co
6∑𝑑2
10 Eq. 3 : 𝑟𝑠 = 1 ― 𝑁(𝑁2 ― 1)
11
12
13 Where:
ns
14
15 rs: indicates the correlation coefficient of Spearman's rank; d: rank difference given by two respondents
16
tru
17
18 for each item; and N is the number of rank pairs. The value of Spearman's rank correlation coefficient
19
ranges from +1 to -1 where -1 is a perfect negative relationship. 0 indicates no correlation. 1 is a perfect
cti
20
21
22 positive relationship.
23
on
24
25
3.5.5. Factor Analysis: Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
26
27 Factor analysis (FA) has been used to describe the variability of the observed items, usually many
an
28
29 correlated factors. The objective is to produce a potentially reduced number of latent factors (Akanbi
30
dA
31 et al., 2019; Harpe, 2015; Norusis, 2008; Sullivan and Artino, 2013). PCA analysis is a sequence of
32
33
34 statistical techniques used to determine groups of correlated variables by reducing a large number of
rch
35
36 factors into a more relevant and easy-to-understand grouping of latent factors (Thietart, 2014). The
37
38 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measurement and the Bartlett sphericity test are performed to examine the
39
ite
40
41 appropriateness of factor analysis (Khanh and Kim, 2014; Zhang et al., 2017). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
42
ctu
43 coefficient (KMO) ranges between 0 and 1; "0" indicates that the sum of the sub-correlations is
44
45 significant relative to the sum of the correlations (Yang et al., 2009). In this case, the PCA would be
46
ra
47
48
considered inappropriate (Norusis, 2008). "1" implies that the correlation models are fairly compact
49
lM
50 and that the PCA would produce relevant latent variables or factors (Norusis, 2008). High KMO values
51
52 indicate significant correlations between factor pairs, therefore, higher KMO values are recommended
an
53
54 for the factor analysis. Values above 0.9 are excellent for PCA (Thietart, 2014).
55
56
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 4. Analysis of Results
3
4
in
4.1. Respondents’ profile
5
6
The questionnaire focused on respondents with different organizational characteristics. Besides, the
g,
7
8
9 sample includes professionals with different levels of experience and education. Exploring all opinions
Co
10
11 from a diverse population helps to explore all facets of the context of the Moroccan and help provide a
12
13
ns
14 coherent and balanced understanding of the research topic.
15
16
tru
Construction organizations were classified into large companies (more than 200 employees), medium
17
18
19 companies (50-200 employees), and small companies (less than 50 employees). As shown in Table 3,
cti
20
21 48.8% of respondents were from small businesses. 24.0% from medium businesses and 27.2% from
22
23
on
large businesses. . 44.5% of respondents are involved in construction projects including the
24
25
26 construction of commercial or residential infrastructure. 29.1% of respondents work in construction
27
an
28 projects including heavy construction and civil engineering such as road and bridges, and 26.4% are
29
30 active in specialized activities related to electrical, mechanical, air conditioning, and plumbing work.
dA
31
32
43.0% of respondents are involved in the public sector. 14.3% work in the semi-public sector and
33
34
42.7% are active in the private sector. 49.1% of respondents have more than 10 years of experience.
rch
35
36
37 13.0% have between 5 and 10 years of experience and 37.9% have less than 5 years of experience.
38
39
ite
11.5 % have a Ph.D. degree. A large proportion (54.6%) having either a diploma in Engineering or a
40
41
42 Master's degree. 29.4 % of the respondents have diplomas (Bac+2) or (Bac+3). While a small minority
ctu
43
44 have Baccalaureate with 4.5 %.
45
46
ra
47
48
49
lM
50
51
52
an
53
54
55
56
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 Table 3. Description of the respondent’s profiles
3
4
in
5 Respondent’s characteristics Frequency Percentage (%)
6
g,
7 Size of organization
8
9 Small (less than 50 employees) 161 48.8
Co
10
11
12 medium (50–200 employees) 79 24.0
13
ns
14
15 large (more than 200 employees) 90 27.2
Clustering of organizations
16
tru
17
Fields of specialization
18
19
Commercial or residential infrastructure 147 44.5
cti
20
21
Heavy construction and civil
22 96 29.1
23 engineering
on
24
25 Electrical, mechanical, air conditioning,
87 26.4
26 and plumbing work
27
an
28 Activity area
29
30 Public 142 43.0
dA
31
32 Semi-Public 47 14.3
33
34 Private 141 42.7
rch
35 Number of years working experiences

36
37 Less than 5 years 125 37.9
38
Clustering of individuals
39 5-10 years 43 13.0

ite
40
41 More than 10 years 162 49.1
42
ctu
43 Education background
44
45 Baccalaureate Diploma 15 4.5
46 Bachelor’s degree 97 29.4
ra
47
48 Engineering/master's degree 180 54.6
49
lM
50 Ph.D. degree 38 11.5

51
52 It should be noted that most of the respondents are senior managers (architects, civil engineers,
an
53
54 project managers, site managers. etc.) and that the majority of participants have considerable
55
56
a
57 experience in the construction field (62.1% have more than 5 years of experience; 13.0 % have between
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 5-10 years and 49.1% have more than 10 years). Besides, they are highly qualified (66.1% have a
3
4
in
Diploma of engineering/master's degree and above; 54.6% have engineering/master's degree and 11.5%
5
6
have Ph.D. degree) which reinforces the reliability and relevance of the results. The data obtained are
g,
7
8
9 generated using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS V25.0 for Windows). The results of the
Co
10
11 data analysis are presented using graphs and tables for a clear view of the results.
12
13
ns
14 4.2. Analysis and Ranking of CWFs
15
16 Table 4 provides the results of descriptive statistics of the 31 CWFs based on the 330 responses
tru
17
18 gathered from the Moroccan construction professionals. The internal consistency analysis was also
19
cti
20
tested for a total of 31 CWFs to check the contribution of each item. As shown in Table 4, all values
21
22
23 were slightly below the overall Cronbach alpha 0.957 indicating that each item contributed positively
on
24
25 to internal consistency. This implies that statistical tests can be applied to all items without excluding
26
27
an
any item.
28
29
30 Table 4. Ranking of CWFs within the whole survey sample
dA
31
32
33 Overall Option selected
34 Identifier N MS SD
ranking
rch
35 1 2 3 4 5
36
37 1 CWF23 16 41 75 108 90 330 3.651 1.147
38
39 2 CWF7 18 42 70 112 88 330 3.636 1.162
ite
40
41 3 CWF13 22 48 71 110 79 330 3.533 1.192
42
ctu
43 4 CWF8 24 51 66 108 81 330 3.518 1.220

44
45 5 CWF10 14 57 98 110 51 330 3.385 1.072
46
ra
47
6 CWF19 17 59 108 94 52 330 3.318 1.096
48
7 CWF20 33 52 78 113 54 330 3.312 1.208
49
lM
50
8 CWF21 34 61 82 88 65 330 3.270 1.258
51
52 9 CWF05 23 64 97 101 45 330 3.246 1.125
an
53
54 10 CWF17 16 77 97 98 42 330 3.221 1.089
55
56
a
11 CWF18 23 61 119 94 33 330 3.161 1.061

57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 12 CWF12 28 62 109 95 36 330 3.149 1.110
3
4
in
13 CWF16 38 65 98 87 42 330 3.091 1.194
5
6 14 CWF25 16 68 143 80 23 330 3.079 .9580
g,
7
8 15 CWF24 42 69 84 92 43 330 3.076 1.231
9
Co
10 16 CWF06 22 76 119 81 32 330 3.076 1.062
11
12 17 CWF22 38 67 94 96 35 330 3.070 1.173
13
ns
14 18 CWF29 18 92 121 62 37 330 3.024 1.065
15
16 19 CWF15 35 75 103 81 36 330 3.024 1.156
tru
17
18 20 CWF14 34 74 110 79 33 330 3.009 1.131
19
21 CWF03 35 75 103 81 36 330 2.979 1.250
cti
20
21
22 22 CWF11 25 97 103 72 33 330 2.973 1.103
23
on
24 23 CWF2 28 83 120 70 29 330 2.967 1.0756

25
26 24 CWF28 41 91 79 72 47 330 2.942 .9674
27
an
25 CWF4 21 84 135 73 17 330 2.942 .9674

28
29
26 CWF1 22 99 117 69 23 330 2.915 1.0249
30
dA
31 27 CWF27 28 83 120 70 29 330 2.912 .9807

32
33 28 CWF9 39 82 114 73 22 330 2.870 1.0935
34
rch
35 29 CWF30 25 106 130 51 18 330 2.791 .977

36
37 30 CWF26 37 103 106 64 20 330 2.779 1.073
38
39
ite
31 CWF31 52 134 94 33 17 330 2.482 1.037

40
41
42 Note: Cronbach alpha=0.957
ctu
43
44
45 Factors with MS higher than the average total value (3.110) were identified as the most significant
46
ra
47 items. As shown in table 4, twelve factors with average scores above 3.110. These items are, therefore,
48
49
lM
considered to be the causes of waste with the highest impact on the performance of Moroccan
50
51
52 construction projects. Among these 12 factors, the whole factors come from category D
an
53
54 "Management/administration/finance", category B "People" and category C
55
56 "Contractor/Subcontractors". This result reveals that the causes of wastage related to those waste
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 categories are the most critical problems in the Moroccan construction project, which implies the need
3
4
in
to give greater priority to reducing these sources of waste. These results confirm those obtained by
5
6
(Khanh and Kim, 2015), stating that factors belonging to the company's management system, staff
g,
7
8
9 development, as well as financed problems represent a major priority for professionals to reduce the
Co
10
11 criticality of the impact on waste generation. The five main causes of waste are as follows: the first is
12
13
ns
14 CWF23 "Late payment" (MS = 3.651), which is considered the most critical factor with a high degree
15
16 of influence on the performance of Moroccan construction projects based on the perceptions of the
tru
17
18 survey participants; followed by CWF07 "Lack of training raising awareness on social sustainability
19
cti
20
and environmental impact for employees" (MS=3.636); the third is CWF13 "Lack of 3Rs - Reduce,
21
22
23 Reuse & Recycle- strategies for waste management (minimization, collection, separation, storage,
on
24
25 transportation, treatment, and disposal -" (MS=3,533); the fourth and fifth factors in the ranking are
26
27
an
CWF8 "Accidents due to negligence, carelessness, and lack of supervision " (MS=3.518) and CWF10
28
29
30 "Multiple levels of subcontractors" (MS=3.385). Generally, the overall likelihood of considering the
dA
31
32 listed above items as causes of waste that could impact project performance is moderately high as most
33
34 of the mean values of the tested items are higher than 2.500. However, the only exception is the item
rch
35
36
37 (CWF31) 'Land degradation due to construction activities' which is recognized as a low impacting
38
39 factor with a slightly low MS of 2.482.
ite
40
41 4.3. Kruskal–Wallis Test
42
ctu
43
The overall sample was subdivided into four subgroups according to organizational characteristics;
44
45
46 subgroups 1 were classified according to a) size of organization (small, medium, large); subgroups 2
ra
47
48 were classified according to b) areas of specialization (building; civil engineering projects and heavy
49
lM
50 construction (roads, bridges, and dams); specialized work (mechanical, electrical, air conditioning, and
51
52
plumbing)); subgroups 3 were classified according to c) sector of activity (public, semi-public, private).
an
53
54
55 Table 5 shows the results of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the 31 causes of waste assessed in this study.
56
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 Table 5. Results of Kruskal–Wallis Test
3
4
in
Kruskal Wallis Anova Test for Kruskal Wallis Anova Test for Kruskal Wallis Anova Test
5
6 Identifier subgroups according to the size subgroups according to the fields for subgroups according to
g,
7
of organization of specialization the activity area
8
9 P-value P-value P-value
Co
10
11 CWF1 0.710 0.651 0.349
12
13 CWF2 0.175 0.982 0.694
ns
14
CWF3 0.460 0.404 0.367
15
16
tru
CWF4 0.334 0.592 0.500
17
18 CWF5 0.069 0.374 0.179
19
CWF6 0.733 0.936 0.003a
cti
20
21 CWF7 0.233 0.538 0.089
22
23 CWF8 0.070 0.524 0.274
on
24
25 CWF9 0.534 0.718 0.412
26 CWF10 0.234 0.174 0.149
27
an
28 CWF11 0.370 0.255 0.664

29
30 CWF12 0.681 0.182 0.265
dA
31
CWF13 0.416 0.217 0.241
32
33 CWF14 0.422 0.415 0.600
34
rch
35 CWF15 0.645 0.254 0.782

36
37 CWF16 0.209 0.779 0.171
38
CWF17 0.941 0.377 0.509
39
ite
40 CWF18 0.749 0.339 0.396

41
42 CWF19 0.625 0.513 0.606
ctu
43
CWF20 0.763 0.399 0.193
44
45 CWF21 0.204 0.233 0.214
46
ra
47 CWF22 0.191 0.701 0.401

48
49 CWF23 0.037a 0.770 0.150
lM
50 CWF24 0.750 0.416 0.710

51
52 CWF25 0.102 0.460 0.591
an
53
54 CWF26 0.188 0.506 0.819
55 CWF27 0.066 0.578 0.685
56
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 CWF28 0.334 0.596 0.500
3
4 CWF29 0.740 0.362 0.567
in
5
CWF30 0.942 0.894 0.088
6
g,
7 CWF31 0.954 0.228 0.179
8
9 a The significance level is 0.05 (p-value less than 0.05)
Co
10
11
12 As shown in Table 5, all p-values were above 0.05 for subgroups 2, indicating that area of
13
ns
14 specialization did not affect respondents' perceptions of the impact of the 31 causes of waste listed in
15
16
tru
this study. However, for sub-groups 1, respondents have different perceptions regarding the item
17
18
19 (CWF23: late payment) since the p-value is less than 0.05 (0.037). Professionals working in small
cti
20
21 companies perceive that waste generation becomes more critical in the case of late payment
22
23
on
(MS=3.809) as compared to professionals in medium and large companies (MS=3.594 and MS=3.416
24
25
26
respectively). This may be due to the limited financial resources of small companies to support
27
an
28 financial burdens and ensure meeting quality, time, budget, and safety requirements. Furthermore, the
29
30 limited financial resources for small businesses require timely payment to prevent project delays.
dA
31
32
Similarly, for subgroups 3, respondents have different perceptions of the item (CWF6: Lack of staff
33
34
experience in sustainable construction projects management) since the p-value is less than 0.05 (0.003).
rch
35
36
37 In the public sector, there are more requirements in terms of assigning and selecting companies with
38
39
ite
experienced staff with the required knowledge regarding sustainable construction management. This
40
41
42 justifies the higher MS (MS=3.298) in this sector compared to the semi-public and private sectors
ctu
43
44 (MS=3.043 and MS=2.866 respectively). These results indicate that respondents' perceptions of the
45
46 level of the impact of the two items (CWF6 and CWF23) could be influenced by criteria such as the
ra
47
48
49
size of the organization and the sector of activity, but generally the p-values of the other items are
lM
50
51 higher than the significant value of 0.05 for the three subgroups, indicating that the null hypothesis is
52
an
53 valid and that no statistically significant difference exists between the perceptions of respondents with
54
55
different organizational characteristics.
56
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 4.4. Results of Spearman’s rank correlation
3
4
in
The ranking correlation of the various items was analyzed through Spearman's correlation test to
5
6
examine overall consistency among the various respondent subgroups. Table 6 shows the correlation
g,
7
8
9 between various respondent subgroups.
Co
10
11 Table 6. Spearman’s rank correlation between the respondents
12
13
ns
Spearman’s rank correlation
14 Data pair
15 coefficient (rs)
16
tru
17
According to the field of specialization
18
Building- Road and bridge projects 0.865**
Subgroup 1
19
cti
20
21
Building- Mechanical. Electrical. and Plumbing 0.905**
22
Road and bridge projects-Building- Mechanical.
23
on
0.895**
24 Electrical. and Plumbing
25
26 According to the size of the organization
27
an
Subgroup 3
28 Small-Medium 0.817**
29
30 Small-Large 0.838**
dA
31
32 Medium-Large 0.858**
33
34 According to the activity area
rch
35
Subgroup 4
36 Public-Semi-public 0.930**
37
38 Public-Private 0.931**
39
ite
Semi-public-Private 0.914**
40
41
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
42
ctu
43
44
The highest correlation (rs=0.931) was observed between respondents working in the public sector and
45
46 those working in the semi-public sector, indicating a high level of consistency between the two
ra
47
48 categories in the ranking of the 31 items. Besides, it reveals a high agreement amongst professionals
49
lM
50
regarding the ranking of the most critical causes of wastes in both sectors. The lowest correlation
51
52
(rs=0.888) was observed between small and large organizations, indicating that there are slightly
an
53
54
55 different opinions between the two categories. Overall, these results indicate general agreement on the
56
a
57 ranking of items among the different sub-groups of respondents since all indicators (rs) are close to 1.
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 To study the level of inter-correlation between the different items, a Spearman's rho inter-correlation
3
4
in
matrix was established. In Table 7, the cells highlighted in black in the matrix indicate a high
5
6
correlation (Spearman's correlation coefficient > 0.5); Cells highlighted in grey indicate moderate
g,
7
8
9 correlation (0.3<Spearman's correlation coefficient<=0.5) (Tezel et al., 2018). Most of the correlations
Co
10
11 were significant at the 0.01 level (2-sided); 99% confidence level, as seen in table 7. Therefore, the data
12
13
ns
14 set could be analyzed as a whole for the factor analysis.
15
16 Table 7. Spearman's rho inter-correlation matrix
tru
17
18
CWF10
CWF11
CWF12
CWF13
CWF14
CWF15
CWF16
CWF17
CWF18
CWF19
CWF20
CWF21
CWF22
CWF23
CWF24
CWF25
CWF26
CWF27
CWF28
CWF29
CWF30
CWF31
CWF1
CWF2
CWF3
CWF4
CWF5
CWF6
CWF7
CWF8
CWF9
19
cti
20 CWF1 1.000
21 CWF2 .354** 1.000
22 CWF3 .276** .433** 1.000
23
on
CWF4 .398** .360** .395** 1.000
24 CWF5 .418** .338** .366** .452** 1.000
25 CWF6 .370** .329** .318** .383** .720** 1.000
26 CWF7 .299** .243** .364** .407** .528** .489** 1.000
27
an
CWF8 .323** .404** .466** .368** .392** .360** .551** 1.000
28 CWF9 .352** .385** .315** .368** .463** .489** .408** .396** 1.000
29 CWF10 .368** .247** .209** .406** .434** .372** .477** .306** .282** 1.000
30 CWF11 .390** .354** .266** .396** .463** .412** .460** .333** .398** .726** 1.000
dA
31 CWF12 .329** .376** .311** .415** .551** .532** .505** .368** .465** .560** .707** 1.000
32 CWF13 .308** .329** .402** .424** .453** .392** .554** .507** .500** .306** .339** .419** 1.000
33 CWF14 .406** .412** .365** .365** .426** .390** .406** .451** .465** .372** .420** .425** .430** 1.000
34 CWF15 .372** .410** .370** .363** .416** .386** .395** .388** .443** .346** .434** .427** .395** .501** 1.000
rch
35 CWF16 .372** .382** .421** .367** .435** .359** .407** .498** .456** .360** .435** .448** .408** .614** .704** 1.000
36 CWF17 .387** .447** .365** .337** .423** .338** .378** .454** .378** .432** .508** .475** .450** .535** .414** .436** 1.000
37 CWF18 .409** .514** .403** .378** .409** .396** .394** .437** .383** .383** .475** .535** .465** .509** .521** .534** .699** 1.000
38 CWF19 .420** .514** .428** .413** .389** .364** .378** .436** .377** .383** .397** .436** .462** .449** .433** .418** .580** .673** 1.000
39
ite
CWF20 .385** .551** .515** .459** .392** .395** .424** .508** .405** .369** .399** .442** .544** .489** .452** .482** .573** .664** .764** 1.000
40 CWF21 .285 **
.433**
.539**
.407**
.409 **
.318 **
.535 **
.725 **
.333 **
.293 **
.313 **
.327 **
.482 **
.426 **
.404 **
.477 **
.412 **
.441** .456** .498** 1.000
41 CWF22 .345 **
.344**
.354**
.427**
.385 **
.436 **
.516 **
.500 **
.550 **
.392 **
.471 **
.477 **
.420 **
.505 **
.551 **
.490 **
.390 **
.436** .430** .431** .446** 1.000
42 CWF23 .284 **
.293**
.294**
.323**
.333 **
.269 **
.363 **
.463 **
.332 **
.324 **
.372 **
.309 **
.331 **
.438 **
.559 **
.465 **
.346 **
.328** .311** .381** .373** .554** 1.000
ctu
43 CWF24 .443 **
.416**
.338**
.513**
.489 **
.465 **
.484 **
.412 **
.499 **
.424 **
.517 **
.552 **
.615 **
.465 **
.484 **
.480 **
.438 **
.505** .478** .479** .439** .525** .331** 1.000
44 CWF25 .422** .353** .335** .604** .387** .346** .434** .430** .300** .405** .409** .347** .391** .344** .376** .377** .408** .462** .454** .458** .440** .380** .315** .464** 1.000
45 CWF26 .354** .279** .314** .502** .426** .420** .377** .382** .370** .284** .311** .325** .420** .339** .377** .387** .327** .441** .385** .392** .346** .318** .274** .435** .590** 1.000
46 CWF27 .448** .384** .379** .615** .456** .459** .417** .389** .417** .394** .437** .471** .383** .331** .400** .385** .381** .400** .420** .437** .355** .413** .292** .498** .513** .479** 1.000
ra
47 CWF28 .398** .360** .395** .532** .452** .383** .407** .368** .368** .406** .396** .415** .424** .365** .363** .367** .337** .378** .413** .459** .407** .427** .323** .513** .604** .502** .615** 1.000
48 CWF29 .481 **
.342**
.292**
.346**
.387 **
.296 **
.335 **
.374 **
.273 **
.348 **
.365 **
.307 **
.234 **
.344 **
.317 **
.346 **
.346 **
.313 **
.272 **
.262 **
.340 **
.335 **
.401 **
.270 **
.332 **
.319** .291** .346** 1.000
49
lM
CWF30 .292 **
.274**
.209**
.254**
.257 **
.278 **
.264 **
.338 **
.197 **
.288 **
.284 **
.220 **
.124 **
.327 **
.224 **
.242 **
.381 **
.341 **
.346 **
.263 **
.302 **
.289 **
.174 **
.237 **
.343 **
.226** .209** .254** .345** 1.000
50 CWF31 .316 **
.454**
.306**
.358**
.343 **
.318 **
.258 **
.324 **
.283 **
.294 **
.366 **
.305 **
.238 **
.367 **
.360 **
.392 **
.335 **
.370 **
.329 **
.346 **
.322 **
.351 **
.242 **
.337 **
.312 **
.305** .313** .358** .406** .549** 1.000
51
**. The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-sided)
52
an
53
54
55
56
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 4.5. Results of factor analysis
3
4
in
Due to the large number of variables (31 variables, see Table 2) adopted in this survey, it was probable
5
6
that some variables would have similar or identical underlying effects, as well as significant inter-
g,
7
8
9 correlation between items, as shown in Table 7. Therefore, a variable reduction technique, namely
Co
10
11 factor analysis, was needed for reducing and refining these components to produce a small number of
12
13
ns
14 coherent clusters. A principal component analysis (PCA) is performed on the 31 items listed in our
15
16 study. It is important to mention that before using the PCA, the adequacy of the data must be verified;
tru
17
18 therefore, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and the Bartlett sphericity test have been established.
19
cti
20
The KMO index ranges from 0 to 1, where 0.5 is the suggested minimum value for accurate factor
21
22
23 analysis (Ye et al., 2014). Also, the Bartlett sphericity test shows whether the correlation matrix is an
on
24
25 identity matrix. (Pallant, 2015) suggested that Bartlett's sphericity test should be significant (p-
26
27
an
value<0.05) for FA to be considered appropriate. The KMO for all 31 variables is 0.943, which is
28
29
30 excellent for factor analysis. Moreover, Bartlett's sphericity test is 5712.635 and the corresponding
dA
31
32 significance level is low (p=0.000), as shown in Table 8. On this basis, the null hypothesis is rejected,
33
34 implying that the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix. Both parameters (the KMO index and the
rch
35
36
37 Bartlett sphericity test) justify the use of principal component analysis (PCA). Besides, the reliability
38
39 test revealed a Cronbach's alpha value of about 0.957 which reinforces the use of this statistical
ite
40
41 technique for the reduction of variables.
42
ctu
43 Table 8. Results of KMO and Bartlett’s Tests

44
45
46 Parameter Value
ra
47
48 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.943
49
lM
Bartlett’s test of sphericity

50
51 Approximate chi-square 5712.635
52
an
53 Df 351
54
55 Sig 0.000
56
a
57 Note: Df= degree of freedom; Sig = probability

ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 Subsequently, the 31 items were correlated with the PCA and then rotated using the Varimax method to
3
4
in
generate a reduced structure. The PCA generates six clusters with eigenvalues higher than 1, which is
5
6
the cut-off criterion for identifying the appropriate number of latent factors (Chan et al., 2017; Kissi et
g,
7
8
9 al., 2016; Mao et al., 2015; Sarhan et al., 2018).
Co
10
11 The extracted factors usually explain only 50% to 60% in reaseah related to construction project
12
13
ns
14 management (Bajjou and Chafi, 2020b; Khanh and Kim, 2015; Yang et al., 2009). The idea is to
15
16 determine an optimal number of clusters that accounts for the maximum possible variance based on
tru
17
18 Kaiser Criteria (Eight values higher than 1). The six extracted factors explain 66.342 % of the total
19
cti
20
variance as shown in Table 9, which is higher than the 60 % required for construct validity, and the
21
22
23 factor loadings for all 31 causes exceed the 0.50 also needed (Ozorhon and Karahan, 2016; Ye et al.,
on
24
25 2014).
26
27
an
Table 9. Total Variance Explained

28
29
30
Initial eigenvalues Rotation sums of squared loadings
dA
31
32 Cluster Total % of variance Cumulative (%) Total % of variance Cumulative (%)
33
34 1 13.725 44.274 44.274 4.032 13.007 13.007
rch
35
36 2 1.672 5.394 49.668 4.022 12.974 25.981
37
38
3 1.468 4.735 54.403 3.765 12.146 38.128
39
ite
4 1.433 4.623 59.026 3.424 11.044 49.172

40
41
5 1.222 3.943 62.969 2.955 9.533 58.705
42
ctu
43 6 1.046 3.373 66.342 2.367 7.637 66.342

44
45
46
Table 10 illustrates the matrix of components after the Varimax rotation. Only factor extractions
ra
47
48
49 greater than 0.500 have been taken into account; thus, the factor “Lack of on-site quality control”,
lM
50
51 “Insufficient experience of the main contractor in managing sustainable projects”, and ‘Frequent design
52
an
53 changes/ Last minute client requirements” have not been extracted since their factor extractions (0.450,
54
55
56
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 0.411, 0.390, respectively) are less than 0.500. Each component can be named and interpreted using the
3
4
in
combination of the meanings of the variables with the highest extractions.
5
6
Table 10. The final clustering of the CWFs
g,
7
8
9 Code Clusters Factor Loading
Co
10
11 Cluster 1: Material related factors
12 Inappropriate materials/misuse of materials 0.861
13
ns
14 Non-consideration of reusable construction materials in the design 0.861
15
16 stage
tru
17
Late delivery of materials and equipment 0.656
18
19 Lack of procedures for safely handling construction material 0.653
cti
20
21 Wrong material storage 0.605
22
23 Cluster 2: Subcontractors and workers
on
24
25 Unawareness of sustainability criteria by subcontractors 0.737
26
27 Frequent change of subcontractors 0.709
an
28
Multiple levels of subcontractors 0.673
29
30
dA
31 Lack of staff experience in sustainable construction projects 0.626

32 management
33
34 Unskilled workers 0.617
rch
35
36 Cluster 3: Planning, communication, and coordination
37
38 Poor planning and scheduling 0.741
39
ite
40 Lack of collective planning 0.715

41
42
Lack of communication and coordination amongst project 0.742
ctu
43 collaborators
44
45 Lack of commitment by project stakeholders to sustainable waste 0.657
46 management
ra
47
48 Ignorance of procedures related to energy savings and environmental 0.583
49
lM
issues in design stages

50
51 Cluster 4: People involvement and Financial issues
52
an
53 Lack of client involvement 0.746

54
55 Late payment 0.729
56
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 Lack of supplier involvement 0.680
3
4 Insufficient financial resources 0.582
in
5
6 Lack of top management commitment to adopt sustainable waste 0.537
g,
7 management
8
9 Cluster 5: People development strategies
Co
10 Lack of a strategy for reducing work-related accidents 0.713
11
12 Accidents due to negligence, carelessness, and lack of supervision 0.695
13
ns
Lack of training raising awareness on social sustainability and 0.568
14
15 environmental impact for employees
16
tru
17 Non-consideration of environmental issues during the project design 0.546
18 for construction, operation, demolition, recycling, and disposal
19
Lack of 3Rs - Reduce, Reuse & Recycle- strategies for waste 0.514
cti
20
21 management (minimization, collection, separation, storage,
22
23 transportation, treatment, and disposal)
on
24
25
Cluster 6: External factors
26 Effect of weather 0.740
27
an
28 Land degradation due to construction activities 0.683

29 Material prices change 0.627
30
dA
31 Lack of on-site quality control a 0.450

32
Insufficient experience of the main contractor in managing 0.411
33
34 sustainable projects a
rch
35
36 Frequent design changes/ Last minute client requirements a 0.390
37 Note: Extraction method = principal component analysis; rotation method = Varimax with Kaiser Normalization;
38
39 rotation converged in 9 iterations. a Loading less than 0.5.
ite
40 5. Discussions
41
42
ctu
43
It worth noting that although the 31 CWFs were categorized into 6 sub-groups in the matrix of
44
45 causative factors, as shown in table 1, it is not revealing what characteristics are seen in multiple
46
ra
47 patterns and how those patterns overlap. Factor analysis is a powerful statistical technique allowing
48
49
lM
finding underlying hidden patterns that are reflected in the observed variables which leads to a few
50
51
52 interpretable latent factors.
an
53
54 5.1. Cluster 1: Material related factors
55
56
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 The “Material related factors” cluster consists of five CWFs including (1) Inappropriate
3
4
in
materials/misuse of materials (2) Non-consideration of reusable construction materials in the design
5
6
stage (3) Late delivery of materials (4) Lack of procedures for safely handling construction material(5)
g,
7
8
9 Wrong material storage. These factors are mainly related to the management of materials in terms of
Co
10
11 selection, procurement, usage, and storage. The factor “Inappropriate materials/misuse of materials”
12
13
ns
14 was also recognized by (Khanh and Kim, 2014) as a material related factor. The training of employees
15
16 on the proper use of the materials and on-site supervision can be two effective solutions to reduce the
tru
17
18 severity of this cause of waste. Non-consideration of reusable construction materials in the design stage
19
cti
20
contributes to increasing solid material waste. The design team is recommended to opt for reusable and
21
22
23 recyclable materials with sufficient quality to satisfy the customer and meet quality and safety
on
24
25 requirements. In the United Arab Emirates, late delivery was at the top of the most critical construction
26
27
an
waste causes (Kharade, 2019). The just-in-time technique could be a reliable solution to reduce supply
28
29
30 delays as it allows ensuring the appropriate quantity at the right time and in the desired workplace.
dA
31
32 Moreover, maintaining a long-term relationship with reliable suppliers can help avoid delivery delays.
33
34 The poor handling of materials is a kind of direct waste factor under the recognition of lean thinking
rch
35
36
37 (Khanh and Kim, 2015, 2014). Improper handling of materials may lead to their deterioration,
38
39 especially in the case of materials that are very easy to damage or break such as tiles and ceramics,
ite
40
41 which increases the financial burden on the main contractor. It is recommended to reduce double
42
ctu
43
handling actions as well as worker and equipment movements by keeping the flow as simple as
44
45
46 possible with close and well-organized work stations. Besides, it will beneficial for project managers to
ra
47
48 develop an adequate plan for the distribution of equipment and materials to each team of workers and
49
lM
50 standardize transport procedures to make logistics flow efficient and reduce hazardous transport
51
52
actions. Poor storage of materials is the main cause of material damage, which leads to a shortage of
an
53
54
55 materials on the construction site. It is strongly suggested that contractors and subcontractors adopt
56
a
57 visual management and 5S process to manage material inventories. According to (Salem et al., 2006,
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 2005), this approach helps reduce material loss and deterioration on construction sites. The authors
3
4
in
consider “Cluster 1: Material related factors” as the most critical component as it explains 13.007 % of
5
6
the total variance. It could be concluded that four factors among five factors indicated in this cluster,
g,
7
8
9 which are inappropriate materials/misuse of materials, late delivery of materials, lack of procedures for
Co
10
11 safely handling construction material, and wrong material storage come from category
12
13
ns
14 “Execution/performance” (E). This result reveals an increased need to give more priority to reducing
15
16 these sources of waste. These results confirm those obtained by (Khanh and Kim, 2015), stating that
tru
17
18 factors belonging to the company's performance and supply chain management represent a major
19
cti
20
priority for professionals to reduce the criticality of these sources of waste.
21
22
23
on
24 5.2. Cluster 2: Subcontractors and workforce

25
26
27 The “Subcontractors and workers” cluster consists of five CWFs including (1) Unawareness of
an
28
29 sustainability criteria by subcontractors (2) Frequent change of subcontractors (3) Multiple levels of
30
dA
31 subcontractors (4) Lack of staff experience in sustainable construction projects management (5)
32
33
34 Unskilled workers. According to (Aziz and Abdel-Hakam, 2016; Fugar and Agyakwah-baah, 2010),
rch
35
36 poor subcontractor performance leads to project delay. It is therefore essential to choose experienced
37
38 and reputable subcontractors rather than awarding work to subcontractors based on the lowest bid
39
ite
40
41
price. Furthermore, it is recommended to select subcontractors based on their level of awareness
42
ctu
43 regarding sustainable construction. The frequent change of subcontractors is the result of a poor
44
45 understanding of the scope and complexity of the project, leading to contract inappropriate
46
ra
47
subcontractors with insufficient qualifications. In this regard, it is recommended to be inspired by the
48
49
lM
50 Lean philosophy for partner relations, which includes trust, benefit-sharing, and mutual cooperation,
51
52 which help promote harmony between construction companies and subcontractors and ensure long-
an
53
54 term partnerships. Having multiple levels of subcontractors is a serious challenge for coordination and
55
56
a
57 communication between the main contractor and its subcontractors, notably in developing countries
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 such as Morocco, where most construction projects are subcontracted (Bajjou and Chafi, 2020b,
3
4
in
2020c). Construction project managers are recommended ensuring transparent and flexible
5
6
communication with all project coordinators including subcontractors. Lack of staff experience in
g,
7
8
9 sustainable construction projects management inquires a higher rate of injuries and quality defects
Co
10
11 (Harris and McCaffer, 2013). In case the company is not able to recruit experienced employees, it
12
13
ns
14 should provide training programs (safety precautions, development of technical and managerial skills,
15
16 and so on). Poor workmanship and unskilled employees may boost the occurrence of several problems
tru
17
18 such as construction errors, quality defects, workplace accidents, and low productivity which impact
19
cti
20
the overall performance. If the hiring of unskilled workers is unavoidable, construction companies
21
22
23 should ensure adequate supervision on the construction site. Besides, training programs should be
on
24
25 established to improve their technical level and make them familiar with new construction
26
27
an
technologies. Cluster 2: Subcontractors and workforce explains 12.974 % of the total variance.
28
29
30 5.3. Cluster 3: Planning, communication, and coordination
dA
31
32 The “Planning and coordination” cluster consists of five CWFs including (1) Poor planning and
33
34 scheduling (2) Lack of collective planning (3) Lack of communication and coordination amongst
rch
35
36
37 project collaborators (4) Lack of commitment by project stakeholders to sustainable waste management
38
39 (5) Ignorance of procedures related to energy savings and environmental issues in design stages. These
ite
40
41 factors are mainly related to the planning system as well as the level of communication and
42
ctu
43
coordination amongst project stakeholders. Planning is considered a crucial factor in the success of any
44
45
46 construction project. More than half of the planned construction tasks in the traditional planning and
ra
47
48 scheduling system are not completed on time (Bajjou et al., 2019b; Dupin, 2014). Poor planning and
49
lM
50 scheduling is the outcome of the assignment of work without taking into account factors such as the
51
52
availability of workers and materials when needed, ensuring safety conditions, and providing the
an
53
54
55 necessary financial resources, to the main contractor and its subcontractors. Ineffective planning and
56
a
57 scheduling is one of the top-10 causes of delays in the Moroccan construction project (Bajjou and
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 Chafi, 2020c). Moreover, this cause of waste is classified as the second factor leading to waste
3
4
in
generation in Vietnams (Khanh and Kim, 2014). The planning team is recommended to continuously
5
6
monitor and control the planning progress and develop solutions to common problems that cause waste
g,
7
8
9 generation to avoid them in future projects. In most Moroccan construction projects, managers indicate
Co
10
11 ‘what to do' and 'when' to the rest of the collaborators in the project without considering the ability of
12
13
ns
14 companies to fulfil their missions. The last planner system (LPS), which is the core of Lean
15
16 Construction philosophy, can be beneficial to provide collaborative planning and encourage
tru
17
18 communication and coordination amongst project actors. A weekly meeting may promote
19
cti
20
communication and coordination amongst project collaborators as it allows controlling, updating and
21
22
23 monitoring progress. Besides, owners, contractors, and consultants can meet to overcome challenges,
on
24
25 assess current performance, and improve future work. It is essential for the owner to coordinate
26
27
an
effectively with the contractors to avoid conflicts and misunderstandings that may occur during the
28
29
30 different process stage of a project. Moreover, a long-term relationship with project stakeholders
dA
31
32 stimulates a cooperative rather than a conflict-based relationship. Effective communication and
33
34 coordination between the design team and client are recommended to avoid mistakes and discrepancies
rch
35
36
37 in design drawings. In addition, it is recommended to use advanced engineering design software.
38
39 Cluster 2: “Planning and coordination” explains 12.146 % of the total variance.
ite
40
41 5.4. Cluster 4: People involvement and Financial issues
42
ctu
43
The “People involvement and Financial issues” cluster consists of five CWFs including (1) Lack of
44
45
46 client involvement (2) Late payment (3) Lack of supplier involvement (4) Insufficient financial
ra
47
48 resources (5) Lack of top management commitment to adopt sustainable waste management . These
49
lM
50 factors are mainly related to the commitment and involvement of clients, suppliers, and top
51
52
management as well as financial issues such as late payment and insufficient financial resources. Lack
an
53
54
55 of client involvement is the main cause of several problems such as design failure, poor quality, and
56
a
57 conflicts, which result from activities and decisions taken during the project (Trigunarsyah, 2017).
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 Involving clients at the early stages of design helps ensure maximum value and reduce wasteful
3
4
in
activities, thus reducing the loss of time, materials, and funds. It has been found that this cause of waste
5
6
is ranked in the top five-factor in several developing countries such as Ghana (rank 1), Egypt (rank 1),
g,
7
8
9 Tanzania (rank 1), Benin (rank 2), Malaysia (rank 4) and Burkina Faso (rank 4). Delayed payment from
Co
10
11 the owner to contractor decreases contractors' performance and may also leads to claims, conflicts, and
12
13
ns
14 disputes between owner and contractor of project (Enshassi et al., 2009). The survey findings reveal
15
16 that Morocco is not an exception, delay of progress payment’ is recognized as the most critical cause of
tru
17
18 waste in the Moroccan construction industry. It is then encouraged to prepare the payment schedules at
19
cti
20
the planning stage to help companies get paid on time. Besides, owners must honour the payment
21
22
23 schedule. For efficient procurement and supply, suppliers must be involved from the early stages of the
on
24
25 project. In addition to long-term partnerships must be established with reliable and reputable suppliers.
26
27
an
Insufficient financial resources have been classified at the top barriers hindering the deployment of
28
29
30 innovative approaches such as Lean Construction in Morocco (Bajjou and Chafi, 2018e). This factor
dA
31
32 tends to be at the heart of Moroccan construction professionals' preoccupations and must be addressed
33
34 at the organizational level. It is recommended to engage contractors and subcontractors with enough
rch
35
36
37 financial capability instead of low bidding contracts. The involvement of top management is essential
38
39 in achieving sustainability goals and ensure a successful implementation and adoption of effective
ite
40
41 strategies such as waste reduction, safety improvement, and so on (Almeida and Salazar, 2003; Bajjou
42
ctu
43
and chafi , 2018b). Cluster 4: People involvement and financial issues explains 11.044 % of the total
44
45
46 variance.
ra
47
48 5.5. Cluster 5: People development strategies
49
lM
50 The “People development strategies” cluster consists of five CWFs including (1) Lack of rigorous
51
52
safety measures & procedures to prevent occurrence of the accidents (2) Accidents due to negligence,
an
53
54
55 carelessness, and lack of supervision (3) Lack of training raising awareness on social sustainability and
56
a
57 environmental impact for employees (4) Non-consideration of environmental issues during the project
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 design for construction, operation, demolition, recycling, and disposal (5) Lack of 3Rs - Reduce, Reuse
3
4
in
& Recycle- strategies for waste management (minimization, collection, separation, storage,
5
6
transportation, treatment, and disposal). These factors are mainly related to people's awareness of waste
g,
7
8
9 reduction, safety regulations, and knowledge of technical and managerial skills. Over the decades, the
Co
10
11 high rate of workplace accidents has made the construction field one of the most dangerous industries
12
13
ns
14 in the world (Bajjou et al., 2017a; Borys, 2012; Dupin, 2014). Workplace accidents are considered a
15
16 loss in process reliability and certainly lead to additional costs such as the cost of time lost, the cost of
tru
17
18 insurance, and the high cost of medical treatment in addition to a rehabilitation program (Bajjou et al.,
19
cti
20
2017b). In addition to these economic losses, it also leads to indirect impacts such as administrative
21
22
23 costs, lower productivity and lower staff motivation, and above all to the deterioration of the company's
on
24
25 image in the market (Bajjou et al., 2017b). The improvement of employee safety performance, such as
26
27
an
the reduction of injury and fatality rates, is an example of waste reduction. Several studies (Bajjou et
28
29
30 al., 2018b, 2018d; Ng et al., 2012) has demonstrated that Lean Construction practices such as Visual
dA
31
32 Management, Last Planner System, Error-proofing, and 5S approach could be beneficial for
33
34 construction projects for improving the well-being of employees and minimize the risks of the
rch
35
36
37 occupational accidents. (Brace and Gibb, 2009) Reported that personal negligence, carelessness, and
38
39 lack of supervision are the main causes leading to fatal accidents. Therefore, awareness programs
ite
40
41 should be established to keep employees informed of the importance of safety precautions in avoiding
42
ctu
43
accidents. Lack of training raising awareness on social sustainability and environmental impact for
44
45
46 employees is a common issue in several countries such as China (Wang et al., 2008), Turkey (Esin and
ra
47
48 Cosgun, 2007), and Palestine (Al-Najjar, 2008). Participation in training seminars should be made
49
lM
50 mandatory especially for low-skilled workforces. Moreover, certification sessions are encouraged to
51
52
improve technical and managerial skills for construction staff and to explore new technologies. Not
an
53
54
55 using advanced and recent engineering design software is one of the most critical factors leading to
56
a
57 project delay in Morocco (Bajjou and Chafi, 2020c). To survive in a highly competitive environment, it
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 is recommended to adopt new technologies for design based on cloud computing such as BIM and
3
4
in
consider environmental issues in design stage. (John and Itodo, 2013) noted that on average 30% of
5
6
cost overruns were due to material waste. Furthermore, a recent study stated that material waste is a
g,
7
8
9 common issue in Moroccan construction projects (Bajjou and Chafi, 2020b). Hence, it is beneficial for
Co
10
11 Moroccan construction companies or those abroad to consider deploying material waste reduction
12
13
ns
14 strategies such as RRRs and Lean Construction management and to disseminate a culture of waste
15
16 awareness/waste consciousness and sustainable management among construction staff. “Cluster 5:
tru
17
18 People development strategies” explains 9.533 % of the total variance.
19
cti
20
21 5.6. Cluster 6: External factors
22
23
on
24 The “External factors” cluster consists of three CWFs including (1) Effect of weather (2) Land
25
26 degradation due to construction activities (3) Material prices change. The effect of weather is
27
an
28 considered as an uncontrollable cause of waste that produces physical and non-physical waste
29
30
(Nagapan et al., 2012). Storms and heavy rain ruin many building materials on the site, such as
dA
31
32
33 damaged formwork, rusty steel bars, and wet concrete. Site works, such as excavation work and
34
rch
35 concreting may be disturbed under the effect of bad weather (Nagapan et al., 2012). Weather changes
36
37
are caused by uncontrollable circumstances. Effective and flexible planning techniques should
38
39
ite
40 therefore be applied for reducing the waste resulting from such events. Besides, proper storage is
41
42 highly recommended to prevent damage of weather-sensitive materials. Nerveless, land degradation
ctu
43
44 due to construction activities seems to be the least influential factor according to the results of the
45
46
ra
47 survey of this study (SM=2.482), it is recommended to control the soil conditions before starting
48
49 construction activities and minimize green land deterioration. Material prices change is recognized as a
lM
50
51 critical factor leading to cost overrun in several countries such as Afghanistan (Niazi and Painting,
52
an
53
54
2017), Egypt (Issa, 2013), Iran (Fallahnejad, 2013), India (Doloi et al., 2012b), and Palestine (Al-
55
56 Najjar, 2008; Enshassi et al., 2010). In Morocco, even if this factor is revealed as less critical
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 (MS=3.024; rank 18), it is recommended to monitor and control the price fluctuation of the
3
4
in
construction market. “Cluster 6: External factors” explains 7.637 % of the total variance.
5
6
5.7. Potential strategies for waste reduction
g,
7
8
9 After identifying the main underlying patterns, this work proposed relevant solutions to reduce both
Co
10
11 physical and non-physical waste through four expert surveys. After identifying the critical causes of
12
13
ns
14 waste, the current study proposes several potential strategies to minimize waste generation through four
15
16 expert interviews. The results are illustrated in Table 11. These selected experts have at least fifteen
tru
17
18 years of working experience in construction management as well as good academic records. First, this
19
cti
20
research gathered and elaborated a list of potential actions that may prevent the occurrence of waste
21
22
23 based on the previous discussions in factor analysis section. Subsequently, face-to face interviews were
on
24
25 established to validate the most reliable solutions for more sustainable projects. Thus, the construction
26
27
an
sustainability can be significantly improved if these courses of action are taken in consideration by
28
29
30 professionals.
dA
31
32 Table 11. Potential strategies for physical and non-physical waste reduction
33
34 Cluster Course of action
rch
35
36
Cluster 1: Material related factors - On-site supervision and training sessions for employees
37
38
39 on the proper use of the materials.
ite
40
41 - Choose reusable and sustainable materials in the design
42
ctu
43 phase
44
45
46 - Adopt just-in-time technique to reduce material supply
ra
47
48 delays and maintain a long-term relationship with reliable
49
lM
50 suppliers.
51
52
- Standardize transport procedures to make logistics flow
an
53
54
55 efficient and reduce hazardous transport actions.
56
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 - Consider adopting visual management and 5S process to
3
4
in
manage material inventories.
5
6
g,
7 Cluster 2: Subcontractors and workers - Choose experienced and reputable subcontractors rather
8
9 than awarding work to subcontractors based on the lowest
Co
10
11 bid price.
12
13
ns
14 - Select project stakeholders (subcontractor, supplier,
15
16 architect, and so on) based on their level of awareness
tru
17
18 regarding sustainable construction.
19
cti
20
21
- Maintain benefit-sharing and mutual cooperation between
22
23 construction companies and subcontractors and ensure
on
24
25 long-term partnerships.
26
27
an
- Establish training programs to enhance the awareness and

28
29
30 the technical skills for all projects stockholders.
dA
31
32 Cluster 3: Planning, communication, and - Adopt the last planner system (LPS), which is the core of
33
34
coordination Lean Construction philosophy, to ensure collaborative
rch
35
36
37 planning and enhance communication and coordination
38
39 amongst project stakeholders.
ite
40
41 - Continuously control and monitor the planning progress
42
ctu
43
44 and propose solutions to recurrent problems that cause
45
46 waste generation to avoid them in future projects.
ra
47
48 - Take into consideration procedures related to energy
49
lM
50
51
savings and environmental issues in design stages.
52
Cluster 4: People involvement and - Involve clients at the early stages of the design.
an
53
54
55 Financial issues - Arrange the payment schedules at the planning phase in
56
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 order to ensure that companies get paid on time.
3
4
in
- Engage contractors and subcontractors with enough
5
6
g,
7 financial capability instead of low bidding contracts.
8
9 - Encourage the commitment of top management in
Co
10
11 sustainable waste strategies.
12
13
ns
14 Cluster 5: People development strategies - Implement 5S approach, Visual Management, Last
15
16 Planner System, and Error-proofing to minimize the risks
tru
17
18 of the occupational accidents and improve the well-being
19
cti
20
21
of employees.
22
23 - Consider new technologies for design based on cloud
on
24
25 computing such as BIM.
26
27
an
- Consider deploying material waste reduction strategies

28
29
30 such as 3Rs – Reduce, Reuse, & Recycle- and Lean
dA
31
32 Construction management for more sustainable projects.
33
34
Cluster 6: External factors - Adopt Effective and flexible planning techniques should
rch
35
36
37 be elaborated for reducing the waste resulting from bad
38
39 weather.
ite
40
41 - Monitor price fluctuations of the construction material
42
ctu
43
44 market.
45
46
ra
47
48 Conclusions
49
lM
50
51
The findings of the current study are of great interest to both researchers and practitioners. The
52
research results will enrich current knowledge in sustainable construction management by offering a
an
53
54
55 basis for similar analyses regarding the evaluation and reduction of waste, particularly in the context of
56
a
57
developing economies. Also, by addressing these waste’s causes in current and future projects,
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 construction managers may effectively control the root sources of deficiency, and, hence, prevent waste
3
4
in
occurrence. Besides, the research methodology outlined in this paper can assist engineering managers
5
6
to assess waste by adopting the same proposed approach.
g,
7
8
9 Generally, the theoretical contribution of the current study to the body of knowledge is achieved by
Co
10
11 offering a causative matrix including 31 CWFs (Table 2) based primarily on an extensive literature
12
13
ns
14 review and then revised and validated through semi-structured interviews with ten experts in the
15
16 construction field. This contribution aids both researchers and construction professionals by offering a
tru
17
18 reliable basis for similar research aiming at assessing and minimizing construction waste under a
19
cti
20
sustainable perspective, particularly in the context of developing countries.
21
22
23 The practical contribution provides effective strategies for waste reduction, including physical and non-
on
24
25 physical waste, through improving the sustainability of construction projects by dealing with CWFs.
26
27
an
The results of the current survey study reveal that the top-three main causes of waste are as follows the
28
29
30 first is CWF23 "Late payment" (MS = 3.651), which is considered the most critical factor with a high
dA
31
32 degree of influence on the performance of Moroccan construction projects based on the perceptions of
33
34 the survey participants; followed by CWF07 "Lack of training raising awareness on social
rch
35
36
37 sustainability and environmental impact for employees" (MS=3.636); the third is CWF13 "Lack of
38
39 training raising awareness on social sustainability and environmental impact for employees"
ite
40
41 (MS=3,533). This study revealed that along with the underlying causes associated with the material
42
ctu
43
wastage, other categories should also catch the interest of construction managers, such as
44
45
46 subcontractors, planning, communication, coordination, people involvement, and financial issues as
ra
47
48 emphasized in factor analysis section. Furthermore, potential strategies for waste reduction have
49
lM
50 proposed (table 11) based on the findings of factor analysis test and face-to face interviews with
51
52
Moroccan construction experts. Several lean construction techniques such as just-in-time, 5S approach,
an
53
54
55 standardisation, LPS, client and supplier involvement, and continuous improvements were proposed
56
a
57 and discussed as effective solutions for leaner and sustainable construction projects.
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 Limitations are intrinsic to research and the main limitations of this study include : (1) being
3
4
in
quantitative in nature, further qualitative research would be useful to provide more robust and reliable
5
6
results required to support the conclusions of this study, (2) the dependability of the results on the
g,
7
8
9 reliability and accuracy of collected data from construction professionals constrain the possible
Co
10
11 outreach of this study in developed contexts; However, this research may become an impetus for more
12
13
ns
14 in-depth research in managing construction projects under a sustainable perspective.
15
16 To further explore and analyse the main causes of waste impacting construction projects performances
tru
17
18 future research projects are expected to involve a broader range of organizations from different
19
cti
20
industries (such as the energy and automotive sectors) and countries to enhance the availability of data
21
22
23 for potential comparison between the various critical waste factors as well as to confirm the overall
on
24
25 reliability and validity of the results synthesized in this study. Moreover, it may also be beneficial to
26
27
an
adopt structural equation modelling to analyse the causal relationships between model construct.
28
29
30 Furthermore, there is an increased need to propose a lean model to help construction managers achieve
dA
31
32 leaner and more sustainable projects through reducing CWFs.
33
34
rch
35
36
37
38
39
ite
40
41
42
ctu
43
44
45
46
ra
47
48
49
lM
50
51
52
an
53
54
55
56
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 Appendix A
3
4
in
Table A.1. Normality tests of the collected data
5
6 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk
g,
7 Items
8 Statistic ddl Signification Statistique ddl Signification
9
CWF1 .188 330 .000 .908 330 .000
Co
10
11 CWF2 .188 330 .000 .915 330 .000
12
13 CWF3 .183 330 .000 .909 330 .000
ns
14 CWF4 .206 330 .000 .906 330 .000
15
16 CWF5 .191 330 .000 .912 330 .000
tru
17
CWF6 .186 330 .000 .915 330 .000
18
19 CWF7 .229 330 .000 .879 330 .000
cti
20
21 CWF8 .226 330 .000 .885 330 .000
22 CWF9 .181 330 .000 .915 330 .000
23
on
24 CWF10 .205 330 .000 .906 330 .000

25 CWF11 .181 330 .000 .912 330 .000
26
27 CWF12 .175 330 .000 .914 330 .000
an
28
29
CWF13 .225 330 .000 .887 330 .000
30 CWF14 .170 330 .000 .917 330 .000
dA
31
32 CWF15 .158 330 .000 .917 330 .000
33 CWF16 .168 330 .000 .914 330 .000
34
rch
35 CWF17 .187 330 .000 .910 330 .000

36
CWF18 .185 330 .000 .913 330 .000
37
38 CWF19 .175 330 .000 .911 330 .000
39
ite
40 CWF20 .221 330 .000 .898 330 .000

41 CWF21 .183 330 .000 .904 330 .000
42
ctu
43 CWF22 .183 330 .000 .912 330 .000

44 CWF23 .219 330 .000 .880 330 .000
45
46 CWF24 .183 330 .000 .911 330 .000
ra
47
CWF25 .221 330 .000 .903 330 .000
48
49
lM
CWF26 .190 330 .000 .912 330 .000

50
51 CWF27 .190 330 .000 .906 330 .000
52 CWF28 .206 330 .000 .906 330 .000
an
53
54 CWF29 .209 330 .000 .905 330 .000
55
CWF30 .206 330 .000 .900 330 .000
56
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 CWF31 .242 330 .000 .885 330 .000
3
4
in
5 References
6
g,
7 Aghimien, D.O., Oke, A.E., Aigbavboa, C.O., 2018. Barriers to the adoption of value management in
8 developing countries. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 25, 818–834.
9 https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-04-2017-0070.
Co
10
11 Aigbavboa, C., Thwala, W., 2020. The Construction Industry in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, The
12
Construction Industry in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
13
ns
14 26528-1.
15
16 Akanbi, O.A., Oyedolapo, O., Steven, G.J., 2019. Lean Principles in Construction, In Sustainable
tru
17 Construction Technologies (pp. 317-348). Butterworth-Heinemann. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-
18 0-12-811749-1.00010-9.
19
Al-Najjar, J., 2008. Factors influencing time and cost overruns on construction projects in the Gaza
cti
20
21 Strip. Islamic University, Gaza.
22
23 Albalkhy, W., Sweis, R., 2019. Assessing lean construction conformance amongst the second-grade
on
24 Jordanian construction contractors. International Journal of Construction Management, 1–13.

25 https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1661571.
26
27 Almeida, J. C., & Salazar, G. F. (2003, July). Strategic issues in lean construction. In Proceedings of
an
28
the 11th annual conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (pp. 1-10).
29
30 Blacksburg: IGLC.
dA
31
32
Aslam, M.S., Huang, B., Cui, L., 2020. Review of construction and demolition waste management in
33 China and USA. Journal of Environmental Management, 264, 110445.
34 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110445.
rch
35
36 Assaf, S. A., & Al-Hejji, S. (2006). Causes of delay in large construction projects. International journal
37 of project management, 24(4), 349-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.010.
38
39 Aziz, R.F., Abdel-Hakam, A.A., 2016. Exploring delay causes of road construction projects in Egypt.
ite
40 Alexandria Engineering Journal, 55, 1515–1539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.03.006.

41
42 Bajjou, M. S., Chafi, A., Ennadi, A., & El Hammoumi, M. 2017a. The Practical Relationships between
ctu
43 Lean Construction Tools and Sustainable Development: A literature review. Journal of

44
Engineering Science & Technology Review, 10(4). 170-177. https://doi.org/10.25103/jestr.104.20
45
46 Bajjou, M. S., & Chafi, A., & En-Nadi, A. 2017b. A comparative study between lean construction and
ra
47
48
the traditional production system. In International Journal of Engineering Research in Africa . 29.
49 118-132. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/JERA.29.118.
lM
50
51 Bajjou, M.S., & Chafi, A. 2018a, A conceptual model of lean construction: a theoretical framework,
52 Malaysian Construction Research Journal, 26 (3), 67-86.
an
53
54 Bajjou, M.S. and Chafi, A. 2018b. The potential effectiveness of lean construction principles in
55 reducing construction process waste: an input-output model, Journal of Mechanical Engineering
56 and Sciences, 12 (14), 4141-4160. https://doi.org/10.15282/jmes.12.4.2018.12.0358
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2
3
4
in
5
6
g,
7
8 Bajjou, M.S., Chafi, A., 2018c. Lean construction implementation in the Moroccan construction
9 industry: Awareness, benefits and barriers. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 16,
Co
10 533–556. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-02-2018-0031.
11
12 Bajjou, M. S., & Chafi, A. 2018d. Towards implementing lean construction in the Moroccan
13
ns
construction industry: Survey study. In 2018 4th International Conference on Optimization and
14
15 Applications (ICOA) (pp. 1-5). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOA.2018.8370556.
16
tru
17 Bajjou, M.S. and Chafi, A. 2018e, Barriers of lean construction implementation in the Moroccan
18 construction industry, AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1952, AIP Publishing, 1020056.
19 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5032018
cti
20
21 Bajjou, M. S., & Chafi, A. 2019a. Exploring Causes of Wastes in the Moroccan Construction Industry.
22 In The Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Smart City Applications (pp. 57-64).
23 Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11196-0.
on
24
25 Bajjou, M.S., Chafi, A., Ennadi, A., 2019b. Development of a Conceptual Framework of Lean
26 Construction Principles : An Input – Output Model. Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Systems
27
an
18, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021968671950001X.

28
29
Bajjou, M. S., & Chafi, A. 2020a. Lean construction and simulation for performance improvement: a
30
dA
31 case study of reinforcement process. International Journal of Productivity and Performance

32 Management.70(2), 459–487 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-06-2019-0309.
33
34 Bajjou, M. S., & Chafi, A. 2020b. Identifying and Managing Critical Waste Factors for Lean
Construction Projects. Engineering Management Journal, 32(1), 2-
rch
35
36 13.https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2019.1656479
37
38 Bajjou, M.S., & Chafi, A., 2020c. Empirical study of schedule delay in Moroccan construction
39
ite
projects. International Journal of Construction Management 20(7), 783-800.

40 https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1484859.
41
42 Borys, D., 2012. The role of safe work method statements in the Australian construction industry.
ctu
43
Safety Science 50, 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.08.010.
44
45
Bossink, B.A.G., Brouwers, H.J.H., 1996. Construction Waste: Quantification and Source Evaluation.
46
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 122, 55–60.
ra
47
48 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1996)122:1(55).
49
lM
50 Brace, C., Gibb, A., 2009. Underlying Causes of Construction Fatal Accidents – External research.
51 Health and Safety Executive 1, 215.
52
Caldera, H. T. S., Desha, C., & Dawes, L. 2017. Exploring the role of lean thinking in sustainable
an
53
54 business practice: A systematic literature review. Journal of cleaner production, 167, 1546-1565.
55 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.126
56
a
57 Carvajal-Arango, D., Bahamón-Jaramillo, S., Aristizábal-Monsalve, P., Vásquez-Hernández, A.,

ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 Botero, L.F.B., 2019. Relationships between lean and sustainable construction: Positive impacts of
3 lean practices over sustainability during construction phase. Journal of Cleaner Production 234,
4
in
1322–1337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.216.
5
6 Chan, A.P.C., Darko, A., Ameyaw, E.E., Owusu-Manu, D.-G., 2017. Barriers Affecting the Adoption
g,
7
8
of Green Building Technologies. Journal of Management in Engineering 33, 04016057.
9 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000507.
Co
10
11 Christian, J., & Hachey, D. 1995. Effects of delay times on production rates in construction. Journal of
12 Construction Engineering and Management, 121(1), 20-26.
13
ns
14 Ciampa, D. 1991. The CEO’s role in time-based competition. Blackburn, JD (ed.), 273-293.
15
16 Dieste, M., Panizzolo, R., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Anosike, A., 2019. The relationship between lean and
tru
17 environmental performance: Practices and measures. Journal of Cleaner Production 224, 120–131.
18 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.243.
19
Doloi, H., Sawhney, A., Iyer, K.C., Rentala, S., 2012a. Analysing factors affecting delays in Indian
cti
20
21 construction projects. International Journal of Project Management 30, 479–489.
22 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.10.004.
23
on
24 Doloi, H., Sawhney, A., Iyer, K.C., Rentala, S., 2012b. Analysing factors affecting delays in Indian
25
construction projects 30, 479–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.10.004.
26
27
an
Dupin, P., 2014. Le lean appliqué à la construction, comment optimiser la gestion de projet et réduire
28
29 coûts et délais dans le bâtiment.: Groupe Eyrolles, 2010.
30
dA
31 Enshassi, A., Mohamed, S., & Abushaban, S. 2009. Factors affecting the performance of construction
32 projects in the Gaza strip. Journal of Civil engineering and Management, 15(3), 269-280.
33 https://doi.org/10.3846/1392-3730.2009.15.269-280.
34
Enshassi, A., Kumaraswamy, M., Jomah, A.N., 2010. Significant factors causing time and cost
rch
35
36 overruns in construction projects in the gaza strip: Contractors’ perspective. International Journal
37 of Construction Management 10, 35–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2010.10773137.
38
39
ite
Esin, T., Cosgun, N., 2007. A study conducted to reduce construction waste generation in Turkey.
40 Building and Environment 42, 1667–1674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.02.008.
41
42 Fallahnejad, M.H., 2013. Delay causes in Iran gas pipeline projects. International Journal of Project
ctu
43
Management 31, 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.06.003.
44
45
Faniran, O.O., Caban, G., 1998. Minimizing waste on construction project sites. Engineering,
46
Construction and Architectural Management 5, 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb021073.
ra
47
48
49
Francis, A., Thomas, A., 2020. Exploring the relationship between lean construction and environmental
lM
50 sustainability: A review of existing literature to decipher broader dimensions. Journal of Cleaner

51 Production 252, 119913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119913.
52
Frimpong, Y., Oluwoye, J., Crawford, L., 2007. Causes of delay and cost overruns in construction of
an
53
54 groundwater projects in a developing countries ; Ghana as a case study 21, 321–326.
55 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00055-8.
56
a
57 Fugar, F.D.K., Agyakwah-baah, A.B., 2010. Delays in Building Construction Projects in. Australasian
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 Journal of Construction Economics and Building 10, 103–116.
3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.010.
4
in
5 Ganesan, S. 2019. Employment, technology and construction development: With case studies in Asia
6 and China. Routledge.
g,
7
8 Harpe, S.E., 2015. How to analyze Likert and other rating scale data. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching
9
and Learning 7, 836–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2015.08.001.
Co
10
11
Harris, F., McCaffer, R., 2013. Modern Construction Management (Google eBook).
12
13 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783990434550.
ns
14
15 Hu, Y., 2011. Minimization management of construction waste. ISWREP 2011 - Proceedings of 2011
16 International Symposium on Water Resource and Environmental Protection 4, 2769–2772.
tru
17 https://doi.org/10.1109/ISWREP.2011.5893453.
18
19 Issa, U.H., 2013. Implementation of lean construction techniques for minimizing the risks effect on
project construction time 697–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2013.07.003.
cti
20
21
22 Jin, R., Hancock, C., Tang, L., Chen, C., Wanatowski, D., Asce, M., Yang, L., 2017. Empirical Study
23 of BIM Implementation – Based Perceptions among Chinese Practitioners 1–11.
on
24 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000538.
25
26 John, A.O., Itodo, D.E., 2013. Professionals’ views of material wastage on construction sites and cost
27
an
overruns. Organization, Technology & Management in Construction: An International Journal 5,

28
29 747–757. https://doi.org/10.5592/otmcj.2013.1.11.
30
dA
31 Khaleel, T., & Al-Zubaidy, A. 2018. Major factors contributing to the construction waste generation in
32 building projects of Iraq. In MATEC Web of Conferences (Vol. 162, p. 02034). EDP Sciences.
33
34 Khanh, H.D., Kim, S.Y., 2014. Identifying causes for waste factors in high-rise building projects: A
survey in Vietnam. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 18, 865–874.
rch
35
36 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-014-1327-z.
37
38 Khanh, H.D., Kim, S.Y., 2015. Development of waste occurrence level indicator in Vietnam
39
ite
construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 22, 715–731.

40 https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-01-2014-0005.
41
42 Kharade, A. V. (2019). Lean construction between theory and practice: A case study of the Irish
ctu
43
construction sector (Doctoral dissertation, Dublin Business School).
44
45
Kibert, C. J. (2016). Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery. John Wiley & Sons.
46
ra
47
Kissi, E., Boateng, E.B., Adjei-Kumi, T., Badu, E., 2016. Principal component analysis of challenges
48
49
facing the implementation of value engineering in public projects in developing countries.
lM
50 International Journal of Construction Management 3599, 1–10.

51 https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2016.1233088.
52
Kofoworola, O.F., Gheewala, S.H., 2009. Estimation of construction waste generation and management
an
53
54 in Thailand. Waste Management 29, 731–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.07.004.
55
56 Koskela, L., 1992. Application of the new production philosophy to construction. Tech. Report 37–62.
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 Kulatunga, U., Amaratunga, D., Haigh, R., Rameezdeen, R., 2006. Attitudes and perceptions of
3 construction workforce on construction waste in Sri Lanka. Management of Environmental
4
in
Quality: An International Journal 17, 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777830610639440.
5
6 Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika, 16(3), 297-
g,
7
8
334..
9
Leong, W.D., Teng, S.Y., How, B.S., Ngan, S.L., Rahman, A.A., Tan, C.P., Ponnambalam, S.G., Lam,
Co
10
11 H.L., 2020. Enhancing the adaptability: Lean and green strategy towards the Industry Revolution
12 4.0. Journal of Cleaner Production 273, 122870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122870.
13
ns
14 Li, S., Fang, Y., Wu, X., 2020. A systematic review of lean construction in Mainland China. Journal of
15 Cleaner Production 257, 120581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120581.
16
tru
17 Manowong, E. 2012. Investigating factors influencing construction waste management efforts in
18 developing countries: an experience from Thailand. Waste Management & Research, 30(1), 56-
19 71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X10387012
cti
20
21 Mao, C., Shen, Q., Pan, W., Ye, K., 2015. Major Barriers to Off-Site Construction: The Developer’s
22 Perspective in China. Journal of Management in Engineering 31, 04014043.
23
on
24
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000246.
25
Memon, N.A., Akram, M., Khahro, S.H., Nicolae, P., 2015. Reduction of Construction Waste At Site.
26
27 3rd International Conference on Energy and Environment: Innovation, Research & Sustainability
an
28 2015 (ICEE’15).
29
30 Mpofu, B., Ochieng, E.G., Moobela, C., Pretorius, A., 2017. Profiling causative factors leading to
dA
31 construction project delays in the United Arab Emirates. Engineering, Construction and
32 Architectural Management 24, 346–376. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2015-0072.
33
34 Nagapan, S., Abdul Rahman, I., Asmi, A., 2012. Factors Contributing to Physical and Non-Physical
rch
35 Waste Generation in Construction Industry. International Journal of Advances in Applied Sciences

36 1. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijaas.v1i1.476.
37
38 Naji, K., Gunduz, M., & Salat, F. 2020. Assessment of preconstruction factors in sustainable project
39
ite
management performance. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management.

40
41 https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2020-0333
42
ctu
43 Nazech, E.M., Zaldi, D., Trigunarsyah, B., 2008. Identification of construction waste in road &
44 highway construction projects. EASEC-11 - Eleventh East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural
45 Engineering and Construction.
46
ra
47 Ng, K., Laurlund, A., Howell, G., Lancos, G., 2012. Lean safety: Using leading indicators of safety
48 incidents to improve construction safety. 20th Annual Conference of the International Group for
49
lM
Lean Construction 1–11.

50
51 Niazi, G.A., Painting, N., 2017. Significant Factors Causing Cost Overruns in the Construction
52 Industry in Afghanistan. Procedia Engineering 182, 510–517.
an
53
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.03.145.
54
55
Norusis, M., 2008. SPSS 16.0 advanced statistical procedures companion. Prentice Hall Press.
56
a
57
Odeh, A.M., Battaineh, H.T., 2002. Causes of construction delay : traditional contracts 20, 67–73.
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 Ozorhon, B., & Karahan, U. 2017. Critical success factors of building information modeling
3 implementation. Journal of management in engineering, 33(3), 04016054.
4
in
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000505
5
6 Paez, O., Salem, S., Solomon, J., 2005. Moving from Lean Manufacturing to Lean Construction :
g,
7
8
Toward a Common Sociotechnological Framework 15, 233–245.
9 https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20023.
Co
10
11 Pallant, J. 2005, SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for
12 Windows (Version 12), 2nd ed., Allen & Unwin, Crows Nes.
13
ns
14 Polat, G., Ballard, G., 2004. Waste in Turkish Construction: Need for Lean Construction Techniques.
15 Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction 3–5.
16
tru
17 Saker Al-Moghany, S., 2006. Managing and Minimizing Construction Waste in Gaza Strip. (Master
18 dissertation, The Islamic University of Gaza - Palestine).
19
Salem, O., Solomon, J., Genaidy, a, Luegring, M., 2005. Site Implementation and Assessment of Lean
cti
20
21 Construction Techniques. Lean Construction Journal 2, 2–21.
22
23 Salem, O., Solomon, J., Genaidy, A., Minkarah, I., 2006. Lean Construction: From Theory to
on
24 Implementation. Journal of Management in Engineering 22, 168–175.

25
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2006)22:4(168).
26
27
an
Sarhan, J., Xia, B., Fawzia, S., Karim, A., Olanipekun, A., 2018. Barriers to implementing lean
28
29 construction practices in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) construction industry. Construction
30 Innovation CI-04-2017–0033. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-04-2017-0033.
dA
31
32 Sasitharan Nagapan, Ismail Abdul Rahman, Ade Asmi, 2011. A Review of Construction Waste Cause
33 Factors. Conference of Real Estate: Sustainable Growth Managing Challenges, Johor Bahru,
34 Malaysia.
rch
35
36 Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2011), Research Methods for Business Students, 5th ed.,
37 Prentice Hall, London, ISBN 978-0- 273-71686-0.
38
39
ite
Sebastian, A.E., 2019. Analysis Lean Construction Application to Reduce Material Waste at Bridge
40 Construction Project. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 328.
41
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/328/1/012001.
42
ctu
43
Skoyles, E.R., 1976. Materials wastage – a misuse of resources. Batiment International, Building
44
45 Research and Practice 4, 232–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613217608550498.
46
Sullivan, G.M., Artino, A.R., 2013. Analyzing and Interpreting Data From Likert-Type Scales. Journal
ra
47
48 of Graduate Medical Education 5, 541–542. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-5-4-18.
49
lM
50 Sweis, G., 2008. Delays in construction projects : The case of Jordan. International Journal of project
51 management, 26, 665–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.09.009.
52
Taylor, P., 2011. Architectural Engineering and Design Industry : Main Causes and Minimization
an
53
54 Material Waste in the UAE Construction Industry : Main Causes and Minimization Practices 37–
55 41. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2011.594576.
56
a
57 Tezel, A., Koskela, L., Aziz, Z., 2018. Current condition and future directions for lean construction in
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 highways projects: A small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) perspective. International
3 Journal of Project Management 36, 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.10.004
4
in
5 Thietart, R. A. (2014). Méthodes de recherche en management-4ème édition. Dunod.
6
g,
7 Trigunarsyah, B., 2017. Organizational culture influence on client involvement. Engineering,
8 Construction and Architectural Management 24, 1155–1169. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-06-
9
2016-0141.
Co
10
11
Udawatta, N., Zuo, J., Chiveralls, K., Zillante, G., 2015. Improving waste management in construction
12
13 projects: An Australian study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 101, 73–83.
ns
14 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.003.
15
16 Wang, J.Y., Kang, X.P., Tam, V.W.Y., 2008. An investigation of construction wastes: An empirical
tru
17 study in Shenzhen. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology 6, 227–236.
18 https://doi.org/10.1108/17260530810918252.
19
Yang, J., Shen, G.Q., Ho, M., Drew, D.S., Chan, A.P.C., 2009. Exploring critical success factors for
cti
20
21 stakeholder management in construction projects. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management
22 15, 337–348. https://doi.org/10.3846/1392-3730.2009.15.337-348.
23
on
24 Yap, J.B.H., Low, P.L., Wang, C., 2017. Rework in Malaysian building construction: impacts, causes
25
and potential solutions. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology 15, 591–618.
26
27 https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-01-2017-0002.
an
28
29 Ye, G., Jin, Z., Xia, B., Skitmore, M., 2014. Analyzing causes for reworks in construction projects in
30 China. Journal of Management in Engineering 31, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-
dA
31 5479.0000347.
32
33 Zhang, L., Chen, X., Suo, Y., 2017. Interrelationships among critical factors of work flow reliability in
34 lean construction. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 23, 621–632.
rch
35 https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2016.1217921.
36
37
38
39
ite
40
41
42
ctu
43
44
45
46
ra
47
48
49
lM
50
51
52
an
53
54
55
56
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 March 16, 2021
3
4
in
5 Dear Editor,
6
g,
7 It is with excitement that we resubmit to you a revised version of our manuscript:
8
9
Co
10 Ref.: Manuscript ID ECAM-12-2020-1097.R1
11
12
13 Exploring and Reducing Critical Waste Factors for Sustainable Construction Projects
ns
14
15 Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise and resubmit this revised manuscript.
16
tru
17
18 We would like to thank the Editorial Team and Reviewers for their thoughtful review of the manuscript.
19 They raise important issues and their inputs are very helpful for improving the manuscript. We have
cti
20
21 incorporated all the suggested changes into the revised manuscript. The changes are highlighted using
22 both yellow color and track changes mode.
23
on
24
25
We hope that these revisions improve the paper such that you and the reviewers now deem it worthy of
26 publication in the Journal of Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. In the
27 following pages, we have included a table that summarizes changes made in response to comments
an
28
29
provided by reviewers and editors.
30
dA
31
32
33
Kind regards,
34
rch
35
36
37
38
39
ite
40
41
42
ctu
43
44
45
46
ra
47
48
49
lM
50
51
52
an
53
54
55
56
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 Journal: Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management
3
4 Manuscript Id: ECAM-12-2020-1097
in
5 Title: Exploring and Reducing Critical Waste Factors for Sustainable Construction Projects
6
g,
7 Reviewers' comments Authors’ response
8
9 Referee: 1
Co
10 We are grateful to the Referee#1 for his positive
11 The research topic is interesting and valuable,
12 and encouraging comment. Thank you for the
especially both physical and non-physical wastes
13 constructive feedbacks on our manuscript.
ns
14
were included. The manuscript is basically written
Accordingly, below are the adjustments we made
15 in a rigorous way. I have several suggestions for
16
in the paper to address the comments.
the authors to improve the manuscript.
tru
17
18 1) In the Literature Review section, it is necessary Your suggestion has been followed. Accordingly,
19 we have added, in the end of the Literature
to summerize the research gap of the existing
cti
20
21 studies in the end, which helps justify the research section, a detailed paragraph that summarize the
22 research gap and highlight the research
contribution of the current research.
23 contribution of the current research. See page 8
on
24 (lines 42 to 57) and page 9 (lines 1 to 14).

25
26
27
2) In Section 3.1, the 31 CWFs were categorized Agreed. As suggested the relevant descriptions
an
28 into 6 sub-groups, while a different categorization related to the 6 clusters is now moved from the
29 with 6 clusters was worked out based on factor Results section (e.g., the last column of Table 4
30
analysis. What's the differences and connections and the accordingly descriptions) to the factor
dA
31
32 between them? It is suggested not emphasizing analysis section in order to highlight the
33 the first categorization in the Results section (e.g., difference and connection between them. In
34
the last column of Table 4 and the accordingly addition, to a better understanding to the readers,
rch
35
36 descriptions). The relevant descriptions can be a paragraph has been added to justify the use of
37 written in the context of the 6 clusters based on factor analysis technique. See page 29 (lines 41
38 factor analysis. to 52).
39
ite
40
41 “It worth noting that although the 31 CWFs were
42 categorized into 6 sub-groups in the matrix of
ctu
43
44 causative factors, as shown in table 1, it is not
45 revealing what characteristics are seen in multiple
46 patterns and how those patterns overlap. Factor
ra
47
48 analysis is a powerful statistical technique
49 allowing finding underlying hidden patterns that
lM
50 are reflected in the observed variables which

51
52 leads to a few interpretable latent factors.”
an
53
54 3) There are too many details in Section 3.4 and Done. Unrequired details have been removed as
55 3.5 to introduce the analysis methods. It is could be seen in section 3.4 and 3.5.
56
a
57 suggested to just cite the relevant publications and

ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 omit the details.
3
4 4) Page 17, Line 49. The anlynatic technique is Agreed. The analytic technique is introduced in
in
5 suggested to be introduced in the method section. the method section. See section 3.4.
6
g,
7
8 5) In Table 4, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient of Thank you for your feedback. We agree with you.
9 each of the 31 CWF item was reported. As far as I To ensure that there is no ambiguity for the reader
Co
10
11 know, this coefficient reported by SPSS implies we have removed this indicator as suggested. See
12 the overall Cronbach's alpha (e.g., CWF2 to table 4 page 19.
13 CWF31) when excluding the aiming one (i.e.,
ns
14
15
CWF1). In this case, I think the authors can
16 misunderstand the meaning of this coefficient for a
tru
17 single variable. Please check them. It is not
18
19
necessary to report these indicators.
6) The theoretical and practical contributions In the light of your suggestion, we have added a
cti
20
21 (implications) should be clearly emphasized in the new paragraph in the revised manuscript to
22 clearly highlight implications of our work as well
23
Discussion/Conclusions section together with the
on
as the research limitations and future studies. See

24 research limitations.
page 40 (lines 6 to 56) and page 41 (lines 1 to 33).
25
26
27
an
28
29
30
dA
31 7) In my opinion, one of the most important Thanks for your comments. Your suggestion is
32 theoretical contributions is that non-physical waste well received. The discussion section was revised
33 was studied as well. However, it is a pity that and improved. Furthermore, a new section
34 (section 5.7) summarizing potential strategies for
discussions did not particularly focused on the
rch
35 both non-physical and physical wastes (see table

36 non-physical waste factors, and this researh 11) is now added in the discussion section.
37 contribution was not emphasized.
38
39 1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and Thank you for your valuable feedback.
ite
40 significant information adequate to justify

41 publication?: Yes. The research topic is interesting
42
ctu
43
and valuable.
44
45 2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper Your suggestion has been followed. Accordingly,
46
demonstrate an adequate understanding of the we have added, in the end of the Literature
ra
47
48 relevant literature in the field and cite an section, a detailed paragraph that summarize the
49
lM
appropriate range of literature sources? Is any research gap and highlight the research
50
51
significant work ignored?: Detailed literature contribution of the current research. See page 8
52 review has been conducted. However, it is (lines 42 to 57) and page 9 (lines 1 to 14).
an
53 suggested to summerize the research gap at the end

54
55
of the literature review section so as to indicate the
56 research contribution of the current research.
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 3. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on Thank you for your positive and encouraging
3
an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other comment.
4
in
5 ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual
6 work on which the paper is based been well
g,
7
designed? Are the methods employed
8
9 appropriate?: Yes. The manuscript is based on the
Co
10 reasonable ideas and the methods employed are
11 appropriate..
12
13 Thank you for your positive and encouraging
ns
14 4. Results: Are results presented clearly and comment
15 analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions
16
tru
17 adequately tie together the other elements of the
18 paper?: Yes.
19 5. Implications for research, practice and/or In the light of your suggestion, we have added a
cti
20
21 society: Does the paper identify clearly any new paragraph in the revised manuscript to
22 implications for research, practice and/or society? clearly highlight implications of our work as well
23 as the research limitations and future studies. See
on
Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and

24 page 40 (lines 6 to 56) and page 41 (lines 1 to 33).
25 practice? How can the research be used in practice
26 (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to
27 influence public policy, in research (contributing
an
28
29 to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact
30 upon society (influencing public attitudes,
dA
31 affecting quality of life)? Are these implications

32
33 consistent with the findings and conclusions of the
34 paper?: The research provide valuable implications
rch
35 for both researchers and practitioners. However,

36
37 the research contributions should be clearly
38 emphasized in the Conclusions section together
39
ite
with the research limitations.

40
41 6. Quality of Communication: Does the paper Thank you for your positive comment.
42 clearly express its case, measured against the
ctu
43 technical language of the fields and the expected

44
45
knowledge of the journal's readership? Has
46 attention been paid to the clarity of expression and
ra
47 readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use,

48
49
acronyms, etc.: Yes.
lM
50 Referee: 2
51
52 1) In Table 1& 2, 31 factors were identified. Your recommendation is well received.
However most of the factors can be applicable in Following your suggestion we have revised the
an
53
54 tradtional construction projects other than major factors adopted in this work. Now, the
55
56 sustainable construction projects. These factors relationship between sustainable construction and
a
57 seems cannot reflect the characteristics of major extracted factors is now made clear in the
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 sustainable construction. whole paper. A rigorous revision is carried out, to
3
In addition, some factors somewhat overlapped. the best of our ability, to avoid overlapping
4
in
5 For example, Unskilled workers and lack of staff factors such as unskilled workers and lack of staff
6 experience, lack of training for employees. experience, lack of training for employees (see
g,
7
table 2).
8
9 2) The formatting of Table 1 requires adjust. Done. Your recommendation has been followed.
Co
10
11 3) Table 9 showed that the six components In addition to the revision of the major factor
12 examined in this paper only can account for 66 % considered in this paper, a concise paragraph was
13 of the critical waste factors, which suggests more introduced in factor analysis section to justify
ns
14
15
underlying factors related to the topic were not adequacy of the total explained variance adopted
16 covered in the paper. in this study. See page 27 lines (10 to 26).
tru
17
18 “The extracted factors usually explain only 50%
19 to 60% in research related to construction project
cti
20
21 management (Bajjou and Chafi, 2020b; Khanh
22 and Kim, 2015; Yang et al., 2009). The idea is to
23
on
determine an optimal number of clusters that

24
25 accounts for the maximum possible variance
26 based on Kaiser Criteria (Eight values higher than
27 1). The six extracted factors explain 66.342 % of
an
28
29 the total variance as shown in Table 9, which is
30 higher than the 60 % required for construct
dA
31 validity, and the factor loadings for all 31 causes

32
33 exceed the 0.50 also needed (Ozorhon and
34 Karahan, 2016; Ye et al., 2014).”
rch
35
36 4) There was no much discussion of the results. As shown in Table 5, two factors have P-value
37
38 For example The 31 factors were extracted from less than 0.05 (CWF23: late payment and CWF6:
39 the literature and using K-W test to identify factors Lack of staff experience in sustainable
ite
40 with signficiant inter-group difference. However construction projects management). Following

41
42 no further discussion to illustrate the reason behind your suggestion we have introduced a detailed
ctu
43 the difference. Without more discussion, the paragraph to discuss the main potential reason
44 contribution of the research is not clear. The behind inter-group difference. See page 23 lines
45
46
reviewer would recommend squeeze the space of 11 to 56. Furthermore, following your
ra
47 tables and using the space to analyze and discuss recommendation we have boosted the results and
48 what you have discovered. discussion sections with more reliable details.
49
lM
50 Additional Questions: Thank you. Accordingly, below are the

51 1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and improvements we made in the paper to address
52 significant information adequate to justify the comments.
an
53
54
publication?: The paper examines the critical
55 waste factors for sustainable construction projects.
56 The topic is interestng with potential, but
a
57
ge
58
59
m
ne
1
er
2 substantial revisions are needed.
3
4 2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper A new subsection (2.1. Sustainable construction)
in
5 demonstrate an adequate understanding of the was included in the literature review section to
6
relevant literature in the field and cite an introduce the concept of sustainable development
g,
7
8 appropriate range of literature sources? Is any in the context of construction. Moreover, the
9 significant work ignored?: Yes, however more relationship between sustainable construction and
Co
10
11
literature on sustainable construction projects and major extracted factors is now made clear in the
12 related waste factors should be reviewed whole paper.
13 considering the topic of this paper.
ns
14
15
3. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on Thank you for your positive comment.
16 an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other
tru
17 ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual
18
19
work on which the paper is based been well
designed? Are the methods employed
cti
20
21 appropriate?: The papers employed a series of
22
statistical analysis methods which can be used to
23
on
24 meet the research aim.

25 4. Results: Are results presented clearly and As suggested we have revised and improved the
26
27
analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions results section following your recommendations.
an
28 adequately tie together the other elements of the

29 paper?: Part of the results requires revision.
30
5. Implications for research, practice and/or We have added a new paragraph in the revised
dA
31
32 society: Does the paper identify clearly any manuscript to clearly highlight implications of
33 implications for research, practice and/or our work as well as the research limitations and
34 future studies. See page 40 (lines 6 to 56) and
society? Does the paper bridge the gap between
rch
35 page 41 (lines 1 to 33).

36 theory and practice? How can the research be used
37 in practice (economic and commercial impact), in
38
teaching, to influence public policy, in research
39
ite
40 (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is

41 the impact upon society (influencing public
42 attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these
ctu
43
44 implications consistent with the findings and
45 conclusions of the paper?: No
46
6. Quality of Communication: Does the paper Thank you for your positive comment.
ra
47
48 clearly express its case, measured against the
49 technical language of the fields and the expected
lM
50 knowledge of the journal's readership? Has

51
52 attention been paid to the clarity of expression and
readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use,
an
53
54 acronyms, etc.: Yes
55
56
a
57
ge
58
59
m

ECAM 12 2020 1097.R1 - Proof - Hi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ECAM 12 2020 1097.R1 - Proof - Hi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management

Exploring and Reducing Critical Waste Factors for

Journal: Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management

Manuscript Type: Original Article

Questionaire survey, Construction Site, Project Management, Value

24 Design/methodology/approach – An extensive literature review was carried out to determine these

than those considered as necessary in the production of a building".

47 build an additional 10 houses for every 100 houses constructed.

2.2.2. Non-physical Waste

(Sasitharan Nagapan et al., 2011)

(Bossink and Brouwers, 1996)

(Bajjou and Chafi, 2019a)

(Bajjou and Chafi, 2020c)

(Polat and Ballard, 2004)

(Kulatunga et al., 2006)

40 Low labor productivity 1 1 1 3

Lack of training for employees 1 1 1 1 4

45 Insufficient experience of the main contractor

47 Multiple levels of subcontractors 1 1

Lack of strategies for material waste reduction 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Inappropriate materials/misuse of materials 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

31 Inappropriate selection of construction sites 1 1 1 1 4

CWF5 Unskilled workers

CWF8 Accidents due to negligence, carelessness, and lack of supervision

Management/administration/ finance (D)

24 CWF20 Lack of collective planning

31 CWF23 Late payment

40 CWF28 Inappropriate materials/misuse of materials

CWF29 Material prices change

44 CWF30 Effect of weather

3.2. Questionnaire design

24 various statistical tests.

35 Number of years working experiences

39 5-10 years 43 13.0

50 Ph.D. degree 38 11.5

43 4 CWF8 24 51 66 108 81 330 3.518 1.220

11 CWF18 23 61 119 94 33 330 3.161 1.061

24 23 CWF2 28 83 120 70 29 330 2.967 1.0756

25 CWF4 21 84 135 73 17 330 2.942 .9674

31 27 CWF27 28 83 120 70 29 330 2.912 .9807

35 29 CWF30 25 106 130 51 18 330 2.791 .977

31 CWF31 52 134 94 33 17 330 2.482 1.037

28 CWF11 0.370 0.255 0.664

35 CWF15 0.645 0.254 0.782

40 CWF18 0.749 0.339 0.396

47 CWF22 0.191 0.701 0.401

50 CWF24 0.750 0.416 0.710

21 CWF2 .354** 1.000

22 CWF3 .276** .433** 1.000

24 CWF5 .418** .338** .366** .452** 1.000

25 CWF6 .370** .329** .318** .383** .720** 1.000

26 CWF7 .299** .243** .364** .407** .528** .489** 1.000

CWF8 .323** .404** .466** .368** .392** .360** .551** 1.000

43 Table 8. Results of KMO and Bartlett’s Tests

Bartlett’s test of sphericity

57 Note: Df= degree of freedom; Sig = probability

Table 9. Total Variance Explained

4 1.433 4.623 59.026 3.424 11.044 49.172

43 6 1.046 3.373 66.342 2.367 7.637 66.342

31 Lack of staff experience in sustainable construction projects 0.626

40 Lack of collective planning 0.715

issues in design stages

22 CWF3 .276 .433 1.000

24 CWF5 .418 .338 .366 .452 1.000

25 CWF6 .370 .329 .318 .383 .720** 1.000

26 CWF7 .299 .243 .364 .407 .528 .489 1.000

CWF8 .323 .404 .466 .368 .392 .360 .551** 1.000