Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126717

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Sustainable construction and demolition waste management in

Somaliland: Regulatory barriers lead to technical and environmental
barriers
Yeneneh Tamirat Negash a, c, Abdiqani Muse Hassan a, b, Ming-Lang Tseng c, d, *,
Kuo-Jui Wu e, Mohd Helmi Ali f, g
a
Department of Business Administration, College of Management, Asia University, Taiwan
b
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Hargeisa, Somaliland
c
Institute of Innovation and Circular Economy, Asia University Taiwan, Taichung, Taiwan
d
Department of Medical Research, China Medical University Hospital, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
e
School of Management, Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
f
Centre of Global Business & Digital Economy, Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43000, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
g
Department of Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

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

Article history: The large amount of construction and demolition waste (CDW), coupled with poor management create
Received 3 March 2020 burdens for the environment, society and economy. Barriers hinder sustainable CDW management.
Received in revised form Understanding the barriers can promote the development of eco-friendly, socially harmless, and
13 January 2021
economically viable strategies. This study aims to integrate sustainable waste management in con-
Accepted 11 March 2021
Available online 15 March 2021
struction (SWM) and demolition practices. This study develops a valid set of attributes to justify the
interrelationships among the barriers. The attributes of sustainable waste management are qualitative by
Handling Editor: Zhifu Mi nature, and uncertainties exist because of linguistic preferences regarding the attributes. This study
applies the fuzzy Delphi method to validate five barriers and 14 criteria under uncertainties. Fuzzy
Keywords: decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) with qualitative information is used to
Sustainable construction and demolition determine the interrelationships among the barriers. The results indicate that regulatory barriers are the
waste management primary cause of technical and environmental barriers. In Somaliland, the criteria hindering sustainable
Regulatory barriers CDW management practices are the lack of awareness, the lack of commitment, ineffective management,
Fuzzy set theory
the lack of collaboration, the lack of national vision, inadequate funding, limited infrastructure, the lack
Delphi method
of supervision, and the lack of legal enforcement. The theoretical and managerial implications of this
Decision-making trial and evaluation
laboratory study are discussed.
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The population and economic growth due to urbanization have
increased the amount of municipal waste, notably construction and
demolition waste (CDW) generated from increased demand for
housing and municipal expansion in Somaliland. This massive
amount of CDW creates environmental burdens, for example by
* Corresponding author. Institute of Innovation and Circular Economy, Asia Uni-
versity Taiwan, Taichung, Taiwan.
E-mail addresses: yeneneh@asia.edu.tw (Y.T. Negash), engabdikani@gmail.com
(A.M. Hassan), tsengminglang@gmail.com, tsengminglang@asia.edu.tw
(M.-L. Tseng), garykjwu@mail.ntust.edu.tw (K.-J. Wu), mohdhelmiali@ukm.edu.my
(M.H. Ali).
depleting resources, reducing green space, and increasing air and
land pollution and toxic waste discharge (Bamgbade et al., 2018;
Blaisi, 2019). These environmental and social threats from CDW are
increasing. Sustainable waste management practices are needed to
balance social impacts, economic benefits, and environmental
control (Domínguez et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2018; Araee et al.,
2020). However, waste management in construction lacks the
integration of sustainability concepts (Chethana et al., 2016;
Mahpour, 2018). There is a need to encompass the dimensions of
sustainability strategies to attain sustainable waste management in
construction (SWM). The ideal solution for reversing the negative
impacts of construction work is to adopt sustainable construction
practices (Carvajal-Arango et al., 2019). SWM involves minimizing

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126717
0959-6526/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y.T. Negash, A.M. Hassan, M.-L. Tseng et al.
waste production from construction work, reducing the con-
sumption of materials, reusing materials, and recycling wastes.
However, challenges arise that make SWM difficult, and it is
necessary to holistically address these challenges to develop SWM
practices (Mahpour, 2018). The identification of barriers can lead to
a better understanding of the present situation, and improve the
ability to predict the future and propose eco-friendly, socially
harmless, and economically viable strategies to minimize and
manage problems related to CDW.
Prior studies have assessed barriers that hinder SWM from
different perspectives, barriers, and principles (Yuan, 2017; Huang
et al., 2018; Mahpour, 2018). Tsai et al. (2020) stated that including
economic, social, and environmental (triple bottom line, TBL) aspects
in waste management practices is necessary when integrating
complementary dimensions. However, prior studies assessing SWM
based on TBL barriers are limited (Lockrey et al., 2016; Huang et al.,
2018; Blaisi, 2019). Regulatory barriers are acknowledged to be a
dimension that needs to be considered a driver and measure of
sustainable waste management (Yuan, 2017; Munyasya and
Chileshe, 2018; Liu et al., 2020). Wu et al. (2018) argued that incor-
porating the regulatory aspect of the TBL is necessary; regulation
ensures that different firms with different systems conform to sus-
tainable policies. Furthermore, Dong et al. (2019) argued that
incorporating technical barriers in the TBL is required due to the
complexity of waste management; technical resources such as
appropriate processes, procedures, and people are needed for waste
management activities. Ghaffar et al. (2019) emphasized that to
achieve SWM goals, improvement in the regulatory system, social
awareness, technical practices, and the development of waste
infrastructure using innovation to treat waste are necessary. Hence,
this study argues that technical and regulatory barriers are the main
barriers for CDW to achieve sustainability.
wThe barriers to achieving SWM are interrelated and involve
complex qualitative attributes and uncertainty due to linguistic
preferences regarding the attributes (Turkyilmaz et al., 2019). Un-
certainty is created by human perceptions and the linguistic prefer-
ences of the decision maker’s assessment (Tseng et al., 2018). This
uncertainty cannot be effectively captured by using formal models
and methods, as the individuals who make decisions are unique in-
formation sources. One suitable solution is to combine fuzzy set
theory into the analytical process (Addae et al., 2019). This study bases
on a qualitative assessment of the barriers and converts qualitative
data into quantitative information. The fuzzy Delphi method (FDM) is
used to validate and screen the barriers identified in the literature
(Huang et al., 2018; Blaisi, 2019; Chen et al., 2019). A fuzzy decision-
making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) is adopted to un-
derstand the causal effects of the interrelationships among the bar-
riers to achieving SWM. The objectives of this study are as follows.
C To develop a valid set of attributes based on qualitative
information
C To determine the interrelationships that exist among the
barriers under uncertainty
C To identify the criteria for practical improvement.
This study contributes to the literature by (1) providing a set of
valid attributes based on qualitative information; (2) addressing
the causal interrelationships that exist among the barriers under
uncertainty; and (3) providing criteria for the construction industry
to improve. This study helps decision-makers identify the most
important or driving causes of poor CDW management and sys-
tematically eliminate barriers based on their causal relationships.
The remainder of this study is organized as follows. Section 2
reviews the barriers to achieving SWM, methods, and proposed
measures. Section 3 discusses the proposed method and data
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126717
analysis procedures. The results and empirical findings are pre-
sented in section 4, section 5 discusses the study’s implications, and
section 6 summarizes the study’s implications and limitations and
presents recommendations for future studies.
2. Literature review
This section describes SWM, the proposed barriers, the pro-
posed methods, and the proposed measures used in this study.
2.1. Sustainable waste management
CDW is defined as all kinds of waste generated at a construction
site from the construction, maintenance, renovation, and demolition
of buildings and civil structures. Due to urbanization, population
growth, and prosperity, waste generation is increasing. This waste
usually contains substances that are harmful to human health and
environmental well-being and lead to natural resource depletion
CDW management is the process of planning, controlling, collecting,
and disposing of waste from construction, demolition, and renova-
tion activities. In CDW management, demands have been made
regarding assessing the effectiveness of current practices, creating
innovation, and implementing eco-friendly, socially harmless, and
economically viable strategies. However, the traditional practices
used for CDW treatment in most developing countries lag behind
those of other countries (Huang et al., 2018; Blaisi, 2019). Tech-
niques, processes, and policies differ among countries, but the
common waste disposal method is landfilling. This linear method of
waste treatment is outdated; hence, SWM techniques are necessary.
Mahpour (2018) stated that SWM is linked to creating a closed-
loop concept of waste management that specifically incorporates
reducing, reusing, recycling, and recovering. Integrating the
concept of sustainability into CDW management is necessary due to
frequent resource usage, the generation of many tons of waste, the
improper disposal techniques involved in landfilling and the
problem of illegal dumping. These shortcomings eventually lead to
adverse environmental, economic, and social problems. SWM is
considered to be an essential part of sustainable construction
practices, which involves construction that incorporates resource-
effective and eco-friendly processes and technologies (Carvajal-
Arango et al., 2019). Chethana et al. (2016) suggested considering
SWM practices to achieve sustainability in construction works,
particularly in waste management activities. Huang et al. (2018)
emphasized the importance of improving SWM, the economic
model, the source control of waste, technologies, market models,
and economic incentives. SWM promotes the conservation of nat-
ural resources, reducing landfill usage, preserving raw materials
and energy, controlling air and water pollution, and creating jobs
(Domínguez et al., 2016). However, technical, economic, social,
regulatory, and environmental barriers are impeding the incorpo-
ration of SWM practices into CDW management, which need to be
addressed in a theoretical and practical model.
2.1.1. Technical barriers
Implementing sustainable strategies is often hindered by ob-
stacles such as technical barriers that involve the absence of the right
expertise, knowledge, and technologies needed to promote sus-
tainability (Tura et al., 2018; Tsai et al., 2020). Yuan (2017) stated that
a notable amount of CDW indirectly stems from project managers’
and designers’ initial decisions, such as choosing suitable material
that can minimize waste or be reused or recycled. Mahpour (2018)
argued that technical, legal and social barriers are fundamental
barriers that make it difficult to achieve sustainability and a circular
economy. Blaisi (2019) suggested solutions for SWM, such as recy-
cling waste, using recycled materials, developing legal dumping
Y.T. Negash, A.M. Hassan, M.-L. Tseng et al.
regulations, and introducing fees for disposal and the use of landfills,
and claimed that technical barriers are substantial obstacles that
hinder implementation. Dong et al. (2019) claimed that contractors’
management, for example, leadership, vision, process and rewards
for achieving a better outcome, is critical for achieving sustainability.
Technical attributes encompass some key elements, such as human
resources or expertise involved in construction or demolition works,
and this element is an essential determinant, as it connects all other
activities of the project to achieve sustainability goals (Wu et al.,
2017). Hence, technical weaknesses are significant sources of
problems related to SWM and need to be considered.
2.1.2. Economic barriers
Prior studies highlighted that the consideration of economic
barriers is essential because contractors usually seek and give high
priority to financial gains (Yuan, 2017; Chen et al., 2019). Lockrey
et al. (2016) underlined that economic viability is a significant
barrier and has a substantial effect on contractors’ performance,
practices, and behaviors regarding SWM. Due the conflicting in-
terests of making a profit and achieving sustainability goals, con-
tractors usually choose profit, and their main target is reducing
project costs and maximizing profit (Wu et al., 2017). Tura et al.
(2018) noted that the most significant barrier to engaging in sus-
tainable practices is high economic uncertainty; for instance, the
recycling process is expensive compared to the value of the recy-
cled product. Chen et al. (2019) identified economic barriers as
having the most influence on both government institutions’ and
contractors’ management strategies. Hence, economic barriers are
significant and should be investigated to improve the under-
standing of the obstacles to managing waste generated from con-
struction works and provide solutions that address these obstacles.
2.1.3. Social barriers
SWM is highly dependent on the level of awareness and con-
ceptions of construction project stakeholders; for instance, the
presumption that sustainable practices increase project costs is a
potential barrier to the development and implementation of these
practices (Bakchan et al., 2016; Mahpour, 2018). Social barriers,
such as the lack of contractor awareness and lack of community
involvement, significantly hinder the implementation of sustain-
ability practices (Lockrey et al., 2016). Abarca-Guerrero et al. (2017)
argued that social awareness affects the sustainability performance
of CDW management; for instance, when the stakeholders of
construction work consider waste generation to be unavoidable,
implementing sustainable strategies is difficult and ineffective. Wu
et al. (2018) identified a significant positive correlation between
contractors’ level of awareness and their respective performance.
Blaisi (2019) found that the social dimensions of sustainability, such
as the lack of collaboration, lack of commitment and poor percep-
tions, are major issues that impede SWM practices.
2.1.4. Regulatory barriers
Insufficient or the lack of management regulations, such as
weak policies and inadequate supervision, create significant chal-
lenges for attaining sustainability in construction works (Jin et al.,
2017; Mahpour, 2018; Munyasya and Chileshe, 2018). Achieving
sustainability must involve the integration and implementation of
regulations that guide firms; firms that comply with these regula-
tions will be more sustainable (Wu et al., 2018; Mihai and Grozavu,
2019; Liu et al., 2020). Wu et al. (2017) argued that contractors’
performance in terms of SWM depends on the relevance of
governmental institutions’ policies and corresponding supervision.
Yuan (2017) emphasized that the fundamental and significant ob-
stacles to implementing SWM practices involve the regulatory
environment and proposed measures such as improving the
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126717
effectiveness of regulations, charging fees for disposal, and subsi-
dizing waste recycling factories. Blaisi (2019) claimed that devel-
oping regulations that promote contractors’ attitudes regarding
sustainability are fundamental for achieving SWM goals. Hence, it is
necessary to consider the significance of regulatory barriers when
assessing CDW management.
2.1.5. Environmental barriers
Prior studies have indicated that environmental barriers such as
the lack or shortage of waste management facilities, landfills, or
proximate recycling centers are among the substantial obstacles
that hinder SWM (Sernor and Portnov, 2018; Blaisi 2019). Lockrey
et al. (2016) claimed that environmental barriers are a significant
challenge that often hinders sustainability efforts regarding waste
management in developing countries. The availability or absence of
waste management facilities for CDW significantly influences SWM
practices; for instance, inadequate infrastructure and low waste
collection efficiency promote the illegal dumping of waste (Yuan,
2017; Mihai and Grozavu, 2019). Jin et al. (2017) highlighted that
despite construction professionals’ awareness of SWM, the lack of
waste treatment facilities is an obstacle to implementing sustainable
strategies.
2.2. Proposed method
Prior studies used historical data or a subjective assessment of
the barriers and multivariate and statistical techniques to under-
stand the structural relationships that exist among the barriers to
SWM. Li et al. (2015) applied structural equation modeling (SEM)
and developed an empirical model of the drivers of the attitudes of
designers regarding sustainable CDW minimization. Li et al. (2018)
utilized SEM to explore construction project employees’ waste
reduction behavior. Wang et al. (2014) identified the best design
strategies for waste minimization by applying a system dynamics
approach to simulation cases. Other studies involved waste gener-
ation rates, such as Chen and Lu (2015), who used big data analytics
to explore the attributes of demolition waste generation. Udawarra
et al. (2015) and Saheed and Lukumon (2018) studied approaches to
minimize waste generation by applying a mixed method based on
quantitative and qualitative approaches. Islam et al. (2019) used
regression analysis to estimate the production of CDW. Yuan (2017)
applied a review of the literature and government reports, in-
terviews, and group discussions to examine challenges that hinder
SWM and suggested development strategies. Mahpour (2018)
adapted the fuzzy technique for order of preference by similarity
to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method to prioritize barriers to imple-
menting a circular economy in SWM. Pham and Kim (2019) applied
partial least square modeling to investigate the relationship be-
tween sustainability performance and practices while considering
the moderating effect of construction managers’ leadership.
However, existing studies, apart from the study conducted by
Mahpour (2018), neglected the respondents’ evaluation of lin-
guistic fuzziness during data collection. Furthermore, there is
negligence in terms of addressing the validity of the criteria
measuring barriers to SWM and the interrelationships that exist
among the attributes. Hence, this study applies the FDM to validate
the barriers related to SWM and a hybrid approach involving fuzzy
set theory and DEMATEL to explore the interdependencies among
the barriers to achieving SWM. The fuzzy triangular numbers
(TFNs) handle the qualitative information and translate linguistic
preferences into crisp values, and the DEMATEL identifies the
causal interrelationships that exist among the barriers.
Y.T. Negash, A.M. Hassan, M.-L. Tseng et al.
2.3. Proposed valid barriers
This study identified barriers to SWM and grouped them into
five categories: technical, economic, social, regulatory, and envi-
ronmental. The results of the FDM analysis indicate that the 5
barriers and 14 criteria were valid. Table 3 summarizes the pro-
posed valid barriers discussed in this section.
Technical barriers (AS1) are connected to the expertise, knowl-
edge, and technology of construction works and represent the
underlying source of waste generation and ineffectiveness in waste
management (Wu et al., 2017; Dong et al., 2019; Blaisi, 2019).
Contractors, government institutions and other stakeholders of
construction work fail to adopt sustainable management tech-
niques for waste due to the shortage or lack of expertise in waste
management, the lack of information about the volume and char-
acteristics of waste, and the lack of suitable technologies and ap-
proaches for CDW management (Tura et al., 2018). Two criteria
were found to be valid regarding technical barriers: ineffective
management system (C1) and the lack of a green design (C2).
The root cause of economic barriers (AS2) is contractors’ profit-
seeking nature, and the sustainability performance of these con-
tractors is dictated by economic incentives they may obtain due to
the use of sustainability strategies (Yuan, 2017; Chen et al., 2019;
Araee et al., 2020). Due to the lack of clear data regarding economic
feasibility and forecasts related to the use of sustainable practices,
contractors hesitate to effectively implement SWM and often pri-
oritize profit over sustainability (Wu et al., 2017; Lockrey et al.,
2016; Tura et al., 2018). For the economic barriers, three criteria
have been found to be valid: inadequate funding (C3), the low cost
of CDW disposal (C4), and the higher cost of CDW treatment (C5).
Social barriers (AS3) relate to the social attributes that hinder
sustainability practices in construction works. Key social barriers to
SWM include the lack of awareness (C6) of sustainable waste
disposal among construction work stakeholders such as contractors,
clients, consultants, and other authorities (Bakchan et al., 2016;
Yuan, 2017; Mahpour, 2018). Another critical challenge is the lack of
collaboration (C7) among government institutions, contractors and
academics involved in waste management practices; inadequate
information and knowledge sharing among stakeholders is a po-
tential challenge for SWM (Blaisi, 2019). Even though urban man-
agers, project managers, and communities are aware of the
environmental impacts of waste and the importance of proper waste
disposal, due to cultural or economic reasons, they undermine
sustainable practices; hence, the lack of commitment (C8) forms
another social barrier (Lockrey et al., 2016; Mahpour, 2018).
In terms of regulatory barriers (AS4), regardless of the different
economic levels and regions, the regulatory environment that in-
forms contractors and communities how to dispose of waste is an
important barrier to SWM and often dictates waste management
practices (Yuan, 2017). The lack of national policies (C9) regarding
incorporating sustainability in CDW management is a significant
obstacle to transitioning to SWM (Mahpour, 2018). Additionally, the
lack of supervision (C10) by the government and authorities of
disposal techniques and behaviors contributes to the barriers
existing in the regulatory environment (Huang et al., 2018).
Table 1
TFNs for FDM assessment.
Linguistic Terms Corresponding TFNs
Extreme 0.75 1.00 1.00
Demonstrated 0.50 0.75 1.00
Strong 0.25 0.50 0.75
Moderate 0.00 0.25 0.50
Equal 0.00 0.00 0.25
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126717
Table 2
TFNs for FDEMATEL assessment.
Scale Linguistic Term Corresponding TFNs
VH Very high 0.70 0.90 1.00
H High 0.50 0.70 0.90
M Medium 0.30 0.50 0.70
L Low 0.10 0.30 0.50
VL Very low 0.00 0.10 0.30
Government institutions lack legal enforcement (C11), and care-
lessness weakens the social, economic, and environmental sus-
tainability efforts of CDW management (Blaisi, 2019).
Environmental barriers (AS5) are significant barriers to imple-
menting sustainability practices in CDW management in devel-
oping regions (Lockrey et al., 2016). The lack of or the poor planning
of necessary facilities and infrastructure, such as collection areas
and treatment areas, hinders the ability of CDW management to
achieve sustainability goals (Sernor and Portnov, 2018; Ghaffar
et al., 2019). For the environmental barriers, three criteria have
been valid: limited infrastructure (C12), access to illegal dumping
grounds (C13), and the lack of planned waste collection areas (C14).
Environmental barriers often motivate profit-driven contractors
and waste collectors to neglect sustainability practices and dump
waste freely and inappropriately.
3. Method
This section presents the industrial background, proposed
method and analytical steps used to explore the construction in-
dustry in Somaliland.
3.1. Case background
In Somaliland, the construction industry is one the three main
sectors that drive and significantly contribute to economic growth.
The construction industry is connected with other sectors, creates
jobs and is recognized as a driving force of economic growth (Berk
and Bicen, 2018). Construction projects are a top priority for gov-
ernments and communities due to the relationship between the
construction industry and economic growth. The boom in the
construction industry is caused by the growing population and the
urbanization rate, which led to the expansion of cities and housing
projects. The upsurge in construction work increases the solid
waste generated from the construction, maintenance, renovation,
and demolition of civil structures. However, the CDW management
services are deficient and need to be explored to better understand
how it can incorporate processes involving the four tenets of sus-
tainability: reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover.
CDW contains substances that are harmful to human health and
environmental well-being and lead to natural resource depletion.
The most common waste disposal method is using landfills and free
dumping, resulting in public health and environmental issues.
These are outdated and irresponsible waste treatment methods;
hence, SWM techniques should be employed to ensure a better
future for the environment, economy, and society. There is a de-
mand to assess the shortcomings of the current practices, create
innovation, and implement sustainable CDW management prac-
tices. However, Somaliland construction firms and government
institutions pay little attention to CDW management. This study
could benefit practitioners seeking to improve their performance in
terms of CDW management because it highlights the in-
terrelationships that exist among the barriers to SWM.
A set of attributes comprising an initial set of 21 criteria was
developed from the literature review (Appendix 1). This is followed
Y.T. Negash, A.M. Hassan, M.-L. Tseng et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126717

Table 3
Barrier FDM results.

Attributes Criteria (Barriers) Weights

Technical Barriers (AS1) C1 Ineffective Management System 0.617

C2 Lack of green designing 0.588

Economic Barriers (AS2) C3 Inadequate funding 0.629

C4 Low cost for CDW disposal 0.620
C5 Higher cost for CDW treatment 0.624

Social Barriers (AS3) C6 Lack of Awareness 0.599

C7 Lack of Collaboration 0.620
C8 Lack of commitment 0.617

Regulatory Barriers (AS4) C9 Lack of national vision 0.594

C10 Lack of supervision 0.645
C11 Lack of legal enforcement 0.578

Environmental Barriers (AS5) C12 Limited infrastructure 0.629

C13 Access to illegal dumping grounds 0.629
C14 Lack of planned waste collection areas 0.582

by a questionnaire regarding linguistic evaluation that was submit- stand for the lower, middle and upper values of the TFNs,
ted to a group of 15 experts (9 site engineers and 6 senior managers) respectively.
with an average of 10 years of experience in the construction in- The aggregated fuzzy weights of each criterion are defuzzified:
dustry. The experts’ opinions were used to develop a valid set of
attributes of SWM, explore the causal and effect interrelationships aj þ bj þ cj
Sj ¼ j ¼ 1; 2; 3; …m (2)
among the barriers, and identify the criteria for practical improve- 3
ment according to their interdependence and power as drivers. The
experts’ opinions were collected in two rounds and used for FDM where m is the number of criteria.
and FDEMATEL; in round one, the proposed measures composed of The threshold (a) for screening out the nonsignificant criteria
21 criteria and their descriptions were presented to the experts (see was set: if Sj  a, then the jth criterion is accepted; if Sj  a, then the
Appendix 1). Online interviews were conducted to confirm the val- jth criterion is rejected deleted. Under the typical situation, a ¼ 0.5
idity of the criteria and enhance the reliability of the information is used. The FDM defuzzification process and final decision output
source. In round two, the FDEMATEL questionnaires were sent to the are presented in Appendix 2.
experts, and online interviews were conducted using the valid
criteria found in the round using FDM. 3.3. Fuzzy DEMATEL

Expert judgment involves decision-making under uncertainty;

3.2. FDM
To validate the criteria collected from the literature, this study
applied a hybrid method involving fuzzy set theory and the tradi-
tional Delphi technique. Fuzzy set theory was used to address the
uncertainty emanating from the experts’ opinions, and the Delphi
technique was used to screen out nonsignificant criteria from the
initial set of barriers. This study gathered experts’ assessments of the
significance of individual criterion as a linguistic variable and
adopted FDM procedures (Hsu et al., 2010). The linguistic assessment
scores were transformed into TFNs using Table 1. The steps used for
aggregation and defuzzification steps are described in the following.
The respondent evaluation scores were aggregated using the
fuzzy DEMATEL is used to address the ambiguity of the experts’
opinions and aid in decision-making (Lin et al., 2018). This study
used fuzzy set theory to address uncertainty stemming from the
experts’ decision fuzziness. To assess the causal effect interrela-
tionship among the attributes, the study applied DEMATEL. This
study involved gathering qualitative judgments and transforming
the linguistic terms into corresponding TFNs by using Table 2. The
decision group included n members, and ~zfij represents the fuzzy
weight of the ith attribute affecting the jth attribute assessed by the
fth evaluator. The procedure followed to implement FDEMATEL is
presented below.
Normalize the fuzzy numbers

2       3
  zflij  minzflij zfmij  minzfmij zfuij  minzfmij
¼ 4 5
f f f
S¼ s~
zlij ; s~
zmij ; s~
zuij ;  ;  (3)
maxzfuij  minzflij maxzfuij  minzflij maxzfuij  minzflij

geometric mean, and the fuzzy weight (wj) of each criterion was
determined. zflij ; s~
where ðs~ zfmij ; s~
zfuij Þ represents the normalized values of a TFN.
( !1 ) Compute the left (Sfltij ) and right (Sfrtij ) normalized values, total
  n   =n
X  
wj ¼ aj ¼ min aij ; bj ¼ bij ; cj ¼ max cij (1) normalized crisp values (Equation (5)), and crisp values (Equation
i¼1 (6))

where j is the significance evaluation score of criterion j, i is the

expert rated criterion j, n is the number of experts, and a, b, and c
5
Y.T. Negash, A.M. Hassan, M.-L. Tseng et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126717

2 3 3. The IDRM and the normalized direct relationship matrix were

  ~fmij
sz s~
f
zuij generated by using Equations (7) and (8). Equation (9) was
f f 6 7
Sltij ; Srtij ¼ 4 ;  5 (4) employed to combine the influence/importance level into the
f f f f
zmij  s~
1 þ s~ zlij zuij  s~
1 þ s~ zmij total interrelationship matrix.
4. Equations (10) and (11) were utilized to determine the horizontal
axis (D þ R) and vertical axis (D-R). The barriers falling in the
2    2 3
quadrant barriers are called driving attributes with causal features
Sfltij 1  Sfltij þ Sfrtij
f 6   7 and higher importance. If a barrier is located in the second quad-
Sij ¼4 5 (5)
f f
1  Sltij þ Srtij rant, the it is a voluntary attribute; this type of barrier has a causal
function but lower importance. The third quadrant consists of
  barriers that are less important and independent. Core problems
~ fij ¼ min~zf þ Sfij maxzfuij  minzf
w (6) are those mapped into quadrant four, indicating higher impor-
lij lij
tance. The core problems rely on the driving attributes in quadrant
Define an initial direct relation matrix (IDRM) aggregating the I and are unable to be improved by themselves and required to
subjective judgments of n evaluators and find the synthetic value. address the root problems. The analytical steps proposed in this
  study are briefly described in Fig. 1 below.
1
wfij ¼ w~ 1ij þ w
~ 2ij þ w
~ 3ij þ … þ w
~ fij (7)
n

where wij denotes the degree to which criterion i affects criterion j. 4. Results
Standardize the IDRM to generate the normalized direct rela-
tionship matrix (U). This section describes analytical processes employed to obtain
the results.
U ¼ w5IDMR (8)

P
n 1. Twenty-one criteria (see Appendix 1) for the barriers to SWM
f
where w ¼ maxð wij Þ for all i from 1 to n.
j¼1
Obtain the total relation matrix, and use matrix U to calculate
the total interrelationship matrix Y.
Y ¼ UðI  UÞ1
where I represent the size n and an identity matrix.
The sum of the rows is denoted by vector D, and vector R repre-
sents the sum of the columns. The horizontal axis (D þ R) represents
“prominence” and indicates importance. The vertical axis (D-R)
represents “relation” and denotes the causal attributes. When the
value of (D-R) is negative, the barrier or criterion is identified as the
effect group, and when the sum of (D-R) is positive, it falls into the
causal group.
X
n 3. The initial direction matrix shown in Table 4 was computed by
D¼ Uij for all j from 1 to n
j¼1
X
n driving and dependence power. The causal interrelationships that
R¼ Uij for all i from 1 to n
i¼1
Obtain the inner dependence matrix and identify the strength of
the cause-effect relationship.
3.4. Proposed analytical processes
1. The initial set of 21 barriers to SWM was identified in the liter-
ature and evaluated using FDM, and 15 experts from Somaliland
were asked to evaluate the barriers using linguistic terms. The
qualitative judgments of the experts were transferred into cor-
responding TFNs using Table 1. FDM was used to remove the
nonsignificant criteria by applying Equations (1) and (2).
2. A new set of questionnaires were assessed by using FDEMATEL
based on the accepted criteria. Data were collected from the
same experts, and Equation (3) was used to normalize the
evaluated TFNs. Equations (4)e(6) were applied to obtain the
normalized values, total normalized crisp values, and crisp
values for each expert.
were presented for FDM evaluation. Using Equations (1) and (2),
the acceptance threshold was found to be 0.572. The FDM re-
sults composed of weights of criteria and their thresholds are
shown in Appendix 2. The criteria with a defuzzified weight
below the threshold value were deleted; Table 3 summarizes the
(9) fourteen accepted criteria and the aggregated fuzzy weights.
2. The experts evaluated the interrelationships that exist among
these attributes using a linguistic scale based on the validated
set of criteria and barriers. The qualitative information provided
by the experts was transformed into corresponding TFNs. The
experts’ responses were normalized, left and right values were
computed, and the total normalized crisp values and crisp
overall values were determined using Equations (3)e(6). For
illustration, the result obtained from one of the experts and the
defuzzification process is presented in Appendix 3.
(10) averaging the crisp values obtained from each respondent via
Equation (7). Subsequently, Equations (8)e(11) were used to
create the total interrelationship matrix of the aspects and their
(11) exist among the aspects are shown in Tables 5 and 6. Finally,
Equations (8)e(11) were repeated to generate the information
presented in Table 7, and the total interrelationship matrix for the
criteria and their driving and dependence power is presented in
Table 8.
4. The diagram of the causal interrelationships among the barriers
is shown in Fig. 2. Based on the (D-R) axis, the barriers are
divided into causal group barriers on the positive side of the (D-
R) axis, namely, regulatory barriers (AS4) and social barriers
(AS3), while technical barriers (AS1), economic barriers (AS2)
and environmental barriers (AS5) belong to the effect group.
Regulatory barriers (AS3) are found to be the most significant
type of barrier and can lead to the existence or elimination of
other SWM barriers.
5. The cause-and-effect relationships between the criteria are
plotted in Fig. 3. The driving criteria are the lack of awareness
(C6), the lack of commitment (C8), ineffective management (C1),
the lack of collaboration (C7), the lack of national vision (C9),
inadequate funding (C3), limited infrastructure (C12), the lack of
supervision (C10), and the lack of legal enforcement (C11).
6
Y.T. Negash, A.M. Hassan, M.-L. Tseng et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126717

Fig. 1. The research framework.

Table 4
Initial direct relation matrix.
Table 5
AS1 AS2 AS3 AS4 AS5 SUM Total interrelationship matrix of barriers.
AS1 0.703 0.415 0.398 0.505 0.247 2.268
AS1 AS2 AS3 AS4 AS5 D
AS2 0.605 0.732 0.167 0.393 0.550 2.448
AS3 0.594 0.570 0.738 0.546 0.627 3.076 AS1 0.831 0.654 0.618 0.651 0.652 3.405
AS4 0.617 0.616 0.617 0.735 0.652 3.238 AS2 0.802 0.755 0.536 0.606 0.761 3.460
AS5 0.367 0.193 0.467 0.167 0.747 1.940 AS3 0.995 0.874 0.898 0.818 0.984 4.568
MAX 3.238 AS4 1.047 0.928 0.895 0.916 1.036 4.822
AS5 0.588 0.458 0.548 0.424 0.708 2.727
R 4.263 3.669 3.495 3.414 4.140 0.759

5. Discussions
5.1. Theoretical implications

This section discusses the theoretical and managerial implica-

This study identifies the causal and effect interrelationships that
tions to enhance our understanding of theory and practice.
7
Y.T. Negash, A.M. Hassan, M.-L. Tseng et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126717

Table 6 designers and project managers, culminating in poor SWM prac-

Driving and dependence power of barriers. tices. Thus, it is confirmed that due to social barriers, contractors
D R DþR D-R often consider waste as part of the construction process, which
AS1 3.405 4.263 7.668 (0.859)
leads to negligence in SWM practices (Abarca-Guerrero et al., 2017).
AS2 3.460 3.669 7.129 (0.209) Even though the analytical results indicated that technical, eco-
AS3 4.568 3.495 8.063 1.073 nomic, and environmental barriers belong to the effect group, these
AS4 4.822 3.414 8.236 1.408 aspects still possess different power in terms of dependence. For
AS5 2.727 4.140 6.868 (1.413)
instance, (1) technical barriers are the core problems that cannot be
Max 8.236 1.408
Min 6.868 (1.413) improved alone but rather are affected by both regulatory and social
Average 7.593 0.000 barriers that acts as drivers to generate indirectly improved dy-
namics. Further, the result again highlighted that technical barriers
such as ineffective management are attributes that lead to the lack of
exist among the barriers to SWM. Regulatory barriers and social sustainable efforts by contractors (Dong et al., 2019); (2) Economic
barriers are causal barriers to SWM. Technical, economic, and barriers are effect attributes and relatively detached from the other
environmental barriers represent the effect barriers. barriers. Economic or financial difficulties hinder the implementa-
The regulatory barriers are driving attributes with causal features tion of sustainability in CDW management and force construction
and highest importance; they have a strong influence and drive the works to employ affordable and low-cost unsustainable methods
technical and environmental barriers. The regulatory environment is (Wu et al., 2017). Inadequate funding and higher costs for CDW
the most impactful and meaningful attribute that affects the adoption treatment make it difficult for contractors and other stakeholders to
of sustainable practices in construction (Munyasya and Chileshe, employ effective and sustainable strategies and technologies; and (3)
2018). The results point out that regulation is the primary source of Environmental barriers are strongly influenced by regulations and
other barriers to SWM, such as technical, environmental, economic concern the planning, accessibility, and effectiveness of physical fa-
and social awareness (Dong et al., 2019). Removing regulatory barriers cilities used for waste treatment and recycling (Sernor and Portnov,
will address the root cause and lead to eco-friendly, socially harmless, 2018). The government and other agents need to pay attention to
and economically viable strategies; hence, eliminating these barriers policy and regulations and develop well-planned, effective, and
is a pathway to reach sustainability in CDW management. Accord- environmentally friendly facilities to achieve sustainability in CDW
ingly, it is reaffirmed that to achieve the goals of SWM, addressing management. Improving the accessibility and availability of waste
regulatory barriers such as developing regulations that help to pro- treatment infrastructure motivates contractors to implement SWM
mote sustainability attitudes among contractors is necessary (Wu strategies and work towards sustainability.
et al., 2018; Blaisi, 2019).
Social barriers are barriers that influence SWM and are often the 5.2. Practical implications
root cause of the poor technical practices used in CDW manage-
ment (Mahpour, 2018). Social barriers are driving, and causal at- This study discussed the significant criteria to provide practical
tributes resulting in technical obstacles such as shortcomings in the insights for SWM in Somaliland. These criteria are the lack of
processes, people, and approaches that CDW management agents awareness (C6), the lack of commitment (C8), ineffective manage-
apply to manage waste in a sustainable manner. In turn, technical ment (C1), the lack of collaboration (C7), the lack of national vision
barriers lead to inadequate strategies and technical decisions by the (C9), inadequate funding (C3), limited infrastructure (C12), the lack
of supervision (C10), and the lack of legal enforcement (C11).

Table 7
Total interrelationship matrix of criteria.

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 D

C1 0.311 0.296 0.280 0.275 0.259 0.301 0.288 0.297 0.213 0.229 0.224 0.295 0.219 0.285 3.771
C2 0.091 0.158 0.093 0.078 0.086 0.083 0.086 0.085 0.081 0.080 0.079 0.088 0.095 0.096 1.280
C3 0.298 0.277 0.308 0.265 0.288 0.304 0.285 0.293 0.238 0.235 0.246 0.291 0.272 0.283 3.883
C4 0.201 0.209 0.174 0.230 0.216 0.226 0.204 0.215 0.149 0.138 0.141 0.169 0.150 0.162 2.586
C5 0.237 0.225 0.226 0.219 0.267 0.241 0.222 0.230 0.149 0.154 0.156 0.233 0.172 0.173 2.905
C6 0.340 0.335 0.326 0.319 0.344 0.369 0.331 0.342 0.284 0.288 0.287 0.332 0.320 0.327 4.542
C7 0.288 0.283 0.274 0.279 0.288 0.291 0.308 0.288 0.235 0.247 0.240 0.271 0.262 0.271 3.826
C8 0.335 0.343 0.323 0.320 0.341 0.346 0.330 0.362 0.287 0.286 0.295 0.333 0.318 0.326 4.544
C9 0.338 0.336 0.321 0.318 0.338 0.345 0.328 0.339 0.309 0.282 0.289 0.330 0.315 0.326 4.514
C10 0.291 0.294 0.291 0.279 0.302 0.304 0.291 0.294 0.256 0.286 0.250 0.293 0.286 0.282 3.999
C11 0.284 0.282 0.272 0.272 0.289 0.294 0.274 0.287 0.248 0.241 0.283 0.284 0.276 0.284 3.870
C12 0.290 0.291 0.228 0.276 0.294 0.301 0.286 0.292 0.213 0.216 0.208 0.310 0.274 0.280 3.758
C13 0.211 0.220 0.206 0.197 0.172 0.218 0.211 0.209 0.150 0.145 0.144 0.157 0.238 0.158 2.636
C14 0.244 0.249 0.235 0.232 0.245 0.256 0.236 0.257 0.160 0.163 0.160 0.239 0.237 0.269 3.182
R 3.761 3.798 3.557 3.560 3.729 3.879 3.681 3.789 2.972 2.989 3.000 3.624 3.435 3.522 0.252

Table 8
Driving and dependence power of criteria.

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14

D 3.771 1.280 3.883 2.586 2.905 4.542 3.826 4.544 4.514 3.999 3.870 3.758 2.636 3.182
R 3.761 3.798 3.557 3.560 3.729 3.879 3.681 3.789 2.972 2.989 3.000 3.624 3.435 3.522
DþR 7.532 5.078 7.44 6.147 6.634 8.421 7.507 8.333 7.486 6.988 6.87 7.382 6.071 6.704
D-R 0.01 (2.518) 0.326 (0.974) (0.824) 0.663 0.145 0.755 1.542 1.01 0.87 0.134 (0.799) (0.340)

8
Y.T. Negash, A.M. Hassan, M.-L. Tseng et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126717

Fig. 2. Causal interrelationships diagram among the barriers.

Fig. 3. Causal interrelationships diagram among the criteria.

It is necessary to understand the consequences of waste gen-
eration and mismanagement for the environment, economy, and
society and develop and implement SWM strategies. However, the
lack of awareness (C6) is the underlying barrier that hinders sus-
tainability practices. Among the stakeholders of demolition work
such as contractors, clients, waste collectors, and government in-
stitutions, there is a lack of knowledge and understanding about
the role of sustainability in construction. This lack of awareness
influences stakeholders’ decision-making processes, for instance,
contractors’ decision-making regarding design, material selection
and disposal site management; clients’ attitudes towards recycled
materials; and the government’s decisions to support and regulate
sustainability practices. Thus, social awareness about effective
waste management should be increased, and the sustainability
concept should be broadened. Local authorities and educational
institutions should organize awareness campaigns and emphasize
improving social awareness and SWM performance.
The lack of commitment (C8) refers to construction and demoli-
tion work stakeholders’ negligence in terms of employing sustain-
ability practices. Some stakeholders are fully aware of the
importance of sustainability and the adverse consequences of waste
mistreatment and possess the skill to create proper strategies.
However, the lack of commitment from the top leadership of con-
struction and demolition works, such as urban managers, project

9
Y.T. Negash, A.M. Hassan, M.-L. Tseng et al.
leaders, and clients, is an obstacle to moving towards sustainable
outcomes. Contractors are not motivated to devise sustainable stra-
tegies if the government is not committed to these strategies.
Additionally, project staff are not motivated to engage in sustainable
activities if contractors are not committed to these strategies. Hence,
commitment needs to be improved from the top layers to the bottom
layers. Urban managers’ or government managers’ commitment,
such as the commitment to facilitating awareness, developing reg-
ulations and stricter enforcement, helps society to appreciate sus-
tainable efforts, which would force contractors to implement more
sustainable and innovative strategies to design and manage their
products to satisfy society’s desire to promote sustainability. A
commitment to sustainable efforts would improve SWM.
Transporting waste from the sites and freely dumping waste
into open spaces are current practices employed for CDW man-
agement. This ineffective management (C1) is not limited to the
disposal phase of waste but originates from government policies
regarding CDW management, contractor design and the planning
phase of construction and demolition work and lead to, for
example, poor material selection and material estimation. Ineffec-
tive SWM encompasses waste generated from preventable sources,
indiscriminate dumping, inappropriate transportation, and poor
final treatment. Effective management is a crucial driver of SWM,
and it is the leading technical force leading to the implementation
of strategies and strategic goals. To implement effective CDW
management practices, the industry needs experts in waste man-
agement and waste generation data to develop informed decisions
and plans and pay attention to innovative green or eco-friendly
practices. Collaboration among construction and demolition work
stakeholders, mainly the government and private and academic
institutions, is necessary for SWM.
The lack of collaboration among stakeholders (C7) is a potential
challenge to employing sustainable practices. The lack of collabora-
tion leads to weak information exchange, poor facility development,
and policies that are not based on collaborative decision-making by
stakeholders. Stakeholders’ cooperation is vital for achieving sus-
tainability goals; nevertheless, different participants involved in
construction and demolition work have different motives that make
collaboration difficult. Hence, to overcome this barrier, trust must be
developed among stakeholders; stakeholders’ diverse interests
should be unified, aligned and based on common ground. Clear and
convincing rules, guidelines and strategies should be developed based
on sustainability goals and collaborative agreements. Government
initiatives are essential in building collaborative efforts for SWM.
The lack of a national vision (C9) to move towards sustainable
practices is a significant barrier to SWM. National goals, objectives,
policies, and regulations related to sustainability practices are
needed to guide the industry in terms of how CDW can be effec-
tively managed. However, there is a lack of national vision in the
industry, and this arises from the lack of awareness and lack of
commitment of stakeholders, particularly government institutions
that are in charge of the regulatory environment. An effective na-
tional vision should be a complete and well-planned guideline
developed through a collaborative approach including all stake-
holders. Such a national vision would make it easier to implement
ideas, avoid conflict among stakeholders, and create shared values.
Another major challenge in SWM is the lack of adequate funding
(C3). The stakeholders of construction and demolition work often
assign low priority to sustainable practices by allocating minimal
funds or nothing at all. To achieve SWM, it is necessary to achieve
the financial capability to fund the sustainable waste management
process, people involved, technologies, and facilities. However,
CDW stakeholders ignore these expenses due to their interests;
construction contractors and waste collectors choose profit over
sustainability, and construction clients opt for affordable products.
10
Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126717
Government institutions can set trends by allocating budgets for
sustainable waste management, provide incentives for sustainable
practices, and invest in waste recycling infrastructure.
Limited infrastructure (C12) refers to the lack of or insufficient
CDW management infrastructure for SWM, such as waste collection
centers, sorting facilities, recycling plants, and treatment plants.
Waste management infrastructure is needed to create value from
waste and protect natural resources through recycling and reusing
waste and reducing the usage of new materials. However, the lack of
waste management infrastructure is a critical problem that moti-
vates construction and demolition stakeholders to consider the free
dumping of waste rather than the value that could be extracted from
waste. The development of waste management infrastructure
significantly improves SWM practices; hence, urban managers
should build proper infrastructure for waste management.
There are few sites in the city currently assigned for solid waste
collection and dumping areas outside the city. Due to the lack of
supervision (C10), the CDW is dumped freely and illegally, and the
existing environmental protection policies are not followed. Inad-
equate supervision and monitoring leads to unnecessary waste
generation from construction work and poor waste handling and
disposal behavior. Hence, it is necessary to promote supervision
during the construction and demolition work timeline. Supervision
activities can promote evaluations of the effectiveness and accuracy
of existing policies for SWM, the performance level and the
compliance of stakeholders. Developing regulations and stricter
outcome requirements is not enough if there is a lack of legal
enforcement (C11). The lack of government enforcement is the
main obstacle to employing sustainable practices. This lack of
enforcement leads to a lack of trust between law enforcement
agencies and CDW stakeholders, which also leads to a lack of
commitment. Practical and proper legal enforcement is crucial for
implementing waste management regulations and SWM.
6. Conclusions
Sustainable waste management in construction (SWM) is essential
for addressing the problems caused by the vast amounts of CDW
generated from urbanization. However, potential barriers impede
firms from implementing sustainable practices in construction and
demolition works, and a holistic assessment of these barriers is
necessary. Prior studies assessing barriers to SWM based on TBL
barriers are limited; moreover, TBL barriers are important consider-
ations but not are not the only barriers that affect the ability to
implement sustainability practices; therefore, this study integrated
the TBL with technical and regulatory barriers. This study applied
fuzzy set theory to assess qualitative information obtained from ex-
perts. This study also proposed a set of valid measures that can be used
to assess barriers using the FDM and explored the interrelationships
that exist among the barriers with the fuzzy DEMATEL method.
This study’s findings highlight the most significant SWM bar-
riers and could serve as a reference for the development of sus-
tainable policies for waste management and to prioritize solutions
for CDW management. The results indicate that regulatory and
social barriers are in the causal group and are the root cause of
technical, economic, and environmental barriers to SWM. Hence,
eliminating regulatory and social barriers can significantly enhance
the performance of SWM. The top causal criteria that hinder sus-
tainability performance in the industry were found to be the lack of
stakeholder awareness, the lack of commitment, ineffective man-
agement systems, the lack of collaboration among stakeholders, the
lack of national vision, inadequate funding, limited infrastructure,
the lack of supervision, and the lack of legal enforcement.
This study contributes to the literature because it provides a
guideline for moving towards SWM by identifying the main
Y.T. Negash, A.M. Hassan, M.-L. Tseng et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126717

barriers. The results of this study can support government policy-
makers and communities seeking to eliminate barriers by targeting
the most influential barriers. Regulatory barriers significantly lead
to other potential barriers in SWM, such as technical barriers and
environmental barriers. A poor regulatory environment leads to an
ineffective management system adopted by key stakeholders, and
it also leads to environmental barriers such as poor infrastructure
for waste management and the illegal dumping of waste. Hence,
improving the regulatory environment is vital for addressing the
existing barriers and successfully achieving SWM. The level of
awareness and knowledge about sustainability is also a decisive
factor of the successful implementation of SWM. The lack of
awareness influences urban managers’, contractors’, waste collec-
tors’, and the community’s performance, attitudes, and decision-
making processes. Prioritizing the elimination of regulatory and
social barriers can remove technical, economic and environmental
barriers, leading to SWM.
This study has several limitations. Future studies should
consider more attributes of enablers and barriers. The number of
respondents that evaluated the attributes was limited, and future
studies can consider more stakeholders to develop conclusions
based on multiple perspectives. This study is based on the Soma-
liland construction industry; perhaps future studies might consider
major cities or different economic conditions in a sensitivity anal-
ysis. The limitation regarding the method represents only single
layer. Future studies might involve multilayer attributes in the
assessment.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yeneneh Tamirat Negash: Conceptualization, Writing e orig-
inal draft, Writing e review & editing. Abdiqani Muse Hassan:
Conceptualization, Writing e original draft, Writing e review &
editing. Ming-Lang Tseng: Conceptualization, Writing e original
draft, Writing e review & editing. Kuo-Jui Wu: Conceptualization,
Writing e review & editing. Mohd Helmi Ali: Conceptualization,
Writing e review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
This study is free of Conflict of interests.
Acknowledgment
This study is partially supported by the Ministry of Science and
Technology, Taiwan MOST 109-2918-I-468-001.
Appendix 1. Proposed Measures

Barrier Criteria Description Reference

AS1 IC1 Ineffective Management Ineffective management process of CDW from disposal, sorting, transporting, and Blaisi (2019); Mahpour (2018);
Technical System recovering processes Huang et al. (2018); Yuan (2017)
Barriers IC2 Lack of fundamental data Lack of data on CDW generation (weight/capita/year) and composition for making
in CDW informed decisions
IC3 Lack of CDW expertise Lack of human resource with technical expertise for waste management
IC4 Lack of integration of There is a lack of sustainability integration between CDW management hierarchical
sustainable CDW levels.
management
IC5 Lack of green designing Unsatisfactory attention is given to waste reduction in the building designing
phase.

AS2 IC6 Inadequate funding Inadequate or absence of funding in construction projects to implement CDW Mahpour (2018);
Economic management Huang et al. (2018); Lockrey et al.
Barriers IC7 Low cost for CDW Low costs of sending materials to landfill and treatment (2016)
disposal
IC8 Higher cost for CDW Higher costs of CDW disposal, treatment and transportation encourages illegal
treatment dumping
IC9 Cheap building materials Low prices of building materials encourages users to buy new materials instead of
reusing/recycling

AS3 IC10 Lack of Awareness Lack of awareness of the implication of waste disposal among communities Blaisi (2019); Mahpour (2018);
Social involved in the construction industry such as contractors, clients, consultants, and Huang et al. (2018); Lockrey et al.
Barriers other authorities (2016)
IC11 Lack of Collaboration Lack of collaboration and information exchange between governmental sectors,
private sectors, and academic institutions
IC12 Lack of commitment Inattentiveness of top urban managers, recycling factories, contractors and
community towards proper CDW management
IC13 Lack of demand for Negative preference of the quality of recycled/reused materials causes users
recycled/reused preference for new construction materials over reused/recycled ones
materials

AS4 IC14 Lack of national vision Lack of clearly defined national goals, targets, and visions to implement and move Blaisi (2019); Mahpour (2018); Yuan
Regulatory toward circular economy and sustainability in CDW management. (2017); Huang et al. (2018)
Barriers IC15 Lack of supervision Stricter supervisions on CDW disposal behaviors is required
IC16 Lack of legal enforcement Absence of law enforcement for waste management by the government
IC17 Lack of incentives lack of incentives or effective reward from construction regulatory authorities

AS5 IC18 Limited infrastructure
Environmental IC19 Poor Urban planning
Barriers
IC20 Access to illegal dumping
grounds
IC21 Lack of planned waste
collection areas
Lack of the proper or complete infrastructure for CDW management Ghaffar et al. (2019); Blaisi (2019);
Short sighted urban planning process led to frequently demolition and CDW Huang et al. (2018); Lockrey et al.
generation (2016)
Abundance and availability of illegal dumping areas encourages dumping freely
Insufficient of area or space for waste collection

11
Y.T. Negash, A.M. Hassan, M.-L. Tseng et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126717

Appendix 2. FDM - Barriers Screening Out

Criteria aj bj cj Sj Decision

IC1 0.250 0.601 1.000 0.617 Accepted

IC2 0.000 0.464 1.000 0.488 Unaccepted
IC3 0.000 0.520 1.000 0.507 Unaccepted
IC4 0.000 0.408 1.000 0.469 Unaccepted
IC5 0.250 0.515 1.000 0.588 Accepted
IC6 0.250 0.636 1.000 0.629 Accepted
IC7 0.250 0.611 1.000 0.620 Accepted
IC8 0.000 0.546 1.000 0.515 Unaccepted
IC9 0.250 0.621 1.000 0.624 Accepted
IC10 0.250 0.546 1.000 0.599 Accepted
IC11 0.250 0.611 1.000 0.620 Accepted
IC12 0.250 0.601 1.000 0.617 Accepted
IC13 0.000 0.432 1.000 0.477 Unaccepted
IC14 0.250 0.533 1.000 0.594 Accepted
IC15 0.250 0.685 1.000 0.645 Accepted
IC16 0.250 0.483 1.000 0.578 Accepted
IC17 0.000 0.483 1.000 0.494 Unaccepted
IC18 0.250 0.636 1.000 0.629 Accepted
IC19 0.000 0.468 1.000 0.489 Unaccepted
IC20 0.250 0.636 1.000 0.629 Accepted
IC21 0.250 0.495 1.000 0.582 Accepted

Threshold (a) 0.572

Appendix 3. Defuzzification Procedure from expert 1

AS1 AS2 AS3 AS4 AS5

AS1 [1.00 1.00 1.00] [ [0.50 0.70 0.90] [0.30 0.50 0.70] [0.30 0.50 0.70] [0.10 0.30 0.50]
AS2 [0.50 0.70 0.90] [ [1.00 1.00 1.00] [0.30 0.50 0.70] [0.50 0.70 0.90] [0.70 0.90 1.00]
AS3 [0.50 0.70 0.90] [ [0.50 0.70 0.90] [1.00 1.00 1.00] [0.50 0.70 0.90] [0.70 0.90 1.00]
AS4 [0.70 0.90 1.00] [ [0.70 0.90 1.00] [0.70 0.90 1.00] [1.00 1.00 1.00] [0.70 0.90 1.00]
AS5 [0.50 0.70 0.90] [ [0.10 0.30 0.50] [0.50 0.70 0.90] [0.10 0.30 0.50] [1.00 1.00 1.00]

zflij
s~ zfmij
s~ zfuij
s~ zflij
s~ zfmij
s~ zfuij
s~ zflij
s~ zfmij
s~ zfuij
s~ zflij
s~ zfmij
s~ zfuij
s~ zflij
s~ zfmij
s~ zfuij
s~

AS1 [1.00 0.60 0.20] [ [0.444 0.444 0.444] [0.000 0.000 0.000] [0.222 0.222 0.222] [0.000 0.000 0.000]
AS2 [0.00 0.00 0.00] [ [1.000 0.778 0.556] [0.000 0.000 0.000] [0.444 0.444 0.444] [0.667 0.667 0.556]
AS3 [0.00 0.00 0.00] [ [0.444 0.444 0.444] [1.000 0.714 0.429] [0.444 0.444 0.444] [0.667 0.667 0.556]
AS4 [0.40 0.40 0.20] [ [0.667 0.667 0.556] [0.571 0.571 0.429] [1.000 0.778 0.556] [0.667 0.667 0.556]
AS5 [0.00 0.00 0.00] [ [0.000 0.000 0.000] [0.286 0.286 0.286] [0.000 0.000 0.000] [1.000 0.778 0.556]

Sfltij Sfrtij Sfltij Sfrtij Sfltij Sfrtij Sfltij Sfrtij Sfltij Sfrtij

AS1 1.000 0.333 0.444 0.444 0.000 0.000 0.222 0.222 0.000 0.000
AS2 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.714 0.000 0.000 0.444 0.444 0.667 0.625
AS3 0.000 0.000 0.444 0.444 1.000 0.600 0.444 0.444 0.667 0.625
AS4 0.400 0.250 0.667 0.625 0.571 0.500 1.000 0.714 0.667 0.625
AS5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.286 0.286 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.714

~ fij
w ~ fij
w ~ fij
w ~ fij
w ~ fij
w

AS1 0.333 0.444 0.000 0.222 0.000

AS2 0.000 0.714 0.000 0.444 0.639
AS3 0.000 0.444 0.600 0.444 0.639
AS4 0.356 0.639 0.533 0.714 0.639
AS5 0.000 0.000 0.286 0.000 0.714

wfij wfij wfij wfij wfij

AS1 0.67 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.10

AS2 0.50 0.74 0.30 0.50 0.82
AS3 0.50 0.50 0.72 0.50 0.82
AS4 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.74 0.82
AS5 0.50 0.10 0.50 0.10 0.86

12
Y.T. Negash, A.M. Hassan, M.-L. Tseng et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126717

References Li, J., Zuo, J., Cai, H., Zillante, G., 2018. Construction waste reduction behavior of
contractor employees: an extended theory of planned behavior model
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 1399e1408.
Addae, B., Zhang, L., Zhou, P., Wang, F., 2019. Analyzing barriers of smart energy city
Li, J., Tam, V., W, Y., Zuo, J., Zhu, J., 2015. Designers’ attitude and behaviour towards
in Accra with two-step fuzzy DEMATEL. Cities 89, 218e227.
construction waste minimization by design: a study in Shenzhen, China. Resour.
Abarca-Guerrero, L., Maas, G., Twillert, H., 2017. Barriers and motivations for con-
Conserv. Recycl. 105, 29e35.
struction waste reduction practices in Costa Rica. Resources 6 (4), 69.
Lin, K.P., Tseng, M.L., Pai, P.F., 2018. Sustainable supply chain management using
Araee, E., Manavizadeh, N., Aghamohammadi Bosjin, S., 2020. Designing a multi-
approximate fuzzy DEMATEL method. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 128, 134e142.
objective model for a hazardous waste routing problem considering flexibility
Liu, H., Long, H., Li, X., 2020. Identification of critical factors in construction and
of routes and social effects. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 37 (1), 33e45.
demolition waste recycling by the grey-DEMATEL approach: a Chinese
Bakchan, A., Srour, I., Chehab, Gh, El-Fadel, M., Karaziwan, J., 2016. Behavioral de-
perspective. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 27 (2020).
terminants towards enhancing construction waste management: a Bayesian
Lockrey, S., Nguyen, H., Crossin, E., Verghese, K., 2016. Recycling the construction
Network analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 117, 274e284.
and demolition waste in Vietnam: opportunities and challenges in practice.
Bamgbade, J.A., Mohammed Kamaruddeen, A., Mohd Nawi, M., Qudus, A.,
J. Clean. Prod. 133 (2016), 757e766.
Salimon, M., Ajibike, W., 2018. Analysis of some factors driving ecological sus-
Mahpour, A., 2018. Prioritizing barriers to adopt circular economy in construction
tainability in construction firms. J. Clean. Prod. 208, 1537e1545.
and demolition waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 134, 216e227.
Berk, N., Biçen, S., 2018. Causality between the construction sector and GDP growth
Mihai, F., Grozavu, A., 2019. Role of waste collection efficiency in providing a cleaner
in emerging countries: the case of Turkey. In: 10th Annual International Con-
rural environment. Sustainability 11 (23), 1e22.
ference on Mediterranean Studies.
Munyasya, B., Chileshe, N., 2018. Towards Sustainable Infrastructure Development:
Blaisi, N.I., 2019. Construction and demolition waste management in Saudi Arabia:
drivers, barriers, strategies, and coping mechanisms. Sustainability 10, 4341.
current practice and roadmap for sustainable management. J. Clean. Prod. 221,
Pham, H., Kim, S.Y., 2019. The effects of sustainable practices and managers’ lead-
167e175.
 n-Jaramillo, S., Aristiz squez- ership competences on sustainability performance of construction firms. Sus-
Carvajal-Arango, D., Bahamo abal-Monsalve, P., Va
tain. Prod. Consum. 20, 1e14.
Hern andez, A., Botero, L.F.B., 2019. Relationships between lean and sustainable
Saheed, A., Lukumon, O., 2018. Critical design factors for minimising waste in
construction: positive impacts of lean practices over sustainability during
construction projects: a structural equation modelling approach. Resour. Con-
construction phase. J. Clean. Prod. 234, 1322e1337.
serv. Recycl. 137, 302e313.
Chen, J., Hua, C., Liu, C., 2019. Considerations for better construction and demolition
Sernor, N., Portnov, B., 2018. Identifying areas under potential risk of illegal con-
waste management: identifying the decision behaviors of contractors and
struction and demolition waste dumping using GIS tools. Waste Manag. 75,
government departments through a game theory decision-making model.
22e29.
J. Clean. Prod. 212, 190e199.
Tsai, F., Bui, T.D., Tseng, M.L., Wu, K.J., 2020. A causal municipal solid waste man-
Chen, X., Lu, W., 2015. Identifying factors influencing demolition waste generation
agement model for sustainable cities in Vietnam under uncertainty: a com-
in Hong Kong. J. Clean. Prod. 141, 799e811.
parison. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 154, 104599.
Chethana, S., Illankoon, I.M., Tam, V., Le, K., 2016. Environmental, economic, and
Tseng, M.L., Wu, K.J., Lee, C.H., Lim, M.K., Bui, T.D., Chen, C.H., 2018. Assessing
social parameters in international green building rating tools. J. Prof. Issues Eng.
sustainable tourism in Vietnam: a hierarchical structure approach. J. Clean.
Educ. Pract. 143 (2), 1943e5541.
Prod. 195, 406e417.
Domínguez, A., Domínguez, M.I., Ivanova, S., Centeno, M., Odriozola, J., 2016.
Turkyilmaz, A., Guney, M., Karaca, F., Bagdatkyzy, Z., Sandybayeva, A., Sirenova, G.,
Recycling of construction and demolition waste generated by building infra-
2019. A Comprehensive Construction and Demolition Waste Management
structure for the production of glassy materials. Ceram. Int. 42 (14),
Model Using PESTEL and 3R for Construction Companies Operating in Central
15217e15223.
Asia. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061593.
Dong, J., Liu, D., Wang, D., Zhang, Q., 2019. Identification of key influencing factors of
Tura, N., Hanski, J., Ahola, T., Ståhle, M., Piiparinen, S., Valkokari, P., 2018. Unlocking
sustainable development for traditional power generation groups in a market
circular business: a framework of barriers and drivers. J. Clean. Prod. 212,
by applying an extended MCDM model. Sustainability 11 (2019), 1754.
90e98.
Ghaffar, S.H., Burman, M., Braimah, N., 2019. Pathways to circular construction: an
Udawatta, N., Zuo, J., Chiveralls, K., Zillante, G., June, 2015. Improving waste man-
integrated management of construction and demolition waste for resource
agement in construction projects: an Australian study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
recovery. J. Clean. Prod. 244 (2020), 118710.
101, 73e83.
Huang, B., Wang, X., Kua, H., Geng, Y., Bleischwitz, R., Ren, J., 2018. Construction and
Wang, J., Li, Zh, Tam, V., 2014. Identifying best design strategies for construction
demolition waste management in China through the 3R principle. Resour.
waste minimization. J. Clean. Prod. 92, 237e247.
Conserv. Recycl. 129, 36e44.
Wu, K.J., Zhu, Y., Tseng, M., Lim, M., Xue, B., 2018. Developing a hierarchical struc-
Hsu, Y., Lee, Ch, Kreng, Victor, 2010. The application of Fuzzy Delphi Method and
ture of the co-benefits of the triple bottom line under uncertainty. J. Clean. Prod.
Fuzzy AHP in lubricant regenerative technology selection. Expert Syst. Appl. 37,
195, 908e918.
419e425.
Wu, Z., Yu, A., Shen, L., 2017. Investigating the determinants of contractor’s con-
Islam, R., Nazifa, T., Yuniarto, A., Uddin, A., Salmiati, S., Shahid, Sh, 2019. An
struction and demolition waste management behavior in Mainland China.
empirical study of construction and demolition waste generation and impli-
Waste Manag. 60, 290e300.
cation of recycling. Waste Manag. 95, 10e21.
Yuan, H., 2017. Barriers and countermeasures for managing construction and de-
Jin, R., Li, B., Tongyu, Zh, Wanatowski, D., Pirozfaar, P., 2017. An empirical study of
molition waste: a case of Shenzhen in China. J. Clean. Prod. 157, 84e93.
perceptions towards construction and demolition waste recycling and reuse in
China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 126, 86e98.

13