Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 274–284

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

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

Full length article

Behavioral determinants towards enhancing construction waste

management: A Bayesian Network analysis
Amal Bakshan ∗ , Issam Srour, Ghassan Chehab, Mutasem El-Fadel, Jalal Karaziwan
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, American University of Beirut, Lebanon

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

Article history: In this study, a Bayesian Network analysis is used to define causal behavioral determinants towards
Received 24 February 2016 improving practices in construction waste management (CWM). For this purpose, a structured survey
Received in revised form 1 September 2016 questionnaire was developed and administered to field workers at construction projects. The collected
Accepted 11 October 2016
data was used to develop a probabilistic relational model with single- and multi-factor analysis to assess
Available online 3 November 2016
conditional probabilities underlying various determinants. The results indicate that behavior is highly
influenced by attitude, past experience, and social pressure with 21, 20, and 10% higher chance of improve-
Keywords:
ment by these factors, respectively. Behavior in CWM appears to be more sensitive to changes in personal
Sustainability
Construction Waste Management
factors such as attitude than corporate factors such as training. When simultaneously controlling all fac-
Worker behavior tors, the behavior is improved with personal factors by 9% more than with corporate factors. Additionally,
Bayesian Network it was found that the probability of having effective CWM practices on-site reaches 83% when workers
have a positive attitude towards waste management, are well experienced in CWM practices, and are
influenced by social pressure. Achieving this result also requires independency at work and availability of
training sessions. The model raises the awareness of construction stakeholders about factors influencing
workers’ behavior towards CWM and presents quantified strategies that increase the chances of mini-
mizing the generation of construction waste. It can serve as a motivation and a decision support tool for
adopting and implementing sustainable CWM practices.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The need for effective construction waste management is of
ever-growing importance in this era of shrinking natural resources
and scarcity, coupled with increasing challenges in siting new
landfills particularly in and around land-limited and continuously
developing metropolitan urban areas. The growth in quantities
of construction waste in such areas has exacerbated associated
adverse environmental and socio-economic impacts (Poon et al.,
2003) at a considerable loss in land resources for the expansion
of existing landfills or the creation of new ones (Esin and Cosgun,
2007; Lu and Yuan, 2010). As a result, the construction industry
is increasingly becoming under pressure to promote sustainable
CWM practices guided by the 3Rs principles of reducing,1 reusing,2
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ahb15@mail.aub.edu, amal.bakshan@gmail.com (A. Bakshan).
1
Most effective with emphasis on preventing the generation of waste at source.
2
Entailing using construction material more than once for the same function
(reusing formwork) or for a new function (reusing the remaining cut-corners of
steel bars for supporting shelves) (Esin and Cosgun, 2007; Poon, 2007).
and recycling3 (Calvo et al., 2014; Tam and Tam, 2006). Ideally, the
3Rs principle is supported by economic benefits including 1) cost
reduction in material purchasing (Bossink and Brouwers, 1996), 2)
saving in transportation cost from construction site to landfills, 3)
saving in disposal cost at landfills (i.e. landfill tipping fee), and 4)
revenue from selling waste materials (Yuan, 2013).
The construction industry is inherently geared and suited
towards the adoption of the 3Rs principle. However, effective
implementation seems to be highly influenced by the awareness,
or the lack thereof, of various stakeholders (workers, contractors,
and owners) of corresponding benefits albeit the false preconcep-
tion that CWM contributes highly to project expenses (Johnston
and Mincks, 1995) or the perception of CWM as an activity with a
low priority compared to other objectives for meeting project dead-
line and maximizing profit (Manowong, 2012; Teo and Loosemore,
2001). On the contrary, the non-consideration of sustainable waste
management practices has proved to cause budget and time over-
runs as well as a negative influence on the environment (Lu and
3
Changing the waste material into a new product with different characteristics,
e.g. recycling concrete waste into aggregates, (Tam, 2008b).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.10.006
0921-3449/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 A. Bakshan et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 274–284
Yuan, 2010). For this reason, improving stakeholders’ awareness
about environmental and economic considerations of CWM has
emerged as a vital driver for spreading a culture within orga-
nizations and encouraging the adoption of sustainable practices
(Osmani et al., 2008; Yuan, 2013). Workers’ awareness in particular
is reflected in their attitude and behavior towards waste manage-
ment with recently reported evidence ascertaining that promoting
best practices is a behavioral and social process (Begum et al.,
2009; Udawatta et al., 2015), thus raising considerable attention
to the role of human factors in minimizing and managing con-
struction waste (Yuan and Shen, 2011). In short, the identification
of factors that influence the behavior of construction field work-
ers regarding waste management, as well as the quantification of
relationships between respective factors, are imperative towards
improving waste management practices.
While various statistical analysis techniques with different lev-
els of complexity were recently applied to examine these factors
(Table 1), they fell short of quantifying relationships between causal
factors for improving behavior towards waste management. In this
context, a behavioral Bayesian Network (BN) offers the advantage
of allowing the quantification of relationships between related fac-
tors by building a probabilistic relational model that relies on field
survey data (Korb and Nicholson, 2004). As such, in this study, a
behavioral BN-based approach with qualitative and quantitative
components is adopted to develop a model that identifies struc-
tural information about influencing factors in CWM. The model also
identifies the causality or relationships between these factors while
defining probability distributions that quantify these relationships
with the aim of supporting effective implementation of CWM plans.
2. Methodology
Following a comprehensive literature review to define behav-
ioral factors regarding CWM, the adopted methodology comprised
a field survey of construction workers to measure each factor, and
the development and testing of the behavioral BN model.
Factors that reportedly influence the behavior towards waste
minimization and/or recycling fall under two main categories, per-
sonal (attitude towards CWM, awareness towards consequences, work
experience, past experience in CWM, and social pressure) and corpo-
rate (training, supervision and financial incentives) factors with their
main attributes summarized in Table 2. Personal factors, referred to
as individual factors, represent the psychological and cognitive fac-
tors that are involved in shaping the individual’s decision-making.
On the other hand, corporate or organizational factors, refer to
factors that act as part of the organizational context, which may
either facilitate or constrain the success of individuals’ initiatives
to any behavioral change (Young et al., 2013). In order to capture
the latter, a structured questionnaire survey was designed in a way
that ensures simplicity and anonymity (Table 3) all while target-
ing the personal and corporate factors defined above as well as
behavior towards CWM through a set of closed-ended questions
of categorical data type. While financial incentives are recognized
to affect worker’s behavior towards waste management, it was
excluded because site visits revealed that rewarding schemes were
not implemented for motivating construction workers. Site man-
agers attributed the absence of such incentives to a slow economy
and the lack of discretionary funds through which such incen-
tives could be provided. Instead, the questionnaire was tailored
towards the magnitude of financial rewards that can motivate
workers towards effective implementation of a CWM plan. Finally,
the behavior towards CWM refers to the actual ongoing behavior
related to CWM.
While various studies have targeted site workers to examine the
influencing factors that shape their behavior towards CWM at the
275
operative level (e.g. Chen et al., 2002; Teo and Loosemore, 2001),
Lingard et al. (2000) explored the understanding of site workers as
well as managers of waste minimization practices. The behavioral
BN model, proposed in this study, is tested on a sample of field
workers, as they are at the front line of construction operations.
The intention is to assess and quantify the influence of personal
factors, which relate to the psychological and cognitive factors that
shape the worker’s behavior regardless of the corporate policies
enforced by the upper management. Such policies, instead, are cap-
tured through the corporate factors (e.g. supervision), as illustrated
in Table 2.
During the data collection process, 123 construction sites were
contacted. This number is almost equal to the total number of ongo-
ing construction projects in the study area at the time when the
survey was conducted (OEA-Beirut, 2013). Lebanon, the source of
the field survey data presented in this study, is struggling from
haphazard dumping of CW due to shortages in designated land-
fills as well as the absence of regulations on proper disposal of CW
(Srour et al., 2013). The vast majority of generated waste – 0.5 mil-
lion tons from buildings under construction and over 1 million tons
from demolition activities – is disposed of in valleys and abandoned
quarries (Bakshan et al., 2015).
As a first step, site managers were contacted to discuss the
study objectives and to seek permissions for workers’ participa-
tion in the survey. Out of 123 buildings, 65 expressed willingness
to participate or a positive response rate of 53%, which was con-
sidered representative. Note that the survey procedure consisted
of semi-structured interviews, where a structured questionnaire
was used to interview the field workers. The questionnaire was
field-tested and explained thoroughly prior to administering it to
workers in order to reduce measurement errors or chances of mis-
understanding. During the interviews, the responses were noted
by the interviewers based on detailed discussions with the work-
ers. The field workers who participated in the survey are those who
were onsite and available to be interviewed during site visits, lead-
ing to a total of 69 participants whose responses were then used to
establish the behavioral BN model.
The survey questions aimed at measuring personal, corporate
and behavior factors with corresponding states to be incorporated
in the behavioral BN model. For example, two questions that corre-
spond to awareness towards environmental and economic benefits
of CWM are used as indicators for the awareness towards conse-
quences factor. On the other hand, three states are considered for the
awareness towards consequences node (i.e. “Not Aware”, “Aware”
and “Fully Aware”), and the state of the factor is identified based on
the respondents’ answers to these two questions. If the answers for
both questions are “No”, then the state of awareness towards con-
sequences is “Not Aware”. If both answers are “Yes”, then the state
is “Fully Aware”. The state “Aware” is considered when one of the
answers is “No” and the other one is “Yes”. Similarly, the state of
past experience in CWM factor is picked from the three states (i.e.
“No Exp”, “Little Exp”, and “Advanced Exp”) based on the answers
of the two questions that correspond to past experience in waste
reduction and reuse.
Regarding the attitude towards CWM factor, three states are con-
sidered, including “Negative”, “Neutral” and “Positive”. The state is
decided based on the answers to the three questions related to
this factor. The question related to the respondent’s perception
towards the importance of CWM has four options that are also
mapped to “Negative”, “Neutral” and “Positive” states. The state
“Not important at all” is considered as “Negative”, the state “Slightly
important” is integrated as “Neutral”, and the states “Important”
and “Very important” are considered as “Positive”. Similarly, the
states “Strongly disagree” and “Disagree” of the question related to
the perception towards charging financial penalties are combined
into one state “Negative”. The states “Agree” and “Strongly agree”
276 A. Bakshan et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 274–284

Table 1
Factors that affect the behavior regarding waste management.

Reference GeographicalFocus Statistical Analysis Main Study Activity/Outcome

Methodology

Tonglet et al. (2004) Brixworth, UK - Factor Analysis - Explores major causal factors by grouping related variables
- Multiple Regression - Tests the statistical significance of correlations of causal
factors towards the dependent variable (i.e. behavior)

Kulatunga et al. (2006) Sri Lanka - Ranking Analysis - Identifies critical factors based on their ranking values

Barr (2007) Exeter, UK - Path/Regression Analysis - Tests the statistical significance of factors (p-value)
- Goodness-of-fit test - Tests the fit of the model

Tam (2008a) Hong Kong - Ranking Analysis - Identifies the importance of factors based on their ranking
values

Begum et al. (2009) Malaysia - Logistic Regression Analysis - Tests the statistical significance of factors (p-value)
- Goodness-of-fit test - Tests the fit of the model

Sidique et al. (2010) Minnesota - Several Regression Analysis techniques: - Tests the statistical significance of causal factors towards the
- Pooled OLS dependent variable (i.e. behavior)
- Random Effects
- Random Effects with Instrumental Variables (IV)

Wang and Yuan (2011) China - Ranking Analysis - Identifies critical factors based on their ranking values
- Factor Analysis - Explores the groupings that might exist among critical
factors

Ramayah et al. (2012) Malaysia - Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) - Tests the statistical significance of causal factors
- Several measurement of ‘fit’ tests: - Determines a structural model identifying causal factors
- Normed chi square - Estimates variances of factors
- Goodness-of-fit - Assesses the fit of the measurement structural model
- Comparative fit
- Non-normed fit

Udawatta et al. (2015) Australia - Ranking Analysis - Ranks all possible factors based on their ranking values
- Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) - Extracts major factors by grouping several related variables
- Principal-axis Factoring (PAF) - Examines whether there exists a statistically significant
- Analysis of variance (one-way) difference between two sample groups

are considered as “Neutral” and “Positive”, respectively. The third
question related to a financial indicator has five options that are
processed into three by considering the state “15%–20%” as “Nega-
tive”, the state “10%–15%” as “Neutral”, and the states “0%”, “2%–5%”
and “5%–10%” as “Positive”. Consequently, the value of the state
of the attitude towards CWM factor is estimated as the rounded
average scores of the three questions. As for the behavior towards
CWM, the state is identified based on two questions related to cur-
rent adoption of waste reduction and waste reuse practices. The
state is considered as “Negative” if the respondent is not imple-
menting any of these waste management practices and “Positive”
if implementing at least one of them.
The relationship in a BN is quantified by a set of conditional
probabilities that are tabulated showing one probability distribu-
tion for every combination of possible values of the parents, where
it is desirable to reduce the size of CPTs when possible. For exam-
ple, the CPT of awareness towards consequences depends on values of
three incoming factors (i.e. work experience, past experience in CWM,
and training). Therefore, this CPT would have [3 × (4 × 3 × 2)] = 72
elements. In an attempt to reduce its size, the number of states of
the work experience factor was reduced to three by combining the
two states “5-to-10” and “10-to-20” into a new state “Medium”.
The states “0-to-5” and “greater than 20” are mapped to “Short”
and “Long” respectively. Therefore, the number of elements of the
CPT was reduced from 72 to 54.
The CPT of the behavior towards CWM node has
[2 × (2 × 3 × 2 × 2 × 3)] = 144 elements. While 69 sample cases
may be perceived as not large enough to quantify all conditional
probabilities in this CPT, these cases still provide appropriate data
to establish a BN model that can demonstrate the application of
the BN approach to propose strategies for improving the behavior
of construction workers towards waste management. It is worth
mentioning that BN technique has no minimum sample size
required to compile the model and perform the analysis. It has the
ability to show an accurate prediction of outcomes even with a
small sample size (Kontkanen et al., 1997).
Once the influencing critical factors affecting the behavior
towards waste management are identified (Table 2), they were
linked along probable dependencies into a BN model as reflected in
Fig. 1, where linkages are built from reported observations such as
training having a direct effect on behavior towards CWM (Begum
et al., 2009) or on awareness towards consequences of CWM and
subsequently on attitude and behavior towards CWM (Johnston and
Mincks 1995; Kulatunga et al., 2006). As such, the model has a
continuous arrow representing the direct relationship between
training and behavior towards CWM as well as a dashed arrow rep-
resenting the indirect relationship between training and behavior
towards CWM through awareness towards consequences and attitude
towards CWM, which in turn defines cross-connections between
corporate and personal factors.
The BN model was then used to 1) conduct a sensitivity analy-
sis to show the probability variations in the behavior in relation to
changes in the states of influencing factors, 2) identify single-factor
strategies to improve the behavior by varying the states of each fac-
tor individually, and 3) assess multi-factor strategies that increase
the chances of minimizing waste onsite by varying the states of
multiple factors simultaneously. The BN analysis software Netica
(Norsys, 2015) was adopted to construct the BN using the drop and
drag feature and then incorporating the 69 cases through a com-
pilation process to generate the behavioral BN model along with
 A. Bakshan et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 274–284 277

Table 2
Factors influencing behavior towards CWM with their main attributes and assessment method.

Factor Main Attributes Assessment Method

Personal
Attitude - Contractors with positive attitude toward waste management reflect satisfactory Measured by asking individuals to
behavior (Begum et al., 2009). specify their feelings about performing
- Attitude of construction workforce can influence the generation and the behavior, e.g. whether the behavior
implementation of waste management strategies (Kulatunga et al., 2006). in question is good, useful, rewarding,
- Workers’ knowledge and awareness of environmental benefits is positively related etc.
to attitude, which in turn contributes to improving waste management behavior
(Ramayah et al., 2012).

Awareness towards
consequences of
CWM
- Enhancing workers’ awareness about saving economic resources and environmental Measured by asking individuals about
protection improves waste management performance (Yuan, 2013). awareness towards benefits of waste
- Communication and training efforts to raise awareness about the benefits of management (environmental,
recycling affect the attitude positively towards recycling and consequently behavior economic, and social)
(Sidique et al., 2010).

Work and Past - Duration of professional past experience in CWM practices shapes workers’ attitude Measured by asking individuals about
experience in CWM positively through awareness towards the consequences of CWM and is the best their number of years of professional
direct predictor of conservation behavior (Ajzen, 1993; Begum et al., 2009; Macey and past experience
and Brown, 1983; Terry et al., 1999; Wang and Yuan, 2011).

Social pressure - Social pressure or norm may have the greatest impact where an individual exhibits Measured by asking about the
a certain behavior positively when he/she perceives that it is important what others presence of a connection between
think he/she should be doing (Chan, 1998; Ramayah et al., 2012; Shaw, 2008). workers and owner or contractor

Corporate
Training - Training is a main source of information and knowledge about various waste Measured by asking workers if they are
management strategies, and proved to be an effective way in improving waste attending and have attended training
minimization and behavior towards recycling (Osmani et al., 2008; Udawatta et al., sessions regarding CWM practices
2015).
- Training and education about waste minimization methods play an important role
in 1) the awareness on the importance of waste management as a cost-effective and
profitable technique, 2) forming positive attitudes regarding waste management at
corporate and individual levels, and 3) enhancing behavior towards waste
management (Johnston and Mincks 1995; Kulatunga et al., 2006).

Supervision - Supervision of waste management activities with clear instructions from top to Measured by asking workers about the
bottom level of the organization is critical for proper implementation of waste extent of contractor’s supervision of
management strategies (Kulatunga et al., 2006) and improving the behavior CWM
regarding waste management in construction projects (Udawatta et al., 2015).

Financial incentives - Financial rewards constitute a major incentive that affect waste minimization Measured by asking workers about the
practices and motivate construction workers to comply with a waste management rewards and their extent for
strategy (Osmani et al., 2008;Tam and Tam 2008; Kulatunga et al., 2006). implementing CWM

the CPTs underlying each factor. Downward and upward propaga-
tion of data was then applied to identify single- and multi-factor
strategies for improving behavior towards CWM.
3. Results and discussion
reveal that there still exists a considerable room to further improve
the attitude of construction workers towards CWM, consequently
enhancing the effectiveness of waste management within the con-
struction industry in the area.

3.1. Baseline conditions 3.1.1. Example of a conditional probability table (CPT)

The field survey data were incorporated into the model and the
occurrence probabilities were estimated accordingly. These prob-
abilities represent the beliefs at the states and sum to 100% for
each factor. Fig. 2 shows the baseline behavioral BN model along
with estimated probabilities. The belief on the awareness towards
consequences factor, for example, shows that around 14% of respon-
dents are not aware of environmental and economic consequences
or benefits of CWM, about 47% are aware of either the environmen-
tal or the economic consequences, and 39% are fully aware of both
consequences. Regarding the respondents’ status for corporate fac-
tors, 56% undergo training sessions related to CWM strategies, and
only 38% receive adequate supervision from management. For the
attitude towards CWM, around 48% of respondents exhibit positive
attitude, with the same percentage of those exhibiting neutral atti-
tude. Moreover, 31% are still not practicing any CWM. Therefore,
the beliefs of the states, described based on the field survey data,
During the compilation of the BN model, a conditional probabil-
ity table (CPT) can be generated for each factor. The CPT estimates
the probability of all states of a specific factor for all possible com-
binations of the parents’ states. For example, the awareness towards
consequences factor has three states and three parents. Thus, the CPT
of this factor encompasses 54 elements that represent the condi-
tional probabilities of the three states given all possible joints of the
parents’ states. Table 4 illustrates part of the CPT of the awareness
towards consequences factor which represents the conditional prob-
ability P(awareness towards consequences | past experience in CWM,
training, work experience). For instance, the behavioral BN model
established based on the field survey data indicates that the prob-
ability of awareness towards consequences changes from 20 to 73%
being fully aware if a worker with a medium work experience has
little past experience in CWM practices (i.e. either reduce or reuse)
regardless of whether training courses were provided or not. These
probability variations demonstrate the critical influence of having
278 A. Bakshan et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 274–284

Table 3
Questionnaire for data collection with corresponding states in CWM behavioral BN model.

Factor Question Answer State in BN model

Personal
Work Years of professional experience in the • 0–5 • Short
experience construction industry • 5–10 • Medium
• 10–15 • Long
• 15–20

Attitude Importance of CWM • Not important • Negative

towards • Slightly important • Neutral
CWM • Important • Positive
• Very important

Main contractor should penalize • Strongly disagree

subcontractors if generated waste quantities • Disagree
are above agreed upon levels • Agree
• Strongly agree

If the company decides to implement a • 0%

financial reward scheme to motivate you to • 2–5%
participate in waste management practices, • 5–10%
how much should the financial reward at least • 10–15%
be (as a% of salary)? • 15–20%

Awareness I think that CWM preserves natural resources • No • Not Aware

towards • Yes • Aware
consequences • Fully Aware

I think that CWM saves cost • No

• Yes

Past experience I have past experience in waste reduction • No • No Exp

in CWM • Yes • Little Exp
• Advanced Exp

I have past experience in waste reuse • No

• Yes

Social I have strong connection with the • No • No

pressure owner/contractor thus adopting waste • Yes • Yes
management practices to reduce waste and
save cost

Corporate
Training I am currently attending training sessions • No • No
regarding CWM practices • Yes • Yes

Supervision Adequate supervision from management is • No • No

provided at work • Yes • Yes

Financial The company is currently applying a financial • No • NA

incentives rewards scheme to motivate workers to be • Yes • Excluded
involved in waste management practices (less
waste ⇒ high incentive)

Behavior
Behavior I am currently adopting waste reduction • No • Negative
towards CWM strategy • Yes • Positive

I am currently adopting waste reuse strategy • No

• Yes

Table 4
Part of CPT of awareness towards consequences node.

States of parent nodes States of awareness towards consequences factor

Past experiencein CWM Training Work experience Not Aware Aware Fully Aware

No Exp Yes Medium 0.6 0.2 0.2

Little Exp No Medium 0.09 0.18 0.73
Little Exp No Long 0.1 0.6 0.3
Little Exp Yes Long 0.13 0.73 0.14
Advanced Exp No Short 0.25 0.25 0.5
Advanced Exp No Medium 0.17 0.33 0.5
Advanced Exp No Long 0.08 0.5 0.42
Advanced Exp Yes Medium 0.2 0.4 0.4
Advanced Exp Yes Long 0.1 0.4 0.5
 A. Bakshan et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 274–284
Fig. 1. Proposed BN model.
Continuous circle represents a personal factor.
Dashed circle represents a corporate factor.
Continuous arrow represents a direct influence on behavior.
Dashed arrow represents an indirect influence on behavior.
past experience in CWM practices on improving the behavior of
construction workers towards waste management at the site level.
3.1.2. Example of reasoning within the BN
Reasoning within the BN allows for the prediction of the prob-
ability of all factors in the network when new information about a
certain factor becomes available. For example, assume that the state
of training is “Yes”. Entering this new information to the BN model
will change the occurrence probability from 56 to 100% for the state
“Yes” and from 44 to 0% for the state “No”. In addition, the color
of the node will change from yellow to grey, indicating that new
information is entered to the network. Concurrently, the probabil-
ity of field workers adopting CWM practices (i.e. positive behavior)
changes from 67 to around 72% on the basis of the established BN
(Fig. 3).
3.2. Sensitivity analysis
The sensitivity analysis illustrates the ability to select an
“inquiry” variable/factor and several “test” variables. The model
cycles through the factors in the BN by systematically entering
new evidence about each state of each test variable/factor, and
the probability distributions for the states of the inquiry variables
are estimated accordingly. A mutual information (MI) statistic is
computed for each variable, which measures the degree of mutual
279
dependence between the inquiry variable and the test variables
based on the chi-square distribution. The MI is thus zero when the
two sets of variables are independent and maximum when they are
functionally dependent. A separate report is generated showing a
list of test variables along with their related MI scores.
The sensitivity analysis was applied to identify the factors in
the generated behavioral BN that have the greatest influence on
the behavior towards CWM with factors ranked in the order of their
influence indicating that attitude towards CWM (MI = 0.006) is the
most influencing factor, followed by past experience in CWM, social
pressure, training, awareness towards consequences, work experi-
ence, and supervision (MI = 0.00001). These results shed light on the
importance of enhancing the attitude of workers towards CWM as
an effective way for adopting sustainable practices and improv-
ing the performance of the industry regarding waste management.
Note that the sensitivity analysis revealed that behavior towards
CWM is more sensitive to changes in personal factors than corporate
factors.
3.3. Strategies to improve behavior
Updating the BN through downward and upward propagation
of information (i.e. reasoning) was used to vary the states of factors
and propose best strategies (single-factor and multi-factor) that
can be adopted to improve behavior towards waste management
280 A. Bakshan et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 274–284

Fig. 2. Behavioral BN model and estimated occurrence probabilities.

Fig. 3. Reasoning within the behavioral BN model (training = “Yes”).

in the construction industry. In this context, the increase in the 3.3.1. Single-factor strategies
probability of the state “Positive” of behavior towards CWM factor To propose single-factor strategies, each factor in the BN model
in Fig. 2 corresponds to the improvement in the adoption of CWM is controlled individually. For instance, the state of past experience
practices. in CWM factor was varied between its three possible options in an
 A. Bakshan et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 274–284
Table 5
Conditional probabilities (%) of state “Positive” of behavior towards CWM.
ConditionalProbabilities(%) Personal Factors
Direct Influence
CWM Past CWM
Attitude Experience
State 1 50 50
State 2 70 70
State 3 71 70
Difference (%)Best to worst 21 20
attempt to examine the influence of this factor on the probability
distribution of behavior towards CWM. The results indicate that the
probability of adopting CWM practices (i.e. exhibiting “Positive”
behavior) is 50%, 70% and 71% when the state of past experience
in CWM is “No Exp”, “Little Exp” and “Advanced Exp” respectively.
Similarly, the states of other factors were controlled, and the prob-
ability of state “Positive” of behavior towards CWM is estimated
accordingly. Table 5 presents these probability distributions for all
personal and corporate factors, where states 1, 2 and 3 reflect the
states of factors as ranked by the model.
Clearly, the attitude of construction workers towards CWM has
considerable influence on their behavior towards the adoption of
waste management strategies. For example, when attitude towards
CWM is “Negative”, the probability of a worker adopting CWM prac-
tices is 50% which increases to 70% when the attitude is “Neutral”
and to 71% when it is “Positive”.
The examination of the influences of personal and corporate
factors shows that the probability of undergoing “Positive” behav-
ior is around 73% when social pressure exists, around 72% when
attending training sessions and around 70% when supervision is
provided. As such, the behavior towards CWM is more dependent
on personal factors than corporate factors, which is consistent with
the results of the sensitivity analysis. Therefore, it is more effective
to control personal factors when identifying single-factor strate-
gies for enhancing behavior towards CWM. For instance, hiring a
construction field worker with advanced past experience or highly
influenced by social pressure (such as having strong connection with
the owner/contractor thus more inclined to adopt CWM practices
to reduce cost) increases the probability of improving behavior
towards waste management onsite by 20 and 10%, respectively,
as compared to the case with no past experience or social pressure.
3.3.2. Multi-factor strategies
Single-factor strategies showed a maximum of 70 to 73% prob-
ability of undergoing “Positive” behavior when controlling the
factors individually. Another possible way to further improve the
behavior towards CWM is to employ strategies that control mul-
tiple factors simultaneously (i.e. vary the states of several factors).
Fig. 4 presents an example about varying the states of three fac-
tors (i.e. attitude towards CWM, past experience in CWM, supervision)
at the same time, where the probability of undergoing “Positive”
behavior increases to around 79%, thereby demonstrating the effec-
tiveness of multi-factor strategies in increasing the chances of
adopting waste management practices. Table 6 presents observa-
tions drawn when controlling multiple factors and examining the
effect on the behavior.
As discussed above, controlling multiple factors at once identi-
fies strategies that may lead to adopting CWM practices onsite with
a probability of more than 73% (i.e. the highest percentage of single-
factor strategies). Table 7 outlines the most effective strategies that
would induce workers to minimize waste during construction. Note
that the work experience and awareness towards consequences fac-
tors, which exert indirect influence on behavior through the direct
281
Corporate Factors
Indirect Influence Direct Influence
Social Work Awareness Training Supervision
Pressure Experience towards
Consequences
63 69 66 67 70
73 69 70 72 69
– 70 70 – –
10 1 4 5 1
influence of attitude towards CWM factor, are not included in these
five strategies due to the fact that, in a BN, the extent of direct
influences is greater than that of indirect influences. The highest
probability of 83% for implementing CWM practices is achieved
when information about the states of the five direct factors become
available. In other words, employing a field worker with a positive
attitude towards waste management, well-experienced in CWM
practices and highly influenced by social pressure would apply
CWM practices onsite with a probability of 83% if independency
at work (i.e. no supervision) and training sessions are provided.
4. Discussion
The observations drawn from controlling the influencing factors
of the proposed BN model revealed a greater sensitivity of behav-
ior towards CWM to personal factors than to corporate factors. This
finding is consistent with Loosemore et al. (2002)’s argument that
waste can be prevented by exerting enough efforts for improving
the personal influencing factors. In this regard, this study sheds
light on the considerable effect of worker’s attitude in accomplish-
ing satisfactory behavior towards CWM. Contractors interested
in implementing effective CWM practices must avoid employing
workers with negative attitude towards CWM. Similar arguments
were advanced by Begum et al. (2009) and Kulatunga et al. (2006),
whereby the attitude of the construction workforce is ascertained
to influence the generation and implementation of waste manage-
ment strategies. In this regard, the proposed behavioral BN model
demonstrates that training efforts to raise the awareness about the
benefits of CWM affect the attitude towards CWM positively and
consequently the behavior.
Past experience in CWM has been shown to have a considerable
influence on shaping the behavior towards CWM, as supported by
Begum et al. (2009) and Wang and Yuan (2011). However, even
with minimal past experience in CWM and/or neutral attitude,
social pressure plays a crucial role in exhibiting positive behav-
ior towards CWM. Such a role is equally highlighted by Ramayah
et al. (2012) and Shaw (2008). While several studies demonstrated
that supervision of waste management activities with clear instruc-
tions from top management is critical for proper implementation
of waste management practices (Kulatunga et al., 2006; Udawatta
et al., 2015), we found that the impact of supervision on the behav-
ior towards CWM is reversed when having advanced experience in
CWM. Such interesting observation is captured when the impacts
of supervision and past experience in CWM were considered simul-
taneously.
Besides assessing the influence of personal and corporate factors
consistently with the reported literature, the behavioral BN model
also quantified such influences. Effective strategies (Table 7) could
not be defined without the reasoning ability embedded within the
BN analysis. The main contribution of this study is thus empha-
sized by overcoming the shortcomings of other statistical methods
in quantifying the relationships between respective factors for
improving the behavior towards waste management.
282 A. Bakshan et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 274–284

Fig. 4. Controlling attitude towards CWM, past experience in CWM and supervision factors simultaneously.

Table 6
Observations drawn from controlling multiple factors.

Strategy/Scenario Probability Observations

(behavior towards
CWM = Positive)

(past experience in CWM = No) 50% Contractors interested in implementing effective CWM practices have to avoid
with any combination of factors employing workers with negative attitude towards CWM or those not having
(attitude towards CWM = Negative) 50% past experience in CWM practices.
with any combination of factors

(attitude towards CWM = Neutral), 79% Social pressure has considerable effect on the behavior regarding CWM even
(past experience in CWM = Little Exp), when worker’s attitude is “Neutral” and the past experience is minimal
and (social pressure = Yes)

(attitude towards CWM = Neutral), 58% Social pressure has 18% higher influence on the behavior towards CWM even
and (social pressure = No) when worker’s attitude is “Neutral”
(attitude towards CWM = Neutral), 76%
and (social pressure = Yes)

(awareness towards 76% The influence of awareness towards consequences factor (indirect influence) is
consequences = Fully Aware), (past 3% lower than that of the attitude towards CWM factor (direct influence)
experience in CWM = Little Exp), and
(social pressure = Yes)

(supervision = Yes) and 70% Controlling corporate factors alone has 9% less chance in improving the
(training = Yes) behavior towards CWM than controlling the personal factors alone indicating
more sensitivity to personal than to corporate factors

(past experience in CWM = Advanced
Exp), and (supervision = Yes)
(past experience in CWM = Advanced
Exp), and (supervision = No)
65% The probability of performing “Positive” behavior surprisingly increases by 8%
when supervision is not provided to workers with advanced past experience in
73% CWM practices, indicating perhaps that workers having advanced experience
in CWM would expect from their employers to appreciate and value their
skills, intimate knowledge of the materials and ability to perform well without
supervision.

5. Conclusion porate (training, supervision and financial incentives) factors. These

In this paper, factors influencing workers’ behavior towards con-
struction waste management are identified and classified under
personal (attitude towards CWM, awareness towards consequences,
work experience, past experience in CWM and social pressure) and cor-
factors were used in a field survey of construction workers at ongo-
ing projects to understand their causal relationships with workers’
behavior towards waste management through a behavioral BN
methodology/model. The model was developed and tested using
the same influencing factors and the field survey data with the
 A. Bakshan et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 274–284
Table 7
Most effective strategies for enhancing the behavior towards CWM (Probability > = 75%).
Strategy # Factors
Attitude towards CWM Social Pressure
1 Neutral Yes
2 Neutral Yes
3 Positive – Yes
4 Positive Yes
5 Positive Yes
aim of identifying effective strategies to minimize waste gener-
ation and alleviate corresponding environmental and economic
impacts. The combined field survey and model results demon-
strated that enhancing personal and corporate factors can improve
the performance of the construction industry in managing its waste
sustainably due to their significant impacts on workers’ behavior
with regards to CWM. In this context, raising workers’ awareness
towards the environmental and economic consequences of CWM
through training proved to affect their attitudes, which in turn
exhibited the greatest influence on their behavior towards CWM.
Future field surveys including financial incentives and contract type
factors and targeting a larger pool of workers and more stakehold-
ers (owners, contractors, consultants, regulators) can further refine
the model’s accuracy.
The developed BN-based model/methodology is not restricted
to a geographical location and can provide country-specific solu-
tions for improving the behavior towards waste management in
the construction industry through the incorporation of data that
represent the industry into the BN model. Such solutions may vary
according to cultural context and geographical location empha-
sizing the importance of examining context specific attributes in
waste management practices to ensure effective strategies towards
improving waste management performance at the site level. As
such, the importance of this behavioral study lies in the generic
nature of the developed BN-based methodology/model. It can help
in raising awareness about critical factors that influence the behav-
ior towards CWM by quantifying the effect of these factors and
providing practical strategies to improve workers’ behavior. The
developed BN-based model can also serve as a motivation tool for
the adoption of CWM practices and a predictive decision support
tool for performing inferences that can be used by direct stake-
holders (owners and contractors) and the enabling institutional
environment (regulator) during the planning and the implemen-
tation stages of CWM.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded through a grant from the National Cen-
ter for Scientific Research (CNRS) (No. 102655), Lebanon. Special
thanks are extended to Dr. Ibrahim Alameddine for his valuable
discussions and comments during data analysis. The authors would
also like to thank Anthony Daou for his assistance during the data
collection process.
References
Ajzen, I., 1993. Attitude theory and the attitude-behavior relation. In: Krebs, D.,
Schmidt, P. (Eds.), New Directions in Attitude Measurement. Walter de
Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 41–57.
Bakshan, A., Srour, I., Chehab, G., El-Fadel, M., 2015. A field based methodology for
estimating waste generation rates at various stages of construction projects.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 100, 70–80.
Barr, S., 2007. Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors. Environ.
Behav. 39, 435–473.
Begum, R.A., Siwar, C., Pereira, J.J., Jaafar, A.H., 2009. Attitude and behavioral factors
in waste management in the construction industry of Malaysia. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 53, 321–328.
283
Probability (%)
Supervision Training Past experience in CWM
Yes Yes Little Exp 75
No – Advanced Exp 76
– Little Exp 79
Yes Yes Little Exp 80
No Yes Advanced Exp 83
Bossink, B.A.G., Brouwers, H.J.H., 1996. Construction waste: quantification and
source evaluation. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 122, 55–60.
Calvo, N., Varela-Candamio, L., Novo-Corti, I., 2014. A dynamic model for
Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste management in Spain: driving
policies based on economic incentives and tax penalties. Sustainability 6,
416–435.
Chan, K., 1998. Mass communication and pro-environmental behaviour: waste
recycling in Hong Kong. J. Environ. Manag. 52, 317–325.
Chen, Z., Li, H., Wong, C.T.C., 2002. An application of bar-code system for reducing
construction wastes. Autom. Constr. 11, 521–533.
Esin, T., Cosgun, N., 2007. A study conducted to reduce construction waste
generation in Turkey. Build. Environ. 42, 1667–1674.
Johnston, H., Mincks, W.R., 1995. Cost-effective waste minimization for
construction managers. Cost Eng. 37, 31–40.
Kontkanen, P., Myllymaki, P., Silander, T., Tirri, H., 1997. Comparing predictive
inference methods for discrete domains. In: Proceedings of the Sixth
International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, Ft. Lauderdale,
USA, pp. 311–318.
Korb, K.B., Nicholson, A.E., 2004. Bayesian Artificial Intelligence. Chapman &
Hall/CRC Press, UK.
Kulatunga, U., Amaratunga, R., Haigh, R., Rameezdeen, R., 2006. Attitudes and
perceptions of construction workforce on construction waste in Sri Lanka.
Manag. Environ. Quality 17, 57–72.
Lingard, H., Graham, P., Smithers, G., 2000. Employee perceptions of the solid
waste management system operating in a large Australian contracting
organization: implications for company policy implementation. Constr. Manag.
Econ. 18, 383–393.
Loosemore, M., Lingard, H., Teo, M.M.M., 2002. In conflict with nature – waste
management in the construction industry. In: Best, R., Valance, G. (Eds.), Post
Design Issues – Innovation in Construction. Arnold, London, pp. 256–276.
Lu, W., Yuan, H., 2010. Exploring critical success factors for waste management in
construction projects of China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55, 201–208.
Macey, S., Brown, M., 1983. Residential energy conservation: the role of past
experience in repetitive household behavior. Environ. Behav. 15, 123–141.
Manowong, E., 2012. Investigating factors influencing construction waste
management efforts in developing countries: an experience from Thailand.
Waste Manag. Res. 30, 56–71.
Norsys, 2015. Netica Application, https://www.norsys.com/netica.html (accessed
4.25.15).
OEA-Beirut, 2013. Order of Engineers and Architect: Construction Permits
Statistics 2013, http://www.oea.org.lb/Arabic/Listing-Files.
aspx?pageid=1729&FolderID=73 (accessed 8.15.16).
Osmani, M., Glass, J., Price, A., 2008. Architects’ perspectives on construction waste
reduction by design. Waste Manag. 28, 1147–1158.
Poon, C.S., Yu, A.T.W., Ng, L.H., 2003. Comparison of low-waste building
technologies adopted in public and private housing projects in Hong Kong.
Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 10, 88–98.
Poon, C.S., 2007. Reducing construction waste. Waste Manag. 27, 1715–1716.
Ramayah, T., Lee, J.W.C., Lim, S., 2012. Sustaining the environment through
recycling: an empirical study. J. Environ. Manag. 102, 141–147.
Shaw, P.J., 2008. Nearest neighbour effects in kerbside household waste recycling.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 52, 775–784.
Sidique, S.F., Joshi, S.V., Lupi, F., 2010. Factors influencing the rate of recycling: an
analysis of Minnesota counties. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 242–249.
Srour, I.M., Chehab, G.R., El-Fadel, M., Tamraz, S., 2013. Pilot-based assessment of
the economics of recycling construction demolition waste. Waste Manag. Res.
31, 1170–1179.
Tam, V.W.Y., Tam, C.M., 2006. Evaluations of existing waste recycling methods: a
Hong Kong study. Build. Environ. 41, 1649–1660.
Tam, V.W.Y., Tam, C.M., 2008. Waste reduction through incentives: a case study.
Build. Res. Inf. 36, 37–43.
Tam, V.W.Y., 2008a. On the effectiveness in implementing a
waste-management-plan method in construction. Waste Manag. 28,
1072–1080.
Tam, V.W.Y., 2008b. Economic comparison of concrete recycling: a case study
approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 52, 821–828.
Teo, M.M.M., Loosemore, M., 2001. A theory of waste behaviour in the construction
industry. Constr. Manag. Econ. 19, 741–751.
Terry, D., Hogg, M., White, K., 1999. The theory of planned behavior: self-identity,
social identity and group norms. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 225–244.
284 A. Bakshan et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 274–284

Tonglet, M., Phillips, P.S., Read, A.D., 2004. Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour
to investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: a case study from
Brixworth, UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 41, 191–214.
Udawatta, N., Zuo, J., Chiveralls, K., Zillante, G., 2015. Improving waste
management in construction projects: an Australian study. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 101, 73–83.
Wang, J., Yuan, H., 2011. Factors affecting contractors’ risk attitudes in construction
projects: case study from China. Int. J. Project Manag. 29, 209–219.
Young, W., Davis, M., McNeill, I.M., Malhotra, B., Russell, S., Unsworth, K., Clegg,
C.W., 2013. Changing behaviour: successful environmental programmes in the
workplace. Bus. Strat. Environ., 1–15.
Yuan, H., Shen, L., 2011. Trend of the research on construction and demolition
waste management. Waste Manag. 31, 670–679.
Yuan, H., 2013. Key indicators for assessing the effectiveness of waste
management in construction projects. Ecol. Indic. 24, 476–484.