Waste Management 79 (2018) 48–57

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Factors driving the implementation of reverse logistics: A quantified

model for the construction industry
Nicholas Chileshe a, Raufdeen Rameezdeen a, M. Reza Hosseini b,⇑, Igor Martek b, Hong Xian Li b,
Parinaz Panjehbashi-Aghdam c
a
School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
b
School of Architecture and Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
c
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

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

Article history: In the light of increased environmental concerns and the unsustainability of current construction prac-
Received 24 January 2018 tices, ‘reverse logistics’ (RL) has emerged as a remedial strategy, whereby decommissioned buildings
Revised 15 June 2018 are salvaged and returned back through the value chain for recovery, refurbishment and reuse. The dri-
Accepted 6 July 2018
vers that impact the uptake of RL are known, but if sustainability outcomes are to be enhanced, the
Available online 17 July 2018
strength of those drivers must be quantified in order to ascertain where efforts should be focused. This
study aims to quantify the effects of known drivers on RL, and in so doing identify action items with
Keywords:
the greatest potential to positively improve RL outcomes. RL drivers are culled from extant research,
Influencing drivers
Reverse logistics
and categorized as economic, environmental, or social forces. A conceptual model is developed and tested
Quantification against questionnaire results drawn from 49 expert respondents active in the South Australian construc-
Strength tion industry. The results are analyzed using structured equation modeling. Economic and environmental
Structural equation modeling drivers, such as the continuing relative high cost of salvaged items, along with expediency of cost, time
Construction projects and quality objectives overshadowing regulatory demands for use of such salvaged items, are shown to
predict 34% of the variations in implementing RL. Of particular interest is the finding contradicting pre-
vious studies, showing that social drivers, such as perceived benefits from ‘going green’ had no significant
impact. Thus, the road-map to improving RL outcomes lies in reducing costs of salvaged materials, aug-
menting environmental policies that promoted their use, and to initiate a regulatory framework to gen-
erate compliance. This insight will be of interest to industry policymakers and environmental strategists
alike.
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction materials on construction sites (Banihashemi et al., 2018), generat-

The construction industry worldwide has an infamous reputa-
tion for consuming large amounts of raw materials, water, energy
and for generating massive flows of green-house gases and carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere (Dobrovolskienė et al., 2018). The con-
struction industry consumes around 40% of total energy, generates
30% of green-house gas emissions, utilizes 17% of fresh water
resources, and exacerbates to deforestation, consuming 25% of har-
vested wood around the globe (Li et al., 2017). Construction mate-
rials are wasted at the rate of 20–30 per cent, by weight, of all total
⇑ Corresponding author at: 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong 3220, Victoria,
Australia.
E-mail addresses: Nicholas.Chileshe@unisa.edu.au (N. Chileshe), Rameez.
Rameezdeen@unisa.edu.au (R. Rameezdeen), reza.hosseini@deakin.edu.au
(M.R. Hosseini), igor.martek@deakin.edu.au (I. Martek), hong.li@deakin.edu.au
(H.X. Li), p.panjebashi92@ms.tabrizu.ac.ir (P. Panjehbashi-Aghdam).
ing 45–65% of disposed waste in landfills (Nikmehr et al., 2017),
mostly through the construction and demolition sector (Chileshe
et al., 2012). Recycling remains a widespread strategy employed
to reduce waste in the construction context. Even so, recycling
does not necessary lead to an effective reduction of material use;
energy requirements for recycling are high, and the quality of sec-
ondary materials remains inferior, perpetuating demand for energy
and virgin materials (Haas et al., 2015).
Reverse Logistics (RL) is an effective remedial solution for
addressing the problem of waste across a wide range of industries
(de Campos et al., 2017), especially including the construction
industry (Rahimi and Ghezavati, 2018). RL refers to operations
and procedures for returning post-sale and post-consumption
goods back into the productive cycle, by way of reversing distribu-
tion channels (Nunes et al., 2009). Nevertheless, RL has not become
commonplace in the construction sector (Rameezdeen et al., 2016;
Rahimi and Ghezavati, 2018). In essence, RL is only accepted by the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.07.013
0956-053X/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 N. Chileshe et al. / Waste Management 79 (2018) 48–57
market when both its drivers and contributions are well assessed,
understood and promoted (Haas et al., 2015). This makes the
clearer understanding of the influence of drivers to RL implemen-
tation in the construction context both relevant and urgent
(Chileshe et al., 2016). As argued by Diabat and Govindan (2011,
p. 665) ‘‘Decision makers must be aware of the relative importance
of the various drivers.”
Research on the current state of drivers across the supply chain
of major industries, generally, (Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018),
and of construction, in particular, remains scarce. Existing studies
such as that by Chileshe et al. (2016) have identified key drivers,
however, the influential strength of these drivers in the construc-
tion context remains undescribed (Rahimi and Ghezavati, 2018).
Thus, establishing frameworks, and identifying action items with
the greatest potential to enhance RL use in the construction con-
text remain wanting.
The value of the present study lies in addressing these over-
looked areas in the literature. Specifically, while previous work
on RL uses qualitative and case study approaches, this study devel-
ops a quantified model that links drivers to implementation prac-
tices through a structural equation modelling (SEM) technique. In
doing so, the contributions of this study are twofold. First, oppor-
tunities for enhancing RL adoption in the construction industry
are identified. Also identified are the drivers that offer the most
attractive prospect to increase the level of RL acceptance in the
construction industry.
2. Background
2.1. The urgent need for change
The construction industry represents around 13% of the global
economy, and is a key impetus to other industries due to its close
integration with major activities like infrastructural and facilities
development (Ajayi and Oyedele, 2018; Banihashemi et al., 2018;
Hosseini et al., 2018). Despite this significance, construction has
lagged behind other industries in accommodating environmental
sustainability, largely due to its consumption of major amounts
of raw materials, energy, and water, while also contributing hugely
to waste in landfill sites (Ajayi and Oyedele, 2018). Simply, the con-
struction and demolition sector uses 40% of the total raw materials
extracted globally and generates about 35% of the world’s waste
(Di Maria et al., 2018). Construction and demolition waste (C&D)
is therefore a major problem facing the construction industry
worldwide (Akbarnezhad et al., 2013; Ahmadian F.F. et al., 2017;
Ding et al., 2018). It accounts for around 26% of total solid waste
generated in the US (approximately 136 million tons annually),
and 34% of all industrial waste in Europe (Jin et al., 2017; Park
and Tucker, 2017).
The harmful impact of various forms of constructional waste on
the environment and society is also well documented (Lu and
Yuan, 2011; Banihashemi et al., 2018). One ton of waste landfilled
requires around 0.6 m3 of landfilling space, with knock-on effects
in environmental degradation (Yeheyis et al., 2013; Zhou et al.,
2017; Hosseini et al., 2018) and resource depletion (Gorgolewski,
2008; Shakantu et al., 2008; Tam et al., 2010). Consequently,
urgent solutions are needed to tackle C&D problems (Di Maria
et al., 2018, p. 3). RL is seen as the most efficient available solution
to this problem (Haas et al., 2015; Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018),
as discussed next.
2.2. Defining RL
The classic supply chain, or forward supply chain, does not take
into consideration products at the end-of-life stage (Govindan and
49
Soleimani, 2017). This dominant model based on the ‘take, make,
and dispose’ approach has been criticized for its negative impacts
on the integrity of natural resources and ecosystems (Ghisellini
et al., 2016). Novel supply chain approaches are therefore required
to address the drawbacks of the classic supply chain paradigm
(Gálvez-Martos et al., 2018). The ‘closed-loop’ supply chain pro-
vides such as solution by integrating the forward supply chain with
the backward looking RL, creating a closed-loop (Govindan and
Soleimani, 2017; Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018). RL is defined
as: ‘‘. . .the design, control, and operation of a system to maximize
value creation over the entire life cycle of a product with dynamic
recovery of value from different types and volumes of returns over
time.” (Guide and Van Wassenhove, 2009, p. 10) In the last few
years, RL has received considerable attention worldwide, given
its potential for optimizing and promoting sustainable production
and consumption (Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018).
In the construction context, new approaches that take into
account the entire value chain of the construction sector provide
the best available option (Di Maria et al., 2018; Gálvez-Martos
et al., 2018). This is reflected in the concept of RL—the reverse
chain—that includes simultaneous processes: reuse, repair, recon-
dition, remanufacture, and recycle (Govindan and Soleimani,
2017). With RL, products such as bricks and structural steel ele-
ments, salvaged from demolished buildings, are used again in other
buildings, down-cycled for reuse for various construction pur-
poses, or used in non-construction sectors (Nordby et al., 2009;
Densley Tingley et al., 2017b; Di Maria et al., 2018). Given current
technologies, traditional building demolition and material dis-
posal, is no longer considered efficient (Smith et al., 2007;
Aidonis et al., 2008; Laefer and Manke, 2008; Kibert, 2012;
Hosseini et al., 2015). Material reuse, as offered through RL, is
one promising strategy for improving the material efficiency of
the built environment (Densley Tingley et al., 2017b; Densley
Tingley et al., 2017a; Di Maria et al., 2018).
2.3. Drivers for implementing RL
The traditional supply chain model follows the procedure of
take-make-use-destroy (Ghisellini et al., 2016). This model does
not take into account factors such as the impact on societal and
human resources, and gives no priority to the conservation of
scarce resources. Contrary to this, RL aims at increasing resource
efficiency, enhancing the quality of secondary materials, and opti-
mizing the use of natural resources (Govindan and Hasanagic,
2018). That is, the RL approach is an attempt to keep the added
value of products for as long as possible, working towards waste
elimination (Smol et al., 2015).
RL initiatives generally address environmental concerns, dura-
bility of products, and financial savings (Pirlet, 2013; Rahimi and
Ghezavati, 2018). RL similarly provides opportunities for the con-
struction industry (Hosseini et al., 2015; Smol et al., 2015; Di
Maria et al., 2018). Notwithstanding, transition to RL requires
changes throughout the entire construction value chain: design,
business and market models, change in models of turning waste
into a resource and modes of consumer behavior (Smol et al.,
2015). The implementation of substantial changes necessitates rec-
ognizing a justification of the advantages and benefits envisaged
for transition to RL. These are the RL drivers (Govindan and
Hasanagic, 2018). A review of relevant literature identifies ten
key drivers of RL across the construction industry. See Table 1.
Drawing from the typology proposed by Seuring and Müller
(2008) and Denhart (2010), these are categorized into three sub-
groups: economic, social and environmental.
The economic drivers (EcoDri 1 and 5) are those drivers that pri-
marily embrace the advantages associated with cost, value and
financial considerations (Guide and Van Wassenhove, 2009;
50 N. Chileshe et al. / Waste Management 79 (2018) 48–57

Table 1
Drivers of implementing RL in the construction industry.

No. Category ID Description Reference

1 Economic EcoDri1 Lower costs of salvaged materials
2 EcoDri2 Increased revenue
3 EcoDri3 Supporting deconstruction of buildings because
of ‘Government regulation and financial
incentives’
4 EcoDri4 Usage of salvaged materials because of
‘government regulation and financial
incentives’
5 EcoDri5 Lower cost for waste disposal
6 Environmental EnvDri1 Usage of reverse logistics driven by compliance
with regulations
7 EnvDri2 Environmental policies as drivers for
deconstruction and reuse of salvaged materials
8 EnvDri3 Meeting environmental needs of the clients
9 Social SocDri1 Improving the green image and reputation of
the businesses
10 SocDri2 Community expectations, generating large
number of jobs, increased competitiveness
*
References in bold are construction specific.
Shakantu et al. (2008), da Rocha and Sattler (2009), Huscroft et al. (2013), Shaik
and Abdul-Kader (2012), Chileshe et al. (2016), Rahimi and Ghezavati (2018)***
Chini and Bruening (2003), Greer (2004), Leigh and Patterson (2006), Smith et al.
(2007), Aidonis et al. (2008), Denhart (2010), Shaik and Abdul-Kader (2012), Ho
et al. (2012), Hazen et al. (2012), Chileshe et al. (2016)*****
Carter and Ellram (1998), Guy and McLendon (2002)*, Sassi (2008)*, Seuring and
Müller (2008), Ho et al. (2012), Hosseini et al. (2015)*, Rahimi and Ghezavati
(2018)*
Addis (2006b), Addis (2006a)*, Laefer and Manke (2008)*, Leigh and Patterson
(2006)*, Guy et al. (2006)*, Aidonis et al. (2008)*, Hiete et al. (2011)*, Hazen et al.
(2012)
Carter and Ellram (1998), Addis (2006b), Addis (2006a)*, Seuring and Müller
(2008), Chileshe et al. (2016)*, Govindan and Soleimani (2017), Rahimi and
Ghezavati (2018)*
Guy et al. (2006)*, Kibert (2012)*, Seuring and Müller (2008), da Rocha and Sattler
(2009), Chileshe et al. (2016)*, Govindan and Soleimani (2017), Rahimi and
Ghezavati (2018)*
Addis (2006b), Addis (2006a)*, Seuring and Müller (2008), Sassi (2008)*, Hosseini
et al. (2015), Chileshe et al. (2016)*, Govindan and Soleimani (2017), Rahimi and
Ghezavati (2018)*
Chini and Bruening (2003)*, Shakantu et al. (2008)*, Greer (2004)*, Leigh and
Patterson (2006)*, Smith et al. (2007), Aidonis et al. (2008)*, Denhart (2010)*,
Gorgolewski (2008)*, Hosseini et al. (2015), Chileshe et al. (2016)*, Govindan and
Soleimani (2017), Rahimi and Ghezavati (2018)*

Hazen et al., 2012), including long term business goals (Seuring
and Müller, 2008).
Environmental drivers (EnvDri 1 to 3) are those affected by the
‘‘legislation factor,” where businesses are required to abide by
environmental regulations enforced by the government, and ‘‘cus-
tomer factor,” denoting the pressure customers can place on the
enterprise regarding environmental concerns (Shaik and Abdul-
Kader, 2012; Chileshe et al., 2016). Social drivers refer to the social
values dominant in a community which direct an organization
towards implementing RL in order to enhance its image in that
community (Seuring and Müller, 2008), including matters of social
justice, human rights, labor laws, and the delivery of social equity
by sourcing from diverse suppliers. (Rahimi and Ghezavati, 2018).
2.4. Practices associated with RL
Organizations need awareness of key drivers for influencing,
and similarly an appreciation of key practices for implementing
RL (Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018). Implementing RL
however necessitates major changes in the current practices of
companies (Smol et al., 2015): both project-based practices, and
organization-based practices (Carter and Ellram, 1998). Drawing
from Hosseini et al. (2015), Table 2 tabulates the major practices
of implementing RL for construction companies, at both project
and company levels.
An essential change at the project level is the utilization of
deconstruction instead of the mechanical demolition of buildings
(Kibert, 2012; Akbarnezhad et al., 2014). Deploying deconstruction
of buildings might result in the reuse and recycling of as much as
85% of the total weight of a building’s constituents (Endicott et al.,
2005), and may cost between 30% and 50% less than demolition
(Gorgolewski, 2008). While the initial costs of deconstruction
might be around 21% higher than simply demolishing a building,
the revenues generated from reusing and reselling the recovered
items will result in a final decommissioning cost 37% less than that
of traditional building demolition (see Guy and McLendon (2002)
for the case studies). Deconstruction is seen as a prerequisite for
implementing RL (Guy et al., 2006; Gorgolewski, 2008; Hosseini
et al., 2015) and can be considered at both the project and com-
pany levels, as shown in Table 2.
The new term of Design for Deconstruction (DfD) has emerged
in recent years within the construction literature (Gorgolewski,
2008; Kibert, 2012; Vaughan, 2013), the closest concept to Design
for Reverse Logistics (DfRL). The distinction between DfD and DfRL
is the separation and sorting of materials at source for DfD,
whereas sorting practices alone pertain to DfRL (Chini and

Table 2
RL practice variables.

RL Practice Definition
Project level practices
Current Practices 1 Deconstruction is implemented in our projects
Current Practices 2 We utilize salvaged materials in new buildings
Current Practices 3 Reducing the amount of waste generation in our projects is among my firm’s strategic objectives
Company level practices
Current Practices 4 Enhancing the green image of the company in South Australia is among my firm’s strategic objectives
Current Practices 5 My firm is supportive of using salvaged materials and components in new buildings
Current Practices 6 My firm is supportive of the idea of deconstructing buildings instead of mechanical demolition or implosion
Current Practices 7 My firm is supportive of the idea of designing buildings based on DfRL principles to ease the deconstruction of buildings
 N. Chileshe et al. / Waste Management 79 (2018) 48–57
Bruening, 2003; Smith et al., 2007). In essence, implementing RL,
when a building is designed with disregard for component recov-
ery at the end of life, faces serious challenges (Kibert et al.,
2000b; Schultmann and Sunke, 2007). Inappropriate design, and
the ensuing construction method deployed, like using strong
cement mortar in bricklaying, might bring the material and com-
ponents to the end-of-life point, highlighting the necessity of tran-
sition of design practices towards DfRL (Nordby et al., 2009).
In addition, consumer behavior and priorities must also align
with the requirements of RL. That is, owners, clients, as well as
builders, must give priority to using salvaged and reused items in
lieu of virgin products, in accordance with an overt company strat-
egy and as part of the project plan (Chileshe et al., 2016;
Rameezdeen et al., 2016).
3. Research method
Developing a research approach begins with a conceptual
model. A conceptual model is the synthesis of a review of the liter-
ature on a topic, designed to formulate intermediate theories
(hypotheses), to be tested with empirical data (Shields and
Tajalli, 2006). The procedure for creating conceptual models fol-
lows a three-staged procedure: (1) identifying the constructs of
the model, (2) classifying these constructs, and (3) defining the
associations among these constructs (Christensen, 2006). This
was the procedure followed, and the resulting model is illustrated
in Fig. 1.
As illustrated in Fig. 1, causal associations have been defined
between the motivating factors that drive organizations towards
implementing RL on their projects, and the ensuing impacts of
implementing RL, reflected in terms of a number of changes of
practices in delivering construction projects. The associations as
defined in Fig. 1 emulates the widely-accepted model proposed
by Carter and Ellram (1998), according to which, drivers of RL
are the primary causes of change of practice at various levels,
where the changes eventually transit current practices to RL prac-
tices, hence implementing RL.
3.1. Survey design
In order to investigate the drivers of innovations, perception
data on the impact of candidate drivers must be collected
(Bouzon et al., 2018). The justification for the use of such subjective
data arises because it is the worthiness perception that decision-
makers carry with regards to certain potential innovative ideas
that inform the likelihood that they will be adopted (Slaughter,
1998). In recognition of this, a questionnaire survey of perception
data was the primary approach used. Survey questionnaires are
recognized as reliable in mapping perceptions elucidated from
industry experts (Blunch, 2013). The research design involved six
steps, as illustrated in Fig. 2.
Motivating factors of Implementation of
Driving
RL RL
Reflected Reflected
List of drivers Change of practices
Table 1 Table 2
Fig. 1. Conceptual model of the study.
51
The questionnaire for the study was divided into three sections:
(1) general demographics, (2) current practices, (3) drivers for RL.
General demographics of the respondents included organizational
characteristics, such as number of employees, type of construction
work undertaken, main role, years of operation (organization), and
individual characteristics, such functional title and tenure. The sec-
tion designated to the evaluation of current practices of reverse
logistics, set out to examine the practices associated with for RL,
as discussed and tabulated in Table 2.
The sample was selected from South Australia. South Australia
is a leading state in the area of construction and demolition waste
management in Australia (Zero Waste SA, 2012), and is recognized
internationally for demonstrating best global practices and enforc-
ing environmental legislative reforms (UN-HABITAT, 2010; Zaman,
2014).
The target population comprised contractors, demolishers, sal-
vaging related organizations, members of the Civil Contractors
Federation (CCF) of South Australia (SA), and Master Builder’s Asso-
ciations. Out of the 260 questionnaires sent, 26 useable responses
were returned, representing a 9.09% response rate. This was
deemed acceptable given the novelty of the topic; response rates
as low as 10% are not considered untypical in contemporary con-
struction management research (Bing et al., 2005). The majority
of respondents (
78%) had more than 11 years of experience in
the construction industry, with around 45% active for over 21
years.
3.2. Analysis technique (structured equation modeling)
Structured Equation Modeling (SEM) is capable of handling
latent variables in multivariate regression analysis (Ho, 2006),
and is adopted in this study. The two broad methods of conducting
SEM are covariance-based (CB-SEM) and partial least squares (PLS-
SEM) (Blunch, 2013; Hair et al., 2014). PLS-SEM is the most appro-
priate method when the nature of the study is more exploratory
than confirmatory, with a less developed theoretical background,
based on a relatively small sample size (Wong, 2013; Hair et al.,
2014). Therefore, PLS-SEM was used to test the model in the pre-
sent study. A range of software packages for PLS-SEM has become
available in the last decade with SmartPLS (<www.smartpls.com>),
being one of the most common (Hair et al., 2014), and this was the
package used. The PLS path modeling method relies on PLS algo-
rithm, basically a sequence of regressions in terms of weight vec-
tors. The basic PLS algorithm analyzes models, following three
primary stages. First, model analyses with an iterative estimation
of latent variable scores consists, of a 4-steps iterative procedure,
repeated until convergence has been obtained, or when the maxi-
mum number of iterations has been reached. The number of itera-
tions for the present study was set to 300 as recommended by
Wong (2013). Later the algorithm estimates the outer weights/
loading and path coefficients, and eventually provides the estima-
tion of location parameters. Interested readers are referred to
Henseler et al. (2012) for details.
4. Results
The SEM, illustrated in Fig. 3, replicates the conceptual model of
the study in Fig. 1. The details and classification of each of the con-
structs of the model (drivers, practices) were drawn from the items
identified from previous studies, in Tables 1 and 2.
According to Hair et al. (2014), the assessment of measurement
models comprises an estimation of: (1) reliability of individual
indicators; (2) composite reliability; (3) average variance extracted
(AVE); and (4) discriminant validity. The PLS Algorithm was run,
following the lessons by Wong (2013): weighting Scheme: Path
52 N. Chileshe et al. / Waste Management 79 (2018) 48–57

Identification of the drivers Classification of the drivers Identification and definition

of the practices
(1) (2)
(3)

Development of a
conceptual model
(4)

Data collection using the

questionnaire survey
(5)

Modification of the
conceptual model
(6)

Fig. 2. Research design.

Fig. 3. Initial model of the study (outer loading values are illustrated on arrows; indicators with values below 0.65—highlighted—were removed from the model).
 N. Chileshe et al. / Waste Management 79 (2018) 48–57 53

Weighting; Data Metric with Mean 0, and Variance 1; Maximum Table 4

Iterations of 300; Abort Criterion of 1.0E-5; Initial Weights of 1.0. Cross loadings to test discriminant validity of indicators.

Variables with outer loadings below 0.65 were deemed not to Indicator Economic Environmental Implementing social
meet this criterion, and were considered for elimination from fur- drivers drivers RL drivers
ther analysis, as recommended by Hair et al. (2014). That is such CurrentParctices3 0.361 0.277 0.698 0.145
loading >0.70 is the level at which about half the variance in the CurrentPractices4 0.390 0.377 0.741 0.320
indicator is explained by its factor, and represents the level at CurrentPractices5 0.339 0.333 0.763 0.224
CurrentPractices6 0.423 0.479 0.808 0.164
which explained variance is greater than error variance. That said, CurrentPractices7 0.466 0.405 0.771 0.143
slightly lower loadings are deemed acceptable in practical explora- EcoDri1 0.657 0.385 0.421 0.254
tory research applications (Wong, 2013), justifying the threshold of EcoDri2 0.748 0.321 0.374 0.216
0.65 here. This was the case with all the variables highlighted in EcoDri3 0.699 0.259 0.388 0.282
EcoDri4 0.724 0.279 0.269 0.220
Fig. 1, and consequently these four indicators were eliminated:
EnvDri1 0.488 0.907 0.464 0.378
‘EcoDri5’, ‘EnvDri3’, ‘Current Practices1’ and ‘Current Practices2,’ EnvDri2 0.317 0.900 0.447 0.460
as shown in Fig. 3. SocDri1 0.330 0.481 0.245 0.896
After elimination of these variables, a revised model was further SocDri2 0.182 0.167 0.139 0.618
assessed. Due to the limitations of Cronbach’s alpha, which mea-
sures sensitivity to the number of items involved, a composite reli-
ability (qc) was utilized to assess the internal consistency (Hair
(significance level = 5%). The value for ‘Social Drivers’ was however
et al., 2014). Values above 0.70 are acceptable for any type of
above this threshold, and the factor was not found to be signifi-
research (Hair et al., 2014), and above 0.60 for exploratory research
cantly associated with ‘‘Implementing RL,” as illustrated in Fig. 4.
(Wong, 2013). All constructs in the model met the threshold of qc
Again, as recommended by Hair et al. (2014), adjusted R2 is a
> 0.70, and therefore were accepted, as illustrated in Table 3. AVE is
preferred measure for assessing the power of the model in predict-
a common measure used to establish the convergent validity of the
ing endogenous constructs, since it removes any bias arising from
constructs in the model with values greater than 0.50 indicating
acceptable convergent validity, as recommended by Wong the complexity of the model. The adjusted R2 values for endogenous
(2013). Again, all constructs pass this test (see Table 3). constructs, that is, ‘Implementing RL,’ was 0.341. As such, ‘Eco-
Finally, checking the cross-loadings of indicators on constructs nomic Drivers’ and ‘Environmental Drivers’ predicted 34% of varia-
is a measure used to establish discriminant validity. Discriminant tions in ‘Implementing RL,’ with the relationships found to be
validity is established when an indicator’s loading on a construct significant.
is higher than all cross-loadings with other constructs (Hair
et al., 2014). The results of the discriminant validity are illustrated 4.2. Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA)
in Table 4, examination of which shows that validity of all the indi-
cators was confirmed. PLS-SEM enables researchers to prioritize activities for potential
improvements by spotting the most influential variables of the
4.1. Assessment of the structural model model, for a specified endogenous latent variable (Hair et al.,
2011; Hair et al., 2014). This is done by conducting Importance-
The study’s structural model, including the relationships Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA). IPMA involves contrasting
between the latent variables, was assessed using five features: the total effects of the structural model (importance) against the
(1) collinearity issues; (2) significance of path coefficients; (3) level average values of the scores for variables (performance) in the
2
of R2 values; (4) the effect size (f ); and, (5) the predictive rele- model (Hair et al., 2014). Total effects are the sum of all the direct
2 and indirect relationships between two variables in the model. As
vance (Q ). In the model, illustrated in Fig. 3, the constructs ‘Eco-
for the performance values, index values of variables are calculated
nomic Drivers,’ ‘Environmental Drivers’ and ‘Social Drivers’ are all
using Eq. (1) to rescale the variables (Hair et al., 2014).
predictors of the construct ‘Implementing RL.’ With ‘Implementing
RL’ as the dependent variable and the three other predictors as Y i  Minscale½Y
independent variables, a multiple regression was run. Tolerance Y rescaled i ¼  100 ð1Þ
Maxscale½Y   Minscale½Y
values below 0.2 or variance inflation factor (VIF) values above 5
are indicative of unacceptable collinearity among the predictors where Y i represents the ith data point of a specific variable in the
(Hair et al., 2014). Both values were within the acceptable range model.
and, consequently, there was no issue with collinearity (see sup- The outcome of deploying Eq. (1) results in rescaled variables
plementary data for details). with a value of 0 to 100. The mean scores of these rescaled values
The significance of path coefficients in PLS-SEM models can be produce the index value of performance, with lower values indicat-
estimated using the bootstrapping method. The number of boot- ing a poorer performance, thus finding practices that need more
strapping samples was set at 5,000, following the recommendation attention (Hair et al., 2014). Table 5 shows the outcome of IPMA
by Hair et al. (2014) for PLS-SEM models in a two-tailed test. As for manifest variables in the model, with ‘Implementing RL’ as
illustrated in Fig. 4, the p-values for ‘Economic Drivers’ and ‘Envi- the target variable.
ronmental Drivers’ were below the threshold (0.05), and as such, Of particular interest in IPMA are variables with high impor-
the corresponding associations in the model all proved significant tance (total effects) and low performance (Hair et al., 2014). As

Table 3
Construct Reliability and Validity Tests.

Constructs Cronbach’s Alpha rho_A Composite Reliability (qc) Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Economic Drivers 0.672 0.663 0.800 0.501
Environmental Drivers 0.775 0.775 0.899 0.816
Implementing RL 0.815 0.825 0.870 0.573
Social Drivers 0.339 0.405 0.737 0.592
54 N. Chileshe et al. / Waste Management 79 (2018) 48–57

Fig. 4. Performing bootstrapping analysis (path coefficients and p-values are illustrated on the inner model; loadings and p-values are illustrated on the outer model).

Table 5 of construction organization to adopt RL practices. This is interest-

The outcome of Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA). ing, given that previous studies like Chileshe et al. (2016) and
Variable Performances Total Effects (Importance) Addis (2006b) refer to the improvement in the ‘green image’ of
EcoDri1 44.898 0.155 an organization, as a an influential driving force behind RL prac-
EcoDri2 71.429 0.138 tices. These views are challenged by the findings here, which show
EcoDri3 58.673 0.144 no statistically meaningful association between practices of RL and
EcoDri4 41.844 0.099 social drivers. This is doubly interesting, given the South Australian
EnvDri1 58.673 0.189
context of this study where the South Australians are rated as one
EnvDri2 59.184 0.182
of the most sustainability aware communities in the world (UN-
HABITAT, 2010).
Therefore, the findings here provide quantitative support for
shown in Table 5, ‘EcoDri1’, ‘EnvDri1’ and ‘EnvDri2’ were found to arguments in studies—from different countries—indicating that
be variables among others with relative high importance but per- strategies of corporations in the construction context for imple-
formance values below other variables in the model. These repre- menting RL are fundamentally profit-driven (Shakantu et al.,
sent the variables that require managerial action and 2003; Laefer and Manke, 2008; Rameezdeen et al., 2016). That is,
intervention in order to improve their respective performance. many companies fail to acknowledge any value for implementing
RL, given the necessity of upfront investment, and later operational
5. Discussion costs (van Weelden et al., 2016). On the other hand, the findings do
not uphold the findings of investigators like Bai and Sarkis (2013),
Revised SEM models and the statistical values generated who argued that enhancing the environmental image of an organi-
through analyses of these models provide a sound basis for inter- zation is an influential driver for companies in shifting towards
preting the associations among the variables included in the implementing RL. Neither the findings support Lau and Wang
model. Several intriguing findings come to light in view of the anal- (2009) whose conclusions implied that an unprecedented aware-
yses and revision procedure. ness about environmental problems in the community can make
social concerns a major driver of the transition towards RL.
5.1. Social factors
5.2. Cost of salvaged items
The most important finding here is the refutation of the com-
mon perception generated by previous studies on RL which asserts The IPMA analyses revealed that a driver in need of intervention
that social drivers act as a major driving force behind the decision is the cost of salvaged items (EcoDri1). This driver is associated
 N. Chileshe et al. / Waste Management 79 (2018) 48–57
with several context-specific factors. Of particular importance for
RL are labor costs, disposal costs, the local market value of salvaged
items, socioeconomic attributes of the context, and the affordabil-
ity of virgin materials and products in the local market (Kibert and
Languell, 2000; Dantata et al., 2005). All these need modification in
order to make salvaged items affordable, as compared against the
cost of new products. Moreover, both the environmental drivers
(EnvDri1’ and ‘EnvDri2’) that stand out as in need of managerial
intervention are shown to be influenced by the local regulatory
environment. The findings here are in line with the overall
perspective in the literature regarding the crucial role of ‘the gov-
ernmental perspective’: the maximum influence on the implemen-
tation of RL can be promoted through drivers associated with laws,
policies, risk reduction through tax levies and strict governance
(Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018). This is also supported by the idea
of local planning for RL, where the level of support coming from the
government for RL can be a major driver for RL, even the difference
between success and failure (Kibert et al., 2000a). The findings give
further support to conclusion on the central role of profit consider-
ation, in line with previous investigators who asserted that eco-
nomic viability of implementing RL in the construction context is
tightly linked with government policies (Kibert and Languell,
2000).
5.3. Business considerations
The nature of the drivers that turn out to be influential hint at
the dominance of business considerations, despite the push from
regulations. This insight resonates with previous studies proposing
the view that construction companies are inherently profit-driven
(Ghisellini et al., 2018); they give top priority to business perfor-
mance, whilst less attention is paid to the social and environmental
performance (Shen et al., 2010). The findings here also corroborate
the view that RL drivers, of any nature, are only influential where
they are in line with business considerations (Rameezdeen et al.,
2016; Ghisellini et al., 2018). Regardless of what regulations
enforce, those that benefit the businesses are seen more influential.
That is, while regulations favor the use of salvaged items along
with implementing deconstruction, companies typically shy away
from deconstruction due to safety issues and long delays for man-
ual operations needed for deconstruction (Chileshe et al., 2016).
And increased revenue is more influential than using salvaged
materials, given that salvaged items are not always available in
reasonable prices, compared against virgin material and compo-
nents. To date, markets for salvaged materials are not mature
enough as opposed to that of virgin products (Nakajima and
Russell, 2014). The findings, however, are not supporting previous
findings such as one of Álvarez-Gil et al. (2007) that emphasize on
the cardinal role of customers, employees, and the government as
drivers with significant influence on the final decision of implant-
ing RL in corporations.
5.4. An agenda to enhance drivers
It is incumbent on the construction industry to address the
heavily unsustainable practices by which it is characterized, and
which contribute to its heavy resource usage and massive output
of pollution and waste by-products. Reabsorbing its own materials
at the end of a building’s life and returning them through reverse
logistics (RL) practices to be recycled, is, in theory, an ideal solu-
tion. The difficulty is that the uptake of RL remains stalled. If this
is to change and RL adopted as conventional, accepted practice, a
catalyst is needed to bring RL into the mainstream. Indeed, the dri-
vers that would see RL practices take effect have already been iden-
tified, but this study adds to the understanding by quantifying
55
which of these hold the greatest potential to transform the
industry.
The clearest revelation is that social factors, such as responding
to community expectations or aiming to take on a ‘green’ image for
reputational purposes, are not in fact significant motivators. This
finding works counter to the conclusion of certain previous studies
(cf. da Rocha and Sattler, 2009; Sarkis et al., 2010; Hosseini et al.,
2015). In fact, it is monetary factors, such as revenue seeking, that
is the strongest driver. And given that the current cost of utilizing
salvaged materials remains relatively prohibitive, while govern-
ment and regulatory incentives are unappealing financially, con-
struction firms simply have no motivation to explore RL uptake.
On the other hand, there are other drivers besides revenue that
would incentivize firms to take on RL, if their imprint on construc-
tion companies was strengthened. These factors include a combi-
nation of increased regulatory demands to use salvaged
materials, along with a drop in price associated with the use of
those materials. In essence, while firms appear to simply pursue
the ‘bottom line,’ developing and strengthening a mandatory
regime that imposed penalties for non-compliance to an RL frame-
work would provide a financial ‘stick,’ while industry level invest-
ment in R&D, and other initiatives in lowering the cost of RL, would
provide a financial ‘carrot.’ Through a careful policy of such posi-
tive and negative incentives, we would expect to see construction
companies move deeper into the arena of RL practices as they con-
tinue to chase profits.
6. Conclusion
This study identifies the drivers and practices influencing the
implementation of reverse logistics (RL) for construction firms
engaged in construction and demolition business activities. Few
studies have investigated RL within the construction context.
The present study, however, stands out among those now avail-
able in several respects. Firstly, it is the first quantified model
for RL in the construction sector. It thus enables practitioners
and researchers to ascertain the strength of each driver of RL
on associated practices of RL on construction projects. Second,
results contrary to commonly held assumptions are identified.
Specifically, the study challenges the view that social drivers are
a major force in promoting the adoption of RL practices, finding
rather that social drivers in fact play no significant role in
influencing RL uptake.
The study distinguished itself from past work by identifying
those drivers with the potential for managerial intervention, and
thus for positive change. Specifically, actionable items within the
spheres of the economy, environment and society were identified,
and their power to influence the practices of RL were assessed sta-
tistically. Societal factors were eliminated as offering an uncertain
influence, but the remaining two drivers were shown to account
for 34% of the variation, with a medium effect size. These drivers
were the cost of salvaged items – where the affordability of virgin
products continue to be more competitive than recycled materials
– and primacy of business objectives – where regulations enforcing
recycling compliance are dodged as best as can be managed in
favor of more direct routes to time, cost and quality considerations
in project delivery.
Moreover, the importance of the drivers on RL was calculated,
along with actual performance. This study is thus especially novel
in revealing maximal impact areas for investing effort to increase
RL outcomes. That is, to target low performing areas of operation
that are of high importance, such as reducing costs of salvaged
materials, augmenting environmental policies that promoted their
use, and then to initiate a regulatory framework to sustain
compliance.
56 N. Chileshe et al. / Waste Management 79 (2018) 48–57
Notwithstanding the above contributions, the findings of the
study are to be interpreted and applied with several limitations
in mind. The sample size of the study is relatively small, and as
such open to criticism for the potential of bias, though adequate
in methodological terms. As such, there is room for replicating
the study using larger sample sizes. The context of the study is also
limited to South Australia, given the research specific objectives.
The findings, as such, might be applied to other contexts only after
incorporating the discrepancies between South Australian techni-
cal and socioeconomically attributes with the alternate context
of interest. The limitations justify further investigation to confirm
the durability of the findings made here across into other situa-
tions. Such further research is warranted indeed given the chal-
lenge to conventional wisdom revealed by this study.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Zero Waste SA (Funding Scheme’s 2013 Pro-
gram) and Deakin School of Architecture and Built Environment
(Integrated Design Futures (IDF) 2018 Funding Scheme) for their
financial support.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.07.
013.
References
Addis, W., 2006a. Case studies of reuse and recycling. In: Addis, W. (Ed.), Building
with Reclaimed Components and Materials: A Design Handbook for Reuse and
Recycling. Earthscan, London. ISBN: 1844072746.
Addis, W., 2006b. The world of reclamation, reuse and recycling. In: Addis, W. (Ed.),
Building with Reclaimed Components and Materials: A Design Handbook for
Reuse and Recycling. Earthscan, London.
Aidonis, D., Xanthopoulos, A., Vlachos, D., Iakovou, E., 2008. An analytical
methodological framework for managing reverse supply chains in the
construction industry. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 4 (11), 1036–1046.
Ajayi, S.O., Oyedele, L.O., 2018. Waste-efficient materials procurement for
construction projects: a structural equation modelling of critical success
factors. Waste Manage. 75, 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2018.01.025.
Akbarnezhad, A., Ong, K.C.G., Chandra, L.R., 2014. Economic and environmental
assessment of deconstruction strategies using building information modeling.
Autom. Constr. 37, 131–144.
Akbarnezhad, A., Ong, K.C.G., Tam, C.T., Zhang, M.H., 2013. Effects of the parent
concrete properties and crushing procedure on the properties of coarse recycled
concrete aggregates. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 25 (12), 1795–1802. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000789.
Ahmadian F.F., A., Rashidi, T.H., Akbarnezhad, A., Waller, S.T., 2017. BIM-enabled
sustainability assessment of material supply decisions. Eng. Constr.
Architectural Manage. 24 (4), 668–695. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-12-
2015-0193.
Álvarez-Gil, M.J., Berrone, P., Husillos, F.J., Lado, N., 2007. Reverse logistics,
stakeholders’ influence, organizational slack, and managers’ posture. J. Bus.
Res. 60 (5), 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.12.004.
Bai, C., Sarkis, J., 2013. Flexibility in reverse logistics: a framework and evaluation
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 306–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2013.01.005.
Banihashemi, S., Tabadkani, A., Hosseini, M.R., 2018. Integration of parametric
design into modular coordination: a construction waste reduction workflow.
Autom. Constr. 88, 1–12.
Bing, L., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P.J., Hardcastle, C., 2005. The allocation of risk in PPP/
PFI construction projects in the UK. Int. J. Project Manage. 23 (1), 25–35. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.04.006.
Blunch, N.J., 2013. Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling Using IBM SPSS
Statistics and AMOS. SAGE Publications, London,Thousand Oaks, Calif.
Bouzon, M., Govindan, K., Rodriguez, C.M.T., 2018. Evaluating barriers for reverse
logistics implementation under a multiple stakeholders’ perspective analysis
using grey decision making approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycling 128, 315–335.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.11.022.
Carter, C.R., Ellram, L.M., 1998. Reverse logistics: a review of the literature and
framework for future investigation. J. Bus. Logistics 19 (1), 85–102.
Chileshe, N., Rameezdeen, R., Hosseini, M.R., 2016. Drivers for adopting reverse
logistics in the construction industry: a qualitative study. Eng. Constr.
Architectural Manage. 23 (2), 134–157.
Chileshe, N., Zuo, J., Pullen, S., Zillante, G., 2012. Construction management and a
state of zero waste. In: Lehmann, S., Crocker, R. (Eds.), Designing for Zero Waste.
Routledge, Earthscan.
Chini, A.R., Bruening, S., 2003. Deconstruction and materials reuse in the United
States. The Future of Sustainable Construction, Vol. Special Issue article,
published 14th May.
Christensen, C.M., 2006. The ongoing process of building a theory of disruption. J.
Prod. Innovation Manage. 23 (1), 39–55.
da Rocha, C.G., Sattler, M.A., 2009. A discussion on the reuse of building components
in Brazil: an analysis of major social, economical and legal factors. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 54 (2), 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.
2009.07.004.
Dantata, N., Touran, A., Wang, J., 2005. An analysis of cost and duration for
deconstruction and demolition of residential buildings in Massachusetts.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 44 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2004.09.001.
de Campos, E.A.R., de Paula, I.C., Pagani, R.N., Guarnieri, P., 2017. Reverse logistics
for the end-of-life and end-of-use products in the pharmaceutical industry: a
systematic literature review. Supply Chain Manage. Int. J. 22 (4), 375–392.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-01-2017-0040.
Denhart, H., 2010. Deconstructing disaster: economic and environmental impacts of
deconstruction in post-Katrina New Orleans. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (3),
194–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.07.016.
Densley Tingley, D., Cooper, S., Cullen, J., 2017a. Understanding and overcoming the
barriers to structural steel reuse, a UK perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 148, 642–652.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.006.
Densley Tingley, D., Cooper, S., Cullen, J., 2017b. Understanding and overcoming the
barriers to structural steel reuse, a UK perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 148 (Suppl. C),
642–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.006.
Di Maria, A., Eyckmans, J., Van Acker, K., 2018. Downcycling versus recycling of
construction and demolition waste: combining LCA and LCC to support
sustainable policy making. Waste Manage. 75, 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2018.01.028.
Diabat, A., Govindan, K., 2011. An analysis of the drivers affecting the
implementation of green supply chain management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
55 (6), 659–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.12.002.
Ding, Z., Zhu, M., Tam, V.W.Y., Yi, G., Tran, C.N.N., 2018. A system dynamics-based
environmental benefit assessment model of construction waste reduction
management at the design and construction stages. J. Clean. Prod. 176, 676–
692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.101.
Dobrovolskienė, N., Tamošiu  nienė, R., Banaitis, A., Ferreira, F.A., Banaitienė, N.,
Taujanskaitė, K., Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė, I., 2018. Developing a composite
sustainability index for real estate projects using multiple criteria decision
making. Oper. Res. Int. J., 1–19
Endicott, B., Fiato, A., Foster, S., Huang, T., Totev, P., Horvath, A., 2005. Research on
Building Deconstruction, CE 268E Final Report. University of California,
Berkeley, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Engineering
and Project Management.
Gálvez-Martos, J.-L., Styles, D., Schoenberger, H., Zeschmar-Lahl, B., 2018.
Construction and demolition waste best management practice in Europe.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 136, 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2018.04.016.
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S., 2016. A review on circular economy: the
expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic
systems. J. Clean. Prod. 114, 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.09.007.
Ghisellini, P., Ji, X., Liu, G., Ulgiati, S., 2018. Evaluating the transition towards
cleaner production in the construction and demolition sector of China:
a review. J. Clean. Prod. 195, 418–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2018.05.084.
Gorgolewski, M., 2008. Designing with reused building components: some
challenges. Build. Res. Inf. 36 (2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09613210701559499.
Govindan, K., Hasanagic, M., 2018. A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and
practices towards circular economy: a supply chain perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res.
56 (1–2), 278–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1402141.
Govindan, K., Soleimani, H., 2017. A review of reverse logistics and closed-loop
supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 142 (Part 1), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.03.126.
Greer, D., 2004. Building the deconstruction industry. BioCycle 45 (11), 36–42.
Guide, V.D.R., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 2009. The evolution of closed-loop supply
chain research. Oper. Res. 57 (1), 10–18.
Guy, B., McLendon, S., 2002. Building Deconstruction: Reuse and Recycling of
Building Materials. Center for Construction and Environment, University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Guy, B., Shell, S., Esherick, H., 2006. Design for deconstruction and materials reuse.
In: Proceedings of the CIB Task Group, vol. 39, pp. 189–209.
Haas, W., Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., Heinz, M., 2015. How circular is the
global economy?: An assessment of material flows, waste production, and
recycling in the European Union and the World in 2005. J. Ind. Ecol. 19 (5), 765–
777. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12244.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., 2014. A Primer on Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications, Thousands
Oaks, California.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2011. PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Market.
Theory Pract. 19 (2), 139–152.
 N. Chileshe et al. / Waste Management 79 (2018) 48–57
Hazen, B.T., Hall, D.J., Hanna, J.B., 2012. Reverse logistics disposition decision-
making: developing a decision framework via content analysis. Int. J. Phys.
Distribution Logistics Manage. 42 (3), 244–274.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2012. Using partial least squares path
modeling in advertising research: basic concepts and recent issues. In:
Handbook of research on international advertising, vol. 252.
Hiete, M., Stengel, J., Ludwig, J., Schultmann, F., 2011. Matching construction and
demolition waste supply to recycling demand: a regional management chain
model. Build. Res. Inf. 39 (4), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09613218.2011.576849.
Ho, G., Choy, K., Lam, C., Wong, D.W., 2012. Factors influencing implementation of
reverse logistics: a survey among Hong Kong businesses. Meas. Bus. Excellence
16 (3), 29–46.
Ho, R., 2006. Handbook of Univariate and Multivariate Data Analysis and
Interpretation with SPSS. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton.
Hosseini, M.R., Banihashemi, S., Martek, I., Golizadeh, H., Ghodoosi, F., 2018.
Sustainable delivery of megaprojects in Iran: integrated model of contextual
factors. J. Manage. Eng. 34 (2), 05017011. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
ME.1943-5479.0000587.
Hosseini, M.R., Rameezdeen, R., Chileshe, N., Lehmann, S., 2015. Reverse logistics in
the construction industry. Waste Manage. Res. 33 (6), 499–514.
Huscroft, J.R., Hazen, B.T., Hall, D.J., Skipper, J.B., Hanna, J.B., 2013. Reverse logistics:
past research, current management issues, and future directions. Int. J. Logistics
Manage. 24 (3), 304–327.
Jin, R., Li, B., Zhou, T., Wanatowski, D., Piroozfar, P., 2017. An empirical study of
perceptions towards construction and demolition waste recycling and reuse in
China. Resour. Conserv. Recycling 126 (Suppl. C), 86–98. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.034.
Kibert, C.J., 2012. Closing materials loop. In: Kibert, C.J. (Ed.), Sustainable
Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery. Wiley, Hoboken. ISBN:
9780470904459.
Kibert, C.J., Chini, A., Languell, J., 2000a. Implementing deconstruction in the United
States. In: Kibert, C.J., Chini, A.R. (Eds.), Overview of Deconstruction in Selected
Countries. CIB, International Council for Research and Innovation in Building
Construction, Task Group 39: Deconstruction, Rotterdam, Netherlands. ISBN 0-
9643886-3-4.
Kibert, C.J., Languell, J.L., 2000. Implementing deconstruction in Florida: Materials
reuse issues, disassembly techniques, economics and policy. Florida Center for
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management. Available at <http://www.
veckotodpadki.eu/Uploads/Files/Economics%20of%20REuse%20centers%20in%
20Florida.pdf> (accessed on 28 August 2013).
Kibert, C.J., Sendzimir, J., Guy, B., 2000b. Construction ecology and metabolism:
natural system analogues for a sustainable built environment. Constr. Manage.
Econ. 18 (8), 903–916.
Laefer, D., Manke, J., 2008. Building reuse assessment for sustainable urban
reconstruction. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 134 (3), 217–227. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008) 134:3(217).
Lau, K.H., Wang, Y., 2009. Reverse logistics in the electronic industry of China: a case
study. Supply Chain Manage.: Int. J. 14 (6), 447–465.
Leigh, N.G., Patterson, L.M., 2006. Deconstructing to redevelop: a sustainable
alternative to mechanical demolition: the economics of density development
finance and pro formas. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 72 (2), 217–225. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01944360608976740.
Li, Y., Chen, X., Wang, X., Xu, Y., Chen, P.-H., 2017. A review of studies on green
building assessment methods by comparative analysis. Energy Build. 146
(Suppl. C), 152–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.04.076.
Lu, W., Yuan, H., 2011. A framework for understanding waste management studies
in construction. Waste Manage. 31 (6), 1252–1260.
Nakajima, S., Russell, M., 2014. Overview: global barriers for deconstruction and
reuse/recycling of construction materials. In: Nakajima, S., Russell, M. (Eds.),
Barriers for Deconstruction and Reuse/Recycling of Construction Materials. CIB
Publication 397.
Nikmehr, B., Hosseini, M.R., Rameezdeen, R., Chileshe, N., Ghoddousi, P., Arashpour,
M., 2017. An integrated model for factors affecting construction and demolition
waste management in Iran. Eng. Constr. Architect. Manage. 24 (6), 1246–1268.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-01-2016-0015.
Nordby, A.S., Berge, B., Hakonsen, F., Hestnes, A.G., 2009. Criteria for salvageability:
the reuse of bricks. Build. Res. Inf. 37 (1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09613210802476023.
Nunes, K.R.A., Mahler, C.F., Valle, R.A., 2009. Reverse logistics in the Brazilian
construction industry. J. Environ. Manage. 90 (12), 3717–3720. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.05.026.
Park, J., Tucker, R., 2017. Overcoming barriers to the reuse of construction waste
material in Australia: a review of the literature. Int. J. Constr. Manage. 17 (3),
228–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2016.1192248.
57
Pirlet, I.A., 2013. Standardization of the reverse logistics process: characteristics and
added value. In: Nikolaidis, Y. (Ed.), Quality Management in Reverse Logistics.
Springer-Verlag, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4537-0_1. ISBN:
978-1-4471-4536-3, (Print) 978-1-4471-4537-0 (Online).
Rahimi, M., Ghezavati, V., 2018. Sustainable multi-period reverse logistics network
design and planning under uncertainty utilizing conditional value at risk (CVaR)
for recycling construction and demolition waste. J. Clean. Prod. 172 (Suppl. C),
1567–1581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.240.
Rameezdeen, R., Chileshe, N., Hosseini, M.R., Lehmann, S., 2016. A qualitative
examination of major barriers in implementation of reverse logistics within the
South Australian construction sector. Int. J. Constr. Manage. 16 (3), 185–196.
Sarkis, J., Helms, M.M., Hervani, A.A., 2010. Reverse logistics and social
sustainability. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manage. 17 (6), 337–354.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.220.
Sassi, P., 2008. Defining closed-loop material cycle construction. Build. Res. Inf. 36
(5), 509–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210801994208.
Schultmann, F., Sunke, N., 2007. Energy-oriented deconstruction and recovery
planning. Build. Res. Inf. 35 (6), 602–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09613210701431210.
Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15), 1699–1710.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020.
Shaik, M., Abdul-Kader, W., 2012. Performance measurement of reverse logistics
enterprise: a comprehensive and integrated approach. Meas. Bus. Excellence 16
(2), 23–34.
Shakantu, W., Muya, M., Tookey, J., Bowen, P., 2008. Flow modelling of construction
site materials and waste logistics: a case study from Cape Town, South Africa.
Eng. Constr. Architectural Manage. 15 (5), 423–439.
Shakantu, W., Tookey, J.E., Bowen, P.A., 2003. The hidden cost of transportation of
construction materials: an overview. J. Eng., Des. Technol. 1 (1), 103–118.
Shen, L.-Y., Tam, V.W.Y., Tam, L., Ji, Y.-B., 2010. Project feasibility study: the key to
successful implementation of sustainable and socially responsible construction
management practice. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (3), 254–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2009.10.014.
Shields, P.M., Tajalli, H., 2006. Intermediate theory: the missing link in successful
student scholarship. J. Pub. Affairs Educ. 12 (3), 313–334. https://doi.org/
10.2307/40215744.
Slaughter, E.S., 1998. Models of construction innovation. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 124
(3), 226–231. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1998) 124:3(226).
Smith, E., Boone, M.W.E., Shami, M., 2007. Sustainable approaches to landfill
diversion: the global sustainability of deconstruction. In: Claisse, P., Sadeghi, P.,
Naik, T.R., Chun, Y.-M., (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference:
Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies (SCMT), 11–13 June 2007
Coventry, UK. Supplementary Proceedings., Pub. UW Milwaukee CBU, pp. 9–27.
Smol, M., Kulczycka, J., Henclik, A., Gorazda, K., Wzorek, Z., 2015. The possible use of
sewage sludge ash (SSA) in the construction industry as a way towards a
circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 95, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.02.051.
Tam, V.W.Y., Tam, L., Le, K.N., 2010. Cross-cultural comparison of concrete recycling
decision-making and implementation in construction industry. Waste Manage.
30 (2), 291–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.09.044.
UN-HABITAT 2010. Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities: Water and
Sanitation in the World’s Cities 2010. United Nations Human Settlements
Programme, London.
van Weelden, E., Mugge, R., Bakker, C., 2016. Paving the way towards circular
consumption: exploring consumer acceptance of refurbished mobile phones in
the Dutch market. J. Clean. Prod. 113, 743–754.
Vaughan, V., 2013. Possible options for reuse and recycling of end-of-life waste
glass from deconstruction projects. University of British Columbia, Report
prepared at the request of City of Vancouver in partial fulfillment of UBC Geog
419. <http://hdl.handle.net/2429/44459>.
Wong, K.K.-K., 2013. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)
techniques using SmartPLS. Marketing Bull. 24 (1), 1–32.
Yeheyis, M., Hewage, K., Alam, M.S., Eskicioglu, C., Sadiq, R., 2013. An overview of
construction and demolition waste management in Canada: a lifecycle analysis
approach to sustainability. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 15 (1), 81–91. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10098-012-0481-6.
Zaman, A.U., 2014. Measuring waste management performance using the ‘Zero
Waste Index’: the case of Adelaide, Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 66 (Suppl. C), 407–
419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.032.
Zero Waste SA, 2012. South Australia’s waste management capability, Adelaide SA
5001.
Zhou, T., Zhou, Y., Liu, G., 2017. Comparison of critical success paths for historic
district renovation and redevelopment projects in China. Habitat Int. 67 (Suppl.
C), 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.06.008.