Developments in the Built Environment 14 (2023) 100159

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Developments in the Built Environment

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/developments-in-the-built-environment

Critical factors to influence the illegal dumping behavior of construction

and demolition waste: An ISM-DEMATEL analysis
Hongping Yuan, Wenbo Du, Xiaozhi Ma *, Jing Liu, Lingyue Li
School of Management, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Illegal dumping behavior widely exists in the construction industry and is difficult to manage. What factors and
Critical factors how they influence the illegal dumping behavior of construction and demolition waste remains to be clarified.
Illegal dumping behavior Specifically, this study employs an ISM-DEMATEL approach to investigate the critical factors that influence the
Construction and demolition waste
illegal dumping behavior. It is found that the factors, ‘capital investment of enterprises’ and “stakeholders’
Interpretive structural modelling
Decision-making trial and evaluation
willingness and attitude”, are vital to tackle the illegal dumping behavior of construction and demolition waste.
laboratory Yet, compared with business-level factors, the macro-level factors such as ‘social norms and culture’ and ‘gov­
ernment incentive policies’ tend to be less influential. Moreover, enhancing the industry-wise administration
system and practitioners’ dedication to the issue can be an option to avoid illegal construction waste dumping.
The results of this study serve to elucidate the influential factors and offer practical implications for addressing
the issue of illegal dumping of construction and demolition waste.

1. Introduction architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry comprises a

The United Nations have set 17 goals and 169 strategies to realize
potential sustainability before 2030 (Pizzi et al., 2020). Primarily, it is
essential to manage waste generated from various human activities
(Fuldauer et al., 2019; Lemaire and Limbourg, 2019; Storto, 2021). In
general, the 3 R principle, i.e., Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle, helps
enhance waste management (Wu et al., 2022; Mohammed et al., 2022).
Despite the wide acknowledgement of 3 R, illegal dumping behavior
(IDB) commonly occurs. It can cause severe damage to a local envi­
ronment regarding its disturbance to soil layers, pollution to water
systems, and threat to plants and other species (Vaverková et al., 2019).
Illegal dumping is a global issue but appears differently. In rapidly
developing countries, such as Brazil, China, and India, IDBs prevail as a
gigantic volume of waste raised from the development of cities and their
facilities (Bao, 2023). With the same problem, Israel had two special
laws to tack IDBs but their effectiveness was limited (Seror and Portnov,
2020). In Slovakia, IDBs mostly took place in the form of landfills in
rural areas with rare inhabitants (Vaverková et al., 2019). As the defi­
nition of illegal waste dumping may vary in different countries (Du et al.,
2021), IDBs in this study cover the illegal dumping of various forms of
tangible wastes such as the solid and the liquid.
Particularly, the construction and demolition waste (CDW) from the
large portion of global waste (Blaisi, 2019; Wu et al., 2023). Such
massive CDW causes a burden on the environment and harms the sus­
tainability of human society (Aslam et al., 2020; Blaisi, 2019). More­
over, IDB widely exists in the AEC industry and has a long-lasting effect
on the environment (Bao, 2023; Liu et al., 2022; Seror and Portnov,
2018).
In order to improve the management of illegal dumping in the AEC
industry, it is imperative to identify the key factors contributing to this
behavior. Moreover, how these factors influence each other remains to
be clarified. Very limited research addresses such an issue. Only a sys­
tematic review of illegal waste dumping studies including CDW by Du
et al. (2021), a conceptual study by Santos et al. (2019), and two factor
studies regarding CDW reduction, by Hao et al. (2019) and Wu et al.
(2019), are found. Thus, this study aims to identify critical factors (CFs)
to influence the IDB of CDW and clarify their correlations. The research
questions (RQs) are presented below.
RQ1: What are the CFs and their relative importance to influence the
IDB of CDW?
RQ2: In what manner do the CFs mutually affect one another?

* Corresponding author. School of Management, Guangzhou University, Panyu District, Guangzhou, China.
E-mail address: xz.david.ma@hotmail.com (X. Ma).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2023.100159
Received 7 February 2023; Received in revised form 2 April 2023; Accepted 7 April 2023
Available online 9 April 2023
2666-1659/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
H. Yuan et al.
2. Theoretical foundation
Numerous factors influence the IDB of CDW. A comprehensive
literature review identifies the CFs as demonstrated in Fig. 1. A few
theories underlying the existing waste management research are also
employed to verify the CFs as introduced in the following subsection.
2.1. Theories applied in waste management factor studies
2.1.1. Transaction cost theory (TCT)
TCT helps explain the potential cost of exchanges regarding the
institutional setting in various research domains such as economics,
business management, and social sciences (Cuypers et al., 2021; Rind­
fleisch, 2020). TCT commonly applies to waste management research (e.
g., Chua, 2021; Bao et al., 2019; Kumar and Dixit, 2018). The identified
CFs to influence the IDB of CDW, confirmed by TCT, are ‘waste-related
trading system and market maturity’, and ‘government incentive pol­
icies’ (Table 1).
2.1.2. Resource-based theory (RT)
RT helps to manage organizational operation and business compe­
titions by providing a comprehensive resource-based view that encom­
passes tangible and intangible resources to develop further strategies
(Hitt et al., 2016). RT often appears in waste management as well (e.g.,
Ding et al., 2022; Dong et al., 2022; Fernando, 2019). RT underlies those
CFs including ‘capital investment of enterprises’, ‘availability and
charge of dumping facilities and sites’, and ‘waste processing infra­
structure’ (Table 1).
Fig. 1. The research process of this study.
2
Developments in the Built Environment 14 (2023) 100159
2.1.3. Theory of planned behavior (TPB)
TPB is a powerful theory to explain the influential factors of the
behaviors that are well-considered and planned by individuals and
organizational teams (Ajzen, 2020). TPB appears in a few waste man­
agement studies (e.g., Jain et al., 2020; Mak et al., 2019; Yang et al.,
2020). The CFs accommodated by TPB are “managers’ willingness and
attitude”, ‘CSR and peer pressure’, and Administrative measures and
supervision (Table 1).
2.1.4. Institutional theory (INT)
INT provides an institutional perspective to probe into the manage­
ment of organizational changes and behaviors (Amenta and Ramsey,
2010). INT as a mature theory often applies to the research of waste
management (e.g., Jora et al., 2020; Ogutu et al., 2021). The two factors,
‘institutional system inertia’, and ‘regulatory environment’ are linked to
the INT (Table 1).
2.1.5. Social network theory (SNT)
SNT points out the fact that the related subgroups and individuals of
human society influence each other regarding the ways of thinking and
behavior patterns (Krause et al., 2007). SNT is a theory commonly
adopted in waste management research (e.g., dos Muchangos et al.,
2017; Kumar and Dixit, 2018). The factor ‘social norms and culture’, is
confirmed by SNT (Table 1).
2.1.6. Stakeholder theory (ST)
ST is also a powerful theory that is widely applied in the research
area of management and social science (Laplume et al., 2008). Specif­
ically, ST applies to waste management research as well (e.g.,
H. Yuan et al. Developments in the Built Environment 14 (2023) 100159

Table 1 3. Research methodology

The CFs of the IDB of CDW.
Code Factor Related References This study involved a few steps to be implemented (Fig. 1). Firstly, a
theories comprehensive search had been conducted to review the target litera­
CF1 Waste-related trading system TCT Peng et al. (2022); Song et al. ture based on the research questions. The Title/Abstract/Keywords or
and market maturity (2022); Yuan et al. (2013) Topic search code was "dumping" AND ("factor" OR "determinant" OR
CF2 Government incentive TCT Chua (2021); Liu et al. "barrier" OR "driver" OR "obstacle" OR "strateg*") AND ("construction"
policies (2020) OR "demolition") AND "waste") and the language was limited to English.
CF3 Capital investment of RT Ghafourian et al. (2021);
enterprises Blaisi (2019); Chen et al.
91 items were obtained with an initial screening referring to the title, the
(2019) abstract, and the keywords of the studies. Studies barely related to CDW
CF4 Capability for waste RT Hao et al. (2019); Ding et al. were eliminated. A further search with Google Scholar supplemented
estimation and processing (2022) the literature pool. After the full-paper examination, 35 studies were
CF5 Availability and charge of RT Du et al. (2021); Santos et al.
retained. The second step identified 12 CFs through analyzing and
dumping facilities and sites (2019)
CF6 Administrative measures and TPB Du et al. (2021); Liu et al. coding to form the questionnaire for the further survey. In the third step,
supervision of the authorities (2022); Mohammed et al. the questionnaire was sent to the experts to provide their opinion on the
(2022); Manoharan et al. identified factors. Finally, the collected data were processed with
(2021); Santos et al. (2019); Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) and Decision-making Trial and
CF7 Institutional initiative to INT Su et al. (2021); Hao et al.
promote waste cycling and (2019); Blaisi (2019);
Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) to generate results and findings.
reuse Mohammed et al. (2022)
CF8 Regulatory conditions and INT Liu et al. (2022); 3.1. ISM-DEMATEL approach
penalty level Mohammed et al. (2022);
Ghafourian et al. (2021); Du
The ISM-DEMATEL approach is powerful to develop factor studies. It
et al. (2020)
CF10 Stakeholders’ cooperative ST, SNT Ma et al. (2020); Du et al. employs ISM and DEMATEL to provide an insightful interpretation of
mechanism (2020); Ghafourian et al. factors within a specific range, thereby enjoying both of their advan­
(2021) tages (Chen, 2021). On the one hand, ISM is based on system thinking to
CF9 Stakeholders’ willingness ST, TPB Du et al. (2021); Su et al. develop qualitative and quantitative analyses and to provide a
and attitude (2021); Ghafourian et al.
(2021)
comprehensive understanding of an engineering condition or a con­
CF11 Social norms and culture SNT, TPB Ghafourian et al. (2021); Du ceptual framework (Attri et al., 2013; Kumar and Goel, 2021). On the
et al. (2020); Blaisi (2019); other hand, DEMATEL helps measure the significance of the concerned
Santos et al. (2019) factors and can be a supplement to ISM as it clarifies the mutual influ­
CF12 Environment-protection and SS Mohammed et al. (2022); Su
ence between factors such as cause and effect relationships (Chen, 2021;
energy-saving consciousness et al. (2021); Manoharan
of the AEC industry et al. (2021); Santos et al. Kumar and Dixit, 2018). In this study, as the research aim is to examine
(2019) the factors and their correlation to influence the IDB of CDW, the
ISM-DEMATEL approach is adopted.

Ghafourian et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2020; Kumar and Dixit, 2018). Two
factors including “stakeholders’ cooperative mechanism”, and “stake­
holders’ interests and attitudes” are associated with ST (Table 1).
2.1.7. Sustainability science (SS)
SS involves many aspects of human society and the physical world to
address the issue of sustainable development (Haberl et al., 2019; Henry,
2009). For its compliance with the objectives of sustainable develop­
ment, SS can be employed to guide waste management studies (e.g., Liu
et al., 2022; Desing et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2018). SS helps explain a
factor ‘environment-protection and energy-saving consciousness of the
AEC industry’ (Table 1).
2.2. CFs to influence the IDB of CDW
All the CFs to influence the IDB of CDW are identified as presented in
Table 1. These factors are confirmed by at least two studies that concern
illegal waste dumping. Some factors are merged into those that have a
broader meaning. For example, ‘technical personnel for waste-reducing
efforts’ and ‘waste processing infrastructure’ have been encompassed by
‘capability for waste estimation and processing’. Also, “managers’
willingness and attitude” and “stakeholders’ interests and attitudes’ are
merged with “stakeholders’ willingness and attitude”. Meanwhile, the
identification of the CFs considers the management of waste dumping
practices to promote the further application of the research findings.
Therefore, factors that are unclear or difficult to change, such as ‘regu­
latory environment’ and ‘institutional system inertia’, are substituted by
straightforwardly presented factors ‘regulatory conditions and penalty
level’ and ‘institutional initiative to promote waste cycling and reuse’,
respectively. The referred studies are also listed in the table below.
3.2. Data collection
This study employed a questionnaire survey to collect empirical data.
Initially, the questions developed from the literature were reviewed by
two experts, one from academia and the other from the AEC industry,
and the questionnaire was revised based on their feedback. The ques­
tionnaire was implemented via an online survey system. The target ex­
perts were approached through snowball sampling, which means some
respondents helped send the questionnaire link that they received to
other potential respondents, e.g., their colleagues or friends. A total of
26 responses were collected. 11 responses can be invalid, with seven
respondents having much less experience and the other four spending
much less time compared with the other peers in the original sample
group. Following the discreet principle, the possibly invalid responses
were not considered. All the experts have more than eight years’ work or
research experience related to waste management. Out of the 15 re­
spondents, eight are from academia and seven are from the industry. A
small sample size applies to such a method with examples as 10 in
Kumar and Dixit (2018), 13 in Trivedi et al. (2021), and 22 in Asadi et al.
(2022). According to Gordon and Pease (2006), a group of ten to fifteen
participants to form an expert panel can be good for achieving consis­
tency and accuracy in their evaluations. The questionnaire survey in­
vestigates the IDB of CDW in the Chinese context.
3.3. Data analysis techniques
In data analysis, the major techniques, including ISM, MICMAC, and
DEMATEL, would be introduced in this section.
3.3.1. ISM
ISM relies on the Self-Structured Interaction Matrix that requires the

3
H. Yuan et al. Developments in the Built Environment 14 (2023) 100159

clarification of variables’ correlation to establish (Kumar and Dixit, reachability matrix.

2018). Thus, the experts’ opinions on the factors’ relations were referred
to. The experts identified the pair-wise relationships of the factors 3.3.3. DEMATEL analysis
denoted by “V”, “A”, “X”, “O” as explained below. As one of the research purposes is to identify the criticality of the
V: Factor i facilitates Factor j but not vice versa. factors, DEMATEL analysis was applied in this study. According to Liu
A: Factor j facilitates Factor i but not vice versa. et al. (2020), the assessments of the pair-wise influence based on
X: Factor i and j facilitate each other. DEMATEL analysis referred to the 5-point Likert scale, with 0 = no in­
O: Factors i and j are not related. fluence, 1 = low influence, 2 = medium influence, 3 = high influence,
The different assessments of the experts were examined to determine and 4 = very high influence. The average score values of experts’ as­
the pair-wise relationships of the factors. The relationship of each pair of sessments were input to develop the direct impact matrix. The further
factors was identified by the most frequent assessment. For those that data analysis referred to Asadi et al. (2022) and He et al. (2021).
had equal frequency, the experts’ experience was concerned. The Formula 1 and Formula 2 were employed to develop the normalized
assessment suggested by a subgroup of experts with more experience in matrix.
total was retained.
A
The use of ISM was to identify the hierarchical relations of the CFs D= (1)
S
regarding their influence on each other at different levels, which
involved a few steps. Firstly, an initial reachability matrix translated the (
∑
n ∑
n
)
symbols V, X, A, O into 1 or 0 to enable further computation. Further­ S = max max aij , max aij (2)
more, V and O would be directly replaced by 1 and 0 respectively. j=1 i=1

Meanwhile, X representing the bilateral influence of the paired factors

Where A denotes the direct impact matrix.
on each other produced two 1s for both blanks of Factor i to Factor j and
The total impact matrix was captured using Formula 3-6.
Factor j to Factor i, and A denoting a passive influence received by the
concerned factor (Factor m) to another factor (Factor n) generated 0 for T = D(I − D)− 1
(3)
the blank of Factor m to Factor n, but 1 for Factor n to Factor m. Secondly,
the transitivity of the factors should be accounted for. For instance, if Where I is the identity matrix.
Factor i is identified to influence Factor j, and Factor j has an influence on [ ]
Factor k, therefore, Factor i has a transactive link to Factor k. Such T = tij n×n i, j = 1, 2, ⋯n (4)
transitivity helped to identify the final reachability matrix. In the third ( )
step, the hierarchical relations of the CFs were investigated with a few ∑
n
C= tij i = 1, 2, ⋯n (5)
iterations of level partition. The higher level represents more influence j=1 n×1
but less dependence (Jain et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2022).
( )
∑
n

3.3.2. Matrice d’Impacts croisés multiplication appliqués à un classement R= tij j = 1, 2, ⋯n (6)

(MICMAC) analysis i=1 1×n

MICMAC analysis was also employed to develop ISM. MICMAC ap­

plies cross-impact matrix multiplication to accommodate factors of the 4. Results
influential factors and classify them into four quadrants regarding the
driving and dependence influences (Saxena and Vrat, 1990). As shown Based on the research approach introduced in the previous section,
by Fig. 2, the quadrants divided the factors into four groups including the results of ISM and DEMATEL are reported in this section.
driving factors (DFs), linkage factors (LFs), autonomous factors (AFs),
and dependent factors (DFs) regarding their driving and dependence
4.1. Results of ISM
power to others. The driving and dependence power of the CFs can be
obtained by counting all the influenced relations, denoted by “1”,
A few results come from ISM. Table 2 presents the final reachability
including transactive links, denoted by “1*”, of factors in the final
matrix, developed from the raw data using Formula 1-6, together with

Fig. 2. MICMAC analysis of the CFs.

4
H. Yuan et al. Developments in the Built Environment 14 (2023) 100159

Table 2
Final reachability matrix.
Factor CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5 CF6 CF7 CF8 CF9 CF10 CF11 CF12 DRP

CF1 1 1 1 1 1* 1 1 1 1* 1 0 0 10
CF2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
CF3 1 1 1 1* 1 1* 1 1* 1 1 0 1* 11
CF4 1 1 1 1 1* 1* 1 1* 1* 1* 0 0 10
CF5 1 1* 1* 1* 1 1* 1* 1 0 1* 0 0 9
CF6 1 1 1* 1* 0 1 1* 1 0 1* 0 0 8
CF7 1 1 1* 1* 0 1 1 1 1* 1 0 0 9
CF8 1 1* 1* 1* 0 1 1* 1 0 1* 0 0 8
CF9 1 1 1* 1* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1* 1 12
CF10 1 1 1* 1* 1* 1 1 1* 1 1 0 1* 11
CF11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
CF12 1* 1 0 0 0 1* 1 1 0 1* 1 1 8
DEP 10 11 9 9 6 10 10 10 6 10 3 4

the driving power (DRP) and dependence power (DEP) of the CFs. CF11 contrary, CF3 has the highest cause degree and CF1 has the highest
has the lowest DRP and DEP while CF2 has the lowest DRP but the centrality degree. The others are scattered in the relatively central area.
highest DEP; CF9 has the highest DRP. Based on the DRP and DEP of the
CFs, the following MICMAC analysis identifies CF12 as a driving factor, 5. Discussion of the results
CF11 as the only autonomous factor, CF2 as the only dependent factor,
and others as linkage factors as shown in Fig. 2. Meanwhile, CF8 and CF9 Based on the result of ISM and MICMAC analysis, CF12 (environ­
lie on the boundary between driving and linkage quadrants, thereby can ment-protection and energy-saving consciousness of the AEC industry),
be regarded as both driving factors and linkage factors. CF8 (regulatory conditions and penalty level), and CF9 (stakeholders’
The analysis of CFs’ hierarchical relations employs 5 iterations to willingness and attitude) are the driving factors that have the most in­
identify the priority levels of the factors. The results of all the iterations fluence on others. This result indicates the industry-level governance
together are presented in Table 3. In each iteration, the CFs retained in and leadership of stakeholders can have a prominent effect on the IDB of
the previous level did participate the current round. Through all the CDW. CF11 (social norms and culture) as the only autonomous factor is
iterations, five hierarchical levels of the CFs were identified as illus­ not quite influenced by others according to the experts’ assessment.
trated in Fig. 3. CF3 and CF9 are in Level V and IV respectively. CF5 and Compared with CF12 (environment-protection and energy-saving con­
CF12 are accommodated by Level III; CF1, CF4, CF6, CF7, CF8, CF9, sciousness of the AEC industry), CF11 (social norms and culture) rep­
CF10 by Level II; and CF2 and CF11 by Level I. Notably, CF11 is rela­ resents the impact of mindset on the IDB of CDW from the social culture
tively isolated as it is only directly influenced by CF12 and transitively level which is less phenomenal than that of the industrial level. CF2
influenced by CF 9. Thus, special attention should be paid to CF3 and (government incentive policies) is identified as a dependent factor,
CF9 regarding their relatively greater influence and less dependence. which means that the incentive policies to prohibit the IDB of CDW
depend on the conditions shaped by other factors. Meanwhile, the other
factors plus CF8 (regulatory conditions and penalty level) and CF9
4.2. Results of DEMATEL
(stakeholders’ willingness and attitude) are linkage factors that influ­
ence the other related factors but are also influenced fairly by them.
DEMATEL helps develop some results and analyses. Based on the
According to the analysis of factor priority levels, CF3 (capital invest­
experts’ assessment, the total impact matrix (Table 4) has been devel­
ment of enterprises) in Level V and CF9 (stakeholders’ willingness and
oped using Formula 3 to value the impact of the CFs. According to
attitude) in Level IV are the more influential factors identified due to
Formula 5 and Formula 6, the indicators of influence degree including R
their higher hierarchical levels compared with other CFs.
+ C and R–C are presented in Table 5. C represents the summed value of
Concerning the result of DEMATEL, CF2 (government incentive
a column to quantify the overall impact the others have on a CF, and R
policies) and CF 11 (social norms and culture) have the lowest cause and
represents the summed value of a raw in the total impact matrix.
centrality degrees among the CFs. It can be inferred that macro-level
Moreover, the causal diagram to demonstrate the cause and centrality
factors relating to government administration and social culture have
degrees of the CFs is present in Fig. 4. Like the result of ISM, CF2, and CF
less influence on the IDB of CDW compared with other factors. Mean­
11 have the lowest cause and centrality degrees respectively. On the
while, as CF3 (capital investment of enterprises) has the highest cause
degree, it can be inferred that capital investment is vital to reduce the
Table 3 IDB of CDW. Also, as CF1 (waste-related trading system and market
The results of the five iterations of factor priority levels.
maturity) has the highest centrality degree, it is important to enhance
Factor Reachability set Antecedents set Intersection Level the waste-related trading system and market. Specifically, CF9 (stake­
set
holders’ willingness and attitude) has the highest sum of cause and
CF1 1 2 4 6 7 8 10 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 1 4 6 7 8 10 II centrality degrees.
CF2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 I To summarize and compare the results of ISM and DEMATEL, CF3
12
CF3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 3 V
(capital investment of enterprises) and CF9 (stakeholders’ willingness
12 and attitude) are the most influential factor. Yet, CF2 (government
CF4 1 2 4 6 7 8 10 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 4 6 7 8 10 II incentive policies) and CF11 (social norms and culture) are less influ­
CF5 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 359 5 III ential factors compared with other CFs. This analysis points out that
CF6 1 2 4 6 7 8 10 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 1 4 6 7 8 10 II
business-based measures can be more effective than macro initiatives in
CF7 1 2 4 6 7 8 10 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 1 4 6 7 8 10 II
CF8 1 2 4 6 7 8 10 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 1 4 6 7 8 10 II reducing the IDB of CDW.
CF9 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 39 9 IV The findings are also compared with existing peer studies. This study
CF10 1 2 4 6 7 8 10 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 1 4 6 7 8 10 II explains the potential of the negative regulation system (CF8) to reduce
CF11 11 3 9 11 12 11 I the IDBs of CDW rather than the positive incentives (CF2) as found in the
CF12 1 2 4 6 7 8 10 12 3 9 12 12 III
results. Such a finding is confirmed by Seror and Portnov (2020), as their

5
H. Yuan et al. Developments in the Built Environment 14 (2023) 100159

Fig. 3. Hierarchical relations of the critical factors based on ISM.

Table 4
Total impact matrix.
Factor CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5 CF6 CF7 CF8 CF9 CF10 CF11 CF12

CF1 0.526 0.631 0.489 0.520 0.479 0.588 0.584 0.569 0.534 0.521 0.485 0.512
CF2 0.428 0.367 0.321 0.356 0.349 0.389 0.403 0.365 0.371 0.340 0.348 0.367
CF3 0.593 0.600 0.391 0.496 0.488 0.558 0.555 0.537 0.528 0.504 0.451 0.499
CF4 0.582 0.584 0.462 0.404 0.453 0.534 0.544 0.509 0.500 0.482 0.426 0.477
CF5 0.543 0.538 0.419 0.454 0.364 0.513 0.500 0.498 0.466 0.458 0.423 0.444
CF6 0.504 0.511 0.386 0.408 0.389 0.404 0.470 0.464 0.437 0.413 0.385 0.425
CF7 0.600 0.614 0.459 0.494 0.479 0.581 0.479 0.541 0.521 0.505 0.463 0.498
CF8 0.502 0.499 0.368 0.406 0.391 0.495 0.471 0.384 0.439 0.409 0.389 0.413
CF9 0.636 0.646 0.493 0.518 0.512 0.604 0.596 0.576 0.472 0.539 0.491 0.536
CF10 0.584 0.592 0.453 0.488 0.463 0.556 0.551 0.529 0.521 0.417 0.458 0.487
CF11 0.455 0.475 0.344 0.374 0.354 0.436 0.430 0.424 0.404 0.385 0.306 0.401
CF12 0.537 0.556 0.418 0.451 0.419 0.515 0.521 0.508 0.478 0.453 0.448 0.391

6. Contributions and implications

Table 5
Influence degree of the CFs.
6.1. Theoretical contributions
R C R+C R–C

CF1 6.436 6.490 12.926 − 0.054 This study focuses on the IDB of CDW, which was barely examined
CF2 4.402 6.611 11.013 − 2.208 with quantitative analysis. Using the ISM-DEMATEL approach, it pro­
CF3 6.200 5.002 11.202 1.198
vides insightful interpretations of CFs influence the IDB of CDW to
CF4 5.956 5.369 11.325 0.587
CF5 5.621 5.140 10.761 0.481 identify the prominent ones in the factors’ system, clarify the correlation
CF6 5.197 6.174 11.371 − 0.977 of the factors, and reveal the mechanism of the influence. The DRP, DEP,
CF7 6.233 6.104 12.337 0.130 and cause and centrality degrees of the CFs are assessed. Meanwhile, the
CF8 5.166 5.904 11.070 − 0.738 CFs are accommodated in different levels of the factor system to identify
CF9 6.619 5.671 12.289 0.948
their hierarchical relations. Moreover, this study investigates the IDB of
CF10 6.099 5.427 11.526 0.672
CF11 4.788 5.073 9.861 − 0.285 CDW with both the perspectives of ISM and DEMATEL to depict a ho­
CF12 5.696 5.448 11.144 0.247 listic view of all the influential factors. Some similar findings of both
perspectives confirm the prominence of those concerned factors. In
addition, the examination of the CFs in the IDB of CDW can be regarded
study reveals the importance of regulation on IDBs in Israel which still as a case study. The research methodology as well as the category of the
can be improved with severer punishment yet. The crucial role of CFs can be adopted in similar studies to help tackle IDBs existing in other
stakeholders in such IDBs revealed by this study is in resonance with industries or even a broader context.
Santos et al. (2019). Furthermore, Du et al. (2021)’s system review
identified that stakeholders, economic conditions, and the regulation
system have a significant influence on illegal CDW dumping. This 6.2. Practical implications
finding is confirmed by the ISM-DEMATEL analysis in this study. Above
all, this study adds empirical evidence to the illegal dumping research of This study also has some practical implications. Firstly, the effort to
CDW and clarifies the critical factors and their mutual relations. prohibit the IDB of CDW by managing the CFs at the business level, e.g.,
improving related stakeholders’ attitudes and increasing capital in­
vestment, could be more effective than changing those macro-level
factors, e.g., implementing governmental policies or promoting social
awareness. Meanwhile, the findings of this study can help enhance the

6
H. Yuan et al.
Fig. 4. Causal diagram regarding cause and centrality degrees of the CFs.
regulation of the IDB in the AEC industry. For instance, employing
regulatory measures to govern some factors can help restrict the IDB of
CDW. This study also provides a list of CFs for practitioners to manage
the IDB of CDW and implement related strategies, especially with the
identification of their prominence and priority level. The results show
that efforts should be made on ‘capital investment of enterprises’ and
“stakeholders’ willingness and attitude” to fight against the IDB of CDW.
Moreover, ‘environment-protection and energy-saving consciousness of
the AEC industry’ and ‘regulatory conditions and penalty level’ bear the
potential to decrease the IDB of CDW.
7. Conclusion
Although great effort has been made on combating illegal waste
dumping, the IDB of CDW still occurs from time to time. The complex
mechanism of how the critical factors influence the IDB of CDW remains
to be explored. For such a purpose, this study adopts the ISM-DEMATEL
approach to investigate experts’ opinions on the influential factors of the
IDB of CDW. It is found that factors including ‘capital investment of
enterprises’ and “stakeholders’ willingness and attitude” as well as
‘environment-protection and energy-saving consciousness of the AEC
industry’ and ‘regulatory conditions and penalty level’ have a prominent
impact on the IDB of CDW. However, the macro-level factors including
‘social norms and culture’ and ‘government incentive policies’ are found
to be less influential compared with the other factors.
Focusing on the CFs to influence the IDB of CDW, this study provides
a holistic analysis of the factor system, reveals the correlations of the
CFs, and identifies the prominent factors. On the one hand, such findings
contribute to the knowledge body of CDW management by identifying
the critical factors to influence the IDB and clarifying the mechanism of
their correlation with quantitative empirical evidence. On the other
hand, the major findings of this study have practical implications for
decreasing the IDB of CDW. It provides a list of factors with clarification
of their impact and relations to help administrators and stakeholders of
the AEC industry to formulate strategies against the IDB. Both types of
contributions demonstrate the value of this research.
Nonetheless, this study has its limitation. The survey of this study
involves two processes of ISM and DEMATEL, it might cause a burden to
the respondents to assess the influence of the factors in both methods.
Such a fact may compromise the accuracy of their assessments. To deal
with such an issue, in data processing, responding time was considered
to avoid too casual answers. Future research can be directed to the IDB
7
Developments in the Built Environment 14 (2023) 100159
in other industries or CDW in other territorial contexts to make com­
parisons. Also, regarding some technologies that are used to combat the
IDB, research questions like, what is the mechanism of technology to
influence the IDB, and what influences the effectiveness of technology
use, can be explored further.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Hongping Yuan: Conceptualization, Writing - Original Draft, Meth­
odology, Funding acquisition; Wenbo Du: Investigation, Visualization,
Software, Data curation, Coordination; Xiaozhi Ma: Writing- Reviewing
and Editing, Methodology, Data curation, Coordination; Jing Liu: Data
analysis, Writing- Reviewing and Editing; Lingyue Li: Data analysis,
Discussion.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Hongping Yuan reports financial support was provided by National
Social Science Fund of China.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
This study is financially supported by the National Social Science
Foundation of China (Grant reference number: 20BGL187).
References
Ajzen, I., 2020. The theory of planned behavior: frequently asked questions. Human.
Behav. Emerg. Techn. 2 (4), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.195.
Amenta, E., Ramsey, K.M., 2010. Institutional Theory. Handbook of Politics: State and
Society in Global Perspective. Springer, pp. 15–39.
Asadi, S., Nilashi, M., Iranmanesh, M., Ghobakhloo, M., Samad, S., Alghamdi, A.,
Almulihi, A., Mohd, S., 2022. Drivers and barriers of electric vehicle usage in
Malaysia: a DEMATEL approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 177, 105965 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105965.
Aslam, M.S., Huang, B., Cui, L., 2020. Review of construction and demolition waste
management in China and USA. J. Environ. Manag. 264, 110445 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110445.
H. Yuan et al.
Attri, R., Dev, N., Sharma, V., 2013. Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach: an
overview. Res. J. Manag. Sci. 2 (2), 3–8. ISSN 2319–1171.
Bao, Z., 2023. Developing circularity of construction waste for a sustainable built
environment in emerging economies: new insights from China. Develop. Built
Environ 13, 100107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2022.100107.
Bao, Z., Lu, W., Chi, B., Yuan, H., Hao, J., 2019. Procurement innovation for a circular
economy of construction and demolition waste: lessons learnt from Suzhou, China.
Waste Manag. 99, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.08.031.
Blaisi, N.I., 2019. Construction and demolition waste management in Saudi Arabia:
current practice and roadmap for sustainable management. J. Clean. Prod. 221,
167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.264.
Chen, J.-K., 2021. Improved DEMATEL-ISM integration approach for complex systems.
PLoS One 16 (7), e0254694. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254694.
Chen, J., Hua, C., Liu, C., 2019. Considerations for better construction and demolition
waste management: identifying the decision behaviors of contractors and
government departments through a game theory decision-making model. J. Clean.
Prod. 212, 190–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.262.
Chua, M.H., 2021. Home renovation waste upon change of ownership: a Coasian way of
addressing an urban externality. Waste Manag. 119, 145–151. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2020.09.046.
Cuypers, I.R., Hennart, J.-F., Silverman, B.S., Ertug, G., 2021. Transaction cost theory:
past progress, current challenges, and suggestions for the future. Acad. Manag. Ann.
15 (1), 111–150. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2019.0051.
Desing, H., Brunner, D., Takacs, F., Nahrath, S., Frankenberger, K., Hischier, R., 2020.
A circular economy within the planetary boundaries: towards a resource-based,
systemic approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 155, 104673 https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.resconrec.2019.104673.
Ding, Z., Cao, X., Wang, Y., Wu, H., Zuo, J., Zillante, G., 2022. Cost-benefit analysis of
demolition waste management via agent-based modelling: a case study in Shenzhen.
Waste Manag. 137, 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.10.036.
Dong, Z., Chen, J., Lu, W., 2022. Computer vision to recognize construction waste
compositions: a novel boundary-aware transformer (BAT) model. J. Environ. Manag.
305, 114405 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.03.001.
dos Muchangos, Tokai, A., Hanashima, A., 2017. Stakeholder analysis and social network
analysis to evaluate the stakeholders of a MSWM system–A pilot study of Maputo
City. Environ. Develop. 24, 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envdev.2017.04.005.
Du, L., Feng, Y., Lu, W., Kong, L., Yang, Z., 2020. Evolutionary game analysis of
stakeholders’ decision-making behaviours in construction and demolition waste
management. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 84, 106408 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eiar.2020.106408.
Du, L., Xu, H., Zuo, J., 2021. Status quo of illegal dumping research: way forward.
J. Environ. Manag. 290, 112601 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112601.
Fernando, R.L.S., 2019. Solid waste management of local governments in the Western
Province of Sri Lanka: an implementation analysis. Waste Manag. 84, 194–203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.11.030.
Fuldauer, L.I., Ives, M.C., Adshead, D., Thacker, S., Hall, J.W., 2019. Participatory
planning of the future of waste management in small island developing states to
deliver on the Sustainable Development. Goals. J. Clean. Prod. 223, 147–162.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.269.
Ghafourian, K., Kabirifar, K., Mahdiyar, A., Yazdani, M., Ismail, S., Tam, V.W., 2021.
A synthesis of express analytic hierarchy process (EAHP) and partial least squares-
structural equations modeling (PLS-SEM) for sustainable construction and
demolition waste management assessment: the case of Malaysia. Recycl 6 (4), 73.
https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling6040073.
Gordon, T., Pease, A., 2006. RT Delphi: an efficient, “round-less” almost real time Delphi
method. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 73 (4), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2005.09.005.
Haberl, H., Wiedenhofer, D., Pauliuk, S., Krausmann, F., Müller, D.B., Fischer-
Kowalski, M., 2019. Contributions of sociometabolic research to sustainability
science. Nat. Sustain. 2 (3), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0225-2.
Hao, J., Yuan, H., Liu, J., Chin, C.S., Lu, W., 2019. A model for assessing the economic
performance of construction waste reduction. J. Clean. Prod. 232, 427–440. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.348.
He, Y., Kang, J., Pei, Y., Ran, B., Song, Y., 2021. Research on influencing factors of fuel
consumption on superhighway based on DEMATEL-ISM model. Energy Pol. 158,
112545 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112545.
Henry, A.D., 2009. The challenge of learning for sustainability: a prolegomenon to
theory. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 16 (2), 131–140. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24707537.
Hitt, M.A., Xu, K., Carnes, C.M., 2016. Resource based theory in operations management
research. J. Oper. Manag. 41, 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2015.11.002.
Jain, P., Garg, S., Kansal, G., 2021. A TISM approach for the analysis of enablers in
implementing mass customization in Indian manufacturing units. Prod. Plann.
Control. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1900616.
Jain, S., Singhal, S., Jain, N.K., Bhaskar, K., 2020. Construction and demolition waste
recycling: investigating the role of theory of planned behavior, institutional
pressures and environmental consciousness. J. Clean. Prod. 263, 121405 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121405.
Jora, O.-D., Pătruți, A., Iacob, M., Șancariuc, D.-R., 2020. Squaring the circle”—the
disregarded institutional theory and the distorted practice of packaging waste
recycling in Romania. Sustainability 12 (22), 9440. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su12229440.
Krause, J., Croft, D.P., James, R., 2007. Social network theory in the behavioural
sciences: potential applications. Behav. Ecol. Sociobio. 62, 15–27.
8
Developments in the Built Environment 14 (2023) 100159
Kumar, A., Dixit, G., 2018. An analysis of barriers affecting the implementation of e-
waste management practices in India: a novel ISM-DEMATEL approach. Sustain.
Prod. Consum. 14, 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.01.002.
Kumar, R., Goel, P., 2021. Exploring the domain of interpretive structural modelling
(ISM) for sustainable future panorama: a bibliometric and content analysis. Arch.
Comput. Methods Eng. 29, 2781–2810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-021-
09675-7.
Laplume, A.O., Sonpar, K., Litz, R.A., 2008. Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that
moves us. J. Manag. 34 (6), 1152–1189. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206308324322.
Lemaire, A., Limbourg, S., 2019. How can food loss and waste management achieve
sustainable development goals? J. Clean. Prod. 234, 1221–1234. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.226.
Liu, C., Hua, C., Chen, J., 2022a. Efficient supervision strategy for illegal dumping of
construction and demolition waste: a networked game theory decision-making
model. Waste Manag. Res. 40 (6), 754–764. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242X211032031.
Liu, H., Long, H., Li, X., 2020a. Identification of critical factors in construction and
demolition waste recycling by the grey-DEMATEL approach: a Chinese perspective.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (8), 8507–8525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-
07498-5.
Liu, H., Wang, Y., Shi, X., Pang, L., 2022b. How do environmental policies affect capital
market reactions? Evidence from China’s construction waste treatment policy. Ecol.
Econ. 198, 107461 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107461.
Liu, J., Teng, Y., Wang, D., Gong, E., 2020b. System dynamic analysis of construction
waste recycling industry chain in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (30),
37260–37277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06739-x.
Ma, M., Tam, V.W., Le, K.N., Li, W., 2020. Challenges in current construction and
demolition waste recycling: a China study. Waste Manag. 118, 610–625. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.09.030.
Mak, T.M., Iris, K., Wang, L., Hsu, S.-C., Tsang, D.C., Li, C., Yeung, T.L., Zhang, R.,
Poon, C.S., 2019. Extended theory of planned behaviour for promoting construction
waste recycling in Hong Kong. Waste Manag. 83, 161–170. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2018.11.016.
Manoharan, E., Norazli Othman, R.M., Chelliapan, S., Tobi, S.U.M., 2021. A review of
hazardous compounds present in construction waste materials. Environ. and Ecol.
Res. 9 (5), 224–234. http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/94483/1/NorazliOth
man2021_AReviewofHazardousCompoundsPresent.pdf.
Mohammed, M., Shafiq, N., Al-Mekhlafi, A.-B.A., Rashed, E.F., Khalil, M.H., Zawawi, N.
A., Muhammad, A., Sadis, A.M., 2022. The mediating role of policy-related factors in
the relationship between practice of waste generation and sustainable construction
waste minimisation: pls-SEM. Sustainability 14 (2), 656. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su14020656.
Ogutu, F.A., Kimata, D.M., Kweyu, R.M., 2021. Partnerships for sustainable cities as
options for improving solid waste management in Nairobi city. Waste Manag. Res.
39 (1), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X209677.
Pizzi, S., Caputo, A., Corvino, A., Venturelli, A., 2020. Management research and the UN
sustainable development goals (SDGs): a bibliometric investigation and systematic
review. J. Clean. Prod. 276, 124033 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.124033.
Peng, Z., Lu, W., Webster, C., 2022. If invisible carbon waste can be traded, why not
visible construction waste? Establishing the construction waste trading ‘missing
market. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 187, 106607 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2022.106607.
Rindfleisch, A., 2020. Transaction cost theory: past, present and future. AMS Rev 10 (1),
85–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-019-00151-x.
Santos, A.C., Mendes, P., Teixeira, M.R., 2019. Social life cycle analysis as a tool for
sustainable management of illegal waste dumping in municipal services. J. Clean.
Prod. 210, 1141–1149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.042.
Saxena, J., Vrat, P., 1990. Impact of indirect relationships in classification of
variables—a micmac analysis for energy conservation. Syst. Res. 7 (4), 245–253.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.3850070404.
Seror, N., Portnov, B.A., 2018. Identifying areas under potential risk of illegal
construction and demolition waste dumping using GIS tools. Waste Manag. 75,
22–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.01.027.
Seror, N., Portnov, B.A., 2020. Estimating the effectiveness of different environmental
law enforcement policies on illegal C&D waste dumping in Israel. Waste Manag. 102,
241–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.10.043.
Song, G., Lu, Y., Feng, H., Lin, H., Zheng, Y., 2022. An implementation framework of
blockchain-based hazardous waste transfer management system. Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. 29 (24), 36147–36160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17489-0.
Storto, C., 2021. Effectiveness-efficiency nexus in municipal solid waste management: a
non-parametric evidence-based study. Ecol. Indicat. 131, 108185 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108185.
Su, Y., Chen, J., Si, H., Wu, G., Zhang, R., Lei, W., 2021. Decision-making interaction
among stakeholders regarding construction and demolition waste recycling under
different power structures. Waste Manag. 131, 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2021.06.025.
Trivedi, A., Jakhar, S.K., Sinha, D., 2021. Analyzing barriers to inland waterways as a
sustainable transportation mode in India: a DEMATEL-ISM based approach. J. Clean.
Prod. 295, 126301 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126301.
Vaverková, M.D., Maxianová, A., Winkler, J., Adamcová, D., Podlasek, A., 2019.
Environmental consequences and the role of illegal waste dumps and their impact on
land degradation. Land Use Pol. 89, 104234 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2019.104234.
H. Yuan et al.
Wu, H., Zuo, J., Yuan, H., Zillante, G., Wang, J., 2023. Investigation of the social and
economic impacts of cross-regional mobility of construction and demolition waste in
Australia. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 190, 106814 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2022.106814.
Wu, Y., Wang, J., Hu, Y., Ke, Y., Li, L., 2018. An extended TODIM-PROMETHEE method
for waste-to-energy plant site selection based on sustainability perspective. Energy
156, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.05.087.
Wu, Z., Yang, K., Xue, H., Zuo, J., Li, S., 2022. Major barriers to information sharing in
reverse logistics of construction and demolition waste. J. Clean. Prod. 350, 131331
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131331.
Developments in the Built Environment 14 (2023) 100159
Wu, Z., Yu, A.T., Wang, H., Wei, Y., Huo, X., 2019. Driving factors for construction waste
minimization: empirical studies in Hong Kong and Shenzhen. Journal of Green
Building 14 (4), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.3992/1943-4618.14.4.155.
Yang, B., Song, X., Yuan, H., Zuo, J., 2020. A model for investigating construction
workers’ waste reduction behaviors. J. Clean. Prod. 265, 121841 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121841.
Yuan, H., Lu, W., Hao, J., 2013. The evolution of construction waste sorting on-site.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 20, 483–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2012.12.012.