Abstract
An environmental management plan (EMP) can reduce the impact of construction projects on the environment. While there is an increasing trend to promote sustainability, effective EMP implementation in Malaysia is limited. In this study, we aim to investigate the challenges for implementing EMP at construction sites in Malaysia, identify the main issues among those challenges, and determine the interrelationships between the main challenges. We identified 30 potential challenges for implementing EMP through a systematic literature review of 41 papers and semi-structured interviews with 20 construction industry professionals. Subsequently, a survey was used to solicit opinions on the challenges. The collected data were analyzed using mean score, standard deviation, normalization, factor analysis, and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results illustrate that 21 main challenges exist for implementing EMP in Malaysia. From these, eight main challenges can be grouped into two major components: people- and project-related challenges. ANOVA test results suggest different perceptions of the challenges between project owners, contractors, and consultants. The theoretical implications of this study include a profound understanding of the challenges in implementing EMP at construction sites in Malaysia and their underlying relations.
1. Introduction
There is an increasing trend toward adopting the sustainable development concept to minimize climate change [1]. The key principles of sustainable development include improving people’s quality of life and health and supporting systems that provide a country with natural resources [2]. Therefore, governments have developed initiatives to motivate construction projects to implement environmental management plans (EMPs) [3]. The construction industry is a sector that contributes significantly to economic development. However, the construction industry is not environmentally friendly and has adverse effects on society [4]. Construction projects consume a significant amount of energy and natural resources and produce a considerable amount of air, water, noise, and land pollution. In addition, construction and demolition wastes generated by the construction sector have negative impacts on the environment (water, soil, and air pollution), economy (loss of primary resources), and public health (health hazards and public space consumption). These problems negatively affect different external stakeholders. Table 1 shows examples of different impacts of construction projects on the environment [4,5,6,7]. Ground surface disturbances resulting from construction activities considerably increase pollution damage [8]. Clearing and excavation activities lead to soil erosion and sedimentation, thereby continuing to cause environmental degradation [9]. In addition, some steep mountainous land has been converted to arable land, resulting in erosion and sediment problems owing to terrain changes [10]. Therefore, without proper EMP, the negative impact of the construction industry on the environment will remain a serious threat to the world and humankind.
Table 1.
Estimated impact of construction projects on the environment.
While this emphasizes the need for a more efficient management plan for the impact of construction activities on the environment, project stakeholders have little conscious awareness and understanding of implementing EMPs [5,11,12]. Such awareness and understanding can be achieved by seeking professional advisors; however, most stakeholders do not choose this option [13]. In addition, project stakeholders are not optimistic about implementing EMPs because the benefits and competitive advantages are relatively low [14]. On the contrary, poor EMP implementation is expected in light of a lack of industry standards, comprehensive rules and regulations, and clearly defined responsibilities [15,16,17]. This issue is especially true for Malaysia. There is a lack of environmental policies and regulations to enforce environmental sustainability and monitor the practices of construction organizations. Moreover, construction firms in Malaysia spend less on social responsibility activities to protect the natural environment [18]. In a technical sense, financial aspects such as incentives and high implementation costs are also important [19,20]. Project managers must make long-term commitments to allocate resources before and during EMP implementation. The high cost of EMP implementation in Malaysia remains a critical challenge because it increases the financial burden on project stakeholders, especially contractors [21].
As the level of resources varies among countries, not every nation can implement EMPs at the same pace. Governments in developing countries, including Malaysia, lack initiatives such as financial facilitation and mandates for EMP implementation [22]. Furthermore, the attitude of project stakeholders towards sustainable practice and EMP implementation varies in different construction industry contexts [18]. Therefore, region-specific research on the challenges in EMP implementation is necessary. A review of the existing literature suggests that the challenges facing EMP implementation have been widely studied. However, a limited amount of research has emphasized the identification and understanding of the challenges for implementing EMPs in Malaysia. Understanding the challenges of EMP implementation provides valuable information for protecting the environment. Moreover, project stakeholders can identify the shortfall areas, especially in Malaysia, that require greater improvement in EMP practices.
This study aims to investigate the challenges for implementing EMPs at construction sites in Malaysia, identify the main issues among those challenges, and determine the interrelations between the main challenges. In this study, EMP is defined as a document containing the organizational structure, responsibilities, procedures, and resources to deal with all relevant environmental issues and achieve effective and long-term compliance in environmental protection. The document intends to outline the actions to manage the impacts of project activities. The EMP is designed to ensure appropriate measures are taken to handle the significant environmental impact issues that are most likely to arise during the construction and operational phase of a project [22].
2. Literature Review
2.1. Challenges in EMP Implementation
Although implementing EMPs can lead to sustainable development, it involves several challenges. In developed countries, the construction industry attributes low EMP implementation to low environmental awareness and few potential benefits as well as the lack of knowledge of EMP implementation [16]. Poor knowledge and awareness make EMP implementation unnecessary due to the lack of motivation. According to Refs. [4,23,24], there is a negative attitude among construction industry professionals in the UK and Australia toward EMP implementation. Such attitudes negatively affect the commitments of the client, contractor, and consultant towards the environment [4]. Significant responsibility is placed on governments for developing initiatives such as media campaigns, education programs, and incentives, as important promotion strategies for implementing EMPs [25,26]. In addition, defining the roles and responsibilities of the project parties is vital to ensure all parties play an active role and share commitments in protecting the environment; Italy, the Netherlands, and France are lacking in this area [17]. In addition to unclear roles and responsibilities, construction industry professionals in Hong Kong claim a high implementation cost of environmental management systems, which affects the performance of the construction projects [12].
While these challenges persist in developed countries, construction industry professionals in developing countries, including China, refuse to consider EMPs due to the high implementation costs [2]. Implementing EMPs requires sufficient financial resources to afford skilled personnel, machinery, equipment, and advanced materials [20]. These challenges are especially true for contractors who prefer to avoid payments for any unnecessary work due to new operating costs [6]. There is also a lack of comprehensive rules and regulations and insufficient staffing to promote sustainability [3]. Environmental regulations provide controlling measures to minimize pollution from construction activities through different procedures [17]. Ghana and Malaysia also experience some challenges in promoting sustainability. In Ghana, the challenges of EMP implementation include a shortage of qualified personnel, lack of knowledge, and high implementation costs [14,19]. Ref. [18] reported the importance of government pressure regarding policies and regulations for environmental sustainability performance in Malaysia. Ref. [27] concluded that the awareness of the management of construction and demolition wastes, stakeholders’ commitment, and the cost of protecting the environment are the key factors in promoting environmental sustainability. Ref. [28] found that not all contractors, including large contractors, medium-size contractors, and small contractors, are willing to pay for improved construction waste management.
2.2. Positioning This Study
Construction activities have a negative impact on the environment. The success in decreasing these impacts can improve the performance of construction projects towards cleaner production. Therefore, controlling the environmental impacts of construction activities is vital. One solution to achieving this goal is to implement an EMP. Although EMPs can help reduce pollution damage and maintain sustainability, many challenges hinder their implementation. Therefore, understanding the challenges of implementing EMPs at construction sites is important to formulate proper strategies to overcome these challenges. Prior works have investigated the challenges to EMP in both developed and developing countries. However, the investigation of the sustainability practices in Malaysia has focused on environmental sustainability in general and construction waste management. The above review suggests that the existing body of knowledge on the challenges of implementing an EMP at construction sites in Malaysia is limited. Therefore, this study attempts to answer the following questions: (1) What are the challenges for implementing an EMP at construction sites in Malaysia? (2) What are the main challenges in implementing an EMP at construction sites in Malaysia? (3) What are the underlying relations between the main challenges?
3. Method
This study involved both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The qualitative part entails conducting semi-structured interviews with construction industry professionals to obtain in-depth information with regard to EMP implementation challenges. In contrast, the quantitative part analyzes the data of the EMP implementation challenges collected using the survey. Figure 1 shows the study design, adapted from [21,29]. The next subsections describe the methodology in detail.
Figure 1.
Study design (adapted from Refs. [19,27]).
3.1. Survey Development
We herein adopted the survey approach to obtain broad perceptions of construction industry professionals of the challenges of EMP implementation. The advantages over other data collection methods include capturing a wide spectrum of responses to represent a wider population. A larger number of responses provides greater confidence that the collected data can represent a population [30]. Moreover, a survey is suitable when data analysis techniques, such as factor analysis, demand a sufficient sample size [30]. Prior works support the use of a survey for quantitative analysis [21,29].
3.1.1. Semi-Structured Interviews
The survey development was supported by semi-structured interviews with 20 industry professionals. The interviews were deemed adequate because information on the challenges of EMP implementation is scarce. It allowed for detailed information to be obtained through communication with knowledgeable individuals in the field [27,29]. The target population for the interviews included professionals with experience in EMP implementation. These included officers in the Department of Environment, Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID), and Public Works Department (PWD), as well as local councils, engineers, and environmental officers. The interview sessions lasted approximately 60 min. Before conducting the interviews, the background and objectives of the study were introduced to the interviewees. The key question during the interview was “What are the challenges to EMP implementation in Malaysia?” Follow-up questions were also asked to acquire more information. After the interview, a summary was sent to the interviewees for verification. The interviewee could check any misinformation or misinterpretation and recommend corrections if necessary. The data collected at this stage were then analyzed using thematic analysis. The respondent profiles of the interviewees are presented in Table 2.
Table 2.
Respondent profile of the interviewees.
Based on the results of the interviews, a thematic analysis was conducted to identify the challenges to EMP implementation. The analysis was performed based on the six phases in Ref. [31]. The first phase is immersion in the data, which includes reading and transcribing the data and noting ideas in the entire dataset. The second phase entails the generation of potential codes and the collection of data relevant to each code. The third phase includes searching for themes. This phase analyzes the codes and searches for a theme that combines the codes into a common theme. The fourth phase includes refining the identified themes by continually checking whether the themes represent the identified codes and identifying any emerging themes. The fifth phase entails naming a theme according to the data captured. The sixth phase includes reporting the output of the analysis process.
3.1.2. Systematic Literature Review
In addition to the semi-structured interviews, a systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to support the survey development. An SLR is an efficient technique for assessing all available evidence on a specific topic. This approach allows scholars to search for sources beyond their subject areas and networks [32]. Therefore, the SLR was deemed adequate for capturing the challenges of EMP implementation. This study used the Scopus database during the SLR because (1) it is the most widely used search engine for conducting literature reviews [33,34]; (2) it covers a wide range of papers in different disciplines compared with other search engines and is a popular database engine for literature reviews in the construction management domain [34]. Publications including any of the following strings in a journal’s title, abstract, and keywords were identified: (“environment” OR “environmental” OR “natural resources”) AND (“law” OR “regulations” OR “act” OR “legislation” OR “regulation”) AND (“construction management” OR “construction project” OR “construction projects” OR “construction industry”). The search process revealed 273 publications, of which 41 were relevant to the study topic. Finally, the results from the SLR and interviews were concurrently revised to obtain a comprehensive list of challenges to EMP implementation. The list of potential challenges to EMP implementation developed using the interviews and SLR is presented in Appendix A.
3.1.3. Survey Design
The survey comprised two parts. Part I included general information about the respondents, including types of organization, position, academic qualification, years of experience, and the number of projects involved. Part II asked the respondents to rate the importance of the challenges to EMP implementation based on a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1) not critical to (5) very critical. This study employed a five-point scale because it is a convenient judgment scale for respondents [35,36]. Free space at the end of the survey was also provided to include any challenges identified by the respondents. The survey was conducted in English to avoid any misinterpretation during the back-and-forth translation process.
3.1.4. Pilot Study
After drafting the survey, six experts (construction industry professionals and academics) with at least five years of experience were interviewed in a pilot study. The objective of the pilot study was to check the completeness and rationality of the survey [35,36]. The experts were asked to critically review the survey design and structure, including the language, the technical terms used, and any ambiguity that emerged during the survey development. The experts were also given the opportunity to add any challenges that were not captured by the SLR and remove irrelevant ones. Based on the recommendations, the survey was finalized. This step matches the literature and practice. The finalized survey is presented in Appendix B.
3.2. Data Collection
After finalizing the survey, this study continued by gathering data from construction industry professionals. The target population includes all construction industry professionals experienced in EMPs. As the sampling frame was not available, non-probability sampling was adopted by identifying individuals possessing knowledge and expertise in EMPs. This approach can be used when random sampling is difficult to achieve; participants can be selected based on their willingness to participate [29,37]. A purposeful snowball sampling approach was used to obtain a sufficient sample size. Initially, eligible construction industry professionals using EMPs were identified by the authors’ networks and communications. Subsequently, they were asked to nominate any candidates appropriate to answer the survey based on their academic or industry experience. Reminders were sent to the target population to increase the response rate. The data collection commenced on 10 April 2020 and ended on 9 July 2020. A total of 102 valid responses were obtained. While the sample size seems small, the central limit theorem holds when the sample size is larger than 30. Therefore, statistical analyses can still be conducted [38]. Table 3 displays the respondent profile for the survey data.
Table 3.
Respondent profile for survey data.
3.3. Data Analysis
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used to analyze quantitative data. These analyses included reliability testing using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, mean score, standard deviation, and normalization. Finally, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to identify the underlying relationships between the main challenges in implementing an EMP at construction sites. Prior construction management works support the use of these techniques for ranking the variables and identifying their underlying relationships [29,39]. The data analyses are described in detail in the subsequent subsections.
3.3.1. Reliability Testing
Cronbach’s alpha is one of the most popular methods for assessing scale reliability. In a survey, Cronbach’s alpha established the average correlation or internal consistency between variables to evaluate the reliability of the survey. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient α ranges from 0 to 1 and can describe the reliability of factors extracted from multipoint and/or dichotomous formatted scales or surveys [40]. A higher α value indicates good reliability in the measurement scales. The computed α value for 30 was 0.967, indicating that the measurement scale had high reliability at the 5% level of significance [41].
3.3.2. Ranking Analysis
After reliability testing, the mean score and standard deviation were computed to rank the challenges of the EMP implementation. If two or more challenges had equal mean scores, the challenge with the lowest standard deviation was ranked higher. Subsequently, the normalized value technique was employed to determine the main challenges among the 30 EMP implementation challenges. The main challenges were determined based on calculated normalized values. Only challenges with a normalized value ≥ 0.50 were identified as critical [39,42].
3.3.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis
The main challenges for implementing an EMP at construction sites identified earlier are subject to EFA. EFA is a statistical analysis technique that can group a large number of variables into a manageable set of factor groupings [30]. It is a powerful technique for identifying the underlying relations between many interrelated variables [29]. Principal axis factoring was selected as the extraction method to identify the underlying grouped factors because it yields more stable loadings than other factor extraction methods for EFA. During the analysis, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were used to examine the appropriateness of the FA. The acceptable KMO value (ranges from 0.00 to 1.00) should exceed 0.60. The value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity determines whether the population correlation matrix is an identity matrix. Regarding the communalities, this study adopted a 0.40 cut-off value. A cut-off factor loading of 0.50 was used to eliminate the challenges that are weak indicators. Cronbach’s α coefficient was then used to examine the internal consistency of the constructs. The closer the value to 1.00, the higher the internal consistency of the groupings [30].
3.3.4. Agreement Analysis
An ANOVA test was used to understand the differences in the respondents’ perceptions of the main challenges in implementing an EMP at construction sites. ANOVA allows us to observe any significant differences in the mean scores between different groups, such as project stakeholders [43]. This test is adequate for the data analysis of Likert-scale questions and small sample size research. A p-value less than 0.05 indicates inconsistent views toward the challenges to EMP implementation by the survey respondents [43].
4. Results
4.1. Results for the Mean Ranking Analysis
Table 4 shows the rank of the challenges to EMP implementation in Malaysia, along with the standard deviation and normalized values. Of the 30 challenges, 21 had a normalized value greater than 0.05, representing the main challenges in implementing an EMP at construction sites.
Table 4.
Results of the mean ranking analysis.
4.2. Results for the Exploratory Factor Analysis
EFA was used to explore the underlying factor groupings of the 21 main challenges to EMP implementation. Prior works suggest a minimum ratio of two respondents for each challenge [44]. In addition, at least 50 samples are necessary to conduct EFA [45]. As the number of respondents is 102 and the number of challenges is 30, conducting EFA is appropriate. The result of Bartlett’s test of sphericity is 465.762, with a significance value of less than 0.001, indicating that the correlation matrix is significant at p < 0.05 and thus is not an identity matrix [24]. The communality value for the challenges ranges between 0.513 and 0.735, which is above 0.40. Therefore, the data are suitable for EFA.
Table 5 and Figure 2 summarize the results of the EFA. Two components were retained, representing eight out of the 21 main challenges to the EMP. A cut-off factor loading of 0.50 was used to screen out items that are weak indicators of common factors. As a result, twelve main challenges were removed for not having factor loadings greater than 0.50. The two components explain approximately 69.767% of the total variance, which is more than the 60% required for adequate construct validity [46,47]. Cronbach’s α reliability test was then run to ensure that the factors were appropriately grouped. Cronbach’s α coefficients were 0.876 and 0.864, respectively. These values are greater than the required minimum of 0.60 [39]. Therefore, each construct possessed a good internal consistency.
Table 5.
Results of the factor analysis.
Figure 2.
Percentage of each construct of the challenges to EMP implementation.
4.3. Results of the Agreement Analysis
Table 6 and Figure 3 present the results of the agreement analysis of the main challenges between different project stakeholders, including owners, contractors, and consultants. The results show consistent views on the criticality of the following main challenges: CH17, CH28, and CH30. However, the criticalities were significantly different among project stakeholders for the following challenges: CH25, CH23, CH04, CH02, and CH01. These results indicate that most of the main challenges in EMP implementation are perceived differently by project stakeholders.
Table 6.
Results of the agreement analysis.
Figure 3.
Agreement analysis between stakeholders. CH01 = Lack of commitment; CH02 = Lack of understanding of the roles and responsibilities of parties; CH03 = Influencing factors of the cost-reducing process of EMP implementation; CH04 = Lack of understanding of the processes and workflows required for EMP implementation; CH05 = Fragmented nature of organizations in the construction industry; CH09 = Negative attitude towards EMP implementation; CH10 = Lack of awareness of EMP implementation; CH11 = Lack of publicity through media about EMP; CH12 = Lack of a comprehensive framework and implementation plan for EMP; CH14 = Insufficient staffing to inspect EMP implementation; CH16 = Lack of knowledge about EMP; CH17 = High cost of implementing EMP; CH21 = Inadequate incentive for EMP implementation; CH23 = Contractors perceived that the EMP work costs are overcharged; CH24 = Failure to maintain EMP facilities; CH25 = Did the EMP just for the report; CH26 = Proposed EMP design inappropriate for the site situation; CH27 = Incorrect installation of EMP components; CH28 = Unexpected changes in on-site condition; CH29 = The contractor focuses on work progress but not parallel with the EMP progression; CH30 = Shortage of resources for EMP implementation.
5. Discussion
5.1. Component 1: People-Related Challenges
Although acknowledging the need for more sustainable construction has emerged globally, understanding and awareness of environmental protection and the implementation of related policies are still low [17]. Poor environmental awareness discourages project stakeholders from achieving environmental protection. Raising environmental awareness has the potential to disclose the pollution damage caused by the construction industry [21,23]. This approach is achievable through running awareness campaigns through the media [24]. Although governments can play an important role in running these campaigns and providing training programs, significant responsibility is attributed to project stakeholders. These stakeholders give more weight to traditional project objectives, such as time, cost, and quality, as success measures of construction work than environmental impact reduction. Thus, project stakeholders consider environmental performance as an emerging project objective, and the attitude towards sustainable practices is negative [18]. Furthermore, the construction industry is fragmented. Project stakeholders are obliged to work under regulatory constraints. The success of environmental protection lies in delineating the roles, responsibilities, and commitments of all project stakeholders [14]. Therefore, greater success in achieving sustainable practices can only be achieved with positive attitudes and commitments among project stakeholders.
5.2. Component 2: Project-Related Challenges
Project stakeholders naturally seek savings in construction projects and avoid potential uncertainties that affect business returns [42,48]. Because of the extra cost incurred and the required financial resources, EMPs are poorly implemented. While the client is more interested and willing to invest in environmental management, contractors are not motivated. In particular, contractors are reluctant to invest in environmental management because of increased operating costs [20]. This resonates with prior works illustrating that not all contractors in Malaysia are willing to pay for improved construction waste management [17,21]. Because of its large capital, large contractors are more willing to invest in environmental sustainability than medium-sized and small contractors. This highlights the difference in contractor grade and company size in participating in environmental protection. Although this finding does not directly reflect contractors’ attitudes toward EMP implementation, it indicates an unwillingness to participate in environmental protection. Furthermore, EMP implementation requires skilled labor, heavy machinery, and advanced materials. This results in increased on-site operations, which are unfavorable for contractors because of the additional resources required [20,42,49]. Therefore, they implement EMPs to meet only the minimum requirements for environmental protection control [23].
6. Implication
This study overcomes the limitations of the existing body of knowledge by focusing on the challenges for implementing EMPs in Malaysia. It reveals the major challenges affecting EMP implementation and their underlying relationships. This study provides a profound understanding of the nature of people- and project-related challenges that represent a latent construct contributing to EMP implementation in Malaysia. This construct should assist scholars and academicians in proposing solutions for effective EMP implementation in the construction industry in Malaysia. The study findings benefit the construction industry and AEC professionals by prioritizing resources to address the identified critical challenges. By categorizing the challenges, the government and policymakers are informed about the major shortfall areas that should be addressed to enhance EMP implementation in the construction industry in Malaysia. As contractors naturally pursue profit, policymakers play a critical role in providing financial incentives and facilitation for contractors to diminish their reluctance to implement EMP. Through this initiative, policymakers can ensure that EMPs are effectively implemented, especially in construction organizations with limited financial capital.
7. Conclusions
To minimize the impact of construction activities on the environment, we identified the main challenges in EMP implementation. Using an SLR and semi-structured interviews, 30 potential challenges to EMP implementation were identified. The normalized value technique was used to distinguish the main challenges suitable for subsequent analysis. EFA was then used to group the main challenges that had common features. Finally, an ANOVA test was performed to observe any significant differences in the opinions on the main challenges identified in FA.
The results demonstrate that 21 challenges in EMP implementation are critical. Out of those, eight main challenges were retained using EFA:
- Lack of commitment
- Lack of understanding of the roles and responsibilities of parties
- Lack of understanding of the processes and workflows required for EMP implementation
- High cost of implementing EMP
- Contractors perceived that the EMP work costs are overcharged
- Did the EMP just for the report
- Unexpected changes in on-site condition
- Shortage of resources for EMP implementation
The eight main challenges can be grouped into two major components: people-related challenges and project-related challenges. These two components should be addressed to promote EMP implementation. The results demonstrate the need for a balanced allocation of commitments and responsibilities among all project stakeholders. The government can deploy initiatives contributing to effective EMP implementation. This can be done by providing instructions and guidelines to help project stakeholders understand and implement EMP effectively. Moreover, it is important to provide financial facilities, especially for contractors, to cover the costs incurred by using additional materials, machinery, and labor on the construction site.
This study contributes to the environmental management body of knowledge by providing a profound understanding of the challenges to EMP implementation. Scholars can benefit from the study findings by focusing on the latent construct and formulating strategies to overcome these challenges. Project stakeholders, especially contractors, can commit resources to this study construct because the challenges are competing for limited resources; that is, they can avoid any extra costs.
However, there are some limitations worth stating. This study used the SLR approach as a foundation to capture any challenges to EMP implementation mentioned in prior works. Considering socio-technical, institutional, and organizational theories can be a future research direction. In addition, this study did not differentiate between different types of projects, such as commercial and public projects. Future research can focus on a specific type of project to better understand the challenges. A comparative analysis between different types of projects can also provide meaningful findings and common areas that should be improved. Finally, the data were primarily interpreted within the context of Malaysia. The findings are very much tied to the local context, and other main challenges might be faced in different countries, including a lack of clear government policies and poor client demand. Therefore, the results should be applied to other countries with caution and appropriate adjustments. A wider scope of data collection across different countries and regions can provide opportunities to comprehensively contrast the challenges, providing insights on causes and countermeasures. Nevertheless, this study provides a profound understanding of the challenges in EMP implementation for scholars and the construction industry in Malaysia.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, A.S.A., R.A.R. and S.W.A.; methodology, A.S.A., R.A.R. and S.W.A.; validation, R.A.R., S.W.A. and S.A.; formal analysis, A.S.A.; investigation, A.S.A.; resources, A.S.A., R.A.R., S.W.A. and S.A.; data curation, A.S.A.; writing—original draft preparation, A.S.A.; writing—review and editing, M.S.A.-M., R.A.R., S.W.A. and S.A.; visualization, A.S.A.; supervision, R.A.R. and S.W.A.; project administration, R.A.R. and S.W.A.; funding acquisition, R.A.R. and S.W.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This study was funded by Universiti Malaysia Pahang, through the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (grant number: RDU190382). The publication fee was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Qassim University.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to the study involving anonymous data collection.
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to some data being proprietary or confidential in nature. Therefore, the data may only be provided with restrictions (e.g., anonymized data).
Acknowledgments
The researchers would like to thank the Deanship of Scientific Research, Qassim University, for funding the publication of this study. The authors are also grateful to the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments, which helped improve this paper’s quality. Finally, this paper forms part of a larger research project aimed at promoting environmental management plan implementation within a developing country, Malaysia, and therefore the authors acknowledge that this paper shares a similar background and methodology with other related papers published by the authors, but with different scopes and objectives.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
Appendix A. Challenges Identified from the Interviews and Systematic Literature Review
| Code | Challenge | Source | Interview |
| CH01 | Lack of commitment (e.g., owner’s commitment, contractor’s commitment) | [1,12,14,16,17,50] | ✓ |
| CH02 | Lack of understanding of the roles and responsibilities of parties | [1,12,14,16,17,50] | ✓ |
| CH03 | Influencing factors of the cost-reducing process of EMP implementation | [8,12] | ✓ |
| CH04 | Lack of understanding of the processes and workflows required for EMP implementation | [8,12] | ✓ |
| CH05 | Fragmented nature of organizations in the construction industry | [15,51] | ✓ |
| CH06 | Absence of industry standards for EMP | [15] | ✓ |
| CH07 | Individual practitioners neglected to consider their belief systems and impact of policy decisions in implementing EMP | [5,11,12,17,49] | ✓ |
| CH08 | Decision makers not seeking professional advisors | [5,15] | ✓ |
| CH09 | Negative attitude towards EMP implementation | [4,5,6,13,24,50,52] | ✓ |
| CH10 | Lack of awareness of EMP implementation | [1,4,5,17,24,27,51] | ✓ |
| CH11 | Lack of publicity through media about EMP | [4,5,24,52] | ✓ |
| CH12 | Lack of a comprehensive framework and implementation plan for EMP | [3] | ✓ |
| CH13 | Lack of comprehensive rules and regulations | [3] | ✓ |
| CH14 | Insufficient staffing to inspect EMP implementation | [3] | ✓ |
| CH15 | Inefficiency in EMP inspection procedures | [6,19] | - |
| CH16 | Lack of knowledge about EMP | [17,19] | ✓ |
| CH17 | High cost of implementing EMP | [6,11,12,19,52] | ✓ |
| CH18 | Corruption in the process of EMP implementation | [14] | ✓ |
| CH19 | Lack of competitive advantage from EMP implementation | [14] | ✓ |
| CH20 | Shortage of qualified personnel | [14] | ✓ |
| CH21 | Inadequate incentive for EMP implementation | [12,14,16,17,52] | ✓ |
| CH22 | Miscommunication between team members | [14] | ✓ |
| CH23 | Contractors perceived that the EMP work costs are overcharged | [4,5,6,12,28] | ✓ |
| CH24 | Failure to maintain EMP facilities | [24] | ✓ |
| CH25 | Did the EMP just for the report | [16] | ✓ |
| CH26 | Proposed EMP design inappropriate for the site situation | [16] | - |
| CH27 | Incorrect installation of EMP components | [17,49] | - |
| CH28 | Unexpected changes in on-site conditions | [6] | ✓ |
| CH29 | The contractor focused on work progress but not parallel with the EMP progression | [6] | - |
| CH30 | Shortage of resources (e.g., workforce, material, machinery) for EMP implementation | - | ✓ |
Appendix B. The Survey
Challenges for Implementing Environmental Management Plan (EMP) in Malaysia.
Section A: Respondent profile
Please provide the following information.
Your type of organization:
- Owners (e.g., government, developers)
- Consultants
- Contractors
- Others: _____________
Please state your title/position: __________________
Your highest academic qualification:
- High School Certification
- Diploma
- Bachelor’s Degree
- Master’s Degree
- Doctoral Degree
Your years of experience in the construction industry:
- Less than 2 years
- 2–5 years
- 6–9 years
- More than 10 years
Your years of experience related to the implementation of EMP:
- Less than 2 years
- 2–5 years
- 6–9 years
- More than 10 years
Number of projects related to the implementation of EMP:
- Less than 2 projects
- 2–5 projects
- 6–9 projects
- More than 10 projects
Most of your projects are located at:
- Northern Region (Perlis, Kedah, Penang, Perak)
- East Coast Region (Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang)
- Central Region (Selangor, Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya)
- Southern Region (Negeri Sembilan, Melaka, Johor)
- East Malaysia (Sabah, Sarawak, Labuan)
Section B: Challenges for Implementing Environmental Management Plan (EMP) in Malaysia.
Part 1: Please rate the criticality of the following challenges in the implementation of environmental management plan (EMP) in Malaysian construction projects.
| Challenge (In Random Order Using Online Survey Platform) | Criticality | ||||
| Lack of commitment (e.g., owner’s commitment, contractor’s commitment) | Not Critical | Slightly Critical | Moderately Critical | Critical | Very Critical |
| … | Not Critical | Slightly Critical | Moderately Critical | Critical | Very Critical |
| … | Not Critical | Slightly Critical | Moderately Critical | Critical | Very Critical |
| … | Not Critical | Slightly Critical | Moderately Critical | Critical | Very Critical |
| … | Not Critical | Slightly Critical | Moderately Critical | Critical | Very Critical |
| … | Not Critical | Slightly Critical | Moderately Critical | Critical | Very Critical |
| … | Not Critical | Slightly Critical | Moderately Critical | Critical | Very Critical |
| … | Not Critical | Slightly Critical | Moderately Critical | Critical | Very Critical |
| … | Not Critical | Slightly Critical | Moderately Critical | Critical | Very Critical |
| Shortage of resources (e.g., workforce, material, machinery) for EMP implementation | Not Critical | Slightly Critical | Moderately Critical | Critical | Very Critical |
Part 2: Please indicate and rate any additional challenges in the implementation of environmental management plan (EMP) in Malaysian construction projects.
| Additional Challenge | Criticality | ||||
| Not Critical | Slightly Critical | Moderately Critical | Critical | Very Critical | |
| Not Critical | Slightly Critical | Moderately Critical | Critical | Very Critical | |
| Not Critical | Slightly Critical | Moderately Critical | Critical | Very Critical | |
References
- Wang, N.; Ma, M.; Wu, G.; Liu, Y.; Gong, Z.; Chen, X. Conflicts concerning construction projects under the challenge of cleaner production—Case study on government funded projects. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 225, 664–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, L.; Xue, X.; Zhao, Z.; Wang, Z. The impacts of transportation infrastructure on sustainable development: Emerging trends and challenges. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub. Health 2018, 15, 1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Yin, B.C.L.; Laing, R.; Leon, M.; Mabon, L. An evaluation of sustainable construction perceptions and practices in Singapore. Sustain. Cities. Soc. 2018, 39, 613–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Udawatta, N.; Zuo, J.; Chiveralls, K.; Zillante, G. Attitudinal and behavioral approaches to improving waste management on construction projects in Australia. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2015, 15, 137–147. [Google Scholar]
- Maund, K.; Gajendran, T.; Brewer, G. Key issues for implementation of environmental planning policy: Construction management practice. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ofori, G. The environment: The fourth construction project objective? Constr. Manag. Econ. 1992, 10, 360–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Environment Programme. 2021 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Towards a Zero-Emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Qin, J.Y.; Ma, H.H. Ecological environmental pollution caused by construction engineering in China and relevant energy-saving and cost-reducing measures. Nat. Environ. Poll. Technol. 2019, 18, 485–490. [Google Scholar]
- Li, J.; Zhou, Y.; Li, Q.; Yi, S.; Peng, L. Exploring the Effects of Land Use Changes on the Landscape Pattern and Soil Erosion of Western Hubei Province from 2000 to 2020. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub. Health 2022, 19, 1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiu, J.; Wu, H.; Li, S. The Implication of land-use/land-cover change for the declining soil erosion risk in the Three Gorges Reservoir region, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub. Health 2019, 16, 1856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yuan, H. Barriers and countermeasures for managing construction and demolition waste: A case of Shenzhenin China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 157, 84–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tam, W.Y.; Tam, C.M.; Yiu, K.T.W.; Cheung, S.O. Critical factors for environmental performance assessment (EPA) in the Hong Kong construction industry. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2006, 24, 1113–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nasirzadeh, F.; Khanzadi, M.; Mir, M. A hybrid simulation framework for modelling construction projects using agent-based modelling and system dynamics: An application to model construction workers’ safety behavior. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2018, 18, 132–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, K.J. A comparison of inspection practices within the construction industry between the Danish and Swedish Work Environment Authorities. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2017, 35, 154–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, J.; Li, H.; Xia, B.; Skitmore, M. Impact of environment regulation on the efficiency of regional construction industry: A 3-Stage Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 200, 770–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Göçmen, Z.A. Exploring land developer perspectives on conservation subdivision design and environmentally sustainable land development. Environ. Manag. 2014, 54, 1208–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Testa, F.; Iraldo, F.; Frey, M. The effect of environmental regulation on firms’ competitive performance: The case of the building & construction sector in some EU regions. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajibike, W.A.; Adeleke, A.Q.; Mohamad, F.; Bamgbade, J.A.; Mashood, T.D. The impact of social responsibility on the environmental sustainability performance of the Malaysian construction industry. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C. Strategies to promote green building technologies adoption in developing countries: The case of Ghana. Build. Environ. 2018, 130, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferronato, N.; Torretta, V. Waste mismanagement in developing countries: A review of global issues. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub. Health 2019, 16, 1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Badraddin, A.K.; Rahman, R.A.; Almutairi, S.; Esa, M. Main Challenges to Concrete Recycling in Practice. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salim, H.K.; Padfield, R.; Hansen, S.B.; Mohamad, S.E.; Yuzir, A.; Syayuti, K.; Papargyropoulou, E. Global trends in environmental management system and ISO14001 research. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170, 645–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Falqi, I.; Alsulamy, S.; Mansour, M. Environmental performance evaluation and analysis using ISO 14031 guidelines in construction sector industries. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Park, W.J.; Kim, R.; Roh, S.; Ban, H. Identifying the major construction wastes in the building construction phase based on life cycle assessments. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, J.S.; Loosemore, M. Behavioural factors influencing corrupt action in the Australian construction industry. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2015, 22, 372–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shiers, D.; Rapson, D.; Roberts, C.; Keeping, M. Sustainable construction: The development and evaluation of an environmental profiling system for construction products. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2006, 24, 1177–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esa, M.R.; Halog, A.; Rigamonti, L. Strategies for minimizing construction and demolition wastes in Malaysia. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 120, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Begum, R.A.; Siwar, C.; Pereira, J.J.; Jaafar, A.H. Factors and values of willingness to pay for improved construction waste management—A perspective of Malaysian contractors. Waste. Manag. 2007, 27, 1902–1909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radzi, A.R.; Rahman, R.A.; Doh, S.I.; Esa, M. Construction Readiness for Highway Projects: Key Decision Criteria. J. Constr Engin Manag. 2022, 148, 04021196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rowley, J. Designing and using research questionnaires. Manag. Res. Rev. 2014, 37, 308–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pallant, J. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step to Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows; Open University Press: Berkshire, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Tober, M. PubMed, ScienceDirect, scopus or Google scholar: Which is the best search engine for an effective literature research in laser medicine? Med. Laser. App. 2011, 26, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radzi, A.R.; Rahman, R.A.; Doh, S.I. Decision making in highway construction: A systematic review and future directions. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, S.S.; Rahman, R.A.; Fauzi, M.A.; Haron, A.T. Critical analysis of pandemic impact on AEC organizations: The COVID-19 case. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2021, 20, 358–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farouk, A.M.; Rahman, R.A.; Romali, N.S. Economic analysis of rehabilitation approaches for water distribution networks: Comparative study between Egypt and Malaysia. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilkins, J.R. Construction workers’ perceptions of health and safety training programmes. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2011, 29, 1017–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ott, R.; Longnecker, M. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis; Cengage Learning: Belmont, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Mohammad, M.S.; Haron, A.T.; Esa, M.; Aloko, M.N.; Alhammadi, Y.; Anandh, K.S.; Rahman, R.A. Factors affecting BIM implementation: Evidence from countries with different income levels. Constr. Innov. 2022. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, J.R.A. Cronbach’s alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. J. Ext. 1999, 37, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Nunnally, J. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGrow-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Mohammad, M.S.; Haron, A.T.; Aloko, M.N.; Rahman, R.A. Factors affecting BIM implementation in post-conflict low-income economies: The case of Afghanistan. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 4th ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Hinton, P.R.; Brownlow, C.; McMurray, I.; Cozens, B. SPSS Explained; Routledge: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective; Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA; London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Malhotra, N.K. Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 5th ed.; Pearson/Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Tam, V.W.; Shen, L.Y.; Fung, I.W.; Wang, J.Y. Controlling construction waste by implementing governmental ordinances in Hong Kong. Constr. Innov. 2007, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ofori, G.; Briffett, C.; Gang, G.; Ranasinghe, M. Impact of ISO 14000 on construction enterprises in Singapore. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2000, 18, 935–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, W.; Yuan, H. Exploring critical success factors for waste management in construction projects of China. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2010, 55, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Koehn, E.E.; Datta, N.K. Quality, environmental, and health and safety management systems for construction engineering. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2003, 129, 562–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Din, S.; Abd-Hamid, Z.; Bryde, D.J. ISO 9000 certification and construction project performance: The Malaysian experience. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2011, 29, 1044–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kein, A.T.T.; Ofori, G.; Briffett, C. ISO 14000: Its relevance to the construction industry of Singapore and its potential as the next industry milestone. Constr. Manag. Econ. 1999, 17, 449–461. [Google Scholar]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).