Next Article in Journal
What Determines Carbon Emissions of Multimodal Travel? Insights from Interpretable Machine Learning on Mobility Trajectory Data
Previous Article in Journal
Optimal Governance for Post-Concession Logistics Infrastructure: A Comparative Study of Self-Operation vs. Delegation Under Information Asymmetry
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 15
10.3390/su17156984
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Net and Configurational Effects of Determinants on Managers’ Construction and Demolition Waste Sorting Intention in China Using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling and the Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis

by
Guanfeng Yan
1,2,3,*,
Yuhang Tian
1 and
Tianhai Zhang
4
1
School of Engineering, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu 610101, China
2
School of Civil Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, China
3
Key Laboratory of Transportation Tunnel Engineering, Ministry of Education, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, China
4
Department of Arts, Science, and Technology, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu 610031, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(15), 6984; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156984
Submission received: 17 June 2025 / Revised: 24 July 2025 / Accepted: 30 July 2025 / Published: 31 July 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Construction and demolition waste (C&D waste) contains various types of substances, which require different processing methods to maximize benefits and minimize harm to realize the goal of the circular economy. Therefore, it is urgent to promote the on-site sorting of C&D waste and explore the determinants of managers’ waste sorting intention. Based on a comprehensive literature review of C&D waste management, seven determinants are identified to explore how antecedent factors influence waste sorting intention by symmetric and asymmetric techniques. Firstly, the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was adopted to analyze the data collected from 489 managers to assess the net impact of each determinant on their intentions. Then, the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) provided another perspective by determining the configurations of the causal conditions that lead to higher or lower levels of intention. The PLS-SEM results reveal that all determinants show a significant positive relationship with the intention except for the perceived risks, which are negatively correlated with managers’ attitudes and intentions regarding C&D waste sorting. Moreover, top management support and subjective norms from other project participants and the public exhibit a huge impact, while the influence of perceived behavioral control (PBC) and policies is moderate. Meanwhile, fsQCA provides a complementary analysis of the complex causality that PLS-SEM fails to capture. That is, fsQCA identified six and five configurations resulting in high and low levels of intention to sort the C&D waste, respectively, and highlighted the crucial role of core conditions. The results provide theoretical and practical insights regarding proper C&D waste management and enhancing sustainable development.

1. Introduction

A large amount of construction and demolition waste (C&D waste) has been generated worldwide, especially in China, where the construction industry is a pillar of the national economy [1]. C&D waste represents all kinds of waste generated during the process of construction, demolition, and deconstruction of buildings and other types of structures [2]. According to official statistics, the annual production of C&D waste in China exceeds 2 billion tons [3], and only 5–10% of the waste generated has been recycled [4]. Generally, C&D waste includes a wide variety of substances, including concrete, bricks, asphalt, wood, glass, metals, plastic, and so on, and the physical and chemical properties of each substance are different [5]. Some of the surplus materials could be reused directly or recycled in other construction projects, like concrete and bricks, which can be crushed into aggregates for use as foundations, road bases, and in concrete production, and metals, which can be remanufactured into new products like steel bars. If these materials with potential value end up in landfills, they not only cause waste of natural resources but also occupy a large amount of land. Meanwhile, some kinds of waste may lead to adverse effects on the ecological environment and public health [6]. For example, if waste containing asbestos is not sorted and handled properly, asbestos fibers will be released into the air and result in serious respiratory diseases like asbestosis and lung cancer [7].
The fundamental way to deal with the problems induced by C&D waste is to reduce the generation of waste at the source by means of proper design, innovative construction technology, and effective management [8,9]. For instance, the Indian government implemented a waste management hierarchy with the top priority for reducing waste [10]. However, it is impossible to completely prevent the generation of waste, and thus waste sorting and suitable treatment of C&D waste are the key methods for maximizing benefits and minimizing harm in terms of environmental protection, public health, resource utilization, and other aspects. Yuan and Shen argued that human factors were the urgent issue in the field of construction waste management [11], and numerous scholars have explored the drivers of effective waste management intentions. For valuable materials, scholars try to identify the facilitators of their reuse or recycling. A series of reliable and convenient methods for the selection and transformation of recyclable materials could be beneficial in promoting the recycled products in the current market [12,13]. Ma et al. pointed out that appropriate policies like incentives for recycled materials and waste recovery and sound standards and an amateur market for the secondary materials are success factors for a closed-loop circular economy in terms of C&D waste management [14]. Mak et al. explored the triggering factors of the attitude and behavior of various stakeholders to recycle the C&D waste and revealed that regulatory compliance, economic incentives, accreditation schemes, and logistics and management incentives were the key factors that promoted the recycling behaviors of representatives from construction-waste-related organizations, environmental consultants and contractors, and government engineers [15]. On the other hand, studies have also devoted attention to properly handling or minimizing harmful waste and reducing unnecessary waste. Proper design methods, information-based technology such as building information modeling, and prefabrication technology, which are considered as potential waste-reduction construction practices, can help minimize waste during construction stages [16,17,18]. Li et al. found that contractor employees’ attitude, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms were positively related to their intention to reduce the construction waste, and their knowledge is also a powerful predictor of their waste-related behavior [19]. Although scholars have explored the facilitators or barriers of effective management measures, only a few studies have focused on C&D waste sorting behaviors. For example, Liu et al. adopted a structural equation model to analyze the data from questionnaires and found that attitude, subjective norms, group norms, and group efficacy of construction professionals were the drivers of waste sorting behavior [1]. However, classification is a prerequisite for effective management of various types of C&D waste, such as the harmless treatment of hazardous waste or the recycling of waste with potential utilization value, and the C&D waste sorting is not a common practice in China, which could hinder the process of promoting effective C&D waste management and be a barrier to the circular economy. As the implementers of C&D waste management, construction managers’ intentions to sort waste are critical for promoting subsequent measures.
In the field of waste management behaviors, most studies adopted conventional symmetric-based approaches, including multiple regression models and structural equation modeling (SEM), to analyze the relationships between various determinants and targeted behaviors. These methods focus on the validation of the proposed hypotheses and the net effect of the individual predictors, ignoring the configurational effects. However, the outcome usually results from a combination of these predictors rather than individual ones in the real-life context. Moreover, the conventional methods have been criticized for the existence of symmetric assumptions because it is more likely to witness asymmetric relationships between antecedents and outcomes in the field of behavioral science, meaning the configurations leading to the targeted outcome differ from those leading to its negation [20]. Consequently, several researchers employed qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to address these shortcomings by exploring the configurational effects of determinants from the perspective of causal complexity theory [21]. It should be noted that a combination of quantitative methods is a new trend to identify the predictive capacity of determinants through conventional symmetric-based approaches and multiple determinant configurations that lead to outcome variables through QCA [22,23].
To achieve the goal of sustainable development, selecting appropriate disposal methods for C&D waste of various properties is important to enhance the economic benefits and alleviate environmental pollution, and thus waste sorting, a key proactive step, underpins proper subsequent waste-handling measures. However, the popularity rate of C&D waste sorting is still low at present, and less attention from scholars has been paid to this facet of C&D waste management. To address the aforementioned problem, this study regards the construction managers who directly handle the waste at sites as the targeted group and proposes a model by integrating the theory of planned behavior and other variables to identify the determinants of waste sorting behaviors. Structural equation modeling is adopted to investigate the net effect of each factor on managers’ intentions and reveal the influencing mechanism. Moreover, how the factors interact with each other remains unknown, and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is also employed to analyze the configurations leading to higher or lower levels of intentions. The results of this study are supposed to contribute to existing literature by offering innovative insight and providing a reference for formulating corresponding management strategies to promote C&D waste sorting.
The structure of this paper is as follows: (1) Section 2 presents a brief literature review and explains the main components or hypotheses of this research; (2) then, a general overview of the research framework follows with a detailed description of the methods in Section 3; (3) this section lists the results regarding the sample, SEM analysis, and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA); (4) a discussion contextualizes the research findings in the field of effective C&D waste management; and (5) the last section concludes the whole paper by presenting the main findings and outlining the future research lines in this vital area.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses

A brief review of research related to effective C&D waste management was conducted to provide the theoretical basis for the proposed model in this study. On one hand, three TPB factors are hypothesized to influence the managers’ intention to sort the waste; on the other hand, five hypotheses are developed for the other four potential constructs, which are perceived risks, moral norms, policies, and top management support, derived from previous studies in the field of construction waste management.

2.1. TPB Theory and Construction and Demolition Waste Sorting Intention

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) proposed by Ajzen expounded on the causal relationship among five constructs (attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, behavioral intention, and behavior) [24] and has been applied to explain pro-environmental behaviors. Attitude is the basis for evaluating an individual’s behavior and beliefs [25] and reflects people’s opinions on the possible results of one specific behavior [26]. Several scholars examined the relationship between stakeholders’ attitudes and their behaviors regarding C&D waste treatment [27,28], and stakeholders’ positive attitudes were positively associated with the implementation of waste reduction measures. Li and Yan also validated that attitude was an important determinant of effective C&D waste management intention and behaviors [29], and the generation of construction waste and its negative consequences could be prevented by changing people’s attitudes [30]. Consequently, a positive attitude toward C&D waste sorting is supposed to promote the willingness to participate in waste separation. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1a. 
Attitude is positively correlated with the intention to sort C&D waste.
Perceived behavioral control (PBC) is an important factor influencing people’s intention or behavior and is manifested in an individual’s perception of the difficulty of implementing a specific behavior [31]. The waste classification does not belong to the regular construction or demolition process but requires extra workers to accomplish [32,33]. Setting up related facilities and waste storage before and after the sorting demands spatial resources, and sorting the waste may also be time-consuming [34]. Apart from the labor, space, and time, waste sorting technology is also required to optimize the procedure and improve the working efficiency [35,36]. An effective system for waste sorting, which balances the cost and the economic and environmental benefits of C&D waste separation and collection, can reduce execution difficulties and thus encourage construction managers to participate in waste separation [37]. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1b. 
PBC has a significant positive impact on the intention to sort C&D waste.
Individuals’ opinions or behaviors are influenced by others’ opinions, as reflected by the social pressure from others, especially for stakeholders. The whole process of C&D waste management is an extremely complex endeavor that involves multiple stakeholders, especially for the clients or development companies that have the authority to set the environmental standards the construction team must comply with. How construction managers, as the executors of waste management, intend to deal with waste is influenced by the value orientation of stakeholders and the social public opinion atmosphere. For example, Knoeri et al. found that decisions regarding the use of recycled construction materials depended on construction stakeholders and their interaction, including recommendations and specifications [38]. Dainty and Brooke also argued that pressure from industry stakeholders prompted managers to employ appropriate measures to deal with the C&D waste [39]. Meanwhile, the construction process or activities related to C&D waste management may lead to a negative impact on the residents nearby, like noise, fugitive dust, water pollution, vibration disturbance, traffic congestion, and so on. The residents may express their dissatisfaction through the media or to the government to restrain the construction activities, and thus managers’ behaviors depend on the public opinion to a certain extent. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1c. 
Subjective norms have a significant positive impact on the intention to sort C&D waste.
Three TPB factors are generally considered as a whole embedded in the proposed model to test the magnitude and statistical significance of their impact on the outcome variable, and thus the hypotheses are marked as H1a, H1b, and H1c in this study.

2.2. Other Potential Variables

Controlling project construction costs and ensuring timely delivery are important responsibilities of construction managers. However, on-site classification of C&D waste requires labor, space, and construction machinery, which may cause adverse effects on other regular construction activities [40]. That is, the long-term occupation of construction personnel, machinery, and space causes delays in construction schedules and increases in construction costs. Further, safety is another critical problem that needs to be coped with in terms of C&D waste sorting [41]; sharp metal fragments, unstable structures, heavy physical activities like transporting large concrete blocks, and exposure to harmful substances like lead, asbestos, and pesticide residues from complex construction site environments can pose significant risks to workers’ health. Managers may perceive these negative impacts of C&D waste sorting as potential risks, and the perceived risks may alter their attitude toward waste sorting and then prohibit them from adopting these effective measures. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H2. 
The perceived risks are negatively correlated with attitude.
H3. 
The perceived risks are negatively correlated with the intention to sort C&D waste.
Moral norms are defined as internalized morality, on which individuals distinguish between good and bad behavior [42]. Moral norms are characterized by ethical considerations that focus on the well-being of others and society and are relatively stable, while subjective norms arise from an individual’s social environment and refer to an individual’s perception of the social pressure regarding conducting a behavior. Scholars attempted to incorporate moral norms into the TPB framework and argued that moral norms were a key determinant of altruistic behaviors, especially for pro-environmental behaviors [43,44]. For example, Botetzagias et al. proved that recycling intention was significantly impacted by moral norms [45]. C&D waste sorting is critical for effective waste management and can be regarded as a form of prosocial behavior, as its positive consequences are shared by the whole society. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
H4. 
Moral norms have a positive effect on the intention to sort C&D waste.
The government can formulate relevant laws and policies to promote effective C&D waste management, like waste classification and recycling. For example, the implementation of a program that is supported by the government of Hong Kong facilitated the process of waste sorting owing to good policy execution [37]. A mature waste management system through reliance on the waste hierarchy theory and a legal system for C&D waste treatment recycled 87% of waste in Germany and made Germany one of the most successful countries in C&D waste management [46]. Mahpour and Mortaheb also emphasized the significant role of financial-based incentives in promoting waste sorting and waste reduction [47]. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H5. 
Policies have a significant impact on the intention to sort C&D waste.
Top management support indicates that priority is given to effective C&D waste management within a construction enterprise. If the top management reaches a consensus on waste disposal and recognizes the advantages of effective measures like on-site waste sorting, the construction team will receive support in a variety of aspects, like related technical facilities or smooth cooperation with other departments within the organization [48,49]. Moreover, top management emphasizes effective waste management and cultivates a positive organizational culture, which promotes the managers’ intention to participate in effective waste management and advances waste-related work like waste sorting effectively [50]. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
H6. 
Top management support has a significant effect on the intention to sort C&D waste.
The hypotheses above reflect the potential causal relationships between determinants and C&D waste sorting intention, and the research model proposed in this study examines the net effect of each determinant on the dependent variable, as shown in Figure 1.

3. Methods

3.1. Research Framework

The survey methodology is adopted by this research to address the imperative need to understand the influencing mechanisms underlying C&D waste sorting behaviors. The theoretical model proposed in this study is based on the TPB theory and integrates four other variables, which were proven effective in predicting waste management behaviors in relevant studies. Empirical data were collected through distributing a quantitative questionnaire to construction managers, the executors of C&D waste management, and 489 valid responses were retained for subsequent data analysis comprising two stages.
The data analysis process consists of two stages. During the first stage, the research aim is to identify the significant drivers of C&D waste sorting intention by testing causal relationships between independent and dependent variables in the proposed model. PLS-SEM has advantages in handling small sample sizes and non-normal data, and it is suitable for the analysis of complex theoretical models with many constructs and indicators, including formative constructs, compared to other similar approaches [51]. Consequently, the PLS-SEM approach is widely adopted in the field of waste management [52,53] and employed to validate the hypotheses and identify the net effect of each variable in driving the waste sorting intention using SmartPLS 3.2.9 software. The analysis of PLS-SEM proceeds in two sequential steps: (1) the assessment of the measurement model; (2) the evaluation of the structural model. The first step consists of two parts: construct and internal consistency reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity [51]. The assessment procedure of the structural model comprises the coefficient of determination (R2) and the significance of the path coefficients using the PLS bootstrapping estimation procedure with 5000 iterations of resampling.
PLS-SEM assesses the statistical significance and predictive power of each independent variable on the dependent variable, while the outcome usually results from combinations of antecedents rather than one individual determinant. The fsQCA method, which is different from variable-oriented approaches and features a case-oriented approach based on set theory, analyses how different conditions combine into causal configurations that lead to a particular outcome of interest [54,55,56]. Consequently, the fsQCA method could serve as a complementary analysis approach to explain how determinants interact to produce the outcome, especially in complex situations like technology adoption [57] and municipal waste management [21]. Previous studies combining regression techniques, like PLS-SEM, and fsQCA, highlight the versatility of a multi-method research approach from the perspective of dissecting the complex nature of human behaviors. Regression techniques reveal the net effect of each variable on the outcome, while fsQCA deepens the scope of the research by highlighting the configurational effect of determinants. Thus, the fsQCA is adopted for the second stage of data analysis, utilizing the analysis tool (fsQCA 3.0) to provide innovative insights into the configurational effects of determinants on the C&D waste sorting intention. Figure 2 illustrates the research framework of this study to understand the complex nature of the constructs’ interdependence concerning the outcome of interest and its negation. The analysis procedure of fsQCA consists of data calibration, necessary conditions analysis, and analysis of condition configurations [58]. Figure 3 shows the research flow of this study and details of the establishment of the theoretical model, including data collection, PLS-SEM analysis, and fsQCA.

3.2. Data Collection

Construction managers, who are the implementers of C&D waste management and play an important role in promoting waste sorting on sites, have been selected as the targeted group in this study. Questionnaire Star, a professional online questionnaire survey platform, was employed to access the respondents, and a total of 597 responses were received between January and April 2024. To ensure the validity and reliability of the data collected, the following screening criteria were used in this study: (1) if there were apparent regularities (continuous identical options) in the returned questionnaire, it was considered invalid; (2) if the completion time was unusually short, it was also excluded; and (3) the respondents must be construction managers with decision-making authority in construction waste management. The research protocol in this study was approved by the Ethics Committees of Sichuan Normal University. Finally, 489 valid responses were retained for data analysis.
The 10-times rule has been widely used to estimate the minimum sample size in PLS-SEM analyses [59]. The rule specifies that the minimum sample size should be at least ten times either (1) the number of formative indicators in the largest formative construct or (2) the maximum number of direct structural paths pointing to any single endogenous latent variable, and the larger one is adopted as the lower bound of the sample size. However, recent simulation studies pointed out that there are possibilities for this rule to underestimate the required sample size, and at least 20–30 times the number of predictors is recommended [60]. The sample size in this study satisfies these requirements.

3.3. Measurement Instrument

The questionnaire includes two parts: (1) demographic information of the respondents and (2) the measuring items for the seven determinants and managers’ intention to sort the C&D waste. For the second part, measurement instruments are modified from previous studies [19,50,52,53], and the reliability and validity of the questionnaire have been proven. Before the formal data collection, a pre-test among 45 samples was conducted to avoid errors or ambiguities of the measuring items in the context of this study. In addition, eight experts in the field of C&D management were also invited to check the questionnaire to ensure its accuracy and feasibility. As shown in Table A1, 24 measuring items are included in the final version, and all the questions are rated on a five-point Likert scale, which ranges from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.

4. Results

4.1. The Details of the Sample

Table 1 lists the demographic characteristics of the 489 valid respondents who are construction managers. In this study, 233 managers (47.65%) were from private enterprises, 135 respondents (27.60%) worked for state-owned enterprises, 117 (23.93%) were from foreign-invested or joint ventures, and the rest (0.82%) belonged to other types of enterprises. Over 90% of the managers possess five years of working experience, and more than half of the respondents hold a bachelor’s degree or above. Other details regarding the respondents can be found in Table 1.

4.2. PLS-SEM Results

4.2.1. Measurement Model

For the construct reliability, the minimum threshold for the constructs’ loading is 0.70 [61,62]. Table 2 lists the results of the factor loadings for all constructs, and most of them are over 0.70 with a few exceptions. Hair et al. argued that the deletion of the measuring items is unnecessary because the deletion could lead to the reduction of other indexes, like composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE), and undermine the validity performance if the loading is close to the threshold [62,63]. Therefore, the latent variables have sufficient capacity to explain the corresponding measuring items, and thus the construct reliability is acceptable in this study. Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) are usually adopted to evaluate the internal consistency reliability [63]. In Table 2, it can be seen that all the criteria are greater than 0.70, which reflects good internal consistency reliability for the constructs.
Convergent validity represents the extent to which a construct converges to explain the variance of the corresponding indicators and is assessed utilizing average variance extracted (AVE) [64]. The results of all AVE values for the constructs are listed in Table 2 and are greater than the minimum threshold (0.50), which indicates acceptable convergent validity [60]. On the other hand, discriminant validity should also be tested to ensure that a construct is empirically distinct from other constructs. Generally, two methods are adopted, including the Fornell–Larcker criterion [64] and the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations [65]. In terms of the Fornell–Larcker criterion, the square root of AVE is required to be greater than the correlations between constructs. The HTMT criterion recommends that the HTMT ratio should be lower than the threshold of 0.90. As seen in Table 3 and Table 4, it can be indicated that all the criteria are acceptable regarding discriminant validity.

4.2.2. Structural Model

Figure 4 shows the final results of the structural model assessment. The multicollinearity should be tested using the variance inflation factor (VIF) prior to the formal assessment [62]. The results showed that the multicollinearity problem did not exist in this study, with all VIF values ranging from 1.413 to 1.987, which are lower than the tolerance VIF value (3) [62].
The determination coefficient (R2) is adopted in the PLS-SEM method to assess the explained variance of the endogenous constructs. In this study, the R2 value for the intention is 0.524, indicating acceptable explanatory power of the proposed model [62]. Table 5 presents the hypothesis testing results, from which it can be seen that all hypotheses are statistically supported. The results show that SN (β = 0.173, p < 0.001) and TMS (β = 0.179, p < 0.001) both have a significant positive impact on intention, which is greater than other variables. Then, PBC (β = 0.136, p < 0.05) and policies (β = 0.123, p < 0.01) also significantly influence the managers’ intention to sort the C&D waste. The effects of attitude (β = 0.102, p < 0.01) and moral norms (β = 0.117, p < 0.05) on the intention are the weakest but still significant. It should be noted that perceived risks have a significantly negative impact on both managers’ attitude (β = −0.232, p < 0.001) and intention (β = −0.126, p < 0.01).

4.3. Qualitative Comparative Analysis

The data set used in the PLS-SEM analysis was also adopted for the qualitative comparative analysis.

4.3.1. Calibration

Before the formal analysis of fsQCA, the continuous variables should be calibrated into fuzzy sets ranging from 0 to 1 for subsequent data analysis [58,66], and this study employed the direct method. The measuring items were summed for each construct prior to the data calibration, and then the variables were calibrated on the basis of three recommended breakpoints of 5%, 50%, and 95% of the summated items utilizing fsQCA 3.0 [67]. In addition, a column with a membership score of 0.5 was increased by 0.001 to avoid case deletion when the qualitative comparative analysis was conducted.

4.3.2. Analysis of Necessary Conditions

Analysis of necessary conditions, which examines whether a condition can be considered necessary to produce the outcome, should be carried out prior to the sufficient conditions analysis. Based on the previous research [67], both the consistency and coverage levels of a necessary condition should be higher than the recommended threshold of 0.90. Table 6 lists the results of the necessary conditions, and it can be seen that no single condition was necessary for higher or lower levels of intention to sort out the C&D waste. Consequently, further analysis of the conditional configuration combinations should be conducted.

4.3.3. Analysis of Sufficient Conditions for Higher or Lower Levels of Intention to Sort C&D Waste

In this step, the frequency and consistency cutoffs are set to 2 and 0.80, respectively, to avoid the distractions of configurations with weak capacity to explain the outcome [68,69]. The results of sufficient configurations for the higher and lower levels of intention are shown in Table 7 and Table 8.
In Table 7, there are six sufficient configurations of conditions that lead to a higher level of intention. The overall consistency is 0.819, which is higher than the minimum threshold, 0.75, which is recommended by the previous study [67]. The consistency of all solutions is greater than 0.80, indicating a strong capacity to predict the outcome. The overall coverage, which is similar to R2 in the regression-based method, represents the predictive capacity of all solutions, and it can be seen that six configurations in this study account for 64.3% of the respondents with higher levels of intention and capture the majority of the results [67]. The solutions are classified based on the core conditions and can be summarized into five configurations. The first one includes two sub-configurations and considers subjective norms and top management support as core elements. The second configuration indicates that it is more likely for managers with high levels of attitude, PBC, and moral norms to sort C&D waste. The third solution shows that the presence of attitude, PBC, subjective norms, and policies leads to higher levels of intention, while the fourth configuration illustrates the combined influence of PBC, subjective norms, moral norms, and policies in forming a strong pathway toward higher levels of intention. The fifth solution does not include core conditions but shows that the presence of PBC, moral norms, policies, and top management support and the absence of perceived risks and subjective norms lead to a higher level of intention.
The results regarding the configurations leading to low levels of intention are shown in Table 8. The overall solution coverage (0.578) and consistency (0.809) indices satisfy the minimum requirement [67], which indicates that the solutions feature a strong relationship with the outcome and capture the majority of the targeted cases (57.8%). Meanwhile, the consistency of all solutions is greater than 0.80 and meets the requirements. The sufficient configurations are classified into five antecedent configurations according to the core conditions. Solution 1 indicates that low levels of attitude and PBC, together with the presence of perceived risks, result in a low level of intention to sort waste. The second solution shows that the degree of intention is low due to the absence of PBC, subjective norms, and top management support. The third configuration reveals that high perceived risks combined with low levels of PBC, subjective norms, and policies explain the managers’ low levels of intention regarding C&D waste sorting. The fourth configuration highlights the important role of PBC, policies, and top management support in explaining the low intention. The last solution does not include the core element while implying that a series of peripheral conditions could also lead to the negation of intention. The results show the presence of causal asymmetry, with the combinations of different core conditions associated with the low levels of intention instead of the negation of the core conditions leading to higher levels of intention.

5. Discussions

In this study, both PLS-SEM and fsQCA are employed to explore the net and configurational effects of individual antecedents on the C&D waste sorting intention. First, from the perspective of TPB theory, the PLS-SEM results show that all three constructs have significant positive effects on managers’ intention to sort C&D waste, with subjective norms exerting the highest influence and PBC exerting a moderate impact based on the path coefficient values. This reveals that the opinions of other stakeholders, including development and design companies, government, and the public, play an important role in promoting effective C&D waste management, indicating the necessity and urgency of consensus in the field of the construction industry. Especially for state-owned companies, the social image of these enterprises is vital because they shoulder social responsibilities, such as achieving sustainable development goals. Meanwhile, there are most configurations with subjective norms being core conditions for the higher level of intentions, which also proves the dominant role of common sense among all stakeholders regarding the promotion of waste sorting. Unsurprisingly, the impact of PBC on waste sorting intention is significant in the PLS-SEM results, which is in line with related C&D waste management studies [70]. On-site waste sorting complicates the regular construction activities by recruiting extra workers and machinery in particular areas. Yuan pointed out that site space is a powerful environmental factor for waste management activities, and the construction process would be disrupted by persistent temporary stacking of facilities and waste without a proper plan [71]. Therefore, workers’ professional skills and working efficiency are important, while managers’ experience in coping with the relevant difficulties is also helpful. Furthermore, advanced equipment and effective technical measures also enrich the resources possessed by the executives. The absence of PBC serves as a core condition for most configurations regarding low levels of intention, although the number of configurations where PBC is a core condition for high levels is smaller. This contradiction highlights that the difficulties perceived by the managers in waste classification could be a huge barrier, and relevant measures like proper arrangements of labor, machinery, and site space; improvement in workers’ related skills and managers’ experience; and adoption of cutting-edge techniques and efficient facilities should be implemented to clear the obstacles for them. The influence of managers’ attitude is the weakest but still significant. A previous study also confirmed the weak ability of individuals’ attitudes to predict effective waste management behaviors compared with other variables [72]. This phenomenon may result from the weak awareness of C&D waste management among construction managers and the low popularization rate of waste sorting. In addition, managers must take organizational-level factors, including economic feasibility and potential risks induced by waste sorting, into consideration, which may be another reason why the influence of attitude is smaller. The number of configurations where attitude serves as the core condition for a higher level of intention is the smallest among the three TPB constructs, thus validating the SEM results within the framework of set theory.
Contrary to the TPB constructs, perceived risks have negative effects on managers’ intention in the PLS-SEM analysis, and the results also observe the negative correlation between the risks and managers’ attitude towards waste classification. The demand for extra resources and safety problems owing to the site classification of C&D waste increases the risks in terms of construction costs. Furthermore, production pressure brought by the construction schedule results in an overload of work for the entire construction team [28], and additional work and risks arising from waste management activities, such as waste sorting, inevitably deteriorate managers’ attitudes and prevent them from implementing relevant measures. In the fsQCA results, the presence of perceived risk is the core condition for two configurations regarding a low level of intention, with the absence of other conditions like attitude, PBC, subjective norms, and policies. Therefore, appropriate plans and proper site management to prevent a variety of accidents induced by waste sorting are necessary to clear the barriers for managers. Li et al. revealed that policies issued by the government have a positive influence on sustainable C&D waste management in China [73], and this study validated this conclusion. When financial rewards were provided for the stakeholders in a project where effective waste management measures were implemented, they would consciously adopt these measures in the next project [37,74]. Conversely, managers would abandon improper waste disposal methods if they were heavily punished financially. Implementation intensity of policies also matters [37], and executors would not follow the regulations if the government does not enforce the regulations strictly. The fsQCA results show that both the presence and absence of policies could be core elements for configurations leading to higher levels of intention. This contradiction may result from the lack of related regulations in China, especially in terms of C&D waste management, including waste sorting. The urgency of developing relevant laws and regulations on construction waste management is highlighted, and the implementation of these policies is supposed to be under strict supervision instead of being left on paper. It is also required to establish specifics and standards regarding the waste sorting process, which can provide a reference for managers to comply with. Moral norms are frequently considered a powerful predictor of altruistic or pro-social behaviors [53,75], and this study successfully observed the significant effect of moral norms on the intention to sort the C&D waste. A previous study found that the impact of personal norms on contractors’ recycling intention was the greatest among all factors, including three TPB constructs [72]. Interestingly, the influence of moral norms in this study is relatively smaller, especially compared with top management support, and this discrepancy may result from the type of targeted behavior. Recycling waste in the previous study is intuitively linked to environmental protection and the circular economy, which is easily reminiscent of the well-being of the whole society and evokes individuals’ altruistic consideration. However, C&D waste sorting is prior to effective waste processing methods like recycling, reusing, and so on. It is not easy for managers to be aware of the economic and environmental benefits of waste sorting, and they may neglect its altruistic attribute to a certain extent, which weakens the motivational influence of moral norms. The fsQCA also provides similar results, showing that the presence of moral norms is a core condition in two configurations leading to higher levels of intention, while the absence does not serve as a core element in any solutions for the negation of the intention. Thus, publicity and training regarding the positive significance of waste sorting should be strengthened to intensify the impact of moral norms. In this study, top management support has been identified as the most influential factor in terms of C&D waste classification, with the highest net effect on the intention in the PLS-SEM results. Once priority is given to waste sorting by the top management, leadership will be enhanced for the construction team, which provides direction and details regarding waste management and integrates waste classification into the daily construction process. The top management may also participate in on-site waste management, set goals, provide technical training, and supervise the process, which encourages managers to take it seriously [15,28]. Furthermore, the fsQCA findings indicate that the presence of top management support is the core condition in two solutions that lead to a higher level of intention, while the absence also serves as a core element in two configurations for the negation, reinforcing the PLS-SEM results and the indispensable role of top management support.
Overall, the PLS-SEM results show that all factors have significant net effects on managers’ waste sorting intention, with subjective norms and top management support exerting the greatest influence, highlighting that effective waste management promotion requires the participation and deep cooperation of all the stakeholders in the industry. At the same time, the results of fsQCA confirm these findings from the perspective of causal complexity theory. For example, the number of configurations where the presence of subjective norms serves as a core condition is the largest. Moreover, the fsQCA supplements the PLS-SEM results by capturing the asymmetric nature of relationships between determinants and outcome. For instance, the roles of the presence and absence of the PBC are not consistent for the configurations regarding waste sorting intention and its negation, with the absence serving as the core condition, and thus the hindering effect of PBC should be paid more attention.

5.1. Theoretical Contributions and Implications

This research provides some theoretical contributions in two aspects. First, limited research focuses on C&D waste sorting, despite the fact that many scholars explore factors driving effective waste management behaviors like recycling or reusing, and the critical role of waste classification, which is a prerequisite for effective waste management, highlights the urgency and necessity of this study. The proposed model, integrating classic TPB variables and other factors at individual and company levels, identifies significant drivers and barriers for on-site waste sorting and provides a theoretical basis for policymakers and enterprise managers to implement specific measures from a comprehensive perspective.
Second, this study employs a combination of PLS-SEM and fsQCA with a methodological perspective, and the results provide several innovative aspects in the context of C&D effective waste management. Most studies related to waste management adopted conventional symmetric methods like the multiple regression model, SEM, and PLS-SEM techniques to explore the impact of factors on stakeholders’ intention to handle the construction waste effectively, and they fail to simultaneously adopt both symmetric and asymmetric approaches. Specifically, the PLS-SEM method is suitable for determining the net effect of each isolated antecedent on waste sorting intention. From a holistic perspective, the fsQCA emphasizes understanding the combination and configuration of conditions that lead to specific outcomes, offering insights into the complex, nonlinear, and asymmetric influences of causal conditions on the outcome (waste sorting intention and its negation).

5.2. Implications for Practice

Considering the findings in this study, the proposed practical implications extend to three key stakeholders, including the government, the public, and the top management of the construction enterprises, to comprehensively address effective C&D waste management, especially for waste classification. For the government, it is urgent to issue related regulations and standards to promote waste sorting, especially for the operation protocols to provide guidelines and avoid the potential risks. Strict implementation of these policies is also a necessity, and incentives and penalties could effectively regulate the managers’ behavior in terms of construction waste disposal. Moreover, training about the environmental and economic benefits of waste sorting should be provided for the participants [40], which would enhance their awareness, positively influence their attitude, and activate their internalized morality. The public should pay more attention to construction waste disposal and supervise the whole process. When finding the problems related to C&D waste, the residents are supposed to report them to the government and the media, which promotes the timely solution of the problems. Top management should prioritize waste sorting and provide technical training, which will encourage construction managers to implement related measures and reduce the perceived difficulties. Furthermore, participation in waste management activities also plays an important role, and this could facilitate a deep collaboration between relevant departments and channel more resources including labor and facilities into waste management.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study has a few limitations. Firstly, this study only integrates TPB factors and several additional factors based on the previous literature. However, other factors may also influence managers or other stakeholders to implement waste sorting measures. Thus, a more comprehensive range of factors should be considered in the future. Second, the data adopted in this study were collected from China. Nevertheless, many other developing countries also suffer from environmental problems induced by C&D waste, and the promotion of effective waste management is also important. Hence, further research should consider a comparative analysis across various regions or countries to enhance the generalizability of the findings.

6. Conclusions

This study proposed a holistic model incorporating TPB constructs and four other variables that have been proven significant predictors of effective C&D waste management behaviors to explore the drivers and barriers of managers’ intention to sort the waste. The PLS-SEM method is adopted to identify the net effects of determinants on the intention, and the following conclusions have been reached:
(1)
The impact of subjective norms (β = 0.173) and top management support (β = 0.179) is the highest, indicating that collaboration between multiple stakeholders is the key to the promotion of effective C&D waste management.
(2)
The negative influence of perceived risks (β = −0.232) could not be ignored, and thus proper construction plans considering waste sorting should be developed to refrain from accidents and decrease the implementers’ perceived difficulties.
(3)
The driving effects of attitude, policies, and moral norms are lower than expected, which may result from the awareness of C&D waste management and the lack of regulations and laws regarding waste sorting.
The fsQCA, serving as a supplemental approach to investigate the configurational effects of determinants, not only confirms the results of the SEM analysis but also provides some innovative insights from the perspective of causal complexity theory. The main findings are as follows:
(1)
The contradiction regarding the absence of policies serving as the core element for the high levels of intention highlights the lack of relevant regulations and laws in terms of waste sorting.
(2)
The asymmetry concerning the number of PBC as the core conditions for the higher or lower levels of intention emphasizes the impeding effects of PBC, indicating the urgency of proper arrangements of resources, accumulation of relevant experience, and utilization of advanced techniques and facilities.
This research contributes to existing literature in two aspects. On the one hand, the results enrich theoretical findings on the factors driving C&D waste sorting in the field of waste management; on the other hand, the approach adopted by this study, combining PLS-SEM and fsQCA, provides some insights into the implementation of multiple analysis methods to investigate the net and configurational effects of determinants on the outcome. The findings could provide a theoretical and practical reference for enhancing the development of corresponding strategies to promote C&D waste sorting. In the future, an extensive study incorporating more influencing factors and considering more research areas should be conducted to reinforce promotional efforts and enhance the generalizability of this research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.Y.; methodology, Y.T.; software, Y.T.; validation, G.Y.; formal analysis, G.Y.; investigation, G.Y.; data curation, G.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, G.Y.; writing—review and editing, G.Y.; supervision, T.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Sichuan Normal University (2023-316; approval date 11 June 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

Data (generated or analyzed), models, and codes used during this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully appreciate all the support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Measurement items for each construct.
Table A1. Measurement items for each construct.
Construct Measurement Items
Attitude
ATT1C&D waste sorting is good
ATT2C&D waste sorting is rewarding
ATT3C&D waste sorting is worthy of being advocated
PBC
PBC1I can overcome the obstacles to sorting the C&D waste
PBC2There is sufficient labor, time, space, technology, and money to sort out the C&D waste
PBC3Sorting the C&D waste is easy for me
Subjective norms
SN1If the design company expects me to sort the C&D waste, I will do so
SN2If the development company expects me to sort out the C&D waste, I will do so
SN3The government seems to expect me to sort out the C&D waste
SN4The public expects me to sort the C&D waste
Perceived risks
PR1C&D waste sorting could lead to adverse effects on construction activities
PR2C&D waste sorting could inhibit the construction process
PR3C&D waste sorting increases the construction costs
Moral norms
MN1I have a moral obligation to sort the C&D waste
MN2Sorting the C&D waste is in line with my moral principles, values, and beliefs
MN3I would feel guilty if I did not sort the C&D waste
Policies
PO1Related policies provide guidance for me to sort the C&D waste
PO2Related policies incentivize me to sort the C&D waste
PO3Related policies promote the C&D waste sorting
Top management support
TMS1My company’s top management supports sorting the C&D waste
TMS2My company’s top management provides strong leadership and engages in the process when it comes to the C&D waste sorting
TMS3My company’s top management grants priority to the C&D waste sorting
Intention
INT1I am willing to sort the C&D waste
INT2In the future, I will sort the C&D waste

References

  1. Liu, J.; Chen, Y.; Wang, X. Factors driving waste sorting in construction projects in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 336, 130397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Aslam, M.S.; Huang, B.; Cui, L. Review of construction and demolition Waste Manag. in China and USA. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 264, 110445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. Opinions on Further Strengthening Urban Construction Waste Management; Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2025.
  4. Zhao, X. Stakeholder-Associated Factors Influencing Construction and Demolition Waste Management: A Systematic Review. Buildings 2021, 11, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Akhtar, A.; Sarmah, A.K. Construction and demolition waste generation and properties of recycled aggregate concrete: A global perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 186, 262–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ahkola, H.; Junttila, V.; Kauppi, S. Do hazardous substances in demolition waste hinder circular economy? J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 364, 121362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Curado, A.; Nunes, L.J.R.; Carvalho, A.; Abrantes, J.; Lima, E.; Tomé, M. The Use of Asbestos and Its Consequences: An Assessment of Environmental Impacts and Public Health Risks. Fibers 2024, 12, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kabirifar, K.; Mojtahedi, M.; Wang, C.; Tam, V.W.Y. Construction and demolition Waste Manag. contributing factors coupled with reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies for effective waste management: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 263, 121265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ding, Z.; Yi, G.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Huang, T. A system dynamics-based environmental performance simulation of construction waste reduction management in China. Waste Manag. 2016, 51, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kolaventi, S.S.; Momand, H.; Tadepalli, T.; Siva Kumar, M.V.N. Construction waste in India: A structural equation model for identification of causes. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Eng. Sustain. 2020, 173, 303–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yuan, H.; Shen, L. Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste management. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 670–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rashid, K.; Rehman, M.U.; de Brito, J.; Ghafoor, H. Multi-criteria optimization of recycled aggregate concrete mixes. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 124316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cantero, B.; Bravo, M.; de Brito, J.; Sáez del Bosque, I.F.; Medina, C. Mechanical behaviour of structural concrete with ground recycled concrete cement and mixed recycled aggregate. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 122913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ma, W.; Liu, T.; Hao, J.L.; Wu, W.; Gu, X. Towards a circular economy for construction and demolition Waste Manag. in China: Critical success factors. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2023, 35, 101226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mak, T.M.W.; Yu, I.K.M.; Wang, L.; Hsu, S.-C.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Li, C.N.; Yeung, T.L.Y.; Zhang, R.; Poon, C.S. Extended theory of planned behaviour for promoting construction waste recycling in Hong Kong. Waste Manag. 2019, 83, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ajayi, S.O.; Oyedele, L.O. Critical design factors for minimising waste in construction projects: A structural equation modelling approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 137, 302–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Naghibalsadati, F.; Gitifar, A.; Ray, S.; Richter, A.; Ng, K.T.W. Temporal evolution and thematic shifts in sustainable construction and demolition Waste Manag. through building information modeling technologies: A text-mining analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 369, 122293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Han, D.; Kalantari, M.; Rajabifard, A. The development of an integrated BIM-based visual demolition Waste Manag. planning system for sustainability-oriented decision-making. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 351, 119856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Li, J.; Zuo, J.; Cai, H.; Zillante, G. Construction waste reduction behavior of contractor employees: An extended theory of planned behavior model approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 1399–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Phung, M.T.; Ly, P.T.M.; Nguyen, T.T.; Nguyen-Thanh, N. An FsQCA Investigation of eWOM and Social Influence on Product Adoption Intention. J. Promot. Manag. 2020, 26, 726–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tan, S.; Li, W.; Liu, X.; Wang, Y.; Wang, M. Exploring paths underpinning the implementation of municipal waste sorting: Evidence from China. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2024, 106, 107510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chen, M.; Wang, H.; Liang, Y.; Zhang, G. Net and configurational effects of determinants on cloud computing adoption by SMEs under cloud promotion policy using PLS-SEM and fsQCA. J. Innov. Knowl. 2023, 8, 100388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhang, M.; Li, S.; Lin, W.; Zhang, Y. Escape or return? Users’ intermittent discontinuance behavior in strong-ties social functions. Inf. Manag. 2024, 61, 103902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Corsini, F.; Gusmerotti, N.M.; Testa, F.; Iraldo, F. Exploring waste prevention behaviour through empirical research. Waste Manag. 2018, 79, 132–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Escario, J.-J.; Rodriguez-Sanchez, C.; Casaló, L.V. The influence of environmental attitudes and perceived effectiveness on recycling, reducing, and reusing packaging materials in Spain. Waste Manag. 2020, 113, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Udawatta, N.; Zuo, J.; Chiveralls, K.; Zillante, G. Attitudinal and behavioural approaches to improving Waste Manag. on construction projects in Australia: Benefits and limitations. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2015, 15, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Teo, M.M.M.; Loosemore, M. A theory of waste behaviour in the construction industry. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2001, 19, 741–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Li, Y.; Yan, G. The Heterogeneity in the Relationships Between Psychological Drivers and Construction and Demolition Waste Manag. Intention and Behaviors Among Tunnel Construction Managers: Insights from Personality Profiles. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Al-Sari, M.I.; Al-Khatib, I.A.; Avraamides, M.; Fatta-Kassinos, D. A study on the attitudes and behavioural influence of construction Waste Manag. in occupied Palestinian territory. Waste Manag. Res. J. A Sustain. Circ. Econ. 2011, 30, 122–136. [Google Scholar]
  31. Wang, Y.; Hao, F. Public perception matters: Individual waste sorting in Chinese communities. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 159, 104860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ma, M.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Le, K.N.; Li, W. Challenges in current construction and demolition waste recycling: A China study. Waste Manag. 2020, 118, 610–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kulatunga, U.; Amaratunga, D.; Haigh, R.; Rameezdeen, R. Attitudes and perceptions of construction workforce on construction waste in Sri Lanka. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2006, 17, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yan-Ling, R.; Zhi-Yu, H.; Rui, L.; Ye, L. Research on Factors Affecting On-Site Classification of Construction Waste. In International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 897–911. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ku, Y.; Yang, J.; Fang, H.; Xiao, W.; Zhuang, J. Deep learning of grasping detection for a robot used in sorting construction and demolition waste. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2020, 23, 84–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kuritcyn, P.; Anding, K.; Linss, E.; Latyev, S.M. Increasing the safety in recycling of construction and demolition waste by using supervised machine learning. J. Phys. Conf. 2015, 588, 012035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lu, X.; Pu, X.; Han, X. Sustainable smart waste classification and collection system: A bi-objective modeling and optimization approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 124183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Knoeri, C.; Binder, C.R.; Althaus, H.-J. Decisions on recycling: Construction stakeholders’ decisions regarding recycled mineral construction materials. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 1039–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dainty, A.R.J.; Brooke, R.J. Towards improved construction waste minimisation: A need for improved supply chain integration? Struct. Surv. 2004, 22, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, J.; Yuan, H.; Kang, X.; Lu, W. Critical success factors for on-site sorting of construction waste: A china study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 54, 931–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dodampegama, S.; Hou, L.; Asadi, E.; Zhang, G.; Setunge, S. Revolutionizing construction and demolition waste sorting: Insights from artificial intelligence and robotic applications. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2024, 202, 107375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Davies, J.; Foxall, G.R.; Pallister, J. Beyond the Intention–Behaviour Mythology. Mark. Theory 2002, 2, 29–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Kalof, L.; Guagnano, G.A. Values, beliefs, and pro environmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. J. Appl. Psychol. 1995, 25, 1611–1636. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wang, Z.; Dong, X.; Yin, J. Antecedents of urban residents’ separate collection intentions for household solid waste and their willingness to pay: Evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 173, 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Botetzagias, I.; Dima, A.-F.; Malesios, C. Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior in the context of recycling: The role of moral norms and of demographic predictors. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 95, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gálvez-Martos, J.-L.; Styles, D.; Schoenberger, H.; Zeschmar-Lahl, B. Construction and demolition waste best management practice in Europe. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 136, 166–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mahpour, A.; Mortaheb, M.M. Financial-Based Incentive Plan to Reduce Construction Waste. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 04018029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Narcis, N.; Ray, I.; Hosein, G. Construction and Demolition Waste Manag. Actions and Potential Benefits: A Perspective from Trinidad and Tobago. Buildings 2019, 9, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Liu, Y.; Bai, Y. An exploration of firms’ awareness and behavior of developing circular economy: An empirical research in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 87, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Liu, J.; Yi, Y.; Wang, X. Exploring factors influencing construction waste reduction: A structural equation modeling approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 123185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2014, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jain, S.; Singhal, S.; Jain, N.K.; Bhaskar, K. Construction and demolition waste recycling: Investigating the role of theory of planned behavior, institutional pressures and environmental consciousness. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 263, 121405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Li, L.; Zuo, J.; Du, L.; Chang, R. What influences the on-site recycling behaviour of C&D plastic waste in Australia? An action determination model approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 371, 123158. [Google Scholar]
  54. Fiss, P.C. A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 1180–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Damian, D.; Manea, C. Causal recipes for turning fin-tech freelancers into smart entrepreneurs. J. Innov. Knowl. 2019, 4, 196–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Woodside, A.G. Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 463–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. McLeay, F.; Olya, H.; Liu, H.; Jayawardhena, C.; Dennis, C. A multi-analytical approach to studying customers motivations to use innovative totally autonomous vehicles. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 174, 121252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pappas, I.O.; Woodside, A.G. Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for research practice in Information Systems and marketing. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 102310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Barclay, D.W.; Higgins, C.A.; Thompson, R. The Partial Least Squares Approach to Causal Modeling: Barclay Personal Computer Adoption and Use as Illustration. Technol. Stud. 1995, 2, 285–309. [Google Scholar]
  60. Kock, N. Minimum Sample Size Estimation in PLS-SEM: An Application in Tourism and Hospitality Research. In Applying Partial Least Squares in Tourism and Hospitality Research; Emerald Publishing Limited: Leeds, UK, 2018; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  61. Hair, J.F.; Astrachan, C.B.; Moisescu, O.I.; Radomir, L.; Sarstedt, M.; Vaithilingam, S.; Ringle, C.M. Executing and interpreting applications of PLS-SEM: Updates for family business researchers. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 2021, 12, 100392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  64. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2014, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Liu, Y.; Mezei, J.; Kostakos, V.; Li, H. Applying configurational analysis to IS behavioural research: A methodological alternative for modelling combinatorial complexities. Inf. Syst. J. 2015, 27, 59–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ragin, C.C. Redesigning Social Inquiry Fuzzy Sets and Beyond; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  68. Adjei, J.K.; Adams, S.; Mamattah, L. Cloud computing adoption in Ghana; accounting for institutional factors. Technol. Soc. 2021, 65, 101583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Fiss, P.C. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Acad. Manag. J. 2011, 54, 393–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Yang, B.; Song, X.; Yuan, H.; Zuo, J. A model for investigating construction workers’ waste reduction behaviors. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 265, 121841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Yuan, H. Key indicators for assessing the effectiveness of Waste Manag. in construction projects. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 24, 476–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ding, Z.; Wen, X.; Zuo, J.; Chen, Y. Determinants of contractor’s construction and demolition waste recycling intention in China: Integrating theory of planned behavior and norm activation model. Waste Manag. 2023, 161, 213–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Li, H.; Zhang, X.; Ng, S.T.; Skitmore, M. Quantifying stakeholder influence in decision/evaluations relating to sustainable construction in China—A Delphi approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 173, 160–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ajayi, S.O.; Oyedele, L.O. Policy imperatives for diverting construction waste from landfill: Experts’ recommendations for UK policy expansion. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 147, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Schwartz, S.H. Normative Influences on Altruism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1977; Volume 10, pp. 221–279. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 17 06984 g001
Figure 1. The proposed model in this study.
Figure 1. The proposed model in this study.
Sustainability 17 06984 g001
Sustainability 17 06984 g002
Figure 2. fsQCA research framework.
Figure 2. fsQCA research framework.
Sustainability 17 06984 g002
Sustainability 17 06984 g003
Figure 3. A detailed description of the research analysis.
Figure 3. A detailed description of the research analysis.
Sustainability 17 06984 g003
Sustainability 17 06984 g004
Figure 4. The structural equation modeling results (the whole sample).
Figure 4. The structural equation modeling results (the whole sample).
Sustainability 17 06984 g004
Table 1. Demographic characteristics (N = 489).
Table 1. Demographic characteristics (N = 489).
CharacteristicsAttributesNumberPercentage (%)
Age
20–30 years old6212.68
31–40 years old13226.99
41–50 years old17836.40
51 years and older11723.93
Working Experience
5 years and below428.59
5–10 years10922.29
10–20 years19239.26
20 years and more14629.86
Education
Junior college and below19840.49
Undergraduate21343.56
Graduate and above7815.95
Enterprise Type
State-owned enterprise13527.60
Private enterprise23347.65
Foreign-invested or joint venture11723.93
Other40.82
Table 2. The convergent validity test results for the whole sample.
Table 2. The convergent validity test results for the whole sample.
VariablesIndicatorsFactor loadingsCronbach’s αCRAVE
AttitudeATT10.7510.7560.7990.571
ATT20.693
ATT30.818
PBCPBC10.8160.7830.8290.618
PBC20.788
PBC30.753
Subjective normsSN10.8280.8560.8840.657
SN20.761
SN30.855
SN40.795
Perceived risksPR10.8120.8030.8110.682
PR20.839
Moral normsMN10.7360.8360.8430.643
MN20.881
MN30.782
PoliciesPO10.7580.7750.8060.580
PO20.797
PO30.729
TMSTMS10.8160.8160.8240.610
TMS20.785
TMS30.741
IntentionINT10.7880.8090.8130.592
INT20.763
INT30.757
Table 3. Fornell–Larcker criteria.
Table 3. Fornell–Larcker criteria.
ATTPBCSNPRMNPOTMSINT
ATT0.756
PBC0.4410.786
SN0.5390.3720.811
PR0.3170.5840.4610.826
MN0.6330.4610.5610.4280.802
PO0.4980.3220.4290.6010.5110.762
TMS0.5470.5860.5740.3410.4660.5250.781
INT0.4320.6580.4560.4210.3430.3030.4850.769
Table 4. HTMT results.
Table 4. HTMT results.
ATTPBCSNPRMNPOTMSINT
ATT
PBC0.487
SN0.5190.539
PR0.6140.4650.783
MN0.7560.7160.5880.573
PO0.8130.8290.4910.4180.789
TMS0.5780.4930.6840.7590.8130.743
INT0.6280.7780.7750.5660.5930.6290.868
Table 5. Hypotheses and results summary (* denotes p < 0.05; ** denotes p < 0.01; *** denotes p < 0.001).
Table 5. Hypotheses and results summary (* denotes p < 0.05; ** denotes p < 0.01; *** denotes p < 0.001).
HypothesisTested RelationshipPath CoefficientStandard DeviationT Statisticsp Values
H1aATT→INT0.1020.0333.0800.002 **
H1bPBC→INT0.1360.0562.4290.015 *
H1cSN→INT0.1730.0453.8210.000 ***
H2PR→INT−0.1260.0462.7390.006 **
H3PR→ATT−0.2320.0524.4610.000 ***
H4MN→INT0.1170.0572.0530.040 *
H5PO→INT0.1230.0383.2370.001 ***
H6TMS→INT0.1790.0424.2960.000 ***
Table 6. Results of the necessary conditions.
Table 6. Results of the necessary conditions.
Outcome: Intention Outcome: ~Intention
ConsistencyCoverageConsistencyCoverage
Attitude0.7210.8530.6190.519
~Attitude0.5570.7280.6590.643
PBC0.8310.8570.5110.546
~PBC0.6760.7360.6910.675
Subjective norms0.8930.8560.5240.532
~Subjective norms0.7080.7460.6420.636
Perceived risks0.7480.5250.7560.833
~Perceived risks0.8230.7580.6260.781
Moral norms0.7040.7960.5590.695
~Moral norms0.6980.5980.7790.798
Policies0.8160.7730.6440.812
~Policies0.6590.6150.7220.751
TMS0.8890.8580.6180.754
~TMS0.6070.7810.7640.877
Table 7. Sufficient configurations for high-level intention in the QCA.
Table 7. Sufficient configurations for high-level intention in the QCA.
Outcome: A Higher Level of Intention
Configuration1a1b2345
Attitude• ⬤•◦
PBC••⬤•⬤•
Subjective norms⬤⬤••⬤◦
Perceived risks◦◦◦ •◦
Moral norms•◦⬤ ⬤•
Policies •◯⬤⬤•
TMS⬤⬤ ◦ •
Consistency0.8420.9130.8980.8150.8260.864
Raw coverage0.3380.3910.4160.3140.3470.248
Unique coverage0.0340.0190.0820.0120.0390.046
Overall solution consistency0.819
Overall solution coverage0.643
Note: The symbols ⬤ or • show the presence of core or peripheral conditions, respectively. The symbols ◯ or ◦ show the absence of core or peripheral conditions, respectively. Blank cells show a “do not care” situation.
Table 8. Sufficient configurations for low-level intention in the QCA.
Table 8. Sufficient configurations for low-level intention in the QCA.
Outcome: A Lower Level of Intention
Configuration12345
Attitude◯◦ •◦
PBC◯◯◯◯•
Subjective norms◦◯◯ ◦
Perceived risks⬤ ⬤••
Moral norms◦◦◦◦
Policies••◯◯◦
TMS ◯•◯◦
Consistency0.9280.8760.8170.8720.831
Raw coverage0.4450.4210.3620.3190.265
Unique coverage0.0380.1020.0460.0370.023
Overall solution consistency0.809
Overall solution coverage0.578
Note: The symbols ⬤ or • show the presence of core or peripheral conditions, respectively. The symbols ◯ or ◦ show the absence of core or peripheral conditions, respectively. Blank cells show a “do not care” situation.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yan, G.; Tian, Y.; Zhang, T. Net and Configurational Effects of Determinants on Managers’ Construction and Demolition Waste Sorting Intention in China Using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling and the Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6984. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156984

AMA Style

Yan G, Tian Y, Zhang T. Net and Configurational Effects of Determinants on Managers’ Construction and Demolition Waste Sorting Intention in China Using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling and the Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Sustainability. 2025; 17(15):6984. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156984

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yan, Guanfeng, Yuhang Tian, and Tianhai Zhang. 2025. "Net and Configurational Effects of Determinants on Managers’ Construction and Demolition Waste Sorting Intention in China Using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling and the Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis" Sustainability 17, no. 15: 6984. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156984

APA Style

Yan, G., Tian, Y., & Zhang, T. (2025). Net and Configurational Effects of Determinants on Managers’ Construction and Demolition Waste Sorting Intention in China Using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling and the Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Sustainability, 17(15), 6984. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156984

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop