Teo, M M M and Loosemore, M (2001) A theory of waste behaviour in the construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 19(7), pp. 741-751. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Levels of waste within the construction industry need to be reduced for environmental and economic reasons. Changing people's wasteful behaviour can make a significant contribution. This paper describes a research project that used Ajzen's 'theory of planned behaviour' to investigate the attitudinal forces that shape behaviour at the operative level. It concludes that operatives see waste as an inevitable by-product of construction activity. Attitudes towards waste management are not negative, although they are pragmatic and impeded by perceptions of a lack of managerial commitment. Waste management is perceived as a low project priority, and there is an absence of appropriate resources and incentives to support it. A theory of waste behaviour is proposed for the construction industry, and recommendations are made to help managers improve operatives' attitudes towards waste.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | attitudes; behaviour; environment; operatives; sustainability; waste |
| Index terms: | construction activity, construction industry, planned behaviour, operative, manager, commitment, waste management |
| Subjects: | behavioral psychology, industry analysis, psychology, construction operations, practitioner, waste management |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Site Management, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here