Research on the Governance Relationship among Stakeholders of Construction Waste Recycling Based on ANP-SNA
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Stakeholders of Construction Waste Recycling and Their Governance Relationships
2.1. Stakeholders of Construction Waste Recycling
2.2. Governance Relationships among Stakeholders of Construction Waste Recycling
3. Index Weighting of Governance Relationships among Stakeholders of Construction Waste Recycling
3.1. ANP Introduction
3.2. ANP Structural Model of Governance Relationships among Stakeholders
3.3. Calculation of Index Weights of Governance Relationships among Stakeholders
4. SNA on Governance Relationships among Stakeholders of Construction Waste Recycling
4.1. Matrix of Stakeholder Governance Relationships
4.2. Establishment of Relationship Models
4.3. Analysis on Characteristics of Relationship Network
4.3.1. Analysis on Network Cohesion
4.3.2. Analysis on Network Centrality
4.3.3. Core-Periphery Analysis
4.3.4. Analysis on Structural Holes
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- In terms of network cohesion, various stakeholders have close contacts with each other, and there is no obvious clique in the relationship network, but the collaborative activities of stakeholders tend to be carried out within each category of stakeholders, and the collaboration between various categories of stakeholders in the network needs to be strengthened so as to facilitate the integration and coordination capability of the network;
- (2)
- As the core of the whole network, the construction administration department is controlling the whole network, influencing, and even determining, the relationships between other stakeholders in the network. For this reason, the construction administration department, which has the greatest influence in the network, should give full play to its role as the core of the network, and maximize the efficiency under the premise of satisfying the interests of all stakeholders so as to realize collaborative governance of stakeholders for construction waste recycling;
- (3)
- The members of the core zone, such as the construction administration department and construction unit have a strong network relationship strength, as they maintain frequent contacts and information exchanges with other stakeholders. In contrast, members of the peripheral zone, such as the media and environmental assessment agency, obviously are overly marginalized rather than fully involved, so they fail to give full play to their potential as stakeholders. Therefore, the functions of these peripheral stakeholders should be enhanced;
- (4)
- The three stakeholders including construction administration department, media, and construction company have the highest influence efficiency in the whole network, indicating that they can influence the cooperation between other stakeholders in a more efficient and direct way. Four stakeholders, including construction administration department, construction company, construction unit, and recycling enterprise are located in places with rich structural holes, so they can improve the cooperation efficiency of the whole network by guiding the collaborative cooperation among various stakeholders;
- (5)
- Overall, to realize collaborative governance of stakeholders for construction waste recycling, the once separated subjects must be integrated and linked into a whole so that all relevant stakeholders can work together to achieve the balanced development of interests and optimal governance.
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Category | Stakeholder | Responsibility |
---|---|---|
Government Departments | S1: Construction Administration Department | Organizing the compilation of relevant standards and regulations, guiding the implementation of construction waste recycling, and promoting experience of implementation |
S2: Municipal Environmental Sanitation Administration Department | Managing urban environmental sanitation, promoting construction waste recycling and improving the city image through supervision and management | |
S3: Urban Planning Administration Department | Planning the whole layout of the construction waste treatment plant, and determining the site selection | |
Construction-related Units | S4: Construction Unit | Investing in engineering projects, generating the majority of construction wastes and consuming resource-based products |
S5: Design Unit | Designing an optimal plan based on the full-life circle for recycling and reusing of construction materials so as to reduce the production of construction wastes | |
S6: Construction Company | Constructing the engineering projects, generating construction wastes and consuming resource-based products | |
S7: Demolition Unit | Dismantling buildings and handing over the subsequent construction wastes to transportation unit | |
Construction Waste Disposal Units | S8: Recycling Enterprise | Recycling construction wastes and marketizing the recycled products, which contributes to the core values and interests of the company itself |
S9: Disposal Site | Conducting on-site landfill of construction wastes and making a profit by providing landfill services | |
S10: Transportation Unit | Transporting construction wastes to disposal area | |
The Public | S11: Residents Nearby | Involved indirectly in the advocacy of reducing construction wastes for a better urban environment |
S12: Research Center | Providing scientific and technological support for resource-based enterprises and relevant government departments. | |
S13:Environmental Assessment Agency | Assessing the available space for landfill of existing construction waste disposal sites, analyzing, predicting and evaluating the potential environmental impact after the implementation of the construction waste disposal project | |
S14: Media | Indirectly involved in the advocacy of reducing construction wastes; supervising environmental protection by public opinion |
Stakeholder Governance Relationship Indicator System | First-Level Indicator | Second-Level Indicator | Description |
Contract (HT) | Timeliness of the contract(H1) | Stakeholders fulfill the contract obligations after signing the contract | |
Efficiency of the contract(H2) | Obligations in the contract are science-based and comprehensive | ||
Cooperation (HZ) | Shared goals(Z1) | Stakeholders have shared goals | |
Cooperation intention(Z2) | Stakeholders have strong intentions for cooperation | ||
Dependence (YL) | Time dependence(Y1) | One party cannot start its tasks until that of other stakeholders are completed | |
Resource dependence(Y2) | One party needs resources (including equipment, raw materials, information, etc.) from stakeholders | ||
Communication (GT) | Communication frequency(G1) | Stakeholders have frequent communication | |
Communication effect(G2) | Communication between stakeholders is effective |
Appendix B
Appendix B.1. Social Network Analysis Indicators
Appendix B.1.1. Network Cohesion
Appendix B.1.2. Centrality
Appendix B.1.3. Core-Periphery Structure
Appendix B.1.4. Structural Hole
References
- Lu, W.; Lou, J.; Webster, C.; Xue, F.; Bao, Z.; Chi, B. Estimating construction waste generation in the Greater Bay Area, China using machine learning. Waste Manag. 2021, 134, 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, S.Y.; Nguyen, M.V.; Zeng, X.L.; Luu, V.T. A performance evaluation framework for construction and demolition waste management: Stakeholder perspectives. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 27, 3189–3213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gluzhge, P.J. The work of scientific research institute. Gidrotekhnicheskoye Stroit. 1946, 4, 27–28. [Google Scholar]
- Yeheyis, M.; Hewage, K.; Alam, M.S.; Eskicioglu, C.; Sadiq, R. An overview of construction and demolition waste management in Canada: A lifecycle analysis approach to sustainability. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2013, 15, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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] [Green Version]
- Ding, Z.K.; Yi, G.Z.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Huang, T.Y. A system dynamics-based environmental performance simulation of construction waste reduction management in China. Waste Manag. 2016, 51, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Melo, A.B.D.; Gonçalves, A.F.; Martins, I.M. Construction and demolition waste generation and management in Lisbon (Portugal). Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 1252–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Z.H.; Sun, Y.; Zhu, Z.X. Research on Risk Sharing of Construction Waste Recycling PPP Project Based on Game Theory. In Proceedings of the 24th International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate, Chongqing, China, 29 November–2 December 2019; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; Volume 8, pp. 481–495. [Google Scholar]
- De Brito, J.; Pereira, A.S.; Correia, J.R. Mechanical behaviour of non-structural concrete made with recycled ceramic aggregates. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2005, 27, 429–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, R.V.; de Brito, J.; Dhir, R.K. Availability and processing of recycled aggregates within the construction and demolition supply chain: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 598–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Matos, P.R.; Sakata, R.D.; Onghero, L.; Uliano, V.G.; de Brito, J.; Campos, C.E.; Gleize, P.J. Utilization of ceramic tile demolition waste as supplementary cementitious material: An early-age investigation. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 38, 102187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burcu, T. Research on the project managers’ behavioral intentions to construction waste sorting under the background of zero-waste city. Environ. Res. Technol. 2021, 4, 97–110. [Google Scholar]
- Jin, R.Y.; Li, B.; Zhou, T.Y.; Wanatowski, D.; Piroozfar, P.T. An empirical study of perceptions towards construction and demolition waste recycling and reuse in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 126, 86–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, L.; Zhang, L. Evolutionary game analysis of construction waste recycling management in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 161, 104863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, P.C.Y.; Luo, H.W.; Liou, J.J.H. A Combination of DEMATEL and BWM-Based ANP Methods for Exploring the Green Building Rating System in Taiwan. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kumar, S.; Raut, R.D.; Nayal, K.; Kraus, S.; Yadav, V.S.; Narkhede, B.E. To identify industry 4.0 and circular economy adoption barriers in the agriculture supply chain by using ISM-ANP. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 126023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, D.N.; Yan, M.; Wang, H.W.; Li, W.W. Sustainable-Development Measurement of China’s Coworking Industry Using Social-Network Analysis Method. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, X.B. Stakeholder-Associated Factors Influencing Construction and Demolition Waste Management: A Systematic Review. Buildings 2021, 11, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, B.; Wang, J.; Liao, Y.; Wu, H.; Wong, A.B. Determinants Affecting Purchase Willingness of Contractors towards Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Products: An Empirical Study in Shenzhen, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, S.; Wang, H.; Ahmad, W.; Ahmad, A.; Ivanovich Vatin, N.; Mohamed, A.M.; Deifalla, A.F.; Mehmood, I. Plastic Waste Management Strategies and Their Environmental Aspects: A Scientometric Analysis and Comprehensive Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Song, Y.; Wang, W.; Wang, S.; Guo, F.; Lu, J. Marine Construction Waste Recycling Mechanism Considering Public Participation and Carbon Trading: A Study on Dynamic Modeling and Simulation Based on Sustainability Policy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. Decision making—The analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP). J. Syst. Sci. 2004, 13, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, A.T.W.; Wong, I.; Wu, Z.Z.; Poon, C.S. Strategies for Effective Waste Reduction and Management of Building Construction Projects in Highly Urbanized Cities-A Case Study of Hong Kong. Buildings 2021, 11, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almeida, F.; Vieira, C.S.; Carneiro, J.R.; Lopes, M.d.L. Drawing a Path towards Circular Construction: An Approach to Engage Stakeholders. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, X.L.; Zhang, X.L.; Wang, L.; Skitmore, M.; Wang, Q. Analyzing collaborative relationships among industrialized construction technology innovation organizations: A combined SNA and SEM approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 173, 265–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gong, P.; Teng, Y.; Li, X.; Luo, L.Z. Modeling Constraints for the On-Site Assembly Process of Prefabrication Housing Production: A Social Network Analysis. Sustainability 2019, 11, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, S.; Xiao, Q. An empirical analysis on spatial correlation investigation of industrial carbon emissions using SNA-ICE model. Energy 2021, 224, 12018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venegas, C.; Sánchez-Alfonso, A.C.; Vesga, F.-J.; Martín, A.; Celis-Zambrano, C.; González Mendez, M. Identification and Evaluation of Determining Factors and Actors in the Management and Use of Biosolids through Prospective Analysis (MicMac and Mactor) and Social Networks. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, W.; He, F.; Zhuang, T.; Yi, Y. Stakeholder Analysis and Social Network Analysis in the Decision-Making of Industrial Land Redevelopment in China: The Case of Shanghai. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bao, Z.; Lu, W. A decision-support framework for planning construction waste recycling: A case study of Shenzhen, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 309, 127499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, R.; Qing, X.; Yang, J.; Zhang, J.; Li, D. Analysis on Recycling Channel Selection of Construction and Demolition Waste in China from the Perspective of Supply Chain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Index | H1 | H2 | Z1 | Z2 | Y1 | Y2 | G1 | G2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | 0.600 | 0.400 | 0.615 | 0.428 | 0.532 | 0.428 | 0.444 | 0.453 |
H2 | 0.400 | 0.600 | 0.384 | 0.571 | 0.467 | 0.571 | 0.555 | 0.546 |
Z1 | 0.571 | 0.461 | 0.428 | 0.307 | 0.384 | 0.301 | 0.307 | 0.357 |
Z2 | 0.428 | 0.538 | 0.571 | 0.692 | 0.615 | 0.699 | 0.692 | 0.642 |
Y1 | 0.539 | 0.444 | 0.428 | 0.532 | 0.666 | 0.222 | 0.460 | 0.333 |
Y2 | 0.460 | 0.555 | 0.571 | 0.467 | 0.333 | 0.777 | 0.539 | 0.666 |
G1 | 0.444 | 0.428 | 0.375 | 0.500 | 0.400 | 0.400 | 0.724 | 0.272 |
G2 | 0.555 | 0.571 | 0.625 | 0.500 | 0.600 | 0.600 | 0.275 | 0.727 |
Index | H1 | H2 | Z1 | Z2 | Y1 | Y2 | G1 | G2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | 0.200 | 0.133 | 0.153 | 0.107 | 0.149 | 0.120 | 0.126 | 0.129 |
H2 | 0.133 | 0.200 | 0.096 | 0.142 | 0.131 | 0.160 | 0.158 | 0.156 |
Z1 | 0.126 | 0.102 | 0.136 | 0.097 | 0.092 | 0.072 | 0.043 | 0.051 |
Z2 | 0.095 | 0.119 | 0.181 | 0.220 | 0.147 | 0.167 | 0.098 | 0.091 |
Y1 | 0.139 | 0.115 | 0.107 | 0.133 | 0.213 | 0.071 | 0.098 | 0.071 |
Y2 | 0.119 | 0.144 | 0.142 | 0.116 | 0.106 | 0.248 | 0.115 | 0.142 |
G1 | 0.082 | 0.079 | 0.068 | 0.090 | 0.064 | 0.064 | 0.258 | 0.097 |
G2 | 0.102 | 0.105 | 0.113 | 0.090 | 0.096 | 0.096 | 0.098 | 0.259 |
Second-Level Indicator | Global Weight |
---|---|
Timeliness of the contract (H1) | 0.140 |
Efficiency of the contract (H2) | 0.150 |
Shared goals (Z1) | 0.091 |
Cooperation intention (Z2) | 0.141 |
Time dependence (Y1) | 0.119 |
Resource dependence (Y2) | 0.144 |
Communication frequency (G1) | 0.095 |
Communication effect (G2) | 0.120 |
Number | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | S6 | S7 | S8 | S9 | S10 | S11 | S12 | S13 | S14 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S1 | 0 | 3.075 | 2.934 | 2.467 | 1.806 | 1.865 | 1.662 | 2.884 | 2.743 | 1.803 | 2.038 | 2.217 | 1.894 | 1.542 |
S2 | 3.075 | 0 | 2.157 | 2.449 | 1.801 | 2.037 | 1.095 | 1.942 | 1.851 | 0 | 1.356 | 2.157 | 2.062 | 1.447 |
S3 | 2.934 | 2.157 | 0 | 2.066 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.82 | 1.588 | 0 | 1.679 | 0 | 1.854 | 1.215 |
S4 | 2.467 | 2.449 | 2.066 | 0 | 3.96 | 4.031 | 2.666 | 2.232 | 2 | 0 | 2.451 | 1.896 | 1.478 | 1.356 |
S5 | 1.806 | 1.801 | 0 | 3.96 | 0 | 3.666 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.851 | 1.71 | 0 |
S6 | 1.865 | 2.037 | 0 | 4.031 | 3.666 | 0 | 4 | 4.055 | 3.431 | 3.648 | 1.942 | 2.086 | 0 | 1.5 |
S7 | 1.662 | 1.095 | 0 | 2.666 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 3.816 | 3.553 | 4.026 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
S8 | 2.884 | 1.942 | 1.82 | 2.232 | 0 | 4.055 | 3.816 | 0 | 3.235 | 4.29 | 2.037 | 3.345 | 0 | 1.359 |
S9 | 2.743 | 1.851 | 1.588 | 2 | 0 | 3.431 | 3.553 | 3.235 | 0 | 3.648 | 2.276 | 0 | 0 | 1.43 |
S10 | 1.803 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.648 | 4.026 | 4.29 | 3.648 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
S11 | 2.038 | 1.356 | 1.679 | 2.451 | 0 | 1.942 | 0 | 2.037 | 2.276 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.989 |
S12 | 2.217 | 2.157 | 0 | 1.896 | 1.851 | 2.086 | 0 | 3.345 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.823 | 1.261 |
S13 | 1.894 | 2.062 | 1.854 | 1.478 | 1.71 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.823 | 0 | 1.215 |
S14 | 1.542 | 1.447 | 1.215 | 1.356 | 0 | 1.5 | 0 | 1.359 | 1.43 | 0 | 1.989 | 1.261 | 1.215 | 0 |
Density Matrix | Government Departments | Construction-Related Units | Construction Waste Disposal Units | The Public | E-I Index among Stakeholders |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Government Departments | 2.722 | 1.437 | 1.626 | 1.622 | 0.333 |
Construction-related Units | 1.437 | 3.054 | 2.230 | 1.017 | 0.610 |
Construction Waste Disposal Units | 1.626 | 2.230 | 3.724 | 0.870 | 0.333 |
The Public | 1.622 | 1.017 | 0.870 | 1.048 | 0.520 |
Stakeholder | Centrality | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Point | Closeness | Between | Feature Vector | |
Construction Administration Department | 100.000 | 100.000 | 21.987 | 53.789 |
Municipal Environmental Sanitation Administration Department | 69.231 | 76.471 | 2.949 | 42.918 |
Urban Planning Administration Department | 53.846 | 68.421 | 1.859 | 34.726 |
Construction Unit | 76.923 | 81.250 | 4.167 | 47.382 |
Design Unit | 46.154 | 65.000 | 0.577 | 29.599 |
Construction Company | 76.923 | 81.250 | 5.021 | 46.503 |
Demolition Unit | 46.154 | 65.000 | 0.256 | 31.511 |
Recycling Enterprise | 76.923 | 81.250 | 4.167 | 47.049 |
Disposal Site | 69.231 | 76.471 | 2.585 | 43.366 |
Transportation Unit | 38.462 | 61.905 | 0.000 | 26.468 |
Residents Nearby | 53.846 | 68.421 | 3.419 | 33.737 |
Research Center | 53.846 | 68.421 | 1.154 | 34.606 |
Environmental Assessment Agency | 38.462 | 61.905 | 0.577 | 23.302 |
Media | 15.385 | 54.167 | 0.000 | 10.425 |
Number | Stakeholder | Core Degree | Ranking |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Construction Administration Department | 0.404 | 1 |
2 | Municipal Environmental Sanitation Administration Department | 0.302 | 6 |
3 | Urban Planning Administration Department | 0.237 | 7 |
4 | Construction Unit | 0.341 | 2 |
5 | Design Unit | 0.198 | 11 |
6 | Construction Company | 0.333 | 4 |
7 | Demolition Unit | 0.215 | 10 |
8 | Recycling Enterprise | 0.339 | 3 |
9 | Disposal Site | 0.307 | 5 |
10 | Transportation Unit | 0.178 | 12 |
11 | Residents Nearby | 0.231 | 9 |
12 | Research Center | 0.236 | 8 |
13 | Environmental Assessment Agency | 0.152 | 13 |
14 | Media | 0.069 | 14 |
Organization | Efficient Scale | Efficiency Degree | Restriction Degree |
---|---|---|---|
Construction Administration Department | 6.846 | 0.527 | 0.266 |
Municipal Environmental Sanitation Administration Department | 3.222 | 0.358 | 0.384 |
Urban Planning Administration Department | 2.429 | 0.347 | 0.476 |
Construction Unit | 3.800 | 0.380 | 0.353 |
Design Unit | 1.667 | 0.278 | 0.551 |
Construction Company | 4.000 | 0.400 | 0.352 |
Demolition Unit | 1.333 | 0.222 | 0.555 |
Recycling Enterprise | 3.800 | 0.380 | 0.353 |
Disposal Site | 3.000 | 0.333 | 0.388 |
Transportation Unit | 1.000 | 0.200 | 0.648 |
Residents Nearby | 2.714 | 0.388 | 0.470 |
Research Center | 2.143 | 0.306 | 0.482 |
Environmental Assessment Agency | 1.800 | 0.360 | 0.627 |
Media | 1.000 | 0.500 | 1.125 |
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/).
Share and Cite
Yang, S.; Qiu, J.; Huang, H. Research on the Governance Relationship among Stakeholders of Construction Waste Recycling Based on ANP-SNA. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16864. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416864
Yang S, Qiu J, Huang H. Research on the Governance Relationship among Stakeholders of Construction Waste Recycling Based on ANP-SNA. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(24):16864. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416864
Chicago/Turabian StyleYang, Siling, Jie Qiu, and Heping Huang. 2022. "Research on the Governance Relationship among Stakeholders of Construction Waste Recycling Based on ANP-SNA" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 24: 16864. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416864