Influential Factors on Using Reclaimed and Recycled Building Materials

Full text

Influential factors on using reclaimed and recycled
building materials
Zahra Balador1, Morten Gjerde2 and Nigel Isaacs3
1,2,3 School of Architecture, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Zahra.balador@vuw.ac.nz
Abstract. When resources are in decline, opportunities to create circular resource
flows cannot be ignored. Reuse and recycling of building materials can
significantly contribute to these efforts. Reuse and recycling of building materials
and consumption of reclaimed and recycled building materials as environmental
practices have potential to enhance resource efficiency in the construction
industry, leading to a reduction in the amount of waste produced and energy
consumed. Counting the use of reclaimed and recycled building materials as a
pro-environmental behavior and studying the influential factors is one of the first
steps towards establishing this behavior. It is important to have a comprehensive
view of the process in which the pro-environmental behavior is generated and it
can therefore be useful to study relevant variables influencing pro-environmental
behaviors. A current lack of quantitative data linking these issues hinders the
effectiveness of solutions. This paper investigates some of the factors influencing
use of reclaimed and recycled building materials based on the perceptions of the
main stakeholders of the construction industry in New Zealand, discussing these
in the context of literature. Results show that price and self-satisfaction are the
most influential factors among the factors we examined, and age, gender and
income are predictors of these factors. We also note that environmentalists and
regulators are less positive, and producers and consumers are more positive about
barriers against the use of reclaimed and recycled building materials. The study
results can help direct and focus efforts to divert waste from landfill.
Keywords: recycling, reuse, building materials, circular economy.
1 Introduction
Living Planet Report published a report in 2010 that consumption at rates that are 50%
faster than Earth can sustain has led to problematic situations for natural resources.
Anthropocentric economies can expand forever without any limitation from resources,
and research shows that businesses looking to eliminate waste and toxic chemical
production must limit their use of natural resources [1]. Treating waste as potential
resource presents a valuable opportunity for all industry producers and other
stakeholders. A circular resource flow means a system with minimal waste where waste
from one industrial activity is treated as input for other activities. This transformation

2
requires preparation, such as infrastructure, technical breakthroughs and regulatory
environment [2].
The greatest share of CO² emissions can be attributed to the production of building
materials specifically steel, cement and timber. Almost 70% of the environmental
impact of building materials arises through their production. Revising material and
resource flows becomes necessary as pressures form growing population levels and the
need for buildings continue [3]. Research needs to be robust enough to be trusted in
businesses and society. The complexity of this sustainable transformation is because of
the large numbers of actors and stakeholders [4]. Studies showed that 33% of waste in
the construction process happens in the design stage [5, 6]. Current knowledge is mostly
focused on the green purchase of products and not directed toward the building
industry. We also note fragmented and inconclusive studies for the use of reclaimed
and recycled building materials. The earlier results of studies that examine
stakeholders’ perceptions are not consistent [7]. Accordingly, there is a need to consult
stakeholders to clarify the current situation and opportunities.
2 Literature review
Understanding people’s perceptions around environmental issues is crucial when it
comes to solving environmental problems. Increasing volumes of waste is one of these
problems. There are different factors influencing the process of shaping an
environmentally friendly behavior, which in the current study relates to the use of
reclaimed and recycled building materials. Interrogation of people’s perceptions will
enable relevant factors, including barriers, to be identified.
2.1 Stakeholders
Bahamon notes that construction is one of the most polluting industries; therefore,
architects, being chief stakeholders within the construction industry, are a prime
candidate for changing the attitude towards recycling. Architects make important
decisions about building materials and methods and could include other people’s
interests in this process, accepting that they can also have good ideas [8].
Addis’s opinion is that there is an increasing trend among designers, architects,
builders and other stakeholders for using more recycled building materials [9]. Denne
suggests that producers should consider raw material use, recycling processes of waste
and waste reduction. Consumers should select products which limit waste and know
about disposal options. Governments should intervene in waste management because
private decisions cannot reduce waste alone, and there is a delay between the
production, purchase, and disposal which make it difficult to see the consequences as
fast as the decisions are made [10].
2.2 Influential factors
Eco-labelling and environmental information on products will increase knowledge
and have a positive influence on sustainable consumption behavior. Besides, economic

3
incentives such as discounts and subsidies should be considered, because the price is
important even for non-green purchasers [11].
Dursun’s study showed that positive influence of personal health and the
environment was more significant than economic factors on green buying behavior. In
addition, when we talk about buying natural, organic and recycled products, the quality
of life, health and safety are the most important factors. Nevertheless, for simple buying
behavior, economic factors were found to be significant. Saving money encourages
people to show some of the pro-environmental behaviours such as repairing, reusing
and recycling. Immediate costs of recycling can be a barrier (55% of the reasons behind
not recycling), but long-term benefits of it is hidden from some stakeholders (especially
non-green purchasers) [12]. According to earlier research in this field, price, quality
and convenience are among the most influential factors that affects sustainable
consumption behaviour [13-15].
For manufacturers to meet expected future market demands, they will need to
consider concepts of sustainability in their own practices, including use of green
products, in order to be successful. By finding sustainable alternatives, businesses can
cut costs as depleting natural resources cause prices to increase and can benefit from
sustainable decisions being more appealing to customers and investors. Building strong
relationships with stakeholders as members of society plays an important role [16].
Attitudes toward the use of these products are positively affected by the social and
environmental image of the company [17, 18], good feelings [19], transparency of
information provided by manufacturers [20-23]. Attitudes are negatively influenced by
gaps between companies’ claims and actual performance, difficult access to
information [17, 20] and doubt and dissatisfaction about products and manufacturers
[21]. Sometimes green products do not support consumer needs, which leads to poor
perceptions. High pricing, low confidence, also high compromise can make it worse
[24]. Other studies also support these ideas and have found that providing additional
information about the benefits, performance and quality of the environment friendly
products can have positive impacts on green purchase behaviors [17, 25-28]. Auditing
perceptions of people to find values of a good product, understanding their present and
future lifestyles, knowing how they communicate with media, help them have a positive
image [29].
Effective environmental strategies are also opportunities for competitive advantage,
since managing conflicting stakeholder interests and being seen to be responsible can
increase profitability from sustainable practices and environmental strategies. This can
also be a motivation for manufacturers to be more environmentally friendly and
innovative [26, 30].
Generally, demographic characteristics such as gender [31], education [28], racial
and cultural background lead to different conceptualizations [27, 32], which affect the
relationship between consumer value and consumer satisfaction with buying behavior;
for example women are more concerned about social issues, and men respond better to
emotional communication [33]. Therefore producers and suppliers can communicate
rationally rather than emotionally with regard to sex and age of them [18].

4
3 Methodology
Similar to other studies [12, 15, 17, 21, 30, 32] that have examined influential factors
and perceptions of people around green purchase and incentives of environment-
friendly behaviors, a survey questionnaire was determined to be the most appropriate
data collection method. A five-point Likert scale was used, with average scores for each
demographic classification calculated for each measured item. The scoring scale ranged
from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The original questionnaire consisted of more
questions in a study to report in a broader area of findings and this paper reports on
only a part of these findings.
Freeman defined a stakeholder as “any group or individual who can affect or is
affected by the achievement of the organization’s objective” (R. E. Freeman, 2010). A
stratified sample was the sampling method, and the population of principal stakeholders
was divided into industry related subgroups,. For the consumer stakeholder group a
simple random sampling was deployed. Using email addresses sourced from the
websites of different stakeholder organizations, potential respondents were then asked
to identify other members of the industry subgroup through a snowball sampling
technique. This technique was used in order to make the sample bigger, in case it would
be needed as a back-up method. Main stakeholders in this study include regulators,
consumers, manufacturers and suppliers, NGOs and environmental activists, builders,
architects, and designers. Approximately 600 stakeholders participated from three cities
of Auckland (43%), Wellington (35%), and Christchurch (22%) in New Zealand in a
survey of attitudes and behaviors.
Descriptive statistics, multi regression, and one-way ANOVA were used in the data
analysis, and assumptions of normality, linearity, homoscedasticity were checked
before these analyses.
4 Descriptive results
The sample consisted of 159 architects, 160 builders, 103 manufacturers and suppliers,
52 environmentalists and NGOs, 48 regulators and 144 consumers. Table 1 shows that
how much the sample is over/under-represented according to the construction industry
characteristics in New Zealand. As a summary of representativeness of the sample we
can say that men are under-represented, and women are over-represented; age
distribution is almost close to the main population; education level of secondary school,
vocational training and no education are under-represented, and tertiary qualifications
are over-represented.
The descriptive statistics report the frequencies. The first two statements in the
questionnaire measure the general knowledge of respondents. One asks people to
provide their understanding of how strongly the construction industry pollutes and the
second one about the benefits of using reclaimed and recycled building materials.
Results showed that respondents are unclear on whether the construction industry is
one of the most polluting industries. Most respondents (66%) agree that benefits of
using reclaimed and recycled building materials outweigh the drawbacks. We note that

5
despite the fact these respondents represent key stakeholder groups in the building
construction industry, they are not aware that construction is one of the most polluting
activities in cities.
Table 1- Descriptive statistics of sociodemographic data
Characteristics
n
Valid
Survey sample
Construction industry
Gender
Men
Women
429
233
64.8%
35.2%
83% [34]
17%
Age
18-29 years old
30-49 years old
50-64 years old
65 years and over
87
328
186
61
13.1%
49.5%
28.1%
9.2%
21.8%[35]
52.1%
26%
4.4%
Education
Secondary school
vocational training
Bachelor’s degree
Postgraduate degree
None of the above
48
194
197
211
12
7.3%
29.3%
29.8%
31.9%
1.8%
7.7%[36]
69.2%
6%
1.8%
11.7%
Income
Less than $19,999
$20,000 to $39,999
$40,000 to $79,999
$80,000 to $109,999
$110,000 or more
47
64
216
144
190
7.1%
9.7%
32.7%
21.8%
28.7%
N/A*
*The mean value for 2016 was 64640 in the building construction industry [37].
One of the key reasons why people do not use reclaimed and recycled building
materials is poor availability, as 50% of respondents stated that they cannot find these
products in nearby suppliers’ stores and 30% stated that they have inadequate
information on their availability. This issue is also affected by other factors like
advertisement, because only 20% of people disagree that they buy these products
because they are influenced by advertisements. This fact shows that advertisement have
their impact on people purchase behaviour like other normal products, and as we know
based on the literature green purchasers are more conscious about the transparency of
information of products. Therefore, it is not only a matter of advertising, but also access
to product information. Results indicate that only 12% of respondents say that needed
information are easily available when purchasing a reclaimed and recycled building
material. Specifically, when it comes to the use of building materials, knowing
specifications of materials is a key fact influencing the purchase behaviour because of
building codes and standards to be met.
Respondents then answered questions regarding their perceptions of producers and
suppliers of reclaimed and recycled building materials. Most of the people (76%-79%)

6
believe that public and environmental image of the manufacturer and supplier is
important when buying these building materials as green products. In addition, 36% of
them believe that these producers do not communicate enough with people to know
their needs, and 43% do not have an opinion about this issue. However, 61% of
respondents agree that there is a gap between claim and performance of these producers
in the building construction industry and only 4% think that there is not a gap. This is
also consistent with the literature that usually one of the reasons people do not trust
environment-friendly products is because of this gap information [17, 20].
5 Discussion
5.1 Effect of socio-demographic data
Multiple regression was run to predict influential factors from gender, age, education,
and income. Results show that “knowledge of impacts of construction industry” and
“increasing concern among people” cannot be predicted by variables of demographic
data. But age and gender statistically significantly predicted “self-satisfaction”, F(2,
624) = 7.774, p = .000, R2 = .024. Women believe that “self-satisfaction” is more
important in a green purchase than men, and age has a contrary relationship with it.
Also, age predicted “price”, F(1, 625) = 25.932, p = .000, R2 = .040, and predicted
“availability”, F(1, 625) = 9.277, p = .002, R2 = .015. “price” and “availability” have a
contrary relationship with age. Interestingly, income predicted (statistically significant)
“advertisement”, F(1, 625) = 19.169, p = .000, R2 = .030, and this is contrary
relationship. Similarly, age and income predicted “accessibility of information”, F(2,
624) = 8.590, p = .000, R2 = .027 which is a contrary relationship. Income and gender
are statistically significant predictors of “knowledge of benefits”, F(2, 624) = 7.542, p
= .001, R2 = .024. Women think that use of these materials has more benefit, but
“Knowledge of benefit” has a contrary relationship with income. As we can see age and
gender statistically significantly predicted “public” and “environmental” image of
companies, F(1, 605) = 15.143, p = .000, R2 = .024, F(1, 605) = 7.918, p = .005, R2 =
.013, respectively. “public image” has a contrary relationship with age, and
“environmental image” is more important for women. Also, gender statistically
significantly predicted “gap between claim and performance”, F(1, 605) = 6.825, p =
.009, R2 = .011. Surprisingly, this test shows that men are more suspicious about the
gap between claim and performance of producers.
It is clear from the results of the regression that age, gender, and income variables,
especially age in most cases added statistically significantly to the prediction of
influential factors, p < .005. This finding is consistent with the literature that confirms
the predictability of these influential factors on green purchase behaviour based on the
socio-demographic data specifically the same three variables of age, gender, and
income.

7
5.2 Effect of stakeholders’ roles
Influential factors are compared between different groups of stakeholders through
one-way ANOVA test as well. Results show that stakeholders have statistically
different opinions about this fact that construction industry is one of the most polluting
industries, (F(5,621) = 4.242, p = .001), this analysis also revealed that interestingly
architects know more about this fact than manufacturers and consumers. There was a
statistically significant difference between groups as determined by one-way ANOVA
for “increasing concern among people” (F(5,621) = 5.592, p = .000) and a Tukey post
hoc test revealed that manufacturers agree more than builders, environmentalists, and
regulators, and consumers agree more than environmentalists that there is a growing
environmental concern for reuse and recycling. Also, ANOVA showed that perceptions
about “availability” of reclaimed and recycled building materials are different among
different stakeholders, (F(5,621) = 4.168, p = .001) and based on a Tukey post hoc test,
consumers’ group has a more positive attitude towards availability than builders,
architects, and environmentalists. Accessible “information” is another item that
respondents have different opinions about. It is statistically different (F(5,621) = 7.395,
p = .000) and a Tukey post hoc test showed that manufacturers think more positively
that required information for purchasing the reclaimed and recycled building materials
are easily available than regulators, also consumers think more positively about this
issue than builders, architects, environmentalists and regulators. Perceptions of
respondents about “communication” of producers with consumers are also statistically
different among stakeholders, (F(5,601) = 2.935, p = .013) and based on a Tukey post
hoc test, consumers and manufacturers agree more than architects that producers of
these building materials communicate enough with their consumers. But there was not
a significant difference for “self-satisfaction”, “price”, “advertisement”, “public
image”, “environmental image”, “gap of claim and performance”, and “knowledge of
benefits” among different stakeholders. This may have been in part due to the fact that
specialists are more aware and knowledgeable about the environment than lay people.
Fig. 1. Different perceptions of stakeholders

8
We noted that environmentalists are not optimistic about environmental issues,
which can in part be as a consequence of the nature of their professional interests
compared to others. Similarly, regulators are more negative than others in their views
about environmental issues. As seen in Figure 1, when the question is about
environmental problems experts agree to a greater extent, but when it is about the
influential factors they disagree. Comparisons of opinions around the measured items
indicates that the general trend of respondents’ attitude about different influential
factors is the same across different stakeholders groups.
6 Conclusion
Hence studying the perceptions of these stakeholders and investigating their differences
and opportunities is one of the first steps towards this sustainable transformation. In the
light of the results, we see that although reclaimed and recycled building material is an
environment-friendly alternative to conventional materials, still, price, availability, and
other normal marketing influential factors play their role in purchasing behaviour of
consumers. However, price and self-satisfaction are the most influential factors among
the studied factors. We should not ignore this fact that green purchasers are more
careful, price conscious, not loyal to brands, favor new products and communicate
product information [31] than normal consumers. This finding should be considered by
producers, manufacturers, and suppliers since people pay attention to the image these
producers show to the society and they can see the gap between their claim and
performance. Especially for building materials, because this is the architect who
decides on material choice at the end of the day and architects are more aware and
knowledgeable about the required specifications of materials than ordinary people.
Examination of prediction of influential factors and investigating sociodemographic
data of stakeholders offers much more insight into the fact that age, gender, and income
are three strong predictors, which can be helpful for producers to plan future strategies.
References
1. Parkes, C. and H. Borland, Strategic HRM: Transforming Its Responsibilities Toward
Ecological Sustainability—The Greatest Global Challenge Facing Organizations.
Thunderbird International Business Review, 2012. 54(6): p. 811-824.
2. Dominish, E., et al., Australian Opportunities in a Circular Economy for Metals:
Findings of the Wealth from Waste Cluster. 2017, The Wealth from Waste Cluster.
3. Iacovidou, E. and P. Purnell, Mining the physical infrastructure: Opportunities,
barriers and interventions in promoting structural components reuse. Science of the
Total Environment, 2016. 557: p. 791-807.
4. Markard, J., R. Raven, and B. Truffer, Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of
research and its prospects. Research policy, 2012. 41(6): p. 955-967.
5. Osmani, M., J. Glass, and A. Price, Architect and contractor attitudes to waste
minimisation. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Waste and Resource
Management, 2006. 159(2): p. 65-72.

9
6. Poon, C. and L. Jaillon, A guide for minimizing construction and demolition waste at
the design stage. 2002: Dept. of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University.
7. Prasnikar, J., et al., An integral approach to corporate environmentalism and its
application to a country in transition. Zbornik radova Ekonomskog fakulteta u Rijeci,
časopis za ekonomsku teoriju i praksu,-Proceedings of Rijeka Faculty of Economics,
Journal of Economics and Business, 2012. 30(1): p. 89-113.
8. Bahamón, A., Rematerial: From waste to architecture. 2010: WW Norton & Company
Incorporated.
9. Addis, B., Building with reclaimed components and materials: a design handbook for
reuse and recycling. 2012: Routledge.
10. Denne, T. and S. Bond-Smith, Economic Factors of Waste Minimisation in New
Zealand. 2012, Ministry for the Environment: New Zealand.
11. Biswas, A. and M. Roy, Green products: an exploratory study on the consumer
behaviour in emerging economies of the East. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2015. 87:
p. 463-468.
12. Dursun, I., et al., PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUMPTION: IS IT REALLY ALL
ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT? Journal of Management Marketing and Logistics,
2016. 3(2).
13. Freeman, L., The Greening of America II: Savy Marketers Keep Aboard the
Environmental Cause. Advertising Age (November 13, 1990), P-514, 1990.
14. Ottman, J. and N.B. Books, Green marketing: opportunity for innovation. The Journal
of Sustainable Product Design, 1998. 60.
15. Tilikidou, I., et al., Pro-Environmental Purchasing Behaviour during the economic
crisis. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 2014. 32(2): p. 160-173.
16. Ministry for the Environment, Simply Sustainable. 2005, Ministry for the Environment:
New Zealand.
17. Grimmer, M. and T. Bingham, Company environmental performance and consumer
purchase intentions. Journal of Business Research, 2013. 66(10): p. 1945-1953.
18. Sonnenberg, N.C., A.C. Erasmus, and S. Donoghue, Significance of environmental
sustainability issues in consumers' choice of major household appliances in South
Africa. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 2011. 35(2): p. 153-163.
19. Denne, T., et al., Recycling: cost benefit analysis. report prepared for the Ministry for
the Environment (New Zealand), Covec, Ltd, 2007.
20. Britzelmaier, B. and S. Burger. Reasons for the low aceptance of ethically sustainable
investmens. in 5th Annual EuroMed Conference of the EuroMed Academy of Business.
2012. EuroMed Press.
21. Lemke, F. and J.P.P. Luzio, Exploring Green Consumers’ Mind-Set toward Green
Product Design and Life Cycle Assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2014. 18(5):
p. 619-630.
22. Cheng, B., I. Ioannou, and G. Serafeim, Corporate social responsibility and access to
finance. Strategic Management Journal, 2014. 35(1): p. 1-23.
23. Hart, S.L., A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of management
review, 1995. 20(4): p. 986-1014.

10
24. Pedro Pereira Luzio, J. and F. Lemke, Exploring green consumers' product demands
and consumption processes. European Business Review, 2013. 25(3): p. 281-300.
25. Heikkurinen, P., Image differentiation with corporate environmental responsibility.
Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 2010. 17(3): p. 142.
26. Rodriguez-Melo, A. and S.A. Mansouri, Stakeholder Engagement: Defining Strategic
Advantage for Sustainable Construction. Business Strategy and the Environment,
2011. 20(8): p. 539-552.
27. Sandhu, S., et al., Consumer driven corporate environmentalism: Fact or fiction?
Business Strategy and the Environment, 2010. 19(6): p. 356-366.
28. Tilikidou, I., Evolutions in the ecologically conscious consumer behaviour in Greece.
EuroMed Journal of Business, 2013. 8(1): p. 17-35.
29. Bendell, J. and A. Kleanthous, Deeper luxury: Quality and style when the world
matters. 2008: WWF-UK.
30. Driessen, P.H. and B. Hillebrand, Integrating Multiple Stakeholder Issues in New
Product Development: An Exploration. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
2013. 30(2): p. 364-379.
31. Shrum, L., J.A. McCarty, and T.M. Lowrey, Buyer characteristics of the green
consumer and their implications for advertising strategy. Journal of Advertising, 1995.
24(2): p. 71-82.
32. Guerci, M., A. Longoni, and D. Luzzini, Translating stakeholder pressures into
environmental performance–the mediating role of green HRM practices. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2016. 27(2): p. 262-289.
33. Hur, W.M., J. Woo, and Y. Kim, The Role of Consumer Values and Socio-
Demographics in Green Product Satisfaction: The Case of Hybrid Cars. Psychol Rep,
2015. 117(2): p. 406-27.
34. BCITO. Snapshot of Women in Construction. 2012; Available from: bcito.org.nz.
35. Figure NZ. Age distribution of people working in the building construction industry in
New Zealand. 2013 [cited 2013.
36. Figure NZ. Highest qualifications of people working in the building construction
industry in New Zealand. 2013 [cited 2013; Available from:
https://figure.nz/chart/zNtAhhyNmReAAz4o-ZUCa3NMLpY1tr03o.
37. Figure NZ. Average earnings in the building construction industry in New Zealand.
2018 December 2016 February 26, 2018]; Available from:
https://figure.nz/chart/LqNIqJaXhjH9w2Y4-KndZEYtAMmuAIcOO.