| Literature DB >> 35682166 |
Linlin Xie1, Mian Huang1, Bo Xia2, Martin Skitmore3.
Abstract
Construction megaprojects play a significant role in today's infrastructure provision in terms of sustainable development, and their increasing proliferation worldwide means the environmentally responsible behavior (ERB) of those involved are becoming of vital importance. This study investigates how ERB can be best supported in megaprojects by first identifying the motivational factors that are involved based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB), followed by a survey of 188 managers involved in China megaprojects to test the TPB model using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). The results strongly support the TPB model's predictive ability, with subjective norms being the strongest predictors, followed by attitudes and perceived behavioral control. These findings provide support for decision makers in helping to cultivate and improve the level of megaproject ERB in China and many other such countries that are similarly involved.Entities:
Keywords: China; PLS-SEM; environmentally responsible behavior; megaprojects; theory of planned behavior
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35682166 PMCID: PMC9179973 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19116581
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Theory of planned behavior.
Construct measurement.
| Construct | Item | Key Source(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Attitude (AT) | AT1: Widely recognized by the state and society | [ |
| AT2: Easier to obtain construction awards | ||
| AT3: Get more market opportunities | ||
| AT4: Build a better image | ||
| Subject norm (SN) | SN1: Requirements of government construction authorities | [ |
| SN2: Requirements of government environmental authorities | ||
| SN3: Expectations of local communities and the public | ||
| SN4: Initiatives of construction industry associations and environmental associations | ||
| Perceived behavioral control (PBC) | PBC1: Technical assistance from the government | [ |
| PBC2: Project participants have a good understanding of environmental specifications and technologies | ||
| PBC3: Project participants have sufficient financial resources | ||
| PBC4: Project participants have extensive and skilled knowledge and management practices | ||
| Intention (IN) | IN1: Intention at the beginning | [ |
| IN2: Intention to continue | ||
| IN3: Intention for the future | ||
| Megaproject ERB (MERB) | MERB1: The environmental management system is perfect | [ |
| MERB2: Fulfillment of legal (regulations) and contractual obligations | ||
| MERB3: Emphasis on ecological and environmental protection | ||
| MERB4: Emphasis on environmental protection in residential communities | ||
| MERB5: Have a construction waste management plan | ||
| MERB6: Pay attention to the rational use of resources and reduce resource wastage | ||
| MERB7: Create conditions for the improvement of employee environmental awareness and skills |
Demographics of the surveyed sample.
| Variables | Category | Number | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project role | Government | 4 | 2.13 |
| Owner | 21 | 11.17 | |
| Designer | 2 | 1.06 | |
| Contractor | 136 | 72.34 | |
| Supervisor | 18 | 9.58 | |
| Consultant | 7 | 3.72 | |
| Position | Project manager | 28 | 14.89 |
| Department manager | 49 | 26.07 | |
| Project engineer | 111 | 59.04 | |
| Project investment | 10–20 | 91 | 48.41 |
| 20–30 | 33 | 17.55 | |
| 30–40 | 11 | 5.85 | |
| More than 40 | 53 | 28.19 | |
| Project duration | Less than 3 years | 64 | 34.04 |
| 3–4 years | 89 | 47.34 | |
| More than 4 years | 35 | 18.62 |
Figure 2Conceptual model.
Convergent validity and internal consistency reliability.
| Latent Variable | Items | Loadings | Cronbach’s Alpha | Composite Reliability | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attitude | AT1 | 0.732 | 0.824 | 0.884 | 0.656 |
| AT2 | 0.813 | ||||
| AT3 | 0.869 | ||||
| AT4 | 0.821 | ||||
| Subject norm | SN1 | 0.838 | 0.823 | 0.883 | 0.654 |
| SN2 | 0.852 | ||||
| SN3 | 0.799 | ||||
| SN4 | 0.741 | ||||
| Perceived behavioral control | PBC1 | 0.787 | 0.812 | 0.873 | 0.634 |
| PBC2 | 0.854 | ||||
| PBC3 | 0.720 | ||||
| PBC4 | 0.817 | ||||
| Intention | BI1 | 0.842 | 0.770 | 0.867 | 0.686 |
| BI2 | 0.851 | ||||
| BI3 | 0.790 | ||||
| Megaproject ERB | MERB1 | 0.835 | 0.936 | 0.948 | 0.722 |
| MERB2 | 0.859 | ||||
| MERB3 | 0.874 | ||||
| MERB4 | 0.846 | ||||
| MERB5 | 0.853 | ||||
| MERB6 | 0.825 | ||||
| MERB7 | 0.856 |
Discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker’s criteria).
| Latent Variable | AT | SN | PBC | BI | MERB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AT | 0.810 | ||||
| SN | 0.740 | 0.809 | |||
| PBC | 0.678 | 0.596 | 0.796 | ||
| IN | 0.724 | 0.751 | 0.630 | 0.828 | |
| MERB | 0.700 | 0.743 | 0.649 | 0.766 | 0.850 |
Note(s): Figures in italic are the square root of AVE. AT: attitude; SN: Subject norm; PBC: Perceived behavioral control; IN: Intention; MERB: Megaproject ERB.
Cross loadings for measurement items.
| Code | Item Loadings | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AT | SN | PBC | BI | MERB | |
| AT1 | 0.732 | 0.658 | 0.385 | 0.547 | 0.586 |
| AT2 | 0.813 | 0.548 | 0.493 | 0.554 | 0.513 |
| AT3 | 0.869 | 0.585 | 0.651 | 0.634 | 0.568 |
| AT4 | 0.821 | 0.611 | 0.645 | 0.606 | 0.600 |
| SN1 | 0.556 | 0.838 | 0.404 | 0.639 | 0.653 |
| SN2 | 0.614 | 0.852 | 0.471 | 0.658 | 0.632 |
| SN3 | 0.556 | 0.799 | 0.488 | 0.610 | 0.545 |
| SN4 | 0.690 | 0.741 | 0.594 | 0.508 | 0.571 |
| PBC1 | 0.532 | 0.436 | 0.787 | 0.393 | 0.433 |
| PBC2 | 0.588 | 0.547 | 0.854 | 0.616 | 0.611 |
| PBC3 | 0.494 | 0.362 | 0.720 | 0.363 | 0.359 |
| PBC4 | 0.542 | 0.512 | 0.817 | 0.562 | 0.593 |
| IN1 | 0.604 | 0.572 | 0.597 | 0.842 | 0.628 |
| IN2 | 0.613 | 0.602 | 0.539 | 0.851 | 0.625 |
| IN3 | 0.580 | 0.688 | 0.429 | 0.790 | 0.648 |
| MERB1 | 0.584 | 0.636 | 0.573 | 0.646 | 0.835 |
| MERB2 | 0.602 | 0.638 | 0.576 | 0.704 | 0.859 |
| MERB3 | 0.588 | 0.675 | 0.532 | 0.693 | 0.874 |
| MERB4 | 0.584 | 0.616 | 0.501 | 0.635 | 0.846 |
| MERB5 | 0.573 | 0.653 | 0.545 | 0.620 | 0.853 |
| MERB6 | 0.638 | 0.587 | 0.545 | 0.625 | 0.825 |
| MERB7 | 0.595 | 0.610 | 0.585 | 0.626 | 0.856 |
Note(s): AT: attitude; SN: Subject norm; PBC: Perceived behavioral control; IN: Intention; MERB: Megaproject ERB.
Hypothesis testing results.
| Variable | R2 | Q2 | Hypothesis Path | Path Coefficient | Result | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IN | 0.644 | 0.426 | AT > BI | 0.278 | 0.001 | H1: Supported |
| SN > BI | 0.438 | 0.000 | H2: Supported | |||
| PBC > BI | 0.181 | 0.010 | H3: Supported | |||
| MERB | 0.633 | 0.450 | PBC > MERB | 0.276 | 0.000 | H4: Supported |
| BI > MERB | 0.593 | 0.000 | H5: Supported |
Note(s): as Table 5.
Figure 3Results of the PLS analysis for the structural model.