The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An empirical study of perceptions towards construction and demolition waste recycling and reuse in China
Open accessAbstract
This study was designed to investigate the recent movement and current stage of China’s construction and demolition (C&D) waste recycling and reuse. Specifically, the research aimed to provide the big picture of recent C&D waste diversion practice in China, as well as to offer insights from Chinese field practitioners’ perceptions towards benefits, challenges, and recommendations of C&D recycling and reuse. This research was conducted based on a review of existing practice and a holistic approach by collecting feedback of professionals from multiple disciplines through a questionnaire-based survey. Totally 77 valid responses were received from 592 questionnaires sent. Both quantitative data and qualitative information implied that China was still at the early stage of recycling C&D wastes. Lack of client demands was identified as one of the main difficulties in C&D waste diversion. The study revealed that engineers and consultants had a more positive perception on promoting industrial training in C&D waste recycling, while construction management professionals held more conservative opinion on it. It was also found that gaining experience in C&D waste recycling and reuse would offer professionals more positive perception on the quality of products containing recycled contents. It was further implied that although governmental supervision had a high impact on China’s current C&D waste management practice, the economic viability should eventually dominate the C&D waste diversion.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Making sense of cronbach’s alpha.
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011) · International Journal of Medical Education · doi:10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd · Cited by 15,126
Esa, M. R., Halog, A., & Rigamonti, L. (2017) · Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management · doi:10.1007/s10163-016-0516-x · Cited by 275
Cited by
Construction and demolition waste management in China through the 3R principle
Huang, B., Wang, X., Kua, H., Geng, Y., Bleischwitz, R., & Ren, J. (2018) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.029 · Cited by 1,047
A review on current situation and challenges of construction and demolition waste management
Menegaki, M., & Damigos, D. (2018) · Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.cogsc.2018.02.010 · Cited by 512
An empirical study of construction and demolition waste generation and implication of recycling
Islam, R., Nazifa, T. H., Yuniarto, A., Shanawaz Uddin, A. S. M., Salmiati, S., & Shahid, S. (2019) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2019.05.049 · Cited by 404
Challenges in current construction and demolition waste recycling: A China study
Ma, M., Tam, V. W. Y., Le, K. N., & Li, W. (2020) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2020.09.030 · Cited by 259
Components reuse in the building sector – A systematic review
Rakhshan, K., Morel, J.-C., Alaka, H., & Charef, R. (2020) · Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy · doi:10.1177/0734242x20910463 · Cited by 167
“At this stage, irrelevant papers, such as those focusing on construction waste management other than reuse (Guo, 2016; Jin et al., 2017), concentrating on other sectors like reverse logistics in the electronics industry (Sirisawat and Kiatcharoenpol, 2019) or talking about reuse but dealing with…”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Jin, R., Li, B., Zhou, T., Wanatowski, D., & Piroozfar, P.
- Venue
- Resources, Conservation and Recycling
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-11
- Volume
- 126
- Pages
- 86-98
- ISSN
- 0921-3449 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2740914441
- Cited by
- 401
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 27.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An empirical study of perceptions towards construction and demolition waste recycling and reuse in China. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.034
- The paper
- Jin, R., Li, B., Zhou, T., Wanatowski, D., & Piroozfar, P. (2017). An empirical study of perceptions towards construction and demolition waste recycling and reuse in China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.034
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.