On-site building construction workers perspective on environmental impacts of construction-related activities: a relative importance index (RII) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) approach

ABSTRACT

The construction sector has massive direct and indirect impacts on the environment; as such, improving the environmental performance of the construction industry requires knowledge about the nature of environmental impacts. On-site construction workers get exposed to construction-related environmental impacts, but have received limited research attention on impact identification. This study examined on-site workers’ perspectives on the major environmental impacts of building construction processes. Data was collected from 221 on-site building construction workers using a structured questionnaire. The data was analyzed using a relative importance index (RII) to determine the importance levels of environmental impacts and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for dimension reduction. The RII revealed that dust generation, noise, vibration, and raw material consumption were the impacts of the highest importance levels of severity. The EFA result showed that local issues were the most influential component. The perceived severity of environmental impacts associated with construction-related activities by on-site construction workers were influenced by their exposure experience. The environmental impacts that directly affect or serve as occupational hazards were ranked as the most severe. This study recommends establishing control measures at construction sites considering the health impact of dust and noise pollution on the well-being of on-site construction workers and the local community.

KEYWORDS:

• construction activities
• Ghana
• dust generation
• noise pollution
• waste generation
• impact severity
• stakeholders

Introduction

The construction sector has massive direct and indirect impacts on the environment and considered one of the primary sources of environmental degradation in the world (Ametepey et al., 2020; Ayarkwa et al., 2014; Enshassi et al., 2015; Gangolells et al., 2009; Lima et al., 2021; M.S. Kaluarachchi et al., 2019; Phoya, 2018; Thomas & Costa, 2017; Vasilca et al., 2021). The environmental impacts associated with the construction industry highlight the need for sustainable construction processes. Among the three dimensions of sustainability (environmental, economic, and social), the environment is considered the most important in the construction industry (Tupenaite et al., 2017). The environmental dimension of sustainable construction seeks to address issues relating to waste management, energy use, resource consumption, biodiversity protection, air quality, land (soil) contamination, and noise emissions (Agyekum et al., 2021; Ametepey et al., 2020; Lima et al., 2021; Munaro & Tavares, 2022; Phoya, 2018; Ruhela et al., 2022; Thomas & Costa, 2017; Tupenaite et al., 2017).

Improving the environmental performance of the construction industry requires knowledge about environmental impacts. Identification of the most likely environmental impacts are used to gain insight into the effects that may require urgent attention throughout the construction period (Abdullah et al., 2021; Akintayo et al., 2020; Ijigah et al., 2013; JaiSai et al., 2022; Makwana et al., 2016; Thomas & Costa, 2017). Generally, the identification and ranking of environmental effects of construction-related activities are undertaken by clients, architects, quantity surveyors, structural engineers, and site engineers as they are recognized as essential to sustainable construction (Agyekum et al., 2021; Ametepey & Ansah, 2015; Ayarkwa et al., 2014; Phoya, 2018). In essence, stakeholder groupings are of high importance to sustainable construction. However, on-site construction employees have received limited attention when identifying factors that severely affect the environment from construction activities. Employees play essential role in successfully implementing sustainability but are frequently neglected (Ruiz-Pérez et al., 2021; Wolf, 2013). The actions and behaviors that employees engage in at the workplace can enhance or diminish environmental sustainability.

On-site construction workers or employees are recognized among the key stakeholders in the Ghanaian construction industry whose views on construction related environmental impacts are key to sustainable construction (Osei-Asibey et al., 2021). Regarding environmental sustainability, Ayarkwa et al. (2014) posited that on-site construction workers are the most technically competent and knowledgeable people on issues of construction-related impacts on the environment due to their exposure. They spend several hours daily on construction sites and are exposed to hazards such as noise and dust pollution, unhygienic sanitary conditions, and various waste emanating from the construction process. Also, their site environmental practices, such as following the correct waste management procedures, covering truck compartments carrying dusty loads, spraying water on exposed surfaces and the unpaved road, can reduce environmental impacts. Despite their critical role in achieving sustainability in the Ghanaian construction industry, no study has been conducted on their perspectives on the environmental impacts of construction activities. Previous studies in Ghana have found on-site building artisans to differ in perspective on adherence to Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) use and factors affecting safety performance at construction sites (Boakye et al., 2022a, b). It is essential to determine their views on the environmental impacts of construction activities. This study aimed to determine whether on-site construction workers’ perspectives on the major environmental impacts are consistent with construction managers previously studied in Ghana. Using exploratory factor analysis and the relative importance index (RII) approach, this study determined on-site workers’ perspectives on the major environmental impacts associated with the building construction processes. The contribution of this study lies in its examination of the perspective of on-site construction employees, which is yet to be investigated in Ghana but vital for promoting a safe working environment, particularly in building construction. Also, no research has previously determined the environmental impacts of construction-related activities in the Ho Municipality hence the need for this study.

Literature review

Environmental impact of construction

The construction industry is considered one of the significant sources of environmental damage. It accounts for about 20–50% of the consumption of natural resources, 50% of carbon emissions, and 50% of total solid waste worldwide (Vasilca et al., 2021). The industry is considered one of the largest exploiters of renewable and non-renewable natural resources. It heavily depends on the environment for its source of raw materials like aggregates, sand, and timber. According to Musenga and Aigbavboa (2019), the building construction sector alone consumes 40% of the world’s raw stones, gravel, and sand and 25% of the virgin wood annually. Construction materials, including steel, aluminum, concrete, cement, chemicals, glass, and plastics, are usually manufactured using a combination of natural resources, which has a detrimental effect on the environment through the extraction and manufacturing process (International Resource Panel (IRP), 2021).

Pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the transportation and processing of materials for construction activities are among the leading environmental impacts in the construction industry (International Resource Panel (IRP), 2021; Sandanayake et al., 2018; Sepehrdoust et al., 2022; Vasilca et al., 2021). According to the United Nations Environment Programme (2021), construction activities accounted for 20% of the global energy-related CO₂ emissions in 2020. Construction activities can produce much dust, including cement and concrete mixing, template cutting, sandblasting, rock drilling/grinding, and masonry work. This dust usually pollutes the surrounding environment and is considered one of the most significant pollutants that endanger human health (Kohlman-Rabbani et al., 2014; Meo et al., 2013; Mohan & Xavier, 2022; Tao et al., 2022; Tong et al., 2018; C. Z. Li et al., 2019). The impact of construction dust on the local environment and health and safety of people has become a public health concern. For instance, dust from construction activities, particularly silica dust, harms the health of residents and on-site construction workers as high exposure, even over a short period, can lead to silicosis (Kohlman-Rabbani et al., 2014; C. Z. Li et al., 2019).

The noise produced from construction activities is one of the most critical acoustic pollutants in communities as all citizens are exposed to high doses of noise and not only the construction workers (Ballesteros et al., 2010; Darus et al., 2015; Hong et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2017). Noise pollution from construction activities typically emanates from site traffic, noisy tools and equipment, and construction activities, which directly involve machinery with a high noise level, particularly earthworks consisting of site clearance, excavation, cutting, filling, and compaction (Geetha & Ambika, 2015; Hamoda, 2008; Haron et al., 2012; M. Kaluarachchi et al., 2021; M.S. Kaluarachchi et al., 2019; Ruhela et al., 2022). Noise pollution, which can cause severe damage to the health and safety of workers and the neighboring community, is a noticeable hazard on construction sites (M. Kaluarachchi et al., 2021; M.S. Kaluarachchi et al., 2019). Noise-induced hearing impairment, is the most prevalent irreversible occupational hazard in the construction industry (Hamoda, 2008). Noise exposure can therefore cause a detrimental effect on the social, psychic, and physical health of people living within the vicinity of construction activities and the construction workers.

The construction sector generates waste throughout the construction project, starting from the design until the final stage that harms the environment, such as pollution of soil, air, and water (Almaliki, 2020; Amuna et al., 2021; Fadiya et al., 2014; Hasmori et al., 2020; Kumawat et al., 2022; Saadi et al., 2016). Construction waste consists primarily of inert and non-biodegradable materials such as concrete, plaster, masonry, non-ferrous metal, paper, cardboard, mortar, bricks, roofing tiles, glass, paints, pipes, and electrical fixtures, wood, and plastics. These waste materials are detrimental to the environment because of the difficulty of recycling due to high contamination levels and a significant degree of heterogeneity (Cardoso Teixeira, 2005). The conventional approach to waste disposal is dumping in landfill sites (Amuna et al., 2021; Cardoso Teixeira, 2005; Kumawat et al., 2022; Saadi et al., 2016). The use of landfills for disposal is not sustainable due to the limited space in landfills and the amount of waste generated.

Ecosystem impacts are among the most significant effect of construction activities on the environment (Enshassi et al., 2015). Land used for construction removes natural habitats, substantially affecting biodiversity and habitat loss (Opoku, 2019; UgUgwu et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2019; H. N. Li et al., 2021). This leads to diminished quality of biodiversity below its natural state due to modifying the ecosystems on which the biodiversity depends at that particular construction site (Nolan et al., 2009; UgUgwu et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2019). The direct impacts of construction on biodiversity include the removal of indigenous species, fragmentation of remnant vegetation, and land or soil degradation resulting in the permanent loss of the environmental attributes required for the maintenance of indigenous biodiversity (Nolan et al., 2009; UgUgwu et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2019). The indirect impacts include the alterations in local communities’ social and economic status as biodiversity has social and economic importance beyond the environment. During construction, a common practice is the clearance of the entire site for ease of movement of work, equipment, and vehicles. The loss of the topsoil from clearance increases the risk of severe erosion, and sediment production as the disturbed area is subjected to rainfall and wind events during work (Belayutham et al., 2016). Also, the use of heavy machinery during earthwork and vehicles may lead to increased runoff due to the compaction of topsoil and, therefore, cause increased sediment loads in nearby water bodies. Construction site-induced water pollution could negatively affect the environment and people’s economic and social well-being due to its effect on the ecosystem (Belayutham et al., 2016; Galitskova, 2019).

Materials and methods

Study area

The study was conducted in the Ho Municipality which is located between latitudes 6°20″N and 6°55″N and longitudes 0°12′E and 0° 53′E and covers a total land area of 587 km² and has a human population of 180,420 (Ghana Statistical Service, 2021). The municipality shares boundaries with Adaklu and Agotime-Ziope Districts to the South, Ho West District to the North and West, and the Republic of Togo to the East. The construction market in the municipality continues to expand due to increased infrastructural needs of facilities, such as homes, shops, schools, hospitals, and office spaces. The construction industry is ranked as the fifth-biggest employer out of 21 industrial activities in the municipality hence the need for a critical look into environmental impacts associated with this industry.

Questionnaire design and development

The questionnaire was developed by reviewing relevant literature on the factors contributing to construction-related environmental impacts. This study adapted the environmental impacts related to the construction process from (Gangolells et al., 2009), as these impacts have been used in similar studies (Ametepey & Ansah, 2015; Enshassi et al., 2015; Fuertes et al., 2013; Gangolells et al., 2011; Nateghi & Abdullah, 2016; Zolfagharian et al., 2012). Accordingly, 37 safety factors were selected for analysis in this study. The survey questionnaire was organized into two parts. The first part of the questionnaire dealt with demographic characteristics such as gender, age group, last level of formal education, job specialty, and experience in the construction industry. Respondents were asked to rate their degree of agreement with the severity of environmental impacts related to the construction process on a five-point Likert scale varying from “Very low” (1) to “Very high” (5) in the second part of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was programmed into the KoBoCollect Android smartphone application developed by the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). The questionnaire was pretested at construction sites to build the confidence of the research assistants in using the electronic tool for the data collection.

Determination of sample size

The sample size was estimated using a formula developed by Yamane (1967). It was calculated as:

$n=\frac{N}{1+N{\left(e\right)}^2}$

where n is the sample size, N is the population size, and e is the level of precision. Using a confidence level of 95%, a level of precision of 5% (0.05), and a population size (N) of 322, the sample size (n) of 178 was obtained. Due to the corporation with the site supervisors who allowed for the face-to-face administering of questionnaires to workers who were not busy outside the agreed schedule the estimated sample size was increased to 221 respondents.

Sampling procedure and data collection

All building construction workers at live sites with not less than a year’s working experience were eligible to participate in the study. This study’s population comprised of masons, carpenters, painters, electricians, plumbers, steel benders, and construction laborers working in registered companies classified as D1K1 by the Ministry of Works and Housing. The D1K1 companies were targeted because the classification enjoins them to have measures to deal with construction-related impacts on the environment. Permission was asked from the management of five (5) D1K1 companies to administer face-to-face structured questionnaires to their frontline workers. Before visiting the sites, the foreman or engineer of each site was approached and requested to brief the workers about the study’s purpose to facilitate the data collection process. The face-to-face questionnaires were administered during their break to avoid causing any hindrances to their work. Due to most artisans’ low formal education level, research assistants familiar with the local language were trained to assist the respondent with answering the questions. All the research assistants were fluent in the Ewe local language, widely spoken in the municipality. Face-to-face administering of the questionnaire was employed with the research assistants providing explanation to the respondents before the questionnaire completion. All study respondents gave their oral informed consent prior to survey initiation. Data were collected from the building construction artisans in November and December 2021. The mandatory response setting to the KoboToolbox ensured 100% completion of the questions with each participant.

Data analysis

Relative importance index (RII)

The relative value of each variable perceived by the respondents in the study was expressed by the Relative Importance Index (RII; Chan, 2012). The RII is one of the most reliable methods for rating variables using a structured questionnaire on a Likert scale (Dixit et al., 2019). The RII approach has been used in previous studies to rank construction related environmental impacts (Ametepey & Ansah, 2015; Enshassi et al., 2015; Ijigah et al., 2013; JaiSai et al., 2022; Makwana et al., 2016). The RII is calculated using the following equation:

$RelativeImportanceIndex\left(RII\right)=\frac{{\displaystyle \sum \omega }}{A*N}$

where ω is the weighting given to each factor by the respondent (ranging from 1 to 5 in this study), A is the highest weight (i.e. 5 in this study), and N is the total number of respondents (i.e. 221 in this study). The relative importance index ranges from 0 to 1, with the highest RII indicating the maximum impact on the environment from construction-related activities. Akadiri (2011) transformed RII values into five important levels: High (H) (0.8≤ RI≤1), High-Medium (H-M) (0.6≤ RI<0.8), Medium (M) (0.4≤ RI<0.6), Medium-Low (M-L) (0.2≤ RI<0.4), and Low (L) (0≤ RI<0.2).

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

In order to determine the relationship between the various environmental impacts associated with construction activities, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used. The EFA approach reduced the number of variables measured to smaller parameters to enhance interpretability and identify secret data structures. The exploratory factor analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 22.0). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test was used to determine sampling adequacy. Bartlett’s sphericity test was used to measure the multivariate normality of the variables. Bartlett’s sphericity test result of the data shows statistical significance (p < 0,05), KMO values range from 0 to 1, and a minimum value of 0.5 is specified as an acceptable threshold to proceed with factor analysis (Hair et al., 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). These key variables in this study were chosen according to these four parameters: (1) eigenvalue 1, (2) loading values of variables should be a minimum of 0.5, (3) one variable should only be loaded on one factor, and (4) a factor should comprise minimum two variables.

Results

Table 1 shows that all the participants in this study were males (n = 221) with the majority having completed Junior High School (JHS) (n = 70; 31.67%), followed by Senior/Technical/Vocational schools (n = 65; 29.41%), primary level (n = 49; 22.17%), tertiary (n = 30; 13.17%). Most of the participants were between the ages of 21 to 30 (n = 107; 48.42%), and having a working experience of 1 to 5 years (n = 99; 44.80%). Mason, laborers and carpenters formed most of the participants (n = 62; 28.05%, n = 50; 22.62%, and n = 46; 20.81%, respectively). Temporal form of employment was the most common (n = 105; 47.51%), followed by casual (n = 60; 27.15%) and permanent (n = 56; 25.34%). A total of 62.90% (n = 139) had knowledge about environmental impact of construction related activities with their source information being the workplace (n = 69; 35.38%), seminar (n = 33; 16.92%), radio (n = 30; 15.38%), television (n = 26; 13.33%), friends/colleagues (n = 19; 9.74), and school (n = 18; 9.23%).

Table 1. Demographics of study participants

	Number	%
Gender
Male	221	100
Age group of participants
18 to 20	22	9.95
21–30	107	48.42
31–40	66	29.86
41–50	23	10.41
51–60	1	0.45
Above 60	2	0.90
Years in the construction industry
1–5	99	44.80
6–10	76	34.39
11–15	28	12.67
16–20	11	4.98
Above 20	7	3.17
Form of employment
Permanent	56	25.34
Temporal	105	47.51
Casual	60	27.15
Last level of formal education
Below primary	7	3.17
Primary	49	22.17
JHS	70	31.67
Secondary	65	29.41
Tertiary	30	13.57
Job specialty
Mason	62	28.05
Laborer	50	22.62
Carpenter	46	20.81
Steel bender	15	6.79
Electrician	11	4.98
Site foreman	8	3.62
Plumber	7	3.17
Painter	5	2.26
Mechanic operator	4	1.81
Scaffolding	3	1.36
Store keeper	3	1.36
Land surveyor	3	1.36
Driver	2	0.90
Site engineer	1	0.45
Quantity surveyor	1	0.45

The RII of each environmental impact related to the construction process is presented in Table 2. Out of the 37 impacts evaluated, five factors were of high importance levels of impact on the environment, with RII values ranging between 0.866 and 0.814. These five factors: dust generation in activities with construction machinery and transport, dust generation in earthworks activities and stockpiles, dust generation in activities with cutting operations, generation of noise and vibrations due to site activities (road roller, graders and compactors, etc.) and raw material consumption during the construction process occupied positions of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively in the RII ranking. Based on the level of importance, the other 32 factors were of high to medium importance. Landscape alteration by the presence of singular elements (cranes) was ranked last among all the impact factors. None of the 37 factors evaluated fell under the high and high-medium importance level, indicating low environmental performance.

Table 2. The relative importance index (RII) score for construction related environmental impacts

S/N	Environmental impacts related to construction process	RII	RII Ranking	Importance Level
1	Dust generation in activities with construction machinery and transport	0.866	1	H
2	Dust generation in earthworks activities and stockpiles	0.861	2	H
3	Dust generation in activities with cutting operations	0.853	3	H
4	Generation of noise and vibrations due to site activities (road roller, graders and compactors, etc.)	0.815	4	H
5	Raw material consumption during the construction process	0.814	5	H
6	Fires at areas for storing flammable and combustible substances	0.754	6	H-M
7	Breakage of receptacles with harmful substances (storage tanks for dangerous products)	0.751	7	H-M
8	Breakage of underground pipes (electric power cables, telephone lines, water pipes)	0.738	8	H-M
9	Interception of river beds, water channeling and stream water cut of (number of contact points with river beds)	0.738	8	H-M
10	Generation of greenhouse gas emissions due to construction machinery and vehicle movements	0.728	9	H-M
11	Operations with loss of edaphic soil (site preparation)	0.727	10	H-M
12	Fuel consumption during the construction process (the number of power generators, and concrete mixers)	0.721	11	H-M
13	Operations with high potential soil erosion (unprotected soils as a consequence of earthworks)	0.704	12	H-M
14	Water consumption during the construction process	0.700	13	H-M
15	Electricity consumption during the construction process	0.699	14	H-M
16	Operations with vegetation removal (site preparation)	0.699	14	H-M
17	Dumping of sanitary water resulting from on-site sanitary conveniences (soil emissions)	0.697	15	H-M
18	Generation of inert waste (rock, rubble, boulder, earth soil, sand, concrete, brick)	0.690	16	H-M
19	Generation of special (potentially dangerous) waste (treated timber, asbestos, preservative, adhesives, aerosol cans)	0.690	16	H-M
20	Emission of VOCs and CFCs (Synthetic paints and varnishes)	0.690	16	H-M
21	Dumping of sanitary water resulting from on-site sanitary conveniences (water emissions)	0.690	16	H-M
22	Generation of municipal waste by on-site construction workers	0.672	17	H-M
23	Generation of excavated waste material during earthworks	0.658	18	H-M
24	Operations that cause dirtiness at the construction site entrances	0.656	19	H-M
25	Generation of ordinary or non-special waste (wood, plastic, metal, paper, cardboard or glass)	0.655	20	H-M
26	Use of cleaning agents or surface-treatment liquids at the construction site (liquid cleaners, degreasers, solutions, polishing fluids and additives)	0.654	21	H-M
27	Use of concrete release agent at the construction site (plywood, overlaid plywood, aluminum or steel)	0.650	22	H-M
28	Dumping of water resulting from the process of cleaning concrete chutes or dumping of other basic fluids (soil emissions)	0.650	22	H-M
29	Increase in external road traffic due to construction site transport	0.648	23	H-M
30	Dumping of water resulting from the process of cleaning concrete chutes or dumping of other basic fluids other basic fluids (water emissions)	0.645	24	H-M
31	Interference in external road traffic due to the construction site	0.638	25	H-M
32	Opening construction site entrances with soil compaction (Length of the entrance to the site (m))	0.636	26	H-M
33	Dumping of water resulting from the execution of foundations and retaining walls (water emissions)	0.634	27	H-M
34	Dumping of water resulting from the execution of foundations and retaining walls (soil emissions)	0.633	28	H-M
35	Dumping derived from the use and maintenance of construction machinery	0.630	29	H-M
36	Land occupancy by the building, provisional onsite facilities and storage areas	0.623	30	H-M
37	Landscape alteration by the presence of singular elements (cranes)	0.621	31	H-M

Factor selection depended on their factor loading value, set at 0.5 using varimax rotation. Through the rule of eigenvalue greater than one, nine components were extracted after the exploratory factor analysis. The nine (9) components extracted after the exploratory factor analysis accounted for 69.02% of the total variance. Out of the 37 variables considered, 34 were selected based on correlation and loading on a component. Similar to Irfan et al. (2019) and Doloi et al. (2012), the attributes that did not have a significant correlation with one another were excluded from further analysis, hence the removal of these three (3) factors: dumping of water resulting from the execution of foundations and retaining walls (water emissions), dumping of water resulting from the process of cleaning concrete chutes or dumping of other basic fluids (water emissions) and interception of river beds, water channeling and stream water cut of (number of contact points with river beds). The results of Cronbach’s α test show that the α value for the 34 variables retained was 0.917, greater than 0.8, indicating a good internal consistency and reliability of the questionnaire data. Bartlett’s test of sphericity score was 4026.397, and the associated significance level was 0.001 for the 34 variables, indicating that the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix (Joseph et al., 2010). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of all the remaining 34 variables was 0.854, significantly greater than 0.5, and can be considered highly acceptable. Test results confirmed that the sample data are appropriate for processing exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The total variance explained obtained from the factor analysis is presented in Table 3. The rotated factor loadings (cut-off at 0.5) for the nine factors are presented in Table 4.

Table 3. Total variance explained

Factor groups	Eigenvalue	% of Variance	Cumulative %	Difference in cumulative %
1	9.471	27.855	27.855
2	2.758	8.111	35.966	8.111
3	2.520	7.411	43.377	7.411
4	2.098	6.170	49.547	6.170
5	1.696	4.988	54.535	4.988
6	1.363	4.010	58.545	4.010
7	1.309	3.849	62.394	3.849
8	1.242	3.654	66.048	3.654
9	1.010	2.972	69.020	2.972
10	.910	2.678	71.697

Table 4. Summary of exploratory factor analysis results

Component	Category	Sub-factors	Factor loading
1	Local issues	Dust generation in earthworks activities and stockpiles	.902
		Dust generation in activities with construction machinery and transport	.886
		Dust generation in activities with cutting operations	.857
		Generation of noise and vibrations due to site activities (road roller, graders and compactors, etc.)	.623
2	Waste generation	Generation of inert waste (rock, rubble, boulder, earth soil, sand, concrete, brick)	.795
		Generation of ordinary or non-special waste (wood, plastic, metal, paper, cardboard or glass)	.768
		Generation of special (potentially dangerous) waste (treated timber, asbestos, preservative, adhesives, aerosol cans)	.754
		Generation of municipal waste by on-site construction workers	.739
		Generation of excavated waste material during earthworks	.510
3	Resource consumption	Water consumption during the construction process	.831
		Electricity consumption during the construction process	.826
		Fuel consumption during the construction process (the number of power generators, and concrete mixers)	.724
		Raw material consumption during the construction process	.679
4	Soil alteration and water emission	Dumping of sanitary water resulting from on-site sanitary conveniences (soil emissions)	.735
		Dumping of sanitary water resulting from on-site sanitary conveniences (water emissions)	.685
		Dumping of water resulting from the process of cleaning concrete chutes or dumping of other basic fluids (soil emissions)	.631
		Dumping of water resulting from the execution of foundations and retaining walls (soil emissions)	.621
5	Incidents, accidents and potential emergency situations	Breakage of receptacles with harmful substances (storage tanks for dangerous products)	.758
		Breakage of underground pipes (electric power cables, telephone lines, water pipes)	.745
		Fires at areas for storing flammable and combustible substances	.686
		Opening construction site entrances with soil compaction (Length of the entrance to the site (m))	.577
6	Effect on biodiversity	Operations with loss of edaphic soil (site preparation)	.803
		Operations with vegetation removal (site preparation)	.794
		Operations with high potential soil erosion (unprotected soils as a consequence of earthworks)	.708
7	Soil alterations	Dumping derived from the use and maintenance of construction machinery	.721
		Use of cleaning agents or surface-treatment liquids at the construction site (liquid cleaners, degreasers, solutions, polishing fluids and additives)	.681
		Use of concrete release agent at the construction site (plywood, overlaid plywood, aluminum or steel)	.649
		Land occupancy by the building, provisional onsite facilities and storage areas	.622
8	Transport issues, and local issues	Increase in external road traffic due to construction site transport	.627
		Interference in external road traffic due to the construction site	.608
		Operations that cause dirtiness at the construction site entrances	.607
		Landscape alteration by the presence of singular elements (cranes)	.578
9	Atmospheric emissions	Generation of greenhouse gas emissions due to construction machinery and vehicle movements	.835
		Emission of VOCs and CFCs (Synthetic paints and varnishes)	.850

The first factor, named local issues, explains 27.86% of the total variance and contains four attributes. The factor loadings (absolute value) on this factor are relatively large, especially for dust generation in earthworks activities and stockpiles, dust generation in activities with construction machinery and transport, and dust generation in activities with cutting operations. The management of dust and generation of noise and vibrations due to site activities can be considered the key to improving the environmental aspect of construction-related activities.

Factor two, named waste generation, explains 8.11% of the total variance and comprises five attributes. The factor loadings are relatively large for four of the five variables. Waste generation through construction-related activities is an important aspect of environmental impacts. Factor three (3) is related to resource consumption and explains 7.41% of the total variance. The attributes of this cluster are water consumption during the construction process, electricity consumption during the construction process, fuel consumption during the construction process, and raw material consumption during the construction process. Factor 4 is the soil alteration and water emission factor, accounting for 6.17% of the total variance. Dumping of sanitary water resulting from on-site sanitary conveniences (soil and water emissions) had high loadings on factor 4.

Factor 5 is incidents, accidents, and potential emergency situations factor. The most prominent attributes of this cluster are breakage of receptacles with harmful substances (storage tanks for dangerous products) and breakage of underground pipes (electric power cables, telephone lines, water pipes). This factor accounted for 4.99% of the total variance. Factor 6 is the effect on biodiversity factor and explains 4.01% of the total variance. Operations with loss of edaphic soil (site preparation), operations with vegetation removal (site preparation), and operations with high potential soil erosion (unprotected soils as a consequence of earthworks) all had a relatively large loading value on this factor. By combining the three variables, this factor indicates the effect of construction-related activities on biodiversity.

Factor 7, which accounts for 3.85% of the total variance, is the soil alterations factor, and dumping derived from the use and maintenance of construction machinery was the most influential attribute of this factor. Factor 8 is transport and local issues which explains 3.65% of the total variance. Increase in external road traffic due to construction site transport, and interference in external road traffic due to the construction had a relatively high factor loading for construction-related activities on the environment. Factor 9 is atmospheric emissions and explains 2.97%of total variance.

Discussion

Dust generated from construction sites is a significant concern of construction workers and many communities that experience a high level of construction activity. The severity of dust from construction-related activities articulated by on-site construction workers in this study has been observed in similar studies (Enshassi et al., 2015; JaiSai et al., 2022; M. Kaluarachchi et al., 2021; M.S. Kaluarachchi et al., 2019; Mohan & Xavier, 2022; Zolfagharian et al., 2012). Dust as a critical environmental impact from construction-related activities has already been mentioned in previous studies in Ghana (Agyekum et al., 2021; Ametepey & Ansah, 2015; Ayarkwa et al., 2014). The high importance level of severity of dust pollution observed in this study is inconsistent with previous studies. While dust pollution attributes have been ranked first to third positions in RII in this study, they ranked low in the levels of importance of severity in similar studies in Ghana (Agyekum et al., 2021; Ametepey & Ansah, 2015; Ayarkwa et al., 2014) and Nigeria (Ijigah et al., 2013; Ojo et al., 2015).

The conditions that aggravate dust pollution in construction sites may explain its relatively high importance in this study. The difference in seasonality has been found to worsen dust pollution with dry months or low precipitation leading to higher retention and disposition of dust (M. Kaluarachchi et al., 2021; Przybysz et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2015). Dry weather conditions loosen dust which is easily blown into the air by wind. This study was conducted in November and December, which falls within the Harmattan period. Particulate Matter (PM) concentrations in Ghana have been determined to be highest during the Harmattan period (Alli et al., 2021; Dionisio et al., 2010; Mudu, 2021; Sarpong et al., 2021). Alli et al. (2021) observed the mean PM_2.5 concentration during the Harmattan (89 µg m⁻³) to be 4-fold higher than the non-Harmattan period (23 µg m⁻³). Sarpong et al. (2021) in their study observed a significantly higher mean concentration of PM_2.5 and PM₁₀ in the months of November and December. The workers may have been exposed to a high degree of loosened soil, resulting in the increased importance of dust as an environmental impact of construction activities. Seasonality may also account for the relatively high RII for fires at areas for storing flammable and combustible substances, as the frequency of occurrence of fire outbreaks have been identified to be high in the dry months of November and December in Ghana (Boadi et al., 2015).

Site-based employees work longer hours and are exposed to significantly higher job-related occupational hazards (Lingard & Francis, 2004; Lucas et al., 2014) due to their length of stay on construction sites (Sparer et al., 2017). Their prevalence of exposure to dust in the construction process daily for long hours may have influenced on-site employees’ high importance of the level of severity of dust impacts mentioned during the survey. The stakeholders in this study were mainly on-site workers, which may account for the high RII ranking of dust compared to previous studies in Ghana (Agyekum et al., 2021; Ametepey & Ansah, 2015; Ayarkwa et al., 2014) and Nigeria (Ijigah et al., 2013; Ojo et al., 2015) that focused on managers with limited time on-site.

The high severity of noise and vibration generated by the construction activities that impact the environment is consistent with other studies (Akintayo et al., 2020; Ametepey & Ansah, 2015; Enshassi et al., 2015; JaiSai et al., 2022; Ruhela et al., 2022; Zolfagharian et al., 2012). On-site construction workers are exposed to noise from machinery and tools such as concrete mixers, concrete breakers, compactors, grinders, disc cutters, and hammer drills. Their direct personal experience of noise pollution based on day-to-day activities may account for their familiarity and high ranking of its severity. Personal experience on-site may also account for high relative importance levels of severity attached to breakage of receptacles with harmful substances and breakage of underground pipes in this study, contrary to their relatively low RII recorded by Ametepey and Ansah (2015). The Ghanaian construction industry is classified as low-tech and heavily relies on labor-intensive methods. Manual lifting and digging by on-site workers may result in breakages, increasing their awareness about the severity of the impact on the environment.

Raw material consumption as one of the most severe impacts affecting the environment is consistent with other similar studies (Akintayo et al., 2020; Ametepey & Ansah, 2015; Enshassi et al., 2015; JaiSai et al., 2022; Ojo et al., 2015; Yao et al., 2020). This finding can be attributed to raw materials such as sand, stones, gravel, water, and wood consumption. A weak understanding of biodiversity conservation may account for the low severity of impact attached to construction-related activities on biodiversity by the on-site workers in contrast with other studies (Ametepey & Ansah, 2015; Enshassi et al., 2015; Ijigah et al., 2013; Zolfagharian et al., 2012). According to Woodall and Crowhurst (2003), the principles of biodiversity protection of construction-related activities are firmly in the individual’s mindset. In Ghana, individuals’ knowledge of biodiversity has been identified to be inadequate to serve as a motivation for biodiversity protection (Eshun et al., 2022). Attitudes toward a broader understanding of the importance of biodiversity is positively associated with higher level of education (Akindele et al., 2021). The low level of education of on-site workers in this study and the generally insufficient knowledge of biodiversity in Ghana may have affected their perception of the severity of construction-related activities on biodiversity with the studies mentioned above.

Waste is one of the severe problems in the construction industry. Inert waste that does not undergo biological, chemical, physical, or radiological transformation was significant in this study. High inert waste resulting from construction activities has been mentioned in other studies (Begum et al., 2006; Fadiya et al., 2014; Hoang et al., 2020; Lau et al., 2008; Mah et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2020), an indication that on-site workers are familiar with the type of waste composition pattern in the construction industry. Most inert waste, including concrete, bricks, gravel, and sand, is generated from material use on project sites which might have influenced on-site workers’ familiarity. Factors such as material use, and damage, arising in the course of construction can be controlled by the site worker. The implementation of a waste reduction strategy such as site waste management practices should be prioritized as they reduce environmental harm and improve the cost performance of construction projects. Indeed, building construction professionals need site waste management practices to attenuate waste generation on-site.

Conclusion

This study determined the environmental impacts of construction-related activities from the perspectives of on-site building construction workers. The study’s findings show that on-site construction workers’ ranking of the severity of environmental impacts differed from construction managers previously determined in Ghana. The study revealed that on-site experience influenced the perceived severity of environmental impacts associated with construction-related activities. The environmental impacts that directly affect or serve as hazards to the on-site construction workers were ranked as the most severe. The RII and EFA percentage of total variance indicates that the environmental impacts of high importance to the on-site workers regarding their severity were dust and noise generated from on-site activities. Dust and noise pollution appears as the most severe impact that affects the environment.

There is a need for control measures to be instituted at construction sites considering the health impact of dust and noise on the well-being of on-site construction workers and the local community. Dust suppression measures such as using water sprays to prevent dust or capture airborne dust on haul roads, material stockpiles, enclosures to contain dust, and ventilation systems or exhaust systems to remove dust should be instituted on construction sites. The use of hearing protective devices for on-site workers, an indication of noisy zones to avoid unnecessary entrance, and the use of noise isolation or soundproof barriers, where applicable, could be used to reduce noise exposure. There is a need to raise awareness of the effects of biodiversity loss associated with construction activities. Increasing education can help create biodiversity-consciousness among individuals to promote conservation and reduce loss. The findings of this study contribute to the body of knowledge in environmental management in the construction industry and can be incorporated into the guidelines and programs for mitigating environmental impacts associated with the construction industry in Ghana.

Limitation of study

The study had limitations in that only on-site construction workers in the Ho metropolis working in live sites of construction companies registered as D1K1 by the Ministry of Works and Housing were considered, which limited the scope. Thus, the results from this study cannot be generalized to all on-site building construction workers in the Ho metropolis or the entire country. Also, no measurements were undertaken in the various construction sites to determine the dust concentration and noise levels to corroborate on-site workers’ perspectives. Despite these limitations, the study has the strengths of espousing the environmental impacts of high severity in the construction industry in Ghana based on on-site workers’ perspectives which were lacking.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all respondents in this study for making this work possible. The authors are also grateful to the research assistants who assisted with data collection: Anthony Hevi, Prosper Kpornyo, Prosper Ladzedo, Roland Lodonu, and Timothy Adzimah, for administrating the study questionnaire.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, MKB upon reasonable request.

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no direct funding for this research.