Comparative analysis of the barriers to smart sustainable practices adoption in the construction industry between Hong Kong and Nigeria

7Citations
Citations of this article
112Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The deployment of digital systems has facilitated process improvement in building construction, including for green practices implementation. However, it has encountered several challenges that have limited its use and hindered the diffusion of sustainable practices. Hence, this study aims to identify and assess the major barriers to smart-sustainable practices (SSP) adoption and evaluate its likely impact. A quantitative research method using empirical questionnaire surveys to solicit stakeholders' perceptions in Hong Kong and Nigeria to understand whether there is a commonality in the identified barriers between the two contexts. The collated data were analysed using descriptive statistics such as mean and inferential statistics (factor analysis), while fuzzy synthetic evaluation was used to develop the predictive models. Using non-probability sampling techniques, 97 and 69 responses were gotten from respondents in Hong Kong and Nigeria, respectively. The results revealed that workforce expertise, hesitancy to change from working practices, technical know-how, and inadequate understanding of the SSP process as the most critical barriers to SSP diffusion in Hong Kong and Nigeria. Also, impact evaluation models were developed as a predictive tool to evaluate and respond to the impact of these barriers. It is recommended for industry practitioners and policymakers to collaborate to create local context-based guidelines for facilitating SSP diffusion and monitor its implementation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chan, D. W. M., Olawumi, T. O., Saka, A. B., & Ekundayo, D. (2024). Comparative analysis of the barriers to smart sustainable practices adoption in the construction industry between Hong Kong and Nigeria. International Journal of Construction Management, 24(14), 1499–1509. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2022.2108973

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free