Ejidike, C C; Mewomo, M C; Olawumi, T O; Wang, S and Buniya, M K (2025) Barriers to the adoption of smart building technology in developing countries: An empirical survey. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 151(6): 04025067, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Smart building technology (SBT) has been a prominent practical and academic topic in the built environment due to the adoption of sustainable development and digitization to maximize energy efficiency, reduce CO2 emissions, and maximize thermal comfort. While the construction industry is currently adopting SBT, numerous obstacles have prevented its widespread use. Thus, this study aims to examine the significant barriers underlying the adoption of SBT from the perspective of construction professionals. A systematic literature review of 30 articles was conducted and a well-structured questionnaire providing quantitative research was adopted to collect pertinent information from 244 construction professionals. The collected data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis's test, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and partial least-squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). The study found that all 22 identified barrier factors significantly affect the adoption of SBT. Furthermore, the high material and equipment costs for smart buildings, inadequate power supply, poor maintenance culture, and lack of well-trained staff are the five topmost barriers affecting the adoption of SBT. The factor analysis categorized the industry-relevant barriers into four groups: awareness, economics, human, and management. Finally, the structural equation modeling revealed that human-related and management-related barriers are the most significant, with path coefficients of β 0.395 and 0.309, respectively. Therefore, it is imperative that the authorities of various professional organizations actively participate in the crucial implementation of SBT. The analysis highlighted smart building adoption opportunities and practical strategies for overcoming barriers. These findings provide evidence that building professionals can use to develop strategies to prevent the identified barriers from hindering the adoption and deployment of SBTs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | barriers; smart building; smart building technologies; sustainable construction; sustainable development |
| Index terms: | implementation, equipment cost, smart building technology, building professional, quantitative research, construction professional, survey, sustainable construction, energy efficiency, built environment, smart building, factor analysis, systematic literature review, construction industry, evidence, exploratory factor analysis, questionnaire, thermal comfort, sustainable development, developing country, CO2 emissions, structural equation modelling, strategy |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, development economics, construction type, research evaluation and metrics, environmental engineering, infrastructure and transport systems, profession, data collection methods, health safety and environment, sustainable construction, evaluation and assessment methods, management, economics, statistical analysis, contractual arrangements, building innovation, data analysis and analytics, professional development, air quality, sustainability and energy |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Design Practice, Information Management, Construction Technology, Sustainability, International Construction, Business Strategy, Procurement, Research Practice, Cost Management, Roles and Professions, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here