Osuolale, M. D.; Ajisomo, T. and Felkner, J. (2026) Quantifying barriers to sustainable material adoption in emerging markets using fuzzy synthetic evaluation. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, pp. 1-32. ISSN 2046-6099
Abstract
Purpose – Despite widespread awareness of sustainable construction materials (SCM), adoption remains limited in Nigeria, constrained by multidimensional barriers embedded in institutional, regulatory, market, and supply-chain systems. This study quantifies adoption readiness using fuzzy synthetic evaluation (FSE), addressing the analytical gap left by traditional methods that cannot adequately account for the uncertainty, subjectivity, and linguistic vagueness inherent in professional judgments about emerging materials. Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected via structured questionnaires from 273 architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) professionals in Nigeria. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to identify four latent barrier dimensions. Fuzzy synthetic evaluation was then employed to construct a hierarchical assessment framework, using full Likert-scale distributions to form fuzzy relation matrices and mean-based weighting to reflect relative barrier importance. An Adoption Readiness Index (ARI) was computed through weighted defuzzification. Findings – EFA extracted four latent dimensions: Institutional Fragmentation and Incentive Deficiency (C1), Regulatory Complexity and Performance Uncertainty (C2), Policy Weakness and Market Apathy (C3), and Cost Burden and Supply Constraints (C4). The overall ARI of 28.41/100 indicates critically low readiness, with more than 70% of the fuzzy membership concentrated in the "Very Low" and "Low" states. Component-level analyses reveal Policy/Market Readiness (C3: ARI 22.04) and Cost/Supply (C4: ARI 26.67) as the weakest dimensions, while Institutional/Incentive (C1: ARI 29.67) and Regulatory/Performance (C2: ARI 31.78) show marginally higher but still insufficient readiness levels. Originality/value – This study advances beyond descriptive barrier rankings by operationalizing an integrated EFA-FSE framework that quantifies readiness while preserving uncertainty. By anchoring fuzzy evaluation in empirically validated constructs, the research provides a replicable, transferable methodology for national benchmarking and cross-country comparative studies, contributing to both sustainable construction theory and evidence-informed policymaking.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | adoption barriers; developing countries; emerging markets; fuzzy synthetic evaluation; Nigeria; readiness assessment; sustainable construction materials |
| Index terms: | emerging market, subjectivity, exploratory factor analysis, comparative study, evidence, sustainable material, benchmarking, judgment, readiness assessment, dimension, sustainable construction, fuzzy synthetic evaluation, fragmentation, methodology, complexity, questionnaire, developing country, Nigeria |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, performance measurement, risk assessment, human factors and perception, business, sustainable construction, sustainable materials, data collection methods, statistical analysis, research design and methodology, evaluation and assessment methods, research methods, systems engineering, health monitoring assessment and metrics, development economics, decision-making and optimization, Geography, dispute resolution |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Geographical Context, International Construction, Sustainability, Quality Management, Legal Issues, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Organizational Design, Construction Materials, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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