Factors Influencing Clients’ Commitment to Sustainable Construction Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The success of every construction projects largely depends on the level of commitment of the clients. This study examined the factors influencing the level of clients’ commitment to sustainable construction practices in Nigeria. A questionnaire survey was use to collect data from the public and private construction clients on the level of influence of 16 factors extracted from the literature. A total of 182 valid questionnaires were used for analysis. The result revealed that nine factors with weighted average (W) 0.8≤W≤1 have a high level of influence, whereas seven factors with 0.6≤W≤0.8 have a high-medium level of influence on the clients’ commitment. However, the five most influential factors were: client knowledge and awareness, Cost implication and mechanism of financial involvement, economic value and return on investment, end-user/client perception and preference, and health and safety implications. The result further revealed that there is significant difference on how these factors influence the level of commitment of sustainable construction practices of the public and private clients. The study suggested that the disparity was due to the differences in the level of knowledge, awareness, involvement and commitment of the public and private clients to sustainable construction concept. Hence, it is important to optimize the level of knowledge and awareness of the clients, about the cost, benefits/profits, and health and safety implications of sustainable construction practices so as to promote the level of client’s commitment to sustainable construction practices. It recommended for adequate client involvement throughout the sustainable construction life cycle and a sustained awareness campaign, championed by relevant government agencies and professional organizations through different public programs so as to increase the clients’ commitment and desirability to demand for more sustainable construction projects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".