Barriers to sustainable construction in developing countries: A literature review (2015–2025)

2.1. Identification

In the identification phase, the Scopus and Web of Science databases were consulted, selected for their recognised academic rigour and relevance in the fields of engineering, construction and sustainability. The literature search was conducted using an equation composed of keywords directly related to the study’s objective, combined with Boolean operators to refine the results. The search equation used was the following:

(Barrier OR challenge OR impediment OR obstacle) AND (‘emerging countries’ OR ‘developing countries’) AND (‘sustainable construction’ OR ‘sustainable building’ OR ‘green building’).

During this phase, search filters were applied related to: (a) the period 2015–June 2025, (b) document type (articles and/or reviews), (c) full text availability (open access) and (d) documents in English and Spanish, which are coded and detailed in Table 1. These filters allowed for delimitation of the initial universe of studies and ensured consistency with the scope of the review.

2.2. Screening

In the screening phase, duplicate records were eliminated by cross-checking the articles identified in both data-bases, thus avoiding double counting of studies.

2.3. Eligibility assessment

The eligibility assessment phase was carried out by applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria previously defined and presented in Table 1. This phase was conducted in two stages: first, titles, abstracts and keywords were reviewed to exclude studies unrelated to the research objective; subsequently, the full text of the shortlisted articles was reviewed to confirm their thematic relevance, their focus on barriers to the implementation of sustainable construction, and their exclusive application to developing countries.

2.4. Final inclusion

Finally, in the inclusion phase, studies that met all the criteria established throughout the previous phases were selected.

The selection process is summarised in the PRISMA flowchart presented in Figure 1. In total, 178 articles were identified (65 from Scopus and 113 from Web of Science). After removing 43 duplicate records, 135 articles were evaluated. After reviewing titles, abstracts and keywords, 68 documents were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria. Subsequently, 67 full texts were reviewed, of which 16 were excluded for not focusing on barriers to sustainable construction in developing countries or for not having access to the full text. Consequently, 51 articles were included in the final analysis.

Fig. 1:

2.5. Coding process and construction of the barriers framework

Once the included studies were selected, a thematic qualitative coding process was conducted to identify and systematise the barriers reported in the literature. Initially, a comprehensive reading of the full texts was performed to extract explicit references to obstacles, limitations or difficulties associated with the implementation of sustainable construction. These references were coded using an open coding approach and subsequently grouped through a process of constant comparison, resulting in conceptually homogeneous subcategories. Finally, these subcategories were integrated into 5 general barrier categories and 11 related subcategories, defined according to their theoretical affinity and recurrence across the analysed studies (Table 2).

To enhance methodological rigour and minimise subjective interpretation bias, the coding process involved four researchers, who independently reviewed and coded the selected studies. Following the initial coding stage, the assigned codes and preliminary categorisations were compared across researchers to assess consistency in interpretation. Differences in coding or category assignment were discussed collectively in iterative review meetings until consensus was achieved. This agreement-checking procedure allowed refinement of category definitions and ensured coherence in the final classification of barriers.

Through this collaborative and iterative process, the analytical framework was constructed based on recurring patterns identified across multiple studies rather than individual interpretations, thereby strengthening the transparency, reliability and traceability of the coding process.

2.6. Evaluation of the quality and relevance of included studies

The methodological quality and relevance of the included studies were assessed through a structured appraisal process adapted to the objectives of this systematic review. Rather than relying solely on database indexation, each study was evaluated against a set of basic quality criteria commonly applied in integrative reviews. These criteria included: (a) clarity of research objectives, (b) explicit description of methodological approach, (c) transparency in data collection or analysis procedures and (d) relevance of findings to barriers affecting sustainable construction in developing countries.

Based on these criteria, the appraisal aimed to ensure that all included studies provided sufficient methodological transparency and empirical or conceptual contribution to support the synthesis process. Studies lacking a clearly described methodology or presenting insufficient thematic relevance were excluded during the eligibility phase, as detailed in Table 1. This approach allowed for a minimum level of methodological consistency among the selected studies while maintaining inclusiveness across diverse research designs (qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods).

However, it should be noted that no formal scoring system or weighted quality ranking was applied to differentiate between stronger and weaker studies. Given the exploratory and synthesis-oriented nature of this review, the objective was to identify recurring patterns and reported barriers across the literature rather than to estimate effect sizes or causal relationships. Consequently, the absence of a quantitative quality-rating scheme represents a methodological limitation that may influence the relative weight of individual studies within the synthesis.

To minimise researcher bias, predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were consistently applied throughout all PRISMA 2020 phases. In addition, analytical categories and subcategories were constructed through constant comparison across multiple sources, reducing reliance on isolated findings. Collectively, these procedures enhance transparency and reproducibility while acknowledging the interpretative nature inherent to qualitative evidence synthesis.

4.1. Category: Economic and financial barriers

The findings confirm that economic and financial barriers constitute a structural constraint to the adoption of sustainable construction in developing countries, operating primarily at the project decision-making level. The persistent perception of higher initial costs compared with conventional construction emerges as the most influential barrier (Durdyev et al. 2018; Assadiki et al. 2022; Dlamini and Yessoufou 2022; Kamranfar et al. 2022; Kineber et al. 2022; Zulu et al. 2022; Almakayeel et al. 2023; Jaradat et al. 2024). From a theoretical perspective, this reflects a short-term cost-minimisation logic, in which investment decisions are dominated by upfront capital expenditures rather than by long-term value creation.

The higher initial investment is largely explained by the elevated costs of certified materials, specialised technologies and green construction systems (Shen et al. 2018; Anzagira et al. 2019; Khan et al. 2019; Marsh et al. 2020; Assylbekov et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2021; Joyram et al. 2022; Alhammadi et al. 2024; Ghasemi et al. 2024; Gyadu-Asiedu et al. 2024; Komurlu et al. 2024; Olatunde et al. 2025). These costs are further amplified in contexts characterised by exchange rate volatility and dependence on imported materials (Agyekum et al. 2022; Akcay 2023), reinforcing uncertainty and risk perception at the project appraisal stage.

From a decision-theory standpoint, the lack of standardised cost structures and reliable benchmarks exacerbates this uncertainty. Nguyen and Macchion (2023b) highlight that sustainable construction projects often lack clearly defined cost frameworks, complicating budget formulation and increasing the likelihood of cost overruns—an issue particularly critical in capital-constrained environments (Aghimien et al. 2018). This situation discourages risk-averse investors and developers, especially when combined with limited technical expertise and market immaturity.

Additionally, the scarcity of specialised contractors and skilled labour creates quasi-monopolistic conditions that drive prices upward and reduce competitive pressure (Russ et al. 2018; Hazem and Breesam 2019; Sutantio et al. 2022). The need for specialised design services and compliance with certification requirements further increases transaction costs (Rita et al. 2023; Pham et al. 2024; Poorisat et al. 2024), reinforcing the perception that sustainable construction is financially prohibitive.

Although empirical evidence suggests that sustainable construction may require between 5% and 15% (Russ et al. 2018) or even 1%–25% (Khalil et al. 2021) higher initial investment, the literature consistently points to a misalignment between cost assessment practices and life-cycle value considerations. While life-cycle costing is theoretically recognised as a more appropriate evaluation approach (Hazem and Breesam 2019; Sutantio et al. 2022), its practical application remains limited due to the absence of robust empirical data, standardised methodologies and consensus on return-on-investment calculation (Nguyen and Macchion 2023a, 2023b). This gap reinforces uncertainty regarding payback periods and long-term benefits, thereby reducing investment willingness (Durdyev et al. 2018; Shen et al. 2018; Tran et al. 2020; Khalil et al. 2021; Kamranfar et al. 2022; Kineber et al. 2022; Mohamed et al. 2023; Komurlu et al. 2024; Pham et al. 2024).

At a systemic level, this perceived financial risk is compounded by macroeconomic instability, including inflation and exchange rate fluctuations, which further constrain access to financing (Agyekum et al. 2022; Assadiki et al. 2022). Financial institutions tend to treat sustainable construction projects as conventional high-risk investments, offering only standard loans with high interest rates and unfavourable conditions, given the lack of tailored green financing instruments (Wu et al. 2019; Marsh et al. 2020; Assadiki et al. 2022; Sutantio et al. 2022; Almakayeel et al. 2023; Nguyen and Macchion 2023b; Alhammadi et al. 2024; Olatunde et al. 2025).

Finally, the absence of consistent public policies and economic incentives (such as subsidies, tax exemptions or preferential credit lines) emerges as a critical missing link between sustainability goals and market adoption (Anzagira et al. 2019; Hazem and Breesam 2019; Khan et al. 2019; Wu et al. 2019; Tran et al. 2020; Assylbekov et al. 2021; Khalil et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2021; Al-Otaibi et al. 2022; Joyram et al. 2022; Kamranfar et al. 2022; Kineber et al. 2022; Sutantio et al. 2022; Zulu et al. 2022; Almakayeel et al. 2023; Ghasemi et al. 2024; Jaradat et al. 2024; Komurlu et al. 2024; Poorisat et al. 2024). From an institutional economics perspective, this policy vacuum prevents the internalisation of environmental benefits and perpetuates the cost gap between sustainable and conventional construction (Akcay 2023; Alhammadi et al. 2024).

Overall, these findings suggest that overcoming economic and financial barriers requires multilevel interventions: at the project level, through improved life-cycle costing tools and risk assessment frameworks; at the financial level, through dedicated green financing mechanisms; and at the policy level, through incentives that realign market signals and reduce perceived investment risk. Without such coordinated actions, economic and financial barriers will continue to dominate decision-making processes and hinder the large-scale adoption of sustainable construction in developing countries.

4.2. Category: Knowledge and awareness barrier

The results indicate that knowledge and awareness barriers constitute a cognitive and informational constraint that significantly shapes decision-making processes related to sustainable construction in developing countries. This barrier affects both supply-side actors (designers, contractors, developers) and demand-side stakeholders (clients, end users and communities), limiting the diffusion of sustainable practices across the construction value chain (Aghimien et al. 2018; Alohan et al. 2021; Al-Otaibi et al. 2022; Almakayeel et al. 2023).

From a theoretical perspective, the persistence of this barrier reflects an information asymmetry problem, where stakeholders lack adequate knowledge regarding the principles, benefits and technical requirements of sustainable construction. This asymmetry constrains informed decision-making, reduces demand for certified buildings and weakens incentives to pursue environmental certifications (Darko and Chan 2018; Anzagira et al. 2019; Akcay 2023). In contexts characterised by limited institutional support, the absence of reliable information channels further reinforces scepticism towards green solutions.

Insufficient promotion and ineffective dissemination mechanisms exacerbate this situation by reinforcing a low perceived value of sustainable construction (Shen et al. 2017; Aghimien et al. 2018; Al-Aidrous et al. 2023; Alhammadi et al. 2024). In practical terms, sustainability is often framed as an abstract or costly concept rather than as a source of operational efficiency, resilience and long-term economic value. As a result, sustainable solutions are frequently deprioritized during project planning and design stages.

Moreover, limited technical training and lack of practical experience with green technologies increase perceived operational and maintenance risks (Genovese and Zoure 2023; Pham et al. 2024; Atmoko et al. 2025). From a capability-based perspective, this skills gap constrains organisational learning and reduces confidence in the feasibility of sustainable construction, thereby reinforcing conservative, path-dependent practices within the industry.

The literature consistently highlights that this barrier is intensified by the insufficient integration of sustainability principles into academic curricula and professional development programmes (Hazem and Breesam 2019; Gyadu-Asiedu et al. 2024). Consequently, sustainability competencies remain fragmented and unevenly distributed across stakeholders. Empirical gaps persist regarding the systematic evaluation of awareness-raising initiatives and their long-term effectiveness, limiting evidence-based policy design. However, existing studies suggest that the most effective approaches combine continuous education, targeted public outreach and practical demonstration projects that clearly link sustainability outcomes to tangible, context-specific benefits such as cost savings, improved comfort and reduced environmental risk (Wang et al. 2018; Tran et al. 2020).

Overall, addressing knowledge and awareness barriers requires multilevel interventions that simultaneously enhance technical capacity, reduce information asymmetries and strengthen learning mechanisms across the construction ecosystem. Without coordinated efforts in education, professional training and public communication, cognitive barriers will continue to undermine investment decisions and slow the transition towards sustainable construction in developing countries.

4.3. Category: Regulatory and policy barriers

Regulatory and political barriers emerge as institutional constraints that shape the enabling environment for sustainable construction in developing countries. Inadequate regulations are primarily manifested through the absence of clear, mandatory and enforceable regulatory frameworks, generating uncertainty and weakening compliance incentives across the construction sector. From an institutional theory perspective, such regulatory gaps undermine rule legitimacy and reduce the effectiveness of sustainability-oriented governance mechanisms.

Empirical evidence illustrates this challenge across multiple contexts. In Thailand, the lack of clearly defined technical standards and weak regulatory enforcement creates ambiguity for stakeholders, discouraging the implementation of sustainable practices (Shen et al. 2018). Similarly, in China, regulatory fragmentation and institutional weakness constrain the adoption of green technologies, even when professionals possess adequate technical knowledge of their benefits (Wang et al. 2021). In Turkey, insufficient environmental regulations combined with ineffective enforcement mechanisms perpetuate conventional construction practices and slow the transition towards sustainability (Akcay 2023). Comparable patterns are observed in both developed and developing countries, where weak regulatory frameworks for construction and demolition waste management hinder the sustainability of construction processes (Al-Otaibi et al. 2022).

Beyond regulatory design, the lack of government support constitutes a critical political barrier that directly influences project-level decision-making. In Ghana, the absence of tax incentives, subsidies and structured technical training programmes has significantly limited the adoption of sustainable technologies, despite growing awareness of their potential benefits (Darko and Chan 2018; Darko et al. 2018; Ayarkwa et al. 2022). In Nigeria, limited institutional backing restricts the widespread use of sustainable materials, particularly in educational and public-sector projects, where budget constraints and risk aversion are more pronounced (Aghimien et al. 2018; Olatunde et al. 2025).

The lack of coherent public policies targeting energy efficiency and sustainability further reinforces professional resistance to change. Studies in different contexts show that, in the absence of clear policy signals and long-term government commitment, practitioners tend to prioritise conventional solutions perceived as less risky (Nguyen et al. 2021; Pekdogan 2024). In Vietnam, limited governmental involvement in green project risk management reduces professionals’ confidence and negatively affects investment viability, illustrating how political uncertainty translates into conservative project decisions (Nguyen et al. 2021).

Importantly, regulatory and political measures alone are insufficient if they are not supported by societal awareness and stakeholder engagement. Wu et al. (2019) emphasise that the introduction of sustainable building assessment standards and incentive-based policies will not achieve their intended impact as long as stakeholders lack awareness of their relevance and benefits. This highlights the interdependence between regulatory frameworks and cognitive barriers, suggesting that effective governance requires coordinated interventions that combine regulation, incentives and knowledge dissemination.

Overall, these findings indicate that overcoming regulatory and political barriers requires a multilevel governance approach, in which clear and enforceable regulations, consistent government support and complementary awareness-building strategies jointly reduce uncertainty, align market incentives and enable informed decision-making at the project level. Without such alignment, regulatory and political barriers will continue to constrain the large-scale adoption of sustainable construction in developing countries.

4.4. Industry-related barriers

Industry-related barriers reflect structural and behavioural constraints embedded within the construction sector that limit its capacity to adopt sustainable practices. One of the most persistent obstacles is resistance to change, which is closely associated with the conservative nature of the industry and its preference for familiar, low-risk construction methods. From a behavioural and organisational perspective, this resistance is driven by risk aversion, path dependency and the prioritisation of short-term project performance over long-term sustainability outcomes.

Empirical studies illustrate how these dynamics operate across different developing contexts. In Thailand, professionals tend to rely on conventional techniques due to familiarity and the perception of lower implementation risk, which discourages experimentation with sustainable solutions (Shen et al. 2018). Similarly, in Ghana, insufficient technical training and limited understanding of the environmental and economic benefits of green construction foster passive attitudes towards innovation and reinforce established practices (Darko et al. 2018). In Nigeria, resistance persists even within educational settings, where stakeholders remain reluctant to update construction approaches, thereby perpetuating outdated models and limiting the diffusion of sustainable knowledge (Aghimien et al. 2019). These findings suggest that resistance to change is not merely an individual preference but a systemic industry behaviour reinforced by institutional routines and professional norms.

Beyond behavioural resistance, deficiencies in the certified supply chain represent a critical structural barrier. The limited availability of certified sustainable materials and the absence of reliable suppliers significantly constrain the feasibility of green projects. In Nigeria, restricted access to certified materials discourages implementation and increases project uncertainty (Olatunde et al. 2025). Similar challenges are observed in Mauritius, where the limited supply of eco-blocks and the lack of recognised certification systems generate mistrust among both professionals and end users (Joyram et al. 2022). In Ghana, the absence of traceability and environmental certification mechanisms prevents verification of material sustainability, undermining confidence in residential projects (Kineber et al. 2022). These supply chain limitations are further exacerbated by weak logistical infrastructure and reliance on imported materials, which elevate costs and reduce the competitiveness of sustainable alternatives.

Evidence from Tanzania reinforces the systemic nature of this barrier, as stakeholders identify the scarcity of locally available sustainable materials as one of the most critical obstacles to green construction (Nkini et al. 2024). The lack of domestic supply not only increases costs but also diminishes motivation to adopt sustainable approaches, particularly in public infrastructure and social housing projects, where budgetary constraints and cost-efficiency considerations dominate decision-making. In this context, government intervention through targeted financial incentives has been identified as a key mechanism to stimulate demand and support wider adoption of green technologies (Akcay 2023).

Finally, weak enforcement and oversight significantly limit the effectiveness of existing sustainability regulations. In Vietnam, inadequate oversight and limited institutional capacity to verify compliance with technical standards undermine risk management in green projects, reducing stakeholder confidence (Nguyen et al. 2021). In Ghana, although sustainability-related regulations exist, their application is inconsistent and highly dependent on local actors’ discretion, leading to uneven implementation (Ayarkwa et al. 2022). Comparable issues are observed in Saudi Arabia, where insufficient oversight mechanisms prevent sustainability policies from being translated into concrete practices at the project level (Mohamed et al. 2023). This institutional weakness creates an environment of low accountability, allowing developers to bypass environmental commitments without facing significant consequences.

Overall, these findings indicate that industry-related barriers operate at both behavioural and structural levels, reinforcing resistance to innovation and constraining the practical feasibility of sustainable construction. Addressing these barriers requires coordinated strategies that combine capacity building, supply chain development, financial incentives and effective regulatory enforcement, thereby enabling industry actors to integrate sustainability into routine project decision-making rather than perceiving it as an external or high-risk requirement.

4.5. Cultural and social barriers

Sociocultural barriers play a decisive role in shaping the adoption of sustainable construction, particularly in developing contexts where poverty, housing deficits and immediate socioeconomic needs tend to outweigh long-term sustainability considerations (Marsh et al. 2020; Ghasemi et al. 2024). From a sociotechnical and behavioural perspective, sustainability is not perceived merely as a technical innovation but as a cultural shift that challenges entrenched norms, values and routines within the construction sector. Consequently, resistance to change rooted in traditional practices and cultural conventions reinforces a preference for conventional construction methods and generates distrust towards green technologies (Aghimien et al. 2018; Anzagira et al. 2019; Kamranfar et al. 2022; Al-Aidrous et al. 2023).

Empirical evidence suggests that sociocultural acceptance of sustainable construction is strongly mediated by institutional contexts. In countries with robust regulatory frameworks and active certification systems, social trust and acceptance of sustainable practices tend to increase, as formal rules signal legitimacy and reduce perceived uncertainty (Khalil et al. 2021; Pham et al. 2024). By contrast, in environments characterised by weak regulations and limited enforcement, traditional construction solutions prevail, reinforcing scepticism towards alternative materials and technologies (Wang et al. 2021; Akcay 2023). Misperceptions regarding cost overruns, doubts about the durability and performance of sustainable materials and the lack of visible local success cases further exacerbate cultural resistance, particularly among low- and middle-income households (Wang et al. 2021; Akcay 2023).

The literature also reveals important analytical gaps that constrain a comprehensive understanding of sociocultural barriers. These include the absence of longitudinal studies capable of capturing processes of cultural change over time, limited segmentation of target audiences and the marginal incorporation of sociocultural indicators in the prioritisation of barriers within empirical models (Kamranfar et al. 2022; Poorisat et al. 2024). As a result, sociocultural factors are often treated as secondary or static variables, despite their central role in shaping demand, acceptance and behavioural change. Evidence indicates that the most effective strategies for overcoming these barriers combine regulatory instruments and economic incentives with culturally embedded interventions, such as demonstration projects, visible leadership from industry and public actors, and communication strategies aligned with local values and social norms (Komurlu et al. 2024; Pham et al. 2024). This supports the view that sustainability adoption should be approached as a context-sensitive cultural transition, rather than as a purely technical or economic adjustment.

Geographically, the concentration of empirical evidence in Asia and Africa highlights significant gaps in other developing regions, including Central America, the Caribbean and several countries with lower Human Development Indexes in Africa and Asia (Darko and Chan 2018; Assylbekov et al. 2021; Assadiki et al. 2022; Kineber et al. 2022; Akcay 2023). This uneven coverage limits the formulation of tailored policies, as strategies derived from more extensively studied contexts are not always transferable to regions with different cultural, institutional and socioeconomic conditions (Al-Otaibi et al. 2022; Mukattash and Hyarat 2022; Ghasemi et al. 2024). Consequently, there is a clear need for comparative and cross-regional studies that integrate diverse realities and generate policy-relevant insights that are sensitive to local specificities (Tran et al. 2020; Komurlu et al. 2024; Poorisat et al. 2024).

The scarcity of longitudinal research constitutes one of the most critical gaps in the literature, as it limits the ability to assess how sociocultural barriers evolve and how effective policy interventions, awareness programmes and technological diffusion processes are over time (Wu et al. 2019; Sutantio et al. 2022; Poorisat et al. 2024). Without this temporal perspective, many policy recommendations rely on cross-sectional evidence that identifies existing barriers but fails to capture the dynamic interactions between cultural norms, institutional development and economic conditions that are essential for the consolidation of sustainable construction practices (Darko and Chan 2018; Tran et al. 2020; Al-Otaibi et al. 2022).

Finally, the findings confirm that sociocultural barriers do not operate in isolation but are deeply interconnected with economic, regulatory and knowledge-related constraints. For instance, limited funding delays awareness and training programmes; weak regulatory frameworks exacerbate cultural resistance by undermining trust in sustainable solutions; and low social awareness reduces public pressure for stronger sustainability-oriented policies (Darko and Chan 2018; Mohamed et al. 2023; Ghasemi et al. 2024; Poorisat et al. 2024). This interdependence underscores the multifactorial nature of the barriers and highlights the need for integrated, multilevel strategies that simultaneously address cultural norms, institutional capacity and economic incentives to enable the widespread adoption of sustainable construction in developing countries.

4.6. Limitations of the review

Despite the methodological rigour applied in this systematic review, several limitations should be acknowledged when interpreting the findings. First, the literature search was restricted to studies indexed in the Scopus and Web of Science databases. Although these databases were selected due to their recognised academic quality and structured indexing systems, this decision may have limited the comprehensiveness of the review by excluding relevant studies published in other international or regional databases. This limitation is particularly relevant in the context of developing countries, where locally oriented research is frequently disseminated through regional journals that are not always indexed in major citation databases.

Second, the review included only open-access publications written in English and Spanish. While this criterion facilitated full-text verification, transparency and reproducibility of the analysis, it may introduce language and accessibility bias. Important contributions published in other languages or under subscription-based access models may therefore not have been captured. This issue is especially significant given that several regions identified as underrepresented in the results—such as parts of Latin America, the Caribbean and low-human-development countries in Africa and Asia—often disseminate scientific knowledge through national or non-English publication channels.

Consequently, the geographical gaps identified in this review should be interpreted with caution, as they may partially reflect database coverage and language restrictions rather than the complete absence of research activity. Future systematic reviews are encouraged to expand database coverage, incorporate multilingual search strategies and consider alternative indexing sources to enhance representativeness and reduce potential publication bias. A broader inclusion strategy would contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of sustainable construction barriers across diverse developing-country contexts.

Additional methodological limitations should also be acknowledged regarding the quality appraisal process. Although a structured assessment based on methodological clarity and thematic relevance was applied, no formal scoring or weighting system was used to differentiate the relative strength of the included studies. Consequently, all studies contributed equally to the synthesis regardless of methodological robustness. This may influence the interpretation of recurring barriers, as findings derived from studies with different levels of empirical rigour were integrated within the same analytical framework. Future reviews could incorporate standardised quality-rating or risk-of-bias assessment tools to strengthen comparative weighting and evidence interpretation.

5.1. Theoretical implications

This work provides a structured synthesis of the main barriers, facilitating comparative analysis and serving as a basis for future research on comprehensive sustainability models in construction.

The findings provide policymakers and industry practitioners with an evidence-based framework to support the implementation of sustainable construction in developing countries. The results highlight priority actions, including the design of targeted economic incentives, strengthening of regulatory frameworks and development of technical training and awareness programmes aimed at reducing implementation barriers across project and industry levels.

Finally, it is recommended to promote cross-country comparative studies that identify common patterns and transferable solutions, as well as longitudinal research that evaluates the evolution of barriers and the effectiveness of interventions. Overcoming these limitations is crucial to moving towards more sustainable, inclusive and transformative construction.