Construction Economics and Building Vol. 22, No. 2 June 2022 © 2022 by the author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license. Citation: Oke, A. E., Atofarati, J. O., Bello, S. F. 2022. Awareness of 3D Printing for Sustainable Construction in an Emerging Economy. Construction Economics and Building, 22:2, 52–68. https://doi.org/10.5130/ AJCEB.v22i2.8015 ISSN 2204-9029 | Published by UTS ePRESS | https://epress. lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index. php/AJCEB RESEARCH ARTICLE Awareness of 3D Printing for Sustainable Construction in an Emerging Economy Ayodeji Emmanuel Oke1, John Oluwatosin Atofarati2,* and Sherifat Folasade Bello1 1 Department of Quantity Surveying, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria 2 Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria Corresponding author: John Oluwatosin Atofarati, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria; joatofarati@gmail.com ORCID Ayodeji Oke: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6551-8634 Atofarati John: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8871-5929 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v22i2.8015 Article History: Received: 13/12/2021; Revised: 08/03/2022; Accepted: 06/05/2022; Published: 20/06/2022 Abstract 3D printing has been popular in the manufacturing industry as a means of automating processes, speeding up production, and reducing waste. It is frequently seen as a relatively new technology, even though it has been in use for more than three decades. This article aims to analyse 3D printing awareness in an emerging economy towards sustainability in the construction industry. A survey research design was used to obtain primary data from the respondents using structured questionnaires. The sample frame for the research survey comprises professionals in construction and consultancy firms such as architects, quantity surveyors, projects managers, and engineers. Mean item score, standard deviation, and factor analysis were used to analyse the data. The findings from this study show that majority of the professionals acknowledged that they were aware of the existence of 3D printing, but most of them attested that they had not utilized this technology before the survey. The study reveals that the professionals in the construction industry of the emerging economy have low awareness of 3D printing technology, therefore its practices in the construction industry of the study area are significantly low. More awareness of 3D printing technology should be raised by bodies shouldered with management and regulation of the construction industry to increase professionals' DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING INTEREST The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. FUNDING The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. 52 https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v22i1.7842 https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/AJCEB https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/AJCEB https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/AJCEB mailto:joatofarati@gmail.com http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6551-8634 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8871-5929 https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v22i1.7842 awareness and enlighten them on the benefits of adopting the technology towards sustainable construction. Keywords 3D Printing; Construction 4.0; Construction Industry; Digital Construction; Sustainable Construction Introduction The construction industry suffers from time overruns, project delays, and abandonment, as well as safety issues, budget overruns, inefficiency, design inflexibility, material waste, and a slew of other issues brought on by a lack of essential information. (Kadiri and Shittu, 2013). Growing populations have wreaked havoc on housing for middle- and lower-income families. Only the affluent and powerful can afford homes where they have total influence over the project's design and implementation (Mehar, et al., 2020). In the construction industry, the development of three-dimensional printing (3D printing) ushered in a new age. 3D printing has been popular in the manufacturing industry as a means of automating processes, speeding up production, and reducing waste (Perkins and Skitmore, 2015). 3D printing is an automated production technique with layer-by-layer control that has seen significant progress over time, most notably in the manufacturing business for decades, but more recently in the construction industry, to print houses and villas (Wu, Wang and Wang, 2016). 3D printing is an additive manufacturing technique that involves the layer-by-layer fabrication of three- dimensional structures. Information is taken from a computer-aided design (CAD) file and translated to a stereolithography (STL) file in additive manufacturing techniques. The drawing created in CAD software is approximated by triangles and slices holding the information for each layer that will be printed during the process (Wong and Hernandez, 2012). A 3D printer, according to Bogue (2013), is an automated additive manufacturing system that can print 3D solid items using computer-aided design (CAD). Major developments, primarily led by the creation of new, advanced, highly functional, and 3D printable materials, were beginning to lead the technology away from one-off prototypes, models, guides, and other products made of simple plastics and metals, to mass production of complex products, as the technology began to receive full attention from industry, academia, and government ( Jakus, 2019). As technology has progressed, 3D printing has expanded to accommodate construction products other than ceramic in recent years. In construction projects, 3D printers can currently produce plastic and nylon components such as plug fixtures, window frame fixtures, and plumbing fittings (Alzarrad and Elhouar, 2019). The discovery of the 3D printer ushered in a new construction method known as 3D printing building technology. Contour Crafting is a potential process that could transform the construction business soon, according to the latest technology (Hager, Golonka and Putanowicz, 2016). There are numerous advantages to this technology, including cost and time savings, fewer pollutants, and a reduction in casualties. According to Teizer, et al. (2016), the construction sector has lately effectively implemented industrial uses of the technology in a variety of domains, including consecutive layers of concrete. Furthermore, 3D printing's core idea is that the 3D volume is reduced in the computer to large-scale printing of complicated geometric shapes in a sequence of 2D layers. Although 3D printing has been present since the late 1970s, it is only recently becoming well-known in the second decade of the twenty-first century. Due to a combination of media interest and the growing availability of consumer-level technology, 3D printing has recently spurred a lot of "futuring" activity (Stein, 2017). Because of the sudden and rapid increase in awareness of 3D printing during the fourth period (2005-2012), as well as a lack of understanding of its history, 3D printing is commonly seen as a new technology, even though it has been in use for more than three decades ( Jakus, 2019). According to Oke, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 2 June 202253 Teizer, et al. (2016), 3D has recently attracted a lot of public attention and has become a popular topic of discussion. This technique, which is more efficient in the development of 3D building models and is generally thought to be more efficient than traditional approaches, is so underutilized in construction (Teizer, et al., 2016). Until recently, 3D printing has received a warm welcome in industrialized countries, resulting in its expansion and improvement in the building industry over time. This article aims to analyse 3D printing awareness in an emerging economy towards sustainable construction in the construction industry. Literature Review Begić and Galić (2021) noted that Construction 4.0 was initially mentioned in 2016, mostly based on construction companies' recognition of the necessity of digitization in the industry. The rapid improvement of 3D printing technology, which is one of the construction 4.0 technologies, according to Mehar, et al. (2020), has changed people's thinking regarding using concrete as a 3D printable material on its own. According to Kothman and Faber (2016), 3D printing concrete can effectively provide several improvements in manufacturing performance, such as shorter lead times, function integration, and material usage reduction, potentially rendering production steps within the construction supply chain obsolete while reducing logistical and production efforts. Wu, et al. (2018) noted that despite the numerous advantages that 3D printing can provide, construction has a lower adoption rate than other industries. Teizer, et al. (2016) said that the current public awareness of 3D printing helps in pushing it to the forefront, where building corporations begin to investigate alternate construction processes. Furthermore, Jakus (2019) reiterated that the quick spread and mass awareness of 3D printing was mostly due to the alignment of key legal and social events/groups, rather than any big technological breakthrough. One of the Arsenic and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is that, by 2030, it must be ensured that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature ( Johnston, 2016). Oke, et al. (2018) stated that government loans, adequate power supply, lowering the cost of digital tools, ensuring that every department develops and manages a computerized information system, raising awareness about the use of technology, and promoting local research and development are all seen as critical to strengthening digital technology and encouraging collaboration. Perhaps as a result of increased global awareness of the technology, as well as what could be considered inaccurate exaggerations about the ability to make anything, 3D printing technology began to be quickly adopted by academic and clinical research institutions, resulting in it becoming not only a vital tool to aid in existing research but also the subject of research itself ( Jakus, 2019). AWARENESS OF 3D TECHNOLOGIES There are several techniques for 3D printing including Stereolithography, Fused Deposition Modelling, Contour crafting, among others. These technologies are further explained. Stereolithography (SLA), according to Teizer, et al. (2016), is a process that requires repeatedly lowering a platform into a bath of synthetic resin (Polymer-hybrid). The largest machines can hold up to two cubic meters of material. As a result, this technology lends itself well to the creation of architectural models. According to Chen, et al. (2017), despite the benefits of SLA technology, it has two major disadvantages: processing time and part performance (thermo-mechanical), the latter of which is the focus of this study. SLA-printed goods cannot achieve the mechanical properties of their molecular counterparts due to the method's layer-by-layer structure. Oke, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 2 June 202254 Fused deposition modelling (FDM) which is another 3D technology is a process that includes extruding classifiable building material through a heated nozzle (Teizer, et al., 2016). The materials that can be employed in this approach include plastic, wax, concrete paste, and ceramic paste. According to Rett, et al. (2021), FDM, an extrusion-based 3D technology, is a well-known and widely used 3D method since it is low-cost, low-maintenance, and open source. Contour crafting, according to Khoshnevis (2004), is a variant of this process in which the material is stopped from flowing out freely by an adjustable outside rim. The nozzle is surrounded by a ring made up of parallel slabs or strips that can spin around it. According to Tay, et al. (2017), contour crafting has been in the works for a while and is based on the extrusion of cement-based paste against a trowel to provide the printed object with a smoother surface finish. According to Teizer, et al. (2016), a construction industry expert, for a client to approve concrete walls, the final surface quality must be within millimetres. 3D Concrete Printing (3DCP) employs a combination of digital technology and new materials science insights to enable cost-effective freeform construction without the use of costly formwork. By separating the cost of fabricating a structural component from its shape, the freeform construction would encourage architectural expression while also allowing for greater design flexibility (Nematollahi, Xia and Sanjayan, 2017). Digital Light Processing is another 3D technology that can be used to make projectors and 3D printers, among other things. Digital micromirrors are laid out on a semiconductor chip in DLP technology. DLP creates 3D models that are more robust and have a higher resolution. It also requires less material, which reduces expenses and waste (Alzarrad and Elhouar, 2019). For constructing a single layer of a 3D object by spatially controlled solidification using a projector light, the digital light processing (DLP) technology employing photocurable resins is fascinating (either UV or white light). This approach makes it simple to make a layer (Stansbury and Idacavage, 2016). Another type of 3D technologies is Stick Dispenser. A depth camera and a projector guide the stick dispenser in real-time. By projecting a basic colour code, both of these technologies assist in notifying where the chopsticks will be placed. To operate the projector, printing must be done in low-light situations (Tay, et al., 2017). Powder injection moulding (PIM) is a known technique for mass-producing metal and ceramic components. PIM eliminates the machining stage, cutting overall production costs (Basso, et al., 2019). PIM's potential lies in its ability to combine plastic injection moulding's design flexibility with powder metallurgy's nearly endless material alternatives, allowing several elements to be created. The Digital Construction Platform (DCP) is a compound robotic arm system that combines a 5-axis Altec hydraulic mobile boom arm and a 6-axis KUKA robotic arm in development. Using rapid cure polyurethane foam, insulative formwork in double-curved geometry may be produced quickly and without the usage of support material. Early foam strength, print speeds, resolution, and preliminary economic statistics have all validated the project's promise (Keating, et al., 2014). The WASP 2040 is a 3D printer that uses material extrusion (Bhardwaj, et al., 2019). This printer's build volume was cylindroconical in shape. The cylindrical component measured 200mm in diameter and 400mm in height. At the top of the construction volume, the distance between the bottom of the cylinder and the tip of the cone was 430mm. A 3-litre material container with a compressed air-operated plastic piston was provided with the printer. The G-code for printing was generated using the Cura software. To address this demand, several AM technologies that can produce ceramic parts are currently available (Travitzky, et al., 2014). D-Shape is a method that employs a binder to selectively spray on the printing material, similar to inkjet powder beds. D-Shape is a powder-bed 3D printer with a production gantry that can produce architectural structures up to 6 x 6 x 6 meters long. Compressive strengths of goods printed using the D-shape technique range from 235 to 242MPa (Wu, Wang and Wang, 2016). D-Shape technology was created primarily for Oke, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 2 June 202255 the manufacture of structural elements with complicated geometry in the factory (off-site) (Gosselin, et al., 2016). Since the 1990s, Rapid Prototyping Technique (RP) methods have been used in medicine to create complicated 3D models (Swan, 1996). Medical diagnosis and surgical treatment planning are now both aided by the RP model. Wax patterns for prostheses, all-ceramic crowns, metal prostheses (in clouding FPDs and framework for removable partial dentures), and prosthetic casts are all covered in this review. (Sun and Zhang, 2012). The virtual phase (modelling and simulating) and the physical phase (building) are the only two phases of RP (fabrication), according to Wang and Shaw (2006). The practice of building a model through a dynamic, interactive simulation is known as virtual prototyping. The development of a physical model begins with the creation of a 3D physical model using CAD software. The Flow-based Fabrication process is a patented extrusion-based additive manufacturing technique for yield stress material that is constantly reinforced. As a result, it is possible to build a part layer by layer using a continuous deposition of material along a specific robotic path based on the geometry of the finished part. Bi-extrusion and pultrusion are the two primary alternatives. The method for applying the mechanical force required for continuous reinforcing deposition is the key distinction (Ducoulombier, et al., 2020). A welding robot (an articulated arm mounted on a track) was utilized to build a steel net that could be used as a permeable formwork for concrete that would be poured later [HAC 14, HAC 15]. This method is intriguing because it allows for the production of steel-reinforced wall parts that behave similarly to regular reinforced concrete (Perrot and Amziane, 2019). The mesh increases the concrete's tensile strength, making it a viable alternative to standard steel reinforcement (Tay, et al., 2017). Minibuilders has presented a novel method for creating three-dimensional concrete. The system employs three small mobile robots. The first robot follows a specified course while laying the concrete foundation with the help of a sensor. The second robot is put on the foundation and grasped with rollers before printing further concrete layers and building the structure. The final robot uses suction cups and pressurized air to print vertically up the printed structure and strengthen it, which was previously just horizontally stacked (Zhang, et al., 2018). Standard tessellation language format is a 3D printing technology. The three-dimensional representation of the surface geometry, also known as stereolithography, gives birth to unimportant information for printing such as texture or colour, resulting in its popularity in the industry (Sakin and Kiroglu, 2017). Standard tessellation language, as defined by Alharbi, et al. (2016), is a format for 3D digital files that be scanned and exported utilizing 3D systems into 3D printers. SUMMARY OF 3D PRINTING TECHNOLOGIES This section highlighted and discussed existing studies on 3D printing technologies. The summary is made in table 1. Research Method For this study, a quantitative research approach was used. Through the use of structured questionnaires, a survey research approach was employed to acquire primary data from the respondents, which included several project players in Lagos state, Nigeria (an economically growing area in West Africa). The survey's sample frame includes experts from construction and consulting firms in Lagos, such as architects, quantity surveyors, project managers, and engineers. Table 2 shows an overview of the sample size for the study. Convenient sampling was used to choose one hundred and seventy-one (171) respondents where respondents were picked based on convenience considering their availability, accessibility and proximity. The sampling size for this study was obtained using the Yamane formula adopted by Olatunji, et al. (2014) for each of the sample frames. Oke, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 2 June 202256 Ta bl e 1. Va ri ab le s an d co de d au th or s on a w ar en es s of 3 D p ri nt in g te ch ni qu es in t he c on st ru ct io n in du st ry S /N A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z A A A B A C A D A E T L 1 3D c o n cr e te p ri n ti n g ✓ ✓ 2 2 C o n to u r cr a ft in g ✓ ✓ ✓ 3 3 W A S P ✓ ✓ 2 4 S te ro li th o g ra p h y ✓ ✓ 2 5 F u se d d e p o si ti o n m o d e ll in g ✓ ✓ ✓ 3 6 D - sh a p e t e ch n o lo g y ✓ ✓ ✓ 3 7 R a p id p ro to ty p in g ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 4 8 S ta n d a rd t e ss e ll a ti o n l a n g u a g e f o rm a t ✓ ✓ 2 9 D ig it a l li g h t p ro ce ss in g ✓ ✓ 2 10 D ig it a l co n st ru ct io n p la tf o rm ✓ ✓ 2 11 F lo w -b a se d f a b ri ca ti o n ✓ 1 12 M e sh -m o u ld ✓ ✓ 2 13 M in ib u il d e rs ✓ 1 14 S ti ck d is p e n se r ✓ ✓ 2 15 In je ct p o w e r p ri n ti n g                                                         ✓ ✓ ✓ 3 A - (N em at ol la hi , e t al ., 20 17 ); B - (G ar di ne r, 2 01 1) ; C - (K ho sh ne vi s, 2 00 4) ; D - (T ay , e t al ., 20 16 ); E - (T ei ze r, e t al ., 20 16 ); F - (B ha rd w aj , e t al ., 20 20 ); G - (T ra vi tz ky , e t al ., 20 14 ); H - (C he n, et  a l. , 2 01 7) ; I - (P an ne rs el va m , R ag hu ra m an a nd K ri sh na n, 2 02 1) ; J - (R et t, T ra or e an d H o, 2 02 1) ; K - (W u, W an g an d W an g, 2 01 6) ; L - (L im , e t al ., 20 12 ); M - (G os se li n, e t al ., 20 16 ); N -  (S w an , 1 99 6) ; O - (Z ha ng , 2 01 2) ; P - (S un a nd Z ha ng , 2 01 2) ; Q - (W an g an d S ha w , 2 00 6) ; R - (S ak in a nd K ir og lu , 2 01 7) ; S - (A lh ar bi , O sm an a nd W is m ei je r, 2 01 6) ; T - (A lz ar ra d, e t al ., 20 19 ); U - (S ta ns bu ry , e t al ., 20 16 ); V - (K ea ti ng , 2 01 2) ; W - (S au lt er s an d S ca rr , 1 98 5) ; X - (D uc ou lo m bi er , e t al ., 20 20 ); Y - (P er ro t an d A m zi an e, 2 01 9) ; Z - (Y i W ei , e t al ., 20 17 ); A A - (Z ha ng , e t al ., 20 18 ); A B - (Y os hi da , e t al ., 20 15 ); A C - (A lb er to , e t al ., 20 19 ); A D - (H au sn er ov á, 2 01 1) ; A E - (T an do n, 2 00 8) Oke, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 2 June 202257 Table 2. Sampling Size of the Respondent. Respondents Sample Frame Sample Size Retrieved Architects 1700 43 12 Builders 700 42 31 Engineers 1850 43 13 Quantity surveyors 1080 43 17 Total 5330 171 73 Source: Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors (NIQS), Nigerian Institute of Architects (NIA), Nigerian Society of Engineers (NSE), Nigerian Institution of Building (NIOB), 2020 Questionnaires in hard copy printed forms were distributed to the respondent accordingly for proper assessment. Of the 171 questionnaires distributed to the professionals in the construction industry who have limited time and organized office in the study area, 73 were retrieved. This was due to many forms being misplaced, while other respondents were lost track of. The retrieved forms were used for the analysis of this research work. Data was collected and analysed using descriptive statistics, which was done with the help of a statistical package for social science (SPSS). The data were analysed using mean item score, standard deviation, and factor analysis. Results In this section, the data collected from the field survey were systematically presented, analysed with inferences made in a bid to assess the level of awareness of 3D printing towards sustainable construction in Lagos, a city with an emerging economy. BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF THE RESPONDENTS This section reveals the general statistical information of the targeted respondents used for this research. The result of the survey presented in Table 3 shows the numbers of qualified professionals certified and registered according to the principles and guidelines of the professions with QSRBN having 30 frequency and 41.1% of the data collected, ARCON having the frequency of 17 and 23.3% of the respondents, CORBON having 13 frequency and 17.8 % of the respondents, COREN having respondents of 13 and 17.8 percent of the data collected and professionals with no professional qualifications amount to the frequency of 18 and 17.3% of the population. This result shows that all the respondents are certified and registered members of a professional body. The result of the analysis presented in Table 3 shows the highest level of academic qualification attained by each of the respondents. From the result, the majority (54.8%) of the respondents are bachelor’s degree holders, while some of them (34.2%) have attained a Master's Degree from their university of choice, with few (6.8%) having obtained a Higher National Diploma (HND) from a polytechnic. Meanwhile, 2.7% of the respondents have attained a PhD in their area of specialization, while 1.4% of the respondents had a National Diploma certificate to practice their profession The result of the survey carried out on the years of experience of the respondents is presented in Table 3. From the result, it can be deduced that most of the professionals (61.6%) had between 5 to 10 years of professional experience, while 32.9% of the respondents had 11 to 15 years of professional experience in their respective professions. Furthermore, 2.7% of the respondents who are professionals in the construction Oke, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 2 June 202258 industry had less than 5 years of professional, 2.7% had long years of experience between 16 to 20 years respectively. AWARENESS OF 3D PRINTING IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY The result of the survey carried out to inquire if the respondents are aware of 3D printing in the construction industry is presented in Table 4. According to the results, 65.8% of respondents said they were aware of 3D printing in the construction business. Alternatively, 24.7 percent of respondents were unaware of 3D printing, while 9.6 percent were unsure whether or not they were aware. The findings indicate that certain construction industry experts in the research region were unaware of 3D printing. Table 3. Demographic characteristics of the respondents Variables Characteristics Frequency Percentage (%) Professional qualification Architects Registration Council of Nigeria (ARCON) 17 23.3 Council of Registered Builders of Nigeria (CORBON) 13 17.8 The Council for the Regulation of Engineering in Nigeria, COREN 13 17.8 Quantity Surveyors Registration Board of Nigeria (QSRBN) 30 41.1 Highest Education Attained National Diploma (ND) 1 1.4 Higher National Diploma (HND) 5 6.8 Bachelor’s degree (B.Sc/B.Tech) 40 54.8 Master’s degree (M.Sc/M.Tech) 25 34.2 Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) 2 2.7 Years of experience Less than 5 years 2 2.7 5 to 10 years 45 61.6 11 to 15 years 24 32.9 16 to 20 years 2 2.7 Table 4. Awareness of 3D printing Variables Response Frequency Percentage (%) Aware of 3D Printing? Yes 48 65.8 No 18 24.7 Maybe 7 9.6 Participated in 3D printing? Yes 26 35.6 No 28 38.4 Maybe 19 26.0 Oke, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 2 June 202259 Further analysis reveals that 35.6% of the respondents had participated in 3D printing while others had not participated, although 26% of the respondents were not sure whether they had participated or not. From the result, it can be deduced that the participation of professionals in the construction industry in 3D printing is low. LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF 3D PRINTING TECHNOLOGIES Table 5 shows the reliability statistics of the 5-point Likert scale from “very low” to “very high” was used for the survey. From the result, the Cronbach's alpha is 0.930 which indicates a very high level of internal consistency for the scale of the items of the level of awareness of 3D printing technologies. Table 5. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items No of Items 0.930 0.930 15 Table 6 shows the analysis of the Item-Total Statistics of the level of awareness of 3D printing technologies. Column 5 present the value that Cronbach's alpha would be if that particular variable was deleted from the scale. From the result, we can see that removal of any variable would result in a lower Cronbach's alpha. Therefore, we would not want to remove any of the variables. Table 6. Item-Total Statistics Variables Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted 3D concrete printing 35.22 78.562 0.701 0.655 0.925 Contour crafting 35.58 80.692 0.591 0.440 0.928 WASP 35.22 80.785 0.602 0.538 0.927 Stereolithography 35.42 76.331 0.720 0.616 0.924 Fused deposition modelling 35.53 77.252 0.701 0.715 0.925 D-shape technology 35.40 81.187 0.576 0.520 0.928 Rapid prototyping technique 35.51 77.281 0.722 0.663 0.924 Standard tessellation language format 35.51 78.753 0.651 0.610 0.926 Digital light processing 35.53 78.780 0.692 0.702 0.925 Oke, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 2 June 202260 Variables Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Digital construction platform 35.40 81.021 0.604 0.562 0.927 Flow-based fabrication 35.42 79.414 0.645 0.657 0.926 Mesh-mould 35.29 77.263 0.696 0.640 0.925 Minibuilders 35.30 79.991 0.615 0.504 0.927 Stick dispenser 35.62 78.351 0.690 0.679 0.925 Inject powder printing 35.29 77.958 0.701 0.692 0.925 Table 7 shows the results of a survey conducted to determine the respondents' level of awareness about 3D printing processes in the construction industry. With a mean of 2.73, the majority of the respondents are mainly aware of WASP and 3D concrete printing as some of the 3D printing techniques employed in the construction industry, indicating that it is of great relevance to the construction industry. Some respondents are familiar with Injection powder printing and Mesh-mould, each with a mean value of 2.66 and very high importance. Table 7. Level of awareness of 3D printing Variable Mean Std. Deviation Rank WASP 2.73 0.804 1 3D concrete printing 2.73 0.870 2 Inject powder printing 2.66 0.916 3 Mesh-mould 2.66 0.975 4 Minibuilders 2.64 0.856 5 Digital construction platform 2.55 0.782 6 D-shape technology 2.55 0.800 7 Flow-based fabrication 2.52 0.868 8 Stereolithography 2.52 1.015 9 Standard tessellation language format 2.44 0.913 10 Rapid prototyping technique 2.44 0.943 11 Digital light processing 2.41 0.863 12 Fused deposition modelling 2.41 0.969 13 Table 6. continued Oke, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 2 June 202261 Table 9. 3D printing Awareness of Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 7.614 50.761 50.761 4.807 32.047 32.047 2 1.348 8.985 59.747 4.155 27.699 59.747 3 0.937 6.247 65.994       4 0.822 5.483 71.477       5 0.688 4.584 76.06       6 0.591 3.939 79.999       7 0.586 3.907 83.906       8 0.508 3.385 87.291       9 0.47 3.134 90.425       10 0.359 2.392 92.817       11 0.281 1.876 94.693       12 0.263 1.754 96.447       13 0.233 1.553 98       14 0.176 1.173 99.173       15 0.124 0.827 100       Variable Mean Std. Deviation Rank Contour crafting 2.37 0.825 14 Stick dispenser 2.33 0.898 15 The use and importance of Digital construction platforms, D-shape technology, Stereolithography, Flow-based fabrication, Standard tessellation language format, Rapid prototyping technique, and Digital light processing can be considered to be averagely aware by the respondents. While Stick dispensers can be considered to be low awareness in the construction industry in the study area. Table 8. KMO and Bartlett's Test for Awareness of 3D Printing KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.871 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 642.448 Df 105   Sig. 0.00 Table 7. continued Oke, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 2 June 202262 The data received were enough for factor analysis, according to the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO), and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity for correlation adequacy between the variables was very significant, as shown in Table 8. A data collection or sample can be utilized for factor analysis if it passes Bartlett's Test of Sphericity. The Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin sample adequacy test (KMO = 0.871) revealed that 87.1 percent of the data was eligible for factor analysis. With a degree of freedom of 66 and chi-square of 642.488, it also demonstrates that the p-value utilized is less than 0.05, meaning that the data is appropriate for factor analysis. According to Bartlett's test (p-value = 0.000), the correlation is an identity matrix, meaning that the correlation matrix of all the items presented has a significant correlation at the 5% level, and so exploratory component analysis is suitable in Table 6. Variance in the total Principal Component Analysis (PCA) found the presence of four components with eigen values greater than one, accounting for 32.04 percent and 27.69 percent of the variance, respectively, in the areas of application of 3D printing in the construction industry. Figure 1 shows a scree plot of the loading of awareness in the construction industry. After the second component, there was a noticeable split in the scree plot. The number of factors that should be created by the analysis is indicated by the point where the slope of the curve begins to level out. The Rotated Component Matrix was used to conduct further analysis on 3D printing awareness in the construction business, and the results are provided in Table 10. The results demonstrate that a model with two applications may be sufficient to represent 3D printing awareness in the construction industry of Figure 1. The scree plot of loading of the awareness in the construction industry Oke, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 2 June 202263 emerging economies. Table 8 shows the factor grouping based on the varimax rotation, and each variable has a strong influence on only one of the tool groups. It is necessary to name these factors before interpreting the four major categories. Table 11 shows the factor analysis, 15 items in factor influencing the awareness of 3D printing which results in a two-factor solution that is Digital and Technical in which optimism cannot be analysed because it’s a single variable. The Kaiser- Meyer – Olkin (KMO) value is 0.871 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity is significant (p =0.000). Discussion The awareness and knowledge of 3D printing technology are grouped into two major groups based on the data analysis of this study: Digital and Technical. The findings from this study show that majority of the professionals acknowledged that they were aware of the existence of 3D printing, but the majority of them attested that they had not utilized 3D printers before the survey. This finding corroborates Xu, et al., (2017) findings that the use of 3D printers in the construction industry is still limited. The low usage of 3D printing technology could be a result of the lack of exposure of the construction industry in developing countries to new technologies and their adoption. Furthermore, the potential challenges and risks envisaged by the professionals seem to have overshadowed the potential benefits of adopting this technology. More findings of the awareness and usage of the listed 3D printers brought into light that the professionals are not satisfactorily aware of 3D printers and have not been utilizing 3D printers for their Table 10. Awareness of 3D printing Rotated Component Matrix F1 F2 Digital light processing 0.848 0.165 Inject powder printing 0.761 0.276 Flow-based fabrication 0.757 0.200 Mesh-mould 0.693 0.344 Stereolithography 0.665 0.408 D-shape technology 0.651 0.219 3D concrete printing 0.604 0.450 Minibuilders 0.578 0.357 WASP 0.573 0.348 Standard tessellation language format 0.220 0.803 Digital construction platform 0.183 0.777 Fused deposition modelling 0.349 0.731 Rapid prototyping technique 0.392 0.711 Stick dispenser 0.372 0.691 Contour crafting 0.256 0.679 Oke, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 2 June 202264 day-to-day operation. It could be concluded from the research of Chen, et al. (2017), Tay et al. (2017), Teizer, et al. (2016) and Wu, et al. (2016), that 3D printing has been underutilized in the construction industry in the emerging economy compared to its prominence in the manufacturing and health industry. The finding of this study in this section aligns with the positions of the reviewed researchers, as this could be as a result of so many factors such as the immaturity of the industry, unavailability of the technology, poor technological advancement, poor research and development team. From the results of the factor analysis, the first awareness group is labelled ‘Digital’ which accounts for about 32.05% of the observed total variance and contains nine 3D printers which are: Digital light processing, Jet power printing, flow-based fabrication, mesh-mould, stereolithography, D-shape technology, 3D concrete printing, Minibuilders, and WASP. The printers discovered in this study have a low awareness and are not in use by the professionals in the construction industry of the study area. This can be attributed to the lack of exposure and immaturity of the professionals in the construction industry when it comes to technological innovations adoption. This finding aligns with the positions of Chen, et al. (2017), Tay, et al. (2017), Teizer, et al. (2016) and Wu, et al. (2016). The second awareness group is labelled ‘Technical’ which accounts for about 27.70% of the observed total variance and contains six 3D printers which are: Standard tessellation language format, digital construction platform, fused deposition modelling, rapid prototyping technique, stick dispenser, and contour crafting. The printers as identified in this study have a low awareness and have not been used by the construction professionals. This finding aligns with the positions of Chen, et al. (2017), Tay, et al. (2017), Teizer, et al. (2016) and Wu, et al. (2016). Table 11. Related component of the awareness of 3D printing Awareness of 3D printing (KMO= 0.871) Nature item Description Factor loading Digital 1 Digital light processing 0.848 2 Jet power printing 0.761 3 Flow-based fabrication 0.757 4 Mesh- mould 0.693 5 Stereolithography 0.665 6 D- shape technology 0.651 7 3D concrete printing 0.604 8 Minibuilders 0.578 9 WASP 0.573 Technical 10 Standard tessellation language format 0.803 11 Digital construction platform 0.777 12 Fused deposition modelling 0.731 13 Rapid prototyping technique 0.711 14 Stick dispenser 0.691 15 Contour crafting 0.679 Oke, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 2 June 202265 Conclusion The degree of knowledge of 3D printing in the developing economy's construction industry was disclosed in this study. According to the findings, several construction industry experts were unaware of 3D printing. 3D concrete printing and WASP are two 3D printing technology often employed in the construction sector, according to some of the respondents. As a result of the limited understanding of 3D printing technology among professionals in the developing economy's construction industry, the use of this technology in the construction industry is extremely low. The implication of this is that it will impede the rate of acceptance and integration in the developing economy. Therefore, more awareness of 3D printing technology should be raised to increase the awareness of the professionals and enlighten them on the benefits of adopting it into the construction industry. All stakeholders, professional bodies in the construction industry, and government agencies are to provide an enabling environment for adequate training and sensitization of all the parties in the construction industry about 3D printing towards sustainable construction in the emerging economy. The limitation encountered in the study is the discouraging attitude of some of the professionals towards the administration of questionnaires which led to most of the questionnaires not being attempted in the study area. This research has shown the level of awareness of 3D printing among professionals towards sustainable construction in the construction industry. Some of the techniques of 3D printing are known to some of the professionals in the industry. The awareness of 3D printing in the construction industry will bring about its understanding, appreciation, and appropriate implementation, with a resultant sustainable construction in an emerging economy. Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of their respondents, while retaining responsibility for any errors or omissions in this paper. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. References Alharbi, N., Osman, R. and Wismeijer, D., 2016. Factors Influencing the Dimensional Accuracy of 3D-Printed Full- Coverage Dental Restorations Using Stereolithography Technology. The International Journal of Prosthodontics, 29(5), pp.503–10. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4835 Alzarrad, M.A. and Elhouar, S., 2019. 3D Printing Applications in Construction from the Past and into the Future. In: Creative Construction Conference 2019, pp.754–60. https://doi.org/10.3311/CCC2019-103 Basso, A., Mendez Ribo, M., Halina Danielak, A., Yang, B., Kjeldsteen, P., Valler, P., Bue Pedersen, D. and Zhang, Y., 2019. 3D Printed Mold for Powder Injection Molding Process. In: Proceedings of the Joint Special Interest Group meeting between euspen and ASPE Advancing Precision in Additive Manufacturing (2019) Publication, pp.71–74. Available at: www.euspen.eu. Begić, H. and Galić, M., 2021. A Systematic Review of Construction 4.0 in the Context of the BIM 4.0 Premise. Buildings, 11(8), p.337. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11080337 Bhardwaj, A., Kalantar, N., Molina, E., Zou, N. and Pei, Z., 2019. Extrusion-Based 3D Printing of Porcelain: Feasible Regions. In: Volume 1: Additive Manufacturing; Manufacturing Equipment and Systems; Bio and Sustainable Manufacturing. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/MSEC2019-3004 Oke, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 2 June 202266 https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4835 https://doi.org/10.3311/CCC2019-103 http://www.euspen.eu https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11080337 https://doi.org/10.1115/MSEC2019-3004 Bogue, R., 2013. 3D printing: The dawn of a new era in manufacturing? Assembly Automation, 33(4), pp.307–11. https:// doi.org/10.1108/AA-06-2013-055 Cameli, S. A., 2019. 3D Printing of Cities: Is Urban Planning Ready? Planning Theory and Practice, 20(5), pp.776–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2019.1660075 Chen, Q., Xu, R., He, Z., Zhao, K. and Pan, L., 2017. Printing 3D gel polymer electrolyte in Li-ion microbattery using stereolithography. Journal ofThe Electrochemical Society, 164(9), pp.A1852–A1857. https://doi.org/10.1149/2.0651709jes Ducoulombier, N., Demont, L., Chateau, C., Bornert, M., and Caron, J. F., 2020. Additive manufacturing of anisotropic concrete: A flow-based pultrusion of continuous fibers in a cementitious matrix. Procedia Manufacturing, 47(2019), pp.1070–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.04.117 Gosselin, C., Duballet, R., Roux, P., Gaudillière, N., Dirrenberger, J. and Morel, P., 2016. Large-scale 3D printing of ultra-high performance concrete – a new processing route for architects and builders. Materials & Design, 100, pp.102– 09. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2016.03.097 Hager, I., Golonka, A. and Putanowicz, R., 2016. 3D Printing of Buildings and Building Components as the Future of Sustainable Construction? Procedia Engineering, 151, pp.292–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.07.357 Jakus, A. E., 2019. An Introduction to 3D Printing d Past , Present , and Future Promise, 3D Printing in Orthopaedic Surgery. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-58118-9.00001-4 Johnston, R., 2016. Arsenic and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In: Arsenic Research and Global Sustainability - Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on Arsenic in the Environment, AS 2016, pp.12–14. https://doi. org/10.1201/b20466-7 Kadiri, D. S. and Shittu, A.A., 2013. Causes of Time Overrun in Building Projects in Nigeria: Contracting and Consulting Perspectives. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 53(9), pp.1689–99. Keating, S., Spielberg, N.A., Klein, J. and Oxman, N., 2014. Digital Construction Platform : A Compound Arm Approach. Robotic Fabrication in Architecture, Art and Design, (November 2014), pp.99–110. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-04663-1_7 Khoshnevis, B., 2004. Automated construction by contour crafting - Related robotics and information technologies. Automation in Construction, 13(1), pp.5–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2003.08.012 Kothman, I. and Faber, N., 2016. How 3D printing technology changes the rules of the game: Insights from the construction sector. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 27(7), pp.932-43. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JMTM-01-2016-0010 Mehar, P., Khobragade, P., Mendhe, M., Bhada, S., Singh, V. and Salodkar, P., 2020. 3D Printing Trends in Building and Construction Industry. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology, 7(3), pp.2395–6011. https:// doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST207342 Nematollahi, B., Xia, M. and Sanjayan, J., 2017. Current progress of 3D concrete printing technologies. ISARC 2017 - Proceedings of the 34th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, (May 2020), pp.260–67. https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2017/0035 Oke, A.E., Aghimien, D.O., Aigbavboa, C.O. and Koloko, N., 2018. Challenges of digital collaboration in the South African construction industry. Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, 2018-March, pp.2472–82. Olatunji, S.O., Oke, A.E. and Owoeye, L.C., 2014. Factors Affecting Performance of Construction Professionals in Nigeria. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT), 3(6), pp.76–84. Oke, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 2 June 202267 https://doi.org/10.1108/AA-06-2013-055 https://doi.org/10.1108/AA-06-2013-055 https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2019.1660075 https://doi.org/10.1149/2.0651709jes https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.04.117 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2016.03.097 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.07.357 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-58118-9.00001-4 https://doi.org/10.1201/b20466-7 https://doi.org/10.1201/b20466-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04663-1_7 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04663-1_7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2003.08.012 https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-01-2016-0010 https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-01-2016-0010 https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST207342 https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST207342 https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2017/0035 Perkins, I. and Skitmore, M., 2015. Three-dimensional printing in the construction industry: A review. International Journal of Construction Management, 15(1), pp.1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2015.1012136 Perrot, A. and Amziane, S., 2019. 3D Printing in Concrete: General Considerations and Technologies. In: 3D Printing of Concrete. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp.1–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119610755.ch1 Rett, J.P., Traore, Y.L. and Ho, E.A., 2021. Sustainable Materials for Fused Deposition Modeling 3D Printing Applications. Advanced Engineering Materials, 23(7), pp.1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.202001472 Sakin, M. and Kiroglu, Y.C., 2017. 3D Printing of Buildings: Construction of the Sustainable Houses of the Future by BIM. Energy Procedia, 134, pp.702–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.562 Stansbury, J.W. and Idacavage, M.J., 2016. 3D printing with polymers: Challenges among expanding options and opportunities. Dental Materials, 32(1), pp.54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.018 Stein, J.A., 2017. The Political Imaginaries of 3D Printing : Prompting Mainstream Awareness of Design and Making The Political Imaginaries of 3D Printing : Prompting Mainstream Awareness of Design and Making. Design and Culture, 7075(February), pp.1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2017.1279941 Sun, J. and Zhang, F.Q., 2012. The application of rapid prototyping in prosthodontics. Journal of Prosthodontics, (21)8, pp.641–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2012.00888.x Swann, S., 1996. Integration of MRI and Stereolithography to Build Medical Models. A Case Study. Rapid Prototyping Journal, (2)4, pp.41–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552549610153398 Tay, Y.W.D., Panda, B., Paul, S.C., Noor Mohamed, N.A., Tan, M.J. and Leong, K.F., 2017. 3D printing trends in building and construction industry: a review. Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 12(3), pp.261–76. https://doi.org/10.1080 /17452759.2017.1326724 Teizer, J., Blickle, A., King, T., Leitzbach, O. and Guenther, D., 2016. Large scale 3D printing of complex geometric shapes in construction. In: 33rd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction. ISARC Publications. https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2016/0114 Travitzky, N., Bonet, A., Dermeik, B., Fey, T., Filbert-Demut, I., Schlier, L., Schlordt, T. and Greil, P., 2014. Additive Manufacturing of Ceramic-Based Materials. Advanced Engineering Materials, 16(6), pp.729–54. https://doi. org/10.1002/adem.201400097 Wang, J.W. and Shaw, L.L., 2006. Fabrication of functionally graded materials via inkjet color printing. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, (89)10, pp.3285–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2006.01206.x Wong, K.V. and Hernandez, A., 2012. A Review of Additive Manufacturing. ISRN Mechanical Engineering, 2012, pp.1–10. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/208760 Wu, P., Zhao, X., Baller, J.H. and Wang, X., 2018. Developing a conceptual framework to improve the implementation of 3D printing technology in the construction industry. Architectural Science Review, 61(3), pp.133–42. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/00038628.2018.1450727 Wu, P., Wang, J. and Wang, X., 2016. A critical review of the use of 3-D printing in the construction industry. Automation in Construction, (68), pp.21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.04.005 Xu, J., Ding, L. and Love, P.E.D., 2017. Digital reproduction of historical building ornamental components: From 3D scanning to 3D printing. Automation in Construction, 76, pp.85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.01.010 Zhang, X., Li, M., Lim, J.H., Weng, Y., Tay, Y.W.D., Pham, H., and Pham, Q.C., 2018. Large-scale 3D printing by a team of mobile robots. Automation in Construction, 95, pp.98–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.08.004 Oke, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 2 June 202268 https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2015.1012136 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119610755.ch1 https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.202001472 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.562 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.018 https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2017.1279941 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2012.00888.x https://doi.org/10.1108/13552549610153398 https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2017.1326724 https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2017.1326724 https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2016/0114 https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.201400097 https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.201400097 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2006.01206.x https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/208760 https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2018.1450727 https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2018.1450727 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.04.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.01.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.08.004