Augmented reality remains rare on Nigerian construction sites despite wide professional awareness

Construction professionals in Enugu, Nigeria, know about augmented reality far better than they can actually use it, according to a new survey-based study of the city’s building industry. The research, published in Discover Civil Engineering, found that 65.6 percent of surveyed architects, engineers, project managers, firm owners and technology vendors had heard of augmented reality, yet only 18.6 percent rated their knowledge of AR applications as very low-awareness did not translate into competence, and just 21.9 percent had ever seen a pilot AR application in local construction practice.

The study was a quantitative cross-sectional survey. A structured questionnaire was administered in person to 247 participants drawn from a sampling frame of 646 registered professionals practicing in Enugu Urban Metropolis, a sample size calculated with Yamane’s formula at a 95 percent confidence level. Respondents were allocated proportionally across stakeholder categories, and the in-person administration achieved a 100 percent response rate. Engineers formed the largest professional group at 48.2 percent, followed by architects at 23.1 percent, project managers at 14.6 percent, construction firm owners at 10.5 percent and vendors of digital construction tools at 3.6 percent. Most respondents held a bachelor’s degree (51.8 percent) or a master’s degree (29.6 percent), and 45.3 percent were aged between 30 and 39, a profile the authors describe as relatively young and highly educated.

Augmented reality overlays digital content such as three-dimensional models, measurements and annotations onto a real-world view in real time, distinguishing it from virtual reality, which fully immerses the user in a synthetic environment. In construction, the technology allows designers to walk clients through unbuilt spaces, lets site teams compare actual progress against digital design intent, and can flag clashes between structural and mechanical systems before installation. The study’s literature review notes that combining AR with building information modelling enables professionals to visualize hidden structural elements and conduct immersive design walkthroughs, while software platforms such as GAMMA AR and Trimble Connect AR let workers view complex designs on-site at 1:1 scale using smartphones, tablets or specialized headsets.

When asked about their depth of knowledge, most respondents placed themselves in the middle or lower ranges of a five-point scale: 36.0 percent rated their knowledge as moderate, 28.7 percent as low and 18.6 percent as very low, while only 11.7 percent reported high and 4.9 percent very high familiarity. Familiarity with specific applications was similarly uneven. Design visualization was the best-known use, cited by 53.0 percent of respondents, followed by on-site error detection at 39.3 percent and training and simulation at 34.0 percent. Project communication followed at 30.8 percent, and 27.5 percent said they were not familiar with any of the listed applications. The authors interpret this pattern as suggesting that local professionals tend to see AR primarily as a conceptual, office-based rendering tool rather than an operational asset for fieldwork, since design visualization software runs on standard desktop computers whereas site applications demand expensive specialized hardware, reliable on-site conditions and fast mobile internet.

Practical exposure was rare. Among the full sample, 78.1 percent reported never having seen AR applied in construction practice in Enugu. The 54 respondents who did report exposure encountered it most often in design visualization (38.9 percent), then on-site coordination (25.9 percent), training and safety simulation (20.4 percent) and client presentations (14.8 percent), with 7.4 percent mentioning other uses such as cost estimation and integration with building information modelling. Percentages for this subgroup were calculated out of the 54 exposed respondents rather than the full 247, and one respondent reported having seen AR in more than one context.

Perceptions of AR’s potential were strongly positive even where experience was absent. On whether AR can improve design communication, 40.9 percent strongly agreed and 37.2 percent agreed. For reducing construction errors, 38.0 percent strongly agreed and 41.7 percent agreed. On enhancing collaboration and decision-making, 47.8 percent agreed and 28.7 percent strongly agreed, and on improving clients’ understanding and acceptance of designs, 49.0 percent agreed and 32.4 percent strongly agreed. Asked to name AR’s greatest potential benefit, 35.2 percent chose improved communication, 27.9 percent chose reduction of errors and revisions, 21.1 percent chose better site coordination and 11.3 percent chose enhanced training and safety. These are perceptions reported by survey respondents, not measured performance outcomes from deployed systems.

The barriers respondents identified were dominated by economics. The high cost of AR tools was named the greatest obstacle by 37.3 percent, followed by lack of technical expertise at 25.9 percent, poor digital infrastructure at 19.4 percent, resistance to change at 10.5 percent and limited awareness at 6.9 percent. The discussion section links the cost barrier to foreign-currency pricing of head-mounted displays, spatial scanners and enterprise software licenses, which inflates acquisition costs for local firms. Infrastructure complaints centered on erratic electricity supply and unstable internet connectivity. Access data reinforced the picture of a wide digital gap: only 28.7 percent of respondents’ organizations currently have access to AR or similar digital tools such as BIM, VR or CAD extensions, while 71.3 percent reported none.

Readiness for actual implementation was low. Respondents described their firms as slightly prepared in 33.6 percent of cases and not prepared at all in 27.5 percent, with 25.9 percent moderately prepared and only about 13 percent combined considering their organizations well or fully prepared. Yet enthusiasm for future investment ran high: 42.1 percent strongly supported and 33.2 percent somewhat supported organizational investment in AR within the next three to five years, with only 10.9 percent opposed. On the support most needed to enable adoption, 35.6 percent prioritized training and capacity building, 30.8 percent subsidized costs or financial incentives, 16.6 percent improved infrastructure, 10.9 percent policy support or regulation and 6.1 percent industry awareness campaigns.

Inferential analysis added a notable null result. A chi-square test of independence found no statistically significant association between professional role and AR awareness, χ²(4) = 7.004, p = 0.136, and no significant association between professional role and knowledge level, χ²(4) = 8.281, p = 0.082. Awareness was numerically highest among architects, at 45 of 57 (78.9 percent), and lowest among engineers, at 71 of 120 (59.2 percent), but these differences did not reach statistical significance, and the null hypothesis of no relationship was accepted. A binary logistic regression on knowledge and awareness was reported as consistent with the chi-square finding.

The authors frame their contribution as a localized empirical baseline for a region where such data had been lacking, describing an awareness-readiness paradox in which high conceptual familiarity with AR does not automatically yield organizational capacity. They recommend collaborative interventions among professional bodies, government and industry stakeholders, including practical training programs, subsidies for adopting firms, investment in reliable internet and power supply, clear government policies with possible tax incentives, and awareness campaigns paired with pilot demonstration projects. The study’s stated limitations are geographic confinement to Enugu Metropolis, a cross-sectional design that captures perceptions at a single point in time and cannot track long-term adoption trends, and reliance on self-assessed knowledge, which the authors note introduces potential social desirability bias. They suggest future research extend the geographic scope to other Nigerian states and supplement self-reported data with technical assessments or observational case studies.

Subject of Research: Awareness, barriers and readiness for augmented reality adoption among construction professionals in Enugu Metropolis, Nigeria

Article Title: Integration of augmented reality in construction practice in Enugu state, Nigeria

Article References: Mba, E. J., Onyia, C. D. F., Oforji, P. I., Ogbuefi, P. C., & Ezefuna, E. C. (2026). Integration of augmented reality in construction practice in Enugu state, Nigeria. Discover Civil Engineering, 3(1), Article 264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44290-026-00665-x

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44290-026-00665-x

Keywords: augmented reality, construction, Nigeria, Enugu, cross-sectional survey, technology adoption, building information modelling, digital infrastructure, training, cost barriers, construction professionals, Diffusion of Innovations