This study examines key project management barriers hindering the integration of sustainability principles in sustainable urban regeneration projects (SURPs) in the United Kingdom, addressing the limited empirical understanding of how barriers identified in conventional construction projects manifest within the distinct SURP context.
A sequential mixed-methods research design was adopted. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews with purposively selected participants (n = 15), followed by an online questionnaire survey to gather quantitative data from a cross-section of SURP participants (n = 297) in the UK. Thematic analysis was used for qualitative data, while descriptive and inferential statistics were applied to the quantitative data.
The study identified six key project management barriers to sustainability integration in UK SURPs, with lack of funding emerging as the most critical. This barrier also influenced others, including client reluctance, cost perceptions and organisational conflicts. According to the findings, while similar project management barriers exist in conventional projects, their degree of criticality differs in SURPs, suggesting unique contextual factors.
This study provides SURP practitioners with evidence-based insight into the interdependencies among project management barriers, enabling them to prioritise funding strategies and sustainability-aligned contractual interventions that can simultaneously mitigate multiple constraints affecting sustainability implementation.
This study contributes original empirical insight by demonstrating that while project management barriers to sustainability integration in SURPs resemble those in conventional construction projects, their relative criticality and interrelationships differ within the UK urban regeneration context, with funding emerging as a central and reinforcing constraint.
Introduction
The transition from heavy industrialisation to knowledge-based economies globally has resulted in a growing prevalence of abandoned industrial buildings and industrial clusters (Ricciardelli et al., 2025; Liao and Liu, 2023). Such abandonment has contributed to increasing levels of urban blight and neighbourhood decay (Liu et al., 2023), a situation further exacerbated by poor building maintenance cultures and rapid urbanisation. Given the profound implications of deteriorated neighbourhoods for public security, health, wellbeing and economic productivity, governments at local, national and regional levels have increasingly adopted urban regeneration as a strategic instrument for sustainable development and improved quality of life.
The demand for urban regeneration projects to be delivered sustainably and to achieve optimal performance across their lifecycle has led to the emergence of sustainable urban regeneration projects (SURPs) (Said and Dindar, 2024). These projects are increasingly viewed as platforms for advancing sustainable cities (Yazar et al., 2020). In the United Kingdom (UK), urban regeneration has gained prominence over the past 3 decades, as evidenced by numerous SURPs undertaken to promote sustainability, including the London 2012 Olympic Village (Jakar and Philippou, 2025). Such initiatives are expected to advance the core mandate of regeneration in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Xuili and Maliene, 2021).
Urban regeneration projects differ from conventional construction projects due to their whole-of-life impact on neighbourhood renewal and sustainability outcomes (Xuili and Maliene, 2021). However, stakeholders frequently maintain business-as-usual practices, often failing to prioritise improved sustainability performance (Akotia and Sackey, 2018). This has resulted in underwhelming sustainability outcomes in many SURPs (Lin et al., 2021). Existing studies attribute this underperformance to the limited consideration and weak implementation of sustainability principles during project design and construction, particularly by project practitioners (Akotia et al., 2016).
The construction industry plays a critical role in the success of SUR, with stakeholders involved across design, implementation and operation phases throughout the project lifecycle. Nevertheless, the industry has long been criticised for undermining societal sustainability aspirations (Awuzie and Monyane, 2020). This perception appears to have been transferred to SURPs, further compromising their sustainability performance and raising concerns about how such projects are managed in practice.
Against this background, it becomes necessary to examine the constraints that hinder the effective integration of sustainability principles during SURP delivery. In this study, the term project management barriers refer to organisational, procedural, contractual, financial and stakeholder-related constraints that prevent the efficient integration of sustainability principles during project delivery. Previous literature has identified several such barriers in conventional construction projects, including limited knowledge of sustainability principles, low client demand, legislative and institutional shortcomings, inadequate availability of funds, high front-end investment costs and conflicting stakeholder interests (Akotia et al., 2016; Tokbolat et al., 2020; Bird and Soundararajan, 2020; Nikyema and Blouin, 2020; Awuzie et al., 2021; Fathalizadeh et al., 2022; Ahmed et al., 2023; Vaghefi-Rezaee et al., 2024; Magano et al., 2025).
However, while these project management barriers have been widely examined in conventional construction project contexts, their specific manifestation within SURPs remains underexplored. SURPs differ from conventional construction projects in terms of objectives, resource configurations and stakeholder dynamics. Yet, existing studies that reference such barriers in regeneration contexts tend to do so only in passing, without detailed empirical investigation (Akotia and Awuzie, 2025; Moufid et al., 2025).
This study addresses this knowledge-practice gap by adopting project management barriers identified in conventional construction literature as a conceptual point of reference and situating them within the SURP context. By doing so, the study enables a more in-depth understanding of how these barriers influence sustainability integration in SURPs.
To achieve this objective, the study addresses the following research questions:
What are the most critical project management barriers preventing practitioners from integrating sustainability principles into urban regeneration projects?
What is the nature of the relationships among these project management barriers that negate the integration of sustainability principles in SURPs?
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. First, a review of literature on SUR and project management barriers is presented. This is followed by a justification of the research design, presentation and discussion of findings, and the conclusion.
Sustainable urban regeneration
Urban regeneration (renewal) programmes happen to be one of such initiatives which have been so developed to achieve sustainability futures (Moufid et al., 2025). They are interventions aimed at revitalising urban areas in a manner that balances environmental, social and economic sustainability objectives. The downscaling of industrial activity in some developed countries like the UK had led to the emergence of large-urban distressed areas (Deakin, 2009). These areas are associated with urban decay, land value depreciation, loss of jobs and sustainable livelihoods for families and poor health and wellbeing of citizens (Liu et al., 2023). Accordingly, urban regeneration initiatives have been introduced to promote sustainable urban development by addressing challenges arising from poor planning, uncontrolled urbanisation and population growth, which contribute to neighbourhood deterioration (Moufid et al., 2025). SURPs, as examined in this study, embed sustainability principles throughout the project lifecycle, from planning and design to construction and long-term operation, making them pivotal to creating more resilient and sustainable urban environments.
Scholars attest to the potential of these schemes to redeem the urban environment whilst restoring sustainable livelihoods, building social networks and promoting citizenry health and wellbeing (Liu et al., 2023). However, this potential can only be realised if the initiative is implemented sustainably (Korkmaz and Balaban, 2020), hence the transformation in nomenclature from urban regeneration to SUR. With this extension, SUR evolved to address not only the economic and physical dimensions of renewal but also social, economic and environmental sustainability dimensions, respectively (Korkmaz and Balaban, 2020). The physical dimensions of sustainable regeneration initiatives are often delivered through brownfield redevelopment and heritage conservation (Ricciardelli et al., 2025). Obviously, the physical dimensions of these projects need to be delivered in a sustainable manner to enable the asset to contribute to the broader sustainability-oriented imperatives which is mostly geared at regenerating communities.
However, extant literature reports on the poor sustainability performance of SURPs (Akotia et al., 2016). Such poor performance has been attributed to the minimal consideration of sustainability principles by construction industry practitioners working on SURPs (Boyle et al., 2018; Karji et al., 2020). The construction industry plays a central role in delivering SURPs within urban regeneration schemes. Yet, studies investigating the project management barriers that hinder the effective integration of sustainability principles in SURPs remain scant. This study addresses this gap by identifying and evaluating the criticality of such barriers in the context of SURPs.
Project management barriers impeding the integration of sustainability principles
Karji et al. (2020) observe that SURPs continue to exhibit varied levels of sustainability performance. This has largely been attributed to perceived challenges in fully integrating sustainability principles into project delivery. The insufficient integration of sustainability principles by key actors during project implementation has also been observed (Akotia and Awuzie, 2025). Although project stakeholders generally support the concept of sustainability in principle, putting its core principles into practice remains a significant challenge (Durdyev et al., 2018). Clearly, certain barriers prevent project practitioners from effectively embedding sustainability in SURPs. However, the literature exploring these project management barriers remains limited, particularly within the UK context, thus motivating this study.
While project management barriers such as a lack of understanding of sustainability principles, insufficient demand from clients, legislative gaps, financial limitations and conflicting stakeholder interests have been well-documented as impeding the integration of sustainability principles in conventional construction projects (Ahmed et al., 2023), there is a lack of studies that contextualise these project management barriers within the SURP delivery framework. Furthermore, while some studies mention these barriers in passing (Akotia and Awuzie, 2025), there is no comprehensive exploration of how they uniquely manifest in the context of SURPs, which differ in their goals, resources and stakeholder dynamics when compared to conventional construction projects.
Due to the limited number of studies examining the phenomenon in question, and with full recognition of the distinctions between conventional construction projects and SURPs as previously discussed, this study relies on the project management barriers hindering the integration of sustainability principles in conventional construction projects as highlighted in extant literature. These identified barriers will form the basis for identifying those that are specific to SURPs.
The lack of understanding of sustainability principles among project stakeholders coupled with unidentifiable benefits accruable from the consideration of sustainability principles have been cited as some of the barriers impeding the ability of project stakeholders to incorporate them into their projects (Akotia et al., 2016). Also, the lack of client demand for the consideration of sustainability principles and lack of relevant legislative policies to enforce its adoption as well as nature of institutional systems have been reported as negating the consideration of sustainability principles (Akotia et al., 2016). Limited or lack of financial resources has also been cited as a barrier, especially in small- to medium-scale organisations, to consider sustainability principles during project delivery with (Karji et al., 2020). High front-end investment costs and lower investment returns have also been cited as negating the optimal implementation of sustainability principles on projects (Nikyema and Blouin, 2020).
Other barriers hindering the successful consideration of sustainability principles on projects include conflicting stakeholder interests and a lack of demand for sustainability issues from clients and their various groups of stakeholders (Tokbolat et al., 2020), unfavourable contract requirements (Bird and Soundararajan, 2020). Also, in their review of the impact of stakeholder interests and contract requirements on the integration of sustainability principles in construction projects, Bird and Soundararajan (2020) failed to extend their searchlight to the SURP delivery context.
To enhance the success of SUR initiatives, it is crucial to adopt project management approaches that align project sustainability objectives with clear benchmarks, fostering stronger collaboration among stakeholders (Said and Dindar, 2024). However, the effective deployment of such approaches depends on identifying and addressing the barriers that hinder their utility in enabling the integration of sustainability principles into SURP environments.
A summary of the project management barriers elicited from literature is presented in Table 1.
Summary of project management barriers elicited from the literature
| Sustainable regeneration barriers | Literature source |
|---|---|
| Lack of funding/financial resource (LFR) | Said and Dindar (2024), Liao and Liu (2023), Karji et al. (2020), Durdyev et al. (2018) |
| Perception that sustainability is costly (PSC) | Zhou et al. (2024), Nikyema and Blouin (2020), Tokbolat et al. (2020), Häkkinen and Belloni (2011) |
| Lack of client interest/willingness to adopt sustainability (LCWAS) | Said and Dindar (2024), Liao and Liu (2023), Tokbolat et al. (2020), Durdyev et al. (2018) |
| Conflict with stakeholder expectations (CSE) | Said and Dindar (2024), Liao and Liu (2023), Tokbolat et al. (2020) |
| Unfavourable contract requirement (UCR) | Zhou et al. (2024), Bird and Soundararajan (2020) |
| Conflict with organisation business objectives (COBO) | Zhou et al. (2024), Liao and Liu (2023), Tokbolat et al. (2020) |
Research design
The study adopted a sequential mixed-methods research design, which integrates both qualitative and quantitative research approaches in a structured, phased manner (Akotia et al., 2023). This design was selected to provide a comprehensive understanding of the research problem, consistent with established mixed-methods research guidance (Saunders et al., 2023).
By utilising this design, the study was able to elicit in-depth responses while also capturing quantifiable assessment of barriers (Saunders et al., 2023). The sequential structure allowed for one phase of data collection and analysis to inform the next, enhancing the coherence and depth of the research process (Akotia et al., 2023). This approach not only strengthened the validity of the findings through methodological triangulation but also enabled the researchers to compare and complement results across datasets, thereby increasing the robustness of interpretations.
Data collection and analysis
To allow for the determination of project management barriers hindering the integration of sustainability principles in SURPs, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposively selected sample of SUR project practitioners. Interviewees comprised of 15 practitioners drawn from a list of construction organisations involved with SURP delivery in the United Kingdom. Interviewees were selected using purposive sampling to ensure that insights were gathered from individuals with direct experience and expertise SURPs within the United Kingdom. The interviewees were selected based on three criteria: (1) a minimum of 10 years' professional experience, (2) representation of distinct practitioner roles across the construction value chain and (3) involvement in diverse project types. All participants had 12–20 years of experience, ensuring insights grounded in extensive practice. The sample included senior professionals in both operational and strategic roles such as architects, project managers, contract managers, sustainability managers and commercial directors. This enabled an elicitation of far-ranging perspectives on technical, managerial and sustainability issues. To ensure sectoral breadth, participants were drawn from residential, commercial and institutional projects. This cross-sectoral and role-diverse representation provided a robust basis for identifying and assessing project management barriers negating the integration of sustainability principles in SURPs.
The demographic data of the interviewees are presented in Table 2.
Interviewees demographics
| Main contractor | Main contractor | Main contractor | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participant Role | Sector | Experience years | Participant role | Sector | Experience years | Participant Role | Sector | Experience years |
| Senior contract manager (P1) | Residential project | 15 | Contract manager (P6) | Commercial property development | 13 | Site manager (P11) | Institutional, residential project | 16 |
| Project manager (P2) | Residential project | 17 | Project manager (P7) | Commercial property development | 15 | Project director (P12) | Institutional, residential project | 18 |
| Architect (P3) | Residential project | 12 | Senior Architect (P8) | Commercial property development | 14 | Architect, BIM director (P13) | Institutional, residential project | 16 |
| Senior quantity surveyor (P4) | Residential project | 14 | Assistant commercial manager (P9) | Commercial property development | 16 | Commercial Director (P14) | Institutional, residential project | 20 |
| Senior sustainability manager (P5) | Residential project | 18 | Sustainability Manager (P10) | Commercial property development | 17 | Community, CSR manager (P15) | Institutional, residential project | 14 |
Semi-structured interviews were adopted to enable in-depth exploration of practitioners' experiences related to sustainability integration in SURPs (Adams, 2015).
The open-ended nature of the interview questions enabled the researchers to explore the issues identified in the existing literature in greater depth, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the phenomena under investigation (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). This flexible format facilitated rich, detailed responses from participants, uncovering nuanced insights that might not have emerged through closed-ended questions. Moreover, it provided the opportunity to probe for clarification and elaboration, enabling researchers to follow up on interesting or unexpected responses. As Creswell and Creswell (2018) emphasise, open-ended interviews are particularly valuable in qualitative research because they allow participants to express their thoughts, feelings and experiences in their own words, thereby contributing to a more authentic and holistic understanding of the research topic. This approach also supports the development of emergent themes and the identification of patterns that are grounded in participants' lived experiences.
The interviews were conducted over a month at the location of an interviewee's choosing. The sessions were audio-recorded and lasted for about 50 min, each on average. During the interview sessions, the interviewees were asked to identify the project management barriers that negated their ability to successfully incorporate sustainability principles in their SURPs.
Saturation in the interviews was achieved when subsequent interviews after the 12th interview ceased to yield any new or relevant insights (Guest et al., 2020). This served as an indication that the key themes and issues had been thoroughly explored with participants, and additional data collection was unlikely to produce novel or meaningful contributions to the study (Guest et al., 2020).
The interview data were analysed using thematic analysis. The themes were pre-determined based on the research questions and the study's objective. Accordingly, the transcript was perused for any clues relating to these themes. The central theme focused on barriers that hinder the integration of sustainability principles in SURPs. Based on the principles of thematic analysis, barriers not identified in the literature but mentioned by interviewees were considered potential emergent themes. However, no such emergent themes were identified in this study.
A questionnaire survey was subsequently designed, incorporating a juxtaposition of barriers identified from the review of extant literature and those mentioned by the interviewees. The questionnaire survey for the study was divided into two parts. The first part collected information on respondents' biodata, whilst the second part comprised of a list of barriers emanating from the literature review and interview sessions presented alongside a 5-point Likert scale for determining the degree to which these barriers hindered a respondent's ability to integrate sustainability principles during SURP delivery. This survey was electronically administered using an online software tool, SurveyGizmo. The use of this tool provided an opportunity to reach out to broader sample of respondents in a cost-effective and timely manner.
Saunders et al. (2023) argued that the degree of internal reliability obtained from the data collected is a direct product of how the questionnaire survey was designed and how data were collected. Three hundred and fifty hyperlinks were emailed (together with a consent form and a letter explaining the purpose of the study) to respondents randomly selected from the Construction and Building Magazine editions in UK, with experience in SURPs.
Over an eight-week period, a total of 297 responses were collected, representing a 76.3% response rate. The quantitative data were analysed using SPSS 27.0, with the Mean Item Score (MIS) method employed to identify the most critical project management barriers. The MIS has been widely applied in construction management research focusing on sustainable construction (Djokoto et al., 2014) and modular construction (Ali et al., 2025) for instance. The method enables researchers to systematically rank barriers such as limited demand, high initial costs and insufficient government support, thereby identifying the most critical obstacles to implementing sustainable construction practices (Djokoto et al., 2014).
The Cronbach alpha (α) was used to measure the internal consistency or reliability of the items used to assess each barrier wherein values above 0.7 are generally considered acceptable (Saunders et al., 2023). The reliability of the scale was confirmed with a α of 0.89.
To achieve the second objective of this study, the interrelationships among the identified project management barriers were examined using Spearman's correlation test, a non-parametric statistical method designed to assess the strength and direction of association between two ranked variables. This test is particularly useful for dealing with small sample sizes or data that do not follow a normal distribution, as it does not require the assumption of normality (Yu and Hutson, 2024). Unlike Pearson's correlation, Spearman's test operates on ranked data, making it suitable for ordinal variables and skewed datasets (Yu and Hutson, 2024). The correlation coefficient produced by this test ranges from −1 to +1, where values closer to +1 indicate a strong positive relationship, and values near 0 suggest a weak or no relationship (Yu and Hutson, 2024). Statistically significant relationships are denoted by double asterisks (**), and a significance value (Sig. 2-tailed) of 0.000 indicates a highly significant association. This analysis identifies interrelationships among project management barriers.
Presentation and discussion of the findings
Qualitative strand
The findings from the semi-structured interviews are articulated in accordance with the pre-determined themes, which represent the project management barriers hindering the integration of sustainability principles in SURPs. As mentioned previously, the interviews engendered a determination of the project management barriers encountered during their attempts at integrating sustainability principles into urban regeneration projects in the UK. The barriers identified by the interviewees include lack of funding and financial resources, unfavourable contract requirements and conditions, non-willingness of clients to adopt sustainability principles, perceived costly nature of sustainability implementation, conflicts with the organisation's business objectives and conflict with stakeholder interests. These themes are presented below.
Lack of funding/financial resources
All interviewees admitted that the lack of funding/financial resources posed a barrier in their drive to integrate sustainability principles into regeneration projects. According to P14:
… From a social and economic point of view, our major barrier is clearly financial especially considering the long-term economic sustainability of our business. There is lack of financial support out there for us to have access for these things. … And this is a big barrier for us, which is limiting us in a number of ways we are going about promoting these things on our projects.
Unfavourable contract requirements/conditions
It was clear that “unfavourable contract requirements/conditions” was a significant barrier as most of the interviewees emphasised that the contract conditions of SURPs they were delivering required them to adopt and implement or prioritise conditions which impeded the integration of sustainability principles. For instance, P2 opined thus:
… We do encounter significant barriers on our regeneration projects, as contracts' conditions continue to compel us to do certain things which are not favourable for us as practitioners. Most often contracts' requirements make certain demands which make things very difficult for us to deliver our sustainability commitment for the projects. … Most contracts want us to take on certain number of trainees, which obviously affect our time, cost and quality commitments for the projects. … Because we’ve got to provide people to properly supervise these guys, which in most cases do put a lot of pressures on our programme. Obviously, that becomes a major barrier for us.
Lack of client willingness to adopt sustainability principles
Also, the non-willingness of SUR clients to adopt or prioritise the integration of sustainability principles constituted another major barrier. Interviewees maintained that the inability of clients to accept sustainability as an integral part of SURPs and make provision for the integration of its principles was a major challenge which they encountered during such projects. P10 stated that:
… I will say, lack of willingness on the part of clients to pay a bit more for this to happen, and this is part of the challenges we are facing as practitioners to adopt and implement the social and economic sustainability stuff we are taking about. These things come as added value and take a lot of time and resources to provide them and if we are left on our own to provide them, that becomes a significant barrier for us. So, we need their commitments.
Perception that sustainability is costly
Another major barrier identified by practitioners was the perceived high costs associated with the integration of sustainability principles on SURPs. It is an indisputable fact that such cost perception has contributed to the manner sustainability principles have been integrated into several SURPs in the UK, as one practitioner (P7) demonstrated during the interview discussions by stating:
… Cost perception of sustainability is a significant barrier, whether rightly or wrongly, the perception is still among us as practitioners. … And obviously when you are to deliver sustainability projects, and you have a tight budget; that might affect the way you would want go about adopting and implementing sustainability factors on the project.
Conflicts with the organisation's business objectives
Most interviewees indicated that conflicts with their organisations' business objectives hindered the integration of sustainability principles in SURPs. It became evident that many organisations struggled to embed sustainability into their core operations, often adopting ad-hoc or incidental practices, as reflected in a comment by one practitioner (P12):
… Adopting sustainability does present a significant barrier for our business objectives, especially when you have many things to deal with as an organisation; it can significantly conflict with your primary business objectives. But what we try to do is to try and look at it on a project-to-project basis, because every regeneration project has its own dynamics and sustainability requirements.
Conflicting stakeholders' expectations
Interviewees revealed that meeting various key stakeholders' expectations within SURPs hindered their ability to incorporate sustainability principles in their projects. A considerable number of interviewees opined that their efforts to deliver increased levels of sustainability performance on SURPs were most often negated by the need to meet various stakeholders' instructions and expectations from such projects. According to P1:
… there are always conflicts between what we want to deliver and what our numerous stakeholders want to achieve from the projects. … In a project such as sustainable regeneration where every stakeholder wants something from the project, that can be a significant barrier. This conflict is some of the barriers we always have to deal with which prevents us to adopt and implement the social and economic sustainability issues on our projects. … We seem to be working under our stakeholders' instructions and interests, which is not good for us …
These viewpoints are indicative that the project management barriers identified in the literature are rather commonplace in the UK's SURP environment. There were no new themes (new barriers) discerned from the qualitative data. Therefore, no additional barriers were added to the questionnaire prior to data collection. The quantitative data emanating from the survey of 297 respondents is presented in the subsequent section.
Quantitative strand
The analysis of the quantitative data is shown in Tables 3 and 4 respectively. The quantitative data seek to establish the level of criticality of each project management barrier leveraging respondents' perceptions. The Mean Item Score (MIS) was used to rank the barriers. See Table 3 for the results.
Ranking of project management barriers
| Project management barriers | N | Mean item Score (MIS) | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lack of funding/financial resources (LFR) | 297 | 4.62 | 1 |
| Unfavourable contract requirement (UCR) | 297 | 4.56 | 2 |
| Lack of client willingness to adopt sustainability (LCWAS) | 297 | 4.13 | 3 |
| Perception that sustainability is costly (PSC) | 297 | 4.01 | 4 |
| Conflicting stakeholder expectations (CSE) | 297 | 3.32 | 5 |
| Conflict with organisation business objectives (COBO) | 297 | 3.10 | 6 |
Spearman's correlation test of project management barriers
| Factors | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1) LFR | Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
| 2) UCR | Correlation Coefficient | 0.414** | 1.000 | 0.521** | 541** | 510** | 513** |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
| 3) LCWAS | Correlation Coefficient | 0.593** | 0.521** | 1.000 | 585** | 478** | 559** |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
| 4) PSC | Correlation Coefficient | 556** | 541** | 585** | 1.000 | 590** | 543** |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
| 5) CSE | Correlation Coefficient | 465** | 510** | 478** | 590** | 1.000 | 532** |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
| 6) COBO | Correlation Coefficient | 496** | 513** | 559** | 543** | 532** | 1.000 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Note(s): **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
As shown in Table 3, lack of funding was ranked as the most critical project management barrier. Unfavourable contract requirement, lack of client willingness to adopt sustainability (LCWAS), perception that sustainability is costly, conflict with stakeholders’ expectations and conflict with organisation business objectives followed in this order.
Lack of financial resources
The lack of adequate funding and financial resources, with a high MIS of 4.62, was identified by respondents as the most critical barrier to integrating sustainability principles in SURPs. This finding aligns with previous studies (Karji et al., 2020; Durdyev et al., 2018), which also highlighted funding constraints as a major obstacle in sustainable construction projects globally. The implications are significant: economically, limited funding restricts the ability to source local labour and materials, thereby hindering local economic development. Socially, it undermines efforts to provide effective skills training and apprenticeship opportunities for local communities involved in regeneration projects.
Accessibility to funds for SURPs must be treated as an important component if the promotion of sustainability factors is to be given priority in the delivery of SURPs. It is suggested that the difficulty in securing adequate funding will jeopardise even good development projects (Parkinson et al., 2009). Hence, policymakers must be aware of such difficulties, as the lack of funding support could result in serious implications towards delivering successful sustainability benefits through SURPs. Given this, the government and their development partners must explore other funding sources beyond the conventional ones currently employed to deliver SURPs in the UK. The discovery of such new funding sources could be instrumental in providing funding support and encourage practitioners who may be particularly limited by financial resources to adopt and implement sustainability factors on their projects.
Unfavourable contract requirements/conditions
With an MIS of 4.56, the unfavourable contract requirements/conditions (UCR) barrier was established as the second most critical barrier impeding the integration of sustainability principles during SURPs in the UK. It can be argued that the “usual” conflict of interest which has always existed between meeting practitioners' objectives and fulfilling the projects' requirements could have also accounted for the associated level of criticality. For many clients, the inability to meet their projects' time, quality and cost requirements can lead to practitioners paying heavy damages. Hence, most practitioners may be more likely to consider contract requirements as a significant barrier, as reflected in the results. To avoid paying damages, practitioners may adopt and incorporate only the sustainability principles that may enable them to meet such contract requirements during SURPs. Hence, contract requirements meant to deliver SURPs must be worded so that they are not seen or perceived as only favourable towards achieving the client's requirements. If contract requirements are seen to be unfavourable to practitioners, it could undermine practitioners' efforts leading to a reduction in the scope of implementation of sustainability on their projects.
Lack of client willingness to adopt sustainability principles
The questionnaire results revealed that the lack of client willingness to adopt sustainability was the third most critical barrier, with an MIS of 4.13. This aligns with findings from Durdyev et al. (2018), who identified the absence of client demand as a major obstacle to sustainability integration in conventional construction. In the context of SURPs in the UK, this reluctance may hinder the adoption of social and economic sustainability principles, as it can discourage practitioners from promoting these values. To address this, client awareness must be enhanced. Clients need to understand that SURP success extends beyond time, cost and quality to include sustainability outcomes. They should also be informed of the broader, long-term societal benefits of sustainable practices. As Akotia and Awuzie (2025) suggest, practitioners, policymakers and academia have a key role in fostering this awareness and shifting client attitudes towards prioritising sustainability in SURPs.
Perception that sustainability is costly
The perceived high cost of incorporating sustainability principles was ranked as the fourth most critical barrier. This perception is common among construction practitioners, who are generally risk-averse when it comes to financial implications. The complexity of regeneration projects often reinforces the belief that sustainability increases delivery costs. This view has long been cited as a reason for superficial commitment to sustainability in regeneration projects (Nikyema and Blouin, 2020; Tokbolat et al., 2020; Häkkinen and Belloni, 2011) and has similarly shaped sustainability discourse in conventional construction (Karji et al., 2020; Durdyev et al., 2018). Such perceptions can undermine both practitioner and client commitment to sustainability in SURPs. However, adopting a long-term, holistic perspective could help counter this barrier. By evaluating the broader cost–benefit implications over time, practitioners may better assess whether the perceived high costs are justified or simply misconceptions.
Conflicts with the organisation's business objectives
Conflicts with organisational business objectives were ranked as the fifth most critical barrier to sustainability integration in SURPs, with an MIS of 3.32. This supports findings by Durdyev et al. (2018) and Ali and Alkayed (2019), who noted that even advocates of sustainability often struggle with implementation due to profit-driven agendas. For many organisations, commercial interests take precedence (Durdyev et al., 2018). However, the long-term benefits of sustainability often outweigh short-term financial gains (Akotia and Sackey, 2018). Beyond monetary returns, organisations committed to sustainability can gain competitive advantages through differentiation and enhanced reputations (Häkkinen and Belloni, 2011). Recognising these broader benefits could encourage practitioners to align sustainability with their core business strategies in SURPs.
Conflicting stakeholders' expectations
The results indicated that conflicting stakeholders' expectations ranked as the least critical barrier to the integration of sustainability principles in SURPs with an MIS of 3.10. This score suggests the need for practitioners to be made to appreciate the importance placed by SURPs on delivering shared sustainability benefits for all the stakeholders (Schmalzbauer, 2018). There are notable benefits for practitioners who are seen to be meeting the varied expectations of their diverse stakeholders during SURPs. For instance, meeting the expectations of the community where the projects are being situated could result in practitioners gaining community support for their future SURPs. It can be suggested that developing a comprehensive sustainability strategy that enables effective identification, engagement and understanding of various stakeholders' sustainability interests and needs could help practitioners to address such conflicts satisfactorily and effectively.
Interrelationships among key project management barriers
To explore the potential interrelationships among the six identified project management barriers, Spearman's rank-order correlation (rho) test was employed using data derived from the questionnaire survey. This non-parametric test was selected due to its suitability for ordinal data and its ability to detect monotonic relationships between variables.
Interpretation of the correlation heatmap
This result is presented in Table 4 and further illustrated using a correlation heatmap (Figure 1) to depict the strength and direction of correlations among the six project management barriers.
The horizontal axis represents “Project Management Barriers”, labeled from left to right as “L F R”, “U C R”, “L C W A S”, “P S C”, “C S E”, and “C O B O”. The vertical axis represents “Project Management Barriers” and lists the same barriers arranged from top to bottom as “L F R”, “U C R”, “L C W A S”, “P S C”, “C S E”, and “C O B O”. The color scale on the right side shows correlation values ranging from 0.5 to 1.0, with lighter shades representing lower correlations and darker shades representing higher correlations. For L F R, the correlation values are: L F R (1.000), U C R (0.414), L C W A S (0.593), P S C (0.556), C S E (0.465), and C O B O (0.496). For U C R, the correlation values are: L F R (0.414), U C R (1.000), L C W A S (0.521), P S C (0.541), C S E (0.510), and C O B O (0.513). For L C W A S, the correlation values are: L F R (0.593), U C R (0.521), L C W A S (1.000), P S C (0.585), C S E (0.478), and C O B O (0.559). For P S C, the correlation values are: L F R (0.556), U C R (0.541), L C W A S (0.585), P S C (1.000), C S E (0.590), and C O B O (0.543). For C S E, the correlation values are: L F R (0.465), U C R (0.510), L C W A S (0.478), P S C (0.590), C S E (1.000), and C O B O (0.532). For C O B O, the correlation values are: L F R (0.496), U C R (0.513), L C W A S (0.559), P S C (0.543), C S E (0.532), and C O B O (1.000).Spearman's correlation heatmap of project management barriers
The horizontal axis represents “Project Management Barriers”, labeled from left to right as “L F R”, “U C R”, “L C W A S”, “P S C”, “C S E”, and “C O B O”. The vertical axis represents “Project Management Barriers” and lists the same barriers arranged from top to bottom as “L F R”, “U C R”, “L C W A S”, “P S C”, “C S E”, and “C O B O”. The color scale on the right side shows correlation values ranging from 0.5 to 1.0, with lighter shades representing lower correlations and darker shades representing higher correlations. For L F R, the correlation values are: L F R (1.000), U C R (0.414), L C W A S (0.593), P S C (0.556), C S E (0.465), and C O B O (0.496). For U C R, the correlation values are: L F R (0.414), U C R (1.000), L C W A S (0.521), P S C (0.541), C S E (0.510), and C O B O (0.513). For L C W A S, the correlation values are: L F R (0.593), U C R (0.521), L C W A S (1.000), P S C (0.585), C S E (0.478), and C O B O (0.559). For P S C, the correlation values are: L F R (0.556), U C R (0.541), L C W A S (0.585), P S C (1.000), C S E (0.590), and C O B O (0.543). For C S E, the correlation values are: L F R (0.465), U C R (0.510), L C W A S (0.478), P S C (0.590), C S E (1.000), and C O B O (0.532). For C O B O, the correlation values are: L F R (0.496), U C R (0.513), L C W A S (0.559), P S C (0.543), C S E (0.532), and C O B O (1.000).Spearman's correlation heatmap of project management barriers
Colour intensity is used to highlight the magnitude of extant correlation coefficients, with redder tones indicating stronger positive relationships and bluer tones reflecting weaker or negligible correlations. Each cell contains the Spearman correlation coefficient (e.g. 0.593), quantifying the degree of association between barrier pairs. Black-bordered cells denote statistically significant correlations at the p < 0.01 level, emphasising the robustness of these relationships. As expected, the diagonal cells show perfect correlations (1.000), representing each barrier's correlation with itself.
Overall, the table and heatmap confirm that the barriers are strongly interrelated, with “Lack of Funding/Financial Resources (LFR)” consistently exhibiting high correlations with the other barriers, underscoring its central role in influencing project sustainability challenges. These results suggest a high degree of consensus among practitioners regarding the interconnected nature of these barriers. Specifically, respondents who identified LFR as a significant constraint were also likely to rate the remaining barriers as significant. This pattern indicates that project management barriers do not operate in isolation, but rather, they reinforce one another, hence creating a compounded effect that can hinder the successful integration of sustainability principles in regeneration projects. Importantly, the prominence of LFR as a central barrier implies that targeted interventions to address funding challenges may yield positive ripple effects, alleviating the impact of other related barriers. This insight underscores the need for integrated strategies that address multiple constraints simultaneously, rather than isolated solutions.
The result from this study elucidates the critical nature of all the project management barriers identified from the literature and confirmed during the interviews. Although these barriers are similar to barriers which have been identified in other studies as negating the integration of sustainability principles in conventional construction projects or the implementation of sustainable construction practice, some contrast can be drawn from the results of this study regarding the degree of criticality associated with each of these barriers. In this study, the lack of funding/financial resources was identified as the most critical project management barrier, followed by unfavourable contract requirements, lack of client willingness to adopt sustainability, perception that sustainability is costly, conflicting stakeholder expectations and conflict with organisational business objectives. This ranking highlights a strong emphasis on strategic and institutional-level challenges, particularly those influencing project financing, contractual frameworks and stakeholder alignment. In contrast, Susanti et al. (2019), focusing on general construction in Indonesia, identified the limited availability of trained or certified workers and poor communication among project stakeholders as the most pressing barriers, emphasising operational and workforce-related constraints. Similarly, Aljboor et al. (2023), in the context of highway construction in Jordan, highlighted lack of education, technical familiarity and team communication, pointing to knowledge and skill gaps as primary impediments. Adopting a broader view, Ahmed et al. (2023) ranked inadequate regulations, lack of information, lack of skills and lack of funding as top barriers, reflecting systemic and policy-level concerns.
While funding limitations appear across all studies, this study uniquely positions funding as a central and interconnected project management barrier, suggesting that addressing financial constraints could have a cascading positive effect on mitigating other project management barriers. This contrasts with other studies, where technical, educational and regulatory issues are viewed as more immediate obstacles to the integration of sustainability principles in construction projects and SURPs. This insight challenges linear interpretations of project management barriers to sustainability integration and underscores the need for theoretical frameworks that account for barrier interdependence and contextual sensitivity within SURPs.
Implication of the study's findings
The successful delivery of SURPs is central to global sustainability objectives, yet their performance continues to be undermined by persistent challenges in integrating sustainability principles. This study examined the project management barriers hindering sustainability integration in SURPs within the UK context. The findings carry important implications for theory, practice and policy. Building on the identified interrelationships among project management barriers, the study demonstrates that funding functions as a central and interconnected barrier, with the potential to trigger cascading improvements across other project management constraints when addressed effectively.
Implications for theory
This study contributes to SUR and project management scholarship by advancing understanding of project management barriers that hinder the integration of sustainability principles in SURPs. While the identified barriers mirror those reported in conventional construction project contexts, the findings reveal that their perceived levels of criticality differ significantly in the SURP environment.
Notably, the identification of funding as a central and reinforcing project management barrier extends existing theoretical perspectives by demonstrating how systemic financial constraints amplify other project management barriers, including contractual requirements, organisational business objectives and stakeholder-related pressures. This highlights the interdependent nature of project management barriers within SURPs and suggests that their influence on sustainability integration is cumulative rather than isolated.
Consequently, this study challenges linear and isolated interpretations of project management barriers to sustainability integration and supports the need for context-sensitive and systems-oriented theoretical frameworks capable of explaining barrier interdependence within SURPs. By situating project management barriers within the specific institutional, financial and stakeholder dynamics of SURPs, the study offers a refined conceptual basis for future theory development and empirical investigation.
Implications for practice
For project managers, architects, contractors and sustainability managers involved in SURPs, the study's findings provide actionable guidance for improving sustainability integration. The results indicate that project management barriers operate in an interconnected manner, with funding constraints exerting a reinforcing influence on other barriers.
Practitioners can apply these findings by prioritising early-stage financial planning, aligning sustainability objectives with contractual frameworks and embedding sustainability considerations within organisational decision-making processes. Recognising funding as a trigger barrier enables practitioners to design integrated mitigation strategies that simultaneously address client reluctance, organisational business pressures and stakeholder expectations.
By moving beyond isolated responses to individual challenges, practitioners are better positioned to implement coordinated project management strategies.
Implications for policy
The findings of the study highlight the importance of bespoke policies that consider context-dependent project management barriers negating the wholesome integration of sustainability principles in SURPs. They affirm the importance of ensuring that regulatory mechanisms and reward schemes foster unbridled integration of sustainability principles. Such information can help in the creation of monitoring systems and compliance mechanisms that will make project actors accountable, as well as in ensuring an enabling environment for SURPs to thrive.
Conclusion
This study identified and assessed six project management barriers hindering the integration of sustainability principles in SURPs by project practitioners in the UK. These barriers were identified using a mix of literature review and semi-structured interviews. Whereas the former enabled the identification of barriers negating the consideration and implementation of sustainability principles in generic construction projects, the latter was relied upon in delimiting these barriers to the SURP context using the perspectives of project practitioners who had been involved in such projects. Subsequently, a questionnaire survey was conducted to determine the degree of significance associated with these barriers.
The findings from semi-structured interviews and questionnaire survey revealed that lack of funding/financial sources was the most critical barrier. Also, it was revealed that the “lack of funding/financial resources” had a salient impact on the remaining barriers, thereby serving as a trigger. For instance, project management barriers like clients' non-willingness to adopt sustainability, the perception that sustainability was costly, and conflict with the organisation's business objectives as well as stakeholders' expectations can be said to have a direct correlation with project management barriers relating to availability of financial resources.
Therefore, access and availability to funding must be seen as an important factor if future sustainability projects are to deliver their core sustainability benefits. Funding support for clients and other industry practitioners will go a long way to encourage them to implement sustainability policies and practices on their projects. Policymakers must be made aware of these linkages, and the implications funding support has towards delivering successful sustainability projects. Given this, the government and other sustainable development organisations must explore other funding methods and sources beyond the conventional funding sources and approaches currently employed to deliver sustainability projects.
While the project management barriers affecting the implementation of sustainability principles in both SURPs and conventional construction projects appear similar, their perceived levels of criticality vary. This distinction highlights the need for further research to explore the unique characteristics of SURPs that influence these differences.
