Figure 1. Administrative regions and zones of Ethiopia source: Tesfaye et al., 2011 A map shows administrative regions and zones of Ethiopia with labelled districts and boundaries. The map presents Ethiopia divided into multiple administrative regions and zones with labelled areas such as Tigray, Amhara, Afar, Oromiya, Somali, and S N N P R. Sub regions include zones such as North Gondar, South Wello, East Gojam, West Wellega, Bale, and Borena. Cities including Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa are marked. Afar is divided into several zones numbered 1 to 5. A smaller inset map shows the country outline with regional distribution. A scale bar indicates distances from 0 to 300 kilometres. More about this image found in Administrative regions and zones of Ethiopia source: Tesfaye et a...

Figure 1. Conceptual framework linking planning law, governance, and built environment outcomes A flow diagram shows planning and infrastructure Act 2025 and governance, practice, and built environment outcomes. The flow diagram presents four connected sections describing planning and infrastr... More about this image found in Conceptual framework linking planning law, governance, and built environmen...

Figure 1. Cycle of the proposed I-BIM framework showing the link between meta-variables and LightGBM-based execution competency evaluation A flowchart showing Light G B M process for I B I M utilisation. The process begins with the application of gradient boosting to minimise the loss function... More about this image found in Cycle of the proposed I-BIM framework showing the link between meta-variabl...

Figure 2. I-BIM meta-variables grouped into five categories (MC, ME, MF, MM, MP ) within the PTP conceptual structure A flowchart showing I B I M meta variables grouped into management, educational, financial, public authority, and contractual relations. The flowchart begins with I B I M me... More about this image found in I-BIM meta-variables grouped into five categories (MC, ME, MF, MM, MP ) wi...

Figure 3. Tree structure showing the normalised E-factor weights assigned to each of the 26 sub-variables across the five meta-categories A hierarchical diagram showing factor weights for I B I M implementation across contractual relations, education, financial, managerial, and public authority... More about this image found in Tree structure showing the normalised E-factor weights assigned to each of ...

Figure 4. Contractual meta-variables ( MC ) and their effectiveness levels based on respondent evaluations Two horizontal bar charts showing responses for meta contractual relations in U S A and Turkey across benefit, neutral, and barrier. The charts compare responses for four meta contractual... More about this image found in Contractual meta-variables ( MC ) and their effectiveness levels based on r...

Figure 5. Educational meta-variables ( ME ) and their influence on training capacity and curriculum readiness for I-BIM adoption Two horizontal bar charts showing responses for meta educational variables in U S A and Turkey across benefit, neutral, and barrier. The charts compare three meta ed... More about this image found in Educational meta-variables ( ME ) and their influence on training capacity ...

Figure 6. Financial meta-variables ( MF ) reflecting training costs, software investment, and financial capacity barriers Four horizontal bar charts comparing meta financial responses for U S A and Turkey across benefit, neutral, and barrier. The charts show responses for six meta financial va... More about this image found in Financial meta-variables ( MF ) reflecting training costs, software investm...

Figure 7. Public authority meta-variables ( MP ) highlighting regulatory readiness, standards availability, and authority involvement Two horizontal bar charts showing responses for meta public authority variables in U S A and Turkey across benefit, neutral, and barrier. The charts compare thr... More about this image found in Public authority meta-variables ( MP ) highlighting regulatory readiness, s...

Figure 8. Managerial meta-variables ( MM ) showing their role in communication, coordination, and project-level decision support Six horizontal bar charts comparing meta management responses for U S A and Turkey across benefit, neutral, and barrier. The charts compare responses for meta manage... More about this image found in Managerial meta-variables ( MM ) showing their role in communication, coord...

Figure 9. Heatmap showing I-BIM meta variable distribution across (a) Turkey and (b) USA Two heatmaps showing counts of benefit, neutral, and barrier responses for I B I M meta categories in Turkey and U S A. The heatmaps compare responses across five meta categories M C, M E, M F, M P, and ... More about this image found in Heatmap showing I-BIM meta variable distribution across (a) Turkey and (b) ...

Figure 10. Comparison of I-BIM benefit-level effectiveness across meta-variables for the USA and Turkey based on TNMV levels A radar chart comparing U S A and Turkey T N M V levels 1, 2, and 3 across M C, M M, M P, M F, and M E. The chart presents five dimensions M C, M M, M P, M F, and M ... More about this image found in Comparison of I-BIM benefit-level effectiveness across meta-variables for t...

Figure 11. Radar chart showing neutral responses for I-BIM meta-variables across TNMV levels in the USA and Turkey A radar chart comparing U S A and Turkey T N M V levels 1, 2, and 3 across M C, M M, M P, M F, and M E. The chart shows five dimensions M C, M M, M P, M F, and M E with radial... More about this image found in Radar chart showing neutral responses for I-BIM meta-variables across TNMV...

Figure 12. Radar chart illustrating I-BIM barrier-level effectiveness across MM, MC, ME, MF, and MP meta-variables for the USA and Turkey at three TNMV levels A radar chart comparing U S A and Turkey T N M V levels 1, 2, and 3 across M C, M M, M P, M F, and M E. The chart presents five d... More about this image found in Radar chart illustrating I-BIM barrier-level effectiveness across MM, MC, M...

Figure 13. LightGBM prediction performance comparison for the USA and Turkey across training, validation, and test sets with corresponding R-values A set of six scatter plots comparing predicted and actual competency scores for U S A and Turkey across training, validation, and test. The plots compare predicted competency score with actual competency score using Light G B M. For U S A the correlation values are 0.99966 for training, 0.99877 for validation, and 0.99064 for test. For Turkey, the correlation values are 0.99952 for training, 0.99807 for validation, and 0.99626 for test. Data points cluster shows upward trend. More about this image found in LightGBM prediction performance comparison for the USA and Turkey across ...

Figure 14. Comparison of LightGBM model performance metrics for I-BIM meta-variables in the USA and Turkey Three bar charts comparing mean squared error, root mean squared error, and coefficient of determination for U S A and Turkey. The first chart shows mean squared error of about 0.0069 f... More about this image found in Comparison of LightGBM model performance metrics for I-BIM meta-variables i...