Evaluating the Sustainability Consequences of Omitting Structural Analysis in Reinforced Concrete Projects in Burundi

Abstract

Sustainable construction has evolved into a global priority to mitigate the impacts of climate change, as the construction industry significantly contributes to environmental degradation and the overexploitation of resources. This study considers the effects on sustainability, particularly the inadequate management of resources, the ecological impact, and the anticipated degradation of the structures, all of which are due to the omission of the structural analysis during the design phase of the reinforced concrete (RC) structure. A methodical survey was conducted in three major cities among 258 professionals in the construction sector in Burundi, a developing country that has suffered socio-political and infrastructural challenges. The study examines the impact of these challenges on construction results. Quantitative analysis was carried out using SPSS v.30 and Amos 26 Software. For this research, reliability analysis, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test (KMO), Bartlett test, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and the Relative Importance Index (RII) were used to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the data. The results indicate that many projects are taking place in the absence of proper structural analysis due to financial constraints, poor quality materials, lack of qualified personnel, poor enforcement of regulations, and insufficient monitoring. These parameters have led to structural deficiencies compromising sustainability. The study recommends that government agencies, professional construction workers, and building owners improve regulation, teaching effectiveness, and professional responsibility to ensure that fundamental practices, such as structural analysis and the use of right sustainable materials, are logically applied to improve public safety and environmental resilience.

1. Introduction

The construction industry plays a key role in economic growth and social progress, but in many developing countries, it is plagued by frequent issues that compromise safety, durability, and environmental sustainability [1]. Rapid urbanization, ineffective regulatory systems, and limited technical skills in Burundi often lead to structural failures, early building collapses, resource wastage, and extensive environmental damage. The lack of proper enforcement of structural analysis is a persistent problem, but it represents only one part of a broader systemic failure [2].

Construction deficiencies in Burundi stem from several sources, including poor planning of projects, the use of unskilled workers, the use of low-quality materials, inadequate enforcement of building codes, and taking shortcuts to cut costs. These issues lead to recurring problems such as settling, collapse, and the wasteful consumption of natural resources like wood, sand, and aggregates [3,4]. Additionally, deforestation that is rushed makes it harder to reach sustainability goals, increases costs as it involves carbon emissions, and raises future maintenance costs [5]. The collapses that ensue not only damage people’s confidence in the government, but they also impose a burden on a country’s scarce budget, exposing communities all the more to climate-based threats [6].

Although fixing flaws in buildings is very important, there is little real-world research on this topic in Burundi. Most of the work on building performance and sustainability is either general or based on other developing countries. This means those findings may not apply well to Burundi’s unique economic and institutional situation. To address this, the current study looks at different types of building flaws in Burundi, where they come from, and how they affect the country [7,8]. This research uses empirical data collected from 258 respondents in the three largest cities in Burundi, Bujumbura, Gitega, and Ngozi, to demonstrate how deficiencies develop and their subsequent impacts. Regarding this work, the main goal is to identify the origins and effects of construction deficiencies in Burundi and their overall influence on the safety, durability, and sustainability of reinforced concrete projects. To accomplish this, the research aims to pursue the following objectives:

• List and categorize the major construction issues observed in Burundi’s building industry. These issues may include problems related to planning, design, material quality, rule compliance, and professional conduct, such as omission of structural elements analysis,
• Discover the root causes, or why such things are happening, including a lack of money, weakened institutions, a lack of skills, and the use of informal building methods practices,
• Evaluate the effects of deficiencies on structural safety, the economy of used materials, long-term economic viability, and environmental health surroundings,
• Analyze empirical data collected from building professionals and actors using tools like factor analysis and the Relative Importance Index to determine which problems are the most significant important, and
• Offer practical advice to professionals, legislators, and contractors on addressing issues and encouraging safer, greener construction practices in Burundi.

This study goes beyond generic claims by using professional survey data and statistical analysis. It provides context-specific information that can inform policy changes, professional training, and business practices. This paper emphasizes that structural analysis is irreplaceable in building safety and durability, but it is only one among various construction failings that affect the overall sustainability of Burundi’s built environment [9]. This paper adds to the growing research on sustainable construction in resource-limited settings, both domestically and internationally, by placing structural analysis within a wider economic, institutional, and material context of limitations. The map of Burundi is provided in Figure 1.

2. The Literature Review

Because of the limited published studies and technical writings on construction activities suitable for Burundi, this work relies on academic literature and case studies from various countries at similar levels of development to offer comparative insights and contextual applications. The construction industry in developing countries often faces systemic challenges that affect the sustainability, safety, and lifespan of structures [11,12].

To ensure a reinforced concrete structure has proper structural integrity, a load path analysis, reinforcement details, and soil-structure interaction evaluations need to be carried out correctly [13]. Such practices are often overlooked in developing countries like Burundi due to a lack of proper professional training, dependence on unqualified personnel, and concerns about reducing costs, according to Bikoko & Tchamba [14]. Okeke [15] emphasized that Sub-Saharan African evidence shows building collapse is usually caused by poor detailing, weak connection of columns and beams, and failure to perform regular design inspections. In 2009, the journal Jeune Afrique [16], in Gitega, Burundi, a building collapse that claimed the lives of 15 people clearly highlights the tragic consequences of poor design and insufficient site planning oversight.

There are even issues related to material usage. Excessive use of timber scaffolding is a major cause of deforestation in Burundi, where hundreds of trees are cut down for a single pour of a concrete slab, as noted in Inyabuntu [17]. Poor calculations and a lack of proper design guidance can lead to the abuse or misuse of materials, which speeds up the consumption of natural resources by WWF [18]. This construction method, besides harming the environment, contradicts the nation’s commitment to sustainable resource management. Martinez-Rocamora [19] highlighted the fact that poorly planned projects are often forced into early repair work or rebuilding, thus promoting waste and emissions. Such tendencies reflect how doing things incorrectly can cause environmental and sustainability issues.

Regarding institutional and regulatory deficiencies, institutional weaknesses worsen technology challenges. Corruption, poor enforcement of building codes, and weak quality control measures enable risky practices to continue, as stated by Karubasena [20]. According to Arame Tall and Nfamara K. Dampha [21], Burundi is one of the most climate-exposed countries, partly because of poorly planned and unsustainable infrastructure projects. Similar patterns in developing countries show that weak institutions continue to create unsustainable cycles and put significant pressure on the environment, as noted by Cramer [22]. Without proper vigilance, designs are developed through guesswork rather than rigorous mathematical analysis, making them more likely to fail during floods, landslides, and earthquakes.

Regarding socioeconomic and sustainability impacts, the effects of construction deficiencies are multidimensional. Buildings deteriorate more quickly because they are poorly designed and use inefficient materials, requiring more frequent repairs to keep them functional, and they cost more to rebuild, which can lead to increased poverty and decreased investment returns, as noted by Kingori & Waweru; Schwartz [23,24]. Socially, building collapses and hazardous constructions reduce people’s confidence in the building industry and cause mental anguish for affected communities. Deforestation and over-materialization are two examples of unsustainability that accelerate climate risks and threaten long-term resilience, as Rudahinyuka and Wingard noted [25,26]. These results indicate that building problems go beyond simple technical errors to include wider sustainability concerns. Regarding strategies to fix these issues, the literature offers several approaches to reduce shortcomings. Omotayo says proficiency should be enhanced through better engineering studies and ongoing training [27]. Compliance can be improved by updating and enforcing building codes with the support of influential regulatory organizations. Using the latest technology and structural analysis software might increase design reliability, according to Caredda [28]. Additionally, measures to boost awareness and policy incentives, such as promoting the adoption of recyclable scaffolding systems, can decrease unsustainable practices and benefit the environment.

Regarding synthesis and research gaps, although published studies offer valuable insights into construction challenges in low-income countries, few specifically focus on Burundi. Most are anecdotal or compare foreign data, with limited empirical information on the sources and impacts of deficiencies in Burundi’s building sector. The present study addresses this gap by analyzing survey data from practitioners and linking systemic causes to safety, economic, and sustainability effects. It contextualizes the lack of structural analysis within broader issues that collectively affect Burundi’s built environment performance and resilience.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. The Methodological Approach

This research concentrates on reinforced concrete buildings, which are the primary structural system used in Burundi for residential, commercial, and institutional projects. The study examines deficiencies that occur during the planning, design, and construction phases of reinforced concrete structures, including inadequate structural analysis, weak reinforcement details, improper material usage, and ineffective regulation enforcement. Sustainability in this work is defined on three levels: environmental sustainability (resource efficiency, forestry loss due to timber scaffolding, and carbon emissions), economic sustainability (construction costs, maintenance expenses, and upkeep burdens), and social sustainability (building safety, durability, resilience to disasters, and government confidence) [29,30,31]. The study ensures that findings are relevant to Burundi’s construction industry by precisely defining these parameters. It also adds to the broader discussion of sustainable building practices in poorer nations.

This study employs a quantitative method based on collecting and analyzing observable data to gain insights into the prevalence and reasons for the lack of structural investigation in Burundian concrete building projects [32]. The need to produce objective, verifiable, and comparable results that can potentially clarify decision makers and professionals within the sector justifies this approach. It also simplifies extracting vital relationships between variables and conducting statistical research on how such deficiencies impact the environment, economy, and society, the three pillars of sustainability [33,34]. Quantitative research develops hypotheses or theoretical models for testing with standard tools, ensuring the reliability and generalizability of results within a specific setting [35]. It was used to better connect with the construction industry in Burundi and to examine the impacts on sustainable building practices that structures there are experiencing. The layout illustrating all the approaches used in this work can be found in Figure 2.

Furthermore, this approach employs a descriptive and analytical research design that aims to not only describe current concepts and supervision practices within the building industry but also to identify and prioritize the most important factors related to structural analysis omission. To achieve this, advanced statistical methods such as Principal Component Analysis, the Relative Importance Index, and Exploratory Factor Analysis are employed to analyze data collected from industry professionals comprehensively [36,37]. Quantitative descriptive studies are excellent for looking at patterns in large and diverse groups of people, especially when the subjects are sensitive or not well known in writing [38]. Therefore, this approach is well-suited to fill the gaps in previous research on structural durability in Burundi.

3.2. Concept and Type of Research

This study combines a quantitative research approach with a descriptive and explanatory research design to analyze the causes and effects of neglecting structural analysis in reinforced concrete construction projects in Burundi. The main hypothesis is to examine how technical negligence, especially during structural design, impacts the safety, material efficiency, durability, and environmental effects of structures. This research aims to build a systematic empirical foundation for improving construction standards and promoting sustainable development in Burundi, using descriptive methods to document current practices and explanatory techniques to identify causal relationships. The approach allows for a comprehensive study of professional practice through survey data and statistical modeling, ensuring research rigor and relevance to the local context.

3.3. Establishing Impacts on Sustainability Construction

The study used a triangulated approach drawing on academic sources, field observations, and global sustainability guidelines to identify the 14 structural impacts. Initially, a thorough review of construction failures and challenges in developing countries revealed that issues like poor reinforcement detailing, collapse hazards, and the inefficient use of building materials are common. Often, these problems stem from neglecting to perform a structural analysis during the design of reinforced concrete [39].

In the second part, observations at the construction site and informal interviews with civil engineers, contractors, building owners in Bujumbura, Gitega, and Ngozi, as well as policymakers, supported these impacts in context. Professional opinions indicated that most of the hardships noted from the sources also occur in Burundi’s construction sector, with financing shortages and lax enforcement of laws often worsening them. Finally, the impacts aligned with theoretical principles from structural science and global sustainability guidelines, especially Agenda 21, which emphasizes long-term development that preserves natural resources for current and future generations through integrated planning of the environment, economy, and society. They also align with the UN Sustainable Development Goal 11, which aims to make towns and human settlements safe, resilient, and sustainable, and with the Burundian national urban planning code, which provides laws for establishing sustainable construction for long-span structures and their occupants [40,41,42]. The latter emphasizes safety, environmental protection, and resilience of the built environment. The combined approach made some significant impacts on both global and local scales.

A triangulated approach combining literature review, site observation, and questionnaire surveys of 258 construction respondents in Burundi was used to identify the causes, deficiencies, and impacts presented in

Table 1. Impacts Often Occur in the Construction Sector.

	Deficiencies (Observable Problems)	Impacts on Sustainability
Financial constraints & cost-cutting	Omission or superficial structural analysis	Structural instability
		Collapse risk
		Shortened building lifespan
Weak regulatory enforcement & corruption	Non-compliance with building codes	Unsafe structures
	Lack of inspections	Reduced resilience
		Loss of public trust
Limited technical expertise & training gaps	Inaccurate reinforcement placement	Cracks
	Poor detailing	Settlement
	Weak soil investigations	Foundations failures
		Increased hazard vulnerability
Use of substandard or untested materials	Material inefficiencies	Frequent repairs
	Premature degradation	Waste of resources
		Higher lifecycle costs
Reliance on informal practices	Poor planning	Reduced structural reliability
	Absence of supervision	Unpredictable performance
Lack of modern tools & technology	Minimal use of structural Software	Low energy efficiency
		Barriers to sustainable certification
Overuse of temporary timber scaffolding	Unsustainable material uses in formwork and supports	Deforestation
		High carbon footprint
		Ecological damage

[43,44,45,46,47]. The respondents in this study highlighted ongoing issues with reinforced concrete projects, which were then examined through records of documented construction failures and sustainability studies conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa. This systematic classification explains the problems by linking systemic causes to measurable deficiencies and direct sustainability impacts within Burundi’s construction practices.

The framework is summarized in Table 1. The analysis shows that cost-cutting and limited budgets led to neglect or superficial use of structural analysis, increasing the risk of failure and shortening the structure’s lifespan. Weak regulatory enforcement and corruption were linked to widespread noncompliance with building codes, resulting in unsafe buildings and diminished public confidence. Technical issues were caused by improper reinforcement, inadequate soil testing, poor-quality materials, and makeshift timber scaffolding, which contributed to early decay, deforestation, and excessive carbon emissions, thereby harming environmental sustainability.

The study identifies both technical and institutional economic building problems by organizing the data into a cause → deficiencies → impact framework. This system’s approach explains how deficiencies interact to affect sustainability in three areas: environmental (deforestation, carbon emissions, waste material), economic (ongoing repairs, reconstruction costs, debt obligations), and social (loss of lives, loss of public confidence, loss of resilience). The study emphasizes that lack of structural analysis, though important, is only one part of a larger set of issues that collectively influence the performance and sustainability of the built environment in Burundi.

3.4. Data Collection and Collection Tool

The main data collection method in this study is an automatically administered questionnaire designed to gather accurate and structured information from building professionals. The questionnaire is divided into four sections: general information, a general questionnaire for the construction industry in Burundi, core questions about structural impacts, and additional comments. To ensure clarity, relevance, and reliability, the tool has been validated by industry professionals. A well-structured questionnaire enables the collection of comparable, standardized, and usable data, which is especially valuable in quantitative studies involving diverse populations [48].

The main section, which addresses the core questions about structural impacts, also included a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 to 5, to assess the level of agreement or disagreement with the proposed statements among interviewees. The scale allows for statistical analysis of perceptions and attitudes and simplifies responses for participants. In social sciences and engineering, using ordinal scales like the Likert is widely accepted because of its effectiveness in measuring opinions. This type of scale provides an efficient way to evaluate subjective sentiments [49].

Bujumbura, Gitega, and Ngozi are the three major cities in Burundi where this study was conducted. The sites were specifically chosen based on their geographic, economic, and administrative importance within the country. Most urban projects, headquarters of major construction companies, and numerous study and master’s offices are concentrated in Bujumbura, the former economic capital. Gitega, now the political capital, has experienced rapid urban growth supported by new public infrastructure development. Ngozi, with several residential and institutional construction projects, functions as an active regional hub with vibrant demographic growth. Together, these three areas provide a comprehensive view of construction activity across Burundi by including large urban regions, national projects, informal initiatives, and semi-formal organizations. Their selection also enables the inclusion of a wide range of stakeholders, from civil engineers and architects to technicians, entrepreneurs, government officials, and industry educators. This diversity in profession and geography has helped gather varied, relevant data while addressing issues of structural thinking and sustainability across different urban settings nationwide. The survey form was designed to address the various challenges facing the industry in Burundi, using testimonies and observations to better understand these impacts. The 258 respondents in the survey represented actors in the construction sector within Burundi from the three main cities, Bujumbura, Gitega, and Ngozi, including engineers, architects, contractors, policymakers, homeowners, and students from the Faculty of Civil Engineering at various universities. Due to the lack of comprehensive documentation on this population, the sample size (n) was determined using the following formula [50]:

$$n={\displaystyle \frac{z^2·p·(1-p)}{e^2}}$$

(1)

Three hundred eighty-four (384) forms were prepared for face-to-face distribution to respondents to ensure reliable results. This approach also saves time. Of all the questionnaires distributed, 67% received responses, resulting in 258 valid responses. Specifically, professional agents working in Burundi’s construction sector were asked to provide information on the current state of the industry and the projects they have worked on. This helps recognize their experiences and provides trustworthy justification, as they used the Likert scale to assess the impacts of the mentioned sites. Figure 3 shows the ratings given by 160 respondents regarding Burundi’s current construction industry status: 77% said it is developing, 12% said it is developed, and 11% said it is non-developed. This highlights the importance of the infrastructure being in development. This information will significantly aid the analysis of the root causes of issues related to the lack of structural analysis and the channels through which these challenges can be addressed.

Table 2. General Information on Respondents.

Ages of Respondents
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Under 25	43	16.7	16.7	16.7
25–35	117	45.3	45.3	62.0
35–45	76	29.4	18.2	80.2
Above 45	22	8.5	8.5	88.8
Total	258	100.0	100.0
Gender of Respondents
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Male	184	71.3	71.3	71.3
Female	70	27.1	27.1	98.4
Other	4	1.6	1.6	100.0
Total	258	100.0	100.0
Place of Main Practice
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
	118	45.7	45.7	45.7
Gitega	75	29.1	29.1	74.8
Ngozi	65	25.2	25.2	100.0
Total	258	100.0	100.0
Profession in Construction
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Engineer	72	27.9	27.9	27.9
Architect	53	20.5	20.5	48.4
Contract	73	28.3	28.3	76.7
Policy Maker	27	10.5	10.5	87.2
Other	33	12.8	12.8	100.0
Total	258	100.0	100.0

displays demographic data for the 258 respondents interviewed in the study, showing that most were aged 25–35 (45.3%), with the 35–45 age group (29.4%) as a close second. This suggests that mid-career professionals make up the majority of the sample. The gender disparity common in the building industry was reflected here, with the majority of respondents being male (71.3%), females accounting for 27.1%, and others representing 1.6%. The economic center of Bujumbura included just under half of the participants (45.7%), while Gitega and Ngozi accounted for 29.1% and 25.2%, respectively, in terms of geographic locations. The respondents represented a diverse range of professions, with engineers making up 27.9%, contractors 28.3%, architects 20.5%, policymakers 10.5%, and others representing 12.8%. This distribution offers a comprehensive view of the voices within Burundi’s building industry, encompassing various roles and regions.

The sample is considered fair and unbiased because it includes a representative and diverse group of construction practitioners of all ages, genders, occupations, and regions within Burundi’s construction sector. The primary locations chosen for this study are Bujumbura, Gitega, and Ngozi, as they are strategically crucial for Burundi’s national development and have large populations. Bujumbura, the country’s former capital and largest city, remains its main economic hub. It hosts numerous building companies, engineers, and skilled workers due to its high population and demand for infrastructure [51]. Gitega is currently both the political and administrative capital. This is where government-sanctioned construction projects are managed, which is why parliamentarians and regulatory agencies needed to be included in the sample. Ngozi is the largest city in northern Burundi. It has expanded rapidly and is a significant economic hub in the region, especially in housing and urban development. Because of this, it is an interesting location to study building practices beyond the capital region [52,53]. The three towns together cover the full range of Burundi’s construction industry. They illustrate changes from urban to rural areas, different types of projects, and various professional viewpoints needed for a comprehensive and accurate analysis.

3.5. Factorial Model and Data Analysis

SPSS version 30 and AMOS version 26 software were used to analyze the collected data, applying advanced statistical methods aligned with the study objectives. The first step involved a reliability test using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient to evaluate the internal consistency of the items measuring different dimensions of the questionnaire. The data were then tested for validity and suitability using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure and Bartlett’s sphericity test to confirm their appropriateness for factor analysis [54,55]. The value of αC is interpreted such that when it falls below 0.6, the reliability is low and needs improvement, while it should be progressive and highly reliable when it is between 0.6 and 1 [56]. These are essential for the robustness and organization of data in empirical research involving latent variables. In Exploratory Factor Analysis, variables are grouped using the Principal Component Analysis method to identify the number of factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1 (≥1), and highly correlated variables are clustered to form Eigenvalues. After ensuring excellent data and variable consistency from these tests, it is time to begin the sequence of factor analysis.

Methodologically, this targeted analysis grouped the identified impacts based on their relevance so they could be examined through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, while also considering the importance index. This function of factor analysis, as defined, is commonly used in statistical studies to reduce numerous variables into smaller groups of factors. In this work, both Exploratory Factor Analysis and Confirmatory Factor Analysis have been employed. By conducting Exploratory Factor Analysis, two widely used tests—Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett’s sphericity tests—were used to assess data consistency. These tests evaluate whether the data in the table is sufficiently consistent and suitable for exploratory factor analysis, with values between 0.7 and 1 indicating adequacy. They also assess whether variances across groups are equal by testing the null hypothesis, which is rejected when the p-value is less than 0.05 (<0.05). Once the data and variables show excellent consistency in these tests, the factor analysis process begins. During Exploratory Factor Analysis, variables are grouped using Principal Component Analysis to determine the number of factors based on an Eigenvalue threshold greater than 1 (≥1). Highly correlated variables are grouped to form Eigenvalues. Factor rotation makes the relationships between variables and factors clearer. For a valid study, the conceptual basis must align with the analyzed data. Using AMOS 26 software, this alignment was tested through Confirmatory Factor Analysis using various fit indicators such as (χ²)/df, GFI, CFI, RMSEA, TLI, SRMR, and NFI [57]. To streamline the decision-making process to address the problems faced by the construction industry in Burundi, the classification of variables based on their importance was performed by calculating the Relative Importance Index (IRI) using the formula below [58]:

$$IRI=\Sigma {\displaystyle \frac{W}{A\times N}}$$

(2)

4. Results

This research report reveals that many Burundian building experts believe that excluding structural analysis in reinforced concrete work is common and well-known. According to data in Figure 4, 55.4% of respondents said that structural analysis is often missing, especially in small to medium-sized residential and domestic buildings. This issue is most notable in projects involving houses or slum settlements with low costs, where there are no strict regulations or budget constraints. Only about 10% of interviewees stated that most routine work includes structural analysis. Other respondents highlighted that even when structural analysis is claimed to be done, it is often superficial, carried out without proper tools, or based on incomplete load data and site conditions. These insights suggest that the exclusion of this vital step is more the norm than the exception. This widespread neglect seriously threatens the structural stability, durability, and sustainability of Burundi’s infrastructure.

It is most commonly encountered during the preliminary design and pre-construction phases of the project life cycle. The interview respondents indicated that the most frequent omission in structural analysis is during the preliminary design stage. Rather than conducting a thorough structural analysis, many designers and constructors rely on empirical data or generic forms for informal or cost-saving projects.

Time constraints, cost reduction measures, or lack of knowledge about the technical consequences are the main reasons. This second most impacted step of the detailed design requires long hours of computation to check load paths, reinforcement details, and contact between structural elements. However, a large percentage of the interviewees reported that, especially for residential projects on a private scale, this step is often skipped or only partially considered. In some cases, work proceeds with estimates and design sheets without structural calculations. Additionally, several omissions were identified in the construction documents and execution planning stages, where structural elements are being adapted without reevaluation by an engineer. These last-minute decisions, often made on the spot in the name of saving time or materials, threaten sustainability and pose safety hazards.

4.1. Results of Reliability and Validity of Data

Before conducting more advanced statistical analyses, tests of reliability and validity were performed to verify that the data collected for this research were accurate and consistent. Cronbach’s Alpha was utilized to assess the internal consistency of the questionnaire regarding the main dimensions related to perceived effects on sustainability and the absence of structural analysis reasons. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, which evaluate the data’s suitability for factor analysis, were used to assess validity. These preliminary tests were essential in ensuring the statistical validity of the dataset, the coherence of the constructs, and the significant relationships between variables, thereby supporting the robustness of subsequent analyses such as EFA, PCA, and CFA.

To ensure the data accurately reflects the opinions and practices of professionals questioned in Burundi, this reliability is essential. Cronbach’s Alpha is a common indicator used in social sciences to verify the reliability of a questionnaire, especially when exploring complex behaviors such as institutional actions and professional practices. The reliability of the data collected in this study was initially assessed by measuring Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient, which was 0.846 above the acceptable threshold of 0.70, as shown in

Table 3. Cronbach’s Alpha Values Results.

Cronbach’s Alpha	N of Items	N
0.846	14	258

. This indicates that the data from this work are dependable and relevant.

The next step was to calculate the values of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Test and the Bartlett Sphericity Test to proceed with the factor analysis. In

Table 4. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Results.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy		0.724
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	3412.162
	df	91
	Sig.	0

, the results were 0.724, indicating a good rating. For the Bartlett test, the results were 0.000, which is less than 0.05 (<0.05) with df = 91. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy were conducted to determine whether the data collected from the respondents were suitable for factor analysis.

These two are important procedures for determining whether the variables in the data set can be grouped into underlying factors and how they relate to each other. The use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in the following section is validated by the extensive Bartlett’s test, demonstrating that the dataset is suitable for structure identification and factor extraction. Together, these two tests provide strong statistical evidence that the dataset meets the assumptions required for multivariate analysis.

These results show that there is enough common variance in the data to explain why structural analysis was not conducted on Burundi’s reinforced concrete building. Therefore, the factor analysis that was performed is supported by strong statistical justification. These diagnostic statistics reinforce the research’s methodological rigor and enhance the validity and reliability of the results.

4.2. Determining Factors

The determination of the factors was conducted using the Principal Component Analysis process. This method helped create the factors by selecting those with Eigenvalues greater than 1. The following table shows the eigenvalues of the components, along with the figure that displays the retained factors before the cutoff point, as these are the ones that explain a significant portion of the variance.

Using the varimax rotation method selected for this work, as shown in Figure 5, 13 variables out of 14 identified in this research contributed to the creation of 5 factors. Each variable primarily loaded on a single factor, resulting in a clearer factor structure that reflects the purpose and theory of this study. The identification and naming of these components are as follows: 1st, Structural Integrity Risks; 2nd, Environmental and Material Efficiency; 3rd, Compliance and Technologies; 4th, Resilience and Sustainability; and 5th, Economic and Material Waste.

The five primary contributing factors identified through factor analysis are listed in

Table 5. Factor Constructs with Associated Matrix.

Factors and Variables Name	Factor Loadings	Eigenvalues	% of Variance	Cronbach’s Alpha
Factor 1
Structural Integrity Risks		4.843	37.254	0.8
Inaccurate Reinforced Placement (SIR1)	0.905
Increased Probability of Building Collapse (SIR2)	0.891
Poor Energy Efficiency Due to Structural Deficiencies (SIR3)	0.829
Factor 2
Environment And Material Efficiency		2.01	15.461	0.735
Increased Carbon Footprint from Frequent Repairs (EME1)	0.824
Weak or Overloaded Structural Members (EME2)	0.795
Increased Risk of Structural Failure or Collapse (EME3)	0.668
Factor 3
Compliance And Technology		1.468	11.291	0.999
Lack of Compliance with Building Codes and Standards (CT1)	0.991
Limited Use of Modern Analysis Technologies (CT2)	0.99
Factor 4
Resilience And Sustainability		1.237	9.516	0.939
Reduced Resilience to Environmental Hazards (RS1)	0.923
Negative Impact on Sustainable Building Certification (RS2)	0.917
Factor 5
Economic And Material Waste		1.113	8.559	0.739
Waste of Construction Materials Due to Failures (EMW1)	0.823
Lower Return on Construction Investments (EMW2)	0.805
Risk of Cracks and Settlement (EMW3)	0.659

. Each factor comprises variables that represent different categories of effects resulting from the lack of structural analysis in reinforced concrete buildings. Structural Integrity Risks is the most significant factor, accounting for 37.254% of the variance. Variables such as improper reinforcement placement and the risk of collapse have high loadings on this factor. The internal consistency among these variables and their role in assessing barriers to sustainable building in Burundi are confirmed by the fact that all five factors demonstrate acceptable to high reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha ≥ 0.735).

4.2.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis was employed to determine if the data in this study exhibits a factor structure consistent with the concept being examined. Validation tools were utilized to compare adjustment indices with theoretical expectations and support decision-making through data analysis, thereby confirming the credibility of the models. The model fit results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis are shown in

Table 6. Model Fit Indices Results for Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Fit Index	Model’s Value	Threshold for Good Fit	Interpretation
χ2 (df)	157.785 (51)		Significant (p < 0.001)
(χ2)/df	3.094	<3 (Ideal), <5 (Acceptable)	Marginal
CFI	0.968	≥0.95	Excellent
TLI	0.951	≥0.95	Excellent
RMSEA	0.09	≤0.06 (Ideal), ≤0.08 (Acceptable)	Marginal
GFI	0.916	≥0.90	Acceptable
NFI	0.953	≥90	Good
SRMR	0.09	<0.08	Marginal

, which evaluates how well the proposed model aligns with the survey data collected in the context of this study.

Each fit index assesses a different aspect of model adequacy. The statistically significant difference between the observed and expected covariance matrices is indicated by the Chi-square (χ²) value of 157.785 with 51 degrees of freedom (p < 0.001). Although large samples often show a significant chi-square value, it typically suggests some degree of model misfit. The model’s marginal but acceptable fit to the data is shown by the (χ²)/df ratio of 3.094, which, although not ideal, is within the acceptable range (less than 5).

Other indices provide additional information. The Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI = 0.951) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI = 0.968) exceed the cutoff value of 0.95, thus indicating an excellent fit of the model. The good to excellent fit of the structural model is confirmed by the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI = 0.916) and Normed Fit Index (NFI = 0.953), both surpassing 0.90. The 0.09 value of RMSEA and SRMR, however, slightly exceeds their optimal cutoff points, indicating a minor error in fit approximation. The overall validity and reliability of the presented model are supported by the strong values of CFI, TLI, and NFI, despite these slight deviations. This suggests that the factor structure adequately represents the survey data within the context of sustainability.

Figure 6 illustrates a Structural Equation Model that shows the relationships among five latent variables. These include SIR, EME, CT, RS, and EMW. Several observable indicators are used to assess each latent variable. For instance, SIR is measured by SIR1 through SIR3, and EME is gauged by EME1 to EME3. The arrows from each indicator to the latent variables indicate the strength of that indicator’s influence on the construct. The curved arrows between the latent variables depict the suspected relationships or influences they have on each other. The model aims to examine how various construction issues, such as structural risk and wastage, impact broader sustainable building practices.

4.2.2. Classification of Components According to Importance

The IRI calculations for each variable demonstrated the significance of each factor and helped rank these components accordingly: the results of these calculations. The values from the results, along with the list of factors, are shown in

Table 7. Ranking Factors by Impact Risk Index.

Factors Code	Variables Code	Eigenvalue	Rank by Eigenvalues	Overall IRI (%)	Avg. IRI (%)	Rank by IRI
SIR	SIR1	4.843	1	90.5	87.5	3
	SIR2			89.1
	SIR3			82.9
EME	EME1	2.010	2	82.4	76.2	4
	EME2			79.5
	EME3			66.8
CT	CT1	1.468	3	99.1	99.1	1
	CT2			99.0
RS	RS1	1.237	4	92.3	92.0	2
	RS2			91.7
EMW	EMW1	1.113	5	82.3	76.2	5
	EMW2			80.5
	EMW3			65.9

below.

Compliance and Technology (CT) factors are the most prominent among all the factors identified here. It has an Average Relative Importance Index of 99.1%, the highest among all the factors. This indicates it holds the greatest importance, even though it has the lowest eigenvalue compared to Structural Integrity Risks (SIR) and Environment and Material Efficiency (EME). This suggests that while CT has less influence on the statistical variation in the dataset, most respondents consider it the most critical for sustainable building in Burundi. The two CT factors, CT1, failure to comply with building codes, and CT2, insufficient use of current analytical tools, are closely related to the main issue examined in this study: failure to conduct structural analysis. These reflect systemic and institutional problems rather than just technological issues. This greatly influences whether structural analysis is considered during the design process.

Their influence goes beyond mistakes made at the project level; it points to broader issues with rules, education, and technology that make sustainable building on a national scale more difficult. This strategic importance sets CT apart from all other factors. It is not just poor practice as a result; it is the fundamental cause behind all the decisions the Burundi construction sector has made.

The cases of Burundi, Ghana, and India were compared, as their compliance with structural design standards is more strictly enforced, to gain insight into the severity of the consequences of not conducting structural analysis in reinforced concrete construction. The following table,

Table 8. Comparing Impacts of Design Omissions in Burundi, Ghana, and India.

Impact Variable	Burundi	Ghana	India
Cracks and Settlement	65.9%	25%	18%
Material Waste due to Failures	82.30%	40%	30%
Risk of Structural Collapse	66.8%	35%	22%
Code Non-Compliance	99.10%	15%	5%
Reduced Resilience to Environmental Hazards	92.3%	45%	28%
Poor Energy Efficiency	82.9%	38%	25%
Building Certification Eligibility Issues	91.7%	33%	20%

[59,60,61], shows the extent to which major structural and sustainability issues were prevalent in each country. This comparison indicates that structural failures, material waste, and ecological vulnerabilities are more frequent in Burundi. It highlights how crucial achieving a healthy structural study is for sustainable construction results.

5. Analytical Discussion

In Burundi, the long-term durability of reinforced concrete buildings depends on more than just the omission of structural analysis; it is affected by a wider range of system deficiencies that impact safety, efficiency, and sustainability. These deficiencies include poor planning, lack of proper monitoring, use of inferior construction materials, weak enforcement of building codes, and financial constraints that lead to cost-cutting. The absence of structural analysis is best seen as one example of these broader issues rather than the sole cause of negative outcomes.

This section explains how all of these factors together make Burundi’s built environment less sustainable. The argument presents three main points: environmental effects and resource loss, structure lifespan and integrity, and ethical, legal, and social issues. The research helps deepen understanding of how Burundi’s building sector can shift toward safer, longer-lasting, and environmentally friendly practices by highlighting the related failings and their impact on sustainability outcomes.

5.1. Environmental Impacts and Resource Depletion

Environmental impacts and resource loss are major sustainability issues caused by construction practices in Burundi. The country’s building sector relies heavily on environmentally harmful methods, such as using wood for scaffolding and short-lived formwork [62]. Questionnaire findings and national statistics reveal that one reinforced concrete slab for a small house uses as many as 500 young trees, which is nearly half a hectare of woodland [17]. Over 1350 trees are lost each year to make way for homes in Kayanza Province. Building in Ngozi from 2021 to 2023 cleared 279 hectares of native forest, releasing emissions equivalent to nearly 141,000 tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere [63,64]. These types of action accelerate deforestation, reducing the ability of trees to absorb carbon, which already accounts for nearly 10% of all emissions.

Besides timber, the illegal extraction of materials like burnt bricks, gravel, and river sand also causes much greater environmental pollution. Poor or inaccurate design calculations often lead to inefficient use of materials, resulting in excessive consumption and subpar building performance [65]. The World Bank ranked Burundi among its top 25 most vulnerable countries to climate change. This is partly due to environmentally harmful methods used to obtain building materials, which damage ecosystems and lead to short-lived structures.

Using metal scaffolding can further lower environmental impact. Replacing wooden forms with recyclable steel systems for temporary works could prevent deforestation, last longer, and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30–40% [66]. However, its high prices and limited supply within the market render its adoption difficult. Policy interventions, such as reduced import taxes or specific subsidies, would be highly significant to get people to adopt it.

Environmental issues can also affect indoor air quality. Due to failure to meet design standards, many buildings in Burundi show signs of water penetration, poor insulation, and material decay. These problems can cause higher releases of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from damp walls, paints, and adhesives. VOCs are linked to asthma, respiratory problems, and neurological symptoms. The World Health Organization reports that poor indoor air quality causes about 3.8 million deaths worldwide each year. In Burundi, where much construction is informal, this aspect of environmental sustainability is often overlooked during material selection and building design [67,68].

Global best practices encourage us to use more eco-friendly methods. For example, Belgium follows the NBN EN 13829 airtightness standards to lower indoor pollution. Additionally, the use of low-VOC paints, water-based adhesives, fly ash concrete, and adobe bricks helps improve air quality and reduce embodied carbon [69]. Burundi’s urban planning code already discusses ways to reduce buildings’ energy usage, conserve the environment, and utilize materials more effectively. Incorporating such types of approaches to the building industry would align with such notions.

These findings indicate that environmental damage to Burundi’s building sector is caused not by a single technical failure but by a series of systemic issues, including excessive reliance on timber scaffolding, uncontrolled material extraction, and weak enforcement of building codes. Addressing these problems is essential for preventing deforestation, reducing climate risks, and ensuring that building practices support long-term urban growth [70].

5.2. Impacts on the Lifespan of a Structure

The durability of buildings and their lifespan are key to sustainable construction because they affect both occupant safety and the long-term financial success of projects. In Burundi, however, various construction issues contribute to reinforced concrete buildings being less durable. Poor design processes, insufficient soil testing, inadequate material quality control, and failure to perform proper structural assessments all decrease a structure’s expected lifespan and increase the risk of damage from hazards readily.

The survey results reveal how serious this problem is: Sixty-four percent of homeowners reported that their structures had cracks, settled, or subsided. Many of these issues were caused by poor design and insufficient oversight. Local examples demonstrate how these kinds of mistakes can harm people and lead to costly repairs. Design errors and a lack of monitoring contributed to the Gitega collapse in 2009, which resulted in 15 deaths and 39 injuries [16]. Also, when concrete was poured in Bujumbura’s Buterere district, the building collapsed, resulting in multiple deaths and injuring several people [2]. These cases illustrate how problems with planning, design, and monitoring make communities less resilient, costing them a lot of money and time.

These patterns are supported by international case examples. The Sampoong Department Store in South Korea in 1995, Grand View Hotel in Ghana in 2012, and the Dar es Salaam building disaster in Tanzania in 2013 demonstrate worst-case outcomes of inadequate design and code noncompliance under various conditions. [23,71,72,73]. Burundi stands out as an exception because such collapses are more common with limited finances, little professional exposure, and traditional building practices rather than technical errors.

From a sustainability perspective, structural failures that occur too rapidly shorten the lifespan of buildings, requiring more frequent repairs or rebuilding. This leads to increased material use, higher carbon emissions, and greater financial burden on households. For most Burundians, who pay out of pocket or through loans for construction, these additional costs make it more difficult to repay loans over time and weaken socio-economic resilience. Consequently, structural issues related to resilience and longevity not only endanger lives but also worsen inequality and slow the country’s progress.

Solving this issue involves changes at both technical and institutional levels. Investment in engineering studies, innovative design software, and quality laboratories needs to be undertaken to upgrade professional capacity [74]. Enhancing enforcement of building codes, implementing more rigorous validation processes for construction permits, and imposing fines for non-compliance are crucial at the institutional level. Government-sponsored training and subsidized housing programs could encourage safer and more resilient construction practices. Promoting these reforms might help Burundi eliminate structural issues, strengthen buildings, and better protect against natural disasters and long-term environmental threats. This study contributes to the literature by not only reaffirming the importance of planning but also assessing the relative importance of various deficiencies experienced by practitioners in Burundi, demonstrating their cumulative effects on safety, the environment, and the economy.

6. Conclusions

This study examined what happens to the long-term structural integrity of buildings in Burundi when structural analysis is omitted from reinforced concrete designs. It demonstrated that this lack of responsibility in planning results in technical, environmental, and financial issues within the construction industry. Due to shortages of funding, professional expertise, or strict regulations, structural analysis is often excluded, despite being part of the assurance of safe, well-performing designs. This is especially concerning in developing countries like Burundi, where resources are limited and construction policies are frequently not enforced.

Through a well-structured questionnaire survey of 258 respondents in Bujumbura, Gitega, and Ngozi, the study identified 14 key effects of neglecting structural analysis. These effects were grouped into five influential factors, such as risks to structural integrity, material and environmental inefficiency, non-compliance with codes of practice, lack of modern technology, decreased hazard resilience, and material and economic waste. The RII analysis showed that the most common problems were lack of code compliance (IRI = 99.1%), reduced hazard resilience (IRI = 92%), and the risk of building collapse (IRI = 89.1%). These quantitative findings confirm that neglecting structural analysis significantly impacts the sustainability of buildings.

The survey additionally revealed that 64% of owners observed cracks and settling in their buildings. Most engineers and construction contractors reported that frequent repairs, rebuilding, and reconstruction were caused by inadequate or nonexistent structural design. Moreover, the report pointed out that indirect but significant effects included a higher carbon footprint from frequent repairs, wasteful material use, and a decline in investor confidence. These survey results highlight the need to promote building design practices that incorporate technical excellence with environmental sustainability.

This research contributes to the existing literature by demonstrating how the absence of structural analysis leads to sustainability issues in building construction. This is supported by actual data and case studies from cities in Burundi. Unlike previous studies, it emphasizes structural analysis as a key factor contributing to long-term threats, rather than just examining the general causes of building failure. The factor-based approach used in this research can also serve as a model for similar cases in other developing countries.

While the importance of structural analysis has been established in international literature, this study’s contribution is to detail how systemic failings—particularly, but not limited to, shortcomings in structural analysis—manifest in Burundi. Among the greatest threats to sustainability are deficiencies in technical competency and material quality, with excessive timber scaffolding use and ineffective building code enforcement closely following (99.1% importance index). Empirical evidence supports this. These findings surpass general claims by providing site-specific, data-driven insights relevant to international discussions on sustainable construction in resource-limited settings, as well as to proposed policy reforms.

Based on these results, the national and regional governments should incorporate structural analysis into RC building code applications. Additionally, training programs for professionals need to be updated so that engineers and architects can utilize new analytical tools and programs. Sustainable activities can further be promoted by raising awareness among people and encouraging them to follow the rules. Finally, consistently incorporating structural analysis into the design of RC buildings would make the structures safer, less harmful to the environment, and more sustainable for the Burundi construction industry.

Burundi’s construction industry should move away from traditional wood-based formwork and scaffolding to recyclable metal options as part of sustainable building practices, reducing the environmental impact of wood usage. Metal systems, for instance, are more durable, safer, and ultimately save money over time, all while significantly decreasing deforestation. India’s use of steel modular formwork in cities, for example, reduced construction waste by over 70% and accelerated project timelines [75].

Burundi’s government could follow Rwanda’s example by offering tax breaks or reduced import levies on sustainable building materials to encourage the shift. Tax incentives in Rwanda, for instance, have been effective in attracting sustainable building materials [76]. Additionally, specifying how to incorporate sustainable materials into Burundi’s national building code, similar to South Africa’s SANS 10085-1 scaffolding code, would make enforcement easier and better align it with international standards [77].

Furthermore, practical training for builders and contractors on how to operate and maintain metal scaffolding systems is essential. Trade schools and technical programs can deliver this training. For example, the TVET program in Ethiopia includes green building training in its national curriculum [78]. Public–private partnerships should be established to promote local manufacturing and leasing options, making metal systems more accessible and user-friendly. This approach would enable smaller contractors to lease scaffolding as needed. Currently implemented in Ghana and Kenya, this practice not only simplifies adoption but also benefits local businesses by allowing them to grow. All these suggestions will enhance the sustainability and resilience of Burundi’s construction industry, improve compliance with regulations, and help reduce carbon emissions.

This study relies on the perspectives and experience constructions of experts rather than actual project-level case studies. The resulting defect sustainability correlations are based on expert opinions supported by published research, rather than real-time observations of building performance. It provides useful information about how systemic challenges are perceived and valued in Burundi. However, future research should include survey-based results along with in-depth project audits, structural analyses, and longitudinal case studies. This would make it possible to more accurately confirm cause-and-effect relationships as presented here and to better understand how specific challenges influence quantifiable sustainability outcomes.

This research provides local empirical data on construction defects in Burundi, categorizing them into systemic causes, observable behaviors, and sustainability impacts, and uses statistical analysis to rank these challenges. This systematic approach offers Burundi valuable recommendations and insights that can be applied to other developing countries. When case studies from different nations are compared with similar social, economic, and environmental conditions, broader conclusions can be drawn. Additionally, more research should explore how cost-effective structural analysis technologies might be integrated into local building practices and how often small construction companies use them. It would also be useful to examine how effectively laws and educational programs aim to improve engineering design practices. This knowledge could help make building construction more sustainable.