Evaluating the quality and durability of offsite-constructed housing in Uganda using a composite quality index

Abstract

Uganda is experiencing a growing housing shortage due to rapid urban growth, limited construction capacity, and high costs of traditional building methods. Offsite construction has emerged as a promising approach to provide affordable, durable, and environmentally friendly housing. This study aimed to assess stakeholders’ views on the quality of offsite-constructed housing in Uganda. The objectives included identifying key quality indicators, examining differences among professional roles, and developing a Composite Quality Index (CQI) to support decision-making. A structured and validated questionnaire was given to 384 stakeholders, including engineers, architects, contractors, and homeowners. Participants rated four main quality indicators: structural integrity, environmental resistance, estimated lifespan, and durability compared to traditional housing. Likert scale, where lower scores indicated better perceived quality was used. Descriptive statistics summarized the responses, and the CQI provided a combined, weighted measure of overall housing quality. One-way ANOVA tested differences in perceptions among stakeholder roles, Pearson correlation examined relationships between roles and indicator scores, and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) identified the most important factors influencing quality perceptions. Results showed that environmental resistance received the most positive perception (mean = 1.88, SD = 0.79; 68.8% positive ratings), followed by structural integrity and durability (mean = 2.02; over 61% favorable), and estimated lifespan (mean = 2.13; 63.3% favorable). While evaluations were mostly positive, 25% of respondents reported structural issues. The CQI of 2.01 indicates that offsite housing is seen as equal to or better than traditional construction. ANOVA showed significant differences in perceptions of environmental resistance among roles (F = 4.257, p = 0.0022), while PCA revealed that structural integrity (+ 0.652) and estimated lifespan (+ 0.646) were the most influential dimensions. This study is the first in Uganda to use a CQI for offsite housing, providing valuable insights for both theory and practice. The findings emphasize the need for focused stakeholder engagement, standardized inspections, and strong quality assurance systems to improve the adoption, trust, and long-term performance of offsite construction. Keywords: Offsite construction, housing quality, Composite Quality Index, stakeholder perception, Uganda, Principal Component Analysis, structural integrity, environmental resistance.

Introduction

In order to increase living standards, housing is essential. More than a billion people lack proper housing, and international human rights law stipulates that housing be accessible everywhere. Conditions in overpopulated slums and unregulated areas can be life-threatening¹. Uganda faces a significant housing shortage due to rapid urban growth, increasing population, and limited construction capacity. Recent data show that urban areas like Kampala, Wakiso, and Entebbe have over 1 million housing units missing^2,3. Informal settlements are expanding because of high costs and slow traditional building processes. This issue has led the construction industry to seek faster, cheaper, and high-quality solutions. Offsite construction, which involves making building parts in factories before assembling them on-site, has emerged as a promising method. Its potential benefits include shorter construction times, better quality control, environmental savings, and lower costs^4–7. However, there are ongoing concerns about the durability, structural stability, and long-term performance of offsite housing, especially in Uganda, where regulations and technical standards are still developing^8,9.

The main issue this study addresses is the lack of a systematic way to evaluate the quality and durability of offsite housing in Uganda. Without standard assessment tools, problems like quality differences, early material failure, and tenant dissatisfaction go unmeasured. This hampers policy making and industry improvements¹⁰. This study aims to evaluate the quality and durability of offsite housing in Uganda using a Composite Quality Index (CQI). Specific objectives include: (i) identifying important quality indicators, (ii) examining differences in stakeholder perceptions, and (iii) creating an overall quality measure to assist policymakers, developers, and practitioners. The research questions focus on which indicators most impact perceived quality, whether professional roles affect these perceptions, and how the CQI can shape housing policy and its implementation. This study is unique as the first application of the CQI to the Ugandan housing sector, contributing to Vision 2040 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals by promoting affordable, safe, and durable housing^3,11.

Globally, offsite construction has been widely adopted in Europe, North America, and parts of Asia. This approach speeds up project delivery, improves accuracy, and reduces material waste^4,12,13. Despite these benefits, there are still challenges regarding long-term durability, stakeholder acceptance, and integration with traditional construction methods^14,15. In Africa, countries like South Africa, Ghana, and Kenya are exploring offsite methods to tackle urban housing shortages. Studies indicate that these methods can save costs and time, but concerns remain about material quality, limited technical skills, and inconsistent regulatory oversight^8,9,16. Stakeholder views, especially from engineers, contractors, and end-users, have a significant impact on adoption^17,18.

In Uganda, offsite housing initiatives driven by government programs and public-private partnerships, including NHCC projects, have gained attention. However, issues like quality inconsistencies and limited durability persist due to weak regulatory frameworks, inadequate inspections, and inconsistent construction standards^19–21. While earlier research mainly focuses on project outcomes or technical details, there is a lack of systematic evaluation of housing quality using combined indicators. Various methods, such as the Relative Importance Index (RII) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), help prioritize key performance indicators²². The Composite Quality Index (CQI) has been used internationally to merge structural integrity, environmental resistance, material durability, finishes, and user satisfaction into a single evaluation metric^23,24. However, CQI has not yet been applied in Uganda. This study aims to fill that gap by adapting the CQI framework to fit the Ugandan context. It combines expert assessments, material testing, and user surveys to offer a systematic, comparable, and useful measure of offsite housing quality. This will help shape policy, practice, and future research.

Materials and methods

This study used a quantitative research design to evaluate stakeholder perceptions of offsite-constructed housing quality in Uganda. The methodology is divided into three sections: survey development, data collection, and data analysis.

• i.Survey Development: Key quality indicators, such as structural integrity, environmental resistance, estimated lifespan, and durability compared to traditional housing, were identified through a thorough literature review and consultations with engineers, architects, and construction managers^25,35. A structured questionnaire was created and tested with 30 respondents to ensure clarity, reliability, and validity. Reliability was confirmed using Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.82) and composite reliability (CR = 0.85), showing acceptable internal consistency²⁶. The final instrument included Likert-scale items ranging from 1 (excellent) to 3 (poor) to evaluate each indicator.
• ii.Data Collection: The target population included stakeholders involved in offsite construction in Uganda, such as engineers, architects, contractors, and homeowners. The inclusion criteria required professionals or homeowners to have at least one year of experience or residence in offsite housing projects^28,29; respondents without enough experience were excluded. A sample size of 384 was determined using Cochran’s formula to achieve a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error^27,30. Stratified random sampling ensured representation across stakeholder groups. Questionnaires were given in-person and online between March and May 2025, achieving a response rate of 92%. Demographic details, including gender, age, education, years of experience, role, and organization type, were recorded as shown in Table 1.
• iii.Data Analysis: Descriptive statistics summarized the data, including mean (xˉ) and standard deviation (SD) for each indicator²⁶.

1

Table 1.

Respondent Profile.

Demographic Variable	Category/Range	Frequency (n)	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	220	57.3
	Female	164	42.7
Age (years)	20–29	80	20.8
	30–39	150	39.1
	40–49	100	26.0
	50+	54	14.1
Education Level	Diploma/Certificate	70	18.2
	Bachelor’s Degree	220	57.3
	Master’s/Professional	94	24.5
Years of Experience	1–5	100	26.0
	6–10	140	36.5
	11–15	80	20.8
	16+	64	16.7
Stakeholder Role	Engineer	120	31.2
	Architect	90	23.4
	Contractor	100	26.0
	Homeowner	74	19.3
Organization Type	Government	90	23.4
	Private/Consulting	200	52.1
	NGO/Development Partner	94	24.5

where xi​ represents each individual rating and n is the number of respondents.

A weighted Composite Quality Index (CQI) was calculated to obtain an overall quality score using the formula(2):

2

where wj is the assigned weight for indicator j, xˉj is the mean score of indicator j, and m is the number of indicators¹⁰. To assess differences in perceptions across stakeholder roles, a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted using the F-statistic formula:

3

where MS means mean squares. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to reduce the dimensional of the data and extract principal components that explain the variance. The eigenvalues and loading from PCA identified key factors that shape quality perceptions. Correlation coefficients (r) measured relationships between stakeholder roles and indicator scores using Pearson’s formula¹¹:

4

All statistical analyses were conducted using [statistical software, e.g., SPSS, R]. Ethical approval and informed consent were secured before data collection.

Results and discussion

Table 2 presents a summary of stakeholder views on key quality indicators of offsite-constructed housing in Uganda, based on responses from 384 participants. The data includes mean scores, standard deviations, and the percentage of respondents who gave favorable ratings in the top two scale points. Structural integrity and durability both received a mean score of 2.02, with over 60% of respondents rating them positively. Environmental resistance stood out as the strongest aspect, achieving a mean score of 1.88 and nearly 69% favorable perception. Although 25% reported structural defects, the overall results suggest that offsite housing is viewed positively regarding quality and durability.

Table 2.

Stakeholder perceptions of key quality Indicators.

Indicator	Mean	SD	% Favorable Ratings
Structural Integrity	2.02	0.82	62.5%
Environmental Resistance	1.88	0.79	68.8%
Estimated Lifespan	2.13	0.83	63.3%
Durability vs. Traditional	2.02	0.84	61.7%
Structural Defects (Yes)	—	—	25.0%

The CQI of 2.01 combines the four indicators, with weights based on their importance as revealed in Table 3. Structural integrity has the highest weight (0.30), followed by environmental resistance (0.25), which contribute most to the overall quality score. A CQI close to 2 means that offsite housing is generally seen as equal to or better than traditional construction. This composite measure is useful for policymakers and developers. It offers a single quality measure that includes both technical and perceived evaluations, allowing for tracking and improving quality over time.

Table 3.

Weighted composite quality index (CQI).

Quality Indicator	Weight	Mean Score	Weighted Value
Structural Integrity	0.30	2.02	0.606
Environmental Resistance	0.25	1.88	0.470
Estimated Lifespan	0.20	2.13	0.426
Durability vs. Traditional	0.25	2.02	0.505
Composite Index	—	—	2.01

ANOVA in Table 4 examined whether stakeholder roles affected quality perceptions. Only environmental resistance showed a significant difference (F = 4.257, p = 0.0022). This means that engineers, contractors, architects, and homeowners see environmental performance differently. This difference may stem from varying priorities: engineers focus on structural strength, while homeowners may prioritize weather resistance in daily use. Other indicators, like structural integrity, estimated lifespan, and durability, did not show significant differences, indicating a general agreement among roles.

Table 4.

ANOVA of perceived quality across stakeholder Roles.

Indicator	F-Statistic	p-Value	Interpretation
Structural Integrity	0.014	0.9996	No significant difference
Environmental Resistance	4.257	0.0022	Significant variation across roles
Estimated Lifespan	1.800	0.1282	No significant difference
Durability vs. Traditional	2.150	0.0741	Marginal, not statistically significant

PCA in Table 5 shows that four principal components account for most of the variance in stakeholder perceptions. PC1 (28.5%) and PC2 (25.6%) are the leading factors. This implies that several aspects—structural, environmental, and durability-related—together influence quality perceptions rather than just one dominating factor.

Table 5.

Variance explained by principal components (PCA).

Principal Component	Variance Explained
PC1	28.5%
PC2	25.6%
PC3	23.9%
PC4	21.9%

Structural integrity (+ 0.652) and estimated lifespan (+ 0.646) load strongly on PC1, confirming their main role in perceived quality as shown in Table 6. Environmental resistance has a moderate negative loading (–0.354), suggesting that opinions about this indicator vary among stakeholders. This may be due to differences in exposure to harsh weather or professional viewpoints. Durability shows a weak positive loading (+ 0.180), meaning that while it matters, it has less impact on overall perception compared to integrity and lifespan.

Table 6.

PCA loading for quality Indicators.

Quality Indicator	PCA Loading
Structural Integrity	+ 0.652
Environmental Resistance	–0.354
Estimated Lifespan	+ 0.646
Durability vs. Traditional	+ 0.180

Correlation analysis in Table 7 shows a weak but significant link between stakeholder role and environmental resistance (r = 0.1074, p = 0.035). This suggests that professional backgrounds slightly shape how environmental resilience is viewed, pointing to the need for tailored communication and engagement. Other indicators did not show significant correlation, indicating that perceptions of structural integrity and durability are fairly consistent across stakeholders.

Table 7.

Correlation between stakeholder role and quality Indicators.

Indicator	Correlation (r)	p-Value	Interpretation
Structural Integrity	0.0017	0.973	No correlation
Environmental Resistance	0.1074	0.035	Weak positive correlation
Estimated Lifespan	0.0071	0.889	No correlation
Durability vs. Traditional	0.0127	0.805	No correlation

Figure 1 shows the relationship between the physical condition of offsite-constructed housing and perceived structural integrity. Structures are categorized as Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor. The blue bars represent the number of structures in each category, decreasing from 140 in Excellent to 40 in Poor condition. The orange line indicates the structural integrity rate, which also decreases steadily—from 35% in Excellent to 15% in Poor. This pattern confirms a strong connection between overall structural condition and integrity: as condition worsens, the number of well-performing structures declines, and the integrity rate falls. The findings highlight that timely maintenance and consistent quality control are crucial for maintaining the structural reliability of offsite housing.

Fig. 1.

Structural integrity by condition.

Structural defects on quality

Figure 2 looks at how structural defects affect overall housing quality. The horizontal axis shows defect levels (10% to 50%), while the vertical axes represent Quality Rating (%) and Defect Rate (%). The blue line shows that as defect prevalence increases, the quality rating falls—from 60% at 10% defects to 30% at 50%. In contrast, the orange line shows the defect rate rising sharply with higher defect levels, reflecting the negative impact of poor workmanship or material issues. This inverse relationship highlights the importance of defect prevention and regular inspections for maintaining high-quality offsite housing.

Fig. 2.

Impact of structural defect on quality.

Environmental resistance

Figure 3 represents stakeholders’ views on offsite housing performance under environmental stressors, such as rain, humidity, and UV exposure. Nearly 69% of respondents rated environmental resistance as very good or moderate, indicating general confidence in these homes’ ability to deal with climatic challenges. However, a few noted weaknesses—likely due to material selection, assembly practices, or maintenance issues. This figure shows that while offsite housing generally performs well against environmental factors, ongoing monitoring and improved construction standards are essential for ensuring long-term durability.

Fig. 3.

Environmental resistance.

Stakeholder Perceptions of Key Quality Indicators: Stakeholders generally viewed offsite-constructed housing in Uganda positively (Table 2). Environmental resistance had the highest mean score of 1.88, with 69% favorable ratings. Structural integrity and durability both scored 2.02, with over 60% positive perception. About 25% reported structural defects, which is moderate compared to 10–15% in well-regulated UK and Australian contexts^12,30,31, but lower than Ghana’s 30–35% ^29,6,8. Likely causes include inconsistent adherence to standards, cost, material variability, and limited worker skills^1,13,32.

Composite Quality Index: The weighted CQI of 2.01 (Table 3) suggests that offsite housing is seen as comparable or better than traditional methods. Structural integrity (weight 0.30) and environmental resistance (0.25) are the main factors. The CQI gives policymakers and developers a useful tool to track trends, find improvement areas, and support affordable housing programs.

Stakeholder Role Differences: ANOVA (Table 4) shows that only environmental resistance varies significantly across roles (F = 4.257, p = 0.0022), with a weak positive correlation (r = 0.1074, p = 0.035). Other indicators do not show significant differences. This suggests stakeholders have similar views on structural integrity and durability, likely due to awareness campaigns and NHCC initiatives.

PCA Findings: PCA identified four components that explain nearly all variance (Tables 5 and 6). Structural integrity (+ 0.652) and estimated lifespan (+ 0.646) dominate perceptions, while environmental resistance (–0.354) shows mixed opinions. This supports the CQI’s importance in Sub-Saharan Africa, highlighting structural performance and longevity as key quality aspects^33,34.

Structural Condition, Defects, and Environmental Resistance: Figures 1, 2 and 3 show a decline in integrity with worse conditions, an inverse relationship between defects and quality, and overall confidence in environmental resistance (69%). Compared to high-income areas, moderate quality performance highlights gaps in training, regulation, and monitoring. This emphasizes the need for preventive quality control and building capacity.

Practical Implications and Future Research: Recommendations include improving regulatory frameworks, providing targeted training, ensuring continuous monitoring, and communicating specifically to stakeholders. Limitations include reliance on perception-based data and a focus on urban areas. Future research should include long-term CQI tracking and objective performance measures to strengthen evidence for policy and practice.

Conclusions

This study provides a quantitative assessment of stakeholder views on offsite-constructed housing in Uganda, using the Composite Quality Index (CQI) for the first time in this setting. The results show that offsite housing is generally seen as comparable to or better than traditional construction. Structural integrity and estimated lifespan are the main factors influencing perceived quality. Environmental resistance received the highest overall rating at 68.8% favorable, but opinions varied significantly based on stakeholders’ roles. This emphasizes how professional experience and priorities affect quality evaluations. About 25% of respondents noted structural defects, which highlights the need for better quality control and adherence to standards. Principal Component Analysis confirmed that structural measures and longevity are the most significant factors influencing overall quality perceptions. Durability and environmental resistance vary depending on context.

Practical and Theoretical Contributions: This study shows that the CQI framework is applicable in Sub-Saharan Africa. It offers a multi-dimensional tool for combining technical and perceptual quality measures. It informs policymakers, developers, and regulators by pinpointing key areas for intervention, improving stakeholder engagement, and supporting decisions based on evidence in delivering sustainable housing.

Recommendations

Developers and authorities should enforce strict quality control measures during production and assembly. They should also conduct standardized inspections to address reported defects. Targeted training for engineers and contractors can improve technical execution, while communication strategies tailored to different stakeholders can set clear expectations, especially regarding environmental performance. Ongoing monitoring and feedback systems are crucial for maintaining performance, building long-term trust, and encouraging wider acceptance of offsite construction in Uganda.

Limitations and future research

The study relied on perception-based data from urban stakeholders, limiting its general applicability. Future research should include objective performance measures, track CQI over time, and explore rural or flood-prone areas to validate findings and enhance policy relevance.

Author contributions

N.J was involved in conceptualization, collecting, analyzing data and reviewing literature articles; K. D was involved in supervision, conceptualization, reviewing, research gap identification and analysis; N.E was involved in supervision, deep analysis of data, review articles.

Funding

The author did not receive any funding from public or private organization(s) for the submitted work.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Compliance with ethical standards

This study was conducted in accordance with ethical standards and guidelines.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Research ethics committee (REC) of Kampala International University Western Campus, Bushenyi district, Uganda, approved this study and Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

Informed consent was obtained from all participants.