Research · ESG & Construction

Does Modular Construction Actually Improve Air Quality?

Modular construction is more sustainable than traditional building methods — but when you zoom out to the city scale, the environmental benefit is more limited than people often assume.

Published paper: Riqi Zhang, Yishuang Xu — "The Air Quality Impact Evaluation of Modular Construction Practices in Hong Kong and Singapore," Sustainability, 2022, 14(2), 1016.
Read the full paper →

A lot of construction sustainability research focuses on the building level — is this individual project greener than a traditional one? That is important, but not enough. This paper asks a bigger question: does modular construction actually improve urban air quality at the city scale?

The study uses Difference-in-Difference (DID) and OLS methods to evaluate the impact of modular construction policies in Hong Kong and Singapore on five air pollution indicators: greenhouse gases, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulphur dioxide.

What the research found

The results are encouraging but realistic. Modular construction is more sustainable than conventional building methods, but its overall effect on citywide air pollution is still limited.

The modular construction policies had a positive effect on sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions in both cities, and a negative effect on nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10) emissions. Meanwhile, greenhouse gases (GHG) and ozone (O3) varied between the two cities.

In Hong Kong specifically, the policy had a statistically significant impact on reducing PM10 concentration — a meaningful result for a dense urban environment where construction dust is a major air quality concern.

Why the impact is limited

A good building method does not automatically create a major citywide environmental improvement unless adoption is broad enough. Modular construction policies have not yet been applied at sufficient scale, and construction projects take years to complete. Within the first few years of a new policy, only a small number of modular projects are finished — not enough to shift citywide air quality significantly.

Five indicators, not one

One of the strengths of this study is that it examines five different pollution measures rather than relying on a single summary number:

Urban pollution is multi-dimensional, and different policies affect different pollutants in different ways. This is why the paper is valuable — it avoids overselling modular construction and instead shows where it helps and where the effect is still small.

Why Hong Kong and Singapore are useful cases

Hong Kong and Singapore are both dense, highly urbanised environments where construction policy matters a great deal. They have different policy approaches but similar pressures around land use, density, and environmental performance, making them ideal for studying the real-world impact of modular construction.

For planners and policymakers, this is a useful lesson: the environmental value of modular construction cannot be judged only by design efficiency. It has to be evaluated in the context of adoption, regulation, and citywide conditions.

Who should pay attention

AudienceWhat this means for you
PolicymakersModular construction policies need broader adoption and stronger incentives before they can deliver measurable citywide air quality improvements
DevelopersModular methods are genuinely greener at the project level — but don't overclaim the citywide environmental benefit in marketing or ESG reporting
ESG analystsAssess modular construction as part of a broader sustainability system, not a standalone solution — the scale of adoption matters as much as the method
Urban plannersIntegrate modular construction with wider urban sustainability strategy for maximum impact — it works best as one lever among many

The bigger picture

Modular construction is promising, but it should not be treated as a magic bullet. It can improve sustainability. It can support cleaner construction practices. But when we zoom out to the city scale, the environmental benefit is more limited than people often assume.

That does not make it unimportant — it just means we need more realistic expectations. If we want modular construction to have a larger impact, we probably need broader policy adoption, stronger incentives, and integration with wider urban sustainability strategy.

Sustainable construction is important, but it works best when it is part of a broader system of change. That is the real lesson here.

Explore more on sustainability and real estate

Sherry Xu's research and books cover sustainability, AI, and investment strategy in the built environment.

Frequently asked questions

Does modular construction improve air quality?
Modular construction can affect air quality, but the citywide impact is limited. Research comparing Hong Kong and Singapore found that modular construction policies had a positive effect on SO2 emissions in both cities, a negative effect on NO2 and PM10, but GHG and ozone results varied between the two cities.
Why is modular construction more sustainable than traditional building?
Modular construction prefabricates building units in factories, reducing on-site construction activity. This cuts construction waste by up to 70%, reduces dust and particulate emissions by 30–60%, and can lower CO2 emissions by up to 30% compared to traditional methods.
Why is the air quality impact of modular construction limited at the city scale?
The impact is limited because modular construction policies have not yet been adopted widely enough to create a scale effect. Construction projects take years to complete, and within the first few years of a new policy, only a small number of modular projects are finished — not enough to shift citywide air quality significantly.
What would make modular construction have a larger environmental impact?
Broader policy adoption, stronger incentives for developers, and integration with wider urban sustainability strategies would amplify the impact. The environmental benefit of modular construction depends on scale — a good method only creates major citywide improvement when adoption is broad enough.