A Critical Review of African Green Building Research (2022) 19p (Mushi Et Al.)

Building Research & Information
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbri20
A critical review of African green building research
Frank Victor Mushi, Huba Nguluma & Jacob Kihila
To cite this article: Frank Victor Mushi, Huba Nguluma & Jacob Kihila (2022) A critical review
of African green building research, Building Research & Information, 50:6, 610-627, DOI:
10.1080/09613218.2021.2015276
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2021.2015276
View supplementary material
Published online: 02 Feb 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 415
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbri20
BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION
2022, VOL. 50, NO. 6, 610–627
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2021.2015276
A critical review of African green building research

Frank Victor Mushia, Huba Ngulumab and Jacob Kihilab
a
Civil Engineering Department, School of Architecture, Construction Economics and Management, Ardhi University, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania;
b
Institute of Human Settlement Studies, Ardhi University, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

A key component of green building diffusion is green building research. Globally, sustainable and Received 4 June 2021
green building research is advancing. However, there exists scanty research output on green Accepted 2 December 2021
building diffusion at the regional level. This paper presents a critical review of the existing body
KEYWORDS
of knowledge on green building research, focusing on the African context. The major areas Green building;
covered include green building research study trends, common topics and cross-country sustainability; energy; Africa;
contributions to the body of knowledge. The study highlights the social aspects and economic research review
issues of green building adoption and implementation and tailored green building rating tools.
The study deployed a triple bottom line outlay in presenting the findings derived from extant
research. In particular, the study uncovered that the coverage of African green building research
is similar to that at the global level. Moreover, although social and economic factors influencing
green buildings’ implementation were noted, environment-oriented research remained
dominant. The study recommends that forthcoming scholars need to advance research
knowledge on the identification of cost–benefit evidence of adopting green buildings,
application of information communication technology in green building research and
theoretical insights underpinning green building diffusion.
Introduction
(Poon et al., 2004). Since the year 2000, the millennium
The construction industry contributes a lot to green- development goals have played a significant role in
house gas emissions. Construction of buildings accounts igniting the sustainability movement, particularly in
for 40% of the total natural resource consumption (EIA, emerging economies. The campaign is currently
2020). The evolution and expansion of construction endorsed by the sustainable development goals
technologies have led to an exponential rise in building (SDGs). The SDGs take a global approach to sustainabil-
stock worldwide, depleting further the natural resources ity by tying developing and developed economies
(IEA & UNEP, 2019). These concerns have pushed for together to accomplish measurable and time-bound
the movement towards sustainable and resource- goals (Waheed, 2010). The construction sector’s
efficient buildings, including the conception of green research activities hugely support the sustainability
buildings (Yudelson & Fedrizzi, 2009). The whole movement in green building implementation (Du Ples-
green building construction process seeks to create sis, 2005; Grobler & Singh, 1999). These researches have
environmentally friendly and resource-efficient struc- influenced the global implementation of green build-
tures throughout their life cycle (Kats, 2003). The ings. However, the research trend in the green building
characteristics of green buildings include sensible facet is not similar worldwide as most of the studies
water and energy usage, provision of a healthy indoor align with developed economies than developing
environment for occupants and application of non- counterparts (Li et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2019). The
toxic and renewable building materials (Kibert, 2018). research in the developing economies is also scant due
The sustainability movement in the construction to the low implementation of green building projects
industry, which includes advocacy for reuse of stock (Darko & Chan, 2016). Although some developing
built assets, reducing waste in construction sites, prefer- economies have implemented green buildings to a
ence for recycled construction materials and enhancing more significant extent than others, there is still a lack
comfort and health built environment, is inherently an of research base knowledge on green building (Darko
indicator of sustainable/green construction and design et al., 2019).
CONTACT Frank Victor Mushi [email protected]

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2021.2015276
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION 611
Scholars have undertaken several reviews on the considerations (triple bottom line conceptualization)
aspect of green building literature. For example, in the underrepresented African region.
Darko et al. (2019) reviewed 6867 green building
research records from the Scopus database. They
Defining green building
found a limited number of green building research
from developing countries but noted extensive green The World Commission on Environment and Develop-
building literature focusing on North America, Europe ment posits that structures designed to be resource-
and Asia (Darko et al., 2019). The study indicated that efficient and environmentally sustainable meet the cri-
green building research collaboration among insti- teria of green buildings (Steinemann et al., 2017). The
tutions in the developing region was lacking (Darko concept of green building entails the realization that the
et al., 2019). Similar bibliometric reviews examining building construction process has an inherent impact
green building research records in Web of Science on the environment and society; thus, ‘green building is
core collection data from 2000 to 2018 revealed that an effort to amplify the positive and mitigate the negative
developing countries have had limited participation in impacts throughout the entire life cycle of a building’
green building research, while Europe and the United (Kriss, 2014). The World Green Building Council
States dominated the citation network (Li et al., 2021; defines green building as ‘a building that, in its design,
Zhao et al., 2019). construction or operation, reduces or eliminates negative
In green building research, a considerable number of impacts, and can create positive impacts, on our climate
specific topic reviews has been identified. For instance, and natural environment. Green buildings preserve pre-
Chan et al. (2017) examined the barriers to green build- cious natural resources and improve our quality of life’
ing adoption and analysed the economics of green (World Green Building Council, 2014).
building implementation. Conversely, Doan et al. Notable definitions by Kibert (2018), Yudelson and
(2017) embarked on green building certification pro- Fedrizzi (2009) and Kubba (2016) posit that green
grammes. Geng et al. (2019) reviewed post-occupancy building design, construction, use and demolition take
green building research. Similarly, green building incen- into account (i) efficient utilization of energy, water
tives were reviewed by Olubunmi et al. (2016). Despite and other resources; (ii) emphasis on the use of renew-
the prevalence of a wealth of literature on green building able resources; (iii) promotes recycling, reuse and pol-
research, information on specific cases in developing lution reduction; (iv) keeps the occupants healthy and
economies remains scarce. Zhang et al. (2019) pointed productive and (v) promotes the use of renewable and
out that there is no agreement on the gaps and current non-renewable resources. The primary ideas for green
understanding of green buildings in developing econ- building implementation are resource usage (i.e. water
omies. In view of Darko, Chan, Yang, et al. (2018), and energy), indoor climate quality (i.e. air quality,
research knowledge on green building is dispersed and occupant health), construction material choice and sen-
dominated by a few economies such as South Africa, sible construction site and building allocation.
Nigeria, Ghana and Egypt. There are currently no
known systematic reviews specific to green building
Triple bottom line and green buildings in the
research in the region. Webster and Watson (2002)
African context
argue that systematic scoping and literature review is
the basis for knowledge development and theoretical Broadly spoken, sustainable building takes into account
conceptualization. three tiers of human development, namely, social,
Therefore, this study aimed to conduct a critical environmental and economic. For possible realization,
review of African green building studies with a view each aspect should therefore be considered at its utmost
to highlighting the current and future analytical needs. importance. For example, the adoption of green build-
The study establishes an important link between green ing in developing economies should be considered in
building research topics and serves as a benchmark for the light of the existing cultural and social issues rather
construction experts and scholars interested in advan- than directly replicating the concept. This principle is
cing sustainable buildings in the built environment. missing in the conceptualization of green building in
Also, although previous reviews have built up a case the African context. Although few studies have
for green building research globally, many are based approached the idea inclusively focusing on the
on content exploration rather than context comparison. human behaviour, cultural setting, technology and
However, this review takes a contextual approach to economic level, most of the studies describe green build-
explore sustainable/green building research that incor- ing from an environmental-based approach. Du Plessis
porates economic, environmental and social and Cole (2011) emphasize the consideration of socio-
612 F. V. MUSHI ET AL.
cultural and contextual factors in defining green build- abstract and ‘*’ presents a fuzzy search. A keyword
ings. The triple bottom line thinking in sustainable or string was further modified by substituting the term
green building concepts ensures that the environmental ‘Africa’ with the name of the specific country to ensure
issues are resolved, and the process does not compro- that the review included pertinent studies (Kolk & Riv-
mise society’s social or economic prospects. However, era-Santos, 2018; Miranda et al., 2021; Wake, 2021). For
these could be somewhat difficult in the context of the full details of the search strategy and keyword string, see
developing region as compared to developed counter- Appendix in the supplemental data online.
parts. Markelj et al. (2014) posit that building construc- The study’s initial search query yielded 294 and 170
tion sustainability environmental considerations articles in WoS and Scopus, respectively. Furthermore,
include waste minimization, the use of renewable four steps were undertaken to sort out the articles for
energy, material recycling and water conservation. inclusion and exclusion criteria (Figure 1): Step 1: 140
Thermal comfort, indoor comfort and ventilation and articles overlapping between WoS and Scopus were
user-oriented design are all examples of social aspects removed from the records. Step 2: The articles’ titles
(Markelj et al., 2014). Economic sustainability refers to and abstracts were manually scanned. The articles not
construction, operation, maintenance and marketability applicable to the African context were removed, reducing
costs (Markelj et al., 2014). This review has revisited the records to 264. Step 3: The collected papers were
scholars’ inclusion of social and economic parameters reviewed on the relevance of green or sustainable build-
in comparison to environmental components. ing research. This was done due to the widespread use
of the terms ‘green building’ and ‘sustainable building’
in various general researches, primarily found in the
Methods
articles’ abstract. Thus, 76 articles were removed. Step
The search was conducted through the Web of Science 4: Since the review intended to build an understanding
(WoS) core collection and Scopus databases. WoS and of green or sustainable building research related to adop-
Scopus are two globally renowned academic databases tion, environmental issues, barriers, construction, econ-
containing peer-reviewed articles in architecture, engin- omics and social aspects, the papers were scanned for
eering, construction, social sciences and humanities their relevance to the study objectives. At this step, review
(Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016; Zhu & Liu, 2020). articles were removed. Consequently, 78 articles were
Additionally, recent reviews of sustainable construction removed from the records, while 110 studies were ident-
and green building research have lauded the viability of ified as potentially relevant for further analysis. Addition-
the content indexed in WoS and Scopus (Chen et al., ally, full texts of selected publications were downloaded.
2021; Shi & Liu, 2019; Wu et al., 2021). Although Google Preliminary screening was conducted further to deter-
Scholar has the most content, it has been criticized for mine their relevance to the study’s purpose. Sixteen
its inability to provide reliable research information, (16) articles were additionally excluded from the records,
whereas Scopus and WoS guarantee peer-reviewed lit- and two (2) articles’ full text was not available. Further-
erature (Falagas et al., 2008). more, the reference lists of selected articles were scanned
Although green building studies started emerging in to search for other relevant studies that were missed in
the 21st century, they can be traced back to the mid- the search due to the absence of search terms in their
1990s (Li et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2019); therefore, this titles/abstract/keywords (Chen et al., 2021; Lazar & Chit-
review did not consider any date range in the article hra, 2020). Thus, the initial keyword search resulted in 92
search. The study was also limited to peer-reviewed articles and further articles’ reference search resulted in 6
research articles from journals based on the rationale studies, finally making a total of 98 studies.
that they represent the empirical findings and have The thematic analysis of research topics was used in
been subjected to rigorous enquiry. Only articles avail- this review to define and compare the main findings
able in the English language were included in this from the research articles. Thematic analysis is a method
review. The study’s search was undertaken in two for finding, analysing, organizing, describing and report-
phases. The first search began in early August 2021, ing the themes emerging from a data set (Nowell et al.,
and the second ended in mid-November 2021. The 2017). It is an effective method for inspecting the perspec-
study applied the following keyword string to retrieve tives of various research participants, identifying com-
research articles: (‘green building*’) or (‘sustainable monalities and differences, and generating unexpected
building*’) or (‘eco building*’) or (‘environmental* insights (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The study also utilized
friendly building*’) or (‘high performance building*’) the themes proposed by previous reviews (Ravasio et al.,
or (‘energy efficient building*’) and (‘Africa’). The 2020; Shi & Liu, 2019; Zuo & Zhao, 2014) on sustainable
search was limited to article’s keywords, title and building topics to improve the discussion pattern.
Figure 1 . Search strategy and selection process.
Results such growth are possibly due to the campaign for green
building assessment tools (Hoffman et al., 2020). Other
This section presents the results from the systematic
factors are the nations’ interest in attaining SDGs, policy
articles search. The study has demonstrated the findings
changes due to influences of developed economies and
regarding publication trends, countries’ contributions
adoption of sustainable construction technologies
and major research themes.
(Komolafe & Oyewole, 2018). Despite such growth, the
country’s contribution is not equally distributed across
Research publication trend and countries’ the continent (Table 1). Countries such as South Africa,
contribution Nigeria, Egypt and Ghana dominate the research output.
Based on Figure 2, the trend of green building research in

the African context is growing and possibly expected to
Major research themes
grow in the coming years. And when the current results
are compared with previous reviews (Khan et al., 2019; Between 2000 and 2021, the number of publications on
Shi & Liu, 2019; Zhao et al., 2019), it is noted that the green buildings in Africa increased significantly. A criti-
interest in green building research in the region began cal review of the existing body of knowledge revealed a
as early as the late 1990s, although the rapid growth number of research themes such as adoption,
began in the 21st century. The major contributors for implementation, management and assessment of green
Figure 2 . African-based green building research trend from 1990 to 2021.
and sustainable buildings, which indicates the broad However, the concept of green building economics is
research interest in the region. Correspondingly, green lacking in developing economies due to differences in
building research can be approached from a triple bot- legislations, policies and economic levels. Scholars in
tom line discussion in which economic, environmental the African region have investigated different economic
and social aspects are discussed as central themes and issues relating to green buildings from developers and
specific research context as sub-themes. Based on the owners to occupants’ perspectives using practical and
thinking, the themes identified in this review include theoretical approaches. For instance, Windapo (2014)
economics of green buildings; social, cultural and noted that rising energy costs enticed developers to go
human aspects; green building policy and incentives; green, despite the lack of evidence of actual cost savings
green building assessment and rating systems; green from green building investments. A survey conducted
and sustainable building education; and sustainable by Komolafe and Oyewole (2018) revealed that stake-
building materials research. The study also presented holders had a belief that green buildings were more
emerging concepts in sustainable and green building costly to build and operate. However, Coetzee and
implementation (i.e. net-zero energy buildings and Brent (2015) study on cost data showed that green
smart building technology). These common themes building designs were less than half of the perceived
are further discussed in detail in the following section. cost premium. Similarly, Ekung et al. (2021) and
Opoku et al. (2019) survey revealed that misperceptions
Discussion about higher costs of green building investments stem
from a lack of knowledge and evidence. The lack of
Economics of green buildings empirical data on green building investment costs has
Green buildings are considered economical and finan- a detrimental effect on developers/owners’ decisions.
cially profitable in developed economies (Kats, 2013). While the need for energy conservation is evident,
many stakeholders are unaware of the role of green
Table 1 . Distribution of articles across countries. buildings in improving energy efficiency (Buys & Hur-
Country Number of articles bissoon, 2011; Darko, Chan, Gyamfi, et al., 2017). Simi-
Nigeria 25 larly, Joachim et al. (2017) found that cost saving was a
Ghana 24 strong factor for green preference among developers.
South Africa 22
Egypt 14 Adinyira et al. (2018) identified reducing energy costs
Algeria 2 and consumption and increasing energy efficiency as
Morocco 2
Cameroon 2 critical energy efficiency stakeholder requirements for
Namibia 2 Ghanaian housing. Similarly, Darko, Chan, Owusu,
Other countries 5
et al. (2018) asserted that water and energy efficiency
technologies were of the utmost importance in sustain- well as users’ and occupants’ behaviour. With the
able housing design. While the need for sustainable/ increasing number of green buildings, such proofing is
green design is evident, the information required to vali- increasingly possible.
date the concept is lacking. Moreover, little is known about how green building
Scholars have identified critical issues pertaining to developers and buyers make green building decisions.
green/sustainable building designs financing. The For example, according to Cohen et al. (2019) and
findings show divergence on a global scale perspective. Zhang et al. (2018), green building tenants and buyers
The state is unsurprising because the challenges faced are motivated to rent or purchase when economic
in the construction industry in developing economies returns are possible. Such information is vital in Africa’s
differ from those in developed economies. For instance, developing economies since it can be a counter-argu-
Agyekum, Opoku, et al. (2020) posit that the lack of a ment to the notion that eco-friendly designs are costly.
trustworthy information database impedes building Studies comparing existing conventional and green
contractors to seek green building project’ contracts. buildings to assess the cost premium for green features
Due to the complexities of the construction industry, are also lacking.
understanding the project’s costs is critical to investing
or procuring. As Agyekum, Goodier, et al. (2021) noted,
Social, cultural and human aspects
expected high returns from green buildings influenced
developers and contractors to undertake sustainable Green building campaigns in Africa began in the late
building projects. Given that most green building 1990s to synthesize sustainable concepts in the real
materials and technologies are imported, their initial estate sector. For example, Grobler and Singh (1999)
costs tend to be higher. As a result, higher initial invest- introduced a voluntary programme to promote green
ment costs have been linked with a lag in green building commercial buildings in South Africa. However, the
adoption. For instance, Chan et al. (2018) identified prevalence of cultural and social differences between
higher costs of green building technologies and a lack the developed and developing economies hampered
of financing schemes as the major barriers to green these programmes (Du Plessis, 2005). With the intro-
building technology adoption. These studies identify duction of SDGs, developing economies have actively
the economic constraints for green building practices embraced change by making sustainability-oriented
but lack the practical implications from existing pro- policy and legislative decisions.
jects/buildings. Green building projects cost data In developed economies, the social sustainability of
could be used as evidence to correct misconceptions buildings refers to the health, safety, comfort, indoor
about their higher construction and operating costs. environment and productivity. Though essentially
Some findings showed that the need for sustainable valid, they do not reflect the real concerns of developing
building features outweighed the higher initial costs. countries, particularly Africa. The region’s green build-
Based on a case study by Masia et al. (2020), developers ing adoption challenges are primarily social. Chan et al.
were motivated by anticipated long-term operational (2018) and Darko, Chan, Yang, et al. (2018) noted that
cost savings and unconcerned about initial higher awareness of green and sustainable practices inhibit
costs. Conversely, Oyewole et al. (2019) found out that green building diffusion in the real estate industry.
developers preferred low-cost green features over They also acknowledged that cultural barriers
high-cost green features, such as building orientation influenced government-related barriers. Their research
for cross ventilation over energy-efficient installations. found a more significant positive impact on company
Simpeh and Smallwood (2020) used a survey to research level than on governments (Chan et al., 2018). Incorpor-
on the economic and non-economic factors influencing ating environmental improvement into a firm’s strategy
green building adoption. Their study disclosed that can result in a competitive advantage (Ngowi, 2001).
financial benefits were the most powerful predictors of Acceptance of change is one of the significant impe-
potential clients or stakeholders decision to adopt diments to green building diffusion. For instance, Agye-
green buildings in South Africa (Simpeh & Smallwood, kum et al. (2019) and Addy et al. (2014) noted the high
2020). Few studies have quantified the economic factors level of conservativeness among construction pro-
influencing green building adoption. The body of fessionals in proposing sustainable design solutions.
knowledge lacks the cost–benefit analysis (CBA) and Similarly, low demand for green buildings in Ghana
the whole life cycle costing (LCC) of the existing real has been attributed to an uninformed construction mar-
cases. A CBA for green building investments will ket (Guribie et al., 2021). Although construction pro-
benefit from these findings. In addition, these findings fessionals were aware of the benefits of sustainable
may help improving the concept of building design as decisions, their practice culture did not support green
choices (Agyekum et al., 2019; Ampratwum et al., 2019; 2020). Other surveys in Ghana (Agyekum et al., 2019),
Kongela, 2021). Determining the sustainability of build- Nigeria (Ekung et al., 2021), Libya (Awaili et al., 2020)
ings has also been difficult because stakeholders’ percep- and South Africa (Windapo, 2014) reported that fewer
tions vary. The point is aptly elucidated by Aghimien government legislations on sustainability in construc-
et al. (2018) who noted a lack of balance in considering tion projects hampered green building efforts. Agye-
social sustainability (i.e. heritage conservation, indoor kum, Adinyira, et al. (2020) asserted that the
environmental quality) and environmental sustainabil- government’s commitment to green building initiatives
ity (i.e. reuse, recycling and renewable energy) in the and policies influenced green certification adoption.
design and construction of educational buildings in Simpeh et al. (2021) also discovered a lack of commit-
Nigeria. Thus, stakeholders lack a clear definition of sus- ment to sustainable design among South African con-
tainable buildings. struction professionals. Investors rely on expert
From the user experience, Komolafe and Oyewole advice, and without construction professionals willing
(2018) found that occupants were unaware of the to make rational decisions, the industry’s prospects for
benefits of green buildings, limiting future green sustainability growth are dim.
decisions and rental choices. Their study also revealed Agyekum, Hammond, et al. (2021) have remarked
that in developing economies, green buildings are per- that awareness of green features has increased, and
ceived as an environmental focus concept costing occupants can now better understand and evaluate
more to build and operate (Komolafe & Oyewole, their preferences, for example, regarding indoor
2018). This misconception has led to the underrating environmental quality. Despite its slow growth, the
of the choices for certifying new building projects. In study shows that going green is a realistic prospect
a similar note, Oyewole and Komolafe (2018) found (Agyekum, Hammond, et al., 2021). An earlier study
out that conventional office building users seeking by Thatcher and Milner (2016) underscored the
green features prioritized occupant comfort over importance of synthesizing green concepts for occu-
environmental benefits. However, the study found that pants. Yahuza and Erçin (2020) also discovered that
office building owners have a low preference for green 80% of users of Building Research Establishment’s
features (Oyewole & Komolafe, 2018). Environmental Assessment Methods (BREEAM) and
Oyewole et al. (2021) noted a strong link between Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
user perception and willingness to adopt sustainable (LEED)-certified quarters expressed satisfaction with
building features. However, other stakeholders such as green features. The study found that users and occu-
contractors and investors rarely consider users’ percep- pants are increasingly interested in going green
tions (Komolafe et al., 2020). The interests of the build- (Yahuza & Erçin, 2020). According to Aigbavboa and
ing’s designs are primarily in the decisions of investors Thwala (2019), there is a correlation between the occu-
and contractors. Consequently, Oyewole et al. (2021) pant productivity and green buildings’ indoor environ-
noted that the existing variation in the stakeholders’ mental quality features. Similarly, Eromobor et al.
perception and interest in sustainable features could (2020) established an empirical relationship between
impact their future projects decisions. For example, the indoor environment (i.e. humidity, indoor temp-
they discovered that while users value indoor comfort erature, acoustics, lighting and ventilation) and energy
in sustainable buildings, for investors, it was not a sus- use in sustainable buildings. Few studies have reported
tainable priority (Oyewole et al., 2021). Thus, the con- in-depth findings regarding the occupants’ physical
cern is indeed the priorities of property investors/ well-being and health in sustainable buildings
developers who often finance construction projects. (Thatcher & Milner, 2012, 2014).
Windapo (2014) noted that green decisions rely more Overall, there have been few theoretical perspectives
on the economic factors (investors or property develo- on the diffusion of green buildings in the region. Simpeh
pers’ demands) than ecological factors. Therefore, it and Smallwood (2020), for example, used the unified
seems imperative to balance sustainable buildings’ theory of acceptance and the use of technology to
environmental and social goals with stakeholders’ study and forecast green building adoption patterns.
priorities. Darko, Chan, Ameyaw, et al. (2017) investigated the fac-
A survey of Ghanaian construction experts revealed tors influencing the adoption of green building technol-
that sustainability was not a requirement for building ogies in Ghana using diffusion of innovation theory.
design (Asare et al., 2020). They cited a lack of sustain- Olanipekun et al. (2018) advanced the self-determi-
able design education and awareness of environmental nation theory as a framework for articulating the level
impact assessment regulations as the reasons for the of motivation for green building adoption. Nonetheless,
exclusion of sustainable building design (Asare et al., scholars have largely ignored application of theoretical
insights’ in widening a better understanding of the codes lacked the technical effectiveness for further
implementation of green building practices. adoption (Atanda & Olukoya, 2019). The current legis-
The social challenges associated with green building lation supports green features such as energy efficiency,
adoption are vast and mainly related to lack of infor- but its implementation requires significant policy
mation and government systems that rarely support sus- changes to meet the local needs for sustainable
tainable decisions. Consistent to the argument, Simpeh construction.
et al. (2021) identified regulatory and behavioural bar- Inadequate financial incentives have been identified
riers as the major roadblocks to adoption of green build- as a barrier to green building diffusion. Financial incen-
ing. Given that financial and technological factors are tives are monetary, implying that they result in financial
considered, there is a need to change perspectives and gain for beneficiaries (Taylor, 2011). The government
systems. As Darko and Chan (2018) and Asman et al. provides green building incentives in developed econ-
(2019) pointed out, the willingness to go green is driven omies through tax breaks and reduced development
by environmental benefits awareness, not just energy application fees (Kubba, 2016). In developing countries,
conservation or indoor comfort. the practice is not comparable due to the lack of explicit
financial incentives for green building. Since most con-
struction projects require loans, factors such as the lack
Green building policy and incentives
of tax incentives on materials purchases discourage
The government’s role in promoting green building is investors from investing in green building projects
critical. The policies and incentives aimed to promoting (Agyekum, Opoku, et al., 2020; Ebekozien, Ikuabe,
green building are crucial factors for enhancing sustain- et al., 2021). Since green features have a higher initial
able construction in the building industry (Olubunmi cost, investors tend to choose less expensive conven-
et al., 2016; Owusu-Manu et al., 2020). The government tional alternatives. Stakeholder surveys by Addy et al.
incentives could persuade real estate investors and (2020) and Masia et al. (2020) found that investors
financiers to green projects (Ebekozien, Ayo-Odifiri, were willing to go green when incentives can offset lend-
et al., 2021; Fan & Hui, 2020). Windapo and Goulding ing costs. There are apparent policy interventions. How-
(2015) and Mousa (2015) identified a gap between ever, higher initial costs for green construction projects
green building practices and legislation requirements, scare away potential investors. Tax incentives for green
emphasizing the need to ensure site practices meet construction investment should reassure investors, and
green building legislation requirements. Moreover, governments typically have ultimate control over such
they found that lack of enforcement makes stakeholders policy issues in developing economies. In view of
(i.e. contractors and construction professionals) reluc- Masia et al. (2020), the national policies and legislation
tant to implement green requirements (Windapo & influence the benefits of green buildings.
Goulding, 2015). Komolafe et al. (2016) suggested that
green building success requires enforcing government
Green building assessment and rating systems
policies that address sustainability in the construction
industry. Moreover, Darko, Chan, Gyamfi, et al. Green building’ assessment tools such as LEED based on
(2017) asserted that national green building standards the United States and BRE Environmental Assessment
have a significant impact on green building technology Method from the United Kingdom have been adopted
deployment. Similarly, Windapo et al. (2021) contended in Africa. Countries have also developed in-country rat-
that in the absence of major regulatory interventions to ing tools by adapting existing tools to local contexts
promote sustainability in the building sector, conven- (social, economic, geographic and climatic conditions).
tional technologies would outperform sustainable build- Green pyramid rating system (GPRS) in Egypt and
ing technologies in terms of accessibility and initial cost. green star SA in South Africa are examples of the local
Proposing a policy pathway for green building codes rating tools. Countries have also established local
in Egypt, Bampou (2017) suggested enhancing environ- green building councils to coordinate green building
mental concerns by mandating the energy efficiency campaigns (World Green Building Council, 2019).
building code. Their research shows that improving These tools have similar structures in that they address
energy efficiency policy in the building sector requires the buildings’ social, economic and environmental resi-
technical and economic improvements from planning liency (Ammar, 2012). While some countries have
to execution (Bampou, 2017). Atanda and Olukoya modified sustainability credits to reflect local con-
(2019) suggested the implementation and adaptation ditions, others have relied on credits from adopted
of the LEED evaluation system on Nigerian national tools. Adoption of these tools without customization
building codes. The study observed that the building has harmed social and economic sustainability
measures. Endeavouring to improve the Egyptian (Agyekum, Hammond, et al., 2021; Koranteng et al.,
GPRS, Abdel Aleem et al. (2015) compared rating cred- 2021; Masia et al., 2020; Windapo, 2014). While the
its from other rating tools (such as BREEAM and tool is based on the Australian green star, the rating
LEED). They discovered that the local rating tool credits have been modified to address the local social
required energy policy change to support mandatory and economic conditions. Hoffman et al. (2020) ana-
energy credits, such as fundamental refrigerant manage- lysed green star SA application trends and found a pat-
ment and building energy system commissioning tern of earned credits. Most certified buildings in the
(Abdel Aleem et al., 2015). The study also noted that survey received less credit for innovation, ecology and
practical implementation of GPRS certificates necessi- materials but more for energy and water features
tated the development of new energy efficiency codes (Hoffman et al., 2020). Hoffman et al. (2020) also advo-
in buildings, the promotion of green construction to cated for social changes to allow for more innovative
engineers, contractors and owners, and the encourage- architectural designs. There is a general lack of inno-
ment of sustainability concepts such as recycling in vation in designing green buildings (Chan et al., 2018;
the construction industry (Abdel Aleem et al., 2015). Du Plessis, 2005). Owoha et al. (2021) study on deter-
Similarly, Daoud et al. (2020) posited that while most mining the most appropriate tool for categorizing
GPRS credits were similar to BREEAM and LEED, green building features noted that water and energy fea-
they lacked the local context required for Egypt. The tures were prioritized over design features.
study suggested adding credits for construction waste Olawumi et al. (2020) study developed the building
management, building and material reuse, and material sustainability assessment method (BSAM), a green
efficiency in the materials and resources category building rating system tailored to the specific needs of
(Daoud et al., 2020). developing countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. While
Hazem et al. (2020) proposed a tailored LEED rating developing sustainability criteria, they concluded that
system for existing building renovations and future ret- previous rating tools prioritized environmental sustain-
rofits. To maintain occupant comfort during renova- ability at the expense of social and economic parameters
tions, the study recommended reducing energy (Olawumi et al., 2020). While some similarities existed,
consumption, using passive energy for heating and cool- BSAM incorporates primary standards for the local con-
ing, and modifying ventilation elements (Hazem et al., text. Furthermore, Olawumi and Chan (2020) devel-
2020). A similar study in South Africa recommended oped a building sustainability evaluation index based
an optimization model for retrofits, noting that owners on a BSAM scheme. They argued that sustainable con-
and builders can select their certification requirements struction practises addressed many social and economic
using LEED credits (Michael et al., 2017). Fan and Xia sustainability criteria not addressed by existing rating
(2018) proposed a cost-effective building retrofit systems like LEED and BREEAM (Olawumi & Chan,
model to obtain a South African energy performance 2020). This consideration can benefit other regions
certificate. Although the model only considered energy with similar social and economic characteristics. Aloth-
parameters, it addresses the local challenges (Fan & man et al. (2021) suggested that integrating Building
Xia, 2018). Ismaeel (2019) proposed establishing Information Modeling (BIM) and sustainable building
regional logistics and national public policy such as assessment tools can help and influence design
building energy standards and codes to promote green decisions.
certification in the Middle East and North Africa Scholars have developed cloud-based assessments of
(MENA). The study also recommended the formation a building’s sustainability performance. Asare et al.
of local green building councils and rating systems (2020) proposed a BIM framework with a life cycle
that could benefit the local stakeholders (Ismaeel, assessment for sustainable building design. The study
2019). ElSorady and Rizk (2020) and Abdel-Aal et al. found that achieving sustainable building designs on a
(2018) contend the practicality of historic building cer- practical level requires providing sustainable design
tification by emphasizing their inherent sustainability. education and training, requiring sustainable decisions
They suggest adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of his- in environmental impact assessments, and inspiring
toric structures to reduce energy demand and ensure construction professionals to think sustainably (Asare
future use (Abdel-Aal et al., 2018; ElSorady & Rizk, et al., 2020). Similarly, Olawumi and Chan (2021a) cre-
2020). This approach could address the local challenges ated a green-BIM assessment framework to assess sus-
associated with obtaining sustainability certification for tainability of buildings. The study concluded that
conservation architecture. educating and training construction professionals on
Green star SA is a notable rating system developed in sustainable building designs is critical (Olawumi &
South Africa and adopted in other African countries Chan, 2021a). Assad et al. (2015) developed an
optimization model based on basic construction over timber in the assessed environmental impact cat-
elements and showed that green designs could achieve egories) (Crafford et al., 2017). Similarly, Ouhaibi
a life cycle and annual energy savings. et al. (2020) evaluated the sustainability of roof insulat-
ing materials (rock wool and expanded polystyrene)
using a LCC analysis economic model. Their study
Green and sustainable building education
found that manufacturing rock wool as a sustainable
Construction sustainability literacy is regarded as a key building material was less harmful to the environment
to empowering construction professionals to commit to than polystyrene (Ouhaibi et al., 2020).
environmental conservation while maintaining social Scholars have also provided engineering insights into
and economic prospects in implementing building pro- the sustainability of local building materials. These
jects (Murray & Cotgrave, 2007; Wang, 2009). For include, Oyelami and Van Rooy (2016), who addressed
instance, according to Jacobs (2015), sustainability the geological significance of lateritic soils as viable and
knowledge on building construction education is lack- environmentally friendly building materials. Darwish
ing in South African tertiary education institutions. et al. (2019) reviewed the use of date palm midribs
Institutional research output also lacked quality and val- (i.e. as a renewable agricultural by-product) as a sustain-
idity to contribute to sustainable construction research able alternative building material for rural populations
(Jacobs, 2015). in Egypt. Their study posited that local building
Ekung et al. (2019) have noted that policy concerns material alternatives could help communities minimize
and institutional neglect were the primary impediments reliance on imported conventional building materials
to integrating sustainability knowledge into curricula. such as concrete and steel and reduce the economic bur-
Hamza et al. (2020) determined that environmental den (Darwish et al., 2019). Obianyo et al. (2020) devel-
conservation subjects (e.g. recycling and reuse, resource oped multivariate models for predicting the strength of
conservation, and alternative energy sources) were criti- lateritic soils stabilized by bone ash as a sustainable
cal for integrating green skills into the curriculum of the building material. They proposed that using locally
building construction trades. Sustainability literacy is sourced sustainable building materials could reduce
becoming increasingly important in the region. Yet, sus- construction time and costs (Obianyo et al., 2020). Rah-
tainability appears to be emphasized more in construc- mouni and Smail (2020) and Wati et al. (2020)
tion practice (i.e. project level) than in professional suggested using local materials to improve sustainable
education and training (Jacobs, 2015). Thus, educating building performance. Despite the popularity and ease
future construction professionals about sustainability of access to locally sourced sustainable materials, there
and instilling sustainable culture and mindset is critical. is widespread misunderstanding about the additional
costs and durability concerns (Akadiri, 2015; Sodangi
& Kazmi, 2020; Windapo & Ogunsanmi, 2014).
Sustainable building material research
Pero et al. (2021) proposed a climate-responsive
Scholarly input on novel building materials for green design and building technologies tailored to the Moga-
construction is also growing. Studies on improving pro- dishu context. The study affirmed that locally sustain-
cesses for locally available materials to achieve sustainable building materials could meet the demand for
ability are notable. For instance, indigenous building mass housing while addressing socioeconomic sustain-
methods like timber framing and rammed earth walling ability (Pero et al., 2021). Similarly, Temga et al.
were acceptable for addressing the green building chal- (2014) noted the potential for crude bricks over fired
lenges (Agyekum, Kissi, et al., 2020). Despite the avail- earthen bricks to help mitigate deforestation. Despite
ability of sustainable indigenous building technologies, the superiority of fired bricks due to modernization
various factors impede their adoption. Critical factors influences, innovative technologies could modify indi-
include a lack of manufacturing competence and stake- genous techniques to achieve the sustainability potential
holder awareness (Agyekum, Adinyira, et al., 2021). of crude earthen bricks (Temga et al., 2014).
Addressing these issues is vital for the region’s social
and cultural preservation. The locally sourced sustain-
Emerging concepts in sustainable and green
able building materials benefit local habitat and ecosys-
building implementation
tems and require significantly fewer financial resources
than imported materials. A life cycle assessment of tim- Scholars have presented new sustainability prospects
ber trusses versus light gauge steel trusses revealed that and concepts such as smart building technologies and
timber trusses were more economical and sustainable net-zero energy buildings to advance green building
(light gauge steel had a 40% higher normalized impact knowledge in the region. In particular, Owusu-Manu
et al. (2021) determined that the primary factors For instance, Unuigbe et al. (2020) noticed an increase
influencing decision-making regarding the adoption of in interest in renewable energy among Nigerian build-
smart buildings are financial and technological support ing owners, contractors and builders. Their research
and institutional settings. A survey by Olawumi and found a gradual shift toward solar photovoltaics and
Chan (2021b) contended that adequate technical exper- sustainability certification (green building certification),
tise in the processes underlying smart sustainable prac- indicating decentralized power generation in the region
tices was critical to enhancing their implementation in (Unuigbe et al., 2020).
Hong Kong and Nigeria. Reda et al. (2015) noted the
possibility of achieving net-zero energy characteristics
Future research direction, implications and
in Egypt’s low and high-investment buildings. The
conclusions
growing interest in these novel areas reflects scholars
expanding interest in sustainable building research. Globally, research on green/sustainable buildings have
Sustainable building research has also focused on the been expanding and have tended to climate change chal-
energy efficiency of bioclimatic/vernacular structures. lenges and opportunities. However, developed countries
Because conventional green building investment outperform developing countries in global sustainable
requires significant capital, achieving green standards building research (Darko et al., 2019; Zuo & Zhao,
using the existing indigenous/vernacular technologies 2014). Apart from that, research in developing countries
appears a feasible idea. Favouring local materials and has received little attention in global sustainable build-
technologies for green and energy-efficient buildings ing research. This review conducted critical analysis
should be encouraged, especially for developing nations. on 98 publications to provide the state of green building
A bioclimatic building influenced by vernacular archi- research in the African context. The review’s strengths
tecture could benefit from incorporating green systems include its scope and systematic approach to collection
(renewable energy sources and sustainable building and selection criteria of the articles (i.e. the use of
materials) (Widera, 2021). Widera (2021) rec- numerous keywords and WoS and Scopus as research
ommended forming social housing development pro- databases), though the information provided is confined
jects under the renewable energy policy, focusing on to peer-reviewed research articles.
clean technologies related to sustainable and bioclimatic Green building publications on social subjects, costs,
buildings. Traditional/vernacular buildings are socially policy, technology and management are extensively cov-
important. Hence, modernization should consider heri- ered. Comparatively, the research topics in Africa are
tage preservation as a social sustainability criterion similar to those in the global context. Nigeria, South
(Maio et al., 2017). Africa, Ghana and Egypt have dominated regional
Scholars have also developed optimization models green building research. There is extensive research on
for passive and conventional designs to address local the economic and social issues of sustainable/green
sustainability issues. Ali-Toudert and Weidhaus (2017) buildings adoption in the construction industry.
provided the best design solutions for inexpensive Additionally, scholars have presented robust method-
energy-efficient residential buildings in Mediterranean ologies for advancing the building sustainability assess-
Algiers and Saharan Gardai using dynamic energy mod- ment tools. Findings on green building policy
elling. On the contrary, Chegari et al. (2020) developed a formulation are also evident. Moreover, there is a grow-
real-time evaluation tool that measures a building’s pas- ing emphasis on smart building and net-zero energy
sive energy self-sufficiency to quantify the benefits of research.
renewable energy integration. Similarly, Mahmoud Despite this extensive coverage, the region’s research
et al. (2020) comparative simulation analysis showed literature lacks focus on the following topics:
that passive design reduced annual energy consumption
over conventional methods. Marzouk and Metawie . Existing green buildings’ performance data at
(2014) presented the BIM frameworks to reduce build- regional level are lacking. Expounding on that, a
ing costs and construction time while achieving LEED life cycle analysis could show the value of green
credits in Egypt’s low-income housing developments. building adoption from the stakeholders’ perspec-
Although the energy-efficient buildings with inte- tives. Since green buildings are expected to outper-
grated photovoltaic systems save energy while improv- form conventional buildings in terms of
ing the indoor environment, Ziuku and Meyer (2010) productivity and performance, it appears imperative
argue that they lower greenhouse gas emissions signifi- to conduct long-term assessments of their potential.
cantly. In terms of resource conservation, building own- These studies could assume the form of CBA,
ers are becoming more aware of the need for change. which takes into account socioeconomic factors.
. The importance of research on locally sourced build- have addressed the lack of sustainable construction
ing materials and technologies is also understated. training and education in learning institutions
Recognizing the potential of locally sourced materials (Ekung et al., 2019). Introducing and encouraging
will aid in enhancing sustainability of community sustainability early in construction practitioners’
housing schemes. The locally sourced materials are training (i.e. university and vocational centres) will
frequently affordable and readily available, and help them in making positive future decisions
some materials exist as agricultural by-products. about sustainable building construction methods.
. There is also a dearth of research on green building
that makes use of information communication tech- The foregoing review has captured a broad spotlight
nologies (ICTs). The use of ICT will facilitate the on the current state of green building research in Africa.
manual green building performance calculations. It The findings derived from the review have several theor-
is thus recommended to promote understanding of etical and practical implications for researchers, aca-
artificial intelligence and building information demic institutions and governments. First, for
models related to sustainable building performance. researchers, it underscores the primacy of a need for col-
. Identifying green building users and owners’ percep- laboration between countries. While research findings
tions is also crucial. Despite the growing number of from one area can be applied to another, different
green buildings, there are few studies on their post- countries’ social and economic structures must be con-
occupancy assessment. These studies could help sidered. The study also provides a comprehensive refer-
improving green building design and aid in retrofi- ence of the future green building research agenda while
tting the existing buildings. encouraging development of research at the regional
. The theoretical explanation informing green building level. Incorporating sustainable/green building into cur-
diffusion (influences, challenges and opportunities) ricula has implications for educational institutions. This
are also required. Understanding the adoption pro- review highlights the lack of inclusive sustainable con-
cess’s social, economic and environmental conse- struction education and training research in the acade-
quences requires theoretical thinking. Theoretical mia and vocational programmes. Deducing from the
lenses will encourage scholars to think professionally study, scholars in sustainable building research in Africa
and academically, bridging the gap between reality should implement theoretical frameworks that are con-
and assumptions (Schweber & Leiringer, 2012). sistent with the indigenous knowledge. There is a need
Recognizing the construction industry’s complexity for researching on the legislative and policy reforms
and the scarcity of straightforward efforts to address addressing sustainability in the built environment, i.e.
sustainability in developing economies, Mensah et al. the building and real estate sectors.
(2020) proposed a multi-theory approach underpin-
ning contracting firms’ environmentally sustainable
construction adaptation patterns. The study suggests Acknowledgements
a micro-level investigation of contractor organiz- We are very grateful to the editor and anonymous reviewers,
ations to improve the effectiveness of the construc- whose valuable comments, questions and suggestions signifi-
tion sector’s sustainable efforts. cantly helped improve the quality of this paper. The authors
. There is a need for policy and legislative research on also wish to thank Jonathan Kansheba for assisting accessing
the articles’ records from journal indexing databases.
sustainability in the construction industry. Develop-
ing countries lack sustainability in resource-intensive
sectors like construction and real estate. Scholars
Disclosure statement
should therefore develop appropriate frameworks
for implementing SDGs in the construction industry. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
. Research on an integrated stakeholder’s approach to
green building design and implementation is also
required. Given the social challenges of adopting glo- References
bal green building models, it is critical to consider Abdel-Aal, M. F., Maarouf, I., & El-Sayary, S. (2018). Wakala
each stakeholder’s needs and expectations. Equally buildings of mamluk era in Cairo, Egypt and how far they
important, the user-centred research in these fields meet the rating criteria of LEED V4. Alexandria
Engineering Journal, 57(4), 3793–3803. https://doi.org/10.
can help developing the new rating tools and improve
1016/j.aej.2018.03.007
decision-making (Li et al., 2018). Abdel Aleem, S. H. E., Zobaa, A. F., & Abdel Mageed, H. M.
. Research is also needed to make sustainable/green (2015). Assessment of energy credits for the enhancement
construction curricula more accessible. Scholars of the Egyptian green pyramid rating system. Energy
Policy, 87, 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015. Ali-Toudert, F., & Weidhaus, J. (2017). Numerical assessment
09.033 and optimisation of a low-energy residential building for
Addy, M. N., Adinyira, E., Danku, J. C., & Dadzoe, F. (2020). Mediterranean and Saharan climates using a pilot project
Impediments to the development of the green building in Algeria. Renewable Energy, 101, 327–346. https://doi.
market in sub-Saharan Africa: The case of Ghana. Smart org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.08.043
and Sustainable Built Environment, 10(2), 193–207. Alothman, A., Ashour, S., & Krishnaraj, L. (2021). Energy per-
https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-12-2019-0170 formance analysis of building for sustainable design using
Addy, M. N., Adinyira, E., & Koranteng, C. (2014). Architect’s BIM: A case study on institute building. International
perception on the challenges of building energy efficiency Journal of Renewable Energy Research, 11(2), 556–565.
in Ghana. Structural Survey, 32(5), 365–376. https://doi. https://www.ijrer.org/ijrer/index.php/ijrer/article/view/
org/10.1108/SS-03-2014-0014 11825/0
Adinyira, E., Kwofie, T. E., & Quarcoo, F. (2018). Stakeholder Ammar, M. G. (2012). Evaluation of the green Egyptian pyr-
requirements for building energy efficiency in mass hous- amid. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 51(4), 293–304.
ing delivery: The house of quality approach. Environment, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2012.09.002
Development and Sustainability, 20(3), 1115–1131. Ampratwum, G., Agyekum, K., Adinyira, E., & Duah, D.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-9930-z (2019). A framework for the implementation of green cer-
Aghimien, D. O., Oluwaseyi, A., Ayodeji, E., & Emmanuel, I. tification of buildings in Ghana. International Journal of
(2018). Stakeholders’ perception of sustainability in edu- Construction Management, 21(12), 1263–1277. https://doi.
cational buildings in Nigeria. International Journal of org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1613207
Sustainable Construction Engineering and Technology, 9 Asare, K. A. B., Ruikar, K. D., Zanni, M., & Soetanto, R.
(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.30880/ijscet.2018.09.01.001 (2020). BIM-based LCA and energy analysis for optimised
Agyekum, K., Adinyira, E., & Ampratwum, G. (2020). Factors sustainable building design in Ghana. SN Applied Sciences,
driving the adoption of green certification of buildings in 2(11), 1855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-03682-2
Ghana. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 9(4), Asman, G. E., Kissi, E., Agyekum, K., Baiden, B. K., & Badu, E.
595–613. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-02-2019-0017 (2019). Critical components of environmentally sustainable
Agyekum, K., Adinyira, E., Baiden, B., Ampratwum, G., & buildings design practices of office buildings in Ghana.
Duah, D. (2019). Barriers to the adoption of green certifi- Journal of Building Engineering, 26, 100925. https://doi.
cation of buildings: A thematic analysis of verbatim com- org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100925
ments from built environment professionals. Journal of Assad, M., Hosny, O., Elhakeem, A., & El Haggar, S. (2015).
Engineering, Design and Technology, 17(5), 1035–1055. Green building design in Egypt from cost and energy perspec-
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-01-2019-0028 tives. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 11
Agyekum, K., Adinyira, E., & Oppon, J. A. (2021). Factors (1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2013.775100
limiting the adoption of hemp as an alternative sustainable Atanda, J. O., & Olukoya, O. A. P. (2019). Green building
material for green building delivery in Ghana. International standards: Opportunities for Nigeria. Journal of Cleaner
Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation. https://doi. Production, 227, 366–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
org/10.1108/IJBPA-11-2020-0100 jclepro.2019.04.189
Agyekum, K., Goodier, C., & Oppon, J. A. (2021). Key drivers Awaili, A. M., Uzunoglu, S. S., & Özden, Ö. (2020). The analy-
for green building project financing in Ghana. Engineering, sis of barriers in green building development in Libya.
Construction and Architectural Management. https://doi. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 7
org/10.1108/ECAM-02-2021-0131 (9), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2020.09.003
Agyekum, K., Hammond, S. F., & Salgin, B. (2021). Bampou, P. (2017). Green buildings for Egypt: A call for an
Occupants’ perceived importance and satisfaction with integrated policy. International Journal of Sustainable
the indoor environmental quality of a green building. Energy, 36(10), 994–1009. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Built Environment Project and Asset Management. https:// 14786451.2016.1159207
doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-01-2020-0005 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psy-
Agyekum, K., Kissi, E., & Danku, J. C. (2020). Professionals’ chology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
views of vernacular building materials and techniques for https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
green building delivery in Ghana. Scientific African, 8, Buys, F., & Hurbissoon, R. (2011). Green buildings: A
e00424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00424 Mauritian built environment stakeholders’ perspective.
Agyekum, K., Opoku, A., Oppon, A. J., & Opoku, D. G. J. Acta Structilia: Journal for the Physical and Development
(2020). Obstacles to green building project financing: An Sciences, 18(1), 81–101. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/
empirical study in Ghana. International Journal of actas/article/view/77175
Construction Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Chan, A. P. C., Darko, A., Ameyaw, E. E., & Owusu-Manu,
15623599.2020.1832182 D.-G. (2017). Barriers affecting the adoption of green build-
Aigbavboa, C., & Thwala, W. D. (2019). Performance of a ing technologies. Journal of Management in Engineering, 33
green building’s indoor environmental quality on building (3), 04016057. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.
occupants in South Africa. Journal of Green Building, 14(1), 0000507
131–148. https://doi.org/10.3992/1943-4618.14.1.131 Chan, A. P. C., Darko, A., Olanipekun, A. O., & Ameyaw, E. E.
Akadiri, P. O. (2015). Understanding barriers affecting the (2018). Critical barriers to green building technologies
selection of sustainable materials in building projects. adoption in developing countries: The case of Ghana.
Journal of Building Engineering, 4, 86–93. https://doi.org/ Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 1067–1079. https://
10.1016/j.jobe.2015.08.006 doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.235
Chegari, B., Tabaa, M., Moutaouakkil, F., Simeu, E., & Production, 200, 687–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Medromi, H. (2020). Local energy self-sufficiency for pas- jclepro.2018.07.318
sive buildings: Case study of a typical Moroccan building. Darwish, E. A., Mansour, Y., Elmously, H., & Abdelrahman,
Journal of Building Engineering, 29, 101164. https://doi. A. (2019). Development of sustainable building com-
org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101164 ponents utilising date palm midribs for light wide-span
Chen, L., Chan, A. P. C., Owusu, E. K., Darko, A., & Gao, X. multi-purpose structures for rural communities in Egypt.
(2021). Critical success factors for green building pro- Journal of Building Engineering, 24, 100770. https://doi.
motion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Building org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100770
and Environment, 207(PB), 108452. https://doi.org/10. Doan, D. T., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Naismith, N., Zhang, T.,
1016/j.buildenv.2021.108452 Ghaffarianhoseini, A., & Tookey, J. (2017). A critical com-
Coetzee, D. A., & Brent, A. C. (2015). Perceptions of pro- parison of green building rating systems. Building and
fessional practitioners and property developers relating to Environment, 123, 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
the costs of green buildings in South Africa. Journal of buildenv.2017.07.007
the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, 57(4), Du Plessis, C. (2005). Action for sustainability: Preparing an
12–19. https://doi.org/10.17159/2309-8775/2015/v57n4a2 African plan for sustainable building and construction.
Cohen, C., Pearlmutter, D., & Schwartz, M. (2019). Promoting Building Research and Information, 33(5), 405–415.
green building in Israel: A game theory-based analysis. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210500218974
Building and Environment, 163, 106227. https://doi.org/ Du Plessis, C., & Cole, R. J. (2011). Motivating change:
10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106227 Shifting the paradigm. Building Research and Information,
Crafford, P. L., Blumentritt, M., & Wessels, C. B. (2017). The 39(5), 436–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2011.
potential of South African timber products to reduce the 582697
environmental impact of buildings. South African Journal Ebekozien, A., Ayo-Odifiri, S. O., Nwaole, A. N. C., Ibeabuchi,
of Science, 113(9–10), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs. A. L., & Uwadia, F. E. (2021). Barriers in Nigeria’s public
2017/20160354 hospital green buildings implementation initiatives.
Daoud, A. O., Othman, A. A. E., Ebohon, O. J., & Bayyati, A. Journal of Facilities Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/
(2020). Overcoming the limitations of the green pyramid JFM-01-2021-0009
rating system in the Egyptian construction industry: A Ebekozien, A., Ikuabe, M., Awo-Osagie, A. I., Aigbavboa, C.,
critical analysis. Architectural Engineering and Design & Ayo-Odifiri, S. O. (2021). Model for promoting green
Management, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007. certification of buildings in developing nations: A case
2020.1802218 study of Nigeria. Property Management. https://doi.org/
Darko, A., & Chan, A. P. C. (2016). Critical analysis of green 10.1108/PM-05-2021-0033
building research trend in construction journals. Habitat EIA. (2020, August). Key world energy statistics 2020 (Vol. 33).
International, 57, 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/
habitatint.2016.07.001 key-world-energy-statistics-2020
Darko, A., & Chan, A. P. C. (2018). Strategies to promote Ekung, S., Adewuyi, T., & Otali, M. (2019). Factors impeding
green building technologies adoption in developing the integration of sustainability elements in built environ-
countries: The case of Ghana. Building and Environment, ment academic curricula. International Journal of Built
130, 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.12.022 Environment and Sustainability, 6(3), 21–32. https://doi.
Darko, A., Chan, A. P. C., Ameyaw, E. E., He, B. J., & org/10.11113/ijbes.v6.n3.364
Olanipekun, A. O. (2017). Examining issues influencing Ekung, S., Odesola, I., & Opoku, A. (2021). Demystifying cost
green building technologies adoption: The United States misperception as a challenge to green building adoption in
green building experts’ perspectives. Energy and Nigeria. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology.
Buildings, 144, 320–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-01-2021-0049
2017.03.060 ElSorady, D. A., & Rizk, S. M. (2020). LEED v4.1 operations &
Darko, A., Chan, A. P. C., Gyamfi, S., Olanipekun, A. O., He, maintenance for existing buildings and compliance assess-
B. J., & Yu, Y. (2017). Driving forces for green building ment: Bayt Al-suhaymi, historic Cairo. Alexandria
technologies adoption in the construction industry: Engineering Journal, 59(1), 519–531. https://doi.org/10.
Ghanaian perspective. Building and Environment, 125, 1016/j.aej.2020.01.027
206–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.08.053 Eromobor, S. O., Das, D. K., & Emuze, F. (2020). Influence of
Darko, A., Chan, A. P. C., Huo, X., & Owusu-Manu, D. G. building and indoor environmental parameters on design-
(2019). A scientometric analysis and visualisation of global ing energy-efficient buildings. International Journal of
green building research. Building and Environment, 149, Building Pathology and Adaptation, 39(3), 507–524.
501–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.12.059 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-05-2020-0035
Darko, A., Chan, A. P. C., & Owusu, E. K. (2018). What are Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G.
the green technologies for sustainable housing develop- (2008). Comparison of PubMed, scopus, Web of Science,
ment? An empirical study in Ghana. Business Strategy and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB
and Development, 1(2), 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1002/ Journal, 22(2), 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492lsf
bsd2.18 Fan, K., & Hui, E. C. M. (2020). Evolutionary game theory
Darko, A., Chan, A. P. C., Yang, Y., Shan, M., He, B. J., & Gou, analysis for understanding the decision-making mechan-
Z. (2018). Influences of barriers, drivers, and promotion isms of governments and developers on green building
strategies on green building technologies adoption in devel- incentives. Building and Environment, 179, 106972.
oping countries: The Ghanaian case. Journal of Cleaner https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106972
Fan, Y., & Xia, X. (2018). Energy-efficiency building retrofit Komolafe, M. O., & Oyewole, M. O. (2018). Awareness and
planning for green building compliance. Building and perception of office property users on green building in
Environment, 136, 312–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Lagos, Nigeria. International Journal of Built Environment
buildenv.2018.03.044 and Sustainability, 5(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.11113/ijbes.
Geng, Y., Ji, W., Wang, Z., Lin, B., & Zhu, Y. (2019). A review v5.n3.298
of operating performance in green buildings: Energy use, Komolafe, M. O., Oyewole, M. O., & Gbadegesin, J. T. (2020).
indoor environmental quality and occupant satisfaction. Stakeholders’ relevance in sustainable residential property
Energy and Buildings, 183, 500–514. https://doi.org/10. development. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 9
1016/j.enbuild.2018.11.017 (2), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-07-2019-0094
Grobler, L. J., & Singh, V. (1999). Research information: The Komolafe, M. O., Oyewole, M. O., & Kolawole, J. T. (2016).
green buildings for Africa programme. Building Research Extent of incorporation of green features in office proper-
and Information, 27(3), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/ ties in Lagos, Nigeria. Smart and Sustainable Built
096132199369516 Environment, 5(3), 232–260. https://doi.org/10.1108/
Guribie, F. L., Akubah, J. T., Tengan, C., & Blay Jr., A. V. K. SASBE-08-2015-0019
(2021). Demand for green building in Ghana: A conceptual Kongela, S. M. (2021). Sustainability potential awareness
modeling and empirical study of the impediments. among built environment stakeholders: Experience from
Construction Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-11- Tanzania. International Journal of Building Pathology and
2020-0180 Adaptation. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-09-2020-0082
Hamza, S., Musta’Amal Jamal, A. H., & Kamin, Y. (2020). Koranteng, C., Simons, B., Abrokwa Gyimah, K., & Nkrumah,
Integration factors of green skills into building construc- J. (2021). Ghana’s green building assessment journey: An
tion trade programme in Nigeria. Journal of Technical appraisal of the thermal performance of an office building
Education and Training, 12(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10. in Accra. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology.
30880/jtet.2020.12.01.001 https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-02-2021-0109
Hazem, N., Abdelraouf, M., Fahim, I. S., & El-Omari, S. Kriss, J. (2014). What is green building? The definition of green
(2020). A novel green rating system for existing buildings. building (LEED). U.S. Green Building Council.
Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(17), 7143. https://doi.org/ Kubba, S. (2016). The meaning of ‘green design’ and ‘sustainabil-
10.3390/su12177143 ity’. In S. Kubba (Ed.), LEED v4 practices, certification, and
Hoffman, D., Huang, L.-Y., Van Rensburg, J., & Yorke-Hart, accreditation handbook (pp. 1–28). Butterworth-Heinemann.
A. (2020). Trends in application of Green Star SA credits https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-803830-7.00001-3
in South African green building. Acta Structilia, 27(2), 1– Lazar, N., & Chithra, K. (2020). A comprehensive literature
29. https://doi.org/10.18820/24150487/as27i2.1 review on development of building sustainability assess-
IEA, & UNEP. (2019). 2019 global status report for buildings and ment systems. Journal of Building Engineering, 32(May),
construction (Vol. 224). UN Environment Programme. 101450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101450
https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/publication/201 Li, H., Ng, S. T., & Skitmore, M. (2018). Stakeholder impact
9-global-status-report-buildings-and-construction-sector analysis during post-occupancy evaluation of green build-
Ismaeel, W. S. E. (2019). Appraising a decade of LEED in the ings – A Chinese context. Building and Environment, 128,
MENA region. Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, 733– 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.11.014
744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.223 Li, Y., Rong, Y., Ahmad, U. M., Wang, X., Zuo, J., & Mao, G.
Jacobs, E. (2015). The status quo of green-building education in (2021). A comprehensive review on green buildings
South Africa: Review article. Acta Structilia, 22(2), 110–133. research: Bibliometric analysis during 1998–2018.
https://www.ajol.info/index.php/actas/article/view/129807 Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(34),
Joachim, O. I., Kamarudin, N., Aliagha, G. U., Mohammed, 46196–46214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12739-7
M. A. H., & Ali, H. M. (2017). Green and sustainable com- Mahmoud, S., Fahmy, M., Mahdy, M., Elwy, I., & Abdelalim,
mercial property supply in Malaysia and Nigeria. M. (2020). Comparative energy performance simulation for
Geographical Review, 107(3), 496–515. https://doi.org/10. passive and conventional design: A case study in Cairo,
1111/gere.12221 Egypt. Energy Reports, 6, 699–704. https://doi.org/10.
Kats, G. (2013). Greening our built world: Costs, benefits, and 1016/j.egyr.2019.09.052
strategies. Island Press. Maio, R., Martin, E., Sojkowski, J., & Ferreira, T. M. (2017).
Kats, G. H. (2003). Green building costs and financial benefits. Namibia’s vernacular architecture: Insights towards the
Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. sustainable development of local communities. Ge-
Khan, J., Zakaria, R., Shamsudin, S., Abidin, N., Sahamir, S., Conservacion, 1(11), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.37558/gec.
Abbas, D., & Aminudin, E. (2019). Evolution to emergence v11i0.453
of green buildings: A review. Administrative Sciences, 9(1), Markelj, J., Kuzman, M. K., Grošelj, P., & Zbašnik-
6. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9010006 Senegačnik, M. (2014). A simplified method for evaluating
Kibert, C. (2018). Green buildings: An overview of progress. building sustainability in the early design phase for archi-
Florida State University Journal of Land Use and tects. Sustainability (Switzerland), 6(12), 8775–8795.
Environmental Law, 19(2), 11. https://ir.law.fsu.edu/jluel/ https://doi.org/10.3390/su6128775
vol19/iss2/11 Marzouk, M., & Metawie, M. (2014, June 23–25). Framework
Kolk, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2018). The state of research on for sustainable low-income housing projects in Egypt. In
Africa in business and management: Insights from a systema- 2014 International conference on computing in civil and
tic review of key international journals. Business and Society, building engineering (pp. 1960–1968). https://doi.org/10.
57(3), 415–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316629129 1061/9780784413616.243
Masia, T., Kajimo-Shakantu, K., & Opawole, A. (2020). A case Olawumi, T. O., & Chan, D. W. M. (2021b). Developing pro-
study on the implementation of green building construc- ject evaluation models for smart sustainable practices
tion in Gauteng province, South Africa. Management of implementation in construction projects: A comparative
Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 31(3), study between Nigeria and Hong Kong. Engineering,
602–623. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-04-2019-0085 Construction and Architectural Management. https://doi.
Mensah, S., Ayarkwa, J., & Nani, G. (2020). A theoretical fra- org/10.1108/ECAM-11-2020-0906
mework for conceptualising contractors’ adaptation to Olawumi, T. O., Chan, D. W. M., Chan, A. P. C., & Wong,
environmentally sustainable construction. International J. K. W. (2020). Development of a building sustainability
Journal of Construction Management, 20(7), 801–811. assessment method (BSAM) for developing countries in
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1484860 sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Cleaner Production, 263,
Michael, M., Zhang, L., & Xia, X. (2017). An optimal model 121514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121514
for a building retrofit with LEED standard as reference pro- Olubunmi, O. A., Xia, P. B., & Skitmore, M. (2016). Green
tocol. Energy and Buildings, 139, 22–30. https://doi.org/10. building incentives: A review. Renewable and Sustainable
1016/j.enbuild.2017.01.006 Energy Reviews, 59, 1611–1621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Miranda, I. T. P., Moletta, J., Pedroso, B., Pilatti, L. A., & rser.2016.01.028
Picinin, C. T. (2021). A review on green technology prac- Opoku, D. G. J., Ayarkwa, J., & Agyekum, K. (2019). Barriers
tices at BRICS countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and to environmental sustainability of construction projects.
South Africa. SAGE Open, 11(2), 21582440211013780. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 8(4), 292–306.
https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211013780 https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-08-2018-0040
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Ouhaibi, S., Gounni, A., Belouaggadia, N., Ezzine, M., &
Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Lbibb, R. (2020). Energy, environmental and economic per-
Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/ formance of an external roof for a sustainable building.
s11192-015-1765-5 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilisation and
Mousa, A. (2015). A business approach for transformation to Environmental Effects. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.
sustainable construction: An implementation on a develop- 2020.1796847
ing country. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 101, 9– Owoha, F., Simpeh, E. K., Fapohunda, J. A., Ahadzie, D. K., &
19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.007 Mensah, H. (2021). Categorising green building features in
Murray, P. E., & Cotgrave, A. J. (2007). Sustainability literacy: developing countries: The case of South Africa. Journal of
The future paradigm for construction education? Structural Engineering, Design and Technology. https://doi.org/10.
Survey, 25(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/026308007107 1108/JEDT-01-2021-0012
40949 Owusu-Manu, D. G., Debrah, C., Oduro-Ofori, E., Edwards,
Ngowi, A. B. (2001). Creating competitive advantage by using D. J., & Antwi-Afari, P. (2020). Attributable indicators for
environment-friendly building processes. Building and measuring the level of greenness of cities in developing
Environment, 36(3), 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/ countries: Lessons from Ghana. Journal of Engineering,
S0360-1323(00)00006-8 Design and Technology, 19(3), 625–646. https://doi.org/10.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. 1108/JEDT-06-2020-0257
(2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthi- Owusu-Manu, D. G., Ghansah, F. A., Ayarkwa, J., Edwards, D.
ness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, J., & Hosseini, R. (2021). Factors influencing the decision to
16(1), 1609406917733847. https://doi.org/10.1177/ adopt smart building technology (SBT) in developing
1609406917733847 countries. African Journal of Science, Technology,
Obianyo, I. I., Anosike-Francis, E. N., Ihekweme, G. O., Geng, Innovation and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Y., Jin, R., Onwualu, A. P., & Soboyejo, A. B. O. (2020). 20421338.2021.1899761
Multivariate regression models for predicting the compres- Oyelami, C. A., & Van Rooy, J. L. (2016). Geotechnical
sive strength of bone ash stabilised lateritic soil for sustain- characterisation of lateritic soils from south-western
able building. Construction and Building Materials, 263, Nigeria as materials for cost-effective and energy-efficient
120677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120677 building bricks. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75(23),
Olanipekun, A. O., Chan, A. P. C., Xia, B., & Adedokun, O. A. 1475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6274-1
(2018). Applying the self-determination theory (SDT) to Oyewole, M. O., & Komolafe, M. O. (2018). Users’ preference
explain the levels of motivation for adopting green building. for green features in office properties. Property
International Journal of Construction Management, 18(2), Management, 36(4), 374–388. https://doi.org/10.1108/PM-
120–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2017.1285484 03-2017-0016
Olawumi, T. O., & Chan, D. W. M. (2021a). Green-building Oyewole, M. O., Komolafe, M. O., & Gbadegesin, J. T. (2021).
information modelling (Green-BIM) assessment frame- Understanding stakeholders’ opinion and willingness on
work for evaluating sustainability performance of building the adoption of sustainable residential property features
projects: A case of Nigeria. Architectural Engineering and in a developing property market. International Journal of
Design Management, 17(5–6), 458–477. https://doi.org/10. Construction Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1080/17452007.2020.1852910 15623599.2021.1874676
Olawumi, T. O., & Chan, D. W. M. (2020). Application of Oyewole, M. O., Ojutalayo, A. A., & Araloyin, F. M. (2019).
generalised choquet fuzzy integral method in the sustain- Developers’ willingness to invest in green features in
ability rating of green buildings based on the BSAM Abuja, Nigeria. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment,
scheme. Sustainable Cities and Society, 61, 102147. 8(3), 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-06-2018-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102147 0031
Pero, C. D., Bellini, O. E., Martire, M., & di Summa, D. (2021). Thatcher, A., & Milner, K. (2012). The impact of a ‘green’
Sustainable solutions for mass-housing design in Africa: building on employees’ physical and psychological well-
Energy and cost assessment for the Somali context. being. Work, 41(Suppl. 1), 3816–3823. https://doi.org/10.
Sustainability, 13(9), 4787. https://doi.org/10.3390/ 3233/WOR-2012-0683-3816
su13094787 Thatcher, A., & Milner, K. (2014). Green ergonomics and
Poon, C. S., Yu, A. T. W., & Jaillon, L. (2004). Reducing build- green buildings. Ergonomics in Design, 22(2), 5–12.
ing waste at construction sites in Hong Kong. Construction https://doi.org/10.1177/1064804613516760
Management and Economics, 22(5), 461–470. https://doi. Thatcher, A., & Milner, K. (2016). Is a green building really
org/10.1080/0144619042000202816 better for building occupants? A longitudinal evaluation.
Rahmouni, S., & Smail, R. (2020). A design approach towards Building and Environment, 108, 194–206. https://doi.org/
sustainable buildings in Algeria. Smart and Sustainable 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.08.036
Built Environment, 9(3), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1108/ Unuigbe, M., Zulu, S. L., & Johnston, D. (2020). Renewable
SASBE-04-2019-0057 energy sources and technologies in commercial buildings:
Ravasio, L., Sveen, S. E., & Riise, R. (2020). Green building in Understanding the Nigerian experience. Built
the Arctic region: State-of-the-art and future research Environment Project and Asset Management, 10(2), 231–
opportunities. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(22), 1–20. 245. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-11-2018-0151
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229325 Waheed, Z. (2010). Understanding green building guidelines
Reda, F., Tuominen, P., Hedman, Å., & Ibrahim, M. G. E. for students and young professionals. Facilities, 28(7/8),
(2015). Low-energy residential buildings in New Borg El 396–397. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632771011042509
Arab: Simulation and survey based energy assessment. Wake, A. D. (2021). The acceptance rate toward COVID-19
Energy and Buildings, 93, 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. vaccine in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
enbuild.2015.02.021 Global Pediatric Health, 8, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Schweber, L., & Leiringer, R. (2012). Beyond the technical: A 2333794X211048738
snapshot of energy and buildings research. Building Wang, Y. (2009). Sustainability in construction education.
Research and Information, 40(4), 481–492. https://doi.org/ Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education
10.1080/09613218.2012.675713 and Practice, 135(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1061/
Shi, Y., & Liu, X. (2019). Research on the literature of green (ASCE)1052-3928(2009)135:1(21)
building based on the web of science: A scientometric Wati, E., Bidoung, J. C., Damfeu, J. C., & Meukam, P. (2020).
analysis in citespace (2002-2018). Sustainability Energy performance of earthen building walls in the equa-
(Switzerland), 11(13), 3716. https://doi.org/10.3390/ torial and tropical climates: A case study of Cameroon.
su11133716 Energy Efficiency, 13(4), 735–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Simpeh, E. K., & Smallwood, J. J. (2020). An integrated model s12053-020-09856-6
for predicting the probability of adoption of green building Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analysing the past
in South Africa. Journal of Engineering, Design and to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review.
Technology, 18(6), 1927–1950. https://doi.org/10.1108/ MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii. https://doi.org/10.1.1.104.
JEDT-09-2019-0244 6570
Simpeh, E. K., Smallwood, J. J., Ahadzie, D. K., & Mensah, H. Widera, B. (2021). Comparative analysis of user comfort and
(2021). Analytical taxonomy of challenges to the thermal performance of six types of vernacular dwellings as
implementation of green building projects in South the first step towards climate resilient, sustainable and bio-
Africa. International Journal of Construction climatic architecture in western sub-Saharan Africa.
Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 140, 110736.
1863172 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110736
Sodangi, M., & Kazmi, Z. A. (2020). Integrated evaluation of Windapo, A. O. (2014). Examination of green building drivers
the impediments to the adoption of coconut palm wood in the South African construction industry: Economics ver-
as a sustainable material for building construction. sus ecology. Sustainability (Switzerland), 6(9), 6088–6106.
Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(18), 7676. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.3390/su6096088
10.3390/su12187676 Windapo, A. O., & Goulding, J. S. (2015). Understanding the
Steinemann, A., Wargocki, P., & Rismanchi, B. (2017). Ten gap between green building practice and legislation
questions concerning green buildings and indoor air qual- requirements in South Africa. Smart and Sustainable
ity. Building and Environment, 112, 351–358. https://doi. Built Environment, 4(1), 67–96. https://doi.org/10.1108/
org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.010 SASBE-01-2014-0002
Taylor, J. M. (2011). Sustainable building practices: Legislative Windapo, A., & Ogunsanmi, O. (2014). Construction sector
and economic incentives. Management and Innovation for a views of sustainable building materials. Proceedings of the
Sustainable Built Environment (MISBE), Association of Institution of Civil Engineers: Engineering Sustainability,
European Schools of Planning. 167(2), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1680/ensu.13.00011
Temga, J. P., Mazzù, A., Nguetnkam, J. P., Palazzini, D., Windapo, A., Omopariola, E. D., Olugboyega, O., &
Ndjouenkeu, R., & Vitali, F. (2014). Valorisation of crude Moghayedi, A. (2021). Use and performance of conven-
earth as sustainable building material: A case of inter- tional and sustainable building technologies in low-income
national cooperation in the Logone valley (Chad- housing. Sustainable Cities and Society, 65, 102606. https://
Cameroon). International Journal of Sustainable doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102606
Engineering, 7(3), 222–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/ World Green Building Council. (2014). About green building.
19397038.2013.807886 https://www.worldgbc.org/what-green-building
World Green Building Council. (2019). Members directory. challenges of green building development in various
https://www.worldgbc.org/member-directory countries. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(19), 5385.
Wu, Z., He, Q., Chen, Q., Xue, H., & Li, S. (2021). A topical https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195385
network based analysis and visualisation of global research Zhao, X., Zuo, J., Wu, G., & Huang, C. (2019). A bibliometric
trends on green building from 1990 to 2020. Journal of review of green building research 2000–2016. Architectural
Cleaner Production, 320(March), 128818. https://doi.org/ Science Review, 62(1), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128818 00038628.2018.1485548
Yahuza, M. S., & Erçin, Ç. (2020). Determination of user’s Zhu, J., & Liu, W. (2020). A tale of two databases: The use of
need and comfort in designing and purchasing green build- Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers.
ings in Kano State, Nigeria. European Journal of Sustainable Scientometrics, 123(1), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Development, 9(3), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd. s11192-020-03387-8
2020.v9n3p127 Ziuku, S., & Meyer, E. L. (2010). Electrical performance
Yudelson, J., & Fedrizzi, S. R. (2009). The green building revo- results of an energy efficient building with an integrated
lution. Island Press. photovoltaic system. Journal of Energy in Southern Africa,
Zhang, L., Wu, J., & Liu, H. (2018). Turning green into gold: A 21(3), 2–8. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3051/2010/
review on the economics of green buildings. Journal of v21i3a3254
Cleaner Production, 172, 2234–2245. https://doi.org/10. Zuo, J., & Zhao, Z. Y. (2014). Green building research-current
1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.188 status and future agenda: A review. Renewable and
Zhang, Y., Wang, H., Gao, W., Wang, F., Zhou, N., Kammen, Sustainable Energy Reviews, 30, 271–281. https://doi.org/
D. M., & Ying, X. (2019). A survey of the status and 10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.021

A Critical Review of African Green Building Research (2022) 19p (Mushi Et Al.)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Critical Review of African Green Building Research (2022) 19p (Mushi Et Al.)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Critical Review of African Green Building Research (2022) 19p (Mushi Et Al.)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building Research & Information

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbri20

A critical review of African green building research

Frank Victor Mushi, Huba Nguluma & Jacob Kihila

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2021.2015276

View supplementary material

Published online: 02 Feb 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 415

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

A critical review of African green building research

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Frank Victor Mushi [email protected]

Figure 1 . Search strategy and selection process.

Based on Figure 2, the trend of green building research in

Figure 2 . African-based green building research trend from 1990 to 2021.

You might also like