The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2046-6099.htm
SASBE
8,4
292
Received 2 August 2018
Revised 15 January 2019
Accepted 31 March 2019
Smart and Sustainable Built
Environment
Vol. 8 No. 4, 2019
pp. 292-306
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2046-6099
DOI 10.1108/SASBE-08-2018-0040
Barriers to environmental
sustainability of
construction projects
De-Graft Joe Opoku, Joshua Ayarkwa and Kofi Agyekum
Department of Building Technology,
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
Abstract
Purpose – The construction industry plays an important role in the achievement of the 11th and 15th of the
Sustainable Development Goals. Efforts have been made by most developing and developed economies
toward the achievement of these goals. Despite the efforts being made by the construction industry toward
the achievement of these goals, there are still barriers that prevent built environment consultants from
advancing environmental sustainability (ES) of construction projects. The purpose of this paper is to identify
barriers to ES of construction projects.
Design/methodology/approach – An extensive literature review on barriers to the adoption of ES was
conducted and face-to-face semi-structured interviews of purposively selected built environment consultants
in Ghana were carried out. Thematic template analysis of qualitative data was conducted.
Findings – The key findings from the study include perceived initial costs, lack of knowledge on ES,
technological difficulties, external pressures in adopting ES practices and environmental conditions in
developing countries.
Originality/value – The outputs of this study offer strategies which are very significant to the construction
industry in embracing ES. Further, the findings contribute to knowledge on achieving the sustainable
development agenda.
Keywords Sustainability, Ghana
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The concept of sustainability has evolved over the years and it has gradually developed
with the dynamics of human society. Sustainability is widely used in most professions.
However, the term sustainability as far as this paper is concerned focuses on sustainable
development within the construction sector or the built environment. According to the
Brundtland report in 1987 by the Worlds Commission on Environment and Development,
sustainable development can be said to be development which meets the needs of the
present generation without compromising on the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs. However, the triple-bottom line management theory requires companies to add
value to not just their shareholders but to all their stakeholders (customers and employees)
by acting in a socially, environmentally and economically responsible way.
Studies have revealed that early human generations recognized the need to carefully use
natural resources and that everything on this planet is equally dependent. Unfortunately, with
the revolution of science and technology this philosophy changed to an unsustainable
approach to exploit nature as efficiently as possible and to take for granted that nature’s
services will always be there. Silverstone (2017) posits that with these changes, the way in
which buildings were constructed became more unsustainable. According to Sun et al. (2017)
and Pacheco-Torgal and Jalali (2012), the materials used in the construction industries are
mostly non-renewable resources and non-sustainable with high values of embodied energy.
To this effect, the sector is considered as the key consumer of non-renewable resources and
also accountable for the emission of about 50 percent of the total carbon dioxide emissions.
GhaffarianHoseini et al. (2013) further revealed that the construction of buildings consumes
about 37 percent of energy which, in turn, produce about 30 percent of greenhouse emissions.
To add to this Abidin (2010) explains that buildings impact the environment negatively by Barriers to ES
releasing waste, greenhouse emissions and soil contaminants into the environment. of construction
The researcher considered this as “in-use impact to the environment” (Abidin, 2010). projects
Research reveals that the building sector alone emits about 45 percent greenhouse gas
(Cabeza et al., 2014; Wu and Low, 2010). Nonetheless the most efficient and effective way of
protecting the environment is by adopting sustainable means of construction (Abidin, 2010;
Shen et al., 2010). Amado and Lucas (2012) also indicate that the construction sector is an ideal 293
vehicle to introduce sustainable guidelines of development. There is therefore the need
to critically study the barriers to the adoption of environmental sustainability (ES) of
construction projects.
This paper is part of a larger research and the main focus of the study is to develop
guidelines which will enable consultants in the built environment to develop their capabilities
and also encourage them to practice sustainability at the designing stage of every construction
project. The paper also explores and identifies barriers militating against the successful
implementation of environmentally sustainable policies in the building construction industry.
Specifically, this paper sets to capture the views of built environment consultants in Ghana on
the barriers to the adoption of ES of construction projects.
It is envisaged that the output of this study would be of considerable benefit to the
construction industry in embracing ES. More importantly, the results contribute to the existing
knowledge on achieving the sustainable development agenda.

2. Sustainability in construction
The early human generations recognized the need to carefully use natural resources and
that everything on this planet is equally dependent. Unfortunately, with the revolution of
science and technology this philosophy changed to an unsustainable approach to exploit
nature as efficiently as possible and to take for granted that nature’s services will always be
there. Larice and Macdonald (2013) posited that with these changes, the way in which
buildings were constructed became more unsustainable. However, in the early 1900s, garden
cities started to appear all over the world. A key actor in the garden city movement was Sir
Ebenezer Howard from the UK. Howard’s study was adapted across the world and as a
result, garden cities started to advance in several countries. Howard (1902) explained that
the initial idea of garden cities was to ensure self-sufficiency, well-planned communities with
balanced areas of nature, housing, industry and agriculture. In the past decades, sustainable
construction practices have evolved remarkably and this has made the concept more
comprehensive and general.
According to Lockwood (2006), people now have an idea about the connections between
social, economic and the environment as well as the relation between nature and
construction practices. The first international conference on sustainability in the
construction sector was organized in Tampa, Florida in 1994 (Bourdeau, 1999). This
conference led to the establishment of definition for sustainable construction as the creation
and responsible maintenance of a healthy built environment based on resource efficient and
ecological philosophies. However, definitions of sustainable construction still remain
ambiguous. International influences such as different legislation and regulations have
impacts on both of the concepts. According to Hart (2013), for a building to be considered
sustainable it must have little effect on nature during its entire life span. In constructing a
sustainable building, the materials used as well as energy used should be measured to
ascertain the total effect the construction had on the environment (Hart, 2013). The concepts
of low energy building and energy-efficient buildings are often used interchangeably.
Energy efficiency in housing is defined by calculating the used amount of energy (in kWh)
per year. Nevertheless, the limits of the allowed amounts vary between countries. The
concept of passive houses was originally developed in Germany and refers to the heating
SASBE system, which is based on the existing energy inside the house which refers to the energy
8,4 that people and electronic devices produce. Wu et al. (2004) indicated that this works by
minimizing leakage of heat and having good ventilation so that the internal energy
can be reused. Wu et al. (2004) further indicated that passive houses are among the most
energy-efficient houses on the market.

294 2.1 Barriers to the adoption of environmental sustainability (ES)

Margolin (2007) indicated that human beings are collectively responsible for the earth and
each and every individual should be involved in fighting abuse as well as neglect. This
disclosure urged people across the globe to cling to environmental responsibility from
environmental irresponsibility. However, integrating sustainable innovation into the built
environment is problematic and therefore requires the identification of barriers to
sustainability in construction practices (Birkeland, 2012). The most identified barrier of
sustainable construction practices is the higher investment costs that are associated with
sustainable construction practices in comparison to the convention construction
approaches. Furthermore, the risks associated with unforeseen costs are also regarded as
a common barrier. Clients’ concern for higher risks may prevent the utilization of
sustainable construction practices (Hakkinen and Belloni, 2011). These risks may include
techniques that are unfamiliar, inadequate experience from previous works, additional
testing and inspection, support from suppliers and lack of information on performance. The
fear for modern technologies that may arise as a result of hindrances associated with the
processes, the actual defects may be reflected in the supply of tested as well as developed
sustainable construction technologies (Hydes and Creech, 2000).
The development of environmentally sustainable projects is normally dependent on the
client’s request and willingness to own such a project. However, client’s demand for such
projects has direct relationship with factors that relate to supply, available knowledge as
well as methods, cost and value of that sustainable project. There are several problems that
are associated with demand and supply (Rohracher, 2011). There is lack of demand for
sustainable refurbishment and as a result, most companies do not offer options that relate to
sustainability when refurbishing buildings. For this reason, there is therefore the lack of
demand for this sustainable refurbishment. Ashworth and Perera (2015) explained that a
small number of developers have a substantial desire to own sustainable construction
projects. Furthermore, the most significant hindrance for a successful environmental
sustainable project is the difficulty in setting out the project requirement. For a sustainable
project to be successful, the design should clearly indicate the requirements as well as the
targets to be achieved and should be able to quantify and address techniques that would aid
in comparisons, quality control together with monitoring. International Standards
Organisation, ISO 14067 (2008) stated that there is a big challenge since sustainable
practices are concerned with achieving the desired performance with minimal impact on the
environment whilst ensuring economic, social and cultural improvements at local, regional
and global levels. There is a limited knowledge as to how to develop a project brief that
stipulates all the requirement needed for a sustainable construction, more so strategies that
will help mitigate impacts projects have on the environment are also limited (Sodagar et al.,
2008). According to Adetunji et al. (2008) the main barriers for a sustainable supply chain are
the price of the procurement practices and low-risk culture involved.
In addition, the processes that relate to probable barriers to ES include cooperation as well
as networking among designers, roles played by different professionals, managements’ decision
making and task scheduling. The presence of various professionals at specific times during the
various stages of design is very vital. Several studies have emphasized the importance of all
design team members in the early stages of design. Major decisions are lost if the possibilities,
targets as well as right design options are not considered early in the design process.
Rydin (2008) indicated that this concerns both the building project as well as the planning Barriers to ES
process. The supplies of sustainable energy services together with access to fundamental of construction
services are part of the planning process that affects sustainable building. Scheduling is very projects
important when considering sustainability (Williams and Dair, 2007). Furthermore, Duah et al.
(2015), Syal et al. (2013) and Ala-Juusela et al. (2006) established the lack of information as a big
problem in energy-efficient building mostly in the place of residence. The average house builder
who comes up with the decision to be more concerned about energy most often has little or no 295
knowledge about the efficiency of energy. The organizations responsible for the sale of houses
should be mandated to educate costumers on lifecycle-efficient solutions rather than selling to
them the cheapest alternative without considering the cost involved in running the alternative
sold. Roberts (2004) revealed a document that gave guidance on sustainability in public facility,
it was found that designers and owners mostly embarked on quality sustainable practices
during construction, but managers of such facilities had limited information on sustainable
practices. Step-by-step approach has been established in diagnostics and evaluating a post
occupancy rate nonetheless not much attention has been paid to issues like education,
monitoring, maintenance and commissioning. Sodagar and Fieldson (2008) postulated that the
designing of a successful sustainable construction projects mostly depends on the availability
of accurate information on product, materials and tools, and using these as the bases, data can
be transferred and calculated. This can only be attained with the collaborative effort of the
construction industry working together toward a stated objective.
Several barriers have been identified to hinder the practice of ES within the
construction industry of both developing and developed countries by researchers and
practitioners. In terms of developed countries, Hakkinen and Belloni (2011) identified six
crucial barriers to the adoption of ES among professionals in the Finland construction
industry: attitude of professionals, overall cost of alternative energy sources, client control
on design, cost consideration and implications of design practices by architects, absence of
a rating tool to measure building sustainability and lack of knowledge on sustainable
practices. Opoku et al. (2015) found lack of design and construction team, lack of building
codes and regulation, lack of incentives, high investment cost, higher final cost, lack of
training and risk of investment among consultant and contractor organizations in the UK
construction industry. There are several other studies on barriers to the adoption of
ES in the construction industry of developed countries (Qian et al., 2015; Gou et al., 2013;
Love et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2012).
Regarding ES studies in developing countries, few studies have been conducted (Chan
et al., 2018; Djokoto et al., 2014; Bangdome-Dery et al., 2014). Chan et al. (2018) focused on
professionals in the construction market, utilized a quantitative method of enquiry and
identified top 3 most critical barriers to green building technologies (GBTs) adoption in
Ghana to include higher cost of GBTs, lack of government incentives and lack of financing
schemes. Djokoto et al. (2014) found 16 barriers to sustainable construction in general.
Djokoto et al. (2014) focused on professionals in the Ghanaian construction industry and
adopted a quantitative method of enquiry. Five key barriers identified in the study include:
lack of technology, lack of demand, lack of expertise, lack of building codes and regulation
and lack of government support. Bangdome-Dery et al. (2014) also focused on architects in
Ghana utilizing a quantitative method of enquiry and identified perception of higher costs
associated with sustainability, less priority on sustainability, increased capital cost on
contract requirements, management of competing and conflicting targets with other
business targets and large size and diverse company activities as barriers to ES practices.
Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of barriers to ES of construction projects in Ghana
using a qualitative method of enquiry and combining the viewpoints of different
stakeholders is worthy. Table I summarizes some of the key barriers to ES in the
construction industry identified in the literature.
SASBE Research
8,4 Authors Barriers Unit of analysis method

Hakkinen and Attitude of professionals Professionals in the Quantitative

Belloni (2011) Overall cost of alternative energy sources Finland construction
Client control on design industry
Cost consideration and implications of design
296 practices by architects
Absence of a rating tool to measure building
sustainability
Lack of knowledge on sustainable practices
Opoku et al. (2015) Lack of design and construction team Consultant and contractor Mixed
Lack of building codes and regulation organizations in the UK method
Lack of incentives construction industry
High investment cost
Higher final cost
Lack of training
Risk of investment
Lack of cooperation
Lack of technology
Djokoto et al. Lack of technology Professionals in the Quantitative
(2014) Lack of demand Ghanaian construction
Lack of expertise industry
Lack of building codes and regulation
Lack of government support
Resistance to change
Higher investment cost
Lack of public awareness
Higher final cost
Lack of training
Inadequate database and access to information
Risk of investment
Lack of measurement tool
Lack of cooperation
Lack of promotion strategy
Lack of incentives
Bangdome-Dery Perception of higher costs associated with Architects in Ghana Quantitative
et al. (2014) sustainability
Less priority on sustainability
Table I. Increased capital cost on contract requirements
Barriers to Management of competing and conflicting
environmental targets with other business targets
sustainability Large size and diverse company activities

3. Research methodology
3.1 Approach/strategy
This research followed a qualitative approach, as it systematically worked to solve the
research problem and achieve the research aim, which is to identify barriers to ES
of construction projects. This approach was deemed appropriate because research into ES of
construction projects especially in developing countries is not yet profound, hence, a more
invitational, open-ended question options had the tendency to provide relevant information
on which future studies in the area could be built. The Kumasi City Mall (KCM) was selected
as the case for the study. This project was selected because of its location and level of
exposure to the environment.
The KCM is a shopping mall located in Kumasi, Ghana. It is the first of its kind in the
city. The KCM has a total retail floor area of 18,000 m² and took 24 months to complete.
The mall is one of the biggest malls in West Africa. The KCM currently has a huge lettable Barriers to ES
space of 18,500 m2, which can be upgraded by another 10,000 m² to level at 28,500 m². The of construction
mall itself is cited on a total land space of 62,443 m². It is strategically located off the eastern projects
bypass of the city’s main ring road, sprawling between the Lake Road dual carriageway, the
Hudson Road, the Yaa Asantewa Road and the Kofi Adomako street. KCM is enclosed at its
two ends. The mall’s retail mix, a respectable number of which are fancied local Ghanaian
brands, includes grocery and foodstuff, beauty and fashion, electronics, banking, 297
telecommunications, restaurants and eateries, a night club and children’s entertainment.
According to the developer of KCM, the building has been specially designed taking into
consideration local culture and lifestyle in Kumasi. Developers adopted highly advanced and
innovative technology in the construction process. In the designing process the ceilings and
columns of the structure was designed to exhibit the trees and forest elements which portrays the
forest vegetation of the Ashanti Region. The basement at the mall is considered as the biggest
undercover basement in the country. There is also a parking lot for over 1,000 bays on-grade.

3.2 Design of interview questions

An interview was conducted with the designers of the mall who were noted as green
designers evident from previously designed projects. The interviews were conducted
between January and March 2017. The study adopted interviews to be able to critically
examine the problem (Udawatta et al., 2015). To add to this, Marshall and Rossman (2011)
indicated that interviews give a vivid explanation of a phenomenon. More so, qualitative
technique was adopted to gain a holistic and extensive understanding on the issue
of ES of projects in Ghana. The objectives of the research were taking into consideration.
Face-to-face interviews were organized around semi-structured interview guides. The
interview guide was made up of two specific sections, of one question each. In all, two major
questions were posed to the respondents, one on their demographics and the other on
barriers to ES of construction projects. In addition to the literature review which laid the
foundation for the development of the interview guide, a two-step procedure was followed to
assess the appropriateness and rationality of the interview guide. A content validity test
was first conducted using three professionals in the construction industry with in-depth
knowledge about ES of construction projects. The comments from the professionals aided in
revising any of the questions that were not clear. Based on the revision, a much-modified
version of the interview guide was arrived at and further administered to the proposed
respondents. The interview guide was given to the various respondents with an
accompanying letter detailing the purpose of the study. The interview guide was given to
the respondents three weeks ahead of the planned interview schedule so as to offer them the
quality time to brainstorm and provide relevant answers. In structuring the question for the
interviews, the questions included: what barriers impede your implementation of
sustainable practices? Do you face external pressures in adopting sustainable practices
and how do they impede the practice of ES? How do differences in environmental conditions
impede your practice of ES? With these questions, the major theme; barriers to the adoption
of ES are explored from the built environment consultants’ perspectives.

3.3 Selection of interview participants

Interviews require well experienced respondents with in-depth knowledge on the field for
that matter, a purposive sampling approach was adopted to select experts from the project
team based on a set of pre-defined criteria: the first criteria was that the interviewee should
have been involved in an environmentally sustainable project; the second to be considered
was that the interviewee must have a minimum of five years working experience in the
construction industry (Hakkinen et al., 2015); interviewee must be a principal built
environment professional (Cheung et al., 2010); and interviewee must be willing to take part
SASBE in the study. A total of seven built environment consultants on the KCM project were
8,4 identified for the study. The few number of the interviewees was a result of the set selection
criteria. It must be noted that findings of the research cannot be generalized due to the small
sample size used. However, small sample sizes are uncommon with qualitative research, for
instance, Javed et al. (2013) in a research dubbed “A model framework of output
specifications for hospital Public Private Partnership and Private Finance Initiative
298 projects” interviewed only two experts. However, the experience of interviewees (all had
more than five years of environmentally sustainable project experience) enhanced the
genuineness of responses for further analysis.

3.4 Interview process

To ensure quality of information given, the interview instrument was pretested to correct
errors that might occur during the interview session. The interviews were conducted in a
relaxed manner in the comfort of the interviewee’s office. The interviews were digitally
recorded with the consent of the interviewees. The total time used for every interview
ranged from 45 to 60 min. Several analytical tools, such as content analysis, grounded
theory, data matrix analysis and thematic template analysis, exist for researchers to use to
analyze qualitative data (King, 2012). Qualitative data were collected, transcribed and
analyzed using thematic template analysis technique. The data were analyzed by coding
using Nvivo 11 software. Nvivo software was used because it is an effective manager of text
as well as analysis. To begin with the analysis, an open coding was adopted to establish the
themes using information gathered from literature. Coding is the process of gathering data
by themes or cases in Nvivo. The themes were furthered grouped under categories to
establish patterns which gave detailed explanation on the phenomenon being studied (Ibem,
2011). Data obtained from the interview were analyzed using the procedure outlined: the
recorded data in a form of audio were transcribed using MS Word 2017; each of the
interviews with the professionals were transcribed separately in a word document and
saved in their respective names; the transcribed data were cross checked with the audio
recordings to ensure that they were exactly the same as the audio recordings from the
interview; the transcribed data were imported into the Nvivo 11 Pro; deductive approach of
thematic template analysis was used; the themes in the interview guide were coded in new
nodes. Node allowed the researchers to gather related materials for emerging patterns and
ideas; responses from all the interviewees were grouped under their respective themes or
nodes; the responses under each node (themes) were coded separately and analyzed; and the
coded data were discussed and supported with literature in order to give meaning to the
results. The results of the analysis formed the basis for identifying the barriers to ES of
construction projects. Findings from the interview were presented using simple descriptive
statics like cross tabulations. Table II shows the detailed background of interviewees. For
the purpose of anonymity, the names of interviewees are represented with codes; H1, H2, H3,
H4, H5, H6 and H7.

Interviewee (Code) Position Years of ES experience Willingness to partake in study

H1 Principal Architect More than 10 years Willing

H2 Principal Landscape Architect More than 6 years Willing
H3 Principal Services Engineer 8 years Willing
H4 Principal Quantity Surveyor 9 years Willing
Table II. H5 Principal Mechanical Engineer 7 years Willing
Background of H6 Principal Structural Engineer 6 years Willing
interviewees H7 Principal Geotechnical Engineer 6 years Willing
4. Results and discussion Barriers to ES
4.1 Demography of respondents of construction
From Table II, it is seen that all participants are principal built environment consultants projects
who have previously been involved in environmentally sustainable projects. Also, the
experiences of respondents indicate the in-depth knowledge and the participation level they
have in environmentally sustainable projects. Moreover, the interviewees were willing to
take part in the research. This is an indication that there was quality and adequacy in 299
information given hence reliable for analysis.

4.2 Barriers to environmental sustainability of construction projects

The views of the respondents revealed that five barriers are key to ensuring ES of
construction projects. These barriers are listed to include:
• perceived initial cost;
• lack of knowledge on ES;
• technological difficulties;
• external pressures; and
• environmental conditions in developing countries.
4.2.1 Perceived initial cost. Interviewees were of the view that the practice of ES comes with
high initial cost and therefore prevents its adoption during the design of projects. This
therefore promotes the practice of unsustainable designs which are welcomed by clients
since those designs have minimal cost compared to the environmentally sustainable
designs. The adoption of environmentally sustainable design solutions is hindered because
clients are concerned about the costs of these solutions (Hakkinen and Belloni, 2011).
Interviewees commented on this position as follows:
Going green in itself initially has some expenses. For example, if we take solar panels, the major
deterrent for a lot of people has been the initial cost of installation even though over time you save
money. So building green comes with some initial cost unlike the conventional designs. Because it is
not common on our market it becomes a bit more expensive and clients do not want that.
(Interviewees H1 and H4)
Ala-Juusela and Shukuya (2014) explained that ES offers major cost savings when
implemented but this is not adequately communicated to a wide range of audience
especially developers. This confirms Zhou and Lowe’s (2013) argument that developers hold
the misconception that capital costs will rise when they apply environmentally sustainable
practices in their designs.
4.2.2 Lack of knowledge on environmental sustainability. ES is an emerging trend in the
construction industry especially in most developing countries. The practice of ES is
therefore hindered due to the lack of knowledge and understanding of these practices. While
designers demonstrate confidence in their ability to access and use knowledge in general,
this confidence falls when the specific issue of sustainable design practices is addressed.
Interviewees were of the view that knowledge on ES is uncommon and designers would
have to search for them. Due to the lack of knowledge on ES, designers find it very difficult
to convince clients to accept these environmentally sustainable practices during the design
of projects. The following comments from interviewees form the basis for this position:
Knowledge on environmental sustainability is a barrier since it is not common but as designers you
will have to search for it. Designers have been practicing the same way for as long as even 20 years
and do not want to change. So when you introduce new concepts, it becomes very difficult for them
to accept. For example, the kind of floors (coffer ceilings) used in this mall are even new to us and
SASBE local designers find it difficult to try some of these changes. The lack of knowledge of clients and
8,4 consultants on environmental sustainability prevents its adoption. (Interviewees H3 and H5)
This affirms Kurul et al.’s (2011) argument that only few professionals in the construction
industry have the knowledge and experience to be able to construct an environmental
sustainable project. For the establishment of environmental sustainable project in the
developing world, it is fundamental to establish a solid knowledge foundation that equips
300 the professionals, public, agencies as well as the government as a whole (Du Plessis, 2007).
4.2.3 Technological difficulties. Interviewees indicated the relevance of technologies in
the implementation of ES during design of projects. Respondents acknowledged that
modern technologies have aided them in producing environmentally sustainable designs.
However, modern technological softwares are not too common in most developing countries
and therefore designers would have to put in additional efforts to acquire these
technological softwares. The additional efforts to acquire modern technological softwares
by designers in most developing countries emerged as a new barrier to the adoption of
environmentally sustainable practices at the design stage of projects. There is also difficulty
with clients’ knowledge about these modern technologies. This difficulty of acquiring and
learning these modern technological softwares together with difficulties with clients’
knowledge on modern technologies were revealed in the quotation below:
If you do not have technologies, it will be difficult to practice environmental sustainability concept.
The inability to acquire the right design softwares/technology since they are very expensive on the
market. Even the availability of modern technology such as wind tunnels are difficult to acquire
and these put some impediments but hopefully as we move on things should improve. There are
also clients that no matter what you do as a designer, they are always glued to the conventional
practices and are not prepared to adhere to environmental issues. (Interviewee H6)
Ashworth and Perera (2015) had earlier on stated that only few clients have a significant
desire to own sustainable construction projects. York et al. (2010) opined that modern
societies have enhanced their ability to promote the efficiency of environmental resource
through the Ecological Modernization Theory. The Ecological Modernization Theory talks
about how the industry can continually be developed by efficient utilization of resources
rather than the unavoidable continuous degradation of the environment. There is therefore
the need to ensure the availability of technologies as well as their efficiency in usage at the
design stage of projects.
4.2.4 External pressures in adopting environmentally sustainable practices. In the context
of this study, external pressures refer to the influences that are generated outside the
designer’s own environment that prevent the implementation of ES during the design of
projects. Interviewees were of the view that most of these external pressures come from the
client. However, built environment consultants acknowledged that some colleagues also
pose problems in the sense that, they think some of these environmentally sustainable
practices are not necessary and instead of making the client spend so much money in
adopting environmentally sustainable designs, they should just provide the conventional
designs. Designers are therefore demotivated in incorporating environmentally sustainable
practices during the design of projects. This emerged as a new barrier from the study. This
demotivation was revealed in the comments from the interviewees as follows:
Most often the external pressure comes from the client and colleagues who think it is not necessary.
Just do what the client wants and get your money. Some clients think the environmental
sustainability concept is an imposed/foreign concept and normally would not want to adopt these
practices. (Interviewees H2 and H7)
The Resilience Theory, according to Warner et al. (2017) requires individuals to develop
skills, abilities, knowledge and insights over time to subdue challenges that may be
encountered in the working environment. This is, however, not the case per the comments Barriers to ES
made by interviewees above. of construction
4.2.5 Environmental condition in developing countries. The environment contributes projects
greatly to whatever is undertaken within the construction industry. Differences in
environmental conditions between developed and developing countries present a lot of
difficulties in the practice of ES in the construction industry. Ofori (2012) confirmed that
most construction industries in the developing countries face similar problems. These 301
problems therefore prevent the smooth implementation of ES across the construction
industry. Interviewees H1 and H6 identified some of the environmental challenges that
prevent the implementation of ES during the design of projects in developing countries as:
• lack of technologies;
• absence of specific regulation on environmentally sustainable practices;
• non-acceptance of green designs by the public;
• clients’ lack of understanding of ES;
• lack of certification for sustainable designs; and
• no regard for ES.

5. Conclusion
In conclusion, the paper has identified a number of barriers to the adoption of ES
of construction projects. Though the emphasis of the barriers to the adoption of ES of
construction projects has been on Ghana, the barriers may have profound implications on
other developing countries too. In line with the methodology adopted, five barriers to the
adoption of ES of construction projects emerged from the study: perceived initial cost, lack
of knowledge on ES, technological difficulties, external pressures and environmental
conditions in developing countries. ES considerations are very essential at the design stage
of projects since major decisions are made at this stage and also the design stage serves as
the fundamental stage of every project. It is important therefore to consider ES issues at the
design stage to help implement ES issues at the construction stage. In the quest to ensure ES
at the design stage of projects, it is recommended that designers and government must
critically consider the identified barriers and strive to eliminate or minimize these barriers.
The identified barriers should enable designers to appreciate the need to ensure the
sustainability of the environment. A critical attention given to these barriers would aid in
achieving the 11th and 15th Sustainable Development Goals which look at protecting the
environment. Furthermore, tackling these barriers would help to reduce the total global
energy consumption. The findings of this study not only contribute to filling the gap in
knowledge concerning barriers to ES of construction projects, but also provide significant
reference for aiding policy makers and practitioners to take appropriate measures to
mitigate the barriers to ES of construction projects. In addition, this study would be useful to
international organizations in promoting the achievement of the sustainable development
agenda. Future research possibilities in the field of quantitative research could be used to
test the identified barriers over a wider study population.
Notwithstanding the achievement of the objective of the study, one major limitation the
research faced was that few experts were interviewed. A larger number could have been
studied to improve the credibility and reliability of the findings gathered. Nonetheless, the
positions and experiences of the interviewees still render the authenticity of the study for
future reference. Another limitation is that only a single case; the KCM project was used in the
research study. This is because at the time of the study, only the KCM project was on-going.
SASBE Acknowledgments
8,4 This study forms part of a large-scope Master of Philosophy study on developing guidelines
for building capacity of built environment consultants to practice ES at the design stage of
projects. The authors acknowledge that this paper shares a similar background and
methodology with other related papers published with different objectives and scopes. The
authors wish to thank the consultants on the KCM project who participated in the study.
302 Finally, the authors are grateful to the editors and reviewers for their comments and
suggestions which aided in improving the quality of this paper.

References
Abidin, N.Z. (2010), “Investigating the awareness and application of sustainable construction concept
by Malaysian Developers”, Habitat International, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 421-426.
Adetunji, I., Price, A.D.F. and Fleming, P. (2008), “Achieving sustainability in the construction
supply chain”, Proceedings of the ICE – Engineering sustainability, Vol. 161 No. 3, pp. 161-172.
Ala-Juusela, M. and Shukuya, M. (2014), “Human body exergy consumption and thermal comfort of an
office worker in typical and extreme weather conditions in Finland”, Energy and Buildings,
Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 249-257.
Ala-Juusela, M., Huovila, P., Jahn, J., Nystedt, A. and Vesanen, T. (2006), “Energy use and greenhouse
gas emissions from construction and buildings”, final report, VTT for UNEP, UNEP (2007)
Buildings and Climate Change Status, Challenges and Opportunities, UNEP, Paris.
Amado, M. and Lucas, V. (2012), “Advantages of the certification of sustainable construction”,
BSA, May.
Ashworth, A. and Perera, S. (2015), Cost Studies of Buildings, Routledge, London.
Bangdome-Dery, A., Eghan, G.E. and Afram, S.O. (2014), “Overview of self-help (self-build) housing
provision in Ghana: policies and challenges”, Methodology, Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 23-34.
Birkeland, J. (2012), Design for Sustainability: A Sourcebook of Integrated Ecological Solutions, Routledge,
London.
Bourdeau, L. (1999), “Sustainable development and the future of construction: a comparison of visions
from various countries”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 354-366.
Cabeza, L.F., Rincón, L., Vilariño, V., Pérez, G. and Castell, A. (2014), “Life cycle assessment (LCA) and
life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: a review”, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 29 No. C, pp. 394-416.
Chan, A.P.C., Darko, A., Olanipekun, A.O. and Ameyaw, E.E. (2018), “Critical barriers to green building
technologies adoption in developing countries: the case of Ghana”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 172, pp. 1067-1079, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.235.
Cheung, E., Chan, A.P. and Kajewski, S. (2010), “The public sector’s perspective on procuring public
works projects-comparing the views of practitioners in Hong Kong and Australia”, Journal of
Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 19-32.
Djokoto, S.D., Dadzie, J. and Ohemeng-Ababio, E. (2014), “Barriers to sustainable construction in the
Ghanaian construction industry: consultants’ perspectives”, Journal of Sustainable Development,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 134-143.
Duah, D., Ford, J.K. and Syal, M.M. (2015), “Role of expert knowledge in home energy retrofits”,
Architecture, Engineering and Construction, p. 72.
Du Plessis, C. (2007), “A strategic framework for sustainable construction in developing countries”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 67-76.
GhaffarianHoseini, A., Dahlan, N.D., Berardi, U., GhaffarianHoseini, A., Makaremi, N. and
GhaffarianHoseini, M. (2013), “Sustainable energy performances of green buildings: a review
of current theories, implementations and challenges”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, Vol. 25, pp. 1-17.
Gou, Z., Lau, S.S.Y. and Prasad, D. (2013), “Market readiness and policy implications for green Barriers to ES
buildings: case study from Hong Kong”, Journal of Green Building, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 162-173. of construction
Hakkinen, T. and Belloni, K. (2011), “Barriers and drivers for sustainable building”, Building Research projects
and Information, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 239-255.
Hakkinen, T., Kuittinen, M., Ruuska, A. and Jung, N. (2015), “Reducing embodied carbon during the
design process of buildings”, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Hart, R.A. (2013), Children’s Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young Citizens in 303
Community Development and Environmental Care, Routledge, London.
Howard, E. (1902), Garden Cities of Tomorrow, Reprinted, Edited with a Preface by F.J. Osborn and an
Introductory Essay by Lewis Mumford, Faber and Faber, London.
Hydes, K. and Creech, L. (2000), “Reducing mechanical equipment cost: the economics of green design”,
Building Research and Information, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 403-407.
Ibem, E.O. (2011), “The contribution of public-private partnership (PPPs) to improving accessibility of
low-income earners to housing in Nigeria”, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, Vol. 26
No. 2, pp. 201-217.
International Standards Organisation, ISO 14067 (2008), “New work item proposal for carbon footprint
of products–part 1: quantification; part 2: communication”.
Javed, A.A., Lam, P.T. and Chan, A.P. (2013), “A model framework of output specifications for hospital
PPP/PFI projects”, Facilities, Vol. 31 Nos 13-14, pp. 610-633.
King, N. (2012), “Doing template analysis”, in Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (Eds), Qualitative Organizational
Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges, Sage, London, pp. 426-450.
Kurul, E., Tah, J.H. and Cheung, F. (2011), “Does the UK built environment sector have the institutional
capacity to deliver sustainable development?”, Architectural Engineering and Design
Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 42-54.
Larice, M. and Macdonald, E. (Eds) (2013), The Urban Design Reader, Routledge, London.
Lockwood, C. (2006), “Building the green way”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 6, pp. 24-52.
Love, P.E., Niedzweicki, M., Bullen, P.A. and Edwards, D.J. (2012), “Achieving the Green Building
Council of Australia’s world leadership rating in an office building in Perth”, Journal of
Construction Engineering Management, Vol. 138 No. 5, pp. 652-660.
Margolin, V. (2007), “Design, the future and the human spirit”, Design Issues, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 4-15.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (2011), Designing Qualitative Research, 4th ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ofori, G. (2012), “Developing the construction industry in Ghana: the case for a central agency”,
a concept paper prepared for improving the construction industry in Ghana, National University
of Singapore, Singapore.
Opoku, A., Cruickshank, H. and Ahmed, V. (2015), “Organizational leadership role in the delivery of
sustainable construction projects in UK”, Built Environment Project and Asset Management,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 154-169.
Pacheco-Torgal, F. and Jalali, S. (2012), “Earth construction: lessons from the past for future
eco-efficient construction”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 29, pp. 512-519,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.10.054
Qian, Q.K., Chan, E.H.W. and Khalid, A.G. (2015), “Challenges in delivering green building projects:
unearthing the transaction costs (TCs)”, Sustainability, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 3615-3636.
Roberts, B.H. (2004), “The application of industrial ecology principles and planning guidelines for the
development of eco-industrial parks: an Australian case study”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 12, Nos 8-10, pp. 997-101.
Rohracher, H. (2011), “Managing the technological transition to sustainable construction of buildings:
a socio-technical perspective”, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 137-150.
SASBE Rydin, Y. (2008), “The contribution of ecological footprinting to planning policy development: using
8,4 REAP to evaluate policies for sustainable housing construction”, Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 227-247.
Shen, L.Y., Tam, V.W.Y., Tam, L. and Ji, Y.B. (2010), “Project feasibility study: the key to successful
implementation of sustainable and socially responsible construction management practice”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 254-259.
304 Silverstone, R. (2017), “Introduction”, Media, Technology and Everyday Life in Europe, Routledge,
London, pp. 19-36.
Sodagar, B. and Fieldson, R. (2008), “Towards a low carbon construction practice”, Construction
Information Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 101-108.
Sodagar, B., Fieldson, R. and Gilroy Scott, B. (2008), “Design for sustainable architecture and
environments”, The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic & Social
Sustainability, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 73-84.
Sun, X., Liu, X., Li, F., Tao, Y. and Song, Y. (2017), “Comprehensive evaluation of different scale cities’
sustainable development for economy, society, and ecological infrastructure in China”, Journal
of Cleaner Production, Vol. 163, pp. S329-S337, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2015.09.002
Syal, M.B., Schultz, P.H., Sunshine, J.M., A’Hearn, M.F., Farnham, T.L. and Dearborn, D.S. (2013),
“Geologic control of jet formation on Comet 103P/Hartley 2”, Icarus, Vol. 222 No. 2, pp. 610-624.
Udawatta, N., Zuo, J., Chiveralls, K. and Zillante, G. (2015), “Improving waste management in
construction projects: an Australian study”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 101,
pp. 73-83.
Warner, K., Goodman, M., FitzSimmons, M. and Allen, P. (2017), “Shifting plates in the agrifood
landscape: the tectonics of alternative agrifood initiatives in California”, The Rural, Routledge,
London, pp. 149-164.
Williams, K. and Dair, C. (2007), “What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers
experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable developments”, Sustainable Development,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 135-147.
Wu, D., Chan, E. and Shen, L. (2004), “Scoring system for measuring contractor’s environmental
performance”, Journal of Construction Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 159-167.
Wu, P. and Low, S.P. (2010), “Project management and green buildings: lesson from the rating
systems”, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 136 No. 2,
pp. 64-67.
York, R., Rosa, E.A. and Dietz, T. (2010), “Ecological modernization theory: theoretical and empirical
challenges”, The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology, pp. 77-90.
Zhang, X., Shen, L., Tam, V.W. and Lee, W.W.Y. (2012), “Barriers to implement extensive green roof
systems: a Hong Kong study”, Renewable Sustainable Energy Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 314-319.
Zhou, L. and Lowe, E. (2013), “Sustainability performance measurement framework for PFI projects in
the UK”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 232-250.

Further reading
Al Surf, M.S., Trigunarsyah, B. and Susilawati, C. (2013), “Saudi Arabia’s sustainable housing
limitations: the experts’ views”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 251-271.
Berg, B.L. (2007), Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 6th ed., Pearson Education,
San Francisco, CA.
Brooks, J., McCluskey, S., Turley, E. and King, N. (2015), “The utility of template analysis in qualitative
psychology research”, Qualitative Research in Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 202-222.
Burns, R.B. (2000), Introduction to Research Methods, 4th ed., Sage, London.
Dewick, P. and Miozzo, M. (2002), “Sustainable technologies and the innovation – regulation paradox”, Barriers to ES
Futures, Vol. 34 Nos 9-10, pp. 823-840. of construction
Dogbegah, K.R. (2009), “Project management competency requirements: the case of project managers projects
on large construction projects in Ghana”, a master’s thesis submitted to the Business and Law
School of Demontfort University, Leicester, In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Masters in Business Administration.
Dohrmann, D.R., Reed, J.H., Bender, S., Chappell, C. and Landry, P. (2009), “Remodeling and renovation 305
of nonresidential buildings in California”, Program measurement and evaluation, Building
Magazine, January 16, 2015, pp. 10.69-10.81.
European Commission Directorate General XVIII for Energy (1999), A Green Vitruvius: Principles and
Practice of Sustainable Architectural Design, James and James Science Publishers, London.
GhaffarianHoseini, A., Makaremi, N. and GhaffarianHoseini, M. (2012), “The concept of zero energy
intelligent buildings (ZEIB): a review of sustainable development for future cities”, British
Journal of Environment and Climate Change, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 339-367.
Green Building Council of Australia (2010), “The dollars and sense of green buildings, 2008”, available
at: www.gbca.org.au/docs/dollars-sense08 (accessed November 23, 2015).
Haroglu, H., Glass, J. and Thorpe, T. (2009), “A study of professional perspectives on structural frame
selection”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27 No. 12, pp. 1209-1217.
Koeppel, S. and Ürge-Vorsatz, D. (2007), “Assessment of policy instruments for reducing greenhouse
emissions from buildings”, report for the UNEP SBCI, Budapest, p. 81.
Kumar, R. (2011), Research Methodology: A Step-By-Step Guide for Beginners, 3rd ed., Sage
Publications, London.
Lahdenpera, P. (2001), “Design-build procedures”, VTT Technology, Vol. 452 No. 1, p. 176.
Lucas, V. and Amado, M.P. (2011), “Evaluation and certification of the sustainable construction”, Built
Environment, Vol. 3 No. 4, p. 5.
McLennan, J.F. (2004), The Philosophy of Sustainable Design: The Future of Architecture, Ecotone,
Kansas City, MO.
Mensah, S. (2016), “Contractor’s adaptation to environmentally sustainable construction processes”, PhD
thesis submitted to the Department of Building Technology, KNUST, Kumasi (unpublished thesis).
Opoku, A. and Fortune, C. (2011), “The implementation of sustainable practices through leadership in
construction organizations”, in Egbu, C. and Lou, E.C.W. (Eds), Proceedings of the 27th Annual
ARCOM Conference, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Bristol,
pp. 1145-1154.
Pitt, M., Tucker, M., Riley, M. and Longden, J. (2009), “Towards sustainable construction: promotion
and best practices”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 201-224.
Presley, A. and Meade, L. (2010), “Benchmarking for sustainability: an application to the sustainable
construction industry”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 435-451.
Priemus, H. (2005), “How to make housing sustainable? The Dutch experience”, Environmental
Planning and Design, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 5-10.
Sev, A. (2009), “How can the construction industry contribute to sustainable development? A
conceptual framework”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 161-173.
Stenberg, A.C. and Räisänen, C. (2006), “The social construction of ‘green building’ in the Swedish
context”, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 67-85.
Szokolay, S.V. (2014), Introduction to Architectural Science: The Basis of Sustainable Design, 3rd ed.,
Routledge, Abingdon.
Vithessonthi, C. (2009), “Corporate ecological sustainability strategy decisions: the role of attitude
towards sustainable development”, Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change,
Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 49-64, doi: 10.1386/jots.6.1.49_1.
Yudelson, J. (2008), Green Building Revolution, Island Press, Washington, DC.
SASBE About the authors
8,4 De-Graft Joe Opoku is currently Graduate and Research Assistant at the Department of Construction
Technology and Management, KNUST, Kumasi, Ghana. He received an HND in Building Technology, a
BSc Degree in Construction Technology and Management, an MPhil Degree in Construction
Management and is currently pursuing PhD. His areas of specialization include sustainable construction,
construction management and sustainable procurement. He is a member of the Ghana Institute of
Construction and the Chartered Institute of Building. De-Graft Joe Opoku is the corresponding author and
306 can be contacted at: joedeggie2000@gmail.com
Joshua Ayarkwa is Full Professor and the current Provost of the College of Art and Built
Environment of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi,
Ghana. He has extensive research and teaching experience in Procurement Management, Construction
Management, Construction materials and the likes. He has managed several large projects in many
sectors of the Ghanaian construction industry. He is a Fellow of the Ghana Institute of Construction, a
Member of the Ghana Institution of Foresters, a Member of the Ghana Institution of Surveyors and an
Incorporate Member of the Chartered Institute of Building.
Kofi Agyekum is Lecturer in Construction Technology and Management at the Department of
Construction Technology and Management, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology
(KNUST), Kumasi. His research and teaching interest focus on procurement, sustainable and green
construction, construction materials and building forensic investigation. He is currently a Commonwealth
Academic Fellow. He is a Member of the Ghana Institute of Construction, the Institution of Engineering
and Technology in Ghana and International Society for Development and Sustainability in Japan. He is
also a Certified Publons Academy Peer Reviewer.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com