The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0168-2601.htm
OHI
47,3
408
Received 21 February 2022
Revised 12 March 2022
Accepted 12 March 2022
Open House International
Vol. 47 No. 3, 2022
pp. 408-427
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0168-2601
DOI 10.1108/OHI-02-2022-0054
Application of green building
concepts and technologies for
sustainable building development
in Sub-Saharan Africa: the case
of Ghana
Lee Felix Anzagira
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Dr. Hilla Limann Technical University, Wa, Ghana
Daniel Duah
Department of Architecture, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology,
Kumasi, Ghana
Edward Badu
Department of Construction Technology and Management,
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
Eric Kwame Simpeh
Centre for Settlements Studies,
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
Samuel Amos-Abanyie
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology,
Kumasi, Ghana, and
Alexander Marful
Department of Architecture, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology,
Kumasi, Ghana
Abstract
Purpose – Green building (GB) is globally acclaimed as the most formidable solution to the adverse effects
that buildings and construction activities have on the climate and environment. Nonetheless, current
evidence suggests that the adoption of GB in developing countries of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is at a snail’s
pace and characterized by the absence of GB codes and frameworks. This paper aims to determine the
current level of adoption and implementation of GB concepts and technologies in the Ghanaian construction
industry (GCI).
Design/methodology/approach – An exploratory method of investigation involving a quantitative
approach was used to achieve the objectives of this study. A literature review was conducted, and a
questionnaire survey was conducted among 292 stakeholders in the GCI. The survey data was analyzed using
descriptive and inferential statistics as well as other quantitative analysis techniques.
Findings – The analysis revealed that the five most applied green building technologies (GBTs) are
technologies for optimizing site planning, building orientation and configuration, use of natural ventilation,
integrative use of natural lighting with electric lighting systems, application of energy-efficient lighting
systems and use of permeable paving: low-traffic areas. Notably, the majority of the GBTs belong to the energy-
efficiency technologies category.
Research limitations/implications – The findings indicate that GBTs are gaining momentum in Ghana
and that there is a need for ongoing research to develop new and more environmentally friendly building
technologies to aid in the preservation of our society and natural resources to achieve United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) 12 and 13.
Originality/value – In effect, this study will enhance the awareness of GB development and contribute to the Green building
GB body of knowledge, particularly in the context of developing countries. It would also be useful to the GCI’s
contribution to achieving the UN SDGs. concepts and
Keywords Green building technologies, Level of application, Construction industry, Developing country, technologies
Sustainable development, Ghana
Paper type Research paper

Introduction 409
Decarbonizing the construction industry is crucial to achieving the United Nations (UN)
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): building and construction account for about 40% of
energy and process-related emissions, making it one of the most-effective ways to reduce
emissions. Yet, according to a global report compiled by the Global Alliance for Buildings and
Construction (Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction GABC, International Energy
Agency and the United Nations Environment Programme, 2019), the buildings and
construction sector accounted for 36% of final energy use and 39% of energy and process-
related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2018, with the manufacturing of building materials
and products such as steel, cement and glass accounting for 11% of the total. In addition to its
massive resource use, the building sector creates between 45% and 65% of landfill garbage
dumps (UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), 2007; Yudelson, 2008; Wu and Low, 2010; Son
et al., 2011; Alsanad, 2015). Both Wu et al. (2014) and Zuo et al. (2015) support the assertion that
the construction industry consumes substantial quantities of energy globally and is widely
recognized as a key contributor to CO2 emissions. Furthermore, when buildings reach the end of
their useful lives, their disposal is associated with energy consumption and waste production
resulting in up to 18% emissions for the carting of and processing of the debris (UNEP, 2007;
Yudelson, 2008; Zuo and Zhao, 2014). In support of these implications in Ghana, Djokoto et al.
(2014) posit that non-sustainable design and construction processes are still persistent coupled
with environmental degradation for construction purposes. The construction industry’s
negative effects on the environment and the general public are grave and disturbing.
Furthermore, Ghana, as a developing country, has been plagued by a chronic and
recurring energy crisis, with an unstable power supply that has persisted since 2013. It is a
problem that has persisted over the past four decades with serious electricity supply
challenges (Agyarko, 2013). From the Electricity Corporation of Ghana (ECG) (2015)
statistics, Ghana’s residential sector consumed 43% of the total energy from 2005 to 2014
(unmatched by any other economic sector). Additionally, Ghana not only suffers an energy
crisis but also has a long-running battle with a recurring water crisis. For instance, in January
2018, the Ghana water company limited announced a water rationing timetable as a result of
inadequate supply due to the dry season (Nathan Gadugah, 2018). Recognizing this, several
responsive measures over the past decade have been advocated to mitigate or moderate such
impacts. One of the measures is the adoption of green building concepts (GBC). Green
building (GB) adoption has become a topical issue in the construction industry globally and
there are sustained calls to incorporate GB practices in the construction industry to achieve
sustainable development and enable the attainment of the UN SDGs.
Despite the fact that the benefits of implementing GBCs exist and are enticing, the concept
is not being embraced at the required rate by construction industry practitioners and
developers in developing countries as opposed to the developed countries (Nguyen et al.,
2017). The obvious question to ask here is “why the low patronage despite the numerous
benefits?” In the viewpoint of Shen et al. (2017), developing countries such as Ghana have not
prioritized sustainability in the delivery of construction projects, which could be a
contributing factor. Also, prevailing conditions such as lack of available databases, lack of
government regulations and incentives and finance are reported in the literature (Chan et al.,
2018) to continually hinder the adoption of GB practices in developing countries.
OHI However, research on these contextual issues hindering the adoption of GB as well as
47,3 strategies to overcome them in developing countries, especially in Ghana is limited. An
obvious gap in knowledge exists here and the need for answers to this question is one of the
many motivations directing this research. This research is, therefore, both timely and
important since it tries to determine the current level of adoption and application of GBCs and
technologies in the Ghanaian construction industry (GCI). Thus, this work offers answers to
the research question: What is the extent of the use of GB practices and technologies at
410 present in the GCI?

Literature review
Green building technologies in the construction industry
Green building technologies (GBTs) are an essential component to the realization of GBs
(Chan et al., 2018). These technologies are usually applied to achieve GBs. There exists a
distinct variation in the approaches utilized in the adoption of GBs across the world, primarily
influenced by factors like climate, environment, economy, society, regulations and native
building types. Thus, GBTs used in different countries are likely to be context-sensitive and
ultimately influenced by the suggested factors. Stojanovska-Georgievska et al. (2017) suggest
that the main areas of concern in the design of GBs from the EU regulations are water, energy,
resource, indoor climate and materials. The GBTs were created to help achieve the efficiencies
required in these areas. Darko et al. (2018) like Zhang et al. (2011a, b) had a classification that
included systems control technologies while sustainable site technologies were highlighted in
the literature as well. It is noteworthy that these technologies are constantly being modified
and new technologies introduced as more knowledge on the impact of buildings on the
environment emerges. The following section presents various technologies under various
categories which impact GB development.

Technologies for materials efficiency

Darko et al. (2018a, b) identified technologies for materials efficiency to include underground
space development and eco-friendly HVAC systems (Zhang et al., 2011a, b). It was highlighted
that the use of these systems was primarily intended to save money and reduce land waste.
The thermal properties of a building’s envelope have the greatest impact on the thermal
environment within it. In view of this, Chen et al. (2015) suggest that the use of materials with
reflective surfaces, thermal insulative properties and a heat storage capacity is essential to
the improvement of the passive building thermal performance, ultimately enhancing indoor
climate. On the use of underground space systems, Huo et al. (2017) encourage its rational use
alongside green spaces. This was suggested particularly because of the isolated nature, thus
limiting the effects on the external environment in addition to the land space saved. Buildings
based on this technology blend with natural spaces and preserve natural landscapes existing.
It was also expressed by Godard (2004) that the underground building themselves are
protected from externalities of climate and weather due to the limited exposure.

Technologies for water efficiency

Darko et al. (2018a, b) argue that water-efficient technologies remain essential to the daily
usage in a building. This reduces the utility rate for operating the building. Among the
technologies explored are water-efficient appliances, low flow plumbing fixtures/faucets,
irrigation and water harvesting technology as well as porous paving systems (Ahmad et al.,
2016; Sheth, 2017). Das et al. (2015) also recommend rainwater harvesting and grey water
recycling and reuse technologies. According to Vitalis et al. (2013), this is regarded as the first
step in achieving water efficiency. Rainwater harvesting technologies are a widely
recommended system and are considered the most important in green rating buildings for Green building
water efficiency (Sheth, 2017). The system is designed to collect roof runoffs and store it in a concepts and
tank for future use (GhaffarianHoseini et al., 2016). The water stored in this system is suitable
for irrigation, mechanical heating and cooling and flushing. Greywater technologies have
technologies
also seen a rise in the water efficiency criterion. The use of greywater (GhaffarianHoseini
et al., 2016) has proven to possess the potential of minimizing the demand for costlier portable
sources, while limiting the use of energy and reducing the carbon footprint of associated
services. In practice, the greywater system collects previously used, non-highly contaminated 411
and diverts it straight into basic reuse or a more complex treatment system for future use
(Allen et al., 2010). Porous paving systems involves the use of pervious concrete, which has
technically almost no fine aggregates, for walkways, carparks or general external surfacing
(Sheth, 2017). The idea behind this system according to El-Hassan and Kianmehr (2016) is to
collect pavement runoffs. Through this, there is an improvement in water retention times,
reduced need for stormwater collection systems, better skid resistance and continuously
replenished aquifers and water table (Sheth, 2017; El-Hassan and Kianmehr, 2016).

Technologies for energy efficiency

According to Yang and Yu (2015), energy-efficient technologies are those which minimize the
quantity of energy needed to supply services and goods. For buildings, the energy efficiency
technologies are vast and diverse. Han et al. (2010a, b) highlight smart windows, illumination,
cascade solar systems, energy-efficient lighting/heating/cooling systems and architectural
designs as some key technologies in GBs. These technologies have been supported and
recommended in many other studies as well. Smart windows are GBTs that make it possible
to adjust and vary its opacity by changing the glazing temperature or voltage connected to
the glaze (Han et al., 2010a, b). The systems keep internal spaces ambient by allowing just the
right amount of incident solar heat flux to penetrate. In Chen et al. (2015), solar shading
appliances are recommended as window systems in enhancing the efficiency of energy.
These systems comparatively are more compact with better aesthetic appeal than traditional
louvres and shades which are regularly used in buildings. The benefits this technique
provides are the cost savings made from reducing air conditioning and lighting (Chen et al.,
2015). To further optimize its usage, improved thermochromics films and coats are applied
(Cui et al., 2018).
Energy-efficient lighting systems include light-emitting diode (LED) lamps, compact
fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and other photovoltaic lighting systems (Han et al., 2010b). Mills
and Schleich (2014) avert that LEDs and CFLs possess about 80–85% more efficient than
incandescent lamps. In recent times, even better cooling capabilities have been added to the
design of LEDs allowing them to contribute less to the heat buildup in internal spaces (Han et
al., 2010b). The use of solar illumination systems has also contributed to energy efficiency in
buildings. Whang et al. (2020) opine that by using natural lighting illumination systems,
sunlight is directed into living spaces for illumination in place of artificial lighting.

Technologies for enhanced indoor climate

Indoor climates have been closely associated with the health and well-being of humans in
addition to the comfort they provide (Liu et al., 2018a, b). By this, it is requisite and standard
practices that within living spaces (offices, apartments, etc.), indoor climate practices on
monitoring and management are duly acknowledged. The requirement of delivering a house
with a good indoor climate for its users is a major one which is often delivered using thermal
controls, monitoring devices for air quality, low emission finishing materials, adequate vents
for thermal and pollution control, efficient lighting and other key technologies (Darko et al.,
2018a, b).
OHI According to Pradhan et al. (2019), the suggestion of living walls and green roofs are made
47,3 as practical tools for space-efficient vegetation and greenery in dry climates as they improve
the environmental quality. Living walls are vertically supported vegetation systems on
which suitable and special plant species with long lifespans are grown with minimal need for
maintenance (Pradhan et al., 2019 and Liu et al., 2018a, b). While green roofs deliver a similar
function, it is done over a horizontal plane. Studies have generally shown the benefits
provided by this system. Through evapotranspiration processes, the plants can reduce room
412 temperature and maintain internal space temperatures cool and suitable for work. Liu et al.
(2018a, b) go on to say that, the system has the ability to stabilize the concentration of carbon
dioxide internally and to effectively reduce volatile compounds with organic bases and
particulate matter. This in turn promotes air quality indoors.
Kolokotsa and Santamouris (2015) advocate using thermal insulation and energy-efficient
windows as a building envelope technology to improve the indoor temperature. This is to
address thermal conditions in both cold and hot climates. Darko et al. (2018a, b) cite Ahmad
et al. (2016) who recommends the use of low-emission finishing materials for this purpose.
Kolokotsa and Santamouris (2015) propose using reflective coatings on non-transparent
components to provide sun and heat protection. This view is also shared by Pacheco et al.
(2012). Natural ventilation is also recommended with Mirrahimi et al. (2016) estimating the
extension of buildings life cycle by 22% using ideal porous design models.

Technologies for systems control

Usually, these are systems that monitor and control the climatic conditions within the
building. These may be integrated, centralized, software and/or hardware networked
together or standalone which ensures the building’s operational performance as well as
occupants’ comfort and security. While Lu et al. (2010) identified that the use of smart
occupancy sensors is an important technology for GB development, Ahmad et al. (2016)
identified HVAC control, occupancy sensors, shading control, audiovisual control, intercoms
and security controls as important system control technologies for achieving GB.

Study setting and methods

Study setting
The climate of Ghana is geographically segmented into three main zones: the warm-humid
(e.g. Kumasi), the hot-dry (e.g. Tamale) and the coastal-hot savannah climatic zones
(e.g. Accra). Ghana is a tropical region with two main seasons: the wet (rainy) and the dry
(Oppong and Badu, 2012). Northern Ghana experiences its rainy season from March to
November, while Southern Ghana experiences its rainy season from April to mid-November.
Ghana’s tropical climate is relatively mild for its latitude. The harmattan, a dry desert wind,
blows in north-east Ghana from December to March, lowering the humidity and causing
hotter days and cooler nights in the northern part of Ghana. The average daily temperature
ranges from 30 8C (86 8F) during the day to 24 8C (75 8F) at night with a relative humidity of
77% and 85% (Oppong and Badu, 2012). As a result of the difference in climatic conditions
prevailing in Ghana, different building materials and construction technology are used in the
various climatic zones. The prevailing climatic condition in Ghana also result in increased
energy and water consumption in buildings, making the adoption of GBCs and GBTs which
notably save energy and water consumption in buildings critical. Figure 1 depicts the map of
Ghana highlighting the study area

Research method
The study adopted a quantitative approach employing a questionnaire survey administered
to selected construction stakeholders in Ghana. The questionnaire for this study was
 Green building
concepts and
technologies

413

Figure 1.
Map of Ghana
highlighting the
study area

designed based on the findings of the scoping literature review. This instrument was then
used to collate the views of GCI stakeholders in this study. Closed-ended questions based on
the five-point Likert scale which has received wide application in GB research (e.g. Hwang
et al., 2017; Chan et al., 2018) was used in this study to assess the current level of GB practices
and technologies adoption and application in the GCI. The subsequent section was designed
to gather background information of respondents without requesting their names to ensure
anonymity. A cover letter explaining the aim and purpose of the questionnaire was also
included as part of the questionnaire.
The purposive sampling method was adopted for selecting construction stakeholders in
this study. To conveniently employ this method to achieve the study objectives, a selection
criterion was developed for choosing the appropriate GCI stakeholders as respondents. The
OHI purposive sampling method also facilitated obtaining data from eligible participants who
47,3 were willing to offer the needed information. As a pre-requisite for adopting the purposive
sampling technique, desirable characteristics of the target respondents, GCI stakeholders
were predetermined and subsequently used to develop the selection criterion that enabled
effective sampling of participating stakeholders. Table 1 presents the criterion developed for
the selection of the respondents. The respondents were clearly classified into four as
(1) Implementers (consultants, contractors, clients and developers), (2) Training and Research
414 Institutions [built industry-related departments in tertiary institutions and Building and
Road Research Institution (BRRI)], (3) Regulators [Government regulatory departments,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), works Department of Metropolitan, Municipal,
District Assemblies (MMDAs), etc.] and (4) Policymakers (government and quasi-institutions
and the Ghana Green building council). The questionnaire survey was limited to those in the
above-mentioned categories who are practicing in Ghana or have practiced within the Ghana
context.
A total of 564 questionnaires were distributed, which represented the calculated sample
size, and 292 valid responses were received, resulting in a response rate of 52%. This
response rate is relatively high as compared to similar studies such as Darko et al. (2018a, b)
(44.8%), Djokoto et al. (2014), Nani (2009) (44%) and Eyiah and Cook (2003) (44%) thus,
validating the response rate of the study. The relatively high response rate is possibly
attributable to the fact that the topic has become topical only recently and many of the
respondents are becoming interested in it. The SPSS software version 25 was used to analyze
the data obtained. Descriptive statistical analysis including the mean ranking technique and
relative importance index was computed. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was
adopted at the second stage of the analysis to examine whether there was variation in the
ratings of the application of GBTs among the different professionals. The ANOVA is mostly

SN Criteria Indicator

1. Implementers
a. Consultants  Must be a registered member and in good standing
with the relevant professional body (ie ARC, GhIE,
GhIS)
 Must have a minimum practice experience of 3 years
post qualification
b. Association of building contractors in  Must be a registered member with an MWH class
Ghana (ABCG) D1K1 or D2K2
 Operate in a developing country (Ghana)
 Have been involved in a construction project in the
past three years
c. Developers  Must have developed property within the last five
years
2. Training and research institutions (KNUST,  Lecturer/Researcher/Student in good standing in the
CUC, KTU, ATU, BRRI, and CSIR) institution
 4th year and above in BE programme – Univ
 3rd year and above in BE programme – Tech Univ
 Involved with management of BE in the institution
3. Regulators (MEST, EPA, TCP, Works  Head of the unit at least for the past 1 year
Dep’t)
4. Policymakers (Chief Director, Coordinating  Head of the unit at least for the past 1 year
Table 1.
Selection criterion for Directors, GhGBC CEO)
respondents Source(s): Authors’ construct (2021)
adopted by researchers to determine the statistical significance of the differences in mean Green building
scores where there are three or more professionals in the study. Therefore, the ANOVA in this concepts and
study sought to check whether there existed significant differences in the mean scores of the
application of GBTs by the different professionals in the study.
technologies

Presentation of findings
Analysis of respondents’ background information 415
Gender. As indicated in Figure 2, there was a total of 292 responses, with 231 males
accounting for 79% and females accounting for 21% of the total responses. This result is
represented as the percentage of females in the construction industry globally is generally
low and put at 9% by the World Economic Forum (WEF) (2016).
Age distribution of respondents. Figure 3 shows the age distribution of the respondents.
The results show that most of the respondents were between 30 and 40 years followed by
41–50 years where respondents are in their prime lifetime; a situation that is common in
Ghana where most people complete tertiary education and get employed in their mid to late
twenties.
Level of education. According to the respondents’ level of education, it is evident from
Figure 4 that all the respondents were educated, 186 (63.7%) holding Post-Graduate/Masters/
PhD degrees and 78 (26.71%) holding Bachelor degrees. This result reflects the current state
of training courses and programs in the GCI, implying that respondents have a good
educational background and sufficient knowledge to more likely understand and accurately
interpret the questionnaires leading to the quality and reliability of the study through correct
and consistent responses.
Professional background of respondents. Figure 5 shows that the respondents composed of
different professional backgrounds; with the dominant categories being 138 (47.3%)
Architects, 69 (23.6%) Quantity Surveyors, 53 (18.2%) and all categories of Engineers, 13
(4.5%). The heterogeneous and diverse background of the respondents as witnessed ensures
the reliability and quality of the responses collected.
Years of experience in construction. In terms of the respondents work experience, the
results show that a total of 40.1% had 1–5 years of working experience. Stakeholders having
between 6 and 10 years of experience were 30.1%, whereas 21.6% had 11–16 years of
experience. Respondents with 16–20 years of experience were 4.1%, while those with over
20 years of experience were also 4.1%. It is worth noting that, the majority (59.9%) of the
respondents have at least six years of experience in the GCI. From a practical perspective, this
result indicates that survey respondents have the adequate experience hence plausibly
concluding that they have sufficient knowledge-based experience to offer valid and reliable
responses in the survey (Figure 6).

The extent of application of green building technologies in Ghana

The respondents were asked to rate based on their experiences in the construction industry
in Ghana, the extent to which they have applied or are applying the listed GBTs over the

Female 21%

Male 79%
Figure 2.
Gender of respondents
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
OHI 61 years and above 2%
47,3
Between 51-60 years 6%

Between 41-50 years 32%

416
Between 30-40 years 49%

Between 20-29 years 11%

Figure 3.
Age of respondents
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Other 1.03%

Technician (CTC I/II/III) 1.03%

Higher/Advanced diploma 7.53%

Bachelor degree 26.71%

Post-Graduate/Masters/PhD 63.70%
Figure 4.
Level of education
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00%

Project/ConstrucƟon manager 4.45%

Other 6.51%

Engineer (all categories) 18.15%

QuanƟty Surveyor 23.63%

Figure 5.
Professional Architect 47.26%
background of
respondents
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%

past 10 projects they have been involved in the construction industry. The rating was done
on a five-point scale (1 5 Not at all; 2 5 Low Extent; 3 5 Moderate Extent; 4 5 High Extent
and 5 5 Very High Extent). Table 2 shows the descriptive statistic of the extent of
application of GBT with main GBT categories; energy-efficiency technology, water-
efficiency technologies, materials and resources-efficiency technologies, indoor
 Over 20 years 4.10%
Green building
concepts and
16-20 years 4.10%
technologies

11-15 years 21.60%

417
6-10 years 30.10%

1-5 years 40.10%

Figure 6.
Years of experience in
construction
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00%

environment quality enhancement technologies, system control technologies and

sustainable site technologies and practices.
Table 2 shows that, when ranking the general GBT categories, the highest-ranked
category with a mean value of 3.31 and relative index of 66.2% is “Sustainable Site
Technologies and practices.” The scale indicates a moderate application of the
technologies with the “use of permeable paving: low-traffic areas” as the technology
within the category receiving the highest application by stakeholders with a mean score of
3.50 with a deviation of 1.222 and an index of 70%. The general category of “Energy-
efficiency technologies” is ranked as the second with an overall mean score of 2.99, a
deviation of 1.254 and a relative index of 59.8%, indicating that respondents moderately
applied this category in the construction industry. Among the 14 GBT technologies under
this category, “optimizing site planning, building orientation, and configuration” which
recorded the highest mean score (3.93) with a deviation of 1.136 and a relative index
(78.6%) was ranked first. It thus received a moderately high extent of application in the
construction industry in Ghana. It was followed by “the use of natural ventilation,” with a
mean score of 3.78 with a deviation of 1.278 and an index of 75.6%. The third-ranked GBT
under this category was “integrative use of natural lighting with electric lighting systems”
averagely rated as applied to a high extent and the fourth indicator applied to a high extent
averagely was “application of energy-efficient lighting systems.” On the hand, GBTs
“Heat recovery ventilation,” “greywater heat recovery,” “application of rooftop wind
turbines to generate electricity,” “use of wooden logs to provide structure and insulation”
and “application of ground source/geothermal heat pumps” were energy-efficiency
technologies which received the lowest of ratings as far as the extent of application within
the category is concerned.
The “System control technology” category of GBTs was ranked 3rd with a mean score of
2.95 with a deviation of 1.233 and a relative index of 59%. This showed that the extent of
application of GBTs comprising this category was moderate. “HVAC control” was the
highest-ranked GBT in this category with a mean score of 3.18. The other GBTs of system
technologies such as security control, audiovisual control and occupancy/motion sensors
were all indicated as moderately applied in the construction industry.
The fourth-ranked category was “Indoor Environment Quality Enhancement
Technologies” which was also rated as moderately applied, with a mean score of 2.94, a
deviation of 1.203 and a relative index of 58.8%. All the GBTs under this category were rated
as moderately applied in the construction industry except “optimizing thermal performance
of building envelope/opaque building envelope (roofs, floors, walls, doors, windows, and
slabs)” which had a mean score of 2.23 below the average implying a low extent of application.
OHI
Std. Mean
47,3 Green Building Technologies Mean
Dev.
RII
Ranking
Energy-Efficiency Technologies 2.99 1.254 0.598 2
Application of energy-efficient HVAC systems 3.19 1.221 0.638 8
Application of energy-efficient lighting systems 3.7 1.138 0.740 4
Application of energy-efficient windows 3.45 1.241 0.690 5
Integrative use of natural lighting with electric lighting
3.75 1.176 3
systems 0.750
418 Application of ground source/geothermal heat pumps
Application of sun/solar shading devices
2.22
3.44
1.303
1.285
0.444
0.688
14
6
Optimizing site planning, building orientation, and
3.93 1.136 1
configuration 0.786
Application of smart meters, thermostats, ducts, and
2.95 1.318 9
electronic display panels 0.590
Installation of high energy-efficient rated appliances 3.32 1.135 0.664 7
Photovoltaic (PV)/solar panels to generate electricity 2.79 1.342 0.558 10
Application of solar water heating 2.5 1.33 0.500 11
Use of wooden logs to provide structure and
2.35 1.256 12
insulation 0.470
Application of rooftop wind turbines to generate
2.03 1.328 16
electricity 0.406
Use of natural ventilation 3.78 1.278 0.756 2
Greywater heat recovery 2.13 1.259 0.426 15
Heat recovery ventilation 2.27 1.312 0.454 13
Water-Efficiency Technologies 2.66 1.251 0.532 5
Decentralized rainwater harvesting/recycling
2.93 1.252 1
technology 0.586
Installation of water-efficient appliances and fixtures
2.69 1.242 2
e.g sensor taps 0.538
Grey water reclaiming and reuse technology 2.35 1.259 0.470 3
Materials and Resources-Efficiency Technologies 2.65 1.216 0.530 6
Underground space development technology 2.19 1.238 0.438 3
Use of environmentally friendly materials for HVAC
2.88 1.2 2
systems 0.576
Use of materials that can be reused or recycled after
2.89 1.211 1
the building life. 0.578
Indoor Environment Quality Enhancement
2.94 1.203 4
Technologies 0.588
Glazing for passive day lighting (take advantage of
2.92 1.229 4
climate conditions) 0.584
Use of efficient type of lighting (lighting output and
3.43 1.135 2
color) 0.686
Active daylighting technology (i.e., mechanical devices
3.49 1.021 1
for collecting daylight) 0.698
Application of low emission (low-E) finishing
2.86 1.287 6
materials 0.572
Application of indoor CO2 monitoring devices (CO2
2.86 1.145 7
sensors) 0.572
Optimizing thermal performance of building
envelope/opaque building envelope (roofs, floors, 2.23 1.302 10
walls, doors, windows, and slabs) 0.446
Ensuring effective stack effect and applying solar
2.85 1.254 8
chimney for enhanced stack ventilation 0.570
Application of efficient equipment and appliances for
2.68 1.316 9
natural ventilation 0.536
Ample ventilation for pollutant and thermal control 3.13 1.13 0.626 3
Provision of smoking areas 2.91 1.208 0.582 5
System Control Technologies 2.95 1.233 0.590 3
Security control 2.75 1.273 0.550 4
HVAC control 3.18 1.15 0.636 1
Audio visual control 3.03 1.262 0.606 2
Occupancy/motion sensors 2.83 1.248 0.566 3
Sustainable Site Technologies and Practices 3.31 1.26 0.662 1
Optimizing site planning, building orientation, and
2.87 1.483 8
configuration 0.574
Use of Permeable paving: low-traffic areas 3.5 1.222 0.700 1
Adherence to local zoning requirements 3.38 1.281 0.676 3
Ensuring the preservation of existing vegetation 3.49 1.259 0.698 2
Table 2. Providing a rain garden or Bio-retention at source 3.33 1.224 0.666 4
Descriptive statistics Ensuring site landscaping and landscape restoration 3.31 1.248 0.662 6
Provision of bicycle and pedestrian walkways 3.33 1.221 0.666 5
for green building
Provision of Storm water management systems 3.29 1.142 0.658 7
technologies
The GBT category of “water-efficiency technologies” was ranked 5th in the study, with an Green building
overall mean score of 2.66 with a deviation of 1.251 and an index of 53.2%. It was averagely concepts and
rated as moderately applied technology. All the three indicators of water-efficiency
technologies were rated averagely as moderately applied. Materials and resources-efficiency
technologies
technologies category of GBTs was the sixth ranked also rated as moderately applied in
Ghana. The use of environmentally friendly materials for HVAC systems and use of materials
that can be reused or recycled after the building life were rated averagely as moderately
applied. However, “underground space development technology” received the lowest rating 419
implying the extent of application is low in the GCI.

Discussion of the extent of application of GBTs in Ghana construction industry

Optimizing site planning, building orientation and configuration. Stakeholders in the GCI
ranked optimizing site planning, building orientation and configuration as the first
(mean 5 3.93), implying that the majority of them applied it or considered it in the last 10
projects they had been involved in. It also implies that it is given an important consideration
over all the other GBTs. This is not surprising given Ghana’s warm humid climate
characterized by long periods of dry hot weather conditions; necessitating cooling
measures with maximum energy savings. As such, most stakeholders would apply this
GBT to achieve this. The optimization of site planning, building orientation and
configuration is a passive design technology that increases the energy-saving ability of
a building. Schreckenbach and Abankwa (1983), in their study of buildings in Tropical
Africa, revealed that the best orientation for a building to obtain maximum energy savings
is the North-South orientation (that is having its longest sides and the opening facing the
North-South). Similarly, a study by Shavi (1981) on the orientation of glazing surface of
buildings concluded that the main glazing surfaces should face the south, especially in hot
and humid climate countries in order to maximize the energy savings of the building.
Pacheco et al. (2012) affirm this in their study, noting a growing consensus of orienting
buildings 20–308 to the south as the best option for maximizing the energy-saving
potentials. It is thus unsurprising that, in the face of Ghana’s high cost of energy and the
recurring energy crisis (Gyamfi et al., 2017) most stakeholders apply this GBT in their
projects, as it has immense benefits in terms of reducing energy costs and ensuring indoor
thermal and visual comfortability to stakeholders. This result aligns with the finding of
Darko et al. (2018a, b) who found optimizing building orientation and configuration to be an
important GBT in sustainable housing development in Accra. This study recommends that
more education is directed at stakeholders on this GBT to ensure widespread uptake and
application in the GCI.

Use of natural ventilation

Stakeholders in the GCI who responded to the survey ranked the GBT “use of natural
ventilation” as the second (mean 5 3.78) GBT that they have applied extensively in the last 10
projects they have been involved in. This finding is expected in a developing country such as
Ghana and is attributable to the fact that since the use of natural ventilation is a passive
design technology, it is much cheaper than active technologies such as air-conditioners for
achieving indoor thermal comfort; as such, many stakeholders prefer to apply it. It is also
noteworthy that, the high initial costs of GB have been reported extensively as a barrier to its
uptake in the GCI (Djokoto et al., 2014; Darko et al., 2017; Ametepey et al., 2015), as such
stakeholders would prefer cheaper but effective alternatives, and hence its extensive
application in the GCI. Another reason for its extensive application is Ghana’s unstable power
supply and high cost of power (used to drive most active technologies to achieve thermal
comfort) leading stakeholders to opt for this cheaper and more effective alternative to
OHI achieving indoor thermal comfort. This finding agrees with similar studies by Zhang et al.
47,3 (2011), Pacheco et al. (2012) and Darko et al. (2018a, b), all of which reported the use of natural
ventilation as being a very important GBT for achieving sustainable housing development. In
fact, while Darko et al. (2018a, b) ranked it as the most important GBT in Ghana, it was ranked
as the fifth most important by Zhang et al. (2011a, b) in China. Stakeholders in GCI should,
therefore, be encouraged to develop easy to do manuals to encourage the widespread use of
this GBT given its importance in achieving buildings that would enable the achievement of
420 the UN SDGs.

Integrative use of natural lighting with electric lighting systems

“Integrative use of natural lighting with electric lighting systems” was ranked by
respondents as the third GBT (mean 5 3.75) extensively applied in the last 10 projects they
were involved in. This implies that stakeholders in the GCI view the integrative use of
daylighting with electric lighting systems as being effective for achieving the benefits of
sustainability. This affirms the study by Roufechaei et al. (2014) in Esfahan, Iran, which
showed that the integrative use of natural lighting (daylighting) with an electric lighting
system is an effective technology contributing to reducing energy consumption in housing
units. Lovell (2010) also discovered that the integration of natural light (daylighting) with
the electric lighting system is a very effective technology that yields energy efficiency and
subsequently cost savings in the construction industry. In the energy ranking of
buildings, building lighting is the number one choice that accounts for more than 30% of
total power consumption. The integrative use of natural lighting refers to the introduction
of sunlight into the interior of a building to complement the lighting needs of the space and
is assigned in a certain way to provide better quality lighting than man-made light. This is
usually done using windows, skylights and clerestories. Daylight lighting reduces the
demand for power light sources and reduces power consumption and associated cooling
load and environmental pollution without adding much cost to the construction cost,
operation or maintenance. It is thus not surprising that many stakeholders in the GCI have
applied this in their projects thus viewing it as important to achieving sustainability. The
high costs of power and unstable nature of power supply in Ghana particularly necessitate
that the integration of natural light with electric lighting systems be scaled up, as this
would reduce power costs drastically and hence lead to comfortable lifestyles for building
occupants.

Application of energy-efficient lighting systems

The application of energy-efficient lighting systems was ranked as the fourth
(mean 5 3.70) most extensively applied GBT by respondents in the survey of the GCI.
It is widely acknowledged that lighting systems in the building are responsible for the
consumption of large amounts of global energy (Yang and Yu, 2015) and in Ghana, the
ECG (2009) estimates that lighting is responsible for about 60–65% of residential
electricity load. Against this backdrop, it is thus obvious that stakeholders would
extensively apply energy-efficient lighting systems which are known to be effective at
reducing the energy consumption for lighting and greenhouse gas emissions. The
Government of Ghana, for example, in 2007 procured and distributed six million energy-
efficient CFLs for free as a direct replacement of six million traditional incandescent lamps
(ECG, 2009) in order to alleviate the 2007 energy crisis in Ghana. These CFLs are known to
consume 70% less energy than traditional incandescent lamps for the same level of
illuminance and last 10 times longer than the traditional incandescent bulbs while their
counterparts, the LED bulbs consume 80% less energy than incandescent bulbs and 30–
40% than most fluorescent bulbs (Ganandran et al., 2014). Additionally, the longer life
spans of these energy-efficient lighting systems imply a saving on costs of replacement Green building
and maintenance. These advantages among others explain why stakeholders extensively concepts and
applied them in their last 10 projects. The finding herein is consistent with the study by
both Darko et al. (2018a, b) and Roufechaei et al. (2014) in Accra, Ghana and Esfahan, Iran,
technologies
respectively, who both found the application of energy-efficient lighting systems to be the
second most important GBT to achieve sustainable development. Inefficient lighting
technologies have been phased out by tightening efficiency standards in several countries.
It is therefore suggested by this study that, building codes should place requirements on 421
lighting fixtures and control systems to encourage efficiency in Ghana. As long as cost
remains a barrier to GB uptake in Ghana, the application of energy-efficient lighting
systems must be emphasized in the Ghana construction industry and efforts should be
upscaled in its to enhance widespread application.

Use of permeable paving: low-traffic areas

Use of permeable paving: low-traffic areas surprisingly was ranked as the fifth most applied
technology (mean 5 3.50) in the GCI. This implied that stakeholders in the GCI have used
permeable paving in low traffic areas in their last 10 projects to achieve their project aims.
Permeable paving is used principally as a means of flood mitigation and control in urbanized
societies where urban consolidation is placing ever-increasing demands on existing and often
barely adequate stormwater infrastructure. It is therefore not surprising that stakeholders in
the GCI have applied it in their last 10 projects given that Ghana has a record of perennial
floods often leading to the loss of lives and destruction of properties, especially in the urban
cities of Accra and Kumasi. Moreover, the use of permeable paving is more inexpensive to
apply than impermeable paving, with service lives ranging from 15 to 25 years without the
need for any changes other than routine maintenance. As a result of the high cost of GB
uptake in Ghana (Djokoto et al., 2014; Darko et al., 2017), stakeholders are compelled to apply
permeable pavement in order to achieve eventual cost savings for their projects. A similar
finding as reported by Ye et al. (2013) in their study in China, emphasized the importance of
permeable pavement in GB label certified projects in China.
Surprisingly, the average mean scores for the GBT category of sustainable site
technologies and practices and energy-efficiency technologies are the highest that was
extensively applied by stakeholders. They are followed by system control technologies,
indoor environmental quality enhancement technologies, water-efficient technologies and
materials and resource efficiency technologies. Flooding in Accra, Kumasi and across the
country during the time of the survey together with the perennial energy crises that pertain in
Ghana (Agyarko, 2013; Gyamfi et al., 2017) may explain why sustainable site technologies
and practices and energy efficiency technologies were the most applied GBTs by GCI
stakeholders. At the individual level, however, it is observed that four out of the first five most
applied GBTs were in the energy-efficiency technologies category. This is a clear pointer that
energy saving is a high priority to GCI stakeholders owing to the energy crisis that Ghana has
experienced over the decades.

ANOVA for comparison of professional background and technology (sub-constructs)

The study investigated whether there was variation in the ratings of the application of GBTs
in the construction industry among the professional background across the three belts.
ANOVA was used to compare the professional backgrounds and the three belts’ ratings on
the technologies using the sub-constructs. The identified variations (significant difference in
ratings) were subjected to multiple comparisons to investigate where the difference lay.
Table 3 showed ANOVA results for the professional background and the six GBTs.
The study showed there was no significant difference in the ratings of energy-efficiency
OHI Sum of Mean
47,3 squares df square F Sig

Energy efficiency technology Between 6.02 4 1.505 1.965 0.100

groups
Within 212.895 278 0.766
groups
422 Total 218.916 282
Water-efficiency technologies Between 2.267 4 0.567 0.443 0.777
groups
Within 355.552 278 1.279
groups
Total 357.819 282
Materials and resources-efficiency Between 6.263 4 1.566 2.043 0.089
technologies groups
Within 213.103 278 0.767
groups
Total 219.366 282
Indoor environment quality Between 6.851 4 1.713 2.012 0.093
enhancement technology groups
Within 236.589 278 0.851
groups
Total 243.44 282
Systems control technology Between 4.93 4 1.233 1.138 0.339
groups
Within 301.147 278 1.083
Table 3. groups
ANOVA for Total 306.077 282
comparison of Sustainable site technologies Between 22.333 4 5.583 6.601 0.000
professional and practices groups
background and Within 235.157 278 0.846
technology (sub- groups
constructs) Total 257.49 282

technology, water-efficiency technology, materials and resources-efficiency technology,

indoor environment quality enhancement technology and systems control technology
(p-value > 0.05).
Sustainable site technologies and practices were rated differently; p-value of 0.000 < 0.05
shows there was a significant difference in ratings among the professional background.
Further investigation showed ratings of architect and quantity surveyor, engineer, project/
construction manager and other professionals (mean difference thus, I J*). The positive
mean difference showed architects rated the sustainable site technologies and practices
higher than the aforementioned professional backgrounds (Table 4). The difference in ratings
of sustainable site technologies and practices lay between architects and the remaining
professional backgrounds.

Conclusions
The paper aimed to determine the current level of adoption and application of GBCs and
technologies in the GCI. To address this objective, an extensive literature review was
conducted. The review resulted in the extraction of 45 GBTs classified under the various
GBCs. These were developed into a questionnaire which was assessed via a survey to
measure the level of agreement and extent of the application using a five-point Likert measure
scale ranging from not at all (1) to a very high extent (5). The questionnaire was reviewed by
(I) professional (J) professional Mean dif Std. 95% CI
Green building
background background (I J) Error Sig LB UB concepts and
*
technologies
Architect Quantity surveyor 0.519 0.136 0.000 0.252 0.786
Engineer (all categories) 0.473* 0.149 0.002 0.180 0.765
Project/construction 0.534* 0.267 0.046 0.009 1.059
manager
Other 0.971* 0.301 0.001 0.378 1.564 423
Quantity surveyor Architect 0.519* 0.136 0.000 0.786 0.252
Engineer (all categories) 0.046 0.168 0.783 0.377 0.284
Project/construction 0.015 0.278 0.958 0.533 0.562
manager
Other 0.452 0.311 0.148 0.161 1.065
Engineer (all categories) Architect 0.473* 0.149 0.002 0.765 0.180
Quantity surveyor 0.046 0.168 0.783 0.284 0.377
Project/construction 0.061 0.285 0.831 0.499 0.621
manager
Other 0.498 0.317 0.117 0.126 1.122
Project/construction Architect 0.534* 0.267 0.046 1.059 0.009
manager Quantity surveyor 0.015 0.278 0.958 0.562 0.533
Engineer (all categories) 0.061 0.285 0.831 0.621 0.499 Table 4.
Other 0.437 0.387 0.259 0.324 1.199 Multiple comparisons
Other Architect 0.971* 0.301 0.001 1.564 0.378 of the significant test
(sustainable site
Quantity surveyor 0.452 0.311 0.148 1.065 0.161
technologies and
Engineer (all categories) 0.498 0.317 0.117 1.122 0.126 practices): professional
Project/construction 0.437 0.387 0.259 1.199 0.324 background and
manager technology (sub-
Note(s): *The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level constructs)

experts from both industry and academia to ensure the validity and efficacy of the items.
Descriptive analysis was applied to compute the statistical means and relative importance
indices with the goal of determining the level of agreement and extent of application of these
technologies. The key findings indicate that the topmost GBTs which are mostly applied in
the GCI by stakeholders were; “Optimizing site planning, building orientation, and
configuration (3.93),” “Use of natural ventilation (3.78),” “Integrative use of natural lighting
with electric lighting systems (3.75),” “Application of energy-efficient lighting systems (3.70)”
and “Use of Permeable paving: low-traffic areas (3.50).” It is worth noting that, the majority of
these belong to the energy-efficiency technologies category of GBTs. Evidently, GBTs have
an overall moderate extent of application in the GCI as witnessed by the mean scores
obtained. As a result, stakeholders must work to improve upon this to enable them to realize
the many benefits associated with the application of GBTs in the construction industry.
The ANOVA test was used to investigate whether there was variation in the ratings of the
application of GBTs among the professional background across the three belts. The test
revealed that there was a consensus among the different professionals regarding the
following GBTs: energy-efficiency technology, water-efficiency technology, materials and
resources-efficiency technology, indoor environment quality enhancement technology and
systems control technology. Nonetheless, there was a significant difference in ratings among
the professional background concerning sustainable site technologies and practices.

Practical implications and recommendations

There is growing interest in the development of GBs and the application of GBCs as an effort
to achieve the UN SDGs. This is an emerging phenomenon that is being explored in depth in
OHI developing countries. Studies of GB practices implementation issues with empirical evidence
47,3 are lacking in developing countries including Ghana. This study has made significant
contributions to both theory and practice in the construction industry. It has made significant
contributions to the GB body of knowledge as well as industrial practice, particularly in
developing countries. Hence, the results will assist industry professionals and policymakers
in identifying, selecting and applying the most appropriate combinations of GBTs on their
construction projects to achieve the benefits of GB and promote GB application in Ghana. It
424 would also be beneficial to manufacturers and suppliers, as they would be better informed
about the gaps in the GBT market and seek to take advantage hence enhancing their
competitive advantage. The research type adopted in this research is largely quantitative.
This enabled the collection of the opinions of a wider section of stakeholders to determine the
extent of application of GBCs and GBTs in Ghana. Future research could focus on a
qualitative study to acquire an in-depth description and appreciation of GB practices as the
industry matures over the time. This research also identified the most applied GBTs in Ghana
to be sustainable site technologies and energy efficiency technologies; a future empirical
enquiry is recommended to ascertain the reasons and cost implication of this finding.

References
Agyarko, K. (2013), “Towards efficient Lighting Market, the case of Ghana”, Energy Commission.
Presented at the ECOWAS Regional workshop Initiatives on Standards and Labelling, Efficient
Lighting and Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 22 April 2013.
Ahmad, T., Thaheem, M.J. and Anwar, A. (2016), “Developing a green-building design approach by
selective use of systems and techniques”, Architectural Engineering and Design Management,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 29-50.
Allen, L., Christian-Smith, J. and Palaniappan, M. (2010), Overview of Greywater Reuse: The Potential of
Greywater Systems to Aid Sustainable Water Management, Pacific Institute, Oakland, CA,
Vol. 654, pp. 19-21.
Alsanad, S. (2015), “Awareness, drivers, actions, and barriers of sustainable construction in Kuwait”,
Procedia Engineering, Elsevier B.V, Vol. 118, pp. 969-983, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.538.
Ametepey, O., Aigbavboa, C. and Ansah, K. (2015), “Barriers to successful implementation of
sustainable construction in the Ghanaian construction industry”, Procedia Manufacturing,
Vol. 3, Ahfe, pp. 1682-1689, doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.988.
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, October, pp. 1067-1079, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.235.
Chen, X., Yang, H. and Lu, L. (2015), “A comprehensive review on passive design approaches in green
building rating tools”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 50, pp. 1425-1436.
Cui, Y., Ke, Y., Liu, C., Chen, Z., Wang, N., Zhang, L., Zhou, Y., Wang, S., Gao, Y. and Long, Y. (2018),
“Thermochromic VO2 for energy-efficient smart windows”, Joule, Vol. 2 No. 9, pp. 1707-1746.
Darko, A., Chan, A.P.C., Ameyaw, E.E., He, B.J. and Olanipekun, A.O. (2017), “Examining issues
influencing green building technologies adoption: the United States green building experts’
perspectives”, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 144, pp. 320-332, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.03.060.
Darko, A., Chan, A.P.C. and Owusu, E.K. (2018a), “What are the green technologies for sustainable
housing development? An empirical study in Ghana”, Business Strategy and Development, Vol. 1
No. 2, pp. 140-153, doi: 10.1002/bsd2.18.
Darko, A., Ping, A., Chan, C., Yang, Y., Shan, M. and He, B. (2018b), “Influences of barriers, drivers,
and promotion strategies on green building technologies adoption in developing countries: the
Ghanaian case”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 200, pp. 687-703, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.
07.318.
Das, O., Bera, P. and Moulick, S. (2015), “Water conservation aspects of green buildings”, International Green building
Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, Vol. 4, pp. 75-79.
concepts and
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,
technologies
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 134-143, doi: 10.5539/jsd.v7n1p134.
ECG (2009), Evaluation of the Government of Ghana CFLs Programme, Energy Commission of Ghana,
available at: http://www.energycom.gov.gh/downloads/CFL_Evaluation.pdf (accessed 7
August 2017). 425
ECG (2015), “National energy statistics 2005-2014”, available at: http://energycom.gov.gh/file 792 s/
Energy%20Statistics_2015.pdf (accessed 30 October 2017).
El-Hassan, H. and Kianmehr, P. (2016), “Pervious concrete pavement incorporating GGBS to alleviate
pavement runoff and improve urban sustainability”, Road Materials and Pavement Design,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 167-181.
Eyiah, A.K. and Cook, P. (2003), “Financing small and medium-scale contractors in developing countries:
a Ghana case study”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 357-367.
Ganandran, G.S.B., Mahlia, T.M.I., Ong, H.C., Rismanchi, B. and Chong, W.T. (2014), “Cost-benefit
analysis and emission reduction of energy efficient lighting at the universiti Tenaga Nasional”,
The Scientific World Journal, Vol. 2014 No. 745894, doi: 10.1155/2014/745894.
GhaffarianHoseini, A., Tookey, J., GhaffarianHoseini, A., Yusoff, S.M. and Hassan, N.B. (2016), “State
of the art of rainwater harvesting systems towards promoting green built environments: a
review”, Desalination and Water Treatment, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 95-104.
Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (GABC), International Energy Agency and the United
Nations Environment Programme (2019), 2019 Global Status Report for Buildings and
Construction: towards a Zero-Emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction
Sector, United Nations Environment Programme.
Godard, J.P. (2004), “Urban underground space and benefits of going underground”, World Tunnel 25
Congress.
Gyamfi, S., Diawuo, F.A., Kumi, E.N., Sika, F. and Modjinou, M. (2017), “The energy efficiency
situation in Ghana”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 82, pp. 1415-1423, doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.007.
Han, H., Hsu, L. and Sheu, C. (2010a), “Application of the theory of planned behavior to green hotel
choice: testing the effect of environmental friendly activities”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31,
pp. 325-334.
Han, H.J., Jeon, Y.I., Lim, S.H., Kim, W.W. and Chen, K. (2010b), “New developments in illumination,
heating and cooling technologies for energy-efficient buildings”, Energy, Vol. 35 No. 6,
pp. 2647-2653.
Huo, X., Ann, T.W. and Wu, Z. (2017), “A comparative analysis of site planning and design among
green building rating tools”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 147, pp. 352-359.
Hwang, B.G., Shan, M., Xie, S. and Chi, S. (2017), “Investigating residents’ perceptions of green retrofit
program in mature residential estates: the case of Singapore”, Habitat International, Vol. 63,
pp. 103-112.
Kolokotsa, D. and Santamouris, M. (2015), “Review of the indoor environmental quality and energy
consumption studies for low-income households in Europe”, Science of The Total Environment,
Vol. 536, pp. 316-330, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.073.
Liu, Y., Hassan, K.A., Karlsson, M., Weister, O. and Gong, S. (2018a), “Active plant wall for green
indoor climate based on cloud and Internet of Things”, IEEE Access, Vol. 6, pp. 33631-33644.
Liu, Y., Hong, Z., Zhu, J., Yan, J., Qi, J. and Liu, P. (2018b), “Promoting green residential buildings:
residents’ environmental attitude, subjective knowledge, and social trust matter”, Energy Policy,
Vol. 112, pp. 152-161.
OHI Lovell, J. (2010), Building Envelopes. An Integrated Approach, Princeton Architectural Press,
New York.
47,3
Lu, J., Sookoor, T., Srinivasan, V., Gao, G., Holben, B., Stankovic, J. and Whitehouse, K. (2010), “The
smart thermostat: using occupancy sensors to save energy in homes”, Proceedings of the 8th
ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, pp. 211-224.
Mills, B. and Schleich, J. (2014), “Household transitions to energy efficient lighting”, Energy Economics,
Vol. 46, pp. 151-160.
426
Mirrahimi, S., Mohamed, M.F., Haw, L.C., Ibrahim, N.L.N., Yusoff, W.F.M. and Aflaki, A. (2016), “The
effect of building envelope on the thermal comfort and energy saving for high-rise buildings in
hot–humid climate”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 53, pp. 1508-1519.
Nani, G. (2009), “Conceptual framework for developing a standard method of measurement of building
construction works for Ghana”, Ph.D. Diss, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and
Technology, Kumasi.
Nathan Gadugah(2018), “Water shortage: GWC to publish water rationing timetable”, available at:
https://www.myjoyonline.com/news/2018/january-29th/water-shortage-gwc-to-publish-water-
rationing-timetable.php (accessed 12 June 2018).
Nguyen, H., Skitmore, M., Gray, M. and Zhang, X. (2017), “Will green building development take off ?
An exploratory study of barriers to green building in Vietnam”, Resources , Conservation and
Recycling, Vol. 127, August, pp. 8-20, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.012.
Oppong, R.A. and Badu, E. (2012), “Building material preferences in warm-humid and hot-dry climates
in Ghana”, Journal of Science and Technology (Ghana), Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 24-37.
~ez, J. and Mart
ınez, G. (2012), “Energy efficient design of building: a review”,
Pacheco, R., Ord
on
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 3559-3573.
Pradhan, S., Al-Ghamdi, S.G. and Mackey, H.R. (2019), “Greywater recycling in buildings using living
walls and green roofs: a review of the applicability and challenges”, Science of the Total
Environment, Vol. 652, pp. 330-344.
Roufechaei, K.M., Bakar, A.H.A. and Tabassi, A.A. (2014), “Energy-efficient design for sustainable
housing development”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 65, pp. 380-388.
Schreckenbach, H. and Abankwa, J.G.K. (1983), Construction Technology for a Tropical Developing
Country, German Agency for Technical Cooperation for the Dept. of Architecture, University of
Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana, Eschborn.
Shaviv, E. (1981), “The influence of the orientation of the main solar glazing on the total energy
consumption of a building”, Solar Energy, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 453-454.
Shen, L., Zhang, Z. and Long, Z. (2017), “Significant barriers to green procurement in real estate
development”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 116, pp. 160-168.
Sheth, D. (2017), “Water efficient technologies for green buildings”, International Journal of
Engineering Innovation and Scientific Research ISSN, Online, pp. 2395-6372.
Son, H., Kim, C., Chong, W.K. and Chou, J.S. (2011), “Implementing sustainable development in the
construction industry: constructors’ perspectives in the US and Korea”, Sustainable
Development, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 337-347.
Stojanovska-Georgievska, L., Sandeva, I. and Spasevska, H. (2017), “An empirical survey on the awareness
of construction developers about green buildings in Macedonia”, 2017 2nd International
Multidisciplinary Conference on Computer and Energy Science (SpliTech), IEEE, pp. 1-7.
UNEP (2007), Buildings and Climate Change: Status, Challenges and Opportunities, United Nation
environment programme, available at: http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/
DTIx0916xPA-BuildingsClimate.pdf (accessed 19 March 2017).
Vatalis, K.I., Manoliadis, O., Charalampides, G., Platias, S. and Savvidis, S. (2013), “Sustainability
components affecting decisions for green building Projects”, Procedia Economics and Finance,
Vol. 5, pp. 747-756.
WEF (2016), Shaping the Future of Construction: A Breakthrough in Mindset and Technology, World Green building
Economic Forum, Geneva.
concepts and
Whang, A.J.W., Chen, Y.Y., Yang, T.H., Lin, Y.L., Tseng, W.C. and Chen, H.C. (2020), “High-efficiency
confocal paraboloids coupler design for natural light illumination systems”, Solar Energy,
technologies
Vol. 195, pp. 129-137.
Wu, P. and Low, S.P. (2010), “Project management and green buildings: lessons from the rating systems”,
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 136 No. 2, pp. 64-70.
427
Wu, P., Xia, B. and Zhao, X. (2014), “The importance of use and end-of-life phases to the life cycle
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of concrete–A review”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, Vol. 37, pp. 360-369.
Yang, M. and Yu, X. (2015), “Energy-efficient technologies”, Energy Efficiency, Green Energy and
Technology, Springer-Verlag, London, pp. 113-126, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4471-6666-5_10.
Ye, L., Cheng, Z., Wang, Q., Lin, W. and Ren, F. (2013), “Overview on green building label in China”,
Renewable Energy, Vol. 53, No. 2013, pp. 220-229, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2012.11.022.
Yudelson, J. (2008), The Green Building Revolution, Island Press, Washington, DC.
Zhang, X., Platten, A. and Shen, L. (2011a), “Green property development practice in China: costs and
barriers”, Building and Environment, Vol. 46 No. 11, pp. 2153-2160.
Zhang, X., Shen, L. and Wu, Y. (2011b), “Green strategy for gaining competitive advantage in housing
development: a China study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19 Nos 2-3, pp. 157-167, doi: 10.
1016/j.jclepro.2010.08.005.
Zuo, J. and Zhao, Z. (2014), “Green building research – current status and future agenda: a review”,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 30, pp. 271-281, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.021.
Zuo, J., Pullen, S., Palmer, J., Bennetts, H., Chileshe, N. and Ma, T. (2015), “Impacts of heat waves and
corresponding measures: a review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 92, pp. 1-12.

Further reading
Gonz
alez-Pino, I., Campos-Celador, A., P
erez-Iribarren, E., Ter
es-Zubiaga, J. and Sala, J.M. (2014),
“Parametric study of the operational and economic feasibility of Stirling micro-cogeneration
devices in Spain”, Applied Thermal Engineering, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 821-829.
Lee, H., Bush, J., Hwang, Y. and Radermacher, R. (2013), “Modelling of micro-CHP (combined heat and
power) unit and evaluation of system performance in building application in United States”,
Energy, Vol. 58, pp. 364-375.
Sick, F. and F€uger, R. (2017), “Buildings as active components for grid stability”, Journal of Green
Building, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 21-34.
Singh, S. and Mohanty, A.R. (2018), “HVAC noise control using natural materials to improve vehicle
interior sound quality”, Applied Acoustics, Vol. 140, pp. 100-109.
Wu, Q., Ren, H. and Gao, W. (2016), “Economic assessment of micro-CHP system for residential
application in shanghai, China”, CUE2015-Applied Energy Symposium and Summit 2015: Low
Carbon Cities and Urban Energy Systems. Energy Procedia, Vol. 88, pp. 732-737.

Corresponding author
Eric Kwame Simpeh can be contacted at: eric.simpeh@knust.edu.gh

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