KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

COLLEGE OF ART AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT

FACULTY OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT

DEPARTMENT OF LAND ECONOMY

THE VALUE OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN IN REAL ESTATE: A CASE STUDY OF

THE KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

KUMASI.

THIS DISSERTATION IS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND

ECONOMY, KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY, KUMASI IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR A BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN LAND

ECONOMY.

BY:

WULO JOSEPH

ABUGRI EVANS

GHANSAH KOJO AMPAH

AKPARIBO LAMISIPOKCA MARY

FRANK ANNING KWABENA AGYEMANG

SEPTEMBER, 2021.
 DECLARATION

We hereby declare that this dissertation is our work towards the BSc. Land

Economy and that, to the best of our knowledge, except where due

acknowledgment has been made in the text, this paper contains no material which

has been accepted for the award of any other degree of the University.

STUDENTS:

WULO JOSEPH (9229717)

Signature: Date:
................................................... ...........................................................

ABUGRI EVANS (9218617)

Signature: Date:
................................................... ...........................................................

GHANSAH KOJO AMPAH (9224517)

Signature: Date:
........................................................... ...........................................................

AKPARIBO LAMISIPOKCA MARY (9220717)

Signature: Date:
........................................................... ...........................................................

FRANK ANNING KWABENA AGYEMANG (9230417)

Signature: Date:
........................................................... ...........................................................

PROJECT SUPERVISOR:

DR. KENNETH DONKOR-HYIAMAN

Signature: Date:
........................................................... ...........................................................

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The ultimate gratitude and appreciation are given to the Almighty God, who by His

immeasurable love, care and grace have taken us through the successful completion of this

work for the partial fulfillment of a BSc. Land Economy degree.

We express our sincere gratitude to Dr. Kenneth Donkor-Hyiaman for his tireless efforts and

supervisory support as the Project Supervisor for this work. The training, teachings, and

inspirations towards the success of this work and our academic and career lives are profoundly

appreciated. The valuable administrative support of the Head of Department for the Land

Economy Department, Dr. Eric Pual-Tudzi, and the entire staff of the department is

appreciatively acknowledged. We also appreciate the Chief Architect, Mr. Kojo Safo-

Kantanka, and the entire staff of the KNUST Development Office for their support during the

Data Collection process.

Finally, we acknowledge Mr. Henry Kwaku Boafo, Mr. Benjamin Ajabuin, and everyone who

in some way or the other offered some support towards the success of this thesis, we are grateful

to all.

ii
 ABSTRACT

The study aimed to provide empirical evidence on the value of sustainable designs in

development on the KNUST campus. The specific objectives were to: analyze the relative

importance of sustainability as the criterion for the development of buildings on campus; assess

how sustainable buildings are on the KNUST campus, and investigate the impacts of

sustainability on property values. The study employed a mixed-method of research including

literature review, interview, and building survey.

Data collected were analyzed using Content Analysis, Quantitative sustainability modeling,

and Principal Component Regression Analysis. The study revealed that the implementation of

sustainable design practices in the development process on campus commencing at the

predevelopment stage is driven mainly by the need to preserve the environment and its

resources, ensure the safety and well-being of occupants. It was also discovered that the

majority of buildings on campus are sustainable per the Edge Certification system which

according to the World Bank, a building is sustainable when the 'building uses 20% less energy,

water and embodied energy in materials compared to an equivalent local benchmark.' Also,

three (3) principal components of sustainability; comprising energy savings, water savings, and

materials savings were reported as influencing the values of properties on campus. However,

energy savings were reported the ultimate component positively affecting property values on

campus.

Hence, the study recommended the following: employing more sustainable measures like; Grey

and Black Water Treatment and Recycling systems, Solar Photovoltaics, etc. to enhance the

sustainability levels of buildings. Also, encourage the training of valuers for the appreciation

of sustainability measures in the valuation process. Future research should focus on sustainable

building practices at the construction stage outside educational institutions where there is no

educational factor attributed to the buildings. Thereby, examining the implementation of the

iii
design components whether sustainable practices integrated at the design stage are fully

operational and functional.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION........................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................viii
LIST TABLES............................................................................................................. ix
CHAPTER ONE .......................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................... 4
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND QUESTION ....................................................... 5
1.2.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES .......................................................................... 5
1.2.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................ 6
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 6
1.3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................... 6
1.3.2 DESIGN OF RESEARCH INSTRUMENT ................................................. 7
1.3.3 SAMPLING PROCEDURE AND TECHNIQUES ..................................... 7
1.3.4 DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................... 9
1.3.5 DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 10
1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY .................................................................................... 11
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ................................................................... 12
1.6 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER TWO ....................................................................................................... 13
LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 13
2.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 13
2.2. SUSTAINABLE DESIGN .................................................................................. 13
2.3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN ................... 14
2.4 COMPONENTS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN ............................................... 16
2.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY ................................................. 18
2.4.2 ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY .............................................................. 20
2.4.2.1 OPERATING COST, REPAIRS, AND MAINTENANCE ................... 20
2.4.3 SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY ...................................................................... 22
2.5 THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AS A
CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 24

v
2.6 ASSESSMENT OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN PRACTICES IN REAL
ESTATE ...................................................................................................................... 25
2.6.1 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA)............................................................. 26
2.6.2 BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT ENVIRONMENTAL
METHODS (BREEAM) ............................................................................................ 26
2.6.3 LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (LEED)
...................................................................................................................................... 27
2.7 THE IMPACT OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN ON PROPERTY VALUES... 27
2.8 DRIVERS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGNS ....................................................... 30
CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................... 34
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 34
3.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 34
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN ......................................................................................... 34
3.3 DESIGN OF RESEARCH INSTRUMENT ...................................................... 35
3.4 SAMPLING PROCEDURE AND TECHNIQUES .......................................... 36
3.4.1 Population ...................................................................................................... 36
3.4.2 Sampling Techniques .................................................................................... 37
3.5 DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................ 38
3.5.1 Data Collection Method ................................................................................ 38
3.5.2 Primary Source of Data ................................................................................ 38
3.5.3 Secondary Source of Data ............................................................................ 39
3.6 DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 39
3.7. SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 41
CHAPTER FOUR ...................................................................................................... 42
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION ............................... 42
4.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 42
4.2 SUSTAINABILITY AMONG PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT FACTORS AT
THE KNUST .............................................................................................................. 42
4.3 SUSTAINABILITY OF BUILDINGS ON CAMPUS ...................................... 46
4.4 THE IMPACT OF SUSTAINABILITY ON PROPERTY VALUES ............. 49
4.5 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 55
CHAPTER FIVE ....................................................................................................... 56
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ....................................................... 56
5.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 56
5.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................. 56
5.3 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ............................................................................. 56

vi
 5.3.1. Review of Objective One ............................................................................. 56
5.3.3. Review of Objective three ........................................................................... 58
5.4 CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE AND INDUSTRY ............................. 58
5.4.1 Contribution to Knowledge .......................................................................... 58
5.4.2 Contribution to Industry .............................................................................. 59
5.5 RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................... 59
6. REFERENCES....................................................................................................... 61
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................. 65
Appendix A: Base Case Utility Cost and Utility Cost Reduction on Individual
Buildings ................................................................................................................. 65
Appendix B: Energy, Water and Materials Savings on Individual Building ... 66
Appendix C: Carbon Emission and Operational Carbon Savings on Individual
Buildings ................................................................................................................. 67
Appendix D: Sustainable Measures for Water ................................................... 68
Appendix E: Sustainable Measures for Materials .............................................. 69
APPENDIX F: Sustainable Measures for Energy .............................................. 71

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Sustainable Components .............................................................................. 16
Figure 2: Framework for implementing sustainability in building construction ......... 17
Figure 3: Strategies and Methods to achieve resource conservation ........................... 18
Figure 4: Strategies and Methods to achieve human adaptation.................................. 23
Figure 5: The vicious circle of blame .......................................................................... 32
Figure 6: The vicious circle. RICS, (2008) .................................................................. 33
Figure 7: Pre-development process of KNUST. .......................................................... 43
Figure 8: Order of priority of factors considered in designing for the sustainability of
buildings on campus. ................................................................................................... 44

viii
 LIST TABLES
Table 1: Possible impacts of sustainability features on building value. ...................... 29
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics on Regression variables of the Buildings on KNUST
Campus. ....................................................................................................................... 47
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics on Regression variables of the Buildings on KNUST
Campus. ....................................................................................................................... 50
Table 4: Component Matrix ......................................................................................... 51
Table 5: Total Variance Explained .............................................................................. 52
Table 6: Kaiser Meyer-Olkin Test ............................................................................... 53
Table 7: Regression Results of the Principal Components .......................................... 55

ix
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Sustainable building was defined according to the American Institute of Physics (AIP)

Conference Proceedings, page 1, (2020) as a tool "focuses on increasing the efficiency

of resource use – energy, water, and materials – while reducing building impact on

human health and the environment during the building's life cycle, through better siting,

design, construction, operation, maintenance, and removal. Sustainable Buildings

should be designed and operated to reduce the overall impact of the built environment

on its surroundings''. Mang, et al., (2017) indicated, the practices of sustainable designs

have focused primarily on minimizing damage to the environment and human health

and using resources more efficiently, in effect, minimizing the degradation of the

earth’s natural systems. Advocates of a regenerative approach to the built environment

believe a much more deeply integrated, whole systems approach to the design and

construction of buildings and human settlements (and nearly all other human activities)

is needed (Mang, et al., 2017).

The real goal of sustainability is improving the quality of human life by securing

economic development, social equity and justice, and environmental protection while

living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems (Cavagnaro & Curiel,

2012) as cited by (Ibiyemi, et al., 2015). Sustainable design rediscovers the social,

environmental, and technical values of pedestrians, mixed-use communities, fully using

the existing infrastructures, including "main streets” and small-town planning

principles, and recapturing indoor-outdoor relationships. The sustainable design

1
introduces suitable, non-polluting materials and assemblies with lower embodied and

operating energy requirements, higher durability, and recyclability (Vivian, 2013).

The significant process in the creation of properties starts with the early assessment and

procurement of the important resources for the property. Next, various designs and

estimated costs are associated with project alternatives. The appropriate permits are

acquired for the development after the appropriate design is selected and approved by

the appropriate authority. Investors/developers then acquired capital resources from

various real estate financing institutions to fund the development. Once these capital

resources are available, construction and construction planning organizations begin.

The final stage is occupancy and maintenance of the property upon completion.

Usually, the early phases of acquisitions and design will play the largest role in the life

cycle sustainability implications of the property even though each stage has some

sustainability influence. Sustainability implications and impacts must be determined at

these early phases. Thus, the major opportunities to design the built environment for

sustainability occur at these early phases.

Generally, designs of the building have two quantifiable aspects: first, the direct effect

of design on costs, and secondly, the impact of design on value e.g. market rents

(Herbert & Barry, 2015). Sustainable design is usually traded at a higher value due to

its benefits to occupants and owners. The value relates to sales, rental income, and

reduction in occupancy costs, high productivity, better interaction, and communication

through flexible layouts which can be achieved through good design. The value of

design generally means worth, significance, importance, use/usefulness, or esteem

associated with a particular design solution. Value, therefore, depends on the level of

function (or quality) of a design, design space, design component, or materials

concerning its cost (Herbert & Barry, 2015).

2
Lützkendorf & Lorenz, (2015) categorized sustainability in design issues based on the

impact on the property values: (1) sustainability issues that have a measurable impact

on observed property values in particular, e.g., energy-efficiency features, should be

considered in the valuation process. (2) Other sustainability issues that are likely to

have an impact on property values, (e.g. user comfort and health aspects of building

materials) but lack a sufficient database to conclude the magnitude of this impact. (3)

Certain sustainability issues that are not yet likely to have a direct impact on property

values (e.g. environmental impact, cultural quality, contribution to biodiversity

preservation); however, may have an indirect price effect because they enhance the

image and reputation of the building or the building owner.

In general, five methods are used to value the property such as sales comparison

method, investment/income method, cost method, profit method, and residual method

(Wan-Ismail, 2014). According to Moran, (2010), as cited by Wan Ismail, (2013), the

income method is known to be an appropriate valuation method to be used in valuing

green building/sustainable design. Thus, by using the income methods, the element of

rental, operating costs, capitalization, and the discount will directly be generated by

sustainable attributes (Schumann, 2010). Meanwhile, the design and materials of

sustainable buildings will reduce the costs of operating, costs of repair, maintenance,

and replacement of materials that contribute to valuation procedure, and as a result, it

will cause a rise in the net operating income. The higher rental and low vacancy rate of

commercial green buildings will increase the net operating income which will reflect

the value (Buttimen & Ott, 2014).

Moran (2010) as cited by (Wan Ismail, 2013) however, argued again that, the most

widely recognized model for evaluating real estate investment is the Discounted Cash

flow (DCF) method, which is well suited to address financial implications of

3
sustainability. Muldavin, (2010) as cited by (Wan Ismail, 2013) added that the

Discounted Cash flow method would capture the changes of value in the cash flow

forecast (At the same time it is well suited to address financial elements of the green

building). The Discounted Cash flow method provided a conceptual framework and

model enabling the user to integrate quantitative and qualitative analysis to measure

sustainable property financial performance (Wan Ismail, 2013). The Discounted Cash

flow model allows the timing of cash inflows such as future rental growth and capital

expenditure for sustainable retrofitting (Lee, 2010) as cited by (Wan Ismail, 2013).

Ibiyemi, et al., (2015) also stated that the suggested approach is to assess qualitatively,

'sustainability obsolescence' as a depreciation allowance for valuation of non-market

industrial properties by scoring concerning acceptable local sustainability indicators

and rating guidelines.

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The emerging of current architectural design trends, construction, use of certain

building materials, elements, mechanisms, and operations has risen the need for

stakeholders to understand the effects of their activities on property values and how

best their actions can save our ecosystem for our future generation, not undermining

the challenges involved in employing this sustainable construction (Ofori, 2016). The

key question for many stakeholders in the built environment is how investment in a

sustainable design affects (property) value (Lützkendorf & Lorenz, 2015). Warren-

Myers, (2013) stated that the value of sustainability in the real estate industry is still

relatively uncertain, primarily because valuers, developers, and other players of the real

estate industry are uncertain of the influence and impact sustainability has on properties

and the real estate market values. However, market maturation and development will

4
assist valuers' understanding and development of heuristics, which will in time allow

for reflection of sustainability in valuation practice (Warren-Myers, 2013).

Michel et al., (2016) emphasized, if information/data regarding certain

quality/sustainable attributes of buildings are not created at the design stage, they

cannot be analyzed and may not be reflected in the property's value and consequently

play a role within the built environment and market players' decision making. This, as

contended, applies to most of the subset of value/execution ascribes identified with the

supportability qualifications of buildings.

Runde & Thoyre, (2010) also stated that sustainability key concepts and impacts on real

estate valuation have been largely sidestepped to date. Sustainability and green building

require the appraiser to recognize the influence of a new market force (sustainability)

and understand a new set of property characteristics (green features). Schuman, (2010)

also argued that investment decisions are however made almost exclusively following

financial considerations, as investors are mainly driven by monetary actions.

Investment in sustainable commercial buildings has to be justified on an economic

basis. The more the subject of sustainability reflects in the real estate industry's

collective consciousness, the more urgent the consideration of sustainability criteria in

real estate valuation. Valuers, developers, and investors are thus facing the new

challenge of embracing the practical implications of sustainability in the built

environment.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND QUESTION

1.2.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

1. To analyze the relative importance of sustainability as a criterion for the

development of buildings on campus.

5
 2. To assess how sustainable buildings are on the KNUST campus.

3. To investigate the impacts of sustainability on property values.

1.2.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What is the relative importance of sustainability as a criterion for the

development of buildings?

2. How sustainable are buildings on the KNUST campus?

3. What are the impacts of sustainability on the building, and property values?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

1.3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN

The mixed-method research design is given greater consideration as the appropriate

research design for the achievement of the objectives for this study. Mixed-Methods

Studies are products of the pragmatist paradigm and that combine the qualitative and

quantitative approaches within different phases of the research process (Tashakkori &

Teddlie, 2008).

Quantitative research is a structured way of collecting and analyzing data obtained from

different sources. It involves the use of computational, statistical, and mathematical

tools to derive results (Dinye, 2019). The quantitative method allows the study to

measure the impacts of sustainability on property values. It is a means for testing

objective theories by examining the relationship among variables (property values and

sustainability features

Constructivism or qualitative research emerged as an alternative to the positivist form

of inquiry as researchers sought to examine the context of human experience

(Schwandt, 2000). The qualitative method allows the study for the assessment of the

various criteria in the process of construction through the interview of project

6
management, facility management, and quality assurance to understand the

perspectives of these officials in charge of procurement and development of properties.

1.3.2 DESIGN OF RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

Research instruments are tools used to collect data, structure the data and translate them

into useful information through a systematic and laborious inquiry to aid in the

interpretation of the data (Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003). Research instruments may

be surveys, tests, scales, questionnaires, or even checklists. The research instruments

employed for this study were semi-structured interviews to collect data from

consultants on the KNUST campus because the semi-structured interviews can help

gauge the representativeness of the individual views and experiences.

As opined by (Cohen & Crabtreen, 2008) the semi-structured interviews allowed the

informant freedom to express their views on their terms and this provided reliable and

comparative qualitative data. This method would be adopted to permit the researcher to

openly discuss the interviewees' opinions as well as their perception of the research

subject.

1.3.3 SAMPLING PROCEDURE AND TECHNIQUES

Population and Sample Frame

Population, as defined by Kenton (2019), is an aggregate number of objects or

measurements of interest from which a sample is taken. Target population and

accessible population are the two main components of the population. The Kwame

Nkrumah University of Science and Technology was chosen as the target area for the

research because of its population and easy accessibility which would help us in our

research by way of assessing the value of sustainable designs of the buildings on

Campus. The University has several facilities including student residential, staff

7
residential, entertainment, and hospitality, commercial and academic facilities for the

Six (6) Colleges. Respondents from the development office for the University would

be consulted as the accessible population to participate in the research.

Sample frame

The sample frame also refers to the subset of the population selected for the research

purpose. Due to the large population, it became necessary to determine a sample size

to be used for the study (Creswell, 2009). Each of the six (6) colleges has its academic

facilities. The sample size was limited to academic facilities/buildings within the six

(6) colleges of the University, the study focused on at least one building for each of the

six (6) colleges to find out the level and impact of sustainability on values of buildings

on campus. The Chief Architect for the university represented the respondents from the

Development Office.

Sampling techniques

In conducting research, it is often impossible to collect data from the entire population

due to resource constraints. Sampling techniques are broadly divided into probabilistic

and non-probabilistic sampling techniques (Teddlie and Yu, 2007).

Probabilistic sampling techniques involve selecting several units from a population

where every member of the population is determinable (Collins et al., 2006). The

probabilistic sampling techniques include; simple random sampling, systematic

sampling, stratified sampling, cluster sampling, quota sampling, and multistage

sampling techniques. (Taherdoost, 2020). The non-Probabilistic sampling technique is

often associated with case study research design and qualitative research (Yin. R.K,

2003). The non-probabilistic sampling technique also includes; convenient sampling,

snowball sampling, purposive sampling, or judgmental sampling techniques.

8
The sampling technique adopted for the quantitative method of the study is quota

sampling. Quota sampling was useful and appropriate for this research since it allows

the sampling of subgroups that are of great interest to the study, thus it allowed for

observing buildings that have easy accessibility with little or no restriction. Quota

sampling however a probabilistic sampling technique in which participants are chosen

is based on predetermined characteristics so that the total sample will have the same

distribution of characteristics as the wider population (Davis, 2005). In conducting the

quota sampling for the research; we will identify a category of buildings that are

important for the study and for which there are some variations, divide the sample

population into subgroups, figured out the proportion of subgroups to the population,

select appropriate sample size, and therefore conduct surveys according to the quotas

defined. From each group, a quota would be drawn so that each group was represented.

1.3.4 DATA COLLECTION

Data collection plays a very crucial role in statistical analysis. In research, there are

different methods used to gather information which include both qualitative and

quantitative methods and a combination of primary and secondary sources. In this

study, the primary and secondary sources of information were gathered for the research.

Primary data refers to the first-hand data gathered by the researcher himself. Sources of

primary data are surveys, observations, questionnaires, and interviews (Ajayi, 2017).

Data for the assessment of the relative importance of sustainability as criteria for the

development of buildings, interviews, and questionnaires as sources of primary data

was employed to collect the information from the Development Office, Facility

Managers, and other stakeholders on the KNUST campus.

9
Secondary data is collected by a party not related to the research study but this data is

collected for some other purpose and at a different time in the past. Sources of

secondary data are government publications websites, books, journal articles, internal

records. Valuation reports on the various buildings would be taken from the

development office. For the assessment of how sustainable buildings are on the KNUST

campus, data from the valuation reports which include: location of buildings, structural

components, energy details, and materials used would be fed into the EDGE software

to obtain the level of sustainability in the buildings. Data for assessment of the impacts

of sustainability on the building, and property values would depend on the level of

sustainability in the building.

1.3.5 DATA ANALYSIS

To ascertain the sustainability of buildings on the KNUST campus, data shall be

analyzed through the Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiency (EDGE) system.

EDGE an innovation of International Finance Corporation (IFC), is a green building

certification system focused on making new residential and commercial buildings more

resource-efficient (International Finance Corporation, 2019). To obtain the level of

sustainability in the buildings on the KNUST campus, data in the valuation report of

the various buildings would be entered into the EDGE software to achieve the objective.

The software shall discover the technical solutions at the early design stage to reduce

operational expenses and environmental impact. Based on the user’s information inputs

and selection of green measures, the system shall reveal projected operational savings

and reduced carbon emissions (International Finance Corporation, 2019).

Regression analysis is a set of statistical methods used for the evaluation of

relationships between a dependent variable and one or more independent variables,

10
regression analysis includes several variations, such as linear, multiple linear, and

nonlinear. (Corporate Finance Institute, 2020). The most common models are simple

linear and multiple linear. The sustainability indexes of buildings sustainable features

of buildings on KNUST campus from the valuation report would be coded into

Microsoft Excel and ‘Stata’ software for the computing of regression and correlation to

indicate the strength of the impact of sustainability concept on property values.

Content Analysis would be used for the analysis of the qualitative data collected from

the interview to ascertain how the relative importance of sustainability is used as the

criterion for development on the campus since it is a research tool that determines the

presence of certain words or concepts within texts (Elo and Kyngas, 2008). Content

analysis is a systematic research method for analyzing and inferences from texts and

other forms of qualitative data (e.g., from an interview, focus-groups, open-ended

questionnaire, etc.), (Government Accountability Office, 2013). It uses analytic

strategies to categorize, compare, and contrast varieties of data.

1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study is focused on the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology

and their implementation of sustainable building designs to help improve the quality

and efficiency of the built environment on campus and Ghana as a whole. The research

unearths how buildings should be sustainable in their designs to safeguard the health

and well-being of the students or users as well as the preservation of the environment

and its resources. The study however takes into consideration the environmental

implication of a design process by using various approaches to eliminate undesirable or

potentially hazardous effects on the environment and minimizes the environmental

impacts by emulating and integrating with the natural environment. The study,

11
therefore, limits the survey to the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and

Technology campus; Kumasi. The research shall thus be limited to academic facilities.

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The study is expected to influence policy directives to ensure that environmentally

sustainable design practices provide means of managing resources and also minimize

the impact of buildings on the environment, especially in this era of the ever-increasing

student population at Kwame Nkrumah University Science and Technology campus.

The study is also expected to influence the building industry professionals to practice

environmentally sustainable design in their course of work since it will elaborate on

both the need and relevance of the practices, thus deepening their knowledge. The gaps

established by this study are expected to influence further empirical studies on

environmentally sustainable building design practices at the construction stage of a

building project, the benefits that have been accrued due to the adoption of the practices

as well as the challenges that have been faced. Finally, to promote and encourage

professionals to think “sustainability” of building development right from the design

stage.

1.6 SUMMARY

This chapter was the proposal of the research that aimed to provide empirical evidence

on the value of sustainable designs in development on the KNUST campus. The chapter

presented the background, problem statement (the need for sustainable buildings), three

(3) research questions, and objectives, significances of the study and methodology, and

also limited the study to academic buildings on the KNUST campus.

12
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The literature Review documents trace both hypothetical and empirical evidence on sustainable

design practices in the built environment. The built environment has evolved to frame and

facilitate nearly all human activities. Simultaneously, its constant expansion has become more

and more harmful to the natural environment. Thus, it has been recognized that planning and

design can play an important role in the achievement of sustainable development. It took into

consideration the impacts of sustainability on a building. The level at which buildings are

sustainable or how sustainable buildings are as well as the relative importance of sustainability

as a criterion for the development of structures. This chapter seeks to examine other articles

and research findings on sustainable design in Ghana and the whole world at large. Previous

Literature on sustainable design and the impacts on the built environment are discussed to

establish the elements of sustainability concept in the planning, designing, construction,

operation, managing, and demolition of structures/buildings.

2.2. SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

Sustainable building design initiatives strive to transform structural development into more

environmentally conscious building design and ultimately improve the quality of life.

Sustainability is a significant criterion while assessing structures and their related parts. On the

off chance that a structure is to be considered as "sustainable", it ought to give a superior

harmony between economic, social, and environmental aspects. Sustainable building was

defined according to the American Institute of Physics (AIP) Conference Proceedings, page 1,

(2020) as a tool "focuses on increasing the efficiency of resource use – energy, water, and

materials – while reducing building impact on human health and the environment during the

13
building's life cycle, through better siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and

removal. Sustainable Buildings should be designed and operated to reduce the overall impact

of the built environment on its surroundings''. Also, according to Keitsch 2012, sustainable

design refers to a resourceful or innovative activity whose purpose is to establish manifold

qualities of the object and its structures considering all concerns i.e. ecological, social, and

economic. A building is said to be sustainable if the processes of designing, construction,

renovation or maintenance, operation, or reuse conforms to an environmentally friendly and

resource-efficient manner. All the features mentioned in this definition contribute to the

estimation of the property's value.

Mang, et al., (2017) also indicated that the practices of sustainable design have focused

primarily on minimizing damage to the environment and human health and using resources

more efficiently, in effect, minimizing the degradation of the earth’s natural systems. Djokoto

et al., (2014) affirmed that sustainable design should be able to perform its function by meeting

the needs of users in terms of its durability, strength, stability, efficient use of resources, and

energy conservation, enabling good health of an occupant within an interior space due to

positive air quality. Sustainable design is that which, is bioclimatic design, according to Watson

(2013), bioclimatic design – combining "biology" and "climate" – is an approach to the design

of buildings and landscapes that is based on the local climate. Ideally, adaptable and flexible

buildings are designed with an element of durability in them, flexibility of layout, which

provides through-life adaptable possibilities to its users".

2.3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

The principles of sustainability have gotten especially significant in the real estate and

development area over the previous decade. Notwithstanding stretched-out endeavors to assess

the sustainability parts of the real estate improvement, not very many endeavors have been

14
uncovered in the scientific literature seeking after incorporating the financial backers and real

estate designers' obligation regarding the neighborhood local area, territorial economy, and

natural issues inside their financial expectations.

According to Kim and Rigdon (1998), as cited by Kissi, et al., (2020), sustainable design

principles are incorporated in buildings when architects make a proper selection of sustainable

and environmentally friendly construction materials. However, Advocates of a regenerative

approach to the built environment believe a much more deeply integrated, whole systems

approach to the design and construction of buildings and human settlements (and nearly all

other human activities) (Mang, et al., 2017). Thus, sustainable design principles are said to be

incorporated in buildings considering the mechanisms, elements, operations, management, etc.

after all the players (i.e., architects, engineers, developers/investors, valuers, users, and others)

have teamed up to make a proper selection of sustainable construction design that is

economically, socially, and environmentally friendly right from the designing stage.

Ahmed et al., (2014) indicated; the Ghana Green Building Council (GHGBC) established in

2009 has been a major indicator in the transformation of the Ghanaian built environment

focusing on sustainability through the planning, designing, construction, operation, and

management of the concept.

Sustainability is one of the basic elements in the built environment, which is spiking the

attention in the government policies and the prominent level strategies. According to Kissi, et

al., (2020), it is therefore not surprising the government (Ghana) introduced sustainability

concepts in the amendment of the Procurement Public Act (Act 663) now as the Procurement

Public Act (Act 914). They added that many private individuals have started incorporating the

concept in their building designs with a few mentions of sustainable buildings situated in the

country. For example, the One Airport Square, Stanbic Height, UN Office, World Bank Office,

15
Ridge Hospital located in Accra, and the Mother and Child Unit at Komfo Anokye Teaching

Hospital in Kumasi.

2.4 COMPONENTS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

According to Danso, (2018), creating sustainable buildings starts with proper site selection,

which includes the orientation of the building to maximize the use of natural light and air, reuse

or rehabilitation of existing buildings must also be considered. A sustainable building should

also use water efficiently, and reuse or recycle water for on-site use when feasible. Sustainable

buildings are also constructed with materials that minimize life-cycle environmental impacts

such as global warming, resource depletion, and human toxicity. The issue of reusability,

recyclability, and biodegradability is also important in determining the sustainability of a

building (Ako-Adjei & Danso, 2019).

Kim et al., (1998) as cited by (Ako-Adjei & Danso, 2019), established manufacturing process,

building operations, and waste management as the three main groupings of sustainable

components or features of buildings and building materials as illustrated in Figure 1 below.

SUSTAINABLE COMPONENTS

MANUFACTURIN BUILDING WASTE

G PROCESS OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

Waste Reduction Energy Efficiency

Pollution Prevention Water Treatment & Biodegradable
Recycled Conservation Recycled
Embodied Energy reduction Nontoxic Reusable
Natural Materials Renewable Energy source Others
Long Life

Figure 1: Sustainable Components

(Kim et al., 1998) as cited in (Ako-Adjei and Danso, 2019)

16
Akadir, et al., (2012) categorized the principal issues associated with the key sustainable

building themes as follows: Economic Sustainability, Social Sustainability, and Environmental

Sustainability

Akadir, et al., (2012) established a chart to postulate the components as Framework of

Strategies and Methods, to achieve a sustainable future in the building industry in terms of

environmental (resource conservation), economic (cost efficiency), and social (design for

human adaptation).

Sustainable building objectives and

strategies

Resource Design for Human

Cost efficiency
conservation adaptation

1. Energy Conservation 1. Protecting Human health and

1. Initial Cost (Purchase Cost)
2. Material Conservation comfort
2. Cost in use
3. Water Conservation 2. Protecting physical resources
3. Recovery cost
4 Land Conservation

Figure 2: Framework for implementing sustainability in building construction

Akadir, et al., (2012),

The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (2011, 2013) defined sustainability for the

valuation profession as: "Sustainability encompasses a wide range of physical, social,

environmental and economic factors that can impact on the value and of which valuers should

be aware. The range of issues includes, but is not limited to, key environmental risks such as

flooding, energy efficiency, climate, design, configuration, accessibility, legislation,

management, and fiscal considerations" as cited in (Tu Thanh Le & Warren-Myers, 2018). The

component of sustainability can be deduced from this definition as physical, social,

environmental, and economic factors.

17
2.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

The environmental principle of sustainability comprises preservation of the ecosystem, energy

conservation, and resource conservation (Iwaro & Mwasha, 2013). The environmental factors

are geared towards preventing harmful effects on the environment. These are realized by

minimizing the production of waste, appropriate usage of natural resources, and protecting the

environment. Akadir, et al., (2012) established a chart as the Strategies and Methods to achieve

resource conservation to represent the environmental sustainability of a green building, which

is shown below:

Resource conservation

Energy Material Water Land

Conservation Conservation Conservation Conservation

1. Choice of materials
and construction 1. Design for waste 1. Adaptive reuse of
method 2. Specify durable 1. Using water efficient existing buildings
2. Insulating building materials plumbing fixtures 2. Locate construction
envelope 3. Specify natural and 2. Design for dual project close to
3. Design for energy local material plumbing existing infrastructure
efficient, 4. Design for pollution 3. Collecting rain 3. Development of
deconstruction and prevention water non-arable lands of
recycling connstruction
5. Specify nontoxic 4. Employing re-
4. Design for low material circulating systems
energy transportation
5. Designing loe
5. Developing energy demand landscaping
efficient technological
process 6. Pressure reduction
6. use of passive
energy design

Figure 3: Strategies and Methods to achieve resource conservation

Akadir, et al., (2012), Strategies and methods to achieve resources conservation.

There are environmentally sustainable practices in the construction industry with the criteria

for evaluating the impacts of the building project given as energy efficiency and conservation,

water efficiency and conservation, choice of materials, waste reduction and recycling, and

humane adaptation (Shafii et al., 2006; Akadiri et al., 2012; Kim and Rigdon, 1998) as cited in

(Asman, 2016).

18
ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Energy efficiency is defined as "the energy services provided per unit of energy input" whiles

energy conservation is referred to as the "total reduction in the amount of energy consumed"

(Gillingham et al., 2009) as cited in (Asman, 2016). Buildings consume energy and other

resources at each stage of the building project from design and construction through operation

and demolition, as a result of the increasing awareness of climate changes, building designers

have to consider the energy performance of their building designs. A sustainable building can

help generate 40% more savings from energy conservation and perform 40% better than

traditional buildings (Lockwood, 2006) as cited in (Asman, 2016). Therefore, it is advisable to

reduce electricity consumption by using renewable energy sources such as solar. In conducting

environmental sustainability test for an office building, it is required that an energy use audit

is undertaken to find avenues for alternative sources of energy which is more energy-efficient

and set benchmarks for energy use (Institute of Local Government, 2013).

WATER CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY

The exhaustion of water resources is turning into an ecological issue of extraordinary concern

worldwide because of the quick development of global economies, since water is an essential

asset for quality living and development of varied economic sectors greater efficiency must be

considered. However, with the water consumption rate tripling in the last 60 years on the planet,

it has become very important to find methodologies to conserve and use water efficiently

(Rodrigues, et al., 2012). Efficient use of water will have a direct economic impact on a

structure as the water and wastewater systems of buildings are powered by energy. There is a

reduction of cost arising from the more efficient water processes of distribution, treatment, and

abstraction. Energy used to pump water and distribute to all sections of the building entails

19
treatments and delivery which involves cost. Excessive water use in buildings, therefore, means

excessive use of energy which will increase gas emissions endangering the environment.

2.4.2 ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY

Sustainable development has become a widely used term that takes into accounts the economic

sustainability of building designs and also includes issues of environmental impact and

resource use. Economic sustainability however refers to the ability to support a defined level

of economic production indefinitely. Ikediashi et al., (2014) defined economic sustainability

as the "degree to which an organization actively and constructively deploys its resources to

support the socio-economic well-being of its surrounding community through job creation,

education and provision of social amenities without comprising the continued existence and

profitability of the organization and the ecosystem of the environment within which it

operates". Economic sustainability can be best achieved with a high level of awareness and

management of the environmental impacts of a building (Ikediashi et al., 2014). Besides, the

Department of Environment, Transport, and Regions (DETR) has set five (5) ways to achieve

economic sustainability. According to the report, building and infrastructure projects should

be viable and competitive, provide greater satisfaction, well-being and value to its customers,

improve and safeguard the natural resources, and reducing the impact of energy and natural

resource consumption (Ikediashi et al., 2014), thus attracting investment, improving

company's profile and improving its relationship with its stakeholders.

2.4.2.1 OPERATING COST, REPAIRS, AND MAINTENANCE

OPERATING COST

Various literature shows that green building usage will yield many benefits, such as increased

asset value, indoor environmental quality, and lower operating costs (Kats, 2010; Yu et al.,

2011). Construction clients are demanding assurance of their buildings' long-term economic

20
performance and costs. According to Milne (2012), direct operating costs entail all expenses

incurred in the daily operations and management of a building throughout its entire lifecycle.

Electricity and water are the main contributors to a building's operating costs and represent at

least 30% of total operating costs and, as a result, have a major impact on the bottom line of a

business. In addition, the building project supply chain of developers, suppliers, manufacturers,

design, and construction teams are under increasing pressure from clients to minimize total

project cost and consider how much a building will cost over its life cycle and how successfully

it will continue to meet occupier's requirements. Buildings represent a large and long-lasting

investment in financial terms as well as in other resources. Improvements in the cost-

effectiveness of buildings are consequently of common interest for the owner, the user, and

society. The concept of sustainability as applied to the construction of buildings is intended to

promote the utmost efficiency and reduce operating costs. There is considerable evidence to

suggest that many organizations, in both the private and public sectors, make decisions about

building-related investment based on estimates of the initial construction cost, with little or no

consideration for costs relating to operation and maintenance throughout the life of the

building. Sharply rising energy costs have highlighted the opportunity for overall savings in

the life of a building that can be achieved by investing in more energy-efficient solutions

initially. Savings on other operating costs can also be considered, e.g., using building finishes

that do not need frequent re-painting. A building's economic operation should be considered

throughout the construction stage and its useful life.

REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE

In 2016, the Canadian Infrastructure Report Card opined that sufficient investment in the

management of facilities would improve the service life, cut maintenance and reconstruction

costs, and reduce risks associated with service disruptions. Maintenance may be defined as the

integration of all technical and administrative processes put in place to regain an item to its

21
acceptable state to enable it to perform its required functions efficiently, by taking into

consideration any plan to manage risk components. The British Standard 3811:1984 also

describes “maintenance” as the intricate combination of technical and associated managerial

actions which are aimed at retaining a building component in (or restoring to) a state in which

it can perform its required function. The maintenance of facilities especially building structures

with the appropriate standard and procedures prolong the life expectancy of the facility, enable

it to function very well, and achieve effective sustainability. Repairs and maintenance activities

of buildings and structures are inescapable: aging, constant use (causing wear and tear), likely

defects of design and construction, and the consequences of environmental agents and

vulnerabilities cause the deterioration of building components over some time. Therefore, it is

important to take measures; otherwise if left to their fate, these components will eventually

become inefficient, unreliable, and may even fall apart, threatening the safety of the occupants

as a result. As pointed out by Tan et al. (2014), maintenance of facilities provides a safe

environment for all users. The apparent objectives behind any repairs and maintenance

operations are; 1. To ensure the safety of the buildings, their components, and their associated

services. 2. To ensure the usability of the buildings and their components. 3. To ensure

satisfaction and fulfillment of all the necessary statutory requirements. 4. To execute work

necessary to maintain the quality and serviceability of the buildings.

2.4.3 SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

Social sustainability can be defined as the effects of buildings and infrastructural projects on

the rights and privileges of the people, health, and safety, well-being, and other societal needs,

(Oyebanji, 2014; Ikediashi et al., 2014). It should be noticed that social sustainability out-

arrives at the owners of the buildings and structures tasks to giving wellbeing and expanding

good life to the staff, its users, and society all in all. One of the main purposes of a sustainable

building is to provide healthy and comfortable environments for working, living, learning,

22
curing, processing, and any other activity. In meeting these basic requirements, the building

should not cause harm to its occupants or the environment and must, for example, be

structurally stable and fire safe. Akadir, et al., (2012) established a chart as the Strategies and

Methods to achieve human adaptation to highlight the strategies and methods of achieving

human adaptation to the sustainable design.

Design for Human adaptation

Protecting Human Protecting Physical

health and comfort Resources

1. Thermal comfort
2. Acoustic comfort
1. Design for Fire Protection
3. Daylighting 2. Resist Natural Hazards
4 Natural ventilation 3. Design for crime prevention
5. Functionality
6. Aesthetics

Figure 4: Strategies and Methods to achieve human adaptation.

Akadir, et al., (2012),

Designing for humane adaptation looks at protecting human health and comfort as well as the

protection of physical resources (Akadiri et al., 2012). Kim and Rigdon (1998) as cited in

(Asman, 2016) however, includes urban design site planning as an additional strategy for

achieving humane adaptation. They added that, in designing to preserve the natural conditions,

the designer ought to value the topography of the site, preserve the vegetation and not temper

with the water table, thus addressing the external effects on the environment. The importance

of improved indoor air quality cannot be overemphasized. Studies by the Indoor Environment

Department (California, US) in 2002 as cited in (Asman, 2016) revealed that improved indoor

air quality by using green materials reduces Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) symptoms such as

dizziness, nausea, etc. by 20% to 50%; cold and influenza are reduced by 9% to 20% whiles

23
allergies and asthma reduced by 8% - 20%. Designing to achieve comfort reflects these six

major methods: i) thermal comfort, ii) acoustic comfort, iii) daylighting, iv) natural ventilation,

v) aesthetics, and vi) functionality. All of the above-mentioned methods help people to perform

well in the building.

Operable windows are similarly fundamental for inhabitants to control temperature, lighting,

and ventilation in the workspace. Non-poisonous inside works of art ought to be utilized as

long-term exposure to harmful and outgassing materials can damagingly affect wellbeing.

Building functionality and aesthetics should similarly be catered for to enable the smooth

operation of activities for which the building was designed (Asman, 2016). However, design

for humane adaptation also includes social factors which address the needs (culture, living

conditions) of people involved in construction activities. In modern society, where persons

spend most of their time indoors, an emphatic role of designers is to design for occupants'

health, physiological satisfaction, physiological comfort, and productivity (Akadir, et al.,

2012). The need for a comfortable housing system is to be met by the usage of sustainable

construction materials/products (Kissi, et al., 2020).

2.5 THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AS A

CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENT

Sustainable design is a design approach put in place to promote the environmental quality and

the quality of building indoor environment by reducing negative impacts on building and the

natural environment. Also, it is a design philosophy that seeks to incorporate sustainable

development concepts in terms of initiatives and values into sustainable building envelope

design. Sustainable innovation and design are not necessarily about new technologies, but

about rethinking how to meet the need for growth while at the same time reducing negative

environmental and social impacts.

24
With the increasing requirement for resource efficiency and its impact on the environment,

there is the need to implement sustainable design. In the preservation of the built environment,

the concept of sustainable design is to minimize land use, reduce pollutants, promote

landscaping and reduce waste. Also, preserving the ecosystem focuses on the ability of

sustainable design to promote the use of recycled, renewable, and reuse materials in the

building to protect the environment from any form of degradation that will deny future

generations from enjoying nature. Resource conservation in sustainable design practices

promotes the use of climate-friendly materials that conserve natural resources such as energy,

materials, and water.

According to Iwaro and Mwasha (2013), sustainable design reiterates that the well-being of

future generations is factored in the design process. By this, resources should be utilized wisely

and effectively so that the future generational need is not compromised by adopting the use of

renewable resources and materials that can be reused or recycled. Sustainable building aims at

the required building performance with minimum adverse environmental impact while

encouraging improvements in economics, social and cultural circumstances. Therefore the role

of sustainable design is essential in interpreting and solving these complicated multilevel

requirements to ensure development.

2.6 ASSESSMENT OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN PRACTICES IN REAL

ESTATE

Sustainability assessment systems for buildings are the tools normally used by project teams to

support decision making which aim to lower the environmental impacts of buildings (Mateus

& Bragança, 2011). Theoretically, there are various methods used to assess the sustainability

of a building and infrastructure projects throughout its life-cycle (Asman, 2016). Examples of

the tools are Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Building Research Establishment Environmental

25
Assessment Methods (BREEAM), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED),

Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiency (EDGE) software, Comprehensive Assessment

System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE) among others. According to

Schumann (2010), sustainability certificates or green rating systems such as BREAM and

LEED document the sustainable characteristics that can contribute to property valuation, as

cited in (Ismail & Majid, 2014). The Ghana Green Building Council (GHGBC) established in

2009 has been a major promoter in the transformation of the Ghanaian built environment

towards sustainability through the planning, designing, construction, maintaining, and

operation of the concept (Ahmed et al. 2014). The sections below discuss some assessment

methods in detail.

2.6.1 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA)

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a systematic approach to measure the potential environmental

impacts of a product or service during its lifecycle. LCA considers the potential environmental

impacts throughout a product's life cycle (i.e. cradle-to-grave) from raw material acquisition

through production, use, and disposal. LCA is a useful approach to evaluate the environmental

impacts of products or processes during their whole life-cycle (Mateus & Bragança, 2011).

2.6.2 BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT ENVIRONMENTAL

METHODS (BREEAM)

One of the earliest and most profound assessment tools is the UK's Building Research

Establishment Environment Assessment Method (BREEAM) developed in the year 1990. The

main function of these assessment tools is primary on building specification evaluation

including the design, construction, and use (Ako-Adjei & Danso, 2019). BREEAM involves

identifying Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of environmental impacts and set targets for

achievement whiles providing information on their achievement or otherwise (Asman, 2016).

26
According to Ikediashi et al., (2014), “BREAM assesses many aspects of sustainability using

a set of “environmental weightings” to achieve an overall score with a maximum achievable

score of “excellent”. The BREEM comprehensive assessment includes all criteria from energy

to ecology, the main aspect of management processes, water use, health and wellbeing,

transport, pollution, and waste (Ako-Adjei & Danso, 2019).

2.6.3 LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

(LEED)

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), is the second oldest assessment tool

developed, it has been available since the year 1998. This tool was developed by the United

States Green Building Council (USGBC) (Ako-Adjei & Danso, 2019). They added that LEED

is a third-party certification program and an internationally accepted benchmark for the design,

construction, and operation of high-performance green buildings. LEED promotes a whole-

building approach to sustainability by recognizing performance in five key areas of human and

environmental health (sustainable site development, water efficiency, energy efficiency,

materials selection, and indoor environmental quality). Asman, (2016) emphasized it was

established to develop a rating system for new construction that would inspire the efficient use

of materials, systems, and the conservation of energy resources with its focus on commercial

buildings although there has been a recent addition for homes in the residential sector.

2.7 THE IMPACT OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN ON PROPERTY

VALUES

Design decisions affect the built environment as there are economic, social, and environmental

consequences associated with construction projects, their use, and performance. There is,

therefore, a need to evaluate design not only from an economic perspective (incorporating

capital and operating costs) but also in terms of the environmental and social costs to clients

27
and other stakeholders (e.g. local people, businesses, communities, and special interest groups)

(Herbert & Barry, 2015). Within the design domain, various approaches including traditionally

used methods are adopted such as Design to cost, Design to Life Cycle Cost, and Design to

value (Lützkendorf & Lorenz, 2015).

Worpole (2000) in his book titled The Value of Architecture: Design, Economy and the

Architectural Imagination as cited in (Herbert & Barry, 2015) also, argued that good design

can contribute in terms of the ‘wider economic impact of attractive buildings and settings

(economic cost), enhanced individual, and social well‐being or quality of life (social cost) and

greater adaptability, energy efficiency and environmental sustainability (environmental cost)’.

The economic dimension (or project profitability or loss) of a design depends mainly on two

factors – the development costs and value. Herbert, (2015) added; an appraisal is essential to

ensure that the economic, social, or environmental implications of a design or alternative design

solution are known at the beginning to establish whether to build or not, to modify a design or

simply to progress to the next stage of the development process. The RICS, (2005) provides a

detailed discussion of every aspect of sustainability in every aspect of the property development

process and its impact on value in the table below.

28
 Table 1: Possible impacts of sustainability features on building value.
Green
Green objectives
strategies/features
Reduced site disturbance and
soil erosion during
construction; Use of natural
Sustainable site drainage systems (e.g. swales);
development
Preserve or restore natural site
features; Landscape and orient
building too capitalize on
tpositive heating and cooling
Use of captured rainwater for
landscaping, toilet flushing, etc.;
Treat and reuse greywater,
excessive groundwater and steam
condensate; Use low-flow fixtures
and fittings (pressure-assited or
compositing toilets, waterless
urinals, etc.) and ozonation for
Water efficiency laundary; use closed-loop systems
and other water-redution
technologies for processes.
Use passive solar heating/cooling
and natural ventilation; Enhance
penetration of daylight to interior
spaces to reduce need for artificial
lighting; Use thermally efficient
envelope to reduece perimeter
heating and size of HVAC; Use
energy-mangement system,
monitoring, and controls to
continuously calibrate, adjust, and
Energy-efficiency
maintain energy-related systems
Use third-party commissioning
agent to ensure that the installed
systems work as designed; Develop
O&M manuals and trainstaff.
Control pollutant sources; Use low-
emission materials; Ventilate before
occupancy; Enhance penetration of
Indoor environmental daylight and reduce glare.
quality
Select products for durability;
Eliminate unnecessary finishes and
other products; Reuse building shell
from exiisting buildings and fixtures
from demolished buildings; use
Reduced consumption of salvaged/refurbished materials;
Design for adaptability.
building materials
(RICS 2005)
Theorotical linkage
Green impact
Improved site aesthetics;
Greater public support for
thew development and
accelerated local approval
process, hence lower carrying
costs; Lower energy cost
lower water
consumption/costs
Lower capital cost; Occupant
benfits; Lower energy costs;
Operational savings (can offset
higher capital costs); Reduced
capital cost of mechanical
systems reduce the need for
over-sizing; Lower operating
costs; Lower maintenance
costs.
Superior indoor air quality,
quality lighting and thermal
quality; Fewer occupant
complaints; Higher occupant
productivity'
Longer building lifcycle; Lower
maintenance costs.
to value
Reduced development costs,
improved marketability,
reduced ongoing maintenance
costs, improved natural
appearance, higher sales/rents,
absorption and retenanting,
NOI/ROI benefits
Lower tenant CAM charges,
Direct NOI benefits for groos
Leases, potential for net leases
requires communicating
benefit ti tenats.
Reduced operating costs,
longer lifecycle, lower
development costs; Improved
occupant productivity, lower
churn, turnover, tenant
inducements, etc.; Higher net
income for gross leased
buildings, improved yeild;
Lower operating costs , on
gross leases, higher ROI/NOI;
On net leases, potential for
improved ROI/NOI.
Marginally higher initial soft
costs should be offset by long-
term operationg cost benefits,
higher ROI.
Risk reduction; Greater
marketability; Faster sales and
lets; Improved churn/turnover;
Higher ROI/NOI.
Lower depreciation typically
after higher investment costs;
Lower construction costs,
probable lower
operating/maintenance costs,
higher ROI/NOI.
NOI- Net Operating Income
ROI-Return on Investment
CAM- Common Area
Mantenance
29
2.8 DRIVERS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGNS

The drivers of environmental sustainability of construction projects are the persuasions that

encourage the adoption of practices that maintain the natural capital which relates to the use of

renewable and non-renewable resources whilst reducing pollution and waste assimilation

during the construction of projects (Opoku, et al., 2019). To integrate a sustainable

development concept into the design of a structure, it is fundamental that all stakeholders be

engaged. The drivers of sustainable building design practice can be grouped into four (4),

namely, Investors or Owners, Corporate Institutions, Professional bodies, and Government.

Investors: refer to listed and non-listed real estate companies, real estate funds, and

institutional investors concentrating on long-term property investing and ownership. Real

estate investing includes actions such as purchase, ownership, management, leasing, and

divestment. Investors are primarily interested in the future income stream generated by the

investment and the risk-adjusted return achieved during the period in which it is held (WBCSD,

2009 and WGBC, 2013).

The challenge for green building investors is to adjust the need to think about sustainability

(e.g. reduce energy consumption) of a commercial building with the requirement for a return

from that investment. Most investors would just consider investments with payback periods

impressively shorter than the expected (residual) holding period, to some extent due to investor

pressures and financial motivators to raise shorter-term returns.

Corporate Institutions: the drive for sustainability among corporate institutions is defined in

their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices which spell out their relationship with

the society, particularly, mitigating the environmental impacts of their operations to safeguard

the health of the people, creating jobs and to large extent provide educational scholarships.

Sustainable buildings may become more important for companies when they have committed

30
themselves to CSR and reporting. Leasing space in a green building may reify the

environmental and social awareness of a firm and may signal the superior social responsibility

of the tenants who relocate there (Eichholtz et al., 2009). As personnel expenses are one of the

most significant factors in a company's operational costs, companies see their real estate

holdings, corporate identity, and values as critically important in attracting and retaining the

labor that drives their businesses (Andelin, et al., 2015).

Professional Bodies: these are experts such as contractors and consultants who have the skill

in sustainable practices in the construction industry. In this era of the 'green revolution,

professionals are required to sensitize their clients on sustainable practices in the building

industry. They are termed 'sustainability leaders' (Opoku and Fortune, 2011). According to

them, achieving sustainability requires leaders who will take bold decisions. This means that

professional bodies are required to provide the needed leadership to move both government

and corporate bodies to adopt sustainability in the industry; and

Government: the sustainability agenda should be driven by the government through its laws

and policy directives. In the UK, for example, they have the climate change levy on the use of

energy and also the landfill tax (Ikediashi et al., 2014). In Ghana, this set can be found in the

Environmental Protection Agency Act 490 of 1994. The agency is mandated to coordinate

practices that will protect the environment. They provide an environmental assessment to

construction, oil and gas, and mining firms among others before the commencement of their

operations. This is to guarantee that the environmental impact is known and any action is taken

to guarantee the safety of the environment and humans.

31
Ratcliffe et al, (2009) highlighted, for some time, there has been an ignorance surrounding

sustainability issues in the property world, but this is diminishing. As with many ‘new’

concepts, this ignorance was a contributor to a general unwillingness to adopt change. And

that, people sought to apportion blame for this on different actors within the property

development process, and the ‘vicious circle of blame’ was drawn up, as shown in Figure 5

below.

Owners/End-
users
'We would like to have
sustainable buildings
but there are few
available.'

Investor Designers &

'We would invest Constructors
in sustainable 'We can build or
buildings, but there retrofit buildings in
is no demand for a sustainable way,
them." but developers dont
ask for it.'

Developers
'We would ask for
sustainable buildings,
but investore won't pay
for them.'

Figure 5: The vicious circle of blame

(Adapted from Cadman 2000 (quoted in Keeping 2000) as cited in Ratcliffe et al, (2009)

Ratcliffe et al, (2009) added, speculative developers, are now seeing that good returns flow

from sustainable buildings and the vicious circle of blame is moving more towards a virtuous

circle, as promoted by the RICS and shown in Figure 10.3 below.

32
 Owners/End-users
'We demand and occupy
sustainable buildings
because, they are cheaper to
run, increase our well-being
and improve our image.'

Investor
Designers &
'We invest in Constructors
sustainable buildings 'We design and construct
because that's what sustainable buildings and
occupiers want and environment bescause
because they give better that is what our clients
return and have higher
want and what society
value growth potential.' expect.'

Developers
'We develop sustainable
buildings because they
are easier to sell, achieve
higher price and are
much more resistance to
obsolescene.'

Figure 6: The vicious circle. RICS, (2008)

2.9 SUMMARY

This chapter enveloped the general overview of sustainable design and the design principles

considered for the implementation of a sustainable design. Additionally, it focused on the

conceptual framework, essence, and features of a well-sustained design. It also discussed the

components of sustainable design, the historical perspectives of environmentally sustainable

building design practices, etc. the chapter concludes that the sustainability of a building

primarily requires a sustainable building design at the design stage as it has a high impact on

the determination of the sustainability of the said building. With the literary analysis of the

chapter now achieved, the next chapter now discusses the case study area and the research

methodology used in answering the research's strategic questions that were stated earlier.

33
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The methodology of any research work provides a sense of vision - where it is that the analyst

wants to go with the research? The techniques and procedures (method), on the other hand,

furnish the means for bringing that vision into reality. Just as painters need both techniques and

visions to bring their novel images to life on canvas, so analysts need techniques to help them

see beyond the ordinary and to arrive at new understandings of social life.

This chapter discusses the research methods that were followed to achieve the aims and goals.

It provides information on the participants, that is, the criteria for inclusion in the study, who

the participants are, and how they were sampled. It entails how the survey was conducted with

regards to the definition and measurement of variables, data sources, collection, analysis, and

justification of the methods for evaluating the sustainability of buildings at the KNUST,

Kumasi.

This chapter is set into six (6) sections. Following this introductory section is section 3.2, which

discusses the research design. Section 3.3 considers the design of research instruments while

section 3.4 details the sampling procedure and techniques. Section 3.5 discusses the data

collection process after the methods used for data analysis are examined in section 3.6.

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN

The research design was intended to provide an appropriate framework for the study. A very

significant decision in the research design process is the choice to be made regarding the

research approach since it determines how relevant information for a study will be obtained

(Sileyew, 2019).

34
The mixed-method research design was given greater consideration for the achievement of the

objectives of this study. Mixed-Methods Studies are products of the pragmatist paradigm and

thus combine the qualitative and quantitative approaches within different phases of the research

process (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2008). According to Terrel (2012), quantitative tells us “if”,

whiles qualitative tells us "who, what, when, where, and/or why."

Quantitative research involves the use of computational, statistical, and mathematical tools to

derive results (Dinye, 2019). The quantitative method allowed the study to measure the impacts

of sustainability on property values. It is a means for testing objective theories by examining

the relationship among variables (property values and sustainability features). These variables

can be measured, typically on instruments, so that numbered data can be analyzed using

statistical procedures (Creswell, 2014).

Constructivism or qualitative research emerged as an alternative to the positivist form of

inquiry as researchers sought to examine the context of human experience (Schwandt, 2000).

The qualitative method was used for the assessment of the various criteria in the process of

building construction on campus.

3.3 DESIGN OF RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

Research instruments are tools used to collect data, structure the data and translate them into

useful information through a systematic and laborious inquiry to aid in the interpretation of the

data (Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003). Research instruments may be surveys, tests, scales,

questionnaires, or even checklists. The research instruments employed for this study were

semi-structured interviews to collect data from the development office at the KNUST campus.

According to Given (2008), structured interviews can help gauge the representativeness of the

individual views and experiences.

35
A semi-structured interview is a method of research in which the researcher asks informants a

series of predetermined but open-ended questions (Given, 2008). An interview guide was

developed to engage the Chief Architect at the development office in a formal interview. As

opined by Cohen & Crabtreen, (2008), the semi-structured interviews allowed the informant

freedom to express their views on their terms and this provided reliable and comparative

qualitative data. This method was adopted to permit the researcher to openly discuss the

interviewees' opinions as well as their perception of the research subject.

3.4 SAMPLING PROCEDURE AND TECHNIQUES

This section looks at the population and sampling frame for the research. The sampling

technique adopted for the study is also discussed.

3.4.1 Population

Population, as defined by Kenton (2019), is an aggregate number of objects or measurements

of interest from which a sample is taken. Target population and accessible population are the

two main components of the population. The Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and

Technology was chosen as the target area for the research because of less restriction to most

facilities which required little or no permission since most academic facilities are easily

accessible to students, and the wide range of categories of buildings which gave the researcher

the option of choosing educational buildings from the various categories of buildings in the

Edge software for achieving the research objectives. The University has six (6) colleges and

the study focused on at least one selected building for each of the six (6) colleges to find out

whether sustainability is considered in their development. The Director of development for the

University was consulted as the accessible population to participate in the research.

36
Sampling Frame

Sampling refers to the process of selecting a group, events, or behavior with which to conduct

a study (Burns and Grove, 2003). The sample frame also refers to the subset of the population

selected for the research purpose. In conducting research, it is often impossible to collect data

from the entire population due to resource constraints. Due to the large population, it became

necessary to determine a sample size to be used for the study (Creswell, 2009). The sample

size was limited to at least one selected building within the six (6) colleges of the University.

This is because academic facilities were the appropriate category of buildings on campus found

in the EDGE software (as educational buildings) for assessing the properties' sustainability

level for this study. The software allows assessment for certifying buildings at any stage of

their life cycle; and was therefore applied to existing buildings.

3.4.2 Sampling Techniques

The sampling technique adopted for the quantitative method of the study is quota sampling.

Quota sampling was useful and appropriate for this research since it allows the sampling of

subgroups that are of great interest to the study, thus it allowed for observing buildings that

have easy accessibility with little or no restriction. Quota sampling however a probabilistic

sampling technique in which participants are chosen is based on predetermined characteristics

so that the total sample will have the same distribution of characteristics as the wider population

(Davis, 2005). When conducting the quota sampling for the research, we identified categories

of buildings that were important for the study (which include: academic), divided the sample

population into subgroups; which comprised buildings of the six (6) colleges. We then figured

out the proportion of subgroups of the population and selected the appropriate sample size by

picking at least one major building within each of the six (6) colleges, and therefore conducted

building surveys according to the quotas defined.

37
However, the non-probabilistic sampling technique used for interviewing the staff of the

development office was purposive sampling. Ritchie et al., (2003) defined purposive sampling

as a strategy where "members of a sample are chosen with a purpose to represent a location or

type concerning the criterion" (p.77). Purposive sampling was used to select the Chief Architect

of the development office of the University that provides development principles for the

construction of buildings on campus. This method allowed for people with privileged

information about the development process on campus for the research to be identified and

interviewed.

3.5 DATA COLLECTION

3.5.1 Data Collection Method

Data collection plays a very crucial role in statistical analysis. In research, there are different

methods used to gather information. This research used both qualitative and quantitative

methods and a combination of primary and secondary sources.

3.5.2 Primary Source of Data

Primary data refers to the first-hand data gathered by the researcher himself. Sources of primary

data are surveys, observations, questionnaires, and interviews (Ajayi, 2017).

Data for the assessment of the relative importance of sustainability as criteria for the

development of buildings was gathered through interviews.

A semi-structured interview was conducted at the KNUST development office, this enabled

the understanding of the perspectives of these officials in charge of procurement and

development of properties. A building survey was conducted on 31 sampled buildings with

representation from each college to gather data for examining the level of sustainability in

buildings on campus.

38
3.5.3 Secondary Source of Data

Secondary sources mean data collected by someone else earlier. Sources of secondary data are

government publications websites, books, journal articles, internal records. Secondary data like

valuation reports on the sampled buildings were being taken from the Land Economy

Department for the assessment of the impacts of sustainability on property values on campus.

3.6 DATA ANALYSIS

Content Analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data collected from the interview to

ascertain the relative importance of sustainability as the criterion for development on the

campus. Since it is a research tool that determines the presence of certain words or concepts

within texts (Elo and Kyngas, 2008). Content analysis is a systematic research method for

analyzing and making inferences from texts and other forms of qualitative data (e.g., from an

interview, focus-groups, open-ended questionnaire, document, videos), (Government

Accountability Office, 2013). It uses analytic strategies to categorize, compare, and contrast

varieties of data

To ascertain the level of sustainability of buildings on the KNUST campus, data obtained from

the building survey were analyzed using the Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiency

(EDGE) software. EDGE an innovation of International Finance Corporation (IFC), is a green

building certification system focused on making new residential and commercial buildings

more resource-efficient (International Finance Corporation, 2019).

The system can discover the technical solutions at the early design stage to reduce operational

expenses and environmental impact. Based on the user's information inputs and selection of

green measures, the system reveals projected operational savings and reduced carbon emissions

(International Finance Corporation, 2019). The suite of EDGE building types includes Homes,

Hospitality, Retail, Offices, Hospitals, and Education buildings, (International Finance

39
Corporation, 2019). The Edge software allows assessment for certifying buildings at any stage

of their life cycle; and was therefore applied to existing buildings.

Regression analysis is a set of statistical methods used for the evaluation of relationships

between a dependent variable and one or more independent variables. Regression analysis

includes several variations, such as linear, multiple linear, and nonlinear (Creswell, 2014;

Corporate Finance Institute, 2021). Sustainability reports from the EDGE software and the

property values were used to run the correlation matrix to determine the relationship between

the dependent variable (values) and the independent variables (sustainable features) using

Microsoft Excel. Due to the high correlation between the dependent variable and the

independent variables, the Principal Component Analysis test was conducted with the “Stata”

software to reduce the independent variables to three principal components for appropriate

analysis. To ensure the variables used in estimating the regression are measuring the intended

concept, the Kaiser Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test was used to determine the sampling adequacy of

data. The KMO test ensured that the data were suitable to run a factor analysis by determining

whether or not what was intended to be measured is set out. Using the principal components,

three regression models were estimated to assess the effect of the level of sustainability of the

buildings on their economic values. The principal components regression models are as

follows:

Y = a + b1X1+ ϵ ……………… ………….equation (1)

Y = a + b1X1 + b2X2 + ϵ ………………….equation (2)

Y = a + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + ϵ …………equation (3)

40
Where: Y is the property value (dependent variable), X1-X3 are the principal components

(independent variables), a is the intercept, b1 – b3 are the regression coefficients, and ϵ is the

residual (error) term.

3.7. SUMMARY

Chapter Three (3) discussed the research methods that were followed to achieve the aims and

goals. It provided information on the participants, that is, the criteria for inclusion in the study,

who the participants were, and how they were sampled. It entailed how the survey was

conducted with regards to the definition and measurement of variables, data sources, collection,

analysis, and justification of the methods for evaluating the sustainability of buildings at the

KNUST, Kumasi. A mixed-method of research, quota sampling, content analysis, and

regression analysis were the appropriate research tools deployed for the data collection,

analysis, and presentation.

41
 CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents and discusses the results of the data analyses. The chapter is broken into

five (5) sections. Section 4.1 introduces the chapter. Section 4.2 analyses the relative

importance of sustainability as the criterion for development on campus. Section 4.3 portrays

the level of sustainability in the buildings on campus. Section 4.4 presents the relationship

between the sustainability of buildings and their economic values. The last section, (4.5) talks

about the outcomes.

4.2 SUSTAINABILITY AMONG PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT

FACTORS AT THE KNUST

The Development Process at the KNUST

For the commencement of any project on campus, the faculty, unit, or user in need of the project

submits a brief of what they want to the Development Office, and considerations and additions

are made where necessary. Initial designs are drawn and presented to the proposer in the form

of a PowerPoint presentation for questions and additions to the initial design. The initial design

is then reviewed and an approximate cost is made for the faculty’s/user’s approval. When

approved, production drawing and detailing are done. During detailing, structural engineers are

called to include the services and other needful features. The drawings are then sent to quantity

surveyors for the Bill of Quantities to be made. Before any such project is approved, it goes to

the development committee which is part of the university's governing council. Before the

approval of the development committee, the land use committee (which is in charge of lands

management on campus) must grant approval of allocated land for the proposed project.

42
 Faculty/User • Brief submission to the
development offcie

• Drawing Initial designs

Development • Presentation of initial designs to the Faculty
Office for questions and additions
• Approximate cost

Structural • To include the services and

engineers other needful features

Quantity • Preparation of Bill

surveyors of Quantities

Land-use • Land use approval for

Committee the proposed project

Development • Final approaval of

committee the project.

Figure 7: Pre-development process of KNUST.

Source: Survey data from Interview at the development office-KNUST, 2021.

43
Sustainability Considerations

A lot of factors are considered in the development process on campus, right from the designing

to the post-construction stage. These factors are governed by the development committee,

chaired by the Vice-Chancellor. For educational buildings, ventilation, views, indoor

environmental quality, daylighting, electricity consumption, disability friendliness, constant

flow of water, and circulation are all important issues taken into consideration when designing

a project. Figure 6 below shows the order of priority of factors considered in designing for the

sustainability of buildings on campus.

• Ventilation
1
• Daylighting
2
• Electricity consumption
3
• Constant flow of water
4
• Circulation/Indoor environmental quality
5
• Disability Friendliness
6

Figure 8: Order of priority of factors considered in designing for the sustainability of

buildings on campus.
Source: Survey data from an Interview at the development office-KNUST, 2021.

The first sustainability measure considered in the development process on campus is

ventilation: Most buildings are designed with louvers instead of sliding windows to create

space for natural ventilation to cut costs because air conditions are expensive.

The second factor considered in the development process is daylighting: particular attention is

given to daylighting while designing a building on campus. This has been achievable through

44
designing for operable louver windows which minimize glare with aim of maximizing visual

comfort and reducing energy use.

After ventilation and daylighting, electricity consumption is considered: with energy

efficiency, there is a committee that works on energy saving. The university has a sustainable

policy that ensures the use of energy-saving bulbs for both internal and external spaces. Some

residential facilities like the Republic hall, are now using photocell in their washrooms. There

is also an initiative to installing a photovoltaic solar panel to generate a renewable power

supply.

Also, constant flow of water is considered: every design comes with a borehole so that water

can be supplied independently and constantly and avoid reliance on Ghana Water Company.

Casely Hayford, the uncompleted Faculty of Built environment building, the New College

block for Faculty of Natural Resources, the Central Classroom Block, and many other relatively

large buildings have their boreholes.

Before considering the final sustainability measure, circulation is considered: Building on

campus is designed with easy circulation and comfort and also makes provision for escape in

cases of emergencies such as fire outbreaks, etc.

Disability-friendly is the final factor considered in the development process on campus. In

conformity with the Disability Act 2006, Act 715, projects are designed to be disability-

friendly, thus the Maintenance Policy of the University, therefore, seeks to systematically

comply with the requirements of the disability law and in consonance with KNUST's Disability

Policy. KNUST recognizes its role in valuing and promoting diversity, fairness, social justice,

and equality of opportunity by adopting and promoting fair policies and procedures, as

provided in the KNUST Disability Policy, 2018. All new developments have provision for

elevators, an example is the New MasterCard building, the uncompleted Faculty of Built

45
Environment building, and even old buildings without elevators are being retrofitted for the

provision of elevators; there has been an installation of an elevator at the Prempeh II Library

recently, which is yet to be commissioned. Elevators at the traditional halls are fixed and ready

for use in the shortest possible time.

All of the above sustainability features considered as factors in the designing and development

process of building on campus are outline in the Maintenance Policy of the University.

4.3 SUSTAINABILITY OF BUILDINGS ON CAMPUS

Objective two (2) of this study was to assess the level of sustainability in buildings on the

campus.

Table 2 suggests that about 97% of buildings on campus are designed for energy efficiency,

with an average savings of 38.74%, a maximum of 59.34%, and a minimum of 11.54%.

Similarly, about 97% of buildings meet the Edge certification design for water efficiency

standard, with an average, maximum, and minimum water savings of 24.09%, 30.01%, and

11.54% respectively. Above all, in terms of design, about 100% of buildings are sustainable in

embodied materials with an average, maximum, and minimum savings of 43.90%, 64.57%,

and 28.68% respectively. Base on the energy, water, and materials efficiency of the buildings

the following base-case utility cost, utility cost reduction, carbon emissions, and operational

carbon savings were reported as shown in Table 2.

The results reported some unique buildings, the Trevallion Block has the highest energy

savings of 59.34% with Carbon Emissions of 89.5(tCO2/year) and Operational Carbon savings

of 131.11(tCO2/year) given a net -41.26 (tCO2/year). This is attributable to its Horizontal

shading devices, timber floor slab, and wall composition. SMS Bush Canteen has the least

energy savings (11.54%). This may be attributed to its uniqueness as an educational retail

center.

46
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics on Regression variables of the Buildings on KNUST

Campus.

Standard
Sustainability measures Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation

Energy Savings (%) 38.74 8.03 11.54 59.34

Water Savings (%) 24.09 3.22 14.97 30.01

Material Savings (%) 43.90 9.78 28.68 64.57

Base Case Utility Cost 10458.56 9713.64 816.91 38544.08

($/Month)

Utility Cost Reduction 3385.37 3453.71 263.52 13528.50

($/Month)

Carbon Emissions 52.151 44.6151 4.6300 166.740

(tCO₂/Year)

Operational CO₂ Savings 34.700 34.8016 2.6500 135.830

(tCO₂/Year)

Source: Survey data from EDGE Software, 2021

NB: refer to the appendices to see the features of buildings that were gathered and appropriately

selected to arrive at the various sustainability levels.

47
 140.00%
120.00%
100.00%
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
College of College of College of College of College of College of Art
Sciences Health Engineering Humanities Agric & and Built
Sciences and Social Natural Environment
Sciences Resources

Energy Savings (%) Water Savings(%) Materials Savings (%)

Chart 4: Average Energy, Water, and Materials Savings on College bases.

Source: Survey data from EDGE Software, 2021.

From the chart above, the College of Sciences recorded the least average savings while the

College of Art and Built Environment recorded the highest savings in terms of energy, water,

and materials. Almost all the colleges recorded the same level of water savings due to the

commonness of plumbing fixtures in their washroom. Similarly, material savings has relatively

fewer variations among the various colleges as similar materials are used in the construction of

buildings on campus. However, energy savings have a significant variation among the 6

colleges. This mostly relates to the orientation of the buildings influenced by the location,

electrical equipment, and machines used in the buildings, external shading devices, etc.

NB: For charts on the individual buildings' sustainability levels, refer to the Appendix.

48
4.4 THE IMPACT OF SUSTAINABILITY ON PROPERTY VALUES

The impact of sustainability on the property values was examined using the multiple linear

regression techniques. This was done by examining the relationship between the property

values and the savings in water, energy, embodied materials, base case utility cost, utility cost

reduction, carbon emission, and operational carbon savings. As shown in Table 3 below,

dependent variables with correlation coefficients of 25% exhibits multi-collinearity and were

likely to bias the regression results.

49
 Table 3: Descriptive Statistics on Regression variables of the Buildings on KNUST Campus.

Energy Water- Base Case Utility Cost Carbon Operational

Saving Saving Materials Utility Cost Reduction Emissions CO₂ Savings

Prices (%) (%) Savings (%) ($/Month) ($/Month) (tCO₂/Year) (tCO₂/Year)

Prices 1

Energy Saving (%) -0.079 1

Water-Saving (%) 0.322 -0.128 1

Materials Savings (%) -0.365 0.137 -0.532 1

Base Case Utility Cost ($/Month) 0.668 0.201 0.375 -0.230 1

Utility Cost Reduction ($/Month) 0.532 0.445 0.299 -0.120 0.934 1

Carbon Emissions (tCO₂/Year) 0.779 -0.010 0.397 -0.286 0.944 0.824 1

Operational CO₂ Savings (tCO₂/Year) 0.599 0.409 0.307 -0.138 0.937 0.991 0.865 1

Source: Authors’ Survey Estimation (2021).

50
The seven (7) independent variables were reduced to three (3) principal components for easy

analysis based on the similarities in their latent characteristics as per the Principle Component

Analysis (PCA) adopted; illustrated in Tables 4 and 5 below. The components arrived at

reflecting aspects of all the independent variables classified under them. These are Component

(1) – “Energy Savings”, Component (2) – “Water Savings” and Component (3) – “Materials

Saving”. The first principal component (component 1) accounted for 62.76% of the total

variance whilst the second principal component (component 2) explained 18.15% of the

remaining variation not explained by the first component. The third component (component 3)

accounted for 9.47%, of the remaining variation not explained by the first two components.

Together, the 3 extracted components cumulatively explained 90.38% of the variation in the

data set, and this meets the cumulative proportion of variance criterion, which says that the

extracted components should together explain at least 50% of the variation. Table 4 and 5 below

presents a snapshot of the extraction process.

Table 4: Component Matrix

Variables Comp1 Comp2 Comp3

Energy Saving 0.0774 0.6979 -0.5456

Water-Saving 0.3002 -0.3907 -0.162

Materials Savings -0.1874 0.4676 0.7497

Base Case Utility Cost 0.4363 0.0634 0.139

Utility Cost Reduction 0.4217 0.2535 -0.0147

Carbon Emissions 0.425 -0.0517 0.2462

Operational Co₂ Savings 0.4273 0.2195 0.0096

Source: Authors’ Survey Estimation, (2021).

51
Table 5: Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums Of Squared

Loadings

Component Total Variances Proportion % Cumulative % Total Proportion % Cumulative % Total

1 5.0207 3.5686 62.76 62.76 5.0207 62.76 62.76 4.6500

2 1.4520 0.6943 18.15 80.91 1.4520 18.15 80.91 1.6017

3 0.7578 0.3126 9.47 90.38 0.7578 9.47 90.38 0.5738

4 0.4451 0.1410 5.56 95.94

5 0.3041 0.2873 3.8 99.74

6 0.0168 0.0141 0.21 99.95

7 0.0027 0.0018 0.04 99.99

8 0.0009 0.0000 0.01 100

Source: Authors’ Survey Estimation (2021).

52
To ensure the variables used in estimating the regression are measuring the intended

concept, the Kaiser Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test was used to determine the sampling

adequacy of data. Table 6 below presents the snapshot of the KMO test.

Table 6: Kaiser Meyer-Olkin Test

Variables Kaiser Meyer-Olkin

Prices 0.7287

Energy Saving 0.2380

Water-Saving 0.8855

Materials Savings 0.8197

Base Case Utility Cost 0.6947

Utility Cost Reduction 0.6867

Carbon Emissions 0.6234

Operational Co₂ Savings 0.6285

Overall 0.6637

Source: Authors’ Survey Estimation (2021).

The variable with the least KMO is energy saving (0.2380), the highest is water savings

(0.8855) and the overall is 0.6637. In running the KMO, the statistics that are computed

must be a measure in the range of '0 to 1', thus, the closer to 1 the better.

Regression Results

Details of the regression results are presented in Table 7 below. The overall model

explains about 72% of the variation in property values at the KNUST. The overall

statistical models were significant at a 5% significance level. Further, it was observed

that PC1 and PC3 are positively associated with the property values while PC2 is
negatively associated. For instance, the coefficients of 0.559, -0.226, and 0.227 were

reported for PC1, PC2, and PC3 respectively. PC1 was found to be significant in all the

models at a 95% confidence level. For instance, in all the 3 Model, the p-value for PC1

was 0.000. Water savings were a 10% significant level on the values of properties on

campus. This is because the p-values for PC2 (Water savings) were 0.081 and

0.073(which is greater than the 5% significant level) in models 2 and 3 respectively.

The p-value for PC3 was 0.109, this means that materials savings do not have a

significant influence on the properties’ values at a 95% confidence level. In essence,

in all the models, the Energy Savings of buildings on KNUST Campus influences the

values of properties.

54
 Table 7: Regression Results of the Principal Components

Description Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

PC1 0.559 0.559 0.559
(0.070) (0.067) (0.065)
0.000 *** 0.000 *** 0.000 ***
PC2 -0.226 -0.226
(0.124) (0.121)
0.081 * 0.073 *
PC3 0.277
(0.167)
0.109
Observations 31 31 31
Probability > F 0.000 0.000 0.000
R-Squared 0.690 0.723 0.748
Adjusted R-Squared 0.679 0.703 0.720
Source: Authors’ Survey Estimation (2021).

*** **
Significant level: =1%, =5%, *=10%. The Standard Errors for the principal

component are in bracket.

4.5 SUMMARY

The results of the data analyzed were presented and discussed in this chapter. Content

analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data which assessed the relative importance

of sustainability as the criterion for the development of buildings on campus. The raw

data on buildings' sustainability features were fed in the Edge software for the

determination of the sustainability levels of buildings on campus. Descriptive statistics,

normality test, KMO test multicollinearity test was conducted to reach appropriate data

for the regression analysis which determined the impact of sustainability of property

values and finally presented the outcomes.

55
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents a discussion of the findings concerning the achievement of the

research aim and objectives. It further discusses the contributions this research has to

offer knowledge as well as the real estate industry. A discussion of recommendations

made for both industry and future studies.

5.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Three (3) main research questions were proposed:

1. What is the relative importance of sustainability as the criterion for the

development of buildings?

2. How sustainable are buildings on the KNUST campus?

3. What are the impacts of sustainability on buildings and property values?

5.3 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The research aimed to provide empirical evidence on what defines the sustainability of

the buildings on the KNUST campus. To achieve the aim, three (3) objectives were

established. Explained in the sub-section is how this aim helped in the attainment of the

research objectives.

5.3.1. Review of Objective One

The first objective dwelt on identifying the relative importance of sustainability as a

criterion for the development of buildings. The study discovered the pre-development

process to achieving sustainability in buildings on campus. Also, according to the

results of the report from the KNUST development office, sustainability was reported

56
as the ultimate factor among all other factors (such as aesthetics, culture, etc.)

considered in the development process on campus. The following sustainability

features of the building were ranked in this order of priority: 1st ventilation, 2nd

Daylighting, 3rd Electricity consumption, 4th constant flow of water, 5th circulation, and

6th disability friendliness. Though the constant flow of water was reported, few water

savings measures with no grey and black water treatment, and recycling systems were

recorded.

5.3.2. Review of Objective two

The second objective focused on assessing how sustainable buildings on the KNUST

campus are. The data collected revealed that the majority of buildings (about 97%) on

campus are sustainable per the Edge Certification system which according to the World

Bank, a building is sustainable when the ‘building uses 20% less energy, water and

embodied energy in materials compared to an equivalent local benchmark.’ This study

has reported a higher percentage of buildings being sustainable as compared to other

literature due to the educational factor of buildings on campus, which are used for

teaching and learning. On college levels, the College of Sciences recorded the least

average savings while the College of Art and Built Environment recorded the highest

savings in terms of energy, water, and materials. Almost all the colleges recorded

relatively the same level of savings in water and materials due to the use of the same

constructional materials and plumbing fitting and fixtures. However, energy savings

had a significant variation across the colleges due to the orientation of the buildings

which relate to the location of the colleges, and electrical appliances and equipment

which relate to the courses offered at each college.

57
5.3.3. Review of Objective three

The last Objective bordered on investigating the impacts of sustainability on property

values. According to the International Finance Cooperation (2021), green buildings

have higher sales prices, quicker sales cycles, lower operational costs, lower loan

default rates, and higher resale values. Sustainability in buildings is increasingly

becoming a key feature and performance aspect in determining property values (Lorenz

et al., 2006). With all the sustainability measures reported from the assessment report

in table 2 which were subsequently scaled down to three (3) principal components, only

Principal Component one (1) (energy savings) was found to significantly influence

properties' values on the KNUST campus. This suggests that sustainability measures

are key determinants of properties' values. It can therefore be argued that the valuation

of properties does not take into consideration the property's impact on environmental

sustainability like water, and materials conservation, carbon emission, operational

carbon savings, and others as suggested by the literature.

5.4 CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE AND INDUSTRY

This study has contributed to both knowledge and industry in diverse ways. Outlined

below are how academia and practice could benefit from this research.

5.4.1 Contribution to Knowledge

The contributions this research has made to literature are outlined as follows:

This work is probably the first piece of work to assess the sustainability of educational

buildings in Ghana; assess the relative importance of sustainability in the development

processes of buildings on university campuses, it further shows that, aspects of

sustainability (energy savings) are reflected in property values – the more energy

savings, the higher the property value. The study has also analyzed the awareness of

58
stakeholders on issues relating to sustainable building design practices. Finally, the

study has also served as literature for further studies.

5.4.2 Contribution to Industry

The contributions this research has made to practice are outlined as follows:

• The results on the level of sustainability for the sampled buildings could serve

as a guide to be used policies making by the various professional bodies and

statutory organizations; by prescribing which constructional materials, energy-

efficiency measures, and water-efficiency measures to be employed for a

required level of sustainability

• The knowledge that was unearthed from this research seems well fitted to be

used by professionals to educate their clients on the essence of sustainability.

From the results obtained, professionals can advise clients on the need for

sustainable buildings and what it takes for developing such buildings.

5.5 RECOMMENDATION

The study recommends that the use of a Double Flush Valve Water Closet, Grey and

Black Water Treatment, and Recycling System will improve water efficiency in

buildings, and the practice of rainwater harvest not only improve water efficiency but

can also help the amount of rainwater that get into and flood the drains and roads on

campus during heavy downpours. Further, Occupancy Sensors in bathrooms,

classrooms, corridors and other spaces, photoelectric sensors to harvest daylight,

Renewable Energy for electricity generation, solar photovoltaics, etc. will also enhance

energy and operational carbons savings towards net zero carbon achievement. The

International Finance Corporation, (2019), revealed that the construction and operation

of buildings consume 36% of world energy consumption and generate 39% of the

59
world’s greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint. And so the need to promote the environmental

quality and the quality of building indoor environment by reducing negative impacts on

building and the natural environment.

Also, the study recommends that sustainability assessment and certification be carried

out to make data on sustainability measures available for the valuation of properties.

The Department of Land which trains General Practice Surveyors are also encouraged

to train its students and valuers on sustainability assessment and certification with any

of the Green certification systems like the Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiency

(EDGE App) to encourage valuers to appreciate the impact of sustainability measures

in the valuation of properties.

Finally, it is recommended that future research should focus on sustainable building

practices at the construction and operation stage outside the educational institutions

where there are only a few with the awareness of sustainability and its impacts on

properties values, thereby examining the implementation of the design components

whether sustainable practices integrated at the design stage are fully operational and

functional. And also, brief stakeholders on the benefits of environmentally sustainable

building design practices to help them understand and make informed decisions during

the design stage of the building to promote the environmental quality and the quality of

building indoor environment by reducing negative impacts on building and the natural

environment.

60
 6. REFERENCES

Adakiri, 2012. s.l.:s.n.

Ahmed, k., Hatira, L. & Valva, P., 2014. The construction industry in Ghana, West
Africa – how can the construction industry in Ghana become sustainable?, s.l.:
Blekinge Institute of Technology.

Akadir, P. O., Chinyio, E. A. & Olomolaiye, P. O., 2012. Design of A Sustainable

Building: A Conceptual Framework for Implementing Sustainability in the Building
Sector. Buildings 2012, pp. 127-152.

Ako-Adjei, T. J. & Danso, H., 2019. Sustainable building practice: an assessment tool
for Ghana. Accra, ResearchGate, pp. 978-1004.

Andelin, M., Sarasoja, A.-L. & Junnila, S., 2015. Breaking the circle of the blame for
sustainable buildings is evidence from Nordic Countries.

Anupa, M., Upeksha, M. & Mohan, S., 2016. Adaptable buildings for a sustainable
built environment... s.l.:Emerald insight.

Asman, G. E., 2016. Guidelines for Environmentally Sustainable Building Practices at

the Design Stage for Office Buildings, Kumasi: s.n.

B, S., 2010. “Impact of Sustainability on Property Values”.. Frankfurt am Main,

University of Regensburg.

Buttimer & Ott, 2014. Valuation of Green Buildings, The Effect of Green on NOI.
s.l., Renomics Corporation.

Cohen & Crabtreen, 2008.

Corporate Finance Institute, 2021. Corporate Finance Institute. [Online]

Available at: https//:corporatefinanceinstitute.com

Creswell, J. W., 2014. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approach. 4th ed. United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd...

Danso, H., 2018. Dimensions and Indicators for Sustainable Construction Materials:
A Review... Research & Development in Material Science, pp. 1-9.

Daugėlienė, Baltramonaitis, Maliene & Apanavičienė, 2015. Sustainability Aspects of

Real Estate Development: Lithuanian, Case Study of Sports and Entertainment
Arenas. Sustainability, pp. 6498-6522.

Davis, D., 2005. Business Research for Design Making, Australia, Thomson South-
Western.

61
Djokoto, S., Dadzie, J. & Ohemeng-Ababio, E., 2014. Barriers to sustainable
construction in the Ghanaian construction industry: consultant's perspectives. Sustain
Develop, 7(134).

Given, L. M., 2008. Semi-Structured Interview. The Sage Encylopedia of Qualitative

Research Methods.

Heiduschke, A., Haller, P., Manthey, C. & Günther, E., 2011. Mechanical Behaviour
and Life Cycle Assessment of Fibre-Reinforced Timber Profiles. Innsbruck,
University of Malta.

Herbert & Barry, 2015. Theories and Principles. Design Economics for the Built
Environment; Impact of Sustainability on Project Evaluation, pp. 16-27.

. I., A. & D., 2015. Framework for integrating sustainability issues into the valuation
of non-market industrial real estates... Int. J. Environment and Sustainable
Development, 14(2), pp. 170-190.

Institute of Local Government, 2013. Sustainable Best Practices Framework,

California: Institute of Local Government.

International Finance Corporation, 2019. EDGE User Guide, s.l.: s.n.

Ismail, W. & Majid, 2014. The Impact of Green Features on property valuation
procedure. Malaysia, National Institute of Valuation (INSPEN).

Iwaro, J. & Mwasha, A., 2013. The Impact of Sustainable Building Envelope Design
on Building Sustainability using Integrated Performance Model... International
Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, Volume 2, pp. 153-171.

Jabareen, 2009. s.l.:s.n.

Kim & Rigdon, 1998. s.l.:s.n.

Kissi, E. et al., 2020. Identification of factors influencing the pricing of sustainable

construction materials in developing countries: views of Ghanaian quantity
surveyors... International Journal of Construction Management, Issue
DOI:10.1080/15623599.2020.1768462.

Leavy, P., 2014. Introduction: The Oxford handbook of qualitative research. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Leavy, P., 2017. Research Design-Quantitative, Qualitative, Art-Based, Community-

Based and Participatory Research Approaches... New York: The Guilford Press.

Lützkendorf & Lorenz, 2015. Sustainable Design, Investment, and Value. Design
Economics for the Built Environment: Impact of Sustainability on Project Evaluation,
Volume 1, pp. 137-151.

62
Mang, Reed & group, R., 2017. Regenerative Development and Design. In:
Encyclopedia Sustainability Science & Technology. s.l.:s.n., p. Chapter 303.

Mateus, R. & Bragança, L., 2011. Life-Cycle Assessment of Residential Buildings.

Innsbruck, University of Malta.

Michl, Lorenz & Lützkendorf, 2016. Reflecting sustainability in property valuation - a

progress report, UK: emerald insight.

Miles & Huberman, 1994. s.l.:s.n.

Ofori, 2016. Investigating into the opportunities and challenges associated with green
buildings in Ghana. A case study of Accra metropolis., Buduburam: academic.

Opoku, D.-G. J., Agyekum, K. & Ayarkwa, J., 2019. Drivers of environmental
sustainability of construction project. October.

Patil, A. & Patil, E., 2017. Sustainable construction materials & technology in context
with sustainable development... International Journal of Energy Resource
Technology, 1(10), pp. 112-117.

Proceedings, A. C., 2018. Green building valuation; from a valuers’ perspective 2020.
Malaysia, online: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5062690.

Rodrigues, M. F., Afonso, A. S. & Mariano, N., 2012. Water Efficiency in Buildings:
A Contribute to Energy Efficiency... International Symposium of CIB W062 on.

Schimschar, S., Blok, K., Boermans, T. & Hermelin, 2011. Germany’s Path Towards
Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings—Enabling the Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential in
the Building Stock... Energy Policy, Issue 39, pp. 3346-3360.

Sciences, N. I. o. B., n.d. s.l.:s.n.

Sileyew, K. J., 2019. Research Design and Methodology. s.l.:s.n.

Silva-Afonso, A. & Pimentel-Prdrigues, C., 2011. Water Efficiency in Buildings:

Assessment of its Impact on Energy Efficiency and Reducing GHG Emissions...
International Journal of Systems Applications, Engineering & Development, 1(5).

Sogo, O., 2018. Concept of building adaptability: A sustainable approach towards

resources and energy conservation in Nigeria.. s.l.: Research Gate.

Taherdoost, H., 2020. Sampling Methods in Research Methodology; How to Choose a

Sampling Technique for Research.

Tu Thanh Le & Warren-Myers, G., 2018. An examination of sustainability reporting

in valuation practice; A case study of Melbourne, Australia. Property Management,
pp. 136-153.

Vivian, L., 2013. The sustainable built environment, Introduction...

63
Warren-Myers, 2013. Real Estate Valuation and Valuing Sustainability: A Case Study
of Australia. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, Volume 19:1, pp. 81-100.

Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003.

Yin.R.K, 2003. Case study research, design, and methods, Newbury Park, CA, SAGE.

64
 APPENDIX
Appendix A: Base Case Utility Cost and Utility Cost Reduction on Individual Buildings

45,000.00

40,000.00

35,000.00

30,000.00

25,000.00

20,000.00

15,000.00

10,000.00

5,000.00

Base Case Utility Cost ($/Month) Utility Cost Reduction ($/Month)

65
Appendix B: Energy, Water and Materials Savings on Individual Building

160.00%

140.00%

120.00%

100.00%

80.00%

60.00%

40.00%

20.00%

0.00%

Energy Savings (%) Water Savings (%) Materials Savings (%)

66
Appendix C: Carbon Emission and Operational Carbon Savings on Individual Buildings

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Carbon Emissions (tCO₂/Year) Operational CO₂ Savings (tCO₂/Year)

67
Appendix D: Sustainable Measures for Water

Low-Flow
Flush Valve Water-Efficient Water-Efficient
Buildings Faucets in
Water Closets Urinals Kitchen Faucets
Bathroom
1 Ablor Building F F/Sf F
2 Administration blk (Owusu Addo) F F/Sf F
3 Agra building F F/Sf F
4 Architecture Building F F/Sf F
5 Architecture Office Complex F F/Sf F
6 Bamfo Kwakye Building F F/Df F
7 Casley Hayford F F/Sf F
8 Ceasar building F F/Sf F
9 Centre for culture blk F F/Sf F
10 Ebenezer Aquaye F F/Sf F F
11 Education Innovations Block A F F/Sf F
12 Education Innovations Block B F F/Sf F
13 Education Innovations Block C F F/Sf F
14 F.A. Kuffour Building F F/Sf F F
15 Lab 1 and 2 F F/Sf F F
16 Levine Building F F/Sf F F
17 LT Block (Kwami building) F F/Df F
18 LT Building F F/Sf F
19 N-Block F F/Df F
20 New College Block F F/Sf F F
21 New Pharmacy Building F F/Sf F F
22 Post graduate blk F F/Sf F
23 SMS Block A & B F F/Df F

68
 24 SMS Block E & F F F/Df F
25 SMS Block G & H F F/Df F
26 SMS Block K F F/Df F
27 SMS Bush Canteen F F/Sf F F
28 T. Owusu Ansah Complex (CCB) F F/Sf F
29 Tackie Building F F/Sf F
30 Trevallion Block F F/Sf F
31 Wascal building F F/Df F
Key:
F=Featured, F/Sf=Featured with Single Flush Valve, F/Df=Featured with Double Flush Valve

Appendix E: Sustainable Measures for Materials

Roof External Internal Window

Floor Slabs Flooring
Construction walls walls Frames
1 Ablor Building ISRCS SSTR CSEB CSEB FCF T
2 Administration blk (Owusu Addo) ISRCS SSTR CBW CBW FCF T
3 Agra building ISRCS SSTR CBW TW/CB CT T
4 Architectiure Building ISRCS SSTR CBW CBW FCF T
5 Architecture Office Complex ISRCS SSTR CBW CBW TeF T
6 Bamfo Kwakye Building ISRCS SSTR CBW CBW FCF T
7 Casley Hayford ISRCS SSTR CBW CBW CT T
8 Ceasar building ISRCS SSTR CBW CBW TeF/CT T
9 Centre for culture blk ISRCS MCTTR CBW CBW TeF T
10 Ebenezer Aquaye ISRCS SSTR CBW CBW FCF/CT T
11 Education Innovations Block A ICS MCTTR TW TW FCF T

69
 12 Education Innovations Block B ICS MCTTR TW TW FCF T
13 Education Innovations Block C ICS MCTTR TW TW FCF T
14 F.A. Kuffour Building ISRCS SSTR CBW CBW TeF/FCF T
15 Lab 1 and 2 ISRCS SSTR CBW CBW TeF T
16 Levine Building ISRCS MCTTR CBW CBW CT T
17 LT Block (Kwami building) ISRCS MCTTR CBW CBW FCF T
18 LT Building ICS SSTR CBW CBW TeF T
19 N-Block ISRCS SSTR CBW CBW FCF T
20 New College Block ISRCS SSTR CBW CBW CT T
21 New Pharmacy Building ISRCS SSTR CBW CBW CT T
22 Post graduate blk ISRCS SSTR CBW CBW CT/TeF T
23 SMS Block A & B ISRCS MCTTR CBW CBW CT T
24 SMS Block E & F ICS MCTTR CBW CBW CT T
25 SMS Block G & H ICS MCTTR CBW CBW CT T
26 SMS Block K ICS MCTTR CBW CBW CT T
27 SMS Bush Canteen ICS SSTR CBW CBW CT T
28 T. Owusu Ansah Complex (CCB) ISRCS SSTR CBW CBW TeF T
29 Tackie Building ISRCS SSTR CBW CBW TeF T
30 Trevallion Block TFS SSTR CBW CBW TiF T
31 Wascal building ISRCS SSTR CBW CBW CT T
Key:
ISRCS: In-Situ Reinforced SSTR: Steel Sheets on Timber CSEB: Compressed Stabilized Tef: Terrazzo Floor
Concrete Slab Rafters Earth Blocks
FCF: Finished Concrete Floor
ICS: In-Situ Concrete Slab MCTTR: Micro Concrete TW: Timber Wall
T: Timber
Tiles on Timber Rafters
TFS: Timber Floor Slab CT: Ceramic Tiles
CBW: Common Brick Wall
TiF: Timber Floor

70
 APPENDIX F: Sustainable Measures for Energy

Natural Energy-
Energy-
Reduced Reflective Reflective External Ventilation Saving
Efficient Air Solar
Buildings Window to Paint/Tiles Paint/Tiles Shading for Bulbs –
Ceiling Conditioning Photovoltaics
Wall Ratio for Roof for Walls Devices Corridors/ Internal/Ext
Fans
Classrooms ernal Spaces
1 Ablor Building F/70% F F F F F NF F NF
Administration blk
2
(Owusu Addo) F/60% F F F F F F F NF
3 Agra building F/60% F F F F F NF F NF
4 Architectiure Building F/40% F F F F F F F NF
Architecture Office
5
Complex F/40% F F F F F NF F NF
6 Bamfo Kwakye Building F/40% F F F F F F F NF
7 Casley Hayford F/60% F F F F F F F NF
8 Ceasar building F/40% F F F F F F F NF
9 Centre for culture blk F/40% F F F F F F F NF
10 Ebenezer Aquaye F/50% F F F F F F F NF
Education Innovations
11
Block A F/30% F F F F F NF F NF
Education Innovations
12
Block B F/30% F F F F F NF F NF
Education Innovations
13
Block C F/30% F F F F F NF F NF
14 F.A. Kuffour Building F/40% F F F F F F F NF
15 Lab 1 and 2 F/60% F F F F F NF F NF
16 Levine Building F/60% F F F F F F F F
LT Block (Kwami
17
building) F/90% F F F F F NF F NF
18 LT Building F/40% F F F F F NF F NF
19 N-Block F/60%/30% F F F F F NF F NF
20 New College Block F/60% F F F F F F F NF
21 New Pharmacy Building F/60% F F F F F F F NF
22 Post graduate blk F/50% F F F F F F F NF
23 SMS Block A & B F/40% F F F F F F F NF
24 SMS Block E & F F/40% F F F F F F F NF
25 SMS Block G & H F/40% F F F F F F F NF
26 SMS Block K F/40% F F F F F F F NF
27 SMS Bush Canteen F/30% F F F F F NF F NF
T. Owusu Ansah
28
Complex (CCB) F/40%/50% F F F F F NF F NF
29 Tackie Building F/40% F F F F F F F NF
30 Trevallion Block F/80% F F F F F F F NF
31 Wascal building F/30% F F F F F F F NF
Key:
F=Featured, NF=Not Featured, and F/()%=Featured with a percentage.

72