Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e9

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Drivers for implementing green building technologies: An

international survey of experts
Amos Darko a, *, Albert P.C. Chan a, De-Graft Owusu-Manu b, Ernest E. Ameyaw c
a
Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 11 Yuk Choi Rd, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
b
Department of Building Technology, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
c
Department of Construction and Surveying, Kingston University, Kingston upon Thames, Southwest London KT1 2EE, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In recent years, green building technologies (GBTs) have gradually been implemented to minimize
Received 11 July 2016 negative impacts of the construction industry on the environment, economy, and society. In order to
Received in revised form encourage widespread adoption of GBTs, a better and deeper understanding of the drivers for imple-
20 December 2016
menting GBTs is necessary. This study aims to identify the major drivers of GBTs implementation. The
Accepted 9 January 2017
Available online xxx
methodological framework used consists of a comprehensive literature review and a questionnaire
survey of international green building (GB) experts, rather than experts in a particular country. The
results of statistical analyses of 104 expert responses indicate that the top five drivers for implementing
Keywords:
Green building technologies
GBTs are energy-efficiency, reduced environmental impact, water-efficiency, occupants' health and
Drivers comfort and satisfaction, and company image/reputation. Results from t-test analysis confirm that out of
Construction industry the 21 drivers examined, 13 are perceived to be significant. The Kendall's concordance test shows that
Sustainability though the experts were from different countries and with diverse backgrounds, a good consensus was
Sustainable development reached in their rankings of the drivers. The Mann-Whitney U test also verifies the absence of significant
differences among the experts in ranking most of the drivers. The findings of this study not only
contribute to deepened understanding of the major factors that greatly drive GBTs implementation, but
could also encourage the industry practitioners and stakeholders aiming at achieving better construction
sustainability to further implement GBTs in the future. From the perspective of international GB experts,
this study makes a contribution to the body of knowledge about GBTs implementation drivers, which is
important for GBTs promotion.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 2011a, b). Sustainability or sustainable development is necessary

to “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability
The construction industry significantly impacts upon the natural of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission
environment, economy, and society. Globally, the construction in- on Environment and Development (WCED), 1987). Ahmad et al.
dustry consumes 40% of total energy production, 12e16% of all (2016) define GBTs as technologies that are incorporated into
water available, 32% of nonrenewable and renewable resources, building design to make the end product sustainable, such as solar
25% of all timber, 40% of all raw materials, produces 30e40% of all system technology, optimization of building envelope thermal
solid wastes, and emits 35e40% of CO2 (Green Building Council of performance, and green roof technology. GBTs aim at enhancing the
Australia (GBCA), 2006; Son et al., 2011; Berardi, 2013). Green environmental, social, and economic performance of buildings,
building technologies (GBTs) can be a solution to these negative which are three dimensions essential to address the need for sus-
impacts; hence, over the past few years, the construction industry tainable development in the construction industry (Love et al.,
has attempted to enhance the sustainability of its activities through 2012; Zhang, 2015).
the implementation of various GBTs (USGBC, 2003; Zhang et al., Despite the existence of barriers, such as high cost and a lack of
information, to applying green building (GB) practices and tech-
nologies (Chan et al., 2016), there are many influences that drive the
implementation of GB practices and technologies in construction,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Darko).
such as energy and resource conservation and environmental

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.043
0959-6526/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Darko, A., et al., Drivers for implementing green building technologies: An international survey of experts,
Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.043
2 A. Darko et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e9

protection (Manoliadis et al., 2006; Ahn et al., 2013). A better and and Pearce, 1999; Vanegas and Pearce, 2000; Ahn et al., 2013;
deeper understanding of these drivers is essential to encourage Mulligan et al., 2014). For example, Ahn et al. (2013) presented
widespread adoption of GB practices and technologies, because the major drivers as energy conservation, improving indoor envi-
such an understanding could significantly impact GB decision- ronmental quality, environmental and resource conservation,
making and help potential adopters to accept GB practices and waste reduction, and water conservation. The highest rank of en-
technologies (Potbhare et al., 2009; Qi et al., 2010). In addition, the ergy conservation in Ahn et al.’s study reinforced the finding of the
willingness of stakeholders to adopt GB practices and technologies earlier study by Augenbroe and Pearce (1999). Zhang et al. (2011a)
could be increased, with a better understanding of the driving discovered that building up green reputation and good image,
factors. Several studies exist on the driving forces behind the gaining competitive advantage, commitment on corporate social
implementation of GB practices and technologies (e.g., Manoliadis responsibility, reduction in construction costs, developing unique
et al., 2006; Love et al., 2012; Ahn et al., 2013); however, these green products, and reduction in operation and maintenance costs
studies primarily focus on analyzing GB practices and technologies are important factors driving the application of green technologies
implementation drivers in specific countries. Therefore, conducting in the Chinese construction industry. Serpell et al. (2013) high-
an international study or survey is necessary to enrich the body of lighted the main drivers for sustainable construction in Chile as
knowledge for GB. As GBTs implementation has grown to become corporate image, cost reduction, and market differentiation.
an international strategic agenda (WorldGBC, 2016), a compre- Edwards (2006) revealed that green offices in the UK increase the
hensive international investigation and survey on GBTs imple- productivity of employees by 2e3%, due to the improved workplace
mentation drivers is worthwhile. environment which in turn lessens employee absenteeism. Several
There are several issues associated with GBTs implementation in other previous studies have investigated the drivers for imple-
the construction industry. With the objective to investigate and menting GB practices and technologies in different countries, such
gain a comprehensive understanding of these issues, an interna- as in South Africa (Windapo, 2014; Windapo and Goulding, 2015),
tional survey was conducted. The survey was conducted to gather Turkey (Aktas and Ozorhon, 2015), and India (Arif et al., 2009).
and examine the perceptions of GB experts from different countries The literature review above summarizes past studies related to
around the world to establish common set of drivers for, barriers to, the drivers for applying GB practices and technologies. These
and strategies for promoting the adoption of GBTs (Chan et al., studies tend to primarily focus on analyzing country-specific
2016). The outcomes on the drivers are reported in this paper. drivers, which may limit their application to GBTs implementa-
This paper identifies and ranks the major drivers for implementing tion in the global construction industry. As a result, the present
GBTs and then compares the perceptions of experts with actual GB study aims to examine the major drivers for implementing GBTs in
project experience and those without actual GB project experience the construction industry, as seen from the perspective of inter-
regarding the drivers. The findings of this study not only make a national GB experts and thereby enrich the body of knowledge for
significant contribution to the existing research on GB by providing GB.
an in-depth explanation and understanding of the major factors
that greatly drive the implementation of GBTs, but could also 3. Methodological framework
encourage the industry practitioners and stakeholders aiming at
achieving better construction sustainability to further implement 3.1. Identification of GBTs implementation drivers
GBTs in the future. To effectively and efficiently promote and make
informed decisions on GBTs implementation, advocates and There are various drivers that influence and shape the imple-
stakeholders can focus and act based on the driving factors with mentation of GB practices and technologies in construction, which
high mean ranks or values and thus high importance. Furthermore, can be found in the previous studies (e.g., Manoliadis et al., 2006;
this research provides an opportunity for organizations and in- Zhang et al., 2011a; Love et al., 2012). After a thorough review of
dividuals attempting to enter the GBTs market to learn lessons from previous studies, this study identified 21 potential drivers of GBTs
the perceptions of international GB experts who have had some implementation, as summarized in Table 1 with their correspond-
years of experience in GBTs implementation activities, as to why ing literature sources. These factors are well documented in pre-
GBTs must be implemented. vious research and more applicable. For instance, energy-efficiency,
water-efficiency, and reduced environmental impact are widely
2. Literature review acknowledged in the literature as crucial factors that drive the GB
market. Thus, the identification of this set of drivers focused mainly
In this research, the term ‘drivers’ is defined as the reasons why on factors that have received considerable attention in previous
stakeholders decide to use GBTs. Previous studies have addressed studies conducted in different countries. For a research study,
various factors that drive the implementation of GB practices and Rowlinson (1988) suggests that well-known factors are more
technologies in construction. For example, the study by Love et al. applicable, because respondents would be able to respond easily. As
(2012) found the drivers for deciding to use sustainable technolo- they are more applicable, examining them would be more useful
gies in Australia to be improve occupant's health and well-being, (Cheng and Li, 2002) for gaining a deeper understanding of the
marketing strategies, reduce the environmental impact of the factors driving GBTs implementation.
building, reduction in whole-life cycle costs, marketing and land-
mark development, and attract premium clients and high rental 3.2. Data collection
returns. Low et al. (2014) showed that the important drivers for
greening new and existing buildings in Singapore are return on The questionnaire survey is a systematic method for gathering
investments, local and overseas competitions, rising energy bills, data based on a sample (Tan, 2011) and has been widely used in
corporate social responsibility, and marketing/branding motive. In construction management research (Qin et al., 2016; Annunziata
Greece, Manoliadis et al. (2006) identified the following as the most et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2016). For this study, a questionnaire
important drivers of change towards sustainable construction: survey was conducted to identify the main drivers for imple-
energy conservation, resource conservation, and waste reduction. menting GBTs. Based on a comprehensive literature review, a sur-
Several US studies have discussed the drivers of green or sustain- vey questionnaire was designed. The main questionnaire consisted
able design and construction (Augenbroe et al., 1998; Augenbroe of the following three sections: the first section communicated the

Please cite this article in press as: Darko, A., et al., Drivers for implementing green building technologies: An international survey of experts,
Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.043
 A. Darko et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e9 3

Table 1
List of potential drivers of GBTs implementation.

Code Driving factors Sources

D1 Reduce the lifecycle costs of buildings Love et al. (2012), Arif et al. (2009), Serpell et al. (2013), Zhang et al. (2011a), Abidin and Powmya (2014), Aktas
and Ozorhon (2015), Windapo and Goulding (2015), Windapo (2014), Zhang (2014), Bond (2011)
D2 Greater energy-efficiency of buildings Manoliadis et al. (2006), Ahn et al. (2013), Low et al. (2014), Arif et al. (2009), Gou et al. (2013), Aktas and
Ozorhon (2015), Windapo (2014), Mulligan et al. (2014), Tan (2014)
D3 Greater water-efficiency of buildings Ahn et al. (2013), Aktas and Ozorhon (2015), Devine and Kok (2015), Boyle and McGuirk (2012)
D4 Enhance occupants' health and comfort and Love et al. (2012), Arif et al. (2009), Gou et al. (2013), Aktas and Ozorhon (2015), Windapo (2014), Devine and
satisfaction Kok (2015), Boyle and McGuirk (2012), Bhavani and Khan (2008), Tan (2014)
D5 Increase overall productivity Edwards (2006), Dahiru et al. (2014), Gou et al. (2013), Windapo and Goulding (2015), Bond (2010), Bhavani and
Khan (2008)
D6 Reduce the environmental impact of buildings Love et al. (2012), Ahn et al. (2013), Manoliadis et al. (2006), Arif et al. (2009), Gou et al. (2013), Vanegas and
Pearce, 2000
D7 Better indoor environmental quality Ahn et al. (2013), Aktas and Ozorhon (2015), Windapo (2014), Bond (2011)
D8 Good company image/reputation or marketing Zhang et al. (2011a), Low et al. (2014), Love et al. (2012), Serpell et al. (2013)
strategy
D9 Better workplace environment Edwards (2006), Li et al. (2013), Gou et al. (2014)
D10 Thermal comfort Newsham et al. (2013), Van Tijen and Cohen (2008)
D11 Better rental income and increased lettable space Love et al. (2012), Gou et al. (2013), Zhang (2014)
D12 Attract premium clients and enhanced property Love et al. (2012), Bond (2011)
value
D13 Reduce construction and demolishing wastes Manoliadis et al. (2006), Ahn et al. (2013), Zhai et al. (2014)
D14 Preservation of natural resources and non- Vanegas and Pearce (2000), Manoliadis et al. (2006), Ahn et al. (2013), Arif et al. (2009)
renewable fuels/energy sources
D15 Set standards for future design and construction Mondor et al. (2013), Li et al. (2013)
D16 Reduce the use of construction materials Zhai et al. (2014), Gabay et al. (2014)
D17 Attract quality employees and reduce employee Bond (2010), Dahiru et al. (2014), Boyle and McGuirk (2012)
turnover
D18 Satisfaction from doing the right thing Zhang et al. (2011a), Aktas and Ozorhon (2015), Low et al. (2014), Gou et al. (2013)
(commitment on social responsibility)
D19 Facilitate a culture of best practice sharing Mondor et al. (2013)
D20 Efficiency in construction processes and Mondor et al. (2013), Zhai et al. (2014)
management practices
D21 Improve the performance of the national economy Comstock (2013), Chua and Oh (2011), Li et al. (2013)
and create jobs

primary objectives of the research and assured confidentiality and publications (to respect the anonymity of the experts, examples of
anonymity; the second section was intended to collect the re- the publications are not given) and/or registration as accredited
spondents’ background information, including their organizational green professionals with recognized GB councils (such as the
position, profession, and years of GB experience; and the third USGBC, GBCA, UKGBC, Canada GBC, and WorldGBC).
section contained three questions about the opinions of the experts The experts were emailed attaching a Microsoft Word file and a
on: (1) 21 drivers for the adoption of GBTs; (2) 26 barriers to GBTs web link (to allow online responses). They were asked to express
adoption; and (3) 12 strategies for promoting GBTs adoption. Note their professional opinions on the main drivers for implementing
that only the question on the drivers is of interest to this paper and GBTs using a five-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree;
a sample of the relevant section of the questionnaire is provided in 2 ¼ disagree; 3 ¼ neutral; 4 ¼ agree; 5 ¼ strongly agree). Likert
Appendix in order to have a better understanding of the survey. scale is a popular method in construction management research for
Prior to the main survey, a pilot study was adopted to test the rating the relative significance or importance of individual factors
comprehensiveness and relevance of the questionnaire (Li et al., based on experts’ opinions (Zhang et al., 2011a; Qin et al., 2016). To
2011). The pilot study involved a team of three professors, a se- encourage participation, it was communicated to the experts that
nior lecturer, and a postgraduate researcher who were experienced the research outcomes can be shared with them (Li et al., 2011).
in this research area. They were asked to assess the questionnaire Responses were received, including some incomplete responses.
with regard to question construction, use of technical language/ After eliminating the incomplete responses, a total number of 104
terms, whether the questionnaire covered all possible drivers, valid responses were received from 20 different countries
considering the background of GBTs implementation in the con- (including the US, Canada, Australia, UK, China, Hong Kong,
struction industry, and whether any factors could be added to, or Malaysia, Singapore, Mexico, Brazil, India, Egypt, etc.). To meet the
deleted from the survey. The questionnaire was finalized based on word-limit requirement, all of the countries and the number of
feedback from the pilot study. It was then distributed via email to responses received from each country, as well as background in-
carefully selected international GB experts (both practitioners and formation of the experts are reported in full elsewhere (see Chan
academics), who were mainly identified through research publi- et al., 2016). As the exact number of questionnaires distributed is
cations and databases (member directories) of worldwide GB unknown, the response rate cannot be calculated (similar to Cheng
councils. An expert refers to someone with special skills or and Li, 2002; Rahman, 2014). The exact number of distribution is
knowledge evidenced by his/her leadership in professional orga- unknown because the potential respondents were asked to forward
nizations, or someone holding office in professional organizations, the questionnaire to any other experts they thought suitable.
or a presenter at national conventions, or someone who has pub- However, more than 500 questionnaires were sent out and the
lished in recognized journals (Cabaniss, 2002). Hence, the experts resulting sample size of 104 has been deemed adequate and
in this study were selected based on their knowledge and under- representative when compared with other similar international
standing of use of GB practices and technologies in the construction surveys reported in the construction management literature (e.g.,
industry, which was evidenced by their relevant GB research Wang et al., 2000).

Please cite this article in press as: Darko, A., et al., Drivers for implementing green building technologies: An international survey of experts,
Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.043
4 A. Darko et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e9

Analysis of the experts’ background information revealed that agreement amongst the rankings by different rankers. W has a
the reliability and credibility of the study results are high, because value ranging from 0 to þ1. Where a complete agreement amongst
most of them held top positions in their organizations, e.g., senior different groups of respondents exists, the value of W will be
manager (26%), director/CEO (21%), and professor (19%). More exactly or closer to þ1, otherwise the value of W will be exactly or
importantly, all of the experts had been involved in activities closer to 0 (Siegel and Castellan, 1988). Kendall's coefficient of
related to adoption of GBTs before, such as actual GB projects concordance test does not assume any specific nature of data dis-
implementation and participation in various types of meetings tribution. In conducting this test, the null hypothesis (H0) is that
(e.g., business conferences) in support of GBTs adoption, with more ‘there is no agreement among the rankings given by the respondents’.
than half (59%) of them having been directly involved in GB pro- If the value of W turns out to be at a low significance (p  0.001), the
jects. Furthermore, most (71%) of the experts had more than 5 years null hypothesis (H0) can be rejected, meaning that some degree of
of experience in GB. consensus exists amongst the respondents' scaled answers to a
particular question. Kendall's concordance test is more suitable if
3.3. Data analysis the number of objects to be ranked (N) (21 drivers in this study) is
less than or equal to 7. With more than 7 variables (N > 7) and large
The research data collected were analyzed by using the SPSS sample size (sample size > 20), Chi-square test is viewed as the best
statistical package. The data were first tested statistically for their option for a near approximation (Siegel and Castellan, 1988). Chi-
credibility and reliability for the current study. To do that, the square provides an approximate distribution with N-1 degrees of
Cronbach's alpha coefficient (a), was used (Nunnally and Bernstein, freedom (df) for determining the significance of an observed W.
1994). The a value ranges from 0 to þ1. The higher the value, the The results of Kendall's coefficient of concordance and Chi-
stronger the internal consistency and, hence, reliability of the data. square tests are shown in Table 2. It can be seen that the co-
Generally, an a value above 0.7 is considered acceptable (George efficients of concordance are 0.194 and 0.182 for the expert group
and Mallery, 2003). In this study, the a value for the 21 GBTs with actual GB project experience (group 1) and the group without
implementation drivers was 0.863, indicating a good reliability of actual GB project experience (group 2), respectively. Also, the
the data for further analyses. critical values of Chi-square for the two groups are observed to be
To facilitate the intended analysis for this study, the experts 236.159 and 156.221 (df ¼ 20), respectively, with probabilities of
were grouped into two main categories: experts with actual GB occurrence under p < 0.001 (Asymp. Sig. ¼ 0.000). These results
project experience and those without actual GB project experience indicate a good consensus between both the experts within group 1
yet have experiences in other activities related to the adoption of and those within group 2 in expressing their opinions concerning
GBTs. It was reasonable to assume that these two groups may have the main factors that drive the implementation of GBTs, which is in
different opinions on what drives the implementation of GBTs, turn reflected in the total sample.
because those two types of experiences (i.e., having and not having
an actual project experience) are obviously different. To determine
the relative importance of individual drivers, the mean value
technique was used. The mean values of individual drivers were
computed, ranked, and compared between the two groups of ex- Table 2
Mean ranks within total sample and the two expert groups, and test of concordance.
perts. Mean value analysis is considered a typical and effective
method for identifying key factors amongst several individual Label Total sample Group 1 Group 2
factors (Moungnos and Charoenngam, 2003; Lam et al., 2015). At a Mean Rank Sig. Mean Rank Mean Rank
significance level of 0.05, and against a test value of 3.5, statistical t-
D1 4.06 7 0.000 4.25 3 3.79 9
tests of the mean values were used to ascertain whether each driver D2 4.57 1 0.000 4.59 1 4.53 1
was significantly important. In a study to analyze and rank the D3 4.24 3 0.000 4.28 2 4.19 3
business reasons that drive GB, Chan et al. (2009) applied the D4 4.18 4 0.000 4.23 4b 4.12 4
Kendall's coefficient of concordance test (also known as Kendall's D5 3.88 10 0.000 3.98 10b 3.74 10
D6 4.25 2 0.000 4.23 4b 4.28 2
W) to examine the agreement amongst both Hong Kong and
D7 4.08 6 0.000 4.11 7 4.02 6
Singapore respondents on their rankings of the ‘business reasons’ D8 4.14 5 0.000 4.18 6 4.09 5
factors. They further used the Mann-Whitney U test to measure the D9 3.92 9 0.000 3.98 10b 3.84 8
degree of association of responses by the respondents from the two D10 3.65 14 0.063a 3.69 14 3.60 14
groups (i.e., Hong Kong and Singapore groups) concerning their D11 3.86 11 0.000 4.00 9 3.65 11
D12 3.98 8 0.000 4.02 8 3.93 7
rankings of different factors. A similar approach was adopted by D13 3.51 17 0.921a 3.59 16b 3.40 19
Lam et al. (2015), Shi et al. (2013), and Lam et al. (2009) in their D14 3.79 12 0.001 3.90 12 3.63 12b
research. As such, in this study, the Kendall's W has been used to D15 3.67 13 0.060a 3.70 13 3.63 12b
measure the agreement between the experts in each of the two D16 3.55 16 0.616a 3.59 16b 3.49 16
D17 3.49 18 0.913a 3.57 18 3.37 20
groups (i.e., the groups with and without actual GB project expe-
D18 3.61 15 0.248a 3.64 15 3.56 15
rience) concerning their rankings of the different drivers for D19 3.45 19 0.564a 3.48 19 3.42 17b
implementing GBTs. The Mann-Whitney U test has also been D20 3.32 21 0.031 3.38 20b 3.23 21
applied to determine whether or not there was any statistically D21 3.39 20 0.318a 3.38 20b 3.42 17b
significant difference amongst the two expert groups on each of the Kendall's Wc 0.183 0.194 0.182
drivers. Chi-Square 381.501 236.159 156.221
df 20 20 20
Asymp. Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.000
3.3.1. Kendall's coefficient of concordance (Kendall's W)
Kendall's W was calculated to measure the agreement and Note: Group 1 refers to experts with actual green building project experience.
consistency of responses given by experts in a particular group in Group 2 refers to experts without actual green building project experience.
a
Data with insignificant results of one-sample t-test (p > 0.05).
ranking the drivers of GBTs implementation based on mean values. b
Equal ranks wherein the next rank is skipped.
Kendall's W is a coefficient index for ascertaining the overall c
Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance test on the drivers amongst the two expert
agreement amongst sets of rankings. It represents the actual groups.

Please cite this article in press as: Darko, A., et al., Drivers for implementing green building technologies: An international survey of experts,
Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.043
 A. Darko et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e9 5

3.3.2. Mann-Whitney U test may have very different preferences in identifying the most
The Mann-Whitney U test has been conducted in this study to important influences that usually motivate efforts to implement
examine the degree of association of rankings of various GBTs GBTs, from experts who just follow developments relating to the
implementation drivers from the perspective of experts within adoption of such technologies, but are yet to test their experiences
group 1 and experts within group 2 (Chan et al., 2009) (ranking on a real project. Therefore, in this study, the views of experts with
results presented in Table 2). This test is suitable for identifying any actual GB project experience and those without actual GB project
statistically significant divergences or differences amongst any two experience on what drives the implementation of GBTs among
independent groups answering a particular question on any construction stakeholders have been analyzed and compared.
continuous variable. When applying this method, it is not required These insights are provided in Table 2, with group 1 representing
to make any prior assumption on data distribution, and the sample the views of experts with actual GB project experience and group 2
sizes of various groups can be varied (Lam et al., 2015). Mann- representing the views of experts without actual GB project
Whitney U test converts the scores given by the respondents on experience.
each continuous measure to ranks, across any two groups, and then As discussed earlier, the Mann-Whitney U test has been used to
assesses whether the ranks for the two groups significantly differ or identify any significant differences between these two expert
not. For this test, the H0 is that ‘there is no difference amongst two groups on their rankings. The test results in Table 3 show that these
groups’, which can be rejected if the U value exceeds its critical two drivers: “reduce the lifecycle costs of buildings” (D1) and
value at a significance level equal to or less than 0.05. “better rental income and increased lettable space” (D11) have
Table 3 summarizes the U test results, showing the z value of significant differences among the two expert groups. Experts
each of the 21 drivers (D1-D21) and their corresponding signifi- within group 1 regarded both of these two drivers as more
cance levels of p. For example, the z value of driver ‘D21’ is 0.195 important than experts within the second group. Especially with
with a significance level of p ¼ 0.846. As shown in Table 3, with the driver D1, the difference between the mean ranks across the two
exception of drivers ‘D1’ (p ¼ 0.013) and ‘D11’ (p ¼ 0.029), the groups seems quite high: while the first group ranked D1 third with
probability values (p) of all of the drivers are greater than 0.05. This a high mean value of 4.25, the second group ranked it ninth with a
means that aside from these two drivers (D1 and D11), the U test mean value of 3.79. For the remaining 19 drivers, significant dif-
results for all of the drivers are insignificant, indicating that there ferences were not found between the two groups, because it can be
are no statistically significant differences in the ranks of 19 drivers seen that the data displays relatively close values of means and
out of 21 by the two expert groups (Table 2). This shows an opti- ranks across the two groups for those 19 drivers (Table 2). This
mistic result concerning the agreement between experts with and verifies the homogeneity and acceptable quality of the collected
those without actual GB project experience. survey data as well as a reasonably low degree of dispersion
resulting in credible and reliable findings. However, it can still be
observed that for all of the drivers for implementing GBTs, except
4. Results and discussion
D6 “reduce the environmental impact of buildings” and D21
“improve the performance of the national economy and create
An overview was obtained from the survey data by computing
jobs”, the first expert group tended to show bigger mean values
the mean values of all of the 21 drivers of GBTs implementation
than the second group (Table 2). This implies that experts with
assessed by experts from two different groups, as shown in Table 2.
actual GB project experience attached more degree of importance
The relative rank of each driver was derived from the experts’
to most of the drivers than the other expert group. This is reason-
opinions (mean values) in response to the survey question. Dis-
able because the experts within group 1 are more familiar with the
cussions are made based on the results within the two expert
multifaceted objectives involved in real GB projects. They know
groups and the overall results (i.e., within the total sample).
that most of the needs to be addressed in actual GB project situa-
tions are complicated, but highly important to achieve sustainable
4.1. Analyses based on the two expert groups development.

Different stakeholders may have different priorities for reasons

why they decide to use green technologies in their buildings. In a 4.2. Analyses based on overall results on drivers for implementing
real construction project, several confounding issues influence GBTs
decision-making towards the adoption of certain technologies. As
such, experts who have had hands-on experiences in GB projects The left side of Table 2 displays the overall results of this study,

Table 3
Mann-Whitney U test on the drivers for implementing GBTs.

Test statisticsa D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 D11

Mann-Whitney U 960.500 1245.500 1260.000 1221.500 1077.000 1309.500 1228.000 1217.000 1185.500 1251.000 1001.000
Wilcoxon W 1906.500 2191.500 2206.000 2167.500 2023.000 2255.500 2174.000 2163.000 2131.500 2197.000 1947.000
Z 2.493 0.507 0.381 0.652 1.641 0.014 0.597 0.676 0.929 0.428 2.183
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.013b 0.612 0.704 0.515 0.101 0.989 0.550 0.499 0.353 0.668 0.029b

Test statistics D12 D13 D14 D15 D16 D17 D18 D19 D20 D21

Mann-Whitney U 1242.500 1168.000 1102.000 1242.000 1229.500 1157.500 1238.000 1258.000 1168.000 1283.000
Wilcoxon W 2188.500 2114.000 2048.000 2188.000 2175.500 2103.500 2184.000 2204.000 2114.000 3174.000
Z 0.489 0.987 1.476 0.483 0.565 1.076 0.520 0.376 1.016 0.195
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.625 0.324 0.140 0.629 0.572 0.282 0.603 0.707 0.310 0.846

Note:
a
Grouping variable: actual green building project experience (1 ¼ With; 2 ¼ Without).
b
Data with significant results of Mann-Whitney U test.

Please cite this article in press as: Darko, A., et al., Drivers for implementing green building technologies: An international survey of experts,
Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.043
6 A. Darko et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e9

i.e., results within the total sample. It shows a list of factors that the lifecycle of the building, and it is known that economic benefits
drive the implementation of GBTs, with a ranked order that has are crucial for the business survival of every stakeholder (Chan
been agreed by GB experts around the world. Thus, it demonstrates et al., 2009). These merits could explain the reason why stake-
a good consensus of the perceptions on GBTs implementation holders implement GBTs to reduce energy consumption and ach-
drivers between experts with actual GB project experience and ieve greater energy-efficiency in their buildings.
those without actual GB project experience yet have experiences in The second most important factor driving the implementation
other activities related to the implementation of GBTs. From the of GBTs is ‘reduce the environmental impact of buildings’ (D6). In
results, it can be seen that the most important driver for deciding to fact, sustainability in construction has only become crucial because
use GBTs is “greater energy-efficiency of buildings” (D2) with the of the built environment's impact on climate change and natural
highest mean value of 4.57, followed by “reduce the environmental resources, which affects the natural environment. Thus, environ-
impact of buildings” (D6, mean ¼ 4.25) ranked second, “greater mental concern has triggered stakeholders to consider the advan-
water-efficiency of buildings” (D3, mean ¼ 4.24) ranked third, tages of sustainable options, such as renewable energy systems. It is
“enhance occupants' health and comfort and satisfaction” (D4, not surprising to identify that reduction of environmental impacts
mean ¼ 4.18) ranked fourth, and “good company image/reputation is an important factor driving stakeholders in the implementation
or marketing strategy” (D8, mean ¼ 4.14) ranked fifth. Aside from of GBTs. This concurs with the literature that stakeholder or
these drivers, “better indoor environmental quality” (D7, mean managerial environmental concern is an important driver for the
4.08, rank 6) is also deemed a good reason driving the imple- implementation of green technology (Qi et al., 2010; Wang et al.,
mentation of GBTs. These drivers are considered effective to attract 2014). Most of the building sector's impact on climate change
stakeholders’ interests in adopting GBTs for better construction and, hence, the environment is attributable to its pivotal role in
sustainability. On the other hand, “efficiency in construction pro- carbon emissions. The high energy consumption in the industry
cesses and management practices” (D20), “improve the perfor- contributes to excessive CO2 emissions, meaning that the applica-
mance of the national economy and create jobs” (D21), and tion of energy-efficient technologies can reduce the environmental
“facilitate a culture of best practice sharing” (D19) are found to be impact of buildings. Love et al. (2012), for example, demonstrated
the least important drivers among all the proposed ones. The re- that the application of active chilled beams including floor by floor
sults from t-test analysis verify that 13 out of the 21 drivers are zoning and thermal zoning of airhandling units can reduce CO2
significantly important for the implementation of GBTs. emissions, because it minimizes energy consumption. It can save
It appears that the most important driver for implementing approximately 447.3/tne of CO2 annually. Usually, building emis-
GBTs is ‘greater energy-efficiency of buildings’ (D2). This is echoed sions are discussed in relation to the production of greenhouse
with previous investigations and it is not surprising, because gases and consumption of resources throughout the lifespan of the
energy-saving has become a high-priority all over the world and building. Building construction impacts upon the environment by
the building sector is considered as one of the biggest contributors excessively consuming notable natural resources, e.g., land and
to energy consumption in the world (Pacheco et al., 2012). Stake- water, that are usually nonrenewable. The construction of buildings
holders are therefore realizing the need to reduce energy use in also pollutes the atmosphere in many ways. The same study by Love
buildings. Manoliadis et al. (2006) and Ahn et al. (2013) also found et al. (2012) showed that the adoption of renewable green tech-
that energy conservation is the most important driver influencing nologies, such as wind turbines for on-site renewable power gen-
the implementation of green construction practices. Most of the eration, can reduce demand for nonrenewable energy sources and
energy consumed in buildings is for cooling, heating, and lighting consequent ecological impact. This study suggests that the imple-
purposes. The high levels of energy consumption in buildings can mentation of green building technologies can reduce the environ-
be attributed to the application of traditional electrical appliances mental impact of buildings by favoring a transition to a low-carbon
and equipment. Moreover, almost all of construction operations, economy as well as developments that are less resource-intensive.
such as excavating, concrete casting, curing and finishing, and ‘Greater water-efficiency of buildings’ (D3) is considered by the
pumping and vibrating concrete, are energy consuming. The experts as the third most important driver for applying GBTs,
finding of this study suggests that replacing the traditional con- implying that the need to reduce water use in buildings is a typical
struction technologies with green technologies can help stake- sustainability issue reinforcing the adoption of GBTs. In almost
holders to reduce the energy demand for cooling and heating, and every well-known green building rating tool (such as Leadership in
for performing other functions in buildings. Through the utilization Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and BRE Environmental
of GBTs, such as technologies that utilize natural resources of sun Assessment Method (BREEAM)), water-efficiency is an important
(e.g., photovoltaic panels and active western façade with auto- requirement that stakeholders that are developing GBs must
mated louvres) and wind (e.g., roof mounted wind turbines), and satisfy. The application of suitable GBTs has been suggested to be
active chilled beams, stakeholders can achieve a reduction in critical for stakeholders to achieve this target, which is echoed with
building energy consumption (Love et al., 2012). Adopting roof previous research by Zhang et al. (2011b) who identified that
mounted wind turbines, for example, can result in the generation of stakeholders adopt green technologies, such as permeable surface
about 36 MW/hr green energy (which may represent about 10% of technology and on-site sewage treatment, to improve the water-
the total building energy needs). A study by Wong (2012) pointed efficiency of their buildings. Encouraging water-efficient design
out that depending on the pattern of usage, the application of can bring about an added value that will benefit the end-user. A
variable speed motors can help to reduce energy consumed by water-efficient building can reduce its lifetime economic costs
escalators (by around 10e15%) and air-conditioning systems (by (lower water bills), because of its lower water usage, and this can be
around 20%). Moreover, the use of light emitting diode (LED) bulbs more than a compensation for the higher initial investment. This
rather than incandescent light bulbs can save 70e80% of electricity. economic benefit of cost savings can be well received by many
Air-conditioning systems are responsible for a sizeable amount of stakeholders and thus encourage them to implement GBTs.
building energy use, however, the use of a water-cooled air-con- ‘Enhance occupants’ health and comfort and satisfaction’ (D4)
ditioning system in place of an air-cooled system can reduce elec- has been found to be the fourth important driver seeing through
tricity consumption by 20e30% (Wong, 2012). The reduced energy the implementation of GBTs. This is in contrast with Low et al.
consumption and hence cost savings from implementing GBTs can (2014) who found that ‘improve the wellbeing of employees’ is
be an important economic benefit for the stakeholder throughout the least important driver for GB. It does not also support the

Please cite this article in press as: Darko, A., et al., Drivers for implementing green building technologies: An international survey of experts,
Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.043
 A. Darko et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e9 7

finding of Chan et al. (2009) that ‘higher tenant satisfaction’ is the governments, they can take the lead to instigate policies, plans,
least favorable factor for implementing GB. However, the finding and programs that can boost the energy and environmental
echoes several other discussions in the literature that stakeholders consciousness of industry stakeholders and inform the public of
are adopting GBTs, because they have realized the benefits of the importance of and range of possibilities offered by
enhancing the health and comfort of occupants (Werna, 2013; GBTs implementation. The findings of this study can also help
Roseland, 2012). The reduced CO2 emissions into the atmosphere the industry practitioners and stakeholders make informed de-
from GBTs, for example, could be an essential social benefit that can cisions as to whether to use GBTs or not, knowing the potential
make GBTs attractive to stakeholders. benefits.
‘Good company image/reputation or marketing strategy’ (D8) Because this study was designed based upon the broad liter-
can also make GBTs attractive to market stakeholders. Stakeholders ature and GB experts in the global construction industry were
can gain good image and reputation by adopting green technolo- engaged, the overall findings of this paper may be generalizable.
gies. For instance, the application of technologies that have less The findings of this study can be beneficial not only for providing
impact on public health can help stakeholders increase their public an in-depth understanding of the major factors greatly driving
reputation and gain a green image. This can help them differentiate the implementation of GBTs in construction, but can also
their products and hence enjoy certain market advantages, such as encourage the practitioners and stakeholders to further imple-
high sale prices. The application of GBTs, such as efficient ment GBTs in the future for better construction sustainability. The
daylighting systems and solar shading devices, can further provide organizations and individuals that intend to implement GBTs
a ‘better indoor environmental quality’ (D7) for occupants, which could learn lessons from the perceptions of international GB ex-
has also been identified by this study as an important driver for perts who have had some years of experience in GBTs imple-
stakeholders to adopt GBTs. These findings have been support by mentation activities. They are advised to bear in mind that even
the literature as well-established benefits associated with GBTs and though the initial investment may be high, benefits will be reaped
if they are favorable, can naturally arouse interests in the in the long run, so they should be patient to see the return on
technologies. their investments.
For the study reported in this paper, the necessary data were
collected from GB experts from different countries having
5. Conclusions
different experiences in promoting GB. This study compared the
views of the experts with actual GB project experience and those
GBTs have the greatest opportunity to reduce the negative
without actual GB project experience on the drivers for imple-
impacts of the construction industry on the natural environment,
menting GBTs. However, because the extent of experience of
economy, and society. To encourage widespread adoption of GBTs,
different experts from different countries may differ as GBTs
this study identified the major drivers for implementing GBTs in
might be implemented to different degrees in different countries
the construction industry. This study contributes to the existing
to meet different economic conditions and regulations, the future
body of literature by focusing on the perspective of international
research work will consider and compare the views of the experts
GB experts, rather than experts in a particular country. A total
according to countries and/or continents/regions. For example,
number of 21 factors were identified through a comprehensive
the perceptions of the GB experts from developed and developing
literature review and presented in a questionnaire. Afterward, a
countries on the GBTs implementation drivers will be compared
questionnaire survey was performed with GB experts around the
in the future research to observe market-specific differences. Such
world to identify the major drivers of GBTs implementation from
a comparison will be useful to allow developing countries to learn
these factors. The results from statistical analyses of 104 expert
from the experiences of developed countries where GBTs imple-
responses first showed that energy-efficiency, reduced environ-
mentation has made considerable progress. For future research, it
mental impact, water-efficiency, occupants’ health and comfort
is also recommended to establish new models that will help to
and satisfaction, and company image/reputation were the top five
accurately investigate the links among the GBTs implementation
drivers of GBTs implementation. This finding indicates that the
drivers and their extent of influences on the implementation
implementation of GBTs needs consideration in order for stake-
process, which would be more helpful and useful for GBTs
holders to realize sustainability benefits, such as developing
promotion.
buildings that are highly energy-efficient and have minimal
environmental impacts. The analyses result also showed that 13
out of the 21 factors were significant drivers of GBTs imple- Acknowledgements
mentation. In addition, although the experts were from different
countries and with diverse backgrounds, they had a good This study forms part of a large-scope PhD study on GBTs pro-
consensus on their rankings of the drivers. Furthermore, there motion where related papers, but with different scopes and ob-
were no significant differences amongst experts with actual GB jectives have been published. The authors acknowledge the
project experience and those without actual GB project experi- Department of Building and Real Estate of The Hong Kong Poly-
ence in ranking most of the drivers. technic University for funding this research. We are also grateful to
As this study attempted to present major factors that greatly the experts who participated in the international questionnaire
drive the implementation of GBTs, the empirical results have survey. In addition, it is acknowledged that the research method-
practical implications. The major drivers with high mean ranks or ology reported in this paper is similar to that of other papers pro-
values can be focused on to effectively and efficiently promote duced and published from the international survey. Appreciation is
and make decisions regarding the implementation of GBTs. GB finally due to the editors and anonymous reviewers who provided
advocates can widely promote these drivers in society in order to invaluable comments and suggestions that helped to improve this
influence the interest industry stakeholders have in GBTs. For paper.

Please cite this article in press as: Darko, A., et al., Drivers for implementing green building technologies: An international survey of experts,
Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.043
8 A. Darko et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e9

Appendix A. Relevant section of the questionnaire

Table 4
Drivers for the implementation of GBTs.

Code Drivers Level of agreement

D1 To reduce the lifecycle costs of buildings 1 2 3 4 5

D2 For greater energy-efficiency of buildings 1 2 3 4 5
D3 For greater water-efficiency of buildings 1 2 3 4 5
D4 To enhance occupants' health and comfort and satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5
D5 To increase overall productivity 1 2 3 4 5
D6 To reduce the environmental impact of buildings 1 2 3 4 5
D7 For better indoor environmental quality 1 2 3 4 5
D8 For good company image/reputation or as a marketing strategy 1 2 3 4 5
D9 For better workplace environment 1 2 3 4 5
D10 Thermal comfort (better indoor temperature) 1 2 3 4 5
D11 For better rental income and increased lettable space 1 2 3 4 5
D12 To attract premium clients and enhanced property values 1 2 3 4 5
D13 To reduce construction and demolishing wastes 1 2 3 4 5
D14 Preservation of natural resources and non-renewable fuels/energy sources 1 2 3 4 5
D15 To set standards for future design and construction 1 2 3 4 5
D16 To reduce the use of construction materials (materials-efficiency) 1 2 3 4 5
D17 To attract quality employees and reduce employee turnover 1 2 3 4 5
D18 Satisfaction from doing the right thing (commitment on social responsibility) 1 2 3 4 5
D19 To facilitate a culture of best practice sharing 1 2 3 4 5
D20 For efficiency in construction processes and management practices 1 2 3 4 5
D21 To improve the performance of the national economy and to create jobs 1 2 3 4 5

Note: Experts assessed these drivers on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

References Dahiru, D., Dania, A.A., Adejoh, A., 2014. An investigation into the prospects of green
building practice in Nigeria. J. Sustain. Dev. 7 (6), 158e167.
Devine, A., Kok, N., 2015. Green certification and building performance: implica-
Abidin, N.Z., Powmya, A., 2014. Perceptions on motivating factors and future
tions for tangibles and intangibles. J. Portfolio Manag. 41 (6), 151e163.
prospects of green construction in Oman. J. Sustain. Dev. 7 (5), 231e239.
Edwards, B., 2006. Benefits of green offices in the UK: analysis from examples built
Ahmad, T., Thaheem, M.J., Anwar, A., 2016. Developing a green-building design
in the 1990s. Sustain. Dev. 14 (3), 190e204.
approach by selective use of systems and techniques. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag.
Gabay, H., Meir, I.A., Schwartz, M., Werzberger, E., 2014. Cost-benefit analysis of
12 (1), 29e50.
green buildings: an Israeli office buildings case study. Energy Build. 76,
Ahn, Y.H., Pearce, A.R., Wang, Y., Wang, G., 2013. Drivers and barriers of sustainable
558e564.
design and construction: the perception of green building experience. Int. J.
George, D., Mallery, P., 2003. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: a Simple Guide and
Sustain. Build. Technol. Urban Dev. 4 (1), 35e45.
Reference, 11.0 Update, fourth ed. Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
Aktas, B., Ozorhon, B., 2015. Green building certification process of existing build-
Gou, Z., Lau, S.S.Y., Prasad, D., 2013. Market readiness and policy implications for
ings in developing countries: cases from Turkey. J. Manag. Eng. 31 (6),
green buildings: case study from Hong Kong. J. Green Build. 8 (2), 162e173.
05015002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000358.
Gou, Z., Prasad, D., Lau, S.S.Y., 2014. Impacts of green certifications, ventilation and
Annunziata, E., Testa, F., Iraldo, F., Frey, M., 2016. Environmental responsibility in
office types on occupant satisfaction with indoor environmental quality. Archit.
building design: an Italian regional study. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 639e648.
Sci. Rev. 57 (3), 196e206.
Arif, M., Egbu, C., Haleem, A., Kulonda, D., Khalfan, M., 2009. State of green con-
Green Building Council Australia (GBCA), 2006. Dollars and Sense of Green Build-
struction in India: drivers and challenges. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 7 (2), 223e234.
ings. http://www.gbca.org.au (Accessed 28 June 2016).
Augenbroe, G., Pearce, A.R., 1999. Sustainable Construction in the USA. Perspectives
Huang, B., Mauerhofer, V., Geng, Y., 2016. Analysis of existing building energy saving
to the Year 2010, Report. Georgia Institute of Technology.
policies in Japan and China. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 1510e1518.
Augenbroe, G., Pearce, A., Kibert, C., 1998. Sustainable Construction in the United
Lam, P.T., Chan, E.H., Ann, T.W., Cam, W.C., Jack, S.Y., 2015. Applicability of clean
States of America. A Perspective to the Year 2010, Report. Georgia Institute of
development mechanism to the Hong Kong building sector. J. Clean. Prod. 109,
Technology, June.
271e283.
Berardi, U., 2013. Clarifying the new interpretations of the concept of sustainable
Lam, P.T., Chan, E.H., Chau, C.K., Poon, C.S., Chun, K.P., 2009. Integrating green
building. Sustain. Cities Soc. 8, 72e78.
specifications in construction and overcoming barriers in their use. J. Prof. Is-
Bhavani, R.G., Khan, M.A., 2008. Prevalence and penetration of lighting control
sues Eng. Educ. Pract. 135 (4), 142e152.
systems in Dubai buildings: a pointer to future measures. J. Appl. Sci. 8 (19),
Li, X., Strezov, V., Amati, M., 2013. A qualitative study of motivation and influences
3460e3466.
for academic green building developments in Australian universities. J. Green
Bond, S., 2010. Lessons from the leaders of green designed commercial buildings in
Build. 8 (3), 166e183.
Australia. Pac. Rim Prop. Res. J. 16 (3), 314e338.
Li, Y.Y., Chen, P.H., Chew, D.A.S., Teo, C.C., Ding, R.G., 2011. Critical project man-
Bond, S.G., 2011. Residential property development professionals' attitudes towards
agement factors of AEC firms for delivering green building projects in
sustainable development in Australia. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 6 (4), 474e486.
Singapore. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 137 (12), 1153e1163.
Boyle, T., McGuirk, P., 2012. The decentred firm and the adoption of sustainable
Love, P.E., Niedzweicki, M., Bullen, P.A., Edwards, D.J., 2012. Achieving the green
office space in Sydney, Australia. Aust. Geogr. 43 (4), 393e410.
building council of Australia's world leadership rating in an office building in
Cabaniss, K., 2002. Computer-related technology use by counselors in the new
Perth. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 138 (5), 652e660.
millennium: a Delphi study. J. Technol. Couns. 2 (2), 3e34.
Low, S.P., Gao, S., Tay, W.L., 2014. Comparative study of project management and
Chan, A.P.C., Darko, A., Ameyaw, E., Owusu-Manu, D., 2016. Barriers affecting the
critical success factors of greening new and existing buildings in Singapore.
adoption of green building technologies. J. Manag. Eng. 04016057. http://
Struct. Surv. 32 (5), 413e433.
dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000507.
Manoliadis, O., Tsolas, I., Nakou, A., 2006. Sustainable construction and drivers of
Chan, E.H., Qian, Q.K., Lam, P.T., 2009. The market for green building in developed
change in Greece: a Delphi study. Constr. Manag. Econ. 24 (2), 113e120.
Asian citiesdthe perspectives of building designers. Energy Policy 37 (8),
Mondor, C., Hockley, S., Deal, D., 2013. The David Lawrence convention center: how
3061e3070.
green building design and operations can save money, drive local economic
Cheng, E.W.L., Li, H., 2002. Construction partnering process and associated critical
opportunity, and transform an industry. J. Green Build. 8 (1), 28e43.
success factors: quantitative investigation. J. Manag. Eng. 18 (4), 194e202.
Moungnos, W., Charoenngam, C., 2003. Operational delay factors at multi-stages in
Chua, S.C., Oh, T.H., 2011. Green progress and prospect in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain.
Thai building construction. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 3 (1), 15e30.
Energy Rev. 15 (6), 2850e2861.
Mulligan, T.D., Mollaoglu-Korkmaz, S., Cotner, R., Goldsberry, A.D., 2014. Public
Comstock, M., 2013. Importance of Green Buildings Stressed by Business and In-
policy and impacts on adoption of sustainable built environments: learning
dustry at UN Climate Negotiations. http://www.usgbc.org/articles/importance-
from the construction industry playmakers. J. Green Build. 9 (2), 182e202.
green-buildings-stressed-business-and-industry-un-climate-negotiations
Newsham, G.R., Birt, B.J., Arsenault, C., Thompson, A.J., Veitch, J.A., Mancini, S.,
(Accessed 21 September 2016).
Burns, G.J., 2013. Do ‘green’ buildings have better indoor environments? New

Please cite this article in press as: Darko, A., et al., Drivers for implementing green building technologies: An international survey of experts,
Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.043
 A. Darko et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e9 9

evidence. Build. Res. Inf. 41 (4), 415e434. Vanegas, J.A., Pearce, A.R., 2000. Drivers for Change: an Organizational Perspective
Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H., 1994. Psychometric Theory, third ed. McGraw-Hill, on Sustainable Construction. www.maven.gtri.gatech.edu/sfi/resources/pdf/
New York. RCP/RCP001.PDF.
Pacheco, R., Ordo
n
~ ez, J., Martínez, G., 2012. Energy efficient design of building: a Wang, L., Toppinen, A., Juslin, H., 2014. Use of wood in green building: a study of
review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (6), 3559e3573. expert perspectives from the UK. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 350e361.
Potbhare, V., Syal, M., Korkmaz, S., 2009. Adoption of green building guidelines in Wang, S.Q., Tiong, R.L., Ting, S.K., Ashley, D., 2000. Evaluation and management of
developing countries based on US and India experiences. J. Green Build. 4 (2), foreign exchange and revenue risks in China's BOT projects. Constr. Manag.
158e174. Econ. 18 (2), 197e207.
Qi, G.Y., Shen, L.Y., Zeng, S.X., Jorge, O.J., 2010. The drivers for contractors' green Werna, E., 2013. Working in Green Cities: Improving the Urban Environment while
innovation: an industry perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (14), 1358e1365. Creating Jobs and Enhancing Working Conditions. In the Economy of Green
Qin, X., Mo, Y., Jing, L., 2016. Risk perceptions of the life-cycle of green buildings in Cities. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 57e70.
China. J. Clean. Prod. 126, 148e158. Windapo, A.O., 2014. Examination of green building drivers in the South African
Rahman, M.M., 2014. Barriers of implementing modern methods of construction. construction industry: economics versus ecology. Sustainability 6 (9),
J. Manag. Eng. 30 (1), 69e77. 6088e6106.
Roseland, M., 2012. Toward Sustainable Communities: Solutions for Citizens and Windapo, A.O., Goulding, J.S., 2015. Understanding the gap between green building
Their Governments. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC. practice and legislation requirements in South Africa. Smart Sustain. Built En-
Rowlinson, S.M., 1988. An Analysis of Factors Affecting Project Performance in In- viron. 4 (1), 67e96.
dustrial Building. Brunel Univ, Middlesex, U.K. PhD thesis. Wong, C.H., 2012. Building Services Installation for a Green Building. EMSD, Hong
Serpell, A., Kort, J., Vera, S., 2013. Awareness, actions, drivers and barriers of sus- Kong.
tainable construction in Chile. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 19 (2), 272e288. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), 1987. Our Common
Shi, Q., Zuo, J., Huang, R., Huang, J., Pullen, S., 2013. Identifying the critical factors for Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.
green constructionean empirical study in China. Habitat Int. 40, 1e8. World Green Building Council (WorldGBC), 2016. About WorldGBC. http://www.
Siegel, S., Castellan, N.J., 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, worldgbc.org/index.php?cID¼220 (Accessed 12 November 2016).
second ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. Zhai, X., Reed, R., Mills, A., 2014. Addressing sustainable challenges in China: the
Son, H., Kim, C., Chong, W.K., Chou, J.S., 2011. Implementing sustainable develop- contribution of off-site industrialisation. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 3 (3),
ment in the construction industry: constructors' perspectives in the US and 261e274.
Korea. Sustain. Dev. 19 (5), 337e347. Zhang, X., 2014. Paradigm shift toward sustainable commercial project develop-
Tan, T.H., 2014. Satisfaction and motivation of homeowners towards green homes. ment in China. Habitat Int. 42, 186e192.
Soc. Indic. Res. 116 (3), 869e885. Zhang, X., 2015. Green real estate development in China: state of art and prospect
Tan, W.C.K., 2011. Practical Research Methods. Pearson Custom, Singapore. agendada review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 47, 1e13.
US Green Building Council (USGBC), 2003. Building Momentum: National Trends Zhang, X., Platten, A., Shen, L., 2011b. Green property development practice in
and Prospects for High Performance Green Buildings. Author, Washington, DC. China: costs and barriers. Build. Environ. 46 (11), 2153e2160.
Van Tijen, M., Cohen, R., 2008. Features and benefits of cool roofs: the cool roof Zhang, X., Shen, L., Wu, Y., 2011a. Green strategy for gaining competitive advantage
rating council program. J. Green Build. 3 (2), 13e19. in housing development: a China study. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (2), 157e167.

Please cite this article in press as: Darko, A., et al., Drivers for implementing green building technologies: An international survey of experts,
Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.043