Smart and Sustainable Built Environment

Examining barriers and measures to promote the adoption of green building practices in Pakistan
Sana Azeem, Malik Asghar Naeem, Abdul Waheed, Muhammad Jamaluddin Jamaluddin Thaheem,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Sana Azeem, Malik Asghar Naeem, Abdul Waheed, Muhammad Jamaluddin Jamaluddin Thaheem, "Examining barriers and
measures to promote the adoption of green building practices in Pakistan", Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, https://
doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-06-2017-0023
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-06-2017-0023
Downloaded on: 04 December 2017, At: 18:06 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2 times since 2017*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:387340 []
For Authors
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 18:06 04 December 2017 (PT)

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Examining barriers and measures to promote the adoption of green building
practices in Pakistan
1 Introduction
The construction industry makes up a significant proportion of GDP in the developed, as well as
developing, parts of the world (Farooqui et al., 2008). Compared to sectors for any other
infrastructural project or product type, the building sector alone is the largest consumer of
electricity and natural resources. Buildings are made to protect human beings from the unwanted
effects of nature, however they also have a large environmental footprint. One-sixth of the
world’s fresh water is consumed by building, as well as one-fourth of its harvested wood and
two-fifths of the world’s energy (also creating a corresponding amount of greenhouse gas
emissions) (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008, Council, 2008). Global carbon emissions are
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 18:06 04 December 2017 (PT)

expected to reach 42.4 billion tons by 2035, which is a 44.3% increase in the 2007 level (Darko
et al., 2017). Methods that are used to design and construct buildings today will not only have an
impact on present patterns of energy consumption and environmental degradation, but will have
an immense direct and indirect impact on future generations (Ali and Al Nsairat, 2009).
To combat this situation, there is a need to construct buildings that have minimal effects on the
surrounding environment and on human health. We have brought mother nature to a critical edge
in our blind run of development. Only a complete green solution in the form of ‘green building’
can save our present and future. Green building will help to design and construct buildings that
are healthier as well as more resource efficient throughout their life span (Chan et al., 2009).
Green building revamps traditional, non-green methods of construction by using special building
techniques, practices, and materials that help to achieve sustainability (Darko et al., 2017). The
advantages of green building include cost savings from lessened energy and water consumption;
less waste; reduced operations and maintenance costs; and greater occupant productivity and
wellbeing (Kats, 2003).
Currently, Pakistan is facing a number of environmental challenges (Sohail and Qureshi, 2010).
It has been a victim of severe energy crisis in recent years (Javaid et al., 2011, Ahmed and
Iftikhar-ul-Husnain, 2014). Pakistan has a sunny, hot climate as it is situated on between 24˚N
and 35˚N latitudes. Due to this climate, energy demands for cooling buildings are very high
(Sohail and Qureshi, 2010). Pakistan is on the list of those countries who largely depend on
thermal sources and generate most of their electricity from non-renewable sources. This practice
is creating serious environmental problems, along with the rapid consumption of precious
sources of energy (Sohail and Qureshi, 2010). To prevent a shortfall of electricity, there is a need
to change current construction practices and move towards energy efficient building, which has
the potential to save up to 30% (Ahmed and Iftikhar-ul-Husnain, 2014, Zainordin et al., 2012).
Green design helps to reduce solid waste generation in construction by 70%, water consumption
by 40%, and carbon dioxide emissions by 39% (Aslam et al., 2012).
Unfortunately, in Pakistan the green building approach suffers from many market barriers,
despite its numerous benefits to society. The purpose of this research is to investigate the
 potential barriers inhibiting the adoption of green building, and to explore measures that can be
adopted to promote this approach in Pakistan.

2 Literature Review
2.1 Green building
Green building is the foundation of sustainable development (AlSanad, 2015). It makes efficient
use of natural resources during the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and demolition
phases (Kasai et al., 2014). The Indian Green Building Council (IGBC) defines a green building
as “one which uses less water, optimizes energy efficiency, conserves natural resources,
generates less water and provides healthier spaces for occupants, as compared to a conventional
building”. Due to various climatic and environmental challenges, the concern for green building
has increased worldwide and there has been a rapid increase in the development of various rating
systems and assessment tools for green development. The purpose of green building rating
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 18:06 04 December 2017 (PT)

systems is to examine the life-cycle performance of a ‘whole building’ and to compare it to

performance standards (Fowler and Rauch, 2006). LEED-USA, BREEAM-UK, Green Star-
Australia, GBI-Malaysia, and Green Globes are some of most well-known standards used around
the world.
As one of its critical components, this study reviews the previous literature on green buildings. It
helps to identify barriers and measures to promote green building practices.
2.2 Barriers to the adoption of green building practices
Those encouraging the adoption of green building practices face many challenges. Researchers
in many countries have conducted studies to identify various potential barriers faced by the
construction sector in the implementation of green building practices. For instance, resistance to
cultural change, high initial investment, and an awareness gap are well documented in the
preceding research, as shown in Table 1. The difficulty in breaking with existing
building/construction conventions has been observed as the main barrier in the Kota Kinabalu
construction industry (Ali et al., 2016). The low level of awareness and knowledge of green
building techniques is one of the barriers to early adoption of green building practices in
Malaysia (Bohari et al., 2016). Persson et al. (2015) identified the lack of policy instruments and
building codes, the unsupportive attitude of end users towards energy efficiency, and the lack of
life cycle perspectives as the biggest barriers to the uptake of energy efficient houses in Sweden.
Lack of availability of scientific research and literature related to green building is diagnosed by
Kasai and Jabbour (2014). Poor communication systems between groups of stakeholders is also a
big hurdle in this struggle (Richardson and Lynes, 2007).
After an extensive review of literature on the barriers to green building, a list of 30 barriers was
identified. These barriers, shown in Table 1, have the potential to hamper the adoption of green
building practices.
(Insert Table 1 here)
 2.3 Measures to promote green building
As the green building approach faces these barriers in the construction industry, researchers from
all over the world have conducted a number of studies to identify the measures and strategies
needed to promote green building practices. Increasing the awareness of green technology
among the general public and stakeholders through discussions, seminars, training, and
workshops is one of the most substantial measures that we can adopt to promote green building
(Ametepey et al., 2015). Incentives from government in the form of soft loans, allowances, or tax
exemptions for green building, compared to other building, is also very important to promote
green practices (Ametepey et al., 2015, Dahle and Neumayer, 2001). A wide range of
internationally recognized green building rating tools have been developed for practitioners to
get a better understanding of the green building approach. Easy access to these assessment tools
is essential for the promotion of green building practices (Darko et al., 2017). According to Qian
and Chan (2010), mandatory regulations and policies, along with effective enforcement, are also
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 18:06 04 December 2017 (PT)

very helpful. Table 2 shows a list of 12 potential measures for promoting green building (along
with their key references), identified through extensive literature review.
(Insert Table 2 here)

3 Research Methodology
This study adopts literature review, a questionnaire, and in-depth interviews as its main methods
of data collection. The questionnaire was used to solicit professional opinions. This survey
technique has been a popular method in green building literature to examine the issues
influencing the adoption of green practices. In order to achieve the research objectives, this study
implements ranking and factor analysis using SPSS statistics software. The questionnaire
prepared for this study consisted of three major sections. The first part collected personal
information about the respondents; the second part investigated potential barriers to adopting
green practices; and the third part asked questions about the list of measures to promote them. It
has both closed and open-ended questions. In order to ascertain the priority of individual barriers
and measures (in a local context), participants were asked to rank barriers and measures on a
scale of 1 to 5 based on their importance, where 1= not important and 5= very important. The
five-point Likert scale was selected because it gives explicit results that are easy to interpret
(Darko et al., 2017). Prior to issuing the questionnaire, a pilot study was conducted to test its
comprehensiveness and relevance (AlSanad, 2015). The pilot study involved four professors and
two postgraduate researchers who were experienced in this research area. The questionnaire was
finalized in response to feedback received in the pilot study.
Purposive or judgmental sampling techniques (including snowball sampling) were used, and the
questionnaires were distributed to practitioners working in the field of architecture, town
planning, environment, development, engineering, design, and academia, and to members of
Pakistan Green Building Council. These local stakeholders were considered to be suitable for
this survey as they had industrial/practical experience of the construction sector in Pakistan. A
total of 120 questionnaires were distributed to respondents manually and via e-mail, and 103
completed questionnaires were received (a response rate of 85.8%). The professions of the
 respondents, their levels of education, and their length of experience in the construction industry
are shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3 respectively.

(Insert Figure 1 here)

(Insert Figure 2 here)
(Insert Figure 3 here)

As well as the questionnaire, seven in-depth interviews were carried out with key stakeholders
working with Pakistan Green Building Council, the National Energy Conservation Center, the
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 18:06 04 December 2017 (PT)

Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission and a few private organizations working on green projects
(see Figure 4). Interviewees were selected on the basis of their credentials, experience, and
knowledge in green building approaches. The objective of the in-depth interviews was to
triangulate the questionnaire-based survey results, and to find out these key stakeholders’ views
regarding barriers to and measures for the adoption of green building practices in Pakistan.
(Insert Figure 4 here)
3.1 Data analysis
The reliability of the categorized data was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha method. The values
of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this study were 0.836 for barriers and 0.774 for measures. As
these test values are greater than the threshold of 0.7, this means that the data of this study using
the five-point Likert scale is reliable at the 5% significance level (Darko et al., 2017).
3.1.1 Ranking analysis technique
The collected data were subjected to descriptive statistics. The mean item score was used to
determine the relative ranking of barriers and measures. Standard deviation was used to assign
rank when two or more factors happened to have the same mean score.
3.1.2 Factor analysis technique
In order to better interpret the barriers, and to condense them into a manageable number of
components, factor analysis was performed. (Factor analysis is employed to assemble large
numbers of interrelated variables into a comparatively small number of factors (Ametepey et al.,
2015). Various tests were performed to examine the appropriateness of factor analysis to the
factor extraction. The KMO measure and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were conducted in this
research. The KMO statistic varies between 0 and 1. To proceed with factor analysis, the KMO
value should be higher than the threshold of 0.5 (Ozorhon and Karahan, 2016). Bartlett’s test was
used to test the hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix, which would indicate
that the factor model was inappropriate (Mao et al., 2013).
 4 Survey Results
4.1 Results of ranking analysis of barriers
In the questionnaire, the experts were asked to rate the importance of the 30 barriers that were
identified in the literature review. The results are shown in Table 3.
The results from empirical analysis reveal that, “lack of awareness among people about the
importance & advantages of adopting green building practices” (MV= 4.52; SD=0.654) is one of
the most critical barriers to the adoption of green building practices in the Pakistan construction
industry. The same barrier has been highlighted as the most crucial barrier in the construction
industries of Ukraine, Kuwait, and Malaysia (AlSanad, 2015; Sohail and Qureshi, 2010; Bohari
et al., 2016). “Lack of incentives from government” (MV= 4.32; SD=0.770) is ranked second,
and “lack of green building codes and regulations” (MV= 4.20; SD=0.964) is ranked third. “Poor
implementation of laws and legislation” (MV=4.19; SD=0.780) and “Lack of technical
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 18:06 04 December 2017 (PT)

training/education in green building design and construction” (MV=4.11; SD=0.896) are ranked
fourth and fifth respectively.
(Insert Table 3 here)

4.2 Results of factor analysis

Factor analysis was conducted using SPSS. The program generated output files in the form of
correlation matrix, total variance explained, scree plot, component matrix, rotated component
matrix, and component transformation matrix. The Varimax rotation method was used to
calculate the rotated component matrix. The KMO value was found to be 0.674 (indicating that
the data set is adequate for factor analysis). The chi-square value in Bartlett’s test was found to
be large (946.263), and the associated significance level is small (p=0.000), implying that the
population correlation matrix is not an identity matrix (Mao et al., 2013). Therefore, it was
appropriate to use factor analysis.
Based on factor loadings, factor analysis enabled 17 barriers out of 30 to be grouped under five
factors named as management/leadership barriers, governmental and socio-cultural barriers,
economical and innovative related barriers, technical barriers, regulations and resource related
barriers (see Table 4). Factors extracted through principal component analysis, having Eigen
values greater than 1, account for 65.46% of the variance, and the factor loading value exceeded
0.5. The result of factor analysis showed that factor 1 accounts for 18.856% of the total variances
in the correlation matrix. The second factor explains 15.88% of the total variances, factor 3
accounts for 14.094% of total variances, factor 4 explains 9.15% of total variances, and factor 5
accounts for 7.48% of total variances in the correlation matrix.
In order to identify the most critical barrier to the successful implementation of green building
practices in Pakistan, the average of the mean values for each factor was calculated. Results
indicated that management/leadership barriers (mean=3.935) are the most important factor,
followed by technical barriers (mean= 3.84), governmental and socio-cultural barriers
(mean=3.8175), regulations and resource related barriers (mean=3.635), and economical and
innovative related barriers (mean= 3.1775) respectively.
 (Insert Table 4 here)

4.3 Ranking of measures to promote green building practices in Pakistan

Results on the relative importance of the measures needed to promote the adoption of green
building practices are shown in Table 5.
Mean values of all 12 measures were above 4, which indicates that all measures have significant
importance. The results show that the five most substantial measures are: the creation of public
awareness towards green initiatives through seminars, workshops, and discussions (MV=4.63);
the availability of green building codes and regulations (Mandatory to apply) (MV=4.48);
financial incentives and penalties from the government (e.g. taxes, soft loans) (MV=4.47); the
availability of comprehensive training and education in green building technologies for
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 18:06 04 December 2017 (PT)

engineers, developers, and policy makers (MV=4.44); and the availability of institutional
frameworks for the effective implementation of green building guidelines (MV=4.43).
(Insert Table 5 here)

5 Findings and Discussions

In order to accelerate the adoption of green building practices, this research identifies and
examines key barriers to its successful implementation and the measures needed to promote it by
analyzing the professional views of Pakistan’s construction industry. The following sections
interpret the findings of the study, considering each of the five barrier factors and finally the
measures for promotion.
5.1 Factor 1: Management/ Leadership Barriers
This group consists of four critical variables: (1) poor implementation of laws and legislation; (2)
lack of support and guidance from regulatory authorities on green practices; (3) the challenges of
innovative equipment in design and construction methods; and (4) weak organizational structures
to support green building practices.
Poor implementation of laws and legislation (mean, 4.19) is the most important variable in this
category. Interviewees said that the successful uptake of green building practices lies in the
commitment of leaders and managers to developing and executing an efficient plan. Due to an
inefficient legal system, leaders and managers have less interest in green building. Lack of
support and guidance from regulatory authorities on green practices (mean, 4.1) is another
important variable in this category, and was one of the barriers repeatedly highlighted by the
interviewees. Interviewees found it difficult to start a project without the help of green building
guidelines. They highlighted that in order to go green, internationally recognized green building
guidelines and rating systems needed to be imported, which increases the cost to the client and so
becomes a barrier to adoption in Pakistan. Adequate resources and support are also needed to
manage the trial of innovative equipment in the design and construction processes.
 5.2 Factor 2: Governmental and Socio-cultural Barriers
This group consists of four variables: (1) lack of incentives from government; (2) lack of green
building case studies; (3) resistance to cultural change; and (4) weak market demand.
The lack of incentives from government to implement green building practices is ranked as the
second most significant barrier, as the survey respondents see insufficient support from
government in the development of green building practices in Pakistan. Local stakeholders have
a firm belief that green building practices will only be adopted if the government is devoted to
doing so, because the government is the main stakeholder in the industry. Interviewees said that
the construction industry of Pakistan has long been run in its traditional way because it is
extremely difficult to change the construction practices and the building materials used. Due to
the higher initial investment costs of green building, and the lack of financial incentives to adopt
it, people are very hesitant to change their old and traditional construction habits. Due to the lack
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 18:06 04 December 2017 (PT)

of demand for green products by clients and stakeholders, there is also a lack of building case
studies.
5.3 Factor 3: Economical and Innovation Related Barriers
This group consists of four variables: (1) higher functioning costs and maintenance fees for green
building; (2) lack of availability of environmentally sustainable materials and products; (3) the
complexity of design required to support green practices; and (4) lack of technology.
A major barrier cited by many researchers in the literature review is the extra financial cost that
is needed to improve the sustainability of built environment. One of the interviewees highlighted
that some green building construction equipment requires highly trained management staff and
regular professional maintenance and repair, which would increase the operational costs and
difficulties of local stakeholders if they were to invest in green development. Lack of availability
of locally sourced green building materials and products is another important barrier. In many
cases these have to be imported from elsewhere, which increases cost and becomes a hurdle to
green investment.
5.4 Factor 4: Technical Barriers
This group consists of three variables: (1) lack of professional knowledge; (2) lack of qualified
staff; and (3) lack of technical expertise.
Persson et al., (2015) stated that the lack of common understanding about sustainability is a
major hindrance to sustainable construction. Out interviewees believed that the green building
approach is newer to our industry and that construction industry professionals who have
experience and technical knowledge of it are limited in number. There are also shortages of
platforms that provide technical training/education on green practices. Green building
technologies are becoming more innovative and advanced, and so technically competent
practitioners are needed for Pakistan to adopt and move forward in green building practices.
5.5 Factor 5: Regulations and Resource Related Barriers
This group consists of two variables: (1) unsustainable measures are allowed by the regulator or
statutory undertaker; and (2) lack of financial resources.
 The interviews revealed that in several cases local stakeholders initially wanted to introduce
green practices to their projects, but chose not to do so when local policies, regulators or
statutory undertakers permitted a less sustainable option. Unsustainable measures should not be
allowed by regulatory authorities on any basis. If the authorities concerned were sincerely
determined to take appropriate regulatory action, then this barrier to green building would be
removed.
5.6 Measures
This study has examined the measures needed to promote the adoption of green construction in
Pakistan. The survey results indicate that ‘creation of public awareness towards green initiatives
through seminars, workshops and discussions’ would be the most significant measure. The
interviews indicate that although the initial costs of green building may be higher than
conventional building, when this is evaluated against benefits, it is still a worthwhile deal.
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 18:06 04 December 2017 (PT)

Therefore, increasing awareness among end-users about the long-term benefits of green building
is very important.
‘Availability of green building codes and regulations (mandatory to apply)’ ranked second,
showing that experts believe this measure to be of great importance. This result is consistent with
Chan et al., (2009), who claim that mandatory government policy is the most substantial measure
in promoting green building practices. The interviews showed us that introducing green building
regulations and bylaws to the present planning system of Pakistan can play a very important role
in promoting green building practices. These experts highlighted that mandatory government
policies on green building practices can also act as a driving factor for external and internal
stakeholders to take relevant actions. The interview with Pakistan Green Building Council found
that, with collective effort and hard work, PGBC has successfully developed a draft of the
country’s first green building guidelines. These practices are currently voluntary, and are
intended to set sustainable building practices and standards, and to raise awareness of them
among users.
‘Financial incentives and penalties from the government (e.g. soft loans, taxes) for green
building practices’ was ranked as the third most important measure. The interviewees believe
that financial and market-based incentives are the greatest opportunity to increase the adoption of
green building practices in Pakistan. These incentives would increase the motivation of
stakeholders to take up green approaches, and help overcome the barriers of higher initial
investment, lack of financial incentives, and resistance to change due to cost highlighted in this
study (see Table 1). Therefore, policy makers and government should pay more attention to
incentive programs. Moreover, government should also develop a mechanism to penalize non-
compliers in the form of higher tax rates etc. The interviews highlight that if these measures are
not taken seriously, it would be a challenge to the widespread adoption of green practices.
The results of this study indicate that ‘availability of comprehensive training and education in
green building technologies for engineers, developers, and policy makers’ is also important,
ranking fourth. This measure is essential for the uptake and continuing development of green
building practices in a local context. Interviewees emphasized that educating our younger
generations and helping them to understand that a simple step towards green building can help
 conserve energy and save the environment. The establishment of research centers that work on
the innovative processes of green technology, and help in preparing the guidelines for the
profession is another measure suggested by one of the interviewees. Dedicated courses on green
building technologies should be taught at university level so that our future engineers and
designers are aware of the long lasting benefits of green building, and have the technical skills
and knowledge to ensure that Pakistan’s construction industry can adapt and evolve to these
changing needs.
The measure ranked fifth in this research is the ‘availability of institutional frameworks for the
effective implementation of green building guidelines’. That efficient legal frameworks are an
important factor in the adoption of green building practices is underlined by the interviews.
According to these experts, the government not only plays its part in the creation of policies, but
it also has a great influence on the effective implementation of those regulations through regular
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 18:06 04 December 2017 (PT)

monitoring and assessment.

6 Conclusion

This study investigates the major issues influencing the adoption or otherwise of green building
practices in Pakistan, based on the perceptions of local stakeholders. Given the limited number of
empirical studies on issues influencing green building adoption, the present study contributes to
this body of knowledge by identifying the issues that are primary for the stakeholders of
Pakistan. A wide range of potential barriers to adoption and measures to promote it were
identified and examined using a combination of research methods, including literature review, a
questionnaire-based survey, and in-depth interviews. The results were further analyzed by
implementing factor analysis and ranking. These techniques are used to better understand the key
issues for the adoption of green building practices in Pakistan.
This study examined 30 barriers and 12 measures. The survey results show that the most critical
barrier is a ‘lack of awareness among people about the importance and advantages of the
adoption of green building practices’, followed by ‘lack of incentives from government’, ‘lack of
green building codes and regulations’, ‘poor implementation of laws and legislation’, and ‘lack
of technical training/education in green building design and construction’. In agreement with
this, the interviewees confirmed that our local stakeholders are not yet fully aware of the long-
term benefits of green building. This suggests that the government and the respective authorities
need to expend more effort in these areas to make green building approaches successful in a local
context. Government must provide some monetary benefits to promote sustainable building
designs both in commercial and residential communities.
Further investigation with factor analysis revealed five factors: (1) management/leadership
barriers, (2) governmental and socio-cultural barriers, (3) economical and innovation related
barriers, (4) technical barriers, and (5) regulation and resource related barriers. The results also
indicate that the most significant of these are management/leadership barriers. The interviewed
stakeholders also highlighted the government’s role in promoting green building practices in
Pakistan.
 All of the 12 measures were recognized as significantly important, with the most significant
being the ‘creation of public awareness towards green initiatives through seminars, workshops,
and discussions’, followed by the ‘availability of green building codes and regulations
(mandatory to apply)’, ‘financial incentives and penalties from the government (e.g. soft loans,
taxes) for green building practices’, ‘availability of comprehensive training and education in
green building technologies for engineers, developers, and policy makers’, and the ‘availability
of institutional frameworks for the effective implementation of green building guidelines’.
The findings of this study contribute to the understanding of the major barriers to adopting and
the measures needed to promote green building practices in Pakistan. The results are expected to
contribute valuable information towards policy making, crafting of green building codes and
development of a mechanism for the implementation of green building practices in the
construction industry. Although the results are based on the perceptions of local stakeholders,
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 18:06 04 December 2017 (PT)

they can also be helpful for policy makers in other developing countries. Future studies could
compare the views of green building experts from different countries on green building adoption
issues to observe market-specific differences.
 References
AHMED, A. & IFTIKHAR-UL-HUSNAIN, M. 2014. Energy Smart Buildings: Potential for
Conservation and Efficiency of Energy/Comments. Pakistan Development Review, 53, 371.
AHN, Y. H., PEARCE, A. R., WANG, Y. & WANG, G. 2013. Drivers and barriers of sustainable design
and construction: The perception of green building experience. International Journal of
Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 4, 35-45.
AKADIRI, P. O. 2015. Understanding barriers affecting the selection of sustainable materials in building
projects. Journal of Building Engineering, 4, 86-93.
ALI, A. N. A., JAINUDIN, N. A., TAWIE, R. & JUGAH, I. 2016. Green Initiatives in Kota Kinabalu
Construction Industry. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 224, 626-631.
ALI, H. H. & AL NSAIRAT, S. F. 2009. Developing a green building assessment tool for developing
countries–Case of Jordan. Building and Environment, 44, 1053-1064.
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 18:06 04 December 2017 (PT)

ALSANAD, S. 2015. Awareness, drivers, actions, and barriers of sustainable construction in Kuwait.
Procedia Engineering, 118, 969-983.
ALSHUWAIKHAT, H. M. & ABUBAKAR, I. 2008. An integrated approach to achieving campus
sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 16, 1777-1785.
AMETEPEY, O., AIGBAVBOA, C. & ANSAH, K. 2015. Barriers to Successful Implementation of
Sustainable Construction in the Ghanaian Construction Industry. Procedia Manufacturing, 3,
1682-1689.
ASLAM, A., TARIQ, S., SYED, W. A. & ALI, S. S. 2012. Green Architecture & Environmental
Benefits: A Review With Reference To Energy Deficient Pakistan. Sci. Int.(Lahore), 24, 495-498.
ATTARAN, S. & CELIK, B. G. 2015. Students’ environmental responsibility and their willingness to pay
for green buildings. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16, 327-340.
AZAD, S. & AKBAR, Z. 2015. THE IMPEDIMENTS IN CONSTRUCTION OF SUSTAINABLE
BUILDINGS IN PAKISTAN. European Scientific Journal, 11.
BOHARI, A. A. M., SKITMORE, M., XIA, B. & ZHANG, X. 2016. Insights into the adoption of green
construction in Malaysia: The drivers and challenges. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings
Journal, 1, 45-53.
CHAN, E. H., QIAN, Q. K. & LAM, P. T. 2009. The market for green building in developed Asian
cities—the perspectives of building designers. Energy Policy, 37, 3061-3070.
COUNCIL, A. B. 2008. Building Energy Efficiency: Why Green Buildings are Key to Asia’s Future.
DAHLE, M. & NEUMAYER, E. 2001. Overcoming barriers to campus greening: A survey among higher
educational institutions in London, UK. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, 2, 139-160.
DARKO, A., CHAN, A. P. C., AMEYAW, E. E., HE, B.-J. & OLANIPEKUN, A. O. 2017. Examining
issues influencing green building technologies adoption: The United States green building
experts’ perspectives. Energy and Buildings.
FAROOQUI, R. U., ARIF, F. & RAFEEQI, S. Safety performance in construction industry of Pakistan.
First International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries, 2008. 74-87.
FOWLER, K. M. & RAUCH, E. M. 2006. Sustainable building rating systems summary. Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (US).
GHAZILLA, R. A. R., SAKUNDARINI, N., ABDUL-RASHID, S. H., AYUB, N. S., OLUGU, E. U. &
MUSA, S. N. 2015. Drivers and barriers analysis for green manufacturing practices in Malaysian
SMEs: A Preliminary Findings. Procedia CIRP, 26, 658-663.
HOPKINS, E. A. & HOPKINS, E. A. 2016. Barriers to adoption of campus green building policies.
Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 5, 340-351.
IGBC. Retrieved from https://igbc.in/igbc/redirectHtml.htm?redVal=showEventssignin
 JAVAID, A., HUSSAIN, S., MAQSOOD, A., ARSHAD, Z., ARSHAD, A. & IDREES, M. 2011.
Electrical energy crisis in Pakistan and their possible solutions. International Journal of Basic &
Applied Sciences IJBAS-IJENS, 11, 38.
KASAI, N. & JABBOUR, C. J. C. 2014. Barriers to green buildings at two Brazilian Engineering
Schools. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 3, 87-95.
KATS, G. 2003. Green building costs and financial benefits, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative
Boston, MA.
MAO, C., SHEN, Q., PAN, W. & YE, K. 2013. Major barriers to off-site construction: The developer’s
perspective in China. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31, 04014043.
OZORHON, B. & KARAHAN, U. 2016. Critical Success Factors of Building Information Modeling
Implementation. Journal of Management in Engineering, 33, 04016054.
PERSSON, J. & GRÖNKVIST, S. 2015. Drivers for and barriers to low-energy buildings in Sweden.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 109, 296-304.
QIAN, Q. K. & CHAN, E. H. 2010. Government measures needed to promote building energy efficiency
(BEE) in China. Facilities, 28, 564-589.
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 18:06 04 December 2017 (PT)

RICHARDSON, G. R. & LYNES, J. K. 2007. Institutional motivations and barriers to the construction of
green buildings on campus: A case study of the University of Waterloo, Ontario. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8, 339-354.
SAMARI, M., GHODRATI, N., ESMAEILIFAR, R., OLFAT, P. & SHAFIEI, M. W. M. 2013. The
investigation of the barriers in developing green building in Malaysia. Modern Applied Science,
7, 1.
TIMILSINA, G. R., HOCHMAN, G. & FEDETS, I. 2016. Understanding energy efficiency barriers in
Ukraine: Insights from a survey of commercial and industrial firms. Energy, 106, 203-211.
WANG, T., LI, X., LIAO, P.-C. & FANG, D. 2016. Building energy efficiency for public hospitals and
healthcare facilities in China: Barriers and drivers. Energy, 103, 588-597.
WILLIAMS, K. & DAIR, C. 2007. What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers
experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable developments. SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT-BRADFORD-, 15, 135.
ZAINORDIN, N., ABDULLAH, S. M. & BAHARUM, Z. 2012. Users’ perception towards energy
efficient buildings. ASIAN J. Environ. Stud, 3, 91-105.
 Table 1 List of barriers identified from literature
Code Barriers Key References
B01 High initial investment, long payback period (Samari et al., 2013, Ametepey et al., 2015, Azad and Akbar,
2015, AlSanad, 2015, Persson and Grönkvist, 2015, Ghazilla et
al., 2015, Ali et al., 2016, Timilsina et al., 2016, Wang et al.,
2016, Richardson and Lynes, 2007, Akadiri, 2015, Attaran and
Celik, 2015, Ahn et al., 2013, Williams and Dair, 2007, Bohari et
al., 2016, Hopkins and Hopkins, 2016)
B02 Lack of incentives from government (Samari et al., 2013, Ametepey et al., 2015, Azad and Akbar,
2015, AlSanad, 2015, Persson and Grönkvist, 2015, Ghazilla et
al., 2015, Ali et al., 2016, Timilsina et al., 2016, Wang et al.,
2016)
B03 Lack of green building codes and regulations (Samari et al., 2013, Bohari et al., 2016, Williams and Dair,
2007, Persson and Grönkvist, 2015, Ghazilla et al., 2015, Azad
and Akbar, 2015, Ametepey et al., 2015, Akadiri, 2015, Wang et
al., 2016, Ali et al., 2016)
B04 Poor implementation of laws and legislation (Wang et al., 2016, Bohari et al., 2016, Ghazilla et al., 2015,
Azad and Akbar, 2015, Ametepey et al., 2015, AlSanad, 2015)
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 18:06 04 December 2017 (PT)

B05 Disbelief regarding the benefits of green building (Persson and Grönkvist, 2015, Ghazilla et al., 2015, AlSanad,
2015, Akadiri, 2015, Wang et al., 2016, Timilsina et al., 2016,
Ali et al., 2016)
B06 Lack of availability of green building case studies (Wang et al., 2016, Ghazilla et al., 2015, Azad and Akbar, 2015,
Ametepey et al., 2015, Samari et al., 2013)
B07 Higher functioning costs and maintenance fees for green (Persson and Grönkvist, 2015, Ghazilla et al., 2015, Akadiri,
building 2015, Wang et al., 2016)
B08 Lack of awareness among people about the importance and (Wang et al., 2016, Timilsina et al., 2016, Bohari et al., 2016, Ali
advantages of adopting green building practices et al., 2016, Samari et al., 2013, Ahn et al., 2013, Persson and
Grönkvist, 2015, Ghazilla et al., 2015, Azad and Akbar, 2015,
Attaran and Celik, 2015, Ametepey et al., 2015, AlSanad, 2015)
B09 Lack of professional knowledge (Azad and Akbar, 2015, Ametepey et al., 2015, Samari et al.,
2013, Ahn et al., 2013, Wang et al., 2016, Bohari et al., 2016,
Williams and Dair, 2007, Kasai and Jabbour, 2014, Ali et al.,
2016)
B10 Lack of end-user support (Bohari et al., 2016, Persson and Grönkvist, 2015, Williams and
Dair, 2007)
B11 Unsustainable measures allowed by the regulator or statutory (Williams and Dair, 2007)
undertaker
B12 Lack of financial resources (Richardson and Lynes, 2007, Wang et al., 2016, Ghazilla et al.,
2015, Ametepey et al., 2015)
B13 Lack of support and guidance from regulatory authority on (Persson and Grönkvist, 2015, Ghazilla et al., 2015, Azad and
green practices Akbar, 2015, Ametepey et al., 2015, Samari et al., 2013,
Timilsina et al., 2016, Ali et al., 2016, Williams and Dair, 2007)
B14 Lack of availability of environmentally sustainable materials (Ametepey et al., 2015, Ali et al., 2016)
and products
B15 Lack of indicators for evaluating how sustainable a building is (Ametepey et al., 2015, Richardson and Lynes, 2007)
B16 Lack of demand for sustainable products (Ametepey et al., 2015)
B17 Resistance to cultural change (Ghazilla et al., 2015, Ametepey et al., 2015, AlSanad, 2015,
Akadiri, 2015, Ali et al., 2016, Kasai and Jabbour, 2014)
B18 Lack of qualified staff (Kasai and Jabbour, 2014, Persson and Grönkvist, 2015,
AlSanad, 2015, Wang et al., 2016, Timilsina et al., 2016, Ali et
al., 2016)
B19 Risk associated with implementation of new practices (AlSanad, 2015)
B20 Weak market demand (Persson and Grönkvist, 2015, Ghazilla et al., 2015, Azad and
Akbar, 2015)
B21 Technical level and innovation among architects, designers, (Ghazilla et al., 2015, Richardson and Lynes, 2007)
and engineers is less than desirable in terms of environmental
issues
B22 Improper communication structure to support green building (Richardson and Lynes, 2007, Ghazilla et al., 2015)
practices
B23 Challenges of innovative equipment in design and (Ghazilla et al., 2015, Wang et al., 2016)
construction methods
B24 Weak organizational structures to support green building (Ghazilla et al., 2015)
practices
B25 Poor management and/or lack of staff time for implementing (Ghazilla et al., 2015, Attaran and Celik, 2015, Akadiri, 2015,
green practices Hopkins and Hopkins, 2016, Dahle and Neumayer, 2001)
 B26 Complexity of design needed to support green practices (Ghazilla et al., 2015, Azad and Akbar, 2015)
B27 Lack of technology (Ghazilla et al., 2015, Azad and Akbar, 2015, Ametepey et al.,
2015, Samari et al., 2013, Kasai and Jabbour, 2014, Ali et al.,
2016)
B28 Lack of technical expertise (Ghazilla et al., 2015, Azad and Akbar, 2015, Timilsina et al.,
2016)
B29 Lack of technical training/education in green building design (Azad and Akbar, 2015)
and construction
B30 Green building/material is aesthetically less pleasing (Akadiri, 2015)

Table 2 List of measures identified from literature

Code Measures Key References
M01 Promotion of successful green building practices through case (Ghazilla et al., 2015)
examples
M02 Education on new green technologies should be a part of (Ghazilla et al., 2015, AlSanad, 2015, Samari et al., 2013)
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 18:06 04 December 2017 (PT)

organizational training
M03 Easy access to green building rating/assessment tools (Darko et al., 2017)
M04 Organizational belief in long term benefits of green building (Ghazilla et al., 2015)
practices
M05 Availability of comprehensive training and education in green (Persson and Grönkvist, 2015, Ghazilla et al., 2015)
building technologies for engineers, developers, and policy makers

M06 Availability of green building codes and regulations (mandatory to (Qian and Chan, 2010, Ametepey et al., 2015, Darko et al.,
apply) 2017)
M07 Financial incentives and penalties from the government (e.g. taxes, (Persson and Grönkvist, 2015, Ghazilla et al., 2015,
soft loans) for green building practices Ametepey et al., 2015, AlSanad, 2015, Samari et al., 2013,
Wang et al., 2016, Bohari et al., 2016)
M08 Creation of public awareness towards green initiatives through (Wang et al., 2016, Dahle and Neumayer, 2001, Samari et
seminars, workshops, and discussions al., 2013, Darko et al., 2017, Persson and Grönkvist, 2015,
Ghazilla et al., 2015, AlSanad, 2015)
M09 More publicity of green building through television programs, (Darko et al., 2017)
internet, newspaper, and radio

M10 Pressure from external and internal stakeholders towards green (Samari et al., 2013, Ghazilla et al., 2015, Ametepey et al.,
development 2015)
M11 Government should provide funding and regulatory incentives for (Ametepey et al., 2015)
green construction development

M12 Availability of institutional frameworks for the effective (Darko et al., 2017)
implementation of green building guidelines
 Table 3 Ranking of barriers based on mean values and standard deviation
Code Frequency Mean values Std. Deviation Ranking
1 2 3 4 5 Statistics Statistics
B08 0 1 6 34 62 4.52 0.654 1
B02 0 2 13 38 50 4.32 0.770 2
B03 1 6 15 30 51 4.20 0.964 3
B04 0 3 14 46 40 4.19 0.780 4
B29 1 6 12 46 38 4.11 0.896 5
B13 1 1 14 58 29 4.10 0.735 6
B01 1 8 13 52 29 3.97 0.902 7
B06 2 20 25 35 21 3.97 1.004 8
B12 1 4 15 61 22 3.96 0.779 9
B09 1 10 11 55 26 3.92 0.915 10
B10 0 13 11 54 25 3.88 0.921 11
B24 1 11 15 51 25 3.85 0.944 12
B28 3 14 12 45 29 3.81 1.085 13
B22 0 11 17 57 18 3.80 0.856 14
B18 0 16 15 47 25 3.79 0.987 15
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 18:06 04 December 2017 (PT)

B17 3 12 19 40 29 3.78 1.075 16

B25 1 14 26 44 18 3.62 0.961 17
B23 1 15 23 49 15 3.60 0.943 18
B20 4 13 21 47 18 3.60 1.042 19
B21 4 17 15 50 17 3.57 1.072 20
B16 3 16 24 45 15 3.51 1.018 21
B05 2 8 17 40 36 3.51 1.083 22
B15 3 19 20 46 15 3.50 1.047 23
B27 6 15 20 45 17 3.50 1.110 24
B19 4 22 20 38 19 3.45 1.135 25
B11 1 9 59 25 9 3.31 0.792 26
B07 7 25 21 35 15 3.25 1.178 27
B26 6 30 30 28 9 3.04 1.075 28
B14 9 36 23 24 11 2.92 1.169 29
B30 40 31 19 10 3 2.08 1.109 30
 Table 4 Factor matrix for barriers
Code Statements Factor Loadings

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

B04 Poor implementation of laws and legislation 0.647
B13 Lack of support and guidance from regularity 0.547
authority on green practices
B23 Challenges of innovative equipment in design and 0.586
construction methods
B24 Weak organizational structure to support Green 0.699
building practices
B02 Lack of incentives from government 0.654
B06 Lack of availability of green building case studies 0.626
B17 Resistance to cultural change 0.594
B20 Weak market demand 0.618
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 18:06 04 December 2017 (PT)

B07 Higher functioning costs and maintenance fees for 0.716

green building
B14 Lack of availability of environmentally sustainable 0.570
materials and products
B26 Complexity of design needed to support green 0.524
practices
B27 Lack of technology 0.599
B09 Lack of professional knowledge 0.669
B18 Lack of qualified staff 0.681
B28 Lack of technical expertise 0.717
B11 An unsustainable measure is allowed by the regulator 0.736
or statutory undertaker
B12 Lack of financial resources 0.624

Table 5 Ranking of measures based on mean values and standard deviation

Code Frequency Mean Std. Deviation Ranking
Values
1 2 3 4 5 Statistics Statistics
M8 0 0 2 34 67 4.63 0.524 1
M6 0 1 8 35 59 4.48 0.684 2
M7 0 3 3 40 57 4.47 0.698 3
M5 0 3 6 37 57 4.44 0.737 4
M12 2 0 8 35 58 4.43 0.800 5
M3 0 1 9 46 47 4.35 0.682 6
M1 0 2 13 46 42 4.24 0.747 7
M10 0 7 11 36 49 4.23 0.899 8
M2 0 4 8 54 37 4.20 0.746 9
M4 0 2 12 55 34 4.17 0.706 10
M11 0 5 15 48 35 4.10 0.823 11
M9 1 4 14 50 34 4.09 0.841 12
 Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 18:06 04 December 2017 (PT)

Figure 1 Respondents’ professions

Architects
Environmentalists
7%
10% 19% Town Planners
Developers/Builders
7%
Contractors
28% 9% Interior Designers

7% Engineers
5% 8% Researchers/Professors
Pakistan Green Building Council

Figure 2 Highest level of respondents’ education

12 years of 14 years of
education education
[PERCENTAGE] 6%

18+ years of
education
36% 16 years of
education
55%
 Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 18:06 04 December 2017 (PT)

Figure 3 Respondents’ length of experience in the Pakistan construction industry

16+ years
11-15 years 7%
13%

6-10 years 0-5 years

25% 55%

Figure 4 Profile of interviewees

PGBC, 2
Others, 3

ENERCON, 1
Pakistan
Atomic
Energy
Comission, 1