PurposeThe aim of this study was to identify these enablers in literature and subsume them under broad categories for the development of a framework showing the interrelationships among the enablers.Design/methodology/approachFifty-four (54) relevant articles were desk reviewed from different construction peer-reviewed journals and published conference proceedings to identify 20 core enablers of incorporating indoor environmental quality (IEQ) into building designs.FindingsThe identified enablers include improved occupants' health, well-being and satisfaction, environmental conservation, high return on investments and co-operative methods of design and construction management among others. To better understand the enablers identified, they were classified into seven main interconnected categories: economic enablers, environmental enablers, occupant and end-user enablers, process enablers, corporate image, culture and vision enablers, client-related enablers and external enablers.Research limitations/implicationsThe interconnectedness brought to the fore a subtler appreciation of the drivers of IEQ, which could help expand current knowledge outside the narrow scope of isolated drivers. The fact that the papers selected in this study are not limited geographically underscores the wide applicability of the findings to the global construction industry.Practical implicationsUnderstanding that the enablers will enhance the adoption and design of quality indoor environments, help in building the capacity of consultants to adopt the design of quality IEs and reduce the impact of construction on the environment.Social implicationsThese identified enablers are not limited geographically and thus could promote the design of quality indoor environments globally, particularly in green building design. To the global construction community, this review presents a list of enablers that would expedite the adoption of principles of IEQ designs in buildings thus taking the global construction industry one more step towards sustainable built forms. Promoting the identified enablers would ultimately steer stakeholders to design and build better indoor environments.Originality/valueThe fact that the papers selected in this study are not limited geographically underscores the wide applicability of the findings to the global construction industry.

PurposeThis research presents a comprehensive review of the literature on the barriers to incorporating indoor environmental quality (IEQ) principles into building designs. The aim was to identify these barriers in the literature and subsume them under broad categories for the development of a framework showing the interrelationships among the barriers.Design/methodology/approachThe research design used a systematic desktop review which comprised of three levels of screening. The first level allowed for a broad selection of papers; the second level of screening was done to limit the results to papers within the construction industry, and the third level of screening limited the documents strictly to the publication period of 2000–2021.FindingsTwenty-four (24) barriers were identified in the literature, including lack of integrated design teams, which ranked the highest in appearance, high initial costs, poor market for IEQ buildings and higher design charges among others. The identified barriers were classified into six (6) categories namely capacity barriers, economic barriers, process-related barriers, cultural barriers, client-related barriers and steering barriers.Practical implicationsThe findings of this study would enable practitioners and policymakers to better understand what is preventing the widespread adoption of IEQ designs in the built environment and devise actionable strategies to overcome them. It adds to the body of knowledge on IEQ research by categorizing the various barriers that prevent the delivery of IEQ projects.Social implicationsThe developed barriers in this research can serve as a useful checklist to future researchers who may want to validate the barriers to IEQ designs in empirical studies and in different settings.Originality/valueThe interconnectivity revealed by the web-like framework allows for an appreciation of the various barriers of IEQ adoption which would help in expanding the current knowledge on IEQ beyond the narrow scope of isolated barriers. The fact that the papers selected in this study are not limited geographically, underscores the wide applicability of the findings in the global construction industry.

PurposeThis study aimed to identify barriers impeding circular economy (CE) uptake in the construction industry in literature, categorize them for the development of a framework and to seek the interrelationships among the categorized barriers. This allowed for identifying integrated solutions to holistically address the barriers. The study also sought to identify the “hot” themes, the knowledge gaps and future research directions on barriers impeding CE.Design/methodology/approachForty-eight relevant articles were desk reviewed from different construction peer-reviewed journals and published conference papers. A scientometric analysis allowed for co-occurrence of keywords relating to CE. A content analysis enabled the identification of 79 barriers impeding the uptake of CE in the construction industry which were further categorized into six distinct categories for the development of a framework showing the interrelationships among the categorized barriers.FindingsThe identified barriers include construction sector inertia, lack of design standards, lack of knowledge, awareness and understanding, design cost, and perception of second-hand materials as substandard among others. The study categorized the identified barriers for better understanding into six different groups: cultural barriers, social barriers, environmental barriers, economic barriers, technical barriers and technological barriers. Strategies to address the barriers were also proposed. The interrelationships among the various barriers were also shown in a proposed framework to educate professionals on the interconnectivity of the barriers.Practical implicationsCategorization of the various barriers impeding CE uptake contributes to the body of knowledge. Also, the interrelationships among the various categorized barriers in the framework will enable construction professionals make informed decisions regarding the successful integration of CE in the industry, better appreciate the barriers that impede CE uptake and apply strategies to holistically address the barriers. This will expand current knowledge outside the narrow scope of isolated barriers.Social implicationsTo the global construction industry, the review presents a list of barriers and their interrelationships that could provide implementation strategies for the uptake of CE in the industry.Originality/valueThe geographical scope of this study is not limited, and therefore encourages wide applicability of the findings to the global construction industry.

No abstract

Purpose This study aims to explore the impact of the indoor environment on recovery from COVID-19 infections. Extant literature on the impact of the four key themes of the indoor environment (indoor air quality, indoor thermal quality, daylighting and visual comfort, and acoustic comfort) on COVID-19 infection and recovery rates were reviewed. Design/methodology/approach Data collection for this study was based on extant literature within the Scopus database and scoped to a time frame of 2020–2021 because the topical issue of indoor environmental quality (IEQ) and its impact on COVID-19 arose in the wake of the pandemic. In total, 224 documents were systematically desk reviewed from various journals. Findings The study identified that air pollutants such as PM2.5 and PM10 as well as air-conditioned places, low ambient temperatures, poor ventilation and no views of the outdoor environment were deteriorating factors for COVID-19 patients. On the other hand, proper ventilation, the use of air cleaners, views of the outdoor environment and allowance for ample daylighting were improvement factors for COVID-19 patients. The inter-relationship of the various concepts was presented in an ontology chart. Practical implications As COVID-19 still exists and keeps evolving, this study provides suggestions to industry professionals, especially health-care Facility Managers, to create a post-pandemic environment focusing on the IEQ and finding long-term and reliable solutions for the well-being of occupants. Adaptability is crucial. New, creative technology solutions are being introduced daily, but it is up to the facility managers and health-care professionals to analyse and specify the most cost- and outcome-effective technologies for their facility. Originality/value The study brought to light the pivotal role of the indoor environment on the health and well-being of occupants, particularly in the contraction, spread, prevention and control of infectious diseases such as COVID-19.