The Relative Costs and Benefits of Conventional and Green Buildings in Nigeria

Adewuyi

2021

IJBPA

PurposeThe dearth of green standards (GS) in sub-Saharan Africa is alarming and the green cost premiums (GCP) in seeking certification in emerging markets are scanty. This paper studied the Building Energy-Efficiency Code of Nigeria (BEEC) and estimated the potential GCPs associated with the various energy-efficiency ratings.Design/methodology/approachThe study retrofitted 150 conventional residential bungalow and maisonette buildings using BEEC's energy-efficiency interventions and performed analytical estimating of the retrofitted designs. The mean cost premium associated with each energy-efficiency intervention is presented as well as their financial benefits and payback periods. The benefits are achievable financial-savings due to a reduction in energy consumption and savings in electricity payment estimated from the average energy demands of each building. An independent t-test was further conducted to determine the cost differential between energy-efficient design (ED) and conventional design over a five-year period.FindingsThe potential GCPs and their payback periods are actually less than feared. The study showed that less than 5% and 21% extra funding would be required to achieve 1 to 4-Star and 5-Star energy-efficiency ratings involving passive design interventions and photovoltaic systems. Passive and active design interventions produced a financial savings of $8.08/m2 in electricity payment and $2.84/m2 per annum in energy consumption reduction. The financial-savings ($10.92/m2) was objective to pay-off the GCPs in less than four years. The independent t-test analysis showed the cost of ED is more economical after four years into the project lifecycle.Originality/valueThe research provides cost benchmarks for navigating cost planning and budgetary decisions during ED implementation and births a departure point for advancing energy-efficient construction in developing markets from the rational economic decision perspective.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Green cost premium for attaining energy-efficiency rating in Nigeria's hot-humid residential buildings

Adewuyi

2021

IJBPA

“…The global survey of experienced and non-experienced GB designers showed that both groups estimated GB cost premiums within the same margin [18-25%] (WGBC, 2016). The true knowledge of costs in GB development is either exaggerated or uncertain and asymmetric (Bevan and Lu, 2013;Shi et al, 2016;Ogunba, 2018). This study evaluated the roles of cost management, sustainability accounting, and knowledge gaps in CMs to fill the literature gap in why the costs of GBs are misread.…”

Section: Causes Of CM and Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The report of the World Green Building Council (WGBC) (2016) showed varying cost premiums up to 20%, whereas unclassified 3%-26% premium was reported for ten simulated retrofits in Auckland (Ade, 2018). Ogunba (2018) reported the possible cost premium of 15% and above based on qualitative perceptions of stakeholders in Lagos, Nigeria. These studies reported a cost premium greater than 15% to show that CMs exist in communicating the cost of GB.…”

Section: Green Building Adoptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CMs and the resultant high-cost perceptions are an unwanted dilemma for stakeholders in the decision to adopt GB (Zhou and Lowe, 2003). In Nigeria and other parts of the world, the corollary of high-costs lower the uptake of GB technologies in project development (Fullbrook et al , 2006; Horhota et al , 2014; Ogunba, 2018). High-cost perceptions widen the gap between the desire to adopt and eventual engagement with GB (Tierney and Tennant, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Apathy to risk (Shi et al , 2016), negative impacts on marketability (Choi, 2009), increased complexity and a long payback period (Choi, 2009) are other promoted effects of CMs in the literature. CMs exist because the data underpinning the cost of GB are defective, provide inadequate evidence (Galuppo and Tu, 2010; Fuerst et al , 2016; SBMS, 2019) and poses methodological gaps (Ogunba, 2018; Chegut et al , 2019). The reliance on institutional reports, where data from exemplar projects apply also contribute to cost uncertainties (Langdon, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Demystifying cost misperception as a challenge to green building adoption in Nigeria

Opoku

2021

JEDT

Purpose The pertinent information about green buildings (GB) is laden with cost misperceptions (CM) that are paraded into adoption decisions without factual clarifications. The unsupported beliefs are fundamental to the disparaging low adoption of related technologies globally. The purpose of this paper is to explore the causes of CMs among construction stakeholders and why is it difficult to discredit this information? Design/methodology/approach The research adopted two-tier approaches involving a Delphi study and a questionnaire survey. Construction stakeholders and GB experts, totalling 415 were surveyed, while 12 professionals participated in the Delphi study. This study analysed data from 254 valid responses using Factor Analysis, Fussy Set Theory and Kruskal Wallis test to explain why CMs are prevalent. Findings The causes of CMs converge towards seven principal factors including low knowledge of GB practices, non-familiarity with performance metrics, inadequate evidence, poor-risk perceptions and reliance on the costs of exemplar projects. The results were explained using gaps in cost management, knowledge and sustainability accounting to show the critical improvements that can benefit GB adoption. Practical implications CMs are not abstract but develop from patterns that can be detected and understood within a specific context. Growing GB projects within a region would improve cost information, sustainability accounting, cost management and quality of evidence. GB cost information paraded into adoption decision processes are overestimated and overvalued beliefs of their financial implications. Tackling the important sources of CMs in the study is appropriate to improve rational decision-making aiding GB adoption. Originality/value This study untied causes of negative dispositions towards the cost of GB that distort stakeholders’ adoption decisions.

Dimensions of cost misperceptions obstructing the adoption of sustainable buildings

Oladokun

2021

SASBE

PurposeAcross the globe, the dearth of certainty about the cost of sustainable buildings (SBs) remains a critical disincentive to their adoption. This study explored the factually incorrect knowledge about the cost of SBs and their implications on adoption.Design/methodology/approachThe study adopted sequenced mixed qualitative and quantitative approaches involving a literature review, Delphi study and survey. Semi-structured and structured self-study questionnaires were administered to a random sample of green building experts, researchers and registered construction professionals with deep knowledge of SB. The dataset from 254 stakeholders was analysed for commonality, principal components and critical misperceptions using multivariate approaches.FindingsThe predominant misperceptions in the study linked low adoption of SB to cost premium, portray cost premium as a property of luxury sustainable features and suggest related practices are suitable for exemplary projects only. The critical misperceptions produced various misinterpretations that inhibit the adoption of SB through the dearth of policies, increased complexities and inflation of budget to curb perceived risks.Practical implicationsThe study buttressed the imperative to improve cost information, knowledge, skills and stakeholders' risk perceptions to increase SB adoption. The results provide insight into the regional misperceptions and knowledge gaps that could explain the low adoption of SB in a typical emerging green market.Originality/valueThe study showed that the prevalent knowledge about the cost of SB among construction stakeholders are unsupported beliefs and directs attention to emerging issues critical to SBs' adoption in emerging markets.