Next Article in Journal
Retrofit of Building Façade Using Precast Sandwich Panel: An Integrated Thermal and Environmental Assessment on BIM-Based LCA
Previous Article in Journal
Research on the Sustainable Design of Commercial Street Space Based on Importance Performance Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/buildings12122097
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Examining Built Environment Professionals′ Willingness to Pay for Green Buildings in Ghana

by
Victoria Maame Afriyie Kumah
1,
Kofi Agyekum
1,2,*,
Edward Ayebeng Botchway
3,
Hayford Pittri
1 and
Frederick Owusu Danso
4
1
Department of Construction Technology and Management, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi AK384, Ghana
2
Building Performance Laboratory, Department of Construction Technology and Management, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi AK384, Ghana
3
Department of Architecture, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi AK384, Ghana
4
Department of Building Technology, Takoradi Technical University, Takoradi P.O. Box 256, Ghana
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2022, 12(12), 2097; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122097
Submission received: 12 October 2022 / Revised: 24 November 2022 / Accepted: 28 November 2022 / Published: 30 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Building Energy, Physics, Environment, and Systems)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The participation of built environment (BE) professionals is essential in pushing the agenda of green buildings (GBs) in the construction industry. Considering willingness to pay (WTP) in light of these professionals plays a role in the management of the construction industry as one of the major energy consumers and emitters of greenhouse gases. This study, from an extended perspective of green building, seeks to examine the factors that influence Built Environment (BE) Professionals’ willingness to pay for green buildings in Ghana. A questionnaire survey was used to solicit the views of the professionals on the theme under investigation. Purposive and snowball sampling techniques were used to obtain 153 responses from BE professionals such as architects, quantity surveyors, construction managers, and project managers in Kumasi and Accra. Both descriptive (mean, standard deviation, and standard error) and inferential statistics (one-sample t-test) were used to analyze the data. The study revealed that perceived benefit stood out as the topmost factor that BE professionals consider in their willingness to pay for green buildings. This paper could serve as an eye-opener to aid in the development of strategies and influencing mechanisms to stimulate the interest of various groups of BE professionals in delivering a more environmentally friendly construction system. This study contributes to the state-of-the-art studies regarding willingness to pay for GBs. The global literature is largely focused on the willingness of household consumers/clients to pay for GBs to the detriment of the BE professionals, who play key role in GB developments, and encourage their adoption. The novelty of this study stems from the fact that it is the first time the views of BE professionals are examined when it comes to their willingness to pay for green buildings.

1. Introduction

Environmentally friendly products and services have become a matter of great public concern in the last decade. The rising awareness of the impact of daily human activities on the natural environment has led to the recognition that all individuals and businesses should be engaged in reducing environmental pollution and resource consumption, and the construction industry is not exempt from this obligation [1,2]. The Built Environment (BE) sector is a significant contributor to sustainable development, with its environmental protection, economic growth, and social progress highly undeniable [3]. However, this sector has been linked to inefficient resource utilization, high volumes of waste generation [4], and harmful emissions [5]. In Ghana, the BE sector is broad, consisting of the construction industry, real estate industry, consulting industry, and the like. The sector is performing well and contributes significantly to the gross domestic product (GDP) and employment within the Ghanaian economy. The Ghana Statistical Service (GSS) [6] revealed that the BE sector currently contributes, on average, 14.34% to the country’s GDP. Furthermore, quite recently, the Ghana Living Standards Survey has revealed that the BE sector has employed an additional 0.2% of the already numerous young people working in the sector [7].
Notwithstanding the numerous benefits derived from the BE sector, awareness of the heavy effect that the sector exerts on the natural environment is now widely recognized. For instance, the UN Environment Programme [8] revealed that the BE sector accounts for 38% of all energy–related carbon dioxide emissions. Currently, in Ghana, total greenhouse gas emissions stand at 58.56MtCO2e (million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent) [9]. The BE sector is captured under the industrial and land use sectors and these sectors contribute a total of 14% of these emissions [9]. These records, together with other issues associated with the BE sector, have led to the widespread adoption of the concept of green buildings (GB) developed to incorporate the concept of sustainability into the BE sector. The World Green Building Council [10] defines green buildings as those that reduce the negative impacts of design, construction, and operation, leading to a positive impact on the ecosystem. That is, the practice of creating structures and using processes that are environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout a building’s life cycle from siting to design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation, and deconstruction [11].
Today, the BE plays a significant role in wider debates on environmental change and ecological protection because the construction and operation of buildings expend energy and contribute to carbon emissions significantly [12]. In the construction sector, buildings emphatically contribute to worldwide greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions because of the high energy demand for electric power and heating, especially in industrialized nations [13]. In Ghana, a study by Djokoto et al. [14] highlights that although green buildings are attracting attention there is still poor demand and willingness to pay (WTP) for them. Hence, WTP plays an important role in GB development. According to Kumar et al. [15], WTP can be defined as the affordable price for a product that a buyer is ready to pay the amount of. Therefore, WTP is the consumer’s valuation of a particular item or service and includes a strong subjective evaluation component role in the adoption of green buildings [16].
Although the implementation of GBs involves several stakeholders, such as clients, developers, and BE professionals, it is mostly and constantly promoted by policymakers and scholars [17,18,19]. The role of the BE professional goes beyond just designing and building. They have great influence, in that the construction industry can only be motivated to meet GB standards if they are inclined to choose and willingly pay for their usage as an example to others [20]. Globally, the literature is largely focused on the willingness to pay for green buildings amongst household consumers/clients to the neglect of the BE professionals who play major roles in GB development. Additionally, most researchers have concentrated on themes such as adoption, implementation, management, and assessment of green buildings amongst household consumers/clients. The understanding of the BE professionals’ willingness to pay for green buildings themselves offers a strong starting point for communicating information on green building and their implementation. Following this gap, the study seeks to examine the factors that influence BE professionals’ willingness to pay for green buildings in Ghana.
A quantitative research approach is adopted for this study. A questionnaire survey is used to solicit the views of BE professionals on their willingness to pay for green buildings. Through the purposive and snowball sampling techniques, 153 BE professionals, such as architects, quantity surveyors, construction managers, and project managers, are located for this study. Data from the survey are analysed both descriptively (via mean, standard deviation, and standard error) and inferentially (via one-sample t-test). The major highlights from this study are that, in their quest to pay for green buildings, BE professionals consider: (1) the benefits associated with the GBs; (2) the environmental concerns associated with the GBs; and (3) the value associated with the GBs.
This study is divided into six sections. Section 1 introduces readers to the theme under investigation. In this section, a background to GBs and WTP are provided. This is followed by a discussion of the problem that has warranted this study to be conducted. The aim of the study is also stated. Section 2 reviews the literature that is pertinent to the theme under investigation. The literature is reviewed on GB developments, considering the contexts of emerging economies. Furthermore, the concept of WTP is introduced, and the factors that influence WTP for green buildings are discussed. Section 3 describes the methodology adopted for this study. In this section, the research approach is stated and justified, the questionnaire design and its administration are also described. Furthermore, the analytical tools used to analyse the data are described. Section 4 presents the data analysis and results. In this section, the results of the demographic background of respondents are presented. The results for the aim of this study are also presented. Section 5 discusses the main findings of the study. The discussion is centred around the main factors that influence the BE professionals’ WTP for GBs. The final section (i.e., Section 6) concludes the study and makes recommendations for further studies.

2. Literature Review

This section reviews the literature on green building development in the context of emerging economies, willingness to pay for green buildings, and factors influencing willingness to pay for green buildings.

2.1. Green Building Development: Emerging Economies Context

Studies have shown that by 2050, the earth’s population will increase drastically. This means that there will be pressure on urban areas because of the potential formation of vast cities [21]. Hence, to manage the needs of this rising population, there is a need for the development of smart and sustainable infrastructure [21]. Green buildings are one such infrastructure that can help regulate such needs. A green building, also known as a ‘sustainable building’, is a building designed and constructed using resource-efficient methods and materials [22,23]. Thus, a green building includes several components, including energy efficiency and renewable energy [24], water efficiency, environmentally preferable building materials and specifications, waste reduction, toxic reduction, indoor air quality and smart growth, and sustainable development [25]. Takuh et al. [26] also refer to green buildings as buildings that incorporate sustainability concepts of effective utilization of materials, water, energy, and other resources in an environmentally friendly manner. Such buildings are designed to protect the environment and improve the well-being of the occupants who use them. Green building is the technique of creating or changing structures in such a way that they are ecologically responsible, resource-efficient, and sustainable throughout their lifecycle.
Globally, the green building movement has emerged with the creation of green building councils. These councils are initiated by governments, non-profit organizations, academics, and the like [27]. The mother body that oversees these green building councils is the World Green Building Council (WGBC). Currently, there are close to one hundred member councils of the WGBC [27]. This indicates the global acceptance of the concept, with efforts to minimize the negative impact of the BE on the environment. Compared to the Global North, the green building market in the Global South is gradually gaining ground. In a survey carried out by the International Finance Corporation [28], some interesting facts have been revealed regarding the progress made by some developing countries in the adoption of green buildings.
For instance, in Colombia, as of 2019, the green building market was moderately developed. Colombia leads emerging economies in terms of its green building market penetration [28]. The overall market penetration of certified green buildings in Colombia has risen to 8% of all formal newly built spaces [28]. In China, the green building market is more advanced than all emerging economies. As of the end of 2019, buildings that were rated by the Green Building Label (i.e., the Chinese Government’s green certification system) constituted 65% of all newly constructed urban buildings in China [28]. As of 2020, the green building markets of both India and Indonesia were underdeveloped, with certified floor spaces contributing only 2% of formal newly built areas [28]. In Kenya, green building market development has been gradual. As of 2020, the certified green building market was reported to be 3% of all new builds [28]. Mexico is gradually making progress, with a certified green building market penetration of around 5%. These certified buildings were mainly non-residential [28]. Similar trends are also reported for the green building markets of other emerging economies, including Peru, the Philippines, and Vietnam. South Africa is also reported to have a moderate level of development in the green building market. Compared to other African countries, South Africa’s certified floor space was estimated to be 30% as of the end of 2020 [28]. In Ghana, although the green building movement is gaining ground, the market penetration is still classified as primitive [28]. Except for a few commercial buildings that have been certified, certified green buildings do not exist [28]. As of the end of 2020, certified green buildings comprised around 1% [28]. Notwithstanding this revelation, the numerous research conducted on green buildings and their implementation in Ghana reveals that the general public is now beginning to understand the concept, and with time, Ghana could rub shoulders with the likes of South Africa when it comes to green certification of buildings.
Ghana’s green building definition includes private and public green housing buildings comprising offices, healthcare avenues, and commercial and residential spaces. Green building is gaining attention among government, educational and research institutions, industrial developers, and the general public, and it is expected to become a major trend in the Ghanaian construction industry [29]. Although its adoption is moderate and still in the early stages of development, these significant contributions from the African countries involved in green building certification were in response to Du Plessis [30], who indicated that sustainable/green building is still at its infancy stage in developing countries, especially those in Africa.
The Ghana Green Building Council (GHGBC), which was founded in 2009 to manage the adoption of green construction in Ghana, is rapidly developing in its task to ensure that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are achieved in the BE in Ghana. Ghana has green buildings certified by third-party green building certification systems, such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Green Star-SA, and EDGE (Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiencies). Ghana opened its first green building named One Airport Square in 2011, which also served as West Africa’s first green commercial office building. This was followed by the Ridge Hospital, Africa’s first LEED-certified hospital [31]. Subsequently, the Green Star South Africa-Ghana was used to certify the Stanbic heights building in Accra. In addition, the LEED certification system certified the United Nations Building in Ghana [32]. The OKomfo Anokye Teaching Hospital (KATH) in Kumasi used the EDGE certification to certify the mother and baby unit. Located in Airport City in Accra, Atlantic Tower is another EDGE-certified building for commercial use in Ghana. Ghana currently has seven certified green buildings from the various third-party green building certification systems. According to statistics, Vietnam has about 130 green buildings, over 2100 projects are in Singapore, and over 750 green projects in Australia are certified by third-party green building certification systems, such as LEED, LOTUS, and EDGE [33]. These figures compared to the present green buildings in Ghana show there is still a need for improvement.
In the quest to promote the awareness of green buildings in Ghana, several academic works have been conducted on green buildings over the years. Currently, in Ghana, the literature on green buildings hovers around the implementation of green certification tools [32], the factors that drive the implementation of green building certifications [33,34], the barriers to the implementation of green buildings [34,35], and the strategies for promoting green buildings [35]. Other literature sources in Ghana have further focused on how locally available materials could be used in green buildings [36,37]. There is also literature available on the financing of green buildings in Ghana [37,38]. In addition, the indoor environmental quality of some of the few buildings certified with the Green Star SA and EDGE certification tools have also been carried out in Ghana [39,40]. Guribie et al. [41] also added their voices by identifying and evaluating the critical impediments to the demand for green buildings and sustainable architecture by construction clients in Ghana. Darko et al. [42] also explored how green technologies could be explored in Ghana. Notwithstanding these numerous developments, there exists a dearth of literature on the willingness of both consumers and the professionals to pay for such green buildings. Therefore, this study is conducted to bridge this necessary gap in the literature in Ghana.

2.2. Factors Influencing Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Green Buildings

Willingness to Pay (WTP) is regarded as the highest cost a consumer is willing to pay for an item related to one’s needs or wants concerning a dwelling [43]. Again, WTP is the optimum monetary value that individuals attribute to a product or service and are willing to pay for it. It shows consumer intentions and their conscious inclination to pay a specific amount in the future, hence it implies favourable future behaviour toward the product or service [44]. WTP for green buildings according to Khan et al. [45] refers to the factors that measure individual decisions towards adopting green buildings and their practices based on their knowledge, attitude, and behaviour towards the environment. Much of the literature, such as Tan et al. [46], mainly examines ways to measure client WTP and not that of the BE professionals who put them up. Hence, to encourage GB adoption, all essential stakeholders in the construction project chain must work together closely. BE professionals are important upstream players in the project’s customer network, and they play a critical role in promoting green building [33]. As a result, it is vital to examine the factors that influence the willingness of BE professionals to pay for green buildings.
The literature on the factors that influence the willingness to pay for green buildings is reviewed under five sub-themes including: perceived value (PV); perceived benefit (PB); perceived risk (PR); environmental concern (EC); and social trust (ST).
The perceived value of GBs is defined as the balance between rewards and costs depending on an individual’s overall perception of green buildings [47]. That is, a GB can add value by offering a profit or a loss. Liu et al. [18] found in a survey conducted in Taiwan that a higher perception of the GB quality, price, and durability values affect the willingness to pay for green buildings. Similarly, Mushi et al. [48] asserted that increased perceived value increases interest in GBs, as well as increases the WTP. Evaluation of GB features as eco-friendly, employing water and energy-efficient technologies, amongst others, influences value perception highly [49]. Thus, if BE professionals perceive higher benefits of GBs, then they will have a more positive overall perceived value of GBs.
Perceived green benefits represent residents’ perception of the effects of energy conservation and environmental protection from purchasing and living in GBs [47]. With the presence of global environmental issues, BE professionals adopting GBs become agents of positive climate change, which makes effective use of natural resources and reduces their depletion [50]. Therefore, Li et al. [20] found that GBs are of higher quality and provide unique environmental benefits compared to traditional housing, which forms a perception of willingness to pay for environmentally friendly products. Furthermore, compared to traditional housing, research by Ozorhon and Oral [51] found that prestige-seeking and improved corporate image are the motivation for WTP for GBs. That improved self-image, as well as impressing regulators and the general public by demonstrating a stronger commitment to social responsibility, is another perceived benefit of WTP. The professional with his expertise oversees the construction of the building, which, in turn, serves as a means of branding for the professional and his entity. Green building markets BE professionals to potential clients who then see them as trustworthy to handle green building projects, thereby leaving a good impression and positive image of them [52]. This results in a significant competitive advantage for BE professionals and actively encourages them to invest in the green building market.
Perceived risk refers to prospective losses associated with people’s subjective uncertainty of the features that decide product (goods or service) selection in a given purchase [53]. That is, the uncertainty people have about purchasing a particular item. Risks are seen as a major deterrent to using environmentally friendly products. This could account for the large discrepancy between WTP and the actual purchase of ecological/environmentally friendly products [54]. Hence, green perceived risk has an inverse relationship with the willingness to pay for green building due to its performance and financial risks. Thus, the higher the perceived financial and performance risks associated with the willingness to pay for green buildings, the lower the willingness of BE professionals to pay for them [52]. Although the Ghanaian market is still developing, the immaturity of new equipment and technology used to construct green buildings raises concerns regarding their performance reliability, safety, longevity, and compatibility with the environment [55]. According to Okoye et al. [56], inexperienced teams may lack the expertise necessary to properly adopt green building technology which will reduce its efficacy. Unfortunately, green building knowledge is not evenly distributed among BE professionals. Furthermore, the poor administration of GBs may result in financial uncertainties due to a lack of a comprehensive management structure and experienced technical people [57]. In the functioning stage, these characteristics may compel residents to bear unanticipated maintenance costs and other ancillary costs. The perceived financial risks posed by acquisition and maintenance expenditures have been proven to have a detrimental impact on WTP decisions. Again, its high acquisition and maintenance costs, as well as inadequate government incentives and funding schemes, are all perceived risks in the WTP for GB [58].
Environmental concern defines the extent of attention people direct to environmental problems and how willing they are to resolve them [59]. Thus, individuals are more inclined to be attentive to a product’s environmental features, are environmentally conscious, and can immediately discover green value in eco-friendly commodities [60]. A study by Tan and Goh [61] demonstrated that environmental concern is a major influencing factor in environmentally beneficial behaviours, such as waste reduction, water efficiency, and sustainable purchasing. Therefore, it is likely that BE professionals with high environmental concerns will adapt their consumption behaviours to support, and be willing to pay for, GBs to preserve the environment.
Social trust refers to the tendency to rely on professionals who have responsibility for making decisions and taking actions aligned with protecting the environment and health [47]. In general, people are more likely to rely on the professional knowledge and expertise of professionals to adopt green building and conforming to its practices. Social trust plays an important role in the ability to adapt the green technologies of interest and is a significant tool for influencing willingness to pay for green buildings. It eases the risk and uncertainty of building and incorporating green building technologies and stimulates enthusiasm to invest in them [62]. Therefore, BE professionals who actively invest in GBs demonstrate their dedication to corporate social responsibility, thereby earning additional government subsidies and gaining strong client trust [60].

3. Materials and Methods

This study adopted the quantitative research approach. According to Fellows and Liu [63], the quantitative method tends to assist in collecting factual data, examining the links between facts, and determining how these facts and relationships align with theories and the results of any prior research that has been conducted. This approach was deemed necessary for this study because the researchers sought to examine the various perspectives and viewpoints of the respondents; thus, offering a greater participant pool to investigate the scope of the phenomenon within the study population. In quantitative research, instruments rather than human judgment or sentiments are used to collect the majority of the objective measurements [64]. Figure 1 summarizes the methodology used in this study.

3.1. Survey Design and Administration

Data were collected using a closed-ended questionnaire to enquire about the views of BE professionals on the factors affecting their willingness to pay for green buildings. Most studies have used this data collection method to obtain data concerning WTP for green buildings.
A questionnaire was developed and divided into two sections (See Appendix A). The first section gathered information on the respondents’ demographic information. The demographic information sought included the respondents’ gender, academic qualification, professional body, profession, and years of professional experience. The second section collected information from the respondents on the factors (i.e., variables) that they consider in their willingness to pay for green buildings. In all, thirty variables were identified in the literature review and were further classified under five components, i.e., perceived value (PV), perceived benefits (PB), perceived risks (PR), environmental concern (EC), and social trust (ST). Five variables (PV1-PV5) were identified under perceived value, eleven variables (PB1-PB11) were identified under perceived benefits, six variables (PR1-PR6) were identified under perceived risks, three variables (EC1-EC3) were identified under environmental concern, and five variables (ST1-ST5) were identified under social trust. The respondents were required to rate their level of consideration on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 = Not considered at all, 2 = Not considered, 3 = Moderately considered, 4 = Considered, 5 = Highly considered) in this section. This study adopted the five-point scale to yield unambiguous results which provide the ability to produce clear answers with simple expressions [31,65].
The validity of the instrument was tested through piloting. Piloting is normally carried out to revise and refine a research instrument after its design to assess its appropriateness for the intended purpose to ensure that the questions answered are clear and to ensure the collection of a cohesive data. The questionnaire was piloted among twenty BE professionals with various backgrounds. These professionals comprised of 4 Architects, 4 Quantity Surveyors, 4 Construction Managers, 4 Project Managers, and 4 Engineers. Apart from some minor grammatical issues, all the respondents agreed to the contents of the questionnaire. All the identified grammatical issues from the piloting were resolved and the final questionnaire was made ready for data collection.
The questionnaire survey was administered using the Google forms survey software. The link to the online survey was distributed to key industry practitioners such as quantity surveyors, architects, engineers, construction managers, project managers, and valuers. Some studies, such as Anzagira et al. [66], Guribie et al. [41], and Ampratwum et al. [32], found that a greater concentration of the certified green buildings in Ghana was concentrated within the two largest cities in Ghana: Accra and Kumasi. Thus, key BE professionals from Kumasi and Accra, in the Ashanti and Greater Accra regions, respectively, were sought after due to their knowledge and experience in green construction. Respondents worked with various contractors, consultants, and real estate developers in Ghana.
The difficulty in obtaining the required sample frame made the researchers resort to non-probability sampling techniques in selecting all the respondents for this study. Non-probability sampling techniques are useful and economical in order to obtain a representative sample [67]. The first technique involved the use of purposive sampling. This sampling technique was useful in reaching a targeted sample quickly, thereby allowing the selection of individuals who were well-informed about the topic of interest. This technique enabled respondents with suitable knowledge and experience from the three organization categories (contractors, consultants, and real estate developers) to participate in the study to communicate their opinions. Through referrals (i.e., snowball sampling technique) from these initially consulted respondents, other respondents were reached.
A total of 153 responses were received and used for the statistical analysis. This was deemed appropriate, due to the difficulty in obtaining the exact number of BE professionals who are abreast of the concept of green buildings.

3.2. Data Analyses

After the questionnaires were retrieved, they were prepared by coding and further fed into the Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) software Version 26, for subsequent data analysis and interpretation. The analytical tools used were both descriptive (mean, standard deviation, and standard error) and inferential (one-sample t-test).
Before analysing the collected quantitative data, a check was conducted to evaluate the reliability and consistency of the survey questionnaire using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (CAC). This analysis enabled the critical factors and scale used to be checked for consistency. Some experts, as a general rule, deem that reliability should be considered high when Cronbach’s alpha is equal to or greater than 0.7 before utilizing a survey instrument [68]. For this study, a value of 0.931 was obtained, indicating that the collected data had good and acceptable internal consistency and reliability. This, therefore, confirms studies by Teng et al. [69] and Sharma [70] that show that data is reliable if the Cronbach alpha value hits 0.7 or above.
Following the reliability test, the study used descriptive mean values and the one-sample t-test to examine the level of consideration attached to the five components and their sub-components, namely: perceived value (PV1-PV5), perceived benefits (PB1-PB11), perceived risks (PR1-PR6), environmental concern (EC1-EC3), and social trust (ST1-ST5) in the decision to pay for Green Buildings. A hypothesized mean of 3.5 was utilized in this investigation, because, according to the Likert scale, 5 = highly considered, 4 = considered and 3 = Moderately considered. Hence, for a factor to be considered, it must have a mean value above the neutral point which is 3.0. Since 3.5 is above the neutral point and approximates to 4, this value was deemed fit as the test value. A similar test value has been used in other green building development studies globally. This test value indicates that the factors with a mean score of 3.5 and above were considered in the views of BE professionals regarding their willingness to pay for green buildings. Again, with a p-value of 0.05, the one-sample t-test was performed at a 95 percent confidence level. When p <0.05 at a 95% confidence level, the null hypothesis was rejected, but when p > 0.05 at a 95% confidence level, the alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted [71].

4. Results

This section presents the data analysis and the results. The section is divided into two sub-sections as follows: demographic background of respondents, and the results on the factors that influence BE professionals’ WTP for green buildings. These demographic backgrounds only provide readers with the background information of the respondents, whereas the Section 4.2 focused on achieving the main objective of this study, i.e., examining the factors that influence the BE professionals’ WTP for green buildings. The results concerning this main objective are expounded under Section 4.2.

4.1. Demographic Background of Respondents

The majority of the professionals (n = 81, 52.9%) worked with consultancy firms, followed by contractors (n = 57, 37.3%), and then developer/real estate firms (n = 15, 9.8%). Regarding the profession of the respondents, architects constituted 13.7% (n = 21), quantity surveyors constituted 39.2% (n = 60), construction managers constituted 17.6% (n = 27), project managers comprised 5.9% (n = 9), engineers comprised 17.6% (n = 27), and valuers comprised 5.9% (n = 9). The gender of the professionals saw an unequal balance with males constituting 82.4% (n = 126) and females constituting 17.6% (n = 27). Regarding academic qualifications, the majority (n = 78, 51%) possessed a Master of Science (MSc)/Master of Engineering (MEng), followed by Bachelor of Science (BSc) (n = 60, 39.2%), and Master of Philosophy (MPhil) (n = 15, 9.8%). Regarding their years of work experience, the majority of the professionals (n = 97, 98%) had over five years of work experience, with the remaining 2% (n = 3) having less than five years. This demographic information positioned the professionals as qualified to give valid feedback regarding the theme under investigation.

4.2. One Sample t-Test of the Factors Influencing the BE Professionals’ Willingness to Pay for Green Buildings in Ghana

This test was performed to further ascertain the significance of the factors used in the study on the willingness of the built environment professionals to pay for green buildings. In line with Ahadzie [71], the one-sample t-test provided the df (degrees of freedom) for the test, the test value, that is, the test’s strength, and the p-value, which indicates the likelihood that the test will be significant. With regards to this study, the hypothesized mean is 3.5, indicating that the factors with means of 3.5 or higher are recognized as highly considered in willingness to pay for green buildings. When p < 0.05 at a 95% confidence level, the null hypothesis was rejected, but when p > 0.05 at a 95% confidence level, the alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted. When the p-value was less than 0.05, the null hypothesis was not explicitly rejected [72].
Table 1 presents the results of the factors (with their indicators) that BE professionals consider in their willingness to pay for green buildings. The highly considered factors by the BE professionals in their willingness to pay for green buildings are in the following order: ‘perceived benefit’ (Mean Score (MS) = 4.529, Standard Deviation (SD) = 0.669), ‘environmental concern’ (MS = 4.510, SD = 0.608), ‘perceived value’ (MS = 4.275, SD = 0.821), ‘perceived risk’ (MS = 4.255, SD = 0.712), and ‘social trust’ (MS = 4.196, SD = 0.795). All the factors had mean values greater than the hypothesized mean (3.5), indicating that BE professionals consider all the five factors in their willingness to pay for green buildings. In addition, all five factors had p-values (significance of the test) of less than 0.05, which gives a strong indication of the statistical significance of the factors that BE professionals consider in their willingness to pay for green buildings.
Considering perceived benefit, BE professionals revealed that they will consider PB7 (M = 4.3137, SD = 0.83090) the most, even though all the indicators were significant and had a mean greater than the hypothesized mean. This was followed by PB10 and PB 4, with means of 4.2745 and 4.2549 and SD of 0.79666 and 0.90706, respectively. Under environmental concern, the highly considered indicators are in order: EC3 (MS = 4.1569, SD = 0.89676), EC2 (MS = 4.0588, SD = 0.91935), and EC1 (M = 3.2745, SD = 1.33395). Perceived value was also measured using five indicators, in which BE professionals revealed that they will consider all the indicators in their willingness to pay for green buildings. However, the highly ranked indicators are in the order: PV2 (M = 4.2549, SD = 0.81539), PV4 (M = 4.0588, SD = 0.85251), and PV3 (M = 4.0588, SD = 0.96133). PR6 (M = 4.0784, SD = 0.94958), PR4 (M = 4.0392, SD = 0.95202), and PR5 (M = 4.0196, SD = 1.06048) were the highly ranked indicators measured under perceived risk. Social trust was measured using five indicators. The key indicators are ST2 (M = 4.0850, SD = 1.06343), ST3 (M= 4.0458, SD = 1.06586), and ST5 (M = 3.8889, SD = 1.07333).
All the indicators under the five factors were significant (p < 0.05) and had positive t-values (strength of the test), indicating that their means were above the hypothesized mean, with the exception of EC1, which had a mean of 3.2745 and a p value of 0.038. The results show that BE professional consider all five factors in their willingness to pay for green buildings. However, the key factor they consider most is PB.

5. Discussion

5.1. Perceived Benefits (PB)

The perceived benefit was ranked first as the factor considered most in the BE professionals’ willingness to pay for green buildings. This finding reveals that for professionals in Ghana, their willingness to pay for green buildings will be based on its perceived benefits. Among the benefits they consider are that ‘green buildings offer a conducive improvement to residents’ living comfort at home’, ‘green buildings offer a reduction in household expenditure such as water and electricity’, ‘increased resident productivity due to improved health of tenants’, ‘staying in a green building gives one a sense of harmony with nature’, ‘occupying a green building would improve one’s mental health’, ‘transformation of the real estate industry’, ‘green building aids in contributing to a reduction in global warming’, ‘utility cost savings for energy and water’, ‘the cost of investment in a green building is recoverable over the life cycle of operations and maintenance of the building’, ‘green building incorporates the use of renewable natural resources’, and ‘energy efficiency and savings are made more in a green building’. This finding corroborates those reported by Liu et al. [18] and Zhao and Chen [47] who revealed that perceived benefit is an essential tool in WTP since it influences decision making and makes green buildings more attractive and accepted.

5.2. Environmental Concern (EC)

Environmental concern was ranked second as a factor that influences BE professionals’ willingness to pay for green buildings. According to Hu et al. [73], human behaviours are the root causes of, as well as the solution to, most of the environmental challenges encountered worldwide. Therefore, of late, pro-environmental behaviours have been encouraged in the design of energy and climate policies. Pro-environmental behaviours are defined to include a range of behaviours that benefit the natural environment, enhance environmental quality, or harm the environment as little as possible. According to Stern et al. [74], individuals who accept a movement’s basic values believe that valued objects are threatened; hence, their actions can help restore those values, and experience an obligation for pro-movement action that predisposes them to provide support. The green building movement seeks to address pro-environmental behaviours through encouraging energy and resource saving to reduce the energy consumption of the green building in use and should also motivate consumers to be willing to pay for such buildings [73].
In the views of the professionals, among the environmental concerns that have the potential to influence their willingness to pay for green buildings are ‘their passion for environmental protection issues in Ghana’ and ‘thinking about how the condition of the environment in Ghana can be improved through waste reduction, water efficiency, etc.’. An implication of this revelation is that the professionals’ intention to adopt green buildings has a positive relationship with environmental concerns.

5.3. Perceived Value (PV)

In the view of Truong [75], the perceived value concept is relevant, as it provides a better understanding of consumer behaviour regarding innovations. Unfortunately, this concept has been under-utilised in the innovations research area, with only a few studies focusing on the formation of perceived value in the context of new products [76]. Perceived value stems from the concept of ‘consumer value’. This has become a central topic that needs attention in every marketing activity. Customer value is the best concept to analyse consumer behaviour and decision-making. The central argument of customer value is on understanding and summarizing customer expectations, generating and delivering desired customer experiences, and also evaluating and managing customer evaluation [76].
Results obtained from the analysis revealed that perceived value was ranked third as an important factor considered in the willingness to pay for green buildings amongst the built environment professionals. In the views of the BE professionals, the perceived value associated with the willingness to pay for green buildings are associated with some indicators. These indicators include the following: ‘I will purchase a green building because it is environmentally friendly’, ‘A green building’s environmental function will provide very good value for me (I would get my money’s worth)’ and ‘A green building’s environmental performance will meet my expectations’, among others.
This finding is in line with that reported by Li et al. [77] and Mushi et al. [48]. In the view of Li et al. [77], green perceived value is the consumer’s rating of green products that they consume by comparing the benefits of what they accept to their sacrifice to obtain the product. Steenkamp and Geyskens [78] postulate that green perceived value is important to the consumer because it increases their willingness in purchasing. When consumers obtain the high perceived value of the products they consume they increasingly want to buy the product [79]. This implies that there is a positive influence of green perceived value on the willingness to purchase the green product [79]. This revelation confirms why the professionals rated perceived value as high in their willingness to pay for green buildings in Ghana.

5.4. Perceived Risk (PR)

Perceived risk was ranked fourth in terms of its influence towards professionals’ willingness to pay for green buildings in Ghana. Green perceived risk is defined as the possibility of acceptance of negative results related to purchasing a “green” product [80]. This means that a consumer’s purchase decision depends on the risk of consuming the “green” product [79]. Several studies have established that there is a negative relationship between perceived risk and interest in purchasing a green product [79]. This negative relationship stems from the fact that perceived risk might lower product purchase behaviour. Hence, to increase the interest in paying for green buildings, perceived risk should be reduced.
The professionals involved in this study revealed the following indicators as part of the perceived risks: ‘green buildings are too expensive to purchase’, ‘have higher maintenance costs in comparison to traditional buildings’, ‘green buildings have higher repair costs’, ‘there are inadequate green technologies, low implementation levels of green policies, and inadequate suppliers of green products/materials in the Ghanaian construction industry’. In addition to these, the respondents further identified that there is a ‘high cost of borrowing and difficulty in accessing green construction finance in Ghana’ and ‘its reliability, safety, longevity, and compatibility with the Ghanaian environment needs to be ascertained’. In the view of Aghimien et al. [81], adopting green building techniques in construction projects requires a huge amount of capital and professional expertise. This suggests that built environment professionals who are not familiar with the concepts and techniques associated with green buildings see it as a risky venture [56].

5.5. Social Trust (ST)

Trust as a construct has gained much attention in social science research. A well-known definition of trust is provided by Rousseau et al. [82] as a psychological state that comprises the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviours of another. According to Liu et al. [18], most of the time people do not have sufficient knowledge about green buildings and practices, or they do not have enough resources to make decisions and take action. Under these conditions, social trust plays an important role. Social trust has the tendency to make people willing to adopt the technologies of interest. In the view of Huijts et al. [83], social trust is a positive predictor of behavioural intention to accept a new technology, in this case, green buildings.
In this study, Social Trust was the factor least considered by BE professionals in their willingness to pay for green buildings. Although it was ranked least as an important factor, the mean value obtained indicates that it is a significant predictor of professionals’ willingness to pay for green buildings. In the views of the respondents, some of the social trust indicators which influence their willingness to pay for green buildings include: ‘availability of government support and incentives which are required in the implementation of innovative technologies in a green building’, ‘availability of experienced designers, engineers, and architects’, ‘guaranteed quality of green building materials’, ‘the authenticity of documents provided by investors/developers/consultants’, and ‘trust in experts’ evaluation in the green Building assessment process’. This finding is in line with Yang et al. [66] and Liu et al. [18] who spell out that without measures that guarantee social trust in the green building theory and practice, there is low credibility and trustworthiness of stakeholders involved in adopting its practices. When end users trust organizations responsible for green buildings, they are likely to believe in the quality and authenticity of the green features of such buildings. Hence, they are likely to perceive that green buildings are useful [18].

6. Conclusions

This study sought to explore the factors that influence the willingness of BE professionals to pay for green buildings in Ghana. Through a comparative review of related literature, thirty indicators were identified and categorized under five components for the respondents to examine. The five components were environmental concerns, social trust, perceived risk, perceived value, and perceived benefits. A survey research design was adopted in this study and the respondents were asked to indicate the influence of these broad factors and their subfactors on the respondents’ willingness to pay for green buildings. Data obtained were analysed by means of both descriptive and inferential statistics. The findings from the study revealed that all the factors were significant in influencing the willingness to purchase green buildings by the BE professionals. This means that in the views of the BE professionals, the perceived benefits (PB) of green buildings, perceived value (PV) of green buildings, perceived risks associated with green buildings, environmental concerns, and social trust are all considered in their willingness to pay for green buildings.
Through this study, the factors that have been identified will serve as a guideline for the BE to develop green construction standards, designs, and initiatives to compel both government and private projects to adopt green buildings and their technologies. In addition, the results of this study make a significant contribution to the sustainability literature because this is one of the few empirical studies to present the key factors influencing BE industry professionals’ willingness to pay for green buildings.
Notwithstanding the implications of this study, there were some limitations identified. The quantitative nature of the study made it difficult to obtain a verbatim explanation from the BE professionals regarding the identified factors. Future studies could consider collecting qualitive information from the respondents to substantiate the findings to make generalisation easy. Furthermore, data were collected from BE professionals within two cities in Ghana because those cities predominate when it comes to these professionals. Notwithstanding, future studies could be concentrated on BE professionals within other cities in Ghana. This can enhance the sample size and further assist in generalizing the findings.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.M.A.K. and K.A.; methodology, K.A. and E.A.B.; software, H.P.; validation, V.M.A.K., K.A. and H.P.; formal analysis, E.A.B. and F.O.D.; investigation, V.M.A.K.; resources, E.A.B.; data curation, K.A. and F.O.D.; writing—original draft preparation, K.A. and H.P.; writing—review and editing, V.M.A.K., E.A.B. and F.O.D.; visualization, V.M.A.K.; supervision, K.A.; project administration, V.M.A.K.; funding acquisition, E.A.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Appendix A.1. General Information

  • Gender
    • Male
    • Female
  • What is your academic qualification?
    • BSc Honours
    • P. G. Diploma
    • MSc/MEng
    • MPhil
    • PhD
  • Which professional body are you affiliated to?
    • Ghana Institute of Architects (GIA)
    • Ghana Institution of Surveyors (GhIS)
    • Ghana Institution of Engineers (GhIE)
  • Which type of organization do you belong to?
    • Consultancy
    • Contractor
    • Developer/Real Estate
  • Please select your profession.
    • Architect
    • Quantity Surveyor (QS)
    • Construction Manager
    • Project Manager
    • Engineer
    • Valuer
  • For how long have you been in professional practice?
    • Less than 5 years
    • 5–10 years
    • 16–20 years
    • 20 years and above

Appendix A.2. Level of Consideration

Table
Table A1. From the factors below, establish the relationship between the identified factors and their sub-factors that you will consider in your decision to pay for green buildings. Please indicate on a scale of 1 (Not Considered at all) to 5 (Highly Considered) by ticking one answer per row.
Table A1. From the factors below, establish the relationship between the identified factors and their sub-factors that you will consider in your decision to pay for green buildings. Please indicate on a scale of 1 (Not Considered at all) to 5 (Highly Considered) by ticking one answer per row.
ItemFactors12345
Willingness to Pay (WTP)
Compared with the conventional buildings, I would opt for a green building.
I am willing to spend extra in order to purchase a green residential building.
News and advertisements of green buildings in magazines affect my willingness to pay.
Perceived Value (PV)
I will purchase a green building because it is environmentally friendly.
I will purchase a green building because it has more environmental benefits than other general buildings.
I will purchase a green building because it has more environmental concerns than other general buildings.
A green buildings’ environmental function will provide very good value for me (I would get my money’s worth).
A green building’s environmental performance will meet my expectations.
Perceived Benefits (PB)
Green buildings offer a conducive improvement to residents’ living comfort at home.
Green buildings offer a reduction in household expenditure such as water and electricity.
Increased resident productivity due to improved health of tenants.
Staying in a green building gives me a sense of harmony with nature.
Occupying a green building would improve my mental health.
Transformation of the real estate industry.
Green building aids in contributing to a reduction in global warming.
Utility cost savings for energy and water.
The cost of investment in a green building is recoverable over the lifecycle of operations and maintenance of the buildings
Green building incorporates the use of renewable natural resources.
Energy efficiency and savings are increased in a green building.
Perceived Risk (PR)
Green buildings are too expensive to purchase.
Green buildings have higher maintenance costs in comparison to traditional buildings.
Green buildings have higher repair costs.
Inadequate green technologies, low implementation levels of green policies, and inadequate suppliers of green products/materials in the Ghanaian construction industry.
High cost of borrowing and difficulty in accessing green construction finance in Ghana.
If I were to purchase a green building, I would become concerned about its reliability, safety, longevity, and compatibility with the Ghanaian environment.
Environmental Concern (EC)
Social appeal by the various environmental protection agencies and organizations affect my willingness to pay for a green buildings.
I am passionate about environmental protection issues in Ghana.
I often think about how the condition of the environment in Ghana can be improved through waste reduction, water efficiency, etc.
Social Trust (ST)
Availability of government support and incentives are required in the implementation of innovative technologies in green building.
Availability of experienced designers, engineers, and architects.
Guaranteed quality of green building materials.
I trust the authenticity of documents provided by investors/developers/consultants.
Trust in experts’ evaluation in the green Building assessment process.

References

  1. Vasilca, I.S.; Nen, M.; Chivu, O.; Radu, V.; Simion, C.P.; Marinescu, N. The management of environmental resources in the construc-tion sector: An empirical model. Energies 2021, 14, 2489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sparrevik, M.; de Boer, L.; Michelsen, O.; Skaar, C.; Knudson, H.; Fet, A.M. Circular economy in the construction sector: Advancing environmental performance through systemic and holistic thinking. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2021, 41, 392–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tupenaite, L.; Lill, I.; Geipele, I.; Naimaviciene, J. Ranking of sustainability indicators for assessment of the new housing devel-opment projects: Case of the Baltic States. Resources 2017, 6, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Rahimian, F.; Goulding, J.; Akintoye, A.; Kolo, S. Review of Motivations, Success Factors, and Barriers to the Adoption of Offsite Manufacturing in Nigeria. Procedia Eng. 2017, 196, 512–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Lima, L.; Trindade, E.; Alencar, L.; Alencar, M.; Silva, L. Sustainability in the construction industry: A systematic review of the literature. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 289, 125730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. GSS. National Accounts. 2018. Available online: http://www.statsghana.gov.gh/ (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  7. Owoo, N.S.; Lambon-Quayefio, M.P. Lambon-Quayefio, The Construction Sector in Ghana. In Mining for Change: Natural Resources and Industry in Africa; Page, J., Tarp, F., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  8. United Nations Environment Programme. Building Sector Emissions Hit Record High, but Low-Carbon Pandemic Recovery Can Help Transform Sector. 2022. Available online: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/building-sector-emissions-hit-record-high-low-carbon-pandemic (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  9. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Ghana. Bridging the Enhanced Transparency Framework Regime under the Paris Agreement. 2021. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/gh_BUR3_1282021_submission.pdf (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  10. World Green Building Council. 2018. Available online: http://www.worldgbc.org/ (accessed on 15 May 2022).
  11. Sayyed, N.; Giradkar, A.; Ninawe, T.; Raut, V.; Sisodiya, D.; Kadu, P.; Jadhav, S.; Kelzerkar, H. Green Building for Quality Living. Int. J. Mult. Res. Sci., Eng. Tech. 2021, 4, 569–574. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hossain, M.U.; Ng, S.T. Strategies for enhancing the accuracy of evaluation and sustainability performance of building. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 261, 110230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Achtnicht, M. Do Environmental Benefits Matter? A Choice Experiment Among House Owners; Aachen University: Aachen, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  14. Djokoto, S.D.; Dadzie, J.; Ohemeng-Ababio, E. Barriers to sustainable construction in the Ghanaian construction industry: Con-sultants perspectives. J. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 7, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kumar, A.; Prakash, G.; Kumar, G. Does environmentally responsible purchase intention matter for consumers? A predictive sustainable model developed through an empirical study. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 58, 102270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Li, Q.; Long, R.; Chen, H. Differences and influencing factors for Chinese urban resident willingness to pay for green housings: Evidence from five first-tier cities in China. Appl. Energy 2018, 229, 299–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhang, J.; Li, H.; Olanipekun, A.O.; Bai, L. A successful delivery process of green buildings: The project owners’ view, motivation and commitment. Renew. Energy 2019, 138, 651–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Liu, Y.; Hong, Z.; Zhu, J.; Yan, J.; Qi, J.; Liu, P. Promoting green residential buildings: Residents’ environmental attitude, subjective knowledge, and social trust matter. Energy Policy 2018, 112, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Abergel, T.; Dean, B.; Dulac, J. Towards a Zero-Emission, Efficient, and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. Global Status Report; UN Environment and International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  20. Li, Y.; Song, H.; Sang, P.; Chen, P.-H.; Liu, X. Review of Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for green building projects. Build. Environ. 2019, 158, 182–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kamranfar, S.; Azimi, Y.; Gheibi, M.; Fathollahi-Fard, A.M.; Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M. Analyzing green construction de-velopment barriers by a hybrid decision-making method based on Dematel and ANP. Buildings 2022, 12, 1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ifeanyichukwu, N.E.; Anosike, N.M.; Ikenna, A.O.; Chidiebere, U.O. Militating Factors Against the Practice of Green Building as a New Paradigm in Construction Projects. Int. J. Sustain. Green Energy 2021, 10, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mohamed Suhail, A.; Shebi Rithika, V.M.; Karthiga Shenbagam, N. Design of Green Buildings. Adv. Syst. Eng. 2021, 695–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Shahsavar, M.M.; Akrami, M.; Gheibi, M.; Kavainpour, V.; Fathollahi-Fard, A.M.; Behzadian, K. Constructing a smart framework for supplying the biogas energy in green buidings using an integration of response surface methodology, ar-tificial intelligence and petri net modelling. Energy Conserv. Manag. 2021, 248, 114794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shi, Q.; Yan, Y.; Zuo, J.; Yu, T. Objective conflicts in green buildings projects: A critical analysis. Build. Environ. 2016, 96, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Takuh, V.K.; Adeyemi, A.; Bello, M.U. Willingness to Pay for Green Building Features in the Medium-Income Residential Market of Makurdi, Nigeria. Path Sci. 2021, 7, 4036–4045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Assadiki, R.; Merlin, G.; Boileau, H.; Buhé, C.; Belmir, F. Status and Prospects of Green Building in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region with a Focus on the Moroccan Context. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. International Finance Corporation (IFC). Green Building Market Snapshots. 2022. Available online: https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/climate+business/our+approach/promoting+sustainable+innovation/green+buildings (accessed on 24 November 2022).
  29. Ahiabu, M.K.; Emuze, F.A.; Das, D.K. A Review of Sustainable Construction Practices in Ghana. In Climate Emergency–Managing, Building, and Delivering the Sustainable Development Goals; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Du Plessis, C. A strategic framework for sustainable construction in developing countries. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2007, 25, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C.; Gyamfi, S.; Olanipekun, A.O.; He, B.-J.; Yu, Y. Driving forces for green building technologies adoption in the construction industry: Ghanaian perspective. Build. Environ. 2017, 125, 206–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ampratwum, G.; Agyekum, K.; Adinyira, E.; Duah, D. A framework for the implementation of green certification of buildings in Ghana. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2019, 21, 1263–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tran, Q.; Nazir, S.; Nguyen, T.-H.; Ho, N.-K.; Dinh, T.-H.; Nguyen, V.-P.; Nguyen, M.-H.; Phan, Q.-K.; Kieu, T.-S. Empirical Examination of Factors Influencing the Adoption of Green Building Technologies: The Perspective of Construction Developers in Developing Economies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Agyekum, K.; Adinyira, E.; Ampratwum, G. Factors driving the adoption of green certification of buildings in Ghana. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2020, 9, 595–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C. Strategies to promote green building technologies adoption in developing countries: The case of Ghana. Build. Environ. 2018, 130, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Agyekum, K.; Adinyira, E.; Baiden, B.; Ampratwum, G.; Duah, D. Barriers to the adoption of green certification of buildings: A thematic analysis of verbatim comments from built environment professionals. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2019, 17, 1035–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Agyekum, K.; Adinyira, E.; Oppon, J.A. Factors limiting the adoption of hemp as an alternative sustainable material for green building delivery in Ghana. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2021, 40, 202–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Agyekum, K.; Goodier, C.; Oppon, J.A. Key drivers for green building project financing in Ghana. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2021, 29, 3023–3050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Agyekum, K.; Hammond, S.F.; Salgin, B. Occupants’ perceived importance and satisfaction with the indoor environmental qual-ity of a green building. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2021, 11, 627–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Agyekum, K.; Akli-Nartey, E.E.K.; Kukah, A.S.; Agyekum, A.K. Importance-performance analysis (IPA) of the indoor environmental quality (IEQ) of an EDGE-certified building in Ghana. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Guribie, F.L.; Akubah, J.T.; Tengan, C.; Jnr, A.V.K.B. Demand for green building in Ghana: A conceptual modeling and empirical study of the impediments. Constr. Innov. 2021, 22, 342–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.; Owusu-Manu, D.G.; Gou, Z.; Man, J.C. Adoption of green building technologies in Ghana. In Green Building in Developing Countries; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 217–235. [Google Scholar]
  43. Zalejska-Jonsson, A.; Wilkinson, S.J.; Wahlund, R. Willingness to Pay for Green Infrastructure in Residential Development—A Consumer Perspective. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Boronat-Navarro, M.; Pérez-Aranda, J.A. Analyzing Willingness to Pay More to Stay in a Sustainable Hotel. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Khan, R.A.; Thaheem, M.J.; Ali, T.H. Are Pakistani homebuyers ready to adopt sustainable housing? An insight into their will-ingness to pay. Energy Policy 2020, 143, 111598. [Google Scholar]
  46. Tan, B.C.; Lau, T.C.; Yong, G.F.; Khan, N.; Nguyen, T.P.L. A qualitative study of green practices adoption for restaurants in Malaysia. Soc. Responsib. J. 2019, 15, 1087–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhao, S.; Chen, L. Exploring Residents’ Purchase Intention of Green Housings in China: An Extended Perspective of Perceived Value. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mushi, F.V.; Nguluma, H.; Kihila, J. A critical review of African green building research. Build. Res. Inf. 2022, 50, 610–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ahmed, A.M.; Sayed, W.; Asran, A.; Nosier, I. Identifying barriers to the implementation and development of sustainable con-struction. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2021, 14, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  50. Song, X.; Lu, Y.; Shen, L.; Shi, X. Will China’s building sector participate in emission trading system? Insights from modelling an owner’s optimal carbon reduction strategies. Energy Polic. 2018, 118, 232–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ozorhon, B.; Oral, K. Drivers of innovation in construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 04016118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tarabieh, S.M.A. The impact of greenwash practices over green purchase intention: The mediating effects of green confusion, Green perceived risk, and green trust. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2021, 11, 451–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zeng, T.; Durif, F. The Influence of Consumers’ Perceived Risks towards Eco-Design Packaging upon the Purchasing Decision Process: An Exploratory Study. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Zhuang, W.; Luo, X.; Riaz, M.U. On the Factors Influencing Green Purchase Intention: A Meta-Analysis Approach. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 644020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Zaidi, N.; Dixit, S.; Maurya, M.; Dharwal, M. Willingness to pay for green products and factors affecting Buyer’s Behaviour: An empirical study. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 49, 3595–3599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Okoye, P.U.; Okolie, K.C.; Odesola, I.A. Risks of Implementing Sustainable Construction Practices in the Nigerian Building Industry. Constr. Econ. Build. 2022, 22, 21–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Chan, A.P.C.; Darko, A.; Olanipekun, A.O.; Ameyaw, E.E. Critical barriers to green building technologies adoption in developing countries: The case of Ghana. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 172, 1067–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Opoku, D.-G.J.; Ayarkwa, J.; Agyekum, K. Barriers to environmental sustainability of construction projects. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2019, 8, 292–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zeng, J.; Jiang, M.; Yuan, M. Environmental risk perception, risk culture, and pro-environmental behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Chuah, S.H.; El-Manstrly, D.; Tseng, M.L.; Ramayah, T. Sustaining customer engagement behavior through corporate social re-sponsibility: The roles of environmental concern and green trust. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 262, 121348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tan, W.-L.; Goh, Y.-N. The role of psychological factors in influencing consumer purchase intention towards green residential building. Int. J. Hous. Mark. Anal. 2018, 11, 788–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Yang, Y.; Liu, D.; Zhang, L.; Yin, Y. Social Trust and Green Technology Innovation: Evidence from Listed Firms in China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Fellows, R.F.; Liu, A.M. Research Methods for Construction; John Wiley & Sons: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  64. Borrego, M.; Douglas, E.P.; Amelink, C.T. Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Research Methods in Engineering Education. J. Eng. Educ. 2009, 98, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Yevu, S.K.; Yu, A.T.; Adinyira, E.; Darko, A.; Antwi-Afari, M.F. Optimizing the application of strategies promoting electronic procurement systems towards sustainable construction in the building lifecycle: A neurofuzzy model approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 336, 130343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Anzagira, L.F.; Duah, D.Y.; Badu, E. Awareness and application of green building concepts by construction industry stakeholders of sub-saharan african countries. J. Sustain. Dev. Stud. 2021, 14, 1–32. [Google Scholar]
  67. Pan, Y.; Cai, W.; Liu, Z. Inference for non-probability samples under high-dimensional covariate-adjusted superpopulation model. Stat. Methods Appl. 2022, 31, 955–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Singh, A.S. Common procedures for development, validity and reliability of a questionnaire. Int. J. Econ. Commer. Manag. 2017, 5, 790–801. [Google Scholar]
  69. Teng, J.; Mu, X.; Wang, W.; Xu, C.; Liu, W. Strategies for sustainable development of green buildings. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 44, 215–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sharma, M. Development of a ‘Green building sustainability model’for Green buildings in India. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 190, 538–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ahadzie, D.K. A Model for Predicting the Performance of Project Managers in Mass House Building Projects in Ghana. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK, 2007. Available online: https://wlv.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/2436/15393/Ahadzie_PhD%20?sequence=2 (accessed on 5 June 2022).
  72. Ross, A.; Willson, V.L. Paired samples T-test. In Basic and Advanced Statistical Tests; SensePublishers: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 17–19. [Google Scholar]
  73. Hu, X.; Xia, B.; Skitmore, M.; Buys, L.; Hu, Y. What is a sustainable retirement village? Perceptions of Australian developers. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.; Guagnano, G.A.; Kalof, L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1999, 1, 81–97. [Google Scholar]
  75. Truong, Y. A cross-country study of consumer innovativeness and technological service innovation. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2013, 20, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wibowo, S.F.; Ahmad, G.N. Perceived Value of Green Residence: The Role of Perceived Newness and Perceived Relative Ad-vantage. Int. J. Econ. Bus. Adm. 2020, 8, 443–456. [Google Scholar]
  77. Li, Q.; Long, R.; Chen, H.; Chen, F.; Cheng, X. Chinese urban resident willingness to pay for green housing based on double-entry mental accounting theory. Nat. Hazards 2018, 95, 129–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Steenkamp, J.-B.E.; Geyskens, I. How Country Characteristics Affect the Perceived Value of Web Sites. J. Mark. 2006, 70, 136–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Dhewi, T.S.; Putra, I.W.J.A.; Wahyudi, H.D. The Influence of Green Perceived Value and Green Perceived Risk Perceptions on the Green Product Purchase Intention. KnE Soc. Sci. 2018, 3, 411–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chen, Y.-S.; Chang, C.-H. Greenwash and Green Trust: The Mediation Effects of Green Consumer Confusion and Green Perceived Risk. J. Bus. Ethic 2012, 114, 489–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Aghimien, D.; Aigbavboa, C.; Meno, T.; Ikuabe, M. Unravelling the risks of construction digitalisation in developing countries. Constr. Innov. 2021, 21, 456–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Rousseau, D.M.; Sitkin, S.B.; Burt, R.S.; Camerer, C. Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View Of Trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 393–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Huijts, N.; Molin, E.; van Wee, B. Hydrogen fuel station acceptance: A structural equation model based on the technology acceptance framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 38, 153–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 12 02097 g001 550
Figure 1. Summary of Methodology.
Figure 1. Summary of Methodology.
Buildings 12 02097 g001
Table
Table 1. One sample t-test results of factors and their indicators.
Table 1. One sample t-test results of factors and their indicators.
Mean (M)Std. Deviation (SD)Sample Test, Test Value = 3.5
t-Valuedfp-ValueRank
Perceived Value (PV)4.2750.82111.6681520.0003
PV1I will purchase a green building because it is environmentally friendly.3.90201.074624.6271520.000V
PV2I will purchase a green building because it has more environmental benefits than other general buildings.4.254900.81539011.4521520.000I
PV3I will purchase a green building because it has more environmental concerns than other general buildings.4.05880.961337.1901520.000III
PV4A green buildings’ environmental function will provide very good value for me (I would get my money’s worth).4.05880.852518.1081520.000II
PV5A green building’s environmental performance will meet my expectations.4.03920.887657.5141520.000IV
Perceived Benefit (PB)4.5290.66919.0211520.0001
PB1Green buildings offer a conducive improvement to residents’ living comfort at home.4.17650.881979.4871520.000VII
PB2Green buildings offer a reduction in household expenditure such as water and electricity.4.01960.962946.6751520.000IX
PB3Increased resident productivity due to improved health of tenants.4.19610.7699911.1821520.000V
PB4Staying in a green building gives me a sense of harmony with nature.4.25490.9070610.2941520.000III
PB5Occupying a green building would improve on my mental health.4.00000.993406.2261520.000X
PB6Transformation of the real estate industry.3.84310.918514.6211520.000XI
PB7Green building aids to contribute to a reduction in global warming.4.31370.8309012.1141520.000I
PB8Utility cost savings for energy and water.4.19610.888969.6861520.000VI
PB9The cost of investment in a green building is recoverable over the lifecycle of operations and maintenance of the buildings4.09800.915978.0761520.000VIII
PB10Green building incorporates the use of renewable natural resources.4.27450.7966612.0251520.000II
PB11Energy efficiency and savings are made more in a green building.4.23530.8092011.2401520.000IV
Perceived Risk (PR)4.2550.71213.1141520.0004
PR1Green buildings are too expensive to purchase.3.98040.983226.0441520.000IV
PR2Green buildings have higher maintenance costs in comparison to traditional buildings.3.76470.944273.4671520.001V
PR3Green buildings have higher repair costs.3.72550.954462.9221520.004VI
PR4Inadequate green technologies, low implementation levels of green policies, and inadequate suppliers of green products/materials in the Ghanaian construction industry.4.03920.952027.0061520.000II
PR5High cost of borrowing and difficulty in accessing green construction finance in Ghana.4.01961.060486.0611520.000III
PR6If I were to purchase a green building, I would become concerned about its reliability, safety, longevity, and compatibility with the Ghanaian environment.4.07840.949587.5351520.000I
Environmental Concern (EC)4.5100.60820.5351520.0002
EC1Social appeal by the various environmental protection agencies and organizations affects my willingness to pay for a green building.3.27451.33395−2.0911520.038III
EC2I am passionate about environmental protection issues in Ghana4.05880.919357.5191520.000II
EC3I often think about how the condition of the environment in Ghana can be improved through waste reduction, water efficiency, etc.4.15690.896769.0601520.000I
Social Trust (ST)4.1960.79510.8271520.0005
ST1Availability of government support and incentives are required in the implementation of innovative technologies in a green building.3.82351.251933.1971520.002IV
ST2Availability of experienced designers, engineers, and architects4.08501.063436.8041520.000I
ST3Guaranteed quality of green building materials.4.04581.065866.3331520.000II
ST4I trust the authenticity of documents provided by investors/developers/consultants.3.81051.011463.797 V
ST5Trust in experts’ evaluation in the green building assessment process.3.88891.073334.4821520.000III
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kumah, V.M.A.; Agyekum, K.; Botchway, E.A.; Pittri, H.; Danso, F.O. Examining Built Environment Professionals′ Willingness to Pay for Green Buildings in Ghana. Buildings 2022, 12, 2097. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122097

AMA Style

Kumah VMA, Agyekum K, Botchway EA, Pittri H, Danso FO. Examining Built Environment Professionals′ Willingness to Pay for Green Buildings in Ghana. Buildings. 2022; 12(12):2097. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122097

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kumah, Victoria Maame Afriyie, Kofi Agyekum, Edward Ayebeng Botchway, Hayford Pittri, and Frederick Owusu Danso. 2022. "Examining Built Environment Professionals′ Willingness to Pay for Green Buildings in Ghana" Buildings 12, no. 12: 2097. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122097

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop