Afful, A E; Ayarkwa, J; Acquah, G K K; Osei-Asibey, D and Osei Assibey, A A D (2023) Barriers to incorporation of indoor environmental quality (IEQ) principles into building designs. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(6), pp. 2400-2419. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: This 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/approach: The 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. Findings: Twenty-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 implications: The 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 implications: The 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/value: The 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.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | barriers; design stage; green building; indoor environmental quality; sustainable buildings |
| Index terms: | construction industry, global construction, empirical study, indoor environmental quality, built environment, research design, screening, building design, body of knowledge, publication, methodology, sustainable building, green building, design stage, documents, practitioner, strategy, design team |
| Subjects: | professional practice, knowledge management, architectural design, practitioner, research dissemination and communication, strategic management, research design and methodology, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, environmental health, professional development, sustainable construction, management, design practice, research methods |
| Topics: | Information Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Sustainability, Roles and Professions, International Construction, Human Resources, Urban Studies, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here