An Investigation Into The Applicability Of Sustainable Construction Practices In Uganda

Peter Mugisa, Henry Mwanaki Alinaitwe, Kenneth Ssemwogerere.

Makerere University, Kampala, The College of Engineering, Design, Art and Technology
Abstract
Purpose - While current sustainability initiatives, strategies and processes focus on wider global
aspirations and strategic objectives, they are noticeably weak in addressing micro-level (project
specific level) integrated decision-making. This paper presented an investigation into the application
of identified sustainable construction practices (SCP) in the building industry in Uganda. This was
intended to create a deeper understanding on how globally accepted practices that foster sustainable
building projects are used in the Ugandan context, factors that affect their implementation and possible
ways to enhance these practices to be applied more in an appropriate balance while considering
economical, environmental and social factors decision making while implementing building projects.

Design /Methodology/Approach - A questionnaire was the tool used to collect data from construction
professionals i.e. Architects, Civil Engineers, Electrical Engineers, Mechanical Engineers and
Quantity Surveyors. Stratified and Purposive sampling techniques was used. To determine the major
sustainable construction practices, Mean ratings & Relative Importance Index ( RII). To determine the
extent to which sustainable construction practices are applied in the construction industry, Exploratory
Factor analysis(EFA) using Principle component analysis, varimax rotation method, eigen value
greater than 1, factor loadings greater than 0.5 was used. To determine the relationship between the
identified factors that influence the application of sustainable construction practices, Spearman’s rank
order correlation because data was ordinal and on an ordinal scale was used. Ordinal Regression was
also used to determine the extent to which the application of sustainable construction practices was
explained by intervening variables.

Findings - The results of the study identified and ranked the top SCP under resource conservation,
cost efficiency and design for human adaptation. The study also indicated the extent of the application
of SCP as 62.56% for resource conservation, 56.83% for cost efficiency and 56.69% for human
adaptation.

Recommendations - Recommendations to enhance the application of the identified sustainable

construction practices in a balanced economic, environmental and social front were made and these
were; training and awareness on sustainable construction practices, a general need for new regulations
and improvement of the existing regulations regarding sustainable construction practices, professional
collaborations and engagement, top management attitude of consultancy and construction firms needs
to put in place key measures in their firms that enable construction projects to be designed and
implemented in a sustainable way. There was also need to develop a database of quality construction-
related information that is readily available to enable all stakeholders to make more informed decisions
while implementing construction projects.

Key words
Construction Industry, Applicability, Sustainable Construction Practices, Uganda
Introduction
Sustainability has become a global phenomenon in all aspects of human livelihood including the
construction industry. Sustainable construction is seen as a new way for the building industry to
respond towards achieving sustainable development on the various environmental, social-economic,
and cultural facets (CIB, 1999). Sustainability is acknowledged as one of the most important
performance related issues within the construction industry, due to the high impact of this industry
on environmental and social performance (Myers, 2022).

Among others, sustainability is concerned with the maintenance of factors and practices that
contribute to the quality of the environment on a long-term basis. The potential of the construction
industry to alleviate the effects of environmental damage whilst contributing to the social and
economic dimension of sustainability are great. Despite many efforts by both Government and Higher
Education Institutions, the adoption of sustainable construction practices is well below where it needs
to be (Brennan, 2014).

According to existing literature, construction has been identified as the first sector to require specific
attention in meeting the sustainable development goals. This is because in sustainable development
terms, construction is consistently responsible for some of the most profound negative impacts
because of the industry’s use of large amounts of materials and resources and its reputation as a huge
generator of waste at each stage of the life cycle pertaining to the construction process. (UNEP, 2022)
noted that the construction industry consumed more raw materials than any other industrial sector
and was responsible for a significant proportion of the world’s waste and carbon dioxide emissions
for the year 2022.

On the other hand construction is also commonly regarded as the engine of economic growth exploring
Bon’s (1992) hypothesis that a country’s level of construction activity is closely related to its stage of
economic development. In purely quantitative terms, the contributions made by construction to
employment and GDP are quite significant. Construction employs more than any other industrial
sector accounting for more than 110 million jobs across the globe and creating an estimated 10 per
cent of the world’s GDP (UNEP, 2022). The industry is not just important economically, it is the key
to the quality of life as it produces the built environment and puts in place the physical facilities and
infrastructure that determine the degree of freedom and flexibility that society may enjoy. Its products
also have a long lifetime, some products extend up to one hundred years after construction.

The construction industry has also been selected as warranting a special case in the sustainability
agenda because of its perceived lack of change (Myers,2022). In nearly every other sector of the
economy, technological developments have fuelled changes in business attitudes. The industry
suffers from inertia and there is a distinct lack of inclination for change largely because each project
is unique with a relatively short life span of the construction period.

As a developing country, Uganda grapples with a challenge of addressing environmental problems

without undermining economic development (Kibwami , 2016). Most of the technologies used are
highly energy-intensive, inefficient, and associated with high levels of pollution (Okello, Pindozzi,
Faugno, & Boccia, 2013). The prevalent low level of industrialization in Uganda implies that
construction activities are highly labour intensive, largely involve unskilled labour, and use primitive
construction methods (Alinaitwe, Mwakali, & Hansson, 2007).

The building industry is a vital element of any economy but has a significant impact on the
environment. By virtue of its size, construction is one of the largest users of energy, material
resources, water and it is a formidable polluter. In response to these impacts, there is growing
concern among organizations committed to environmental performance targets that appropriate
strategies and actions are needed to make building activities more sustainable ( Halliday,2018).

Based on existing literature sustainable construction can be reduced to three important messages for
the way the industry should work.
1. Buildings and infrastructure projects should become more cost effective to produce and run,
because they have been constructed with less and yield more.
2. Construction projects should contribute positively to their environment, using materials and
systems that are easily replenished over their full life cycle.
3. Consultants, contractors and clients should, wherever possible, create higher standards of
respect for people and communities involved with the project, from the site workers through
to the final community of users.
The above indicators of sustainable construction provide a clear indication that certain aspects of
sustainable construction have not been embraced in the construction industry in Uganda,
furthermore, research on sustainable construction provides very little systematic and comprehensive
work linking sustainable construction practices to actual adoption.
While current sustainability initiatives in extant literature focus on wider global aspirations and strategic
objectives, they are noticeably weak in addressing micro-level (project specific level) integrated
decision-making, paradoxically, it is precisely at the micro-levels that sustainability objectives have to
be translated into concrete practical actions, by using a holistic approach to facilitate decision making
on building project implementation. Appropriate strategies and actions are needed to make building
activities more sustainable.
Recent research in Uganda shows that there is a general awareness amongst professionals in Uganda
about sustainable construction though its mainly perceived on only the environmental aspect . To date,
however, sustainable construction is still neither popular nor the centre feature of the construction
industry in Uganda. For sustainable construction to be achieved, a given set of strategies have to be
followed which are in line with the sustainable development goals.
A study was therefore needed to investigate how professionals in the building industry have attempted
to apply established sustainable construction strategies on their projects , how suited the practices are in
the Ugandan context and also examine the factors that would influence the use the identified strategies
on implementation of building projects.
The study aimed to answer the following questions

1. What are the major sustainable construction practices being used in Uganda?
2. To what extent are the identified sustainable construction practices applied on building projects
in Uganda?

Sustainable construction
The notion of sustainability has a special relevance to the construction industry. The first international
conference on sustainable construction was held in 1994. The conference defined sustainable
construction as:

The creation and operation of a healthy built environment based on ecological principles and
resource efficiency.

Existing Literature also shows that discussions, have begun on a separate agenda for sustainable
construction in developing countries, as the problems in these areas are greatly compounded by the
huge populations that are poor and marginalized often surviving in slums without the provision of
clean water or sanitation. This means that there are significant differences in priorities, skill levels and
capacity. Indeed much of the literature makes a distinction between a ‘green agenda’ that relates to
issues of sustainability and a ‘brown agenda’ that relates to development. The green agenda is a
response to the impact of ecologically detrimental developments, such as deforestation, climate
change, pollution and the over-consumption of non-renewable resources on the earth’s life-support
systems, while the ‘brown agenda’ focuses on the problems of poverty and underdevelopment.

Du Plessis (2007) points out the green or brown agenda approach alone will not result in sustainable
development; the brown agenda is the development part of the equation, the green agenda is what
makes the development sustainable. The one without the other is not sustainable development. Thus,
the challenge for the construction sector in developing countries like Uganda is not just to respond to
the development challenges of adequate housing, rapid urbanisation and lack of infrastructure, but also
to do it in a way that is socially and ecologically responsible. As a consequence, in the developing
world sustainable construction commences from a different point and needs to place more emphasis
on the social aspects of sustainability. Du Plessis (2002: 8) defined sustainable construction in
developing countries as:

A holistic process aiming to restore and maintain harmony between the natural and the built
environments, and create settlements that affirm human dignity and encourage economic equity.

Sustainable Construction In Uganda

As a developing country, Uganda grapples with a challenge of addressing environmental problems
without undermining economic development. Most of the technologies used are highly energy-
intensive, inefficient, and associated with high levels of pollution (Okello, Pindozzi, Faugno, &
Boccia, 2013). The prevalent low level of industrialization in Uganda implies that construction
activities are highly labour intensive, largely involve unskilled labour, and use primitive construction
methods (Alinaitwe, Mwakali, & Hansson, 2007). The average embodied energy consumed in small-
scale brick manufacturing in Uganda is over 5 times higher than that in developed countries (Hashemi,
Cruickshank, & Cheshmehzangi, 2015). Although some initiatives began “to assist national and local
governments in reviewing and updating building laws and regulations, with a view of promoting low
carbon practices” (UN-HABITAT, 2013, p.6), there is limited knowledge on how such initiatives will
enhance sustainable construction. This limited knowledge, coupled with the lack of studies on the
extent of awareness and interpretation of sustainable construction amongst various stakeholders in the
building sector, makes it difficult to understand whether sustainable construction practices are
appreciated as a potential enhancer for sustainable construction in Uganda. It is against this
background that a study was carried out to investigate the applicability of sustainable construction
practices in the Ugandan context.

2.3 SUSTAINABLE construction PRACTICES

Sustainable construction practices are essential in the construction industry in order to avoid the
depletion of natural resources and also for a better life quality of the occupants. Once applied, they
can reduce many impacts that occur during and after construction (Asha, 2019).
In order to achieve a sustainable future in the building industry, (Akadiri, 2012) suggests adoption of
a multi-disciplinary approach covering a number of features such as: energy saving, improved use of
materials, material waste minimization, pollution and emissions control. A review of literature has
identified three general objectives which should shape the framework for implementing sustainable
building design and construction objectives are:
1. Resource conservation
2. Cost efficiency
3. Design for Human adaptation

Resource conservation - This refers to the management of the human use of natural resources to
provide the maximum benefit to current generations while maintaining capacity to meet the needs of
future generations (Wilson et.al., 1998). The concept has become a major issue in debates about
sustainable development. (Halliday, 2018) observes that certain resources are becoming extremely rare
and the use of remaining stocks should be treated cautiously. The author called for the substitution of
rare material with less rare or renewable materials.
Material Conservation- This is the extraction and consumption of natural resources as building
materials or as raw materials for production of building materials and building materials production
itself in implementing construction works has a direct impact on natural bio-diversity due to the
fragmentation of natural areas and ecosystems caused by construction activities (Spence & Mulligan,
1995). In particular, large amount of minerals resources are consumed in the built environment and
most of these mineral resources are non-renewable. Therefore, it is important to reduce the use of non-
renewable materials. According to Abeysundara et al. (2009) this should be incorporated for
consideration at the project initiative and design phases, where the selection of materials is very
important and the choice should be based on the materials’ environmental impacts.
Water Conservation - With the fast development of the global economy, depletion of water resources
is becoming an environmental issue of the utmost concern worldwide. The United Nations World
Water Development Report (WWDR) indicates that water for all our uses is becoming scarce and is
leading to a water crisis UNESCO (2003). The effects a sector can have on the environment are
nowhere more apparent than in the building industry McCormack et al. (2007). Building construction
and its operations draw heavily on water from the environment.
Land Conservation - Land is an important resource upon which the construction industry depends.
Land use through urban expansion has been identified as a growing problem in both developed and
developing worlds. Although more land may be reclaimed from the ocean, land reclamation on a large
scale is undesirable since it could severely interfere with ecosystems. Soil erosion, groundwater
contamination, acid rain and other industrial pollutants are damaging the health of plant communities,
thereby intensifying the challenge and necessity to restore habitats. Sustainable design must develop
a respect for the landscape and expend more effort understanding the interrelationships of soils, water,
plant communities and associations, and habitats, as well as the impacts of human uses on them.
The impact of the construction industry on the environment and the expansion of urban areas show
the importance of land as a vital indicator of sustainability with the potential to become an absolute
indicator of sustainable construction Haberl, 2004); Akadiri et al., 2012. Land can be conserved by
adopting a policy of zero expansion of existing urban areas.
Cost efficiency - Construction clients are demanding assurance of their buildings’ long-term
economic performance and costs. In addition, the construction project supply chain of developers,
suppliers, manufacturers, design and construction teams are under increasing pressure from clients to
minimize total project cost and consider how much a building will cost over its life cycle and how
successfully it will continue to meet occupier’s requirements. Buildings represent a large and long-
lasting investment in financial terms as well as in other resources (Oberg, 2005). Improvements of cost
effectiveness of buildings is consequently of common interest for the owner, the user and society. The
concept of sustainability as applied to the construction of buildings is intended to promote the utmost
efficiency and to reduce financial costs. Sharply rising energy costs have highlighted the opportunity
for overall savings in the life of a building that can be achieved by investing in more energy efficient
solutions initially. A building’s economic operation should be considered throughout the construction
stage and also in terms of its maintenance and conservation throughout its useful life.
Johnson (2000) highlighted that there are a large number of economic benefits to constructing greener
buildings and that the benefits include: energy cost savings; water cost savings; mechanical equipment
downsizing. Yates (2001), stated that the business benefits of sustainable construction include: capital
cost savings; reduced running costs; increased investment returns; increased productivity, staff
recruitment and retention; more efficient resource use; major corporate image / marketing spin offs.
Design For Human Adaptation - Well-being (health and comfort) is an important aspect in
determining the quality of life of an occupant. In a modern society, where individuals spend more than
90% of their time indoors—and more than 70% of their time indoors at home (Sev, 2009); (Adgate et
al.,2002), an essential role of architecture is to provide occupants’ health, physiological comfort,
physiological satisfaction and productivity.
Methodology
Research Design - To achieve the research aim, mixed research approach was adopted to conduct
the study. This approach has been chosen because it offers an objective, formal and systematic
process in which numerical data are to be used to quantify or measure phenomena and produce
findings, while qualitative data was used to get an in-depth and comprehensive information on
recommendations (Fellows & Liu, 2015).
Research population - The research population was limited to construction professionals because,
amongst all other stakeholders in the building sector, construction professionals exert the most
influence in adopting sustainability and shaping its perception within the built environment (Shen &
Tam, 2002; Shi et al., 2014; William, Sourani, Sertyesilisik, & Tunstall, 2013; Zuo, Read, Pullen, &
Shi, 2012; Kibwami, 2016). The research population consisted of professionals involved in the
building construction industry in Uganda: Architects, Civil Engineers and Quantity Surveyors,
Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. The sampling frame was derived from publicly available lists of
professionals who were accredited to practice in Uganda in 2022. The population was as follows;
Architects – 190, Civil Engineers – 820, Electrical Engineers – 171, Mechanical Engineers – 123,
Quantity Surveyors – 70. The population size was 1374.

Sample Size - The sample size generated was 310 at 95% confidence level and a level of precision of
0.05.
Since the population was stratified. The sample size of each stratum was proportionately determined
using the following equation.
Sample size of stratum = Size of entire sample x Stratum size
Population size
The following sample sizes were generated for each stratum, Architects – 43, Civil Engineers – 185,
Electrical Engineers – 39, Mechanical Engineers – 28, Quantity Surveyors – 16.
Sampling Technique - To ensure that the data collected was reliable and adequate, it was necessary
to use a sample from a population that was homogeneous and comprehensive (Alreck and Settle,
1995). It was also important that such a population gives a true representation of professionals that
specialize in designing and constructing of building projects in Uganda. In this investigation,
purposive sampling techniques using maximum variation strategy which was regarded as a non-
probability sampling tool was adopted for selecting the target survey respondents. Teddlie and Yu
(2007) advocates that purposive sampling techniques are often used while carrying out research in the
construction industry when the researcher wants to select a purposive sample that represents a broader
group of cases as closely as possible or to set up comparisons amongst different types of cases on a
certain dimension of interest.
Questionnaire design - Following the review of relevant literature on the sustainable construction
practices and the factors that influence their application in the construction industry, an industry
questionnaire survey was developed, to capture the perception of construction professionals
(architects, structural engineers, electrical engineers, mechanical engineers and quantity surveyors)
regarding the significance of the identified sustainable construction methods and strategies and how
they are applied. The important aspect of using a questionnaire survey is that it has the advantage of
reaching a reasonably representative group of people in a short period of time, providing the means to
generate data that can be quantified and analyzed, thereby providing a chance to assess different issues
by collecting the views of people with different social, economic and geographical backgrounds
(Oppenheim, 2001).

Measurement Of Study Variables - Frequency of application of sustainable construction practices

was measured under environmental, economic, and social factors using the Linkert frequency scale of
5.

Pilot Survey - The questionnaire was pretested before an industry-wide survey was conducted. Five
subjects helped in in determining the validity and reliability of the questionnaire.

Questionnaire Reliability - The reliability of the questionnaire was tested using Cronbach's Alpha
was greater than 0.7 a value recommended by Nunnally (1978). This implied the questionnaire was
reliable and was fit to be used to conduct the survey. The survey package comprised of an introductory
letter and a set of questionnaires. A summary of the literature review were availed to the respondents
as an incentive to encourage participation and better understanding of the study variables.

Method Of Analysis
These two criteria for quantitative data were adopted for prioritizing the factors identified:
The mean rating of the factors were calculated using the formula

(3)
Where, Rm – Mean rating of that variable, RX – Rating given by the respondent and I – Number of
raters.
The Relative Importance Index from the variables was calculated using the formula

(4)
Where RII = Relative Importance Index; w = weighting as assigned by each respondent in the range
of 1 – 5; A = the highest weight (5); N = total number of valid responses (Ayman et al., 2005).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

EFA was used to extract the most import factors or dimensions that measured the study variables
inorder to do further analysis to answer objective 3 and 4 which was to identify the factors that
influence the applicability of sustainable construction practices and to determine the relationship
between the identified sustainable construction practices and the factors that influence their application
respectively.
To determine the sample adequacy and how suitable the data was for factor analysis Kaiser Meyer
Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s Test were used. KMO of 0.5 and above was taken to be adequate and
significancy of less than 0.05 for Bartlett’s Test suggested that there was a significant correlation for
the data for factor analysis ( Kaiser,1970; Cerny and Kaiser 1977; Dziuban & Shirkey,1974).
Communalities which signify the proportion of each variables’ variance that is explained by the factors
or items and how well individual item communalities explain the variable were also considered.
Communalities of 0.4 and above indicated that the items were closely related in measuring the study
variables in question. The closer the Communality variable to 1 the better the variable is explained by
the factors or items (Guttman,1956).
Factor analysis was used in data reduction to identify a small number of factors that explain common
threads linking the identified variables for measuring the application of sustainable practices. With
factor analysis, it was possible to investigate the number of underlying factors and, in many cases; one
can identify what the factors represent conceptually (Kothari, 2004).
Additionally, factor scores for each respondent were computed, which were then used in subsequent
analyses. The method used in Factor analysis was the principal component method of extraction and
varimax rotation method that gave the KMO, Bartlett’s test , communality table, percentage of variance
table and rotated component matrix table. Factor loadings of 0.5 and above were generated in the
component and rotated component matrix.
Factors with eigen values greater than 1 and factor loadings of 0.5 and above were extracted with their
corresponding percentage of variance that explained the level of measurement of the study variables
by the factors or items. Factors extracted were further used to compute the variables that were
subsequently used in the correlation and regression analysis.
Response rate - The general response rate was 79.9%. The response rate per stratum of the
representative sample was as follows; for architects was 100%, Civil Engineers was 74.6%, Electrical
Engineers was 66.7%, Mechanical Engineers was 82.1% and Quantity surveyors was 100%. These
percentages according to Kervin (1992, p.422) is acceptable.
Respondents Demographics - The percentage of the respondents from consulting firms was 36.3%,
Client was 22.8%, contracting firms was 20.8% and others was 20.1%. The total number of
respondents were 259 of which 196 were male and 63 were female. This gave a 75.7 percentage of
male respondents and 24.3 percentage of female respondents. The age bracket of the respondents was
as follows; for those below 29 years was 13.1%, 30-39 years was 59.5%, 40-49 years was 22% and
those 50 and above years was 5.4%. Most of the respondents were degree holders with a percentage
of 59.5, Master’s degree holders were at 22%, Post graduate diploma was at 16.6%, PHD was at .8%
and others at .8%.The responses from architects received was 56 which was 21.6% of the overall
responses, those from civil engineers was 138 which was 53.3% of the overall responses, quantity
surveyors was 16 which was 6.2% of the overall responses , electrical engineers was 26 which was
10% of the overall responses and mechanical engineers were 23 which was 8.9% of the overall
responses.The respondents with work experience between 6 to 10 years were 98 which was 37.8% of
the overall respondents, those with work experience between 11 and 20 years were 92 which was
35.5% of the overall respondents and those with work experience of 5 years and below were 53 which
was 20.5% of the overall respondents. The respondents who operated at top management were 43 with
an overall percentage of 16.6, the respondents who operated at Middle management were 96 with an
overall percentage of 37.1 and the respondents who operated as technical officers were 120 with an
overall percentage of 46.3.The respondents who worked in organizations with less than 5 staff
members were 10 with an overall percentage of 3.9, those with 6 to 10 staff members were 40 with an
overall percentage of 15.4, those with 11 to 20 staff members were 35 with an overall percentage of
13.5 those with 21 staff members and above were 174 with an overall percentage of 67.2.
Findings and Discussion
Rating Of Study Variables Factors Using Relative Importance Indices (RII)
Microsoft Excel and SPSS 26 were used to rank the factors of all study variables based on the relative
importance indices of the factors rated and the mean ratings as well as variance and SD. The descriptive
statistics of the responses as well as the mean rating and relative importance Indices (RII) of the
frequency of use of the study variables are shown in tables 1 to 3.
Table 1: Resource Conservation Mean Ratings and Relative Importance Indices (RII)

Material Conservation No. Mean SD Variance RII Ranking

Specifying durable materials 259 3.923 0.9813 0.963 0.7846 1
Planning for proper storage and disposal of
259 3.788 0.9909 0.982 0.7575 2
construction waste
Specifying non or less toxic materials are less
hazardous to construction workers and 259 3.687 0.9994 0.999 0.7375 3
building’s occupants.
Specifying Natural and Local Materials with
259 3.494 0.9976 0.995 0.6988 4
lower embodied energy and toxicity
Reuse of products that reduce the use of
259 3.429 0.9832 0.967 0.6857 5
resources and waste creation
Design for pollution prevention by specifying
materials manufactured by environmentally 259 3.363 1.2134 1.472 0.6726 6
responsible companies
Reducing construction waste by primarily
259 3.255 1.0733 1.152 0.6510 7
preventing its generation
Recycling of products that reduce the use of
259 3.035 1.0796 1.165 0.6069 8
resources and waste creation
Water conservation No. Mean SD Variance RII Ranking
Utilizing water-efficient plumbing fixtures to
259 3.749 0.9415 0.886 0.7498 1
minimize wastewater.
Collecting rainwater using rainwater and
259 3.456 1.0643 1.133 0.6911 2
grey water storage for irrigation
Pressure reduction that reduces the flow rate
259 3.069 1.0725 1.150 0.6139 3
from fixtures minimizing wastage.
Employ re-circulating systems for centralized
hot water distribution, which conserve water
which is typically wasted by users while 259 2.958 1.1952 1.428 0.5915 4
waiting for warm water to flow from a warm
water faucet.
Design for dual plumbing to use recycled
259 2.923 1.2302 1.513 0.5846 5
water
Land conservation No. Mean SD Variance RII Ranking
Adaptive reuse of existing building 259 3.324 0.9780 0.956 0.6649 1
Locate construction project close to existing
259 3.305 0.8868 0.786 0.6610 2
infrastructure
Development of non-arable lands for
259 3.069 1.2212 1.491 0.6139 3
construction

Under Material Conservation the highly ranked practice was Specifying durable materials followed
by Planning for proper storage and disposal of construction waste, Specifying non or less toxic
materials are less hazardous to construction workers and building’s occupants, Specifying Natural and
Local Materials with lower embodied energy and toxicity, Reuse of products that reduce the use of
resources and waste creation, Design for pollution prevention by specifying materials manufactured
by environmentally responsible companies, Reducing construction waste by primarily preventing its
generation and the least ranked being Recycling of products that reduce the use of resources and waste
creation.

Water conservation rankings showed highly ranked practice as Utilizing water-efficient plumbing
fixtures to minimize wastewater followed by Collecting rainwater using rainwater and grey water
storage for irrigation, Pressure reduction that reduces the flow rate from fixtures minimizing wastage,
Employ re-circulating systems for centralized hot water distribution, which conserve water which is
typically wasted by users while waiting for warm water to flow from a warm water faucet and the last
being Design for dual plumbing to use recycled water.

Land conservation rankings indicated the highly ranked as Adaptive reuse of existing building
followed by Locate construction project close to existing infrastructure and last being Development of
non-arable lands for construction
Table 2: Cost Efficiency Mean Ratings and Relative Importance Indices

Controlling Initial Construction Costs No. Mean SD Variance RII Ranking

Optimized use of locally-available materials 259 4.093 0.8800 0.774 0.8185 1
Use readily available materials 259 4.081 0.8877 0.788 0.8162 2
Employ cost saving technology that can be 259 3.950 0.9072 0.823 0.7900 3
managed locally
Use less expensive building materials and 259 3.664 0.9355 0.875 0.7328 4
reduce time required to assemble materials on
site
Utilize modular design and standardized 259 3.568 0.9636 0.929 0.7135 5
components
Use recycled materials 259 3.278 0.8892 0.791 0.6556 6
Use reclaimed materials 259 3.035 1.0430 1.088 0.6069 7
Controlling Cost in Use No. Mean SD Variance RII Ranking
Provide easy to understand access control for 259 4.019 0.9337 0.872 0.8039 1
occupants
Choose minimum maintenance materials 259 3.911 0.9744 0.949 0.7822 2
Protecting materials from destructive elements 259 3.876 0.9805 0.961 0.7753 3
such as sun, temperature variations, rain or
wind, or migration of moisture-laden air
through defects in the envelope
Design for regular cleaning, maintenance, and 259 3.865 0.9282 0.862 0.7730 4
repair
Ensure service life requirements of materials 259 3.815 0.9667 0.935 0.7629 5
and components
Controlling Recovery Costs No. Mean SD Variance RII Ranking
Exploring recycling potential 259 3.799 0.9796 0.960 0.7598 1
Reusing building materials or components 259 3.390 0.9351 0.874 0.6780 2
Ease of demolition 259 3.181 1.0239 1.048 0.6363 3
Adaptive reuse of an existing project 259 3.093 1.1710 1.371 0.6185 4

Controlling Initial Construction Costs practices were ranked in descending order as; Optimized use
of locally-available materials followed by use readily available materials, employ cost saving
technology that can be managed locally, use less expensive building materials and reduce time required
to assemble materials on site, utilize modular design and standardized components, use recycled
materials and use reclaimed materials.

Controlling Cost in Use practices were ranked in descending order as; Provide easy to understand
access control for occupants, choose minimum maintenance materials, protecting materials from
destructive elements such as sun, temperature variations, rain or wind, or migration of moisture-laden
air through defects in the envelope, design for regular cleaning, maintenance, and repair and ensure
service life requirements of materials and components.

Controlling Recovery Costs practices were ranked in descending order as; Exploring recycling
potential, reusing building materials or components, ease of demolition and adaptive reuse of an
existing project.
Table 3: Design for Human Adaptation Mean Ratings and Relative Importance Indices

Protecting Human Health and Comfort No. Mean SD Variance RII Ranking
Ensure Functionality of each space for 259 4.085 1.0531 1.109 0.8170 1
smooth operations of activities within the
building
Ensure natural ventilation of interior spaces 259 4.073 0.9142 0.836 0.8147 2
Ensure building is Aesthetically appealing 259 4.054 1.0139 1.028 0.8108 3
to the occupants and public
Ensure sufficient day light daylighting of 259 3.811 0.9059 0.821 0.7622 4
interior spaces
Ensure Acoustic comfort of occupants 259 3.768 1.0420 1.086 0.7537 5
Ensure Thermal comfort of occupants 259 3.517 0.9896 0.979 0.7035 6
Protecting Physical Resources No. Mean SD Variance RII Ranking
Resist Natural Hazard 259 4.035 1.0052 1.010 0.8069 1
Design for Fire Protection 259 4.015 0.9684 0.938 0.8031 2
Design for crime prevention 259 3.888 1.0111 1.022 0.7776 3
Design for Human Adaptation practices were; Protecting human health and comfort and
protecting physical resources. Their respective factors in order of frequency of use were as follows;

Regarding protecting human health and comfort, the number one ranked factor was ensure
functionality of each space for smooth operations of activities within the building followed by ensure
natural ventilation of interior spaces, ensure building is aesthetically appealing to the occupants and
public, ensure sufficient day light day lighting of interior spaces, ensure acoustic comfort of occupants
and ensure thermal comfort of occupants.

Regarding protecting physical resources practice had number one ranked factor as resist natural
hazard, design for fire protection and design for crime prevention.
The extent to which sustainable construction practices are applied in the construction industry, factor
analysis and mean ratings with relative importance indices were used on frequency of use of
sustainable construction practices in the construction industry in relation to resource conservation, cost
efficiency and design for human adaptation. The results indicated 62.56% of resource conservation,
56.83% cost efficiency and 56.69 % human adaptation respectively as shown in the tables 4 to 12.
EFA FOR IMPORTANCE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION
Table 4: KMO and Bartlett's Test for Resource conservation
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .756
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 448.330
df 21
Sig. .000
Table 5: Communalities for Resource conservation
Communalities
Initial Extraction
Recycling of products that reduce the use of resources and waste creation 1.000 .544
Specifying Natural and Local Materials with lower embodied energy and toxicity 1.000 .461
Specifying non or less toxic materials are less hazardous to construction workers and building’s occupants. 1.000 .695
Design for dual plumbing to use recycled water 1.000 .705
Employ re-circulating systems for centralized hot water distribution, which conserve water which is typically 1.000 .740
wasted by users while waiting for warm water to flow from a warm water faucet.
Pressure reduction that reduces the flow rate from fixtures minimizing wastage. 1.000 .674
Locate construction project close to existing infrastructure 1.000 .560
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Table 6: Total Variance explained for Resource conservation

Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.993 42.756 42.756 2.993 42.756 42.756 2.690 38.424 38.424
2 1.386 19.802 62.557 1.386 19.802 62.557 1.689 24.133 62.557
3 .813 11.610 74.167
4 .694 9.915 84.083
5 .453 6.467 90.550
6 .391 5.585 96.135
7 .271 3.865 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Table 7: Rotated Component Matrix for Resource conservation

Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
Water Material
Conservation Conservation
Design for dual plumbing to use recycled water .838
Employ re-circulating systems for centralized hot water distribution, which conserve water .832
which is typically wasted by users while waiting for warm water to flow from a warm water
faucet.
Pressure reduction that reduces the flow rate from fixtures minimizing wastage. .787
Locate construction project close to existing infrastructure .748
Specifying non or less toxic materials are less hazardous to construction workers and building’s .832
occupants.
Recycling of products that reduce the use of resources and waste creation .737
Specifying Natural and Local Materials with lower embodied energy and toxicity .590
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

From the Exploratory Factor Analysis of designing for resource conservation factors the extent of use
was 62.6%.

EFA FOR IMPORTANCE OF COST EFFICIENCY

Table 8: KMO and Bartlett's Test Cost efficiency
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .774
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 826.866
df 66
Sig. .000

Table 9: Communalities for Cost efficiency

Communalities
Initial Extraction
Optimized use of locally-available materials 1.000 .552
Employ cost saving technology that can be managed locally 1.000 .576
Use less expensive building materials and reduce time required to assemble materials on site 1.000 .501
Use readily available materials 1.000 .677
Use reclaimed materials 1.000 .535
Ensure service life requirements of materials and components 1.000 .463
Exploring recycling potential 1.000 .576
Ease of demolition 1.000 .675
Adaptive reuse of an existing project 1.000 .563
Reusing building materials or components 1.000 .522
Protecting materials from destructive elements such as sun, temperature variations, rain or wind, or migration of 1.000 .624
moisture-laden air through defects in the envelope
Provide easy to understand access control for occupants 1.000 .556
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Table 10: Total Variance Explained for Cost Efficiency

Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 3.475 28.958 28.958 3.475 28.958 28.958 2.755 22.957 22.957
2 2.183 18.193 47.152 2.183 18.193 47.152 2.220 18.500 41.456
3 1.161 9.678 56.830 1.161 9.678 56.830 1.845 15.374 56.830
4 .923 7.694 64.524
5 .792 6.601 71.125
6 .715 5.956 77.081
7 .589 4.904 81.985
8 .543 4.526 86.512
9 .473 3.946 90.457
10 .419 3.493 93.950
11 .397 3.310 97.260
12 .329 2.740 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Table 11: Rotated Component Matrix for Cost efficiency

Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
Controlling Controlling Initial Controlling
Recovery Costs Construcyion Costs Cost in Use
Ease of demolition .801
Adaptive reuse of an existing project .740
Use reclaimed materials .720
Reusing building materials or components .715
Exploring recycling potential .673
Use readily available materials .807
Use less expensive building materials and reduce time required to .698
assemble materials on site
Optimized use of locally-available materials .664
Employ cost saving technology that can be managed locally .644
Provide easy to understand access control for occupants .745
Protecting materials from destructive elements such as sun, temperature .718
variations, rain or wind, or migration of moisture-laden air through
defects in the envelope
Ensure service life requirements of materials and components .605
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
From the Exploratory Factor Analysis of Cost Efficiency factors the extent was use was determined as
56.8%.
EFA FOR IMPORTANCE OF DESIGN FOR HUMAN ADAPTATION

Table 12: KMO and Bartlett's Test for Design for human adaptation
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .629
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 291.682
df 6
Sig. .000

Table 13: Communalities for Design for human adaptation

Communalities
Initial Extraction
Ensure Thermal comfort of occupants 1.000 .616
Ensure Acoustic comfort of occupants 1.000 .421
Ensure natural ventilation of interior spaces 1.000 .633
Ensure Functionality of each space for smooth operations of activities within the building 1.000 .598
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Table 14: Total Variance Explained for Design for human adaptation
Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.267 56.687 56.687 2.267 56.687 56.687
2 .946 23.648 80.335
3 .468 11.702 92.037
4 .319 7.963 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Table 15: Rotated Component Matrix for Design for human adaptation
Component Matrixa
Component
Protecting Human Health and Comfort
Ensure natural ventilation of interior spaces .795
Ensure Thermal comfort of occupants .785
Ensure Functionality of each space for smooth operations of activities within the building .773
Ensure Acoustic comfort of occupants .649
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.
From the Exploratory Factor Analysis of designing for human adaptation factors the extent of use was
56.7%
Major Sustainable Construction Practices
The findings of the study indicated the major sustainable construction practices under resource
conservation, cost efficiency and design for human adaption.

Resource conservation
The findings indicated that material, water and land conservation are major sustainable construction
practices.
Under Material Conservation the highly ranked practice was specifying durable materials followed
by planning for proper storage and disposal of construction waste, specifying non or less toxic
materials that are less hazardous to construction workers and building’s occupants, specifying natural
and local materials with lower embodied energy and toxicity, reuse of products that reduce the use of
resources and waste creation, design for pollution prevention by specifying materials manufactured by
environmentally responsible companies, reducing construction waste by primarily preventing its
generation and the least ranked being recycling of products that reduce the use of resources and waste
creation. The findings are in line with Akadiri (2018) that indicated that maintenance demand was the
most important factor that determined the selection of materials irrespective of the choice of client and
climate. The findings also confirm that the sustainability of a building can be enhanced by increasing
the durability of its materials (Malholtra, 2002) as durability of materials was the highest ranked
factor. The findings also are in conformity with Abeysundara et al. (2009), Coventry et
al.(2001),Greenwood (2003)) who demonstrate that building consultants have an important role to
play in construction waste minimization and reduction. The study findings show that waste
minimization is highly ranked and should be addressed as part of the project sustainability agenda
throughout the design process which is in conformity with Alinaitwe (2009).

Water conservation rankings showed highly ranked practice as utilizing water-efficient plumbing
fixtures to minimize wastewater followed by collecting rainwater using rainwater and grey water
storage for irrigation, pressure reduction that reduces the flow rate from fixtures minimizing wastage,
employing re-circulating systems for centralized hot water distribution, which conserve water which
is typically wasted by users while waiting for warm water to flow from a warm water faucet and the
last being design for dual plumbing to use recycled water. This is in conformity with Ilha et al.(2009)
who observed that water conservation technologies and strategies were often the most overlooked
aspects of a whole-building design strategy as strategies that involved technological application were
ranked low.

Land conservation rankings indicated the highly ranked as adaptive reuse of existing building followed
by locating construction project close to existing infrastructure and last being development of non-
arable lands for construction. This was in conformity to Haberl (2004) and Akadiri et al.(2012)’s
findings were their findings indicated that the expansion of urban areas showed the importance of land
as a vital indicator of sustainability with the potential to become an absolute indicator of sustainable
construction.
Cost Efficiency
Under the practice of controlling initial construction costs the findings of the study ranked in
descending order; optimized use of locally-available materials followed by use readily available
materials, employing cost saving technology that can be managed locally which was in conformity
with Markarian(2005) who states that sharply rising energy costs have highlighted the opportunity for
overall savings in the life of a building that can be achieved by investing in more energy efficient
solutions initially, use less expensive building materials and reduce time required to assemble materials
on site, utilize modular design and standardized components, use recycled materials and least ranked
as use reclaimed materials.

The practices of Controlling cost in use were ranked as; providing easy to understand access control
for occupants as the highest ranked followed by choose minimum maintenance materials and least
ranked as protecting materials from destructive elements such as sun, temperature variations, rain or
wind, or migration of moisture-laden air through defects in the envelope, design for regular cleaning,
maintenance, and repair and ensure service life requirements of materials and components. The
findings are in conformity with Myers (2022) who states that a building’s economic operation should
be considered throughout the construction stage and also in terms of its maintenance and conservation
throughout its useful life

Controlling Recovery Costs practices were ranked as; exploring recycling potential as the highest
ranked followed by reusing building materials or components, ease of demolition and least ranked as
adaptive reuse of an existing project.

The findings are in line with Emmitt & Yeomans (2008) who state that the construction clients are
demanding assurance of their buildings’ long-term economic performance and Wesonga et al. (2023)’s
findings that the total building life cycle costs measured affordability and cost of building projects in
Uganda. The findings also confirm Akadiri et al.( 2012)‘s research that the concept of sustainability
as applied to the construction of buildings is intended to promote the utmost efficiency and to reduce
financial costs.

Design For Human Adaption

Design for human adaptation practices were as; protecting human health and comfort and protecting
physical resources

With protecting human health and comfort, the number one ranked factor was ensure functionality of
each space for smooth operations of activities within the building followed by ensure natural
ventilation of interior spaces, ensure building is aesthetically appealing to the occupants and public,
ensure sufficient day light day lighting of interior spaces, ensure acoustic comfort of occupants and
ensure thermal comfort of occupants.

Protecting physical resources practice had number one ranked factor was resist natural hazard, design
for fire protection and design for crime prevention.

This confirmed the existing literature that protecting human health and comfort in terms of thermal
comfort, acoustic comfort, daylighting, natural ventilation, functionality and aesthetics as alluded by
sev (2009), adgate et al.(2002), oral et al. (2004), edwards ( 2006) and protecting physical resources
by design for fire protection, resist natural hazards, design for crime prevention are critical strategies
for designing building for human adaption as highlighted by mousavi et al. (2008) and marzbali et
al. (2011).
Extent To Which Sustainable Construction Practices Are Applied In The Construction Industry
The findings indicated that the strategies applied in construction practices were all above average
within the categories of resource conservation, cost efficiency and design for human adaptation and
the results indicated 62.56% of resource conservation, 56.83% cost efficiency and 56.69 % human
adaptation respectively. The study indicated that resource conservation was the most applied strategy
followed by cost efficiency and design for human adaption. This is in conformity with Parkin et al,
2003 who states that achieving sustainable development requires balancing economic, social, and
environmental pillars of sustainability. Any imbalance between the three dimensions would reduce
sustainability Edum-Fotwe and Prince (2009)

With design for human adaptation the most significant practices were Protecting human health and
comfort in terms of ensuring natural ventilation of interior spaces, ensure sufficient day light day
lighting of interior spaces, ensure functionality of each space for smooth operations of activities within
the building, ensure thermal comfort of occupants, ensure acoustic comfort of occupants, ensure
building is aesthetically appealing to the occupants and public.
Protecting physical resources in terms of design for fire protection, resist natural hazard
and design for crime prevention.

Material conservation the most significant practices were practices were specifying none or less toxic
materials are less hazardous to construction workers and building’s occupants followed by specifying
durable materials, planning for proper storage and disposal of construction waste, design for pollution
prevention by specifying materials manufactured by environmentally responsible companies,
specifying natural and local materials with lower embodied energy and toxicity, reuse of products that
reduce the use of resources and waste creation, recycling of products that reduce the use of resources
and waste creation and reducing construction waste by primarily preventing its generation.

Under water conservation the most significant practices were practices were utilizing water-efficient
plumbing fixtures to minimize wastewater , collecting rainwater using rainwater and grey water
storage for irrigation, design for dual plumbing to use recycled water, employ re-circulating systems
for centralized hot water distribution which conserve water which is typically wasted by users while
waiting for warm water to flow from a warm water faucet and pressure reduction that reduces the flow
rate from fixtures minimizing wastage.

Under land conservation the practices were adaptive reuse of existing building, locate construction
project close to existing infrastructure and development of non-arable lands for construction.

Conclusions
The study established the top sustainable construction practices of resource conservation in Uganda
under material conservation as specifying durable materials, planning for proper storage and disposal
of construction waste, specifying non or less toxic materials are less hazardous to construction workers
and building’s occupants, Specifying Natural and Local Materials with lower embodied energy and
toxicity, under water conservation as Utilizing water-efficient plumbing fixtures to minimize
wastewater, collecting rain water, using rain water and grey water storage for irrigation, under land
conservation as adaptive reuse of existing building and locate construction project close to existing
infrastructure and Development of non-arable lands for construction
The study established the top sustainable construction practices of design for human adaption in
Uganda under Protecting Human Health and Comfort as Ensure Functionality of each space for smooth
operations of activities within the building, ensure natural ventilation of interior spaces, ensure
building is Aesthetically appealing to the occupants and public, ensure sufficient day light day lighting
of interior spaces, ensure Acoustic comfort of occupants and ensure Thermal comfort of occupants,
under Protecting Physical Resources as Resist Natural Hazard, design for Fire Protection and for crime
prevention.

The study established that the extent of application of sustainable construction practices in Uganda as
62.56% for resource conservation, 56.83% for cost efficiency and 56.69% for human adaptation. This
confirmed that sustainability embraces the three themes of environmental, social and economic
accountability often known as the triple bottom line by UN Commission on Sustainable Development.

Considering the outcomes of this study, the following recommendations would be of great importance:
1. Training and Awareness on the top identified sustainable construction practices.
The study established and ranked the top sustainable construction practices in Uganda under material
conservation , water conservation, land conservation, controlling initial construction costs, controlling
cost in use, controlling recovery costs, protecting human health and comfort, protecting physical
resources. More training and awareness on the top identified sustainable construction practices to the
different stakeholders is a viable way of aiding all the different stakeholders in making better decisions
while implementing building construction projects.
Government through its regulating bodies should spearhead mass awareness of sustainable
construction practices and their benefits. The study showed that the extent to which sustainable
construction practices are applied, and the percentages were just above average and needed to be
enhanced so that sustainable construction gets at the center stage in the construction of buildings.
2. Government Regulations and Policies that promote the implementation of sustainable
construction practices
There is a general need for new regulations and improvement of the existing regulations regarding the
implementation of sustainable construction practices. Improvement in government regulations and
policies that offered incentives to those that promoted sustainable construction practices would enable
all the stakeholders to adopt sustainable construction, hence promoting sustainability.
3. Professional Collaborations and Engagement
Fellow professionals can inspire and educate each other on issues regarding sustainable construction
issues. Continuous Professional Development programs focussed on sustainable construction practices
should be encouraged amongst the professional bodies of Architects, Engineers and Quantity
surveyors. This will enable professionals gain and improve their skill set in implementing sustainable
projects. A starting point could be the identified top sustainable construction practices as the study
suggests that they are highly applicable in the Ugandan context.
4. Top Management Attitude
Top management of consultancy and construction firms needs to put in place key measures in their
firms that enable construction projects to be designed and implemented in a sustainable way.

Government should put in place policies in form of incentives to firms that implement sustainable
construction practices as a way to improve and change the top management attitude of firms in
construction towards sustainable construction.
5. Quality and Availability Construction Data about sustainable construction practices
There is need to develop a database of quality construction information about sustainable construction
practices that is readily available to enable all stakeholders to make more informed decisions about
implementing sustainable construction practices. This is because the study identified the major
sustainable construction practices whose implementation largely depends on available information in
a given context.
Construction and consultancy firms should be encouraged to share inform on materials, project costs
and challenges faced as they implement construction projects. This would improve the knowledge
base the applicability of construction practices and techniques in Uganda.
6. Incorporate Technology in Developing Building Projects
The industry should embrace technology in form of using BIM (Building Information Modelling) to
ensure the planning, design, and construction of buildings is highly efficient and collaborative. This
would minimize on material wastage and improve on the cost efficiency of projects.

Limitations and Opportunities for Further Research

Due to the research objectives the study did not explore whether there was any significant relationships
about the perceptions of sustainable construction practices amongst the different professionals. Further
research can be carried out to explore the differences and similarities regarding how the different
professionals perceive sustainable construction practices.

The research did not explore the existing informal sustainable construction practices which is an area
that needs to be investigated for future research.

The study used a questionnaire as the main tool for collecting qualitative and quantitative data, further
qualitative research would allow for the issues raised in the study to be explored in more depth.
Interviews with respondents could verify the findings more and give a detailed explanation of their
responses this was not possible due to limitations on time and resources.
There was also a challenge of reluctance of some respondents to participate, delays in getting feedback
and others who promised to respond but did not.

Although the results only reported on some local findings, they are also vital to other developing
countries for international comparisons.

References
Abeysundara, U. G. Y., Babel, S., & Gheewala, S. (2009). A matrix in life cycle perspective for
selecting sustainable materials for buildings in Sri Lanka. Building and Environment, 44(5),
997–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.07.005
Adgate, J. L., Ramachandran, G., Pratt, G. C., Waller, L. A., & Sexton, K. (2002). Spatial and temporal
variability in outdoor, indoor, and personal PM2.5 exposure. Atmospheric Environment, 36(20),
3255–3265. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1352-2310(02)00326-6
Akadiri, P.O. (2018). Investigating factors influencing building materials selection in Nigerian
Construction Industry. American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 6(4), 154–157.
https://doi.org/10.12691/ajcea-6-4-4
Akadiri, P. O., & Olomolaiye, P. O. (2012). Development of Sustainable Assessment Criteria for
Building Materials Selection. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 19(6),
666–687. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699981211277568
Akadiri, P. O., Chinyio, E. A., & Olomolaiye, P. O. (2012). Design of a sustainable building: A
conceptual framework for implementing sustainability in the building sector. Buildings, 2(2),
126–152. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings2020126
Alinaitwe, H. M., Mwakali, J. A., & Hansson, B. (2007). Factors affecting the productivity of
building craftsmen - Studies of Uganda. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 13(3),
169e176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 13923730.2007.9636434.
Alinaitwe, H.M. (2009) Prioritizing Lean Construction Barriers in Uganda’s Construction Industry
Alreck, P.L. and Settle, R.B. (1995). The Survey Research Handbook, 2nd ed., Irwin, Boston, MA.
Asha, M , J. (2019). Analysis of Sustainability in Building Construction, International Journal for
Modern Trends in Science and Technology, Vol. 05, Issue 11, pp: 58-62.
Bon, R. (1992). The future of international construction: secular patterns of
growth and decline, Habitat International, 16(3), 119–28
Brennan, M. and Cotgrave, A.J. (2014). Sustainable development: a qualitative inquiry into
Building Research Establishment (BRE), 2004, Building Research Establishment
Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), BRE, London, viewed on 11 July 2022,
http://products.bre.co.uk/breeam/index.html.
Cerny, B. A., & Kaiser, H. F. (1977). A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for factor-
analytic correlation matrices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12(1), 43–
47. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1201_3
CIB. (1999). Agenda 21 on sustainable construction, CIB report publication 237, CIB, Rotterdam,
 The Netherlands.
Coventry, S., Shorter, B., Kingsley, M. (2001). Demonstrating Waste Minimisation Benefits in
Construction; CIRIA C536; Construction Industry Research and Information Association
(CIRIA): London, UK.
Du Plessis, C. (2002). Agenda 21 for Sustainable Construction in Developing Countries: A discussion
document, report for CSIR, CIB and UNEP-IETC, Pretoria, available at www.cibworld.nl
Du Plessis, C. (2007). A strategic framework for sustainable construction in developing
countries, Construction Management and Economics, 25: 67–76
Edum-Fotwe, F. T., & Price, A. D. F. (2009). A social ontology for appraising sustainability
of construction projects and developments. International Journal of Project Management,
27(4), 313e322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijproman.2008.04.003.
Edwards, B. (2006). Benefits of green offices in the UK: Analysis from examples built in the
1990s.
Sustainable Development, 14(3), 190–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.263
Emmitt, S., Yeomans, D.T. (2008). Specifying Buildings: A Design Management Perspective, 2nd
ed.,Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Fellows, R., & Liu, A. (2015). Research methods for construction. US: Wiley-Blackwell.

Greenwood, R. (2003), Construction Waste Minimization - Good Practice Guide; CriBE (Centre
for Research in the Build Environment): Cardiff, UK.
Guttman, L. (1956). Best Possible -Systematic estimates of communalities. Psychometrika,
21,273- 285. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289137
Haberl, H. (2004), Human appropriation of net primary production and species diversity in
agricultural landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ, 102, 213–218.
Halliday, S. (2018). Sustainable Construction (2nd ed.).
Routledge.https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315514819
Ilha, M.S.O., Oliveira, L.H., Gonçalves, O.M. (2009). Environmental assessment of residential
buildings with an emphasis on water conservation. Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol, 30, 15–26.

Johnson, S. D. (2000). The Economic Case for High Performance Building. Englewood:
CH2MHill 1-20.

Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35(4), 401-

415. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291817

Kibwami, N., & Tutesigensi, A. (2016). Enhancing sustainable construction in the building sector in
Uganda. Habitat International, 57, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.06.011
Kilbert, C.J., (1994). Principles of Sustainable Construction. Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Sustainable Construction, 6-9 November, Tampa, Florida, USA, Page 1-9.
Kothari, C.R. (2004) Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. 2nd Edition, New Age
International Publishers, New Delhi.
Marzbali, M.H.; Abdullah, A.; Razak, N.A.; Tilaki, M.J.M. (2011). A review of the effectiveness of
crime prevention by design approaches towards sustainable development. J. Sustain. Dev., 4,
160–172.
McCormack, M.S.; Treloar, G.J.; Palmowski, L.; Crawford, R.H. (2007) Modelling direct and
indirect water consumption associated with construction. Build. Res. Inf., 35, 156–162.

Mousavi, S., Bagchi, A., & Kodur, V. K. R. (2008). Review of post-earthquake fire hazard to building
structures. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 35(7), 689–698. https://doi.org/10.1139/l08-
029
Myers, D. (2022). Construction Economics: A new approach. Fifth Edition, Routledge, New York,
USA.
Nunnally J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.), McGraw-Hill: New York
Oberg, M. (2005). Integrated Life Cycle Design—Applied to Concrete Multidwelling Buildings;
Lund University, Division of Building Materials: Lund, Sweden.
Okello, C., Pindozzi, S., Faugno, S., & Boccia, L. (2013). Development of bioenergy technologies in
Uganda: A review of progress. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 18(0), 55e63.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.004.
Oppenheim, A.N. (2001). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, New
edition, Continuum, New York, NY.
Oral, G.K., Yener, A.K., Bayazit, N.T. (2004). Building envelope design with the objective to
ensure thermal, visual and acoustic comfort conditions. J. Build. Environ, 39, 281–287.

Sev, A. (2009). How can the construction industry contribute to sustainable development? A
conceptual framework. Sustainable Development, 17(3), 161–173.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.373

Shen, L.Y. & Tam, W.Y.V. (2002). Implementing of environmental management in the Hong Kong
construction industry, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 535-543.
Shi, L., Ye, K., Lu, W., & Hu, X. (2014). Improving the competence of construction management
consultants to underpin sustainable construction in China. Habitat International, 41, 236e242.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.habitatint.2013.08.002.
Spence, R.; Mulligan, H. (1995). Sustainable development and the construction industry. Habitat
Int. , 19, 279–292.
Teddlie, C. and Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: a typology with examples , Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 77-100.
UNEP. (2022). 2022 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Towards a Zero‑emission,
Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. Nairobi.
UNESCO.(2003). Water for People, Water for Life: The United Nations World Water Development
Report; United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization & Berghahn Books:
Barcelona, Spain.
Wesonga, R., Kasedde, H., Kibwami, N., & Manga, M. (2023). A comparative analysis of thermal
performance, annual energy use, and life cycle costs of low-cost houses made with mud bricks
and earthbag wall systems in Sub-Saharan africa. Energy and Built Environment, 4(1), 13–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbenv.2021.06.001
William, D., Sourani, A. D., Sertyesilisik, B., & Tunstall, A. (2013). Sustainable Construction:
Analysis of its costs and benefits. American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 1(2),
32e38. http://dx.doi.org/10.12691/ajcea-1-22.
Wilson, A.; Uncapher, J.L.; McManigal, L.; Lovins, H.L.; Cureton, M.; Browning, W.D. (1998).
Green Development: Integrating Ecology and Real Estate; John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: New York,
NY, USA.
Yates, A. (2001). Quantifying the Business Benefits of Sustainable Buildings. Watford: BRE. 1-
24.
Zuo, J., Read, B., Pullen, S., & Shi, Q. (2012). Achieving carbon neutrality in commercial building
developments e Perceptions of the construction industry. Habitat International, 36(2), 278e286.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.habitatint.2011.10.010.