BARRIERS AND DRIVERS OF SUSTAINABLE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT IN LAGOS METROPOLIS, NIGERIA

Basirat Oyalowo, Department of Estate Management, University of Lagos. boyalowo@unilag.edu.ngpresented at the CIB 2014 Conference, Orchid Hotels, Lekki, Lagos Nigeria.

28th-30th January, 2014.

Introduction

• The seemingly low levels of uptake of sustainable buildings, and the confusion about what sustainable development means, is a cause for concern given the amount of built environment development that is projected to take place in Africa over the next few decades

IntroductionPurpose of the study• to ascertain empirically, with the use of a lifecycle based

conceptualization of sustainable buildings, the barriers and drivers of the sustainable property uptake in an urban area.

Objectives • To identify the barriers and drivers of sustainable buildings • To identify the property sector that could potentially drive the

movement• To determine whether conventional management techniques

are likely to be used in managing sustainable buildings.

Scope

• Study is limited to identifying barriers and drivers of the uptake of sustainable building construction process and the possible challenges to managing these buildings, once constructed.

• The sustainable building- rather than the sustainable construction industry in its entirety -therefore is the singular unit of interest in this study.

• It is hoped that the study would provoke further research in other areas of sustainable construction

Defining SB• Requires a holistic, lifecycle based definition; which

can be localized to capture various local (economic/regional) perspectives.

• Predesign: Sustainability in Site selection (Salami & Olaniyan 2010)

• Design: promotes the use of environmentally friendly facilities, takes cognizance of the changing productive and functional requirements of occupiers, investors and general public (Hakkinen & Belloni 2011).

• Construction: promotes the use of cost-saving, non-toxic, recycled and environmentally friendly building materials (Rohde & Lutzenkorf 2009).

Defining SB• Performance: has reduced resource consumption, promotes

occupiers’ health and well- being (Kibert, 2007; Myers et al., 2007)– preserves its capital and material value, including social values and

public goods (Lutzenkorf & Lorenz (2011). – Sustainability in waste disposal

• Deconstruction/Disposal: deconstruction through recycling rather than dismantling and demolition.

• Whole-term life-cycle considerations: – improves quality of its environment – serve the long term social, economic and environmental requirements

of its users, investors, general public, while also achieving a reduced environmental footprint (Addae-Dapaah et al., 2009; Myers et al., 2007; Rohde & Lutzenkorf, 2009).

Barriers and drivers of SB from the literature

• Government Regulations : Al Naser and Flanagan (2007); Stilwell (2000); Sayce et al (2004)

• Lack of expertise and resources for green building approvals: (Hakkinen & Belloni, 2011).

• Lack of a business case for sustainable buildings that provide evidence of increased values (rents and yields) for investors . (Choi 2009) and Sayce et al (2004)

• Lack of lifecycle thinking (Hakkinen & Belloni, 2011; Sayce et all, 2011)

• Infancy of ecological design and difficulties in defining the sustainable building materials, articulating sustainable building deconstruction and disassembling products Choi (2009) and Kibert (2007)

• Plurality of meanings of sustainable buildings Choi (2009)

Management of SB from the literature

• Based on the third tripod of sustainability: Social Sustainability• Challenges the property manager to apply management

techniques wider than is found under the principal-agent relationship that dominates conventional property management practice.

• an alliance between the property manager and all building stakeholders. (Kemp et al, 2005; Robinson, 2005)

• Management focus is not only on the buildings and its infrastructure; but also on the people who have to work or live in them, and managing these people as a fundamental and worthy resource in their own right (Kemp et al, 2005; Robinson, 2005).

Management of SB from the literature

Specific management actions include• Reduce operating costs, • Reduce utility and resource consumption• Reduce carbon emissions. • Enhance resource recovery and property returns

efficiency • Ensure buildings conform to regulations and

legislations (Griffin, 2009; Oyalowo & Agbato, 2012; Pivo 2005; Robinson, 2005).

• Managing occupiers and other stakeholders as a worthy resource in their own right

Methodology Study Population

– Estate Surveyors and Valuers (NIESV)– Real Estate Developers (REDAN)Sample, Sample Size– 68 of REDAN members are registered to practice in Lagos. Questionnaires were

distributed to all of these, with a return rate of 30 (44%). – Over 281 registered estate surveying firms are located in Lagos Metropolis– The firms were divided into 3 geographical clusters: Ikeja, Victoria Island,

Yaba/Surulere.– Questionnaires were administered to designated property managers across 50%

(140) of these firms. In all, 70 questionnaires were retrieved and form the basis of subsequent analysis.

Study AreaLagos Metropolis: Nigeria’s real estate capitalSampling Instrument– Semi-structured questionnaire

Findings

• Uptake of SB predicted in the high income residential sector (compared to the commercial office space sector in developed countries (GVA Grimley, 2007).

• A significant proportion of respondents (68%) believed that cost of construction is a barrier to sustainable building uptake.

• higher cost of maintenance was also mentioned by respondents as a significant feature of sustainable property,

• Similar to research findings by Goering (2009), Simons, Choi & Simons (2009) and GVA-Grimley (2007);

• respondents in this study noted that lack of supportive building regulations could be a significant barrier, but that the government as a developer and regulator of sustainable buildings would be the most important promoter of sustainable buildings.

• The majority of the property developers declared a preference for the use of the technique at the highest rung of the participatory ladder that is, ‘supporting independent community interests’, wherein occupiers are organized and supported to develop implementable ideas for the management of the property they occupy. This could be done by investigating and adapting management practices in other sustainable properties.

• However, the property manager group predominately chose ‘information’ which involves relating management decisions (usually made together between property owner and property manager) to the occupiers.

Conclusion• Developing a sustainable property sector is not a challenge

that could be met in the short run. • Immediate acquisition of the appropriate technical skill and

social re-engineering by stakeholders recommended • The practice of estate management in the SB sector should

be anticipatory, strategic, sustainability-led and concerned with learning, innovation, participation and adaptation.

• Property managers should therefore update their knowledge-base to be competent at delivering sustainable building management, as it requires competences different from the management of a conventional building.