Cleaner Engineering and Technology 9 (2022) 100531

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cleaner Engineering and Technology

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/cleaner-engineering-and-technology

Carbon footprint management: A review of construction industry

Yahaya Hassan Labaran a, b, *, Vivek Shankar Mathur a, Shehu Usman Muhammad b,
Auwal Alhassan Musa b, c
a
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sharda University, India
b
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Kano University of Science and Technology, Wudil, Kano, Nigeria
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Mewar, University, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Climate change is happening now, it is increasing presently, it is affecting us even more, and it will have a
Carbon footprint massive impact on us unless immediate and systemic action is taken to reduce and respond to its devastating
Mitigation consequences. One of such actions is the management of carbon emission from the construction industry, as it is
Management
one of the major sectors that contributes a substantial amount of greenhouse gases into our environment. Several
Greenhouse gas
efforts were made by many researchers towards developing various standards, techniques, and tools to assist in
Lifecycle assessment
Construction the management of the greenhouse gas emission from the industry. Some of these efforts include the green
Global warming building concept itself, development of various rating systems, and sustainable construction materials. As such,
Sustainable this paper reviewed the several contributions of these researchers across the globe towards this dimension. And,
Construction material after a thoroughly analysis of some of these contributions, it was found that there are inadequate research
Green building findings on the interconnected relationship between different drivers that are linked to low-carbon construction,
Rating system highlighting the significant need for the establishment of an internationally recognized rating system under the
United Nations which will include the measurements and quantification of the carbon footprint as one of its main
parameters.

1. Introduction consumption of fossil fuel have increased at an alarming rate, causing

The troubling issues facing the world today are the rising accumu­
lation of greenhouse gases and consequent global warming (Tathagat
and Dod, 2015). The effect of global warming is becoming more
extreme, and the average temperature levels are being surpassed every
year. Ice is melting at unprecedented levels, and natural disasters have
become more frequent and more extreme (Jackson, 2020). Climate
change has now been proven to be a man-made phenomenon resulting
from the injection of massive quantities of GHG into the environment
(Jackson, 2020) (Monahan Housing and reduction, 2013). If the volume
of all these gases continues to rise in the environment, the earth’s surface
temperature also rises quickly above the previous levels. Thus, accord­
ing to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
the mean temperature of the earth has increased in the last 100 years by
about 1.2–1.4 ◦ F (National Construction Sector Lead U.S., 2009). Also,
Surenthira S.R., et al. (Stephen Ramachanderan and Kumar Ven­
kiteswaran Yap, 2017) reported that the emissions from the
the average global temperature to rise by 1.4 ◦ F over the last century,
and are projected to increase further between 2 ◦ F and 11.5 ◦ F in the
next hundred years (Stephen Ramachanderan and Kumar Ven­
kiteswaran Yap, 2017). After 1850, the eight warmest recorded seasons
have all happened from 1998, with the warmest year in 2005 (National
Construction Sector Lead U.S., 2009). Much of these warming over the
past few decades have possibly resulted from the various human activ­
ities, including manufacturing, transportation, mining, and construction
activities, etc. (National Construction Sector Lead U.S., 2009). The
construction industry made significant contributions during the indus­
trial age toward the carbon emissions increment in our environment
(Jackson, 2020). Constructions account for almost half of all energy
usage and use of raw material worldwide (Adebowale Philips Akinyemi
et al., 2017). Various construction activities lead to environmental
pollution through land clearing, equipment’s engine emissions, demo­
lition, burning, and use of dangerous chemicals, among others (Ade­
bowale Philips Akinyemi et al., 2017). In his study on the carbon
emissions from the construction industry in Australia (Man Yu, et al.),

* Corresponding author. Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sharda University, India

E-mail address: yahayakura@gmail.com (Y.H. Labaran).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2022.100531
Received 27 May 2021; Received in revised form 29 May 2022; Accepted 4 July 2022
Available online 8 July 2022
2666-7908/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Y.H. Labaran et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 9 (2022) 100531

reported that the direct emissions of greenhouse gases from the con­
struction industry in Australia were estimated to be around 9.5 Mt CO2e
in 2013 while the carbon footprint was 90.3 Mt of CO2 equivalent,
representing 1.9% and 18.1% of the total emission from the country (Yu
et al., 2017). Out of this, construction of residential housing accounted
for about 21.5 Mt of the total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, 15.1
Mt of CO2e for the construction of non-residential housing, road and
bridge construction 8.9 Mt of CO2e, while 42.7 Mt of CO2e was from
other heavy civil engineering developments (Yu et al., 2017). They also
found that construction services with 54.8 percent of embodied emis­
sions generate the largest amount of carbon footprint. While the
remaining 14.6 percent, 11.8 percent, 9.9 percent, 4.7 percent, and 4.2
percent are from housing construction, heavy construction, non-housing
construction, building imports, and transportation infrastructure,
respectively (Yu et al., 2017). The construction industry can therefore be
identified as a major contributing sector to carbon emissions, and unless
urgent mitigation measures were taken, the construction industry will
continue to contribute a significant amount GHG which in turn increases
the average global temperature. In view of that, this paper focused on
studying the numerous contributions of researchers across the globe
toward the management of the carbon footprint of the construction in­
dustry (see Table 1, Fig. 3).
2. Literature review
For the purpose of this study, two steps were used to improve the
quality and reliability of the literature review sources (Alwan et al.,
2017). The first step was carried out using organized keywords in
well-established and high-quality scientific journals and repositories.
Various keywords were used to obtain the materials, some of which
includes; carbon, carbon footprint, global warming, green building,
sustainable construction, zero carbon, cleaner production, carbon
assessment, sustainable building materials, rating system, etc. The sec­
ond phase of the literature review consisted of industry and university
studies, governments and international agencies reports, internet and
media publications, etc. the methods used to establish the study is
illustrated in Fig. 1below (Alwan et al., 2017);
2.1. Background
The sudden growth in the greenhouse gas emissions within our
environment was initiated from the industrial age till around the end of
the eighteenth century (Jackson, 2020). Human activities are the pri­
mary contributors to all these emissions by the consumption of fossil
fuels and desertification, which increases the amount of greenhouse
gasses in the atmosphere at immense rate (Jackson, 2020) (Edeoja Joy
Acheyini 2015). The increase in CO2 has become the agreed level above
which the consequences of climate change will become dangerous. The
impact of these actions on humans will be pervasive and lead to
disruptive weather disasters, agricultural production instability, and
public health challenges (Monahan Housing and reduction, 2013).
The definition of the carbon footprint was derived from the notion of

Table 1
Rating systems.
S/ Rating System Body Country Year Description
N

1 “Leadership in Energy and “United States Green USA 1998 It collects points for building structures, and the certificate is given on the basis
Environmental Design certification Building of the number of achieved points. The available points are 100, which are based
system (LEED)” Council (USGBC)” on five categories. With an additional 10 points for the two additional
categories, each of which has a minimum of one requirement which is not
worthy of any points but which is necessary for the formal certification (JuditNy
á ri, 2015) (Cottrell, 2011)
2 “IGBC Green r ating system” “Indian Green Building India 2001 To tackle national priorities, “the Indian Green Building Council (IGBC)
Council (IGBC)” launched the IGBC Green Homes Rating System”. The rating method is a system
that allows the developers to implement green principles and standards that are
measurable to reduce the environmental effect. The system includes
methodologies to cover various climatic zones and lifestyle changes (Indian
Green Homes Rating System (IGBC), 2019) (Tathagat and Dod, 2015).
3 “Building Research “British Research UK 1990 This is one of the world’s earliest and most highly-known rating systems that
Establishment Environmental Establishment (BRE)” serve as the basis for so many rating systems globally (JuditNy á ri, 2015) (
Assessment Method Keeler and Burke, 2009). BREEAM is being used in more than 60 nations, some
(BREEAM)” of which are having their national BREEAM green councils, while several others
are using the universal framework. Over 425 000 projects have been approved
since its launch, and in general, more than 2 million structures were registered
for evaluation (JuditNy á ri, 2015) (Keeler and Burke, 2009).
4 “Sustainable Building Tool “International Canada 1996 It is a customizable building rating system that measures efficiency in the
(SBTOOL)” Initiative for a Sustainable environment and sustainability. The framework is conceptualized as a
Built standardized toolkit that could be adjusted to regional and local construction
Environment” performance standards and demands; it utilizes a scoring system on a scale basis
of − 1 to +5 (Attmann, 2010) (Adebowale Philips Akinyemi et al., 2017).
5 “Building Environmental “Beam Society” Hongkong 1996 It assesses the environmental sustainability of buildings structures in Hong
Assessment Method (BEAM)” Kong. The assessment is carried out on the basis of five strategic criteria (
Adebowale Philips Akinyemi et al., 2017) (Attmann, 2010). It also incorporates
a general rating evaluation scheme, which is dependent upon the percentage of
earned points (Attmann, 2010) (Adebowale Philips Akinyemi et al., 2017).
6 “Green Star Building Evaluation “Green Building Australia 2003 It’s modeled after the BREEAM. This is a systematic, local, and volunteer rating
(GREEN STAR)” Council of Australia” system that evaluates the layout and performance of the building (Adebowale
Philips Akinyemi et al., 2017) (Attmann, 2010). It provides a flexible rating
toolset that can be updated for varying sorts of buildings and structures (
Adebowale Philips Akinyemi et al., 2017) (Attmann, 2010).
7 “The High-Quality “Association Pour la Haute France 2004 HQE assesses the environmental effect of buildings, with the following
Environmental Standard (HQE)” Qualite parameters in view; Design, Construction, Energy, Water, and maintenance (
Environnementale Adebowale Philips Akinyemi et al., 2017) (Attmann, 2010).
(ASSOHQE)”
8 “Green Building Assessment China 2006 It was built from the “Green Olympic Building Assessment System (GOBAS,
System (GBAS)” 2003)", which evaluates the sustainable performance of structures and
buildings such as water, and energy consumption (Attmann, 2010).

2
Y.H. Labaran et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 9 (2022) 100531

Fig. 1. Literature review workflow adapted from (Alwan et al., 2017).

Fig. 3. Six greenhouse gases identified by EPA (Jack et al., 2013).

Fig. 2. Carbon Mitigation strategies.

consumption from the construction industry by introducing strategic
policies and programs that will enable various construction stakeholders
an environmental footprint created in the 1990s as claimed by (Gao
to understand the cultural, environmental, and socio-economic benefits
et al., 2014). The carbon footprint is the cumulative quantity of GHG
of reducing carbon emissions and energy consumption. Literature has
emissions generated by a person, firm, company, activities, or items,
proved the effort of these countries like the study of “Low carbon urban
measured in CO2e, and expressed in tons of carbon dioxide emissions per
development strategy in Malaysia; The case of Iskandar Malaysia
year (Gao et al., 2014). Greenhouse gas (GHG) is any gaseous compound
development corridor” by Chin Siong Ho (Ho et al., 2013). Also, In the
containing perfluorocarbons, methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide,
United Kingdom, the “Climate Change Act of 2008′′ place a legally
Sulphur hexafluoride, and hydrofluorocarbons (Huang et al., 2017).
enforceable target for greenhouse gas emissions to be a minimum of 80
Methane and carbon dioxide could be generated via a wide range of
percent by 2020, which is less than the 1990 baseline (Jackson, 2020)
processes, like the combustion of fossil fuels, manufacturing, land-use
(Government, 2017). However, with all these, the introduction of car­
practices, material production, food production and consumption, con­
bon management policies and practices in the construction sector have
struction of roads and buildings, transport, and other services (Gao et al.,
been comparatively slow (Jackson, 2020) and, to fulfill all the emission
2014). CO2 is naturally present in the air and is not harmful to the living
reduction targets, there is a need to embrace different strategies to
organism. But the emission also comes with soot, heavy metals, and
reduce the level of CO2 released by the construction sector, some of
various pollutants that provoke negative impact on the living organism
which include;
(Ahmed Ali et al., 2020).

2.2.1. Green building

2.2. Carbon footprint management
Carbon footprint management is a process that mitigates carbon
emissions from human activities in order to reduce their impact on the
environmental climate changes (Edeoja Joy Acheyini 2015). Most
countries are working tirelessly to reduce the carbon and energy
Green buildings (sustainable buildings) are those whose develop­
ment and lengthy-term application ensure a healthier and safer envi­
ronment yet at the same time reflecting the most effective and least
destructive land-use, energy, resources, and water (Mohammed and
Abbakyari, 2016) (Okeke et al., 2018). Upon successful construction, the
optimal design concept is one that is compatible with all the natural

3
Y.H. Labaran et al.
environments and conditions of the pre-developed site (Mohammed and
Abbakyari, 2016) (Governor’ s Green Government Council, 2014)
(Adebowale Philips Akinyemi et al., 2017). Green construction practices
are largely regarded as a means of mitigating CO2 emissions and energy
consumption in construction, with environmental, economic, financial,
and social benefits (Mohammed and Abbakyari, 2016) (Adebowale
Philips Akinyemi et al., 2017). As a result, a vast number of organiza­
tions have grown, including the “World Green Building Council”, which
have a membership of national bodies in more than 100 countries
globally (Olakitan Atanda and Olukoya, 2019) (Adebowale Philips
Akinyemi et al., 2017), rendering it one of the multinational organiza­
tion body in the world to control the green built environment (Adebo­
wale Philips Akinyemi et al., 2017).
In the world’s developed countries, policymakers, governments, and
organizations are making many efforts to ensure green building becomes
a norm, however in most developing nations, the green building concept
and its practices are slower than in its contemporaries (Olakitan Atanda
and Olukoya, 2019). Although an attempt has lately been made towards
creating a new organization called the “Green Building Council of
Nigeria (GBCN)”. However, it hasn’t formulated any green assessment
system that can be used to regulate and promote sustainable construc­
tion in the country (Olakitan Atanda and Olukoya, 2019). A variety of
reasons are responsible for this, and the most crucial is the insufficient
information on stakeholders’ awareness and interpretation of green
buildings, it aims, its advantages, and what this transition in construc­
tion practices would cost (Opeyemi Komolafe and OluwoleOyewole,
2018) (Olaleye et al., Miller) (Tathagat and Dod, 2015). Green con­
struction policies will lead to lower construction and operational costs,
and also lower maintenance cost among other benefits. Green design is
intended to create more eco - friendly structures, and this can be ach­
ieved through some of the following (Okeke et al., 2018);
2.2.1.1. Rating system. Several rating systems were developed for
measuring and comparing different construction structures. These rating
systems came into existence because of consumer awareness, global­
ization, and also because of the need for sustainable development
(JuditNy á ri, 2015) (The United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), 2019) (Adebowale Philips Akinyemi et al.,
2017). The rating systems set the standards and promote sustainable
building efficiencies across the world. They have the most attractive
features of being transparent, measurable, quantifiable, and verifiable
(JuditNy á ri, 2015) (Fowler and Rauch, 2006a) (The United States
Agency for International Development (USAID), 2019). In his research,
Surenthira S.R. et al. (Stephen Ramachanderan and Kumar Ven­
kiteswaran Yap, 2017) discussed the method of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions by the introduction of green rating techniques for houses,
which have a substantial effect on the carbon emissions management
(Stephen Ramachanderan and Kumar Venkiteswaran Yap, 2017).
However, with all these benefits, the rating systems do have some
negative side as they require only minimal performance, and they are
having the same criteria globally without considering local variations
(JuditNy á ri, 2015) (The United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), 2019).
A few countries have developed their rating system, such as IGBC in
India, while many others are using multinational systems.
The two most recognized and widely known rating systems are ‘LEED
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and BREEAM
(Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method)’
(JuditNy á ri, 2015). Numerous rating systems are available depending
on the type of construction sites, such as schools, industrial buildings, or
hospitals. Which are based on a similar technique and include the same
key parameters (JuditNy á ri, 2015). These key parameters include
water use, indoor environment quality, transportation, energy, waste,
and pollution generation (JuditNy á ri, 2015). Some of the major green
building rating systems include the following (Adebowale Philips
4
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 9 (2022) 100531
Akinyemi et al., 2017):
2.2.1.2. Construction process. The building sector has an important role
to play concerning GHG emissions. Many of these emissions come from
either the production of materials, construction activities, waste, and or
transportation. These account for approximately 40 percent of the total
resource flow in the global market and contribute to about 50% of the
overall energy consumption in developing countries (Edeoja Joy
Acheyini 2015). In the United Kingdom, it contributes to around 9% of
the country’s overall annual GHG emissions (The United States Agency
for International Development (USAID), 2019). The industry, however,
needs to be one of the key solutions by reducing its carbon emission
released during the building process and activities (Jackson, 2020) that
can be done through the following;
2.2.1.3. Sustainable construction materials. The increasing awareness of
environmental issues, including global warming, clearly contributed to
the necessity of determining the effects of the building materials in our
environment (Fu et al., 2014). However, the use of these materials is
related to large quantities of energy inputs and natural resources (Giama
and Papadopoulos, 2020). The utilization of construction materials with
a high amount of embodied energy requires an initial high level of en­
ergy consumption during the manufacturing process, which is correlated
with a high level of GHG emissions (Okeke et al., 2018), as such these
materials will lead to an increment in the operational energy re­
quirements and also affect the overall embodied energy (Yang Guan­
feiMeng, 2019). Hence, the choice of construction materials having
minimum impact on the environment offers a wide variety of possibil­
ities to minimize the carbon dioxide emissions of the industry, even
though the reduction in emissions levels varies significantly depending
on the material sources (National Construction Sector Lead U.S., 2009).
The utilization of recyclable materials in construction is progressively
being promoted as an effective GHG mitigation strategy (National
Construction Sector Lead U.S., 2009) (Massachusetts, 2020).
The proper use of construction materials would not only reduce the
CO2 content of its erected structure alone but would also have additional
benefits including the requirement of less spoilage and waste materials
(Fu et al., 2014). One effective way of reducing embedded carbon in new
buildings is to maximize the use of less polluting materials (Institute of
Civil engineers (ICE), 2020a). About half of all of the sector’s CO2
emissions come from the processing of cement through its production
operations and also as a waste material byproduct of the reaction
(Institute of Civil engineers (ICE), 2020a). Low-carbon cement is
emerging and is less energy-intensive to manufacture as it also contains
magnesia, allowing carbon dioxide to be absorbed while curing (Insti­
tute of Civil engineers (ICE), 2020a). It also supports green concrete
production techniques and will not only offer low greenhouse gas
emissions, but will also help in reducing energy and water consumption
(Alwan et al., 2017). Other ‘sustainable’ materials include timber, straw,
clay, adobe, wood, cork, bamboo, sawdust and compressed earth, all of
which have a lower carbon footprint than cement, and absorb CO2
during growth (Institute of Civil engineers (ICE), 2020a). Some of the
commonly used sustainable construction materials includes
(Constructor, 2020);
2.2.1.4. Transportation. Materials, equipment, and worker trans­
portation to and from the worksite often generate carbon emission in our
environment. Decreasing vehicle shipment to the worksite would lead to
lower energy and fuel usage, leading to lowering the total emissions
from the industry (National Construction Sector Lead U.S., 2009). The
establishment of just in time concept for material delivery will minimize
emissions from the transportation of various construction materials, this
can be achieved by enabling suppliers and others stakeholders to order
building materials based on the actual schedule of its usage (National
Construction Sector Lead U.S., 2009). Materials sourced from local areas
Y.H. Labaran et al.
save costs and reduces fuelburning pollution (Ben Ugochukwua
Iwuagwu Ben Chioma, 2015).
2.2.1.5. Energy. The following methods for limiting carbon emissions
from energy generation could be adopted to mitigate the sector’s overall
emission (Institute of Civil engineers (ICE), 2020a);
• Do not use massive generators for energy generation unless other­
wise required.
• Development of a strategic plan for energy usage in the initial project
planning process
• Stop leaving plants and vehicles idle.
• Effective control of electricity within the construction facilities, for
example, the use of energy smart systems.
• Obtaining high capacity and safer power connection from the na­
tional grid to minimize the over-reliance on individual power
generators
• Minimize heating and lighting costs by utilizing certified energy ef­
ficiency facilities throughout the construction sites
2.2.1.6. Waste management. Reducing the construction waste by the
implementation of 3Rs approaches – reducing, reusing, and recycling –
is one of the crucial frameworks that can be employed to help in
reducing the Greenhouse gases of the construction industry (Institute of
Civil engineers (ICE), 2020a). These construction wastes are also
generated through the purchasing of excess building materials for the
particular project, this highlights the requirement of a precise estimation
as well as good workmanship of construction materials. Substantial use
of recycled resources helps protect, restore, and maintain the ecosystem
(Ben Ugochukwua Iwuagwu Ben Chioma, 2015). Waste management of
green buildings guarantees both capital and energy efficiency.
2.2.2. Green land conservation
A study by Nature Conservancy, the World Resources Institute, and
several others estimated that; preserving forests, improving forestry
techniques, and preventing deforestation can potentially reduce 7
billion Mt of CO2 every year (Minnemeyer Nancy Harris and andOctavia
Payne, 2017). This will put us ahead of our current efforts of limiting the
global temperature to about 2 ◦ C, which is far better than that of the
preindustrial time (Minnemeyer Nancy Harris and andOctavia Payne,
2017). However, with respect to the construction industries, this could
be mitigated through site preservations of existing trees and the recla­
mation of the damaged ones.
2.2.2.1. Site preservation of existing trees. Safeguarding existing trees is
vitally important in an era that acknowledges the magnificence and
contribution they make to the environment. These trees contribute
significantly to urban cooling through evapotranspiration, they also
provide microclimatic conditions that can minimize energy re­
quirements in buildings. Trees also contribute to carbon capture as well
as provide visual relief. Despite all these advantages, trees may also
become a developmental restriction. Some developers may be willing to
remove them to promote their construction activities. However, such
barbaric acts to nature can be managed by ensuring that all the trees that
are growing on site, are preserved by barriers and/or ground protection
as suggested in BS5837:2012, before any material or equipment is
transported to the construction site. Special consideration is also needed
when maintaining ancient trees that will be enclosed by construction,
these trees can be less durable than newer types, and can die due to
construction stresses or become unsafe. However, when it is considered
appropriate to preserve large, mature, or veteran trees, they can be best
conserved by integrating them into open spaces or large gardens where
they may have sufficient space and a greater chance of long-term sur­
vival (Institute of Civil engineers (ICE), 2020b).
5
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 9 (2022) 100531
2.2.2.2. Site reclamation of damage trees. Any wound sustained at a
construction project site on a tree’s roots, base, or main branches is
assumed to be damage due to the construction. Such wounds may result
from the construction equipment during any construction activities
around trees (Minnesota state department of Natural resources, 2020).
And the best way to prevent sacrificing trees from construction
destruction is through preventive measures, which can be accomplished
through the following (Minnesota state department of Natural resources,
2020):
• Cut the uncovered or broken roots smoothly to facilitate rapid wound
healing.
• Vibratory ploughs and chain trenchers leave cuts that are cleaner
than bulldozers and backhoes.
• Use hand tools only when working within the dripline of a tree.
• Instead of trenching, tunnel underneath the plant roots when
working within the dripline.
• Lessen the impact of root cutting pains by limiting construction ac­
tivities during hot and dry weather. Keep the trees well-watered
before and after digging, and cover the exposed roots as soon as
possible after the damage.
However, if all these cannot be avoided then ensure to plant at least
the same number of trees (if not double or more) that you have damaged
during the construction activities at the site.
2.2.3. Carbon footprint quantification
From the last century to date, several research studies have been
performed to make the assessments of carbon emission analysis
comparative (Gao et al., 2014). Various national and international
communities including the “World Resources Institute (WRI), the In­
ternational Organization for Standardization (ISO), the British Stan­
dards Institution (BSI)", and the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD)", have already developed many types of carbon
emission measurement frameworks, policies and standards some of
which includes PAS2050, ISO14064, and GHG Protocols for organiza­
tions and products (Gao et al., 2014) (JuditNy á ri, 2015) (Shash­
wathSreedhar and Krishna, 2014) (EvandroFenner et al., 2018a).
Despite all such efforts, there are several issues with the implementation
of these standards (Gao et al., 2014). The threshold concept is not
empirical, and the emission variables are mostly unbalanced (Gao et al.,
2014), as such the measurement of carbon emissions still varies in its
methodologies, limits, greenhouse gas emission units, and even in the
scope (EvandroFenner et al., 2018a). And because of that, some of the
previously conducted studies argue that there seems to be no globally
agreed method to accurately and comparably measure, report, and
validate the GHG emissions from constructed buildings (Jackson, 2020)
(EvandroFenner et al., 2018a). Edeoja Joy Acheyini (2015) stated that
there is still no globally accepted framework for calculating greenhouse
gas emissions in all countries Edeoja Joy Acheyini (2015). A similar
assertion was made by Dixit et al. (2012) that there is no specific
framework or methodology that can be used for the measurement of
embodied carbon emissions (Dixit et al., 2012). However, the Life cycle
method of assessment is reported as the most renowned approach for
determining the environmental effects related to the different phases of
a project (EvandroFenner et al., 2018b) (CihatOnat and Kucukvar,
2020). There are two approaches to measure the carbon emission of any
material, structure, or products (ShashwathSreedhar and Krishna,
2014). The very first method discusses the carbon footprint of organi­
zations that involves product carbon emissions through its processes
such as supply chain, production, etc. (ShashwathSreedhar and Krishna,
2014). While the second approach involves the carbon footprint of a
product concerning both its indirect and direct carbon emissions from
the various operations and activities and is determined by using the LCA
approach (ShashwathSreedhar and Krishna, 2014).
Y.H. Labaran et al.
2.2.3.1. LCA. The Life Cycle Assessment had been introduced as a
methodology that is used to measure a product’s environmental effects
over its whole life-cycle in the late 1960s (Monahan Housing and
reduction, 2013). The LCA aims to identify the environmental impact
that any services or goods may have from its beginning (cradle) to its
end (grave) (Mastrucci et al., 2017) (JuditNy á ri, 2015) (EvandroFenner
et al., 2018a). The definition of cradle to grave concept implies that; the
consequences from the extraction of raw material to the final disposal of
the product are properly considered over its entire life cycle, these,
however, include all the activities in between such as production,
transportation, packaging, processing, and other associated services.
LCA supports a broad range of processes and procedures. This could be
used for design purposes, eco-labelling, material optimization, perfor­
mance analysis, product comparison, environmental policy support,
strategic decision-making, and quality development (JuditNy á ri, 2015)
(EvandroFenner et al., 2018a). There are three types of Life cycle
assessment methods, which include: Economic Input Output, Process
based, and Hybrid method (EvandroFenner et al., 2018a). The PBA
(process-based approach) is a comprehensive assessment using inputs
such as energy and materials, and outputs including waste and emissions
for any production processes. The EIO method (economic input-output)
is designed to measure the emission from both indirect and direct
sources via a broad distribution network connecting the final production
emissions with economic sector input-output data (EvandroFenner
et al., 2018a).
Apart from a life cycle assessment process, efforts were made by
various researches across the globe by developing more advanced sys­
tems for measuring and minimizing the total carbon emission from the
construction industry. Such effort was made by (ShashwathSreedhar,
et al.) (ShashwathSreedhar and Krishna, 2014), who built a computer
program toolkit for quantifying the emission of the different types of
pavements that are used for the construction of various road networks in
India. In a similar study (Jason Maximino, C. Ongpeng et al. (2019)
developed a novel method using Mixed Integer Linear Programming
(MILP) that can be used to reduce the carbon emission from the recon­
struction activities in urban areas after a disaster (Ongpeng et al., 2019).
A study was also carried out by J.C. Cheng (2011) who created a pro­
totype framework of Web service that can be used in construction supply
chains to calculate and track the environmental and carbon footprint
data (Cheng, 2011).
2.2.3.2. ii.Carbon calculator. It is a tool used for the calculation of an
embodied carbon emission to assist construction stakeholders in
designing low-embodied carbon approaches to minimize emissions level
on heavy construction projects and to support the construction industry
along the carbon reduction path (Jackson, 2020). The tool accounts for
the materials, transportation, and project construction emissions.
However, taking up these tools has been sluggish due to various chal­
lenges, one of which is the nature and complexity of the industry itself
(Jackson, 2020). Apart from that, many of these construction companies
prefer to disclose just the carbon emissions that they possess full control
and information over, which means the chances of further reducing
emissions may be compromised. These challenges and more will hinder
the construction industries in their attempts to adopt management
strategies for carbon emission reduction (Jackson, 2020). For the carbon
measurements, six GHGs defined in the Kyoto Protocol (1997) (Jack
et al., 2013) are used, and the calculations are performed in CO2-e. The
listed greenhouse gases by EPA include (Jack et al., 2013); per­
fluorocarbons, Methane, Sulphur hexafluoride, Carbon dioxide, Fluori­
nated gases, and Nitrous oxide (see Table 2).
CO2e is used as a unit for the calculation of these emissions, and it
simply means that the quantity of all the emissions from each GHG must
be converted to the equivalent of CO2. This is achieved using a global
warming mechanism indicating how often each unit mass of the speci­
fied greenhouse gas is equal to the unit mass of CO2 (JuditNy á ri, 2015).
6
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 9 (2022) 100531
This global warming mechanism is given in Table 3 below. Thus, 1 g of
N2O is equivalent to 310 g of carbon dioxide equivalent.
2.2.3.3. CCS. The concept of Carbon Capture and Storage describes a
variety of techniques and processes that safely trap and manage CO2
emissions such that they cannot reach our atmosphere and lead to
various environmental changes (Institute of Civil engineers (ICE),
2020a). The CCS can absorb about 90 percent of the total carbon
emission produced by fossil fuel consumption for the generation of en­
ergy and other manufacturing activities including the production of
cement among others. Carbon emission from the construction industries
can be captured by using several methodologies some of which include;
pre-combustion, oxyfuel, and post-combustion (Grantham Research
Institute on climate change and the environment, 2020). The
Pre-combustion technique is usually employed before the combustion of
the fossil fuels (in this method, a mixture of CO2 and Hydrogen is pro­
duced from the fuel), the Post-combustion process ensures that after the
fossil fuel combustion, all the produced carbon dioxide from the flue
Table 2
Sustainable construction materials (Constructor, 2020).
S/ Material Brief Description
N
1 Earthen materials Comprise of adobe, cob, and compressed earth bricks
that have been used for construction purposes since
ancient times. In order to increase the durability and
strength of earthen materials, usually, grass, fibrous
materials, and chopped straw are added
2 Timber/Wood Wood is among the world’s most known sustainable
construction materials. A certain portion of wood may
get wasted during the process of converting raw timber
into plywood sheets and planks, however, the waste
materials can also be used to construct other building
parts, such as window frames, ceilings, doors, and
walls, etc.
3 Structural It consists of two separate layers of matched strand
Insulated Panels frames or flake boards having one layer of foam in
between them.
4 Thatch roof It is bare dry grass, dry rushes, and or dry water reed,
etc. Thatch is the earliest roofing structure that is
currently being used for various architectural ecstatic’s
in villages and remote areas around the world.
5 Cordwood Cordwood is a short, round piece of wood, width-
wisely placed one over another and bound together
with a unique blend of mortar. Cordwood is sturdy,
eco-sustainable that gives a beautiful appearance to the
constructed structure.
6 Bamboo It is among the commonly available, multiuse, and
versatile construction materials for various building
purposes such as the construction of frames or
supports, walls, floors, etc. It is economical, and the
trees grow faster, regardless of the weather conditions.
7 Straw-bale Straw-bale is a construction material that could be used
as a construction frame material due to its strong
insulating qualities. Also, it may be used as a material
for filling in between beams and columns of non-load
bearing walls.
8 Slate It is a naturally occurring mineral that can be used for
building high-quality tiles making it one of the
sustainable construction materials for roofing.
9 Insulated Concrete It comprises two layers of insulation having a gap in
Forms between them to accommodate the steel
reinforcement. ICFs have excellent thermal and sound
insulation characteristics, they have low density, they
are lightweight, and they are having good fireproof
properties.
10 Natural clay Wall plastering may be achieved by utilizing our raw
plaster clay instead of using any of the gypsum-made plasters.
Clay based plaster with a professional finishing
provides an interior with a stunning look.
11 Stone Stone is a building material that exists naturally, and
long-lasting. Many stone structures that were built
numerous years ago still exist without too much
deformation.
Y.H. Labaran et al.
Table 3
Global warming mechanism.
GHG Global Warming Potential For a 100 Years
Carbon dioxide 1
Methane 21
Nitrous oxide 310
perfluorocarbons 6500
Hydrofluorocarbon 11700
Sulphur hexafluoride 23900
gases are eliminated, while in the Oxyfuel process, pure oxygen is used
for the fossil fuel combustion which in return creates steam and carbon
dioxide.
After the collection of the CO2, it is processed and converted into a
fluid form and then transported by a road tankers, pipelines, or ship.
They are deposited into a drained oil and gas reserve, coal beds, or deep
salt aquifers, where the geology is appropriate, by pumping it under­
ground at a depth of 1 km or more (Grantham Research Institute on
climate change and the environment, 2020). CO2 may also be used for
the processing of marketable products. This is possible by employing a
process called Carbon Capture, Storage, and Utilization. One of the
prominently employed CCSU processes is the enhanced oil recovery
technique, whereby carbon dioxide is pumped into crude oil reservoirs
to improve their production and extraction (Grantham Research Insti­
tute on climate change and the environment, 2020). This method is
among the most widely used techniques for carbon capture and storage.
And even though many other methods are still under investigation such
as the use of carbon dioxide in plastic materials, concrete, or processing
it into biomass, it should, however, be noted that they are all
capital-intensive techniques involving a substantial amount of money,
and will add up to the total project cost (Grantham Research Institute on
climate change and the environment, 2020). Due to this extra cost,
construction stakeholders use other alternative eco-friendly approaches
such as planting and protection of trees at the construction site, as they
are also capable of capturing and storing the emitted carbon.
2.3. Building emission measurement
The estimation of the construction project’s carbon footprint en­
compasses not just the emission from the various on-site activities, but
also those from the contributing partners in the production of materials
and supply chains (Cheng, 2011). Calculations of carbon emissions
mostly differ according to scope, methodologies, boundaries, and units
of greenhouse gas emissions (EvandroFenner et al., 2018a). According to
UNEP SBCI (2010), carbon emissions from buildings are categorized into
three categories (Ezema et al., 2016);
• The first category is direct emissions from buildings and includes
stationary emission from fossil fuel combustion for the production of
electricity or heat, however, this category is accurate only when the
sources are owned and regulated and can be estimated using an
activity-based approach that calculates the actual amount of the fuel
consumed which is then multiplied by the fuel’s emission factor
(Ezema et al., 2016).
• Category two is emission from the indirect sources arising from the
production of purchased energy that is mostly operated by public
authorities. This category cannot, therefore, be controlled or regu­
lated by the individual consumers,
but it depends on the generated energy itself, and the emission-
specific factors of the generated electricity which are added to the
energy that is supplied and consumed (Ezema et al., 2016).
• Category three applies to the emission associated with the initial and
final stages of construction, which include all the related carbon
emission from the various construction activities and processes
including transportation, materials production, and disposal, etc.
7
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 9 (2022) 100531
(Monahan Housing and reduction, 2013) (Fowler and Rauch,
2006b). In this regard, the life cycle assessment process is applied by
employing the ICE framework for the quantification of the carbon
emission of construction materials, whereas the activity-based pro­
cess is employed for the quantification of the emission from indirect
and direct use of fuel associated with the construction process and
material transportation (Ezema et al., 2016).
3. Discussion
The rising awareness of environmental challenges, such as global
warming, has stimulated the need to assess the effect of GHG emissions
from the construction industry (Fu et al., 2014). Various construction
activities result in environmental pollution through land clearing, en­
gine emissions, demolition, combustion, use of hazardous chemicals,
and the construction materials used (National Construction Sector Lead
U.S., 2009). There are many research studies discussing the issues of
material production, however, most of these studies are unable to clearly
and accurately define the concept of ‘sustainable construction mate­
rials.’ This makes it more difficult to lay down standards and guidelines
that encourage sustainable materials to be consistent with the principles
and objectives of sustainable development in construction (Okeke et al.,
2018). Jingke Hong et al., 2014 reported that adopting a design that
provides a structure with a complete clean-energy provision, and
energy-efficient construction materials, having lower carbon content is
one of the significant challenges for the sustainable construction
development (Hong et al., 2014). In addition, the majority of the
reviewed studies asserted that the manufacturing activities and pro­
cesses are perhaps one of the most critical points of the Life Cycle (LC)
process toward achieving a higher amount of recycled material as input.
In general, it is not possible to reduce the environmental effect of the
construction industry without looking at the resources that are used to
produce these construction materials in detail (Giama and Papadopou­
los, 2020).
Apart from sustainable construction materials, the Green Building
Concept is one of the pioneering facets of the construction sector in the
21st century. It is one of the key factors that contributes significantly to
sustainable development. Many developers are now utilizing different
rating systems that set guidelines and promote sustainable building ef­
ficiency around the world (JuditNy á ri, 2015) (Fowler and Rauch,
2006a) (The United States Agency for International Development
(USAID), 2019). These rating systems include various criteria that a
specific structure must follow before it could be accredited under
different levels of certification. However, some researchers, including
JuditNy á ri (2015), argue that many of these rating systems do have a
negative side. They require only minimal performance, are often
managed by non-governmental organizations, and have the same
criteria globally without considering local variations. This aspect lead to
the establishment of many local rating systems across several countries,
such as IGBC in India, SBTOOL in Canada, and BEAM in Hong Kong
(JuditNy á ri, 2015) (The United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), 2019). There are several small variations in the
rating systems, the measurement criteria are not the same, the awarding
points and the certification levels are different, and even the minimum
requirements are all different. This leads to various challenges and dif­
ficulties when comparing the studies conducted using a particular rating
system with another. As such, there is utmost need to develop an
internationally recognized rating system that is approved by all coun­
tries, which can be adjusted to suit various regional conditions, and will
incorporate the measurement and quantification of carbon emission
from the construction industry.
To this end, we should, however, acknowledge the numerous efforts
made so far by many governmental and international organizations to­
ward developing various standards, techniques, and tools for the
quantification of carbon emission from the construction industry.
However, taking up these tools has been sluggish due to various
Y.H. Labaran et al.
challenges, one of which is the nature and complexity of the industry
itself (Jackson, 2020). Apart from that, many of these construction
companies prefer to disclose just the carbon emissions that they possess
full control and information over, which means the chances of further
reducing emissions may be compromised. These challenges and more
will hinder the construction industries in their attempts to adopt man­
agement strategies for carbon emission reduction (Jackson, 2020)
Despite that, the use of LCA studies has increased significantly since
2007, with the hybrid approach gaining more attention since 2014
(EvandroFenner et al., 2018a). But this was argued in a recent study by
(Nuri CihatOnat, et al., 2020) as they claimed that the input-output
method of analysis is the most popular techniques of quantifying car­
bon footprint when compared to the other two methodologies (Hybrid
LCA and multi-regional IOA) (Gao et al., 2014) (CihatOnat and Kucuk­
var, 2020). The input-output analysis process is succeeded by four other
methodologies including surveys, process-based LCA, structural
decomposition analysis, and simulations. These techniques together
constitute over 50 percent of the overall methods used in evaluating the
carbon emission of the construction industry (CihatOnat and Kucukvar,
2020). With all that, the boundary definition of most of these methods is
not empirical, and the carbon emission factors are uncertain (Gao et al.,
2014), hence, the quantification of the carbon emissions still varies in
terms of scope, methodologies, limits, and greenhouse gas emission
units (EvandroFenner et al., 2018a). Hence, David John Jackson (2020),
Edeoja Joy Acheyini et al. (2015), Dixit et al. (2012), and Andriel
EvandroFenner, et al. (2018) (EvandroFenner et al., 2018a) argue that
there is no globally agreed method to accurately and comparably mea­
sure, report, and validate the GHG emissions from constructed buildings
(Jackson, 2020) (EvandroFenner et al., 2018a).
4. Conclusion
There have been constant indicators of global warming, sea-level
rise, ozone depletion, and climate change worldwide. These are inevi­
tably related to human activities such as deforestation, fossil energy
usage, and construction. Construction is recognized as one of the key
drivers that promote the emission of greenhouse gases through a large
number of activities like material production, land clearing, engine
emissions, demolition, combustion and use of hazardous chemicals, etc.
Sustainable construction has become one of the serious challenges
that are all facing us today as a world, there is a need to alleviate some of
the negative effects of climate change. Despite this, there are very few
detailed and comprehensive research studies discussing the different
drivers that are linked to low-carbon constructions (Mohammed and
Abbakyari, 2016). The majority of the existing studies concentrate on a
particular dimension of low-carbon construction, such as policies,
awareness, and technology, etc. However, priority should also be placed
on the selection of sustainable construction management techniques, use
of heavy equipment, production of construction material, human ac­
tivities at the site, and transportation (Hong et al., 2014). Furthermore,
greater emphasis needs to be given to macro-level management, inter­
national collaboration, and the development of concepts, technologies,
and standards related to low-carbon construction due to their significant
contributions towards net-zero energy building development (Shi et al.,
2015). Also, there is a significant need for the establishment of an
internationally recognized rating system which should, however,
include the measurements and quantification of the carbon footprint as
one of its main parameters.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
8
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 9 (2022) 100531
References
Akinyemi, Adebowale Philips, Adekunle, AsaOlusola, Joseph, Omotehinse Olusegun,
Anthony, AnkeliIkpeme, Ibrahim Dabara, Daniel, 2017. The need for green building
rating systems development for Nigeria: the process, progress, and prospect. Acad. J.
Sci. 35–44. ISSN: 2165-6282, vol. 07, No. 02.
Ahmed, Khozema, Ali, Mardiana, Ahmad, Idayu, Yusup, Yusri, 2020. Issues, impacts, and
mitigations of carbon dioxide emissions in the building Sector. Sustainability 7477,
12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187427.
Alwan, Z., Jones, P., Holgate, P., 2017. Strategic sustainable development in the UK
construction industry, through the framework for strategic sustainable development,
using Building Information Modelling. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 349–358.
Attmann, Osman, 2010. Green Architecture: Advanced Technologies and Materials. The
McGraw Hill Companies, New York.
Ben Ugochukwua, Iwuagwu, Iwuagwu Ben Chioma, M., 2015. Local building materials:
affordable strategy for housing the urban poor in Nigeria. international conference
on sustainable design, engineering and construction Procedia Eng. 118, 42–49.
Cheng, J.C., 2011. A Web service framework for measuring and monitoring
environmental and carbon footprint in construction supply chains. The Twelfth East
Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction Proc. Eng. 14,
141–147.
CihatOnat, Nuri, Kucukvar, Murat, 2020. Carbon footprint of construction industry: a
global review and supply chain analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 124, 109783.
Constructor, The. Green building materials used in construction. retrieved from https://
theconstructor.org/building/green-building-materials/7028/. (Accessed 15 August
2020).
Cottrell, M., 2011. Guidebook to the LEED Certification Process: for LEED for New
Construction, LEED for Core & Shell, and LEED for Commercial Interiors. John Wiley
& Sons, New Jersey, USA.
Dixit, M.K., et al., 2012. Need for an embodied energy measurement protocol for
buildings: a review paper. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (6), 3730–3743. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.021. Available at:
Edeoja, Joy Acheyini, Edeoja, Alex Okibe, 2015. carbon emission management in the
construction industry – case studies of Nigerian construction industry. e-ISSN:
2320–0847, p-ISSN: 2320-0936 Am. J. Eng. Res. (AJER) 4 (No.7), 112–122. www.
ajer.org). Retrieved from.
EvandroFenner, Andriel, Joseph Kibert, Charles, Woo, Junghoon, Morque, Shirley,
Razkenari, Mohamad, Hakim, Hamed, Lu, Xiaoshu, 2018a. The carbon footprint of
buildings: a review of methodologies and Applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
94, 1142–1152.
EvandroFenner, Andriel, Joseph Kibert, Charles, Woo, Junghoon, Morque, Shirley,
Razkenari, Mohamad, Hakim, Hamed, Lu, Xiaoshu, 2018b. The carbon footprint of
buildings: a review of methodologies and Applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
94, 1142–1152.
Ezema, I.C., Opoko, A.P., Oluwatayo, A.A., 2016. De-carbonizing the Nigerian housing
sector : the role of life cycle CO 2 assessment. Int. J. Appl. Environ. Sci. 11 (1),
325–349.
Fowler, K.M., Rauch, E.M., 2006a. Sustainable rating system summary. Retrieved from.
http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs1915.pdf.
Fowler, K.M., Rauch, E.M., 2006b. Sustainable Rating System Summary. Retrieved from.
http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs1915.pdf.
Fu, Feifei, Luo, Hanbin, Zhong, Hua, Hill, Andrew, 2014. Development of a Carbon
Emission Calculations System for Optimizing Building Plan Based on the LCA
Framework. Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Mathematical Problems in Engineering.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/653849. Article ID 653849.
Gao, Tao, Liu, Qing, Wang, Jianping, September 2014. A comparative study of carbon
footprint and assessment standards. Ppp. 237–243 Int. J. Low Carbon Technol. 9 (3).
https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctt041. Retrieved from.
Giama, E., Papadopoulos, A.M., 2020. Benchmarking carbon footprint and circularity in
production processes: the case of stonewool and extruded polysterene. J. Clean.
Prod. 257, 120559.
Government, H.M., 2017. The Clean Growth Strategy: leading the way to a low carbon
future. Retrieved fromhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/clean-growth
-strategy. , 165.
Governor’s Green Government Council, GGGC, 2014. What Is Green Building”. Retrieved
from. http://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/documents/pdf/12_8_what_is_green
_GGGC.pdf.
Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment, May, 2020. What
is carbon capture and storage and what role can it play in tackling climate change?
Retrieved from https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-is-car
bon-capture-and-storage-and-whatrole-can-it-play-in-tackling-climate-change/. .
(Accessed 17 September 2020).
Ho, C.S., Matsuoka, Y., Simson, J., Gomi, K., 2013. Low carbon urban development
strategy in Malaysia - the case of Iskandar Malaysia development corridor. Habitat
Int. 37, 43–51.
Hong, Jingke, Shen, Geoffrey Qiping, Feng, Yong, Lau, William Sin-tong, Mao, Chao,
2014. Greenhouse Gas Emissions during the Construction Phase of a Building: a Case
Study in China, pp. 1–11.
Huang, Wei, Li, Fei, Cui, Sheng-hui, Li, Fei, Huang, Lizhen, Lin, Jian-yi, 2017. Carbon
footprint and carbon emission reduction of urban buildings: a case in Xiamen city,
China. Procedia Eng. 198, 1007–1017. Urban transitions conference, Shanghai,
September 2016.
Indian Green Homes Rating System (IGBC), September 2019. Reference Guide - Version
3.0 for Multi-Dwelling Residential Units Abridged. http://www.igbc.in. Retrieved
from.
Y.H. Labaran et al.
Institute of Civil engineers (ICE). Carbon dioxide in construction. Retrieved fromhtt
ps://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_construction#:~:text
=Sustainable%20materials,product%20of%20the%20chemical%20reactions.
(Accessed 12 June 2020).
Institute of Civil engineers (ICE). Tree protection during construction. Retrieved fromh
ttps://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Tree_protection_during_construction.
(Accessed 10 June 2020).
Jack, Dr, Cheng, C.P., Desmond, Ir, Sz, M.S., Anfernee, Mr, Chow, K.P., 2/03/2013.
Carbon Footprint Measurement of Construction Materials Using Life Cycle
Assessment. The HKIE Environmental Division Annual Seminar.
Jackson, David John, 2020. Addressing the Challenges of Reducing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions in the Construction Industry: a Multi-Perspective Approach. Thesis
Submitted in Fulfillment of the Requirements for a Postgraduate Degree. Doctor of
Philosophy) at the University of Edinburgh.
JuditNyári, 28/04/2015. Carbon Footprint of Construction Products (A Comparison of
Application of Individual Environmental Product Declarations and Building
Information Modeling Software). A Thesis Submitted for the Bachelor of Engineering
to Department of Environmental Engineering. Helsinki Metropolia University of
Applied Sciences.
Keeler, M., Burke, B., 2009. Fundamentals of Integrated Design for Sustainable Building”.
John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, USA.
Massachusetts, E.P.A.. MEPA greenhouse gas emissions policy and protocol. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.mass.gov/envir/mepa/pdffiles/misc/GHG%20Policy%20FINAL.
pdf. (Accessed 16 June 2020).
Mastrucci, A., Marvuglia, A., Leopold, E., Benetto, E., 2017. Life Cycle Assessment of
building stocks from urban to transnational scales: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 74, 316–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.060Article.
Minnemeyer, Susan, Harris, Nancy, Payne, Octavia, November 27, 2017. Conserving
forests could cut carbon emissions as much as getting rid of every car on earth.
World Resour. Inst. Retrieved from:https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/11/conservi
ng-forests-could-cut-carbon-emissionsmuch-getting-rid-every-car-earth.
Minnesota state department of Natural resources. Construction damage causes and
remedies - tree Planting and Care. Retrieved fromhttps://www.dnr.state.mn.us/tree
care/maintenance/construction_damage.html?_. (Accessed 6 June 2020).
Mohammed, A., Abbakyari, M., 2016. Strategies for achieving sustainability in the
nigerian building design and construction industry. Ideal J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2 (3),
103–108. ISSN: 2067-7720.
Monahan, Jennifer, February 2013. Housing and carbon reduction: can mainstream ‘eco-
housing’ deliver on its low carbon promises?. In: A Thesis Submitted for the Degree
of Doctor of Philosophy to the School of Environmental Sciences. University of East
Anglia.
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 9 (2022) 100531
National Construction Sector Lead U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington,
Feb.2009. Potential for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emission in the Construction
Sector. Retrieved from truitt., peter@epa.gov.
Okeke, F.O., Sam-Amobi, Chinwe, Okafor, C., Andy, N.N., Ani, E.K., Okere, C.E.,
Ugwu, C.C., 2018. Green architecture the Nigerian perspective. ISSN: 2456-8643 Int.
J. Agric. Environ. Biotechnol. 3 (No. 06), 341. Retrieved from:www.ijaeb.org.
Olakitan Atanda, Jubril, Olukoya, Obafemi A.P., 2019. Green building standards:
opportunities for Nigeria. J. Clean. Prod. 227, 366–377.
Olaleye A., Ayodele T. O., &Komolafe, M. O.,” The relevance of green building practice in
emerging markets: a perceptual analysis of commercial and industrial building users
in Ibadan, Nigeria” (N. G. Miller, Ed.), J. Sustain. Real Estate, Vol.7, No. 1, pp. 41-59.
Ongpeng, Jason Maximino C., Dungca, Jonathan R., Aviso, Katlheen B., Tan, Raymond
R., 2019. Minimizing the carbon footprint of urban reconstruction projects. J. Clean.
Prod. 240, 118222.
Opeyemi Komolafe, Markson, OluwoleOyewole, Matthew, 2018. Awareness and
perception of office property users on green building in Lagos, Nigeria. published by
faculty of the built environment, UniversitiTeknologi Malaysia Int. J. Built. Environ.
Sustain (IJBES) 5 (3), 208–213. Retrieved from:http://www.ijbes.utm.my.
ShashwathSreedhar, PrathmeshJichkar, Krishna, PrapoornaBiligiri, 2014. Investigation
of carbon footprints of highway construction materials in India, 10-12 December
2014. In: 11th Transportation Planning and Implementation Methodologies for
Developing Countries, TPMDC, vol. 17. Transportation Research Procedia, Mumbai,
India, pp. 291–300, 2016.
Shi, Q., Yu, T., Zuo, J., 2015. What leads to low-carbon buildings? A China study. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 50, 726–734.
Stephen Ramachanderan, Surenthira, Kumar Venkiteswaran, Vinod, Yap, TzeChuen,
2017. Carbon (CO2) footprint reduction analysis for buildings through green rating
tools in Malaysia. In: The 8th International Conference on Applied Energy –
ICAE2016, Energy Procedia, 105, pp. 3648–3655.
Tathagat, D., Dod, R.D., 2015. Role of green buildings in sustainable construction- need,
challenges, and scope in the Indian scenario. J. Mech. Civ. Eng. 12 (No. 2). Ver. II,
Ppp. 01–09.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Greenhouse gas
emissions in Nigeria. Retrieved from. https://www.climatelinks.org/sites/default/file
s/asset/document/2019_USAID_Nigeria.
Yang, Yi, GuanfeiMeng, 2019. The decoupling effect and driving factors of carbon
footprint in megacities: the case study of Xi’an in western China. Sustain. Cities Soc.
44, 783–792.
Yu, Man, Wiedmann, Thomas, Crawford, Robert, Tait, Catriona, 2017. The carbon
footprint of Australia’s construction sector. In: International High- Performance Built
Environment Conference – A Sustainable Built Environment Conference 2016 Series
(SBE16), iHBE 2016, Procedia Engineering, vol. 180, pp. 211–220.