Strategies for implementation of green roofs in developing countries

Abstract

PurposeReportedly, green roof (GR) makes a significant contribution towards a truly sustainable-built environment; however, its implementation is yet to hit a sufficient level in developing countries. Thus, this study assesses GR implementation strategies in developing countries by providing a comparative analysis through experts in Kazakhstan, Malaysia and Turkey.Design/methodology/approachThe study adopts a four-step methodological approach to achieve the research aim: literature review, focus group discussion, fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) analysis and correlation analyses. First, a literature review followed by a focus group discussion is used to determine 18 (out of 25 initially) strategies for the selected context and these are classified into three categories: governmental and institutional support, knowledge and information and policy and regulation. Afterward, the identified GR strategies are evaluated using the FAHP with the data gathered from the experts in the countries studied. Finally, correlation analyses were used to observe the strength of agreement between the assessments of experts from the included countries.FindingsThe findings indicate that financial incentives, low-cost government loans and subsidies and tax rebates are the essential strategies for the wider adoption of GR. Evaluating the policy and regulations strategies also showed that mandatory GR policies and regulations and better enforcement of the developed GR policies are ranked as the most prominent strategies. The findings show a low level of agreement among respondents from Kazakhstan, while there is a high level of agreement between the experts in Malaysia and Turkey.Research limitations/implicationsThe research contribution is twofold. First (research implication), the study identifies the strategies through a complete literature review. Second, the identified strategies are evaluated through the lenses of experts in three developing countries which are hoped to provide (practical contribution) a better understanding of the most effective strategies that require attention and enable the frontline stakeholders (particularly government authorities) to focus on them.Originality/valueThe study findings provide a good point of departure to explore the strategies for broader adoption of GRs in developing economic setting.

Investigating the mechanism of developers' willingness to adopt prefabricated housing using an integrated DEMATEL-SD framework

“…In the various regions of China, prefabricated construction has been added to the government development plans since 2016. It is worth noting that mandatory implementation policies have been verified as a driving force to accelerate the adoption of emerging technologies, such as information and communication technology (Lu et al ., 2019) and green roofs (Durdyev et al ., 2022). This type of policies could be developed to speed up developers' adoption, and prefabricated housing would be motivated in various regions due to compulsion (Gan et al ., 2022; Zhang et al ., 2020).…”

Green Roof Development in ASEAN Countries: The Challenges and Perspectives

“…Interestingly, Singapore, a developed country in the ASEAN region, cannot contribute much to green roof research, as it only contributes under 2% [22]. Lack of interest, applicable policies, and standards, as well as incompetence, are the most frequently cited obstacles to knowledge and awareness in developing countries [46].…”

Operational Barriers against the Use of Smart Contracts in Construction Projects

“…In the first step, a focus group discussion (FGD) was employed with industry professionals to finalize the decision framework. It was organized before the data analysis since including expert opinions to construct decision framework is an effective approach [50], [51]. This step was followed by a fuzzy AHP analysis to prioritize the operational barriers.…”

“…The major reasons to perform FGD sessions with 5 experts can be summarized as follows: too many focus group participants may cause the session complexity (e.g., between 10 and 20) [57], and few participants might hinder sharing critical and creative opinions (e.g. <5) [50], [58]. Similar to FGD sessions, more efficient data collection can be realized and reliable results can be generated in AHP or fuzzy AHP applications with small sample sizes [50].…”

“…<5) [50], [58]. Similar to FGD sessions, more efficient data collection can be realized and reliable results can be generated in AHP or fuzzy AHP applications with small sample sizes [50]. The method may even result in unassured criteria weights owing to the tendency of "cold-called" participants to provide random preferences as the sample size is increased [59].…”