Assessment of Environmental Sustainability Performance of Lokogoma Mass Housing Projects in FCC Abuja, Nigeria

ESV OGUNSANYA ELIJAH DAVID

Abstract

The knowledge of environmental sustainability performance in Lokogoma District Abuja, Nigeria is essential following the allocation of the district for mass housing over two decades ago. Therefore, this study assessed the environmental sustainability performance in Lokogoma District Abuja Nigeria. This was achieved through highlighting the environmental sustainability performance indicators followed by field assessment of the compliance to the environmental sustainability performance in Lokogoma estates. Purposive and systematic sampling techniques were used to select sample. Ten estates out of forty (Efab, Sony Vale, Peace Court, Pent, Saraha l, Saraha 2, Lingo, Minifa I Garden, First Generation and Minifa 2 Garden) were purposely selected for the study. Data collected were analyzed using mean, standard deviation and ANOVA. Result show that environmental sustainability performance indicators include: ecological risks and benefits, air pollution and its impact on the local climate, improve local infrastructure capacity, noise pollution and others. The rating of the environmental performance from the result are as follows: low (37.06% ± 19.68), moderate (44.97% ± 14.81) and high (17.96% ± 14.59). This implies that environmental sustainability performance of the estate is moderate. Therefore, performance fairly meets the basic requirements of environmental sustainability, thus, the estates can be described as fairly friendly to the environment. Developers of the estates should direct more efforts towards improving the surrounding environment to supplements other facilities and increase the economic benefit of the renters or occupiers.

Keywords: Environment, Sustainability, Performance, Mass Housing, Estate.

1. Introduction

Mass housing in the last six decades have caused several sustainability issues and the current dispensation of climate change and environmental crisis calls for more sustainable concerns in mass housing projects (Zolfaghari, Pons and Nikolic (2023). Consequently, environmental sustainability of mass housing and other constructions have captured global recognition in the recent decades due to associated benefits (Anbari, Bagherpour and Ghannadpour, 2023). Sustainable housing has been defined as “housing development that meets the housing needs and demands of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their (housing) needs and demands” (Chiu, 2004 as cited in Adamec et al., 2021).

Sustainable construction has emerged as a guiding paradigm to create a new kind of built environment (Ofori, 2001). Sustainability considerations in construction can significantly reduce energy consumption inbuildings (Irene, Magaji, lnnocent and Abugu, 2023). It enhance reduction of construction time and cost to improved efficiency and environmental savings (Makama, 2018; Pagani, Laurenti,Claudia, Hellweg and Heeren, 2020; Abugu, Suleiman, Nasiru and Irene, 2022: Jayawardana, 2023; Anbari et al., 2023). Yip, Mohamad and Ching (2017) posited that sustainable housing also promote resource conservation through energy saving and in terms of long-term flexibility as well as durability prioritization of material procurement. According to Adamec et al. (2021), sustainable housing provide adequate privacy, adequate space, physical accessibility, personal security, adequate lighting. heating and ventilation, basic infrastructure such as water supply, sanitation and waste management facilities, suitable environmental quality and health-related factors. Literature reveals that sustainability has becomea vital isSue in the conception, development and management of housing projects (Chiu, 2003; Abdellatif et al., 2006:; Odebiyi, 2010; Turcotte, and Geiser, 2010, Ihuah et al.. 2014).

Environmental sustainability performance indicators and assessment can serve as decision- supporting tools that foster sustainable development through addressing three sustainability(environmental, social and economic) decision-making challenges (Yip et al., 2017). Thus, there has been an increased interest in using sustainability indicators for evaluating

the impacts of new development projects (Tupenaite et al., 2017). However, it has been noted that issues related to policy and knowledge are the major constrains to integration of environmental sustainability approaches in mass housing (Abugu et al., 2022).

This study relied on numerous and relevant environmental sustainability performance indicators from existing studies such as Zhang, Shen and Wu, 2011:U.S, Green Building Council, 2015: Yip. et al., 2017:Tupenaite , Lill, Geipele and Naimaviciene, 2017; Shama and Motlak 2019 Huovila, Bosch and Airaksinen, 2019; Nasrabadi and Hataminejad, 2019; Adamec, Janoušková and Hák, 2021. This is because no tools have been developed for assessment of mass housing projects in the specific context of Abuja Nigeria. Tupenaite et al.(2017) have documented environmental sustainability performance indicators of residential buildings under different categories as follows:

A. Land use: site suitability, landscape design, ecosystem preservation, quality of outdoor environment and housing density

B. Water efficiency: quality of potable water, implementation of alternative water resources and water conservation

C. Energy and atmosphere: energy efficiency of housing, lighting efficiency, renewable energy use and greenhouse gas emission, thermal comfort and control indoor air quality lighting comfort and comfort and visual comfort

D. Materials and waste management: use of materials with low environmental impact use of regional/local materials, materials and products reused, availability of waste management facilities.

Pagani.et al(2020) were concerned on the interplay between the material system (material and energy resources used in housing systems) and the social system (social norms, traditions) as a part of an integrative sustainability assessment of housing. According to Nowotny, Dodson, Fiechter, Gür, Kennedy, Macyk and Rahman (2018), the main purpose of sustainable building is to guarantee that new constructions will save energy and resources and protect and ensure the health and the well-being of people. Mahmoud, Zaye and Fahmy (2019) suggest that the sustainability of a real estate project be implemented through society’s participation in decision making and moderm decision making theories, while justifying complex solutions for assessing the sustainability of a real estate project, which would ensure the satisfaction of the future needs of society. It has been emphasized that, building sustainability into real estate is inevitable in order to achieve a positive environmental impact (Dobrovolskien, et al., 2021 ).According to Anbari, et al.(2023), “all three pillars of sustainability must be met for a construction project to be considered sustainable”

It has been advised that building should be designed to provide an environment that is within the range customary for the particular type of accommodation, according to climate, season and cultural context (Shove et al., 2008; Cole et al., 2008).According to Dobrovolskien et al. (2021 ), all of the existing indices and models for assessing the sustainability of an investment project take into account only three dimensions of sustainability which are environmental, social and economic. Sustainable building previously focused on the environmental aspect with emphasis on efficient energy use, technical efficiency and functional requirements, the concept now covers both social and economic aspects as well (Si, Marjanovic-Halburd, Nasiri and Bell, 2016). Thus, the real estate industry also addresses basic social and physical needs, which include infrastructure,

production of accommodation and consumer goods (Durdyev, Zavadskas, Thurnell, Banaitis and lhtiyar, 2018).

Fay and Toma (2015) lamented that environmental sustainability is not that well integrated into countries” general strategies for development and advised that incorporation of the environment into public sector infrastructure expenditures may give way to concerns about investment costs and more immediately pressing needs. Ncube and Cloete, (2015) investigated the extent to which environmental issues are incorporated into real estate development in general as well as into housing development including the possible relationship between the level of compliance and follow-ups in housing developments in Gauteng Province and the level of compliance achieved in selected projects. The result showed that the overall level of responsiveness (reflected in the views of respondents and the level of consideration of issues in the actual development of projects) is highly concentrated between the 35% and 50 % mark.

It has been noted that most damage to facilities occurs because various building elements have limited wind resistance due to inadequate design, poor installation, or material deterioration. Although the magnitude and frequency of strong windstorms vary by locale, all critical facilities should be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize wind damage (Rydge et a., 2015). Ihuah et al. (2014) were of the view that although there were several conceptions and definitions of sustainable housing initiatives in the existing literature, there was still a need to explore and understand the vital features of sustainability in mass housing. This was corroborated by Franks (2006) who noted that the understanding of what constitutes sustainable and unsustainable initiatives is critical to assessing the success of projects and/or programmmes.

This conception is concerned with mainly housing products and associated services. The EU has also viewed sustainable housing in terms of the quality of construction, social and economic factors such as affordability, and psychological impacts, and eco-efficiency (VROM. 2005). Hence, Choguill (2007) identified economic viability; social acceptability, technical visibility and environmental compatibility as the key features of sustainable housing initiatives. Several other authors (Lutzkendorf and Lorenz, 2005; Abdellatif and Othman. 2006; Winston, 2007; Odebiyi, 2010) have also emphasized economic; social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development as the parameters for assessing sustainable housing initiatives. These descriptions are very insightful as they capture the three key aspects of housing as previously highlighted.

Nwokoro (2011) explained that the role buildings play is fundamental to the realization of sustainable development. Public awareness of environmental issues has increased significantly in Nigeria. Sustainable development has given rise to green buildings. Most green building practices fall into seven basic categories: energy saving, land saving, storm water runoff-reducing, material conservation and pollution reduction (ECO Northwest, 2001). A green building uses an average of 30% less energy than conventional building (Economist, 2004). Reed and Gordon (2000) emphasized that the integrated design process encompasses cross-disciplinary team work enabling the improved integration of buildings, community, natural and economic systems and therefore, is a key to sustainable design. There is considerable agreement among those in the field of sustainable design that cross-disciplinary team work early in the design process is essential to achieve the successful integration of building. community, natural and economic systems The team includes an energy Cialist (simulator) and hopefully, a hio-climatic engineer, depending on the nature of the project. a series of additional consultants can be added (lbem, 203, Ihem, et al 2019).

Human requires access to certain facilities such as market, housing, water supply. Electricity and adequate transportation (Adekunle et al, 2011 , The access to basic amenities like electricity, drinking water. toilet facility, sanitation, health care facilities and solid waste management are critical determinants of urban quality of life (Bhagat, 2010). Though these infrastructures form an important and integral part of life of any community, cither rural or urban but they are unequally distributed over space. Many empirical findings have shown that facilities are unequally distributed in our communities such that the vast majority of the people are caught in a never ending struggle to gain access to these infrastructures in order to improve their quality of life (Eyles, 1996: Oyerinde, 2006).

Inequalities in access to social infrastructures may be as a result of inefficiency in the distribution and allocation of facilities between areas or as a result of social barriers like ethnicity. religion or status which may directly limit certain groups from having access to public facilities, This is a prominent characteristic of a capitalist economy (Stevenson, 2004) The spatial variation in availability and access to infrastructure results in spatial disparities in living standards both within and between regions and localities (Madu. 2007). Therefore, spatial planning of infrastructure is important in meeting living standard evenly and making it sustainable by environmental integration is the way forward.

The responsiveness to environmental issues by the private corporations including the real estate sector has followed a definitive trend, from resistance to acceptance (US Environmental Protection Agency USEPA, 2000). Although corporations are increasingly making voluntary efforts to protect the environment (Strasser, 2008), the property industry is moving far too slowly to address its environmental footprint (Nelson, 2008). Despite the centrality of property development and operations to the world’s carbon use and greenhouse gas emissions, the creation of greener buildings has lagged the progress and commitment shown in many other industries (South Africa, Department of Environmental Affairs,2014).In fact, the “response from the real estate has been decidedly more tepid even sceptical”(Ncube and Cloete, 2015).

However, the report of World Economic Forum in 2016 suggested that “the real estate industry has acknowledged environmental sustainability in its decision-making The master plan of Abuja also conceptualized sustainable integrated city (Medugu et al., 2014).The reality in Abuja seems to contradict the advancement in environmental integration of mass housing. Makama, (2018) has suggested that mass housing scheme failed to provide sustainable housing in Abuja. Makama, (2018) evaluates the construction professional’s perception of economic sustainability for housing delivery in Abuja. Abugu et al. (2022) focused on factors that constrained the integration of sustainability in mass housing construction in Abuja. These studies could not establish the environmental sustainability performance in Lokogoma District Abuja, Nigeria. Therefore, this study bridged this gap as it assessed the environmental sustainability performance in Lokogoma District Abuja, Nigeria. This was achieved through highlighting the environmental sustainability performance indicators followed by field assessment of the compliance to the environmental sustainability performance in Lokogoma estates.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 The study Area

The Federal Capital Territory Abuja where Lokogoma mass housing is located at the centre of Nigeria. It is bounded on the north by Kaduna State, on the west by Niger State, on Greenwich Meridian the east and south-east by Nasarawa State, and on the south-west by Kogi State. Lokogoma district is in the southern part of Abuja phase 1, area (Figure 1), Lokogoma has the same climatic characteristics with the entire FCT Abuja which is within Köppen’s Aw climate classification features- a tropical wet and dry climate (Abujaoipedia, 2017). The FCT experiences three weather conditions annually. This includes a warm, humid rainy season and a blistering dry season. Lokogoma is dominated by residential estates that accommodate workers in the FCT, thus, residential is the major land use. The district currently host over 40 estates.

Figure 1: The Study Area

Source: Modified after Abdullah & Abd AziIz (2013)

2.1 Methodology

Data for this study were obtained through the following techniques: documents review, questionnaire, observation and key informant interview, Thus, data were sourced from both primary and secondary sources. The indicators of environmental sustainability approaches were first acquired from literature review (Table 1), Then, field survey was conducted to ascertain the compliance and described the environmental sustainability of the estates. Multistage sampling was used for the collection of data for the study. Purposive and systematic sampling techniques were used to select sample. Ten estates out of forty (Efab, Sony Vale, Peace Court, Pent Sarahal. Saraha 2,Lingo, Minifa 1 Garden, First Generation and Minifa 2 Garden) were purposely selected for the studies based on age and location. After which, systematic random sampling was used to select housing unit to sample. A total of three hundred and seventy-six (376) households were selected from the ten (10) estates in Lokogoma. The distributions of questionnaire across the ten (10) estates were based on their population size. Data collected were analysed using mean, standard deviation and ANOVA.

Environmental Sustainability Performance Indicator

Table 1 highlights the environmental sustainability performance indicators. Environmental sustainability performance indicators include: ecological risks and benefits, air pollution and its impact on the local climate, improves local infrastructure capacity, noise pollution, waste generation, outdoor environment condition, indoor environmental condition and plumbing system.

Table 1:Environmental Sustainability Performance Indicator

SN Indicator Source

1 Water use and pollution U.S. Green Building Council (2015): Shama and Motlak

including both surface and (2019 )

ground water

2 Ecological risks and Yip, Mohamad and Ching (2017); Shama and Motlak

Benefits (2019)

3 Air pollution and its impact

on the local climate

4. Improvement in local U.S. Green Building Council (2025); Shama and Motlak

infrastructure capacity, (2019)

such as drainage, sewage,

power, road,

communication and

transportation

5 Noise pollution U.S. Green Building Council (2025); Shama and Motlak

(2019)

6 Waste generation and Adamex, Janouskova Hak, (2021)

Management

7 Outdoor environment Tupenaite, Lill L. Geipele and Naimaviciene, (2017);

Condition Shama and Motlat (2019)

8 Indoor environmental Yip, et al.(2017);

condition

9 Plumbing system U.S. Green Building Council (2015).

10 Energy efficiency sources Yip, et al.(2017); Huovila, Bosch and Airaksinen, 2019

Adamec et al.(2021)

11 Building design in line with Tupenaite et al. (2017); Yip et al. (2017);

site’s climatic conditions

12 Green space Yip, et al.(2017);Nasrabadi and Hataminejad, (2019)

Reducing the carbon Adamec et al.(2021)

footprint of buildings

throughout their lifecycle

13 Green technologies Zhang, Shen, and Wu, (2011). Yip et al. (2017);

14 Appropriate site selection Yip et al. (2017);Tupenaite et al. (2017

15 Housing density Tupenaite et al. (2017)

16 Developing damaged areas Tupenaite et al. (2017)

protecting and enhancing Yip, et al.(201

biodiversity

17 Mixed use of land Shama and Motlak (2019)

3. Results and Discussions

Environmental Sustainability Performance of Lokogoma Mass Housing Project

Tables 2 present results for Environmental Sustainability Performance of Lokogoma Mass Housing Projects. Result in Table 2 shows mean and standard deviation of respondents ratings (low, moderate and high) for Environmental Sustainability Performance as follows: low(37.06% ± 19.68). moderate (44.97% ± 14.81) and high (17.96% ± 14.59). This implies that Environmental Sustainability Performance of the estates is moderate. Therefore, performance fairly meets the basic requirements of environmental sustainability, hence the estates can be deseribed as fairly friendly to the environment. The result implies that the Estates development did not properly consider energy, water, material efficiency and indoor environment to perform high and sustain the environment. Thus, it can be said that the estates fall short of the United Nations climate change summit in Paris in December 2015 that emphasized real estate sector should reduce greenhouse gas emissions, implementing water/waste management, and reducing pollutants in the air, water and land (World Economic Forum, 2016).

The result aligned with Okoye and Ngwu (2021) who reported that environmental and economic sustainability performance of multi-family residential buildings in Anambra State were perceived

as fairly satisfactory. However, it does to align with Ibrahim (2020), who reported high performance of public housing offered by the UAE government to its citizens, The result that performance fairly meets the basic requirements of environmental sustainability is not in isolation, even developed countries are yet to record high environmental sustainability performance of estate. For instant, a recent study in Europe has shown that despite the fact that sustainability have gained particular attention in the real estate sector due the impact on the environment, real estate projects are mostly take into account only their risk and return, and a very limited number of aligned towards sustainability (Dobrovolskien et al., 2021). Interview with stakeholders also portend poor environmental performance of the estates. The developers were positive on their efforts toward environmental protection and sustainability while staff of Department of Development Control demonstrates that developer’ inability to adhere to plan and sustainable approaches have resulted to poor performance of environmental sustainability.

Table 2: Environmental Sustainability Performance of Lokogoma Mass Housing Projects

Low Moderate High

S/N Freq % Freq % Freq %

Water use and pollution from the estates 232 61.7 139 36.97 5 1.33

including both surface and ground water

Ecological risks and benefits associated 219 58.24 101 26.86 56 14.89

with the estates

Air pollution from the estates and its 112 29.79 246 65.43 18 4.79

impact on the local climate

The estates improves local infrastructure 75 19.95 127 33.78 174 46.28
Noise pollution in the estates 24 6.38 198 52.66 154 40.96
Waste generation in the estates 187 49.73 118 31.38 71 18.88
Outdoor environment condition 122 32.45 235 62.23 19 5.05
Indoor environmental condition 67 17.82 234 62.23 75 19.95
Plumbing system 78 20.74 212 56.38 86 22.87
Energy efficiency sources 193 51.33 121 32.18 62 16.49
Building design in line with site’s 224 59.57 129 34.31 23 6.12

climatic conditions

139.36 37.06 169.09 44.97 67.55 17.96

Mean

Standard Deviation 73.98 19.68 55.67 14.81 54.85 14.59

The rating of the Environmental Sustainability Performance of the estates is moderate > low >

high. ANOVA was used to test for significant variation for the ratings (low, moderate and high)

of the Environmental Sustainability Performance. Table 3 shows the ANOVA test for significant

variation for the ratings (low, moderate and high) of the Environmental Sustainability

Performance. Table 3 presents the ANOVA result as follows: Calculated F 5.67

F-table at 0.05 = 2.67

Critical F=2.54

Decision:

Since the calculated F value of 5.67 is greater than the critical F value of 2.54, H. There is no significant difference in the ratings (low, moderate and high) of the Environmental Sustainability Performance at 95% confidence level is rejected, Thus, there is a significant difference in the ratings (low. moderate and high) of the Environmental Sustainability Performance at 95% confidence level. Therefore, respondents that rated Environmental Sustainability Performance of the estates as moderate is significantly higher than those that rated it low or high. Thus, description of the Environmental Sustainability Performance of the estates as fairly friendly to the environment is not by chance at 95% confidence level.

Table 3: ANOVA for the Ratings (Low, Moderate and High) of the Environmental

Sustainability Performance

Source of Variation Sum of Squares Degree of Freedom Mean SS F Ratio

Between Group 113.23 20 35.27

Within Group 101.26 10 6.22 5.67

Total 214.49 30

The result of interview with stakeholders also corroborates the finding from the questionnaire. A respondent posited that environmental sustainability performance of the estates is neither too bad nor excellent. The Director, Department of Urban and Regional Planning FCDA (Engr. Abdulkadir Bello Tunau) explains that distortion of plan has given room to poor environmental performance of the estates. According to him, sustainable approaches are part of every estate planning but poor implementations by developers are responsible for notable limitations. Engr. Tunau recalls that several buildings that fall short of plan have been demolished to enhance the environmental sustainability performance of Lokogoma estates.

4. Conclusion and Recommendations

Knowledge of environmental sustainability performance indicators of mass housing can promote project management and sustainability. Results show that rating of environmental sustainability performance of the estates is moderate. Therefore, performance fairly meets the basic requirements of environmental sustainability, hence the estates can be described as fairly friendly to the environment. Developers of the estates should direct more efforts towards improving the surrounding environment to supplements other facilities and increase the economic benefit of the

renters or occupiers.

References

Abdellatif, M.A and Othman AAE(2006), Improving the Sustainability of Low-Income Housing Projects: The case of Residential Buildings in Musaffah Commercial City, Abu Dhabi. Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, 11(2)47-58.

Abdullahi B. C and Abd Aziz W.(2013).State Mass Housing Scheme for the Low-Income Group in Abuja. Open house international, 38(2).

Abugu N A, Suleiman A.Y, Nasiru LM and Irene A M. (2022).Investigation of Factors that Constrained the Integration of Green Building Concept in Estate Housing Construction in FCC Abuja, Nigeria Journal ofIsraeli and African Studies (JIAS), I(1):56-72.

Abujaoipedia (2017).Geographical and Environmental Backgrounds of FCT, Abuja. Posted September 27 athttps://abujaoipedia.org/content/geographical-and-environmental- backgrounds-of-fct-abuja/.

Adamec, . Janoušková, S., Hák, T. (2021).How to Measure Sustainable Housing: A Proposal for Indicator-Based AssessmentTool.Sustainability, I3. 1152. https://doi,.org/10.3390’sul3031152.

Anbari M.M,Bagherpour M and Ghannadpour S. (2023). Sustainability assessment in construction projects: a sustainable carned value management model under uncertain

Pagani N. Laurenti R ,Claudia R. B, Hellweg S and Heeren N.(2020),Sustainability Assessment of the Housing System: Exploring the Interplay between the Material and Social Systems. Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems 16:384 416. DO1: https://doi.org/10.1017/97811O8574334

Shama Z.S and Motlak J.B. (2019), Indicators for Sustainable housing, 1OP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci.Eng. 518 022009, South Africa Department of Environmental Affairs, (2014). National environmental compliance enforcement report 2012-13. from: Retrieved https://www.environment.gov, za/sites/default/

Strasser, K. A.(2008). Do voluntary corporate efforts improve environmental performance? The empirical literature. The greening of the corporation. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 35(3):533-556.

Tupenaite L, Lill I, Geipele I and Naimaviciene J. 2017).Ranking of Sustainability Indicators for Assessmentof the New Housing Development Projects: Case ofthe Baltic States. Resources, 6, 55; doi:10.3390/resources6040055.

Turcotte, D and Geiser, K.(2010). A Framework to Guide Sustainable Housing. Housing US. Green Building Council2015)) Green Building Facts. www.usgbc.org. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015.l1-24 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA,2000). Green dividends? The relationship between firms’ environmental performance and financial perfomance. National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology: Washington DC.

Yip N.M, Mohamad J and Ching G.H (2017).Indicators of Sustainable Housing Development (SHD): A Review and Con18. btp:/wompetitive ade Conceptual Framework. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 3, 9)50o 310. w.ijser.org. Zhang. X: Shen, L.Wu, Y. (2011).Green states development: A China study. J. Clean. Prod., 19, advantage in housing

Zolfaghari SM, Pons O and Nikolic J. (2023),Sustainability assessment model for mass housing’s interior rehabilitation and its validation to Ekbatan, Iran.Journal of Building Engineering 655,105685.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S23 527 10222016916 and 24.https: conditions.Environment Systems hiips/europepme.org/article/pms/pme10149108. Unreliable and Society. 37(2)87-117.

Chiu, R.LH. (2003). Environmental Sustainability of Hong Kong’s Housing System and the Housing Process Model. International Planning Studies. 5(1 ): 45-64. Decisions, 30:1-

Huovila A.. Bosch, P and Airaksinen, M. (2019),.Comparative analysis of standardized indicators for Smart sustainable cities: What indicators and standards to use and when? Cities, 89, 141-153.

Ihuah, P.W, Kakulu, LI and Eaton, D.(2014).A review of Critical Project Management Success Factors (CPMSF)for sustainable social housing in Nigeria. International Journal of Sustainable Built Emvironment, 3:62-71.

Javawardana J.(2023).Environmental Sustainability of Off:Site Construction in Developed and Developing Regions: A Systematic Review.Journal of Architectural EngineeringArchive,292): https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/JAEIED.AEENG-1420. Lessons from various Countries.

Makama, FS.(2018),Construction professionals’ perception of economic sustainability for housing delivery in Abuja. A thesis submitted to the school of postgraduate studies, Ahamadu Bello University, Zaria in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of master degree in construction management department of building, faculty of environmental design, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria. Open Repository, Ahmed Bello University Zaria, Nigeria https://kubanni. abu.edu.ng/items/d280daa7- Tef3-450e-aa66-932cb36ea2d5. 234-251.

Nasrabadi, MT. and Hataminejad, H. (2019), “Assessing sustainable housing indicators: a structural equation modeling analysis”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 8(5):457-472. https:/ldoi.org/10.1108/SASBE-01-2019-0008, NcubeP and Cloete c.(2015).Compliance with environmental approvals in housing developments in Gauteng. South Africa. Economics, 4(3), 201-219.

Nelson, JA( 2008). Globalisation and global trends in green real estate investment. RREEF Research, No. 64. Retrieved from: http://www.reef. com/Content/ media.

Odebiyi, S.O(2010). Sustainable Housing Development in Afica: Nigerian Perspective.

Ofori, G. (2001). Challenges of Construction Industries in Developing Countries: Lessons from various Countries

ESV OGUNSANYA ELIJAH is a practicing Estate Surveyor and Valuer. This publication was derived from his P.HD work at the Nasarawa State University, Keffi, Nasarawa State, Nigeria.