Analysis of Survey on Barriers to the Implementation of Sustainable Projects

Abstract

The present impediments to the implementation of sustainable practices in residential and commercial structures in the United States, India and Afghanistan will be evaluated and compared in this study. This study intends to identify the barriers to sustainable development within the residential and commercial buildings creating a basis for the methods to address these issues. The selection of these three countries was based on taking the United States as a developed country, India as developing country and Afghanistan as an undeveloped country. Understanding the barriers studied will establish a path to overcoming them and allow the market to open up to the widespread implementation of sustainable practices. According to the survey conducted, about 91% of respondents in Afghanistan, about 71% in India and 32% of respondents in the USA have moderate to low knowledge on sustainable construction. Other barriers mentioned in the study include the high cost of materials, insufficient training, government policy, and so on.

1. Introduction

Although the need for more sustainable building projects has achieved significant progress in recent years, these improvements are insufficient to reverse the environmental impacts. To increase the speed of sustainable building construction, this survey aims on identifying the hurdles to sustainability in construction, particularly from the perspective of owners and employees of construction sectors. Once the difficulties have been identified, decision-makers in the construction industry could work together to develop viable approaches to mitigate them [1].

According to a UN Environment Program research [2] buildings and their construction account for 36% of worldwide energy use and 39% of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions annually. The cause of such emissions is a mix of two factors. The first is daily energy usage, which includes energy for heating, cooling, and illumination and amounts to 28% of world emissions each year. The second is via the amount of carbon generated during the fabrication of basic materials utilized on construction sites, as well as during the actual construction process. This is also known as embodied carbon, and it contributes to around a quarter of a building’s total lifetime carbon emissions, as well as 11% of global emissions. Moreover, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), has stated that the increased construction activities and urbanization will increase waste which will eventually destroy natural resources and wildlife habitats [3].

For many years, these environmental issues have piqued the interest of various environmental sectors, including the construction industry, and various actions have been taken to reduce or eliminate environmentally damaging activities by implementing sustainable development through sustainable construction. Despite substantial progress, the construction sector continues to face several challenges in implementing sustainable construction practices. The survey will examine hurdles that the construction sector faces during the implementation of sustainable building projects.

In the late 1960s the construction industry began to explore ecological approaches to construction, aiming to seek harmony with nature [4]. The concept of sustainability first evolved in the 1970s, during the oil crisis. At that time, people began to grasp the importance and urgency of the energy discourse, which centered on how to use energy efficiently and seek alternatives to prevailing power sources. Moreover, during this time, the scarcity of many other natural resources, such as water, raised public awareness of the importance of sustainability and environmental preservation [5]. The term sustainable development was first coined in the Brundtland report of 1987, defined as the ability to meet the needs of all people in the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own [6]. Sustainable development is a technology that links three socially concerned systems (environment, society, and economy) to meet a set of UN Development Program goals [7]. Thus, this research is going to analyze the barriers that the construction industry is facing during the implementation of sustainable projects.

1.1. Sustainability and Sustainable Buildings

The phrase “sustainability” refers to a building’s total ability to provide a comfortable, healthy, and productive atmosphere for a long time without negatively impacting the environment. Sustainability is defined as a state in which ecosystem components and capacity are maintained for current and future generations, with ecosystem segments including plants and animals, as well as humans and their physical surroundings. The junction of major components of human necessities, primarily the environmental, economic, social, and cultural conditions, constitutes sustainability [8]. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines sustainable construction as the practice of creating structures and using processes that are environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout a building’s life-cycle from siting to design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation, and deconstruction [9]. Sustainable buildings are high-performance buildings that also satisfy specific standards for conserving natural resources. Sustainable buildings are defined by efficient energy and water resource management, material resource and waste management, environmental restoration and protection, health and indoor environmental quality betterment and protection, reinforcement of natural systems, and analysis of the lifecycle cost and benefits of materials and methods. There are a variety of standards, assessment tools, and rating systems in place to oversee the implementation of sustainable construction or to certify whether new or existing structures are environmentally friendly and sustainable. Many researches have shown that commercial and academic buildings are certified with LEED [10,11] and solar PVs are installed on academic building’s rooftops [12,13,14] or campus [15,16,17]. In addition, a new type of sustainable energy system [18] has been studied in depth in order to be environmentally friendly. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a well-known and widely utilized standard. This study will use a variety of questionnaires to see how LEED and other factors have influenced the development of sustainable construction.

1.2. Sustainable Construction in India

India, the world’s seventh-largest country, is a significant economic powerhouse with over one billion people living in a range of temperature zones. The country’s economy has developed at a remarkable rate since the commencement of the economic reform process in 1991. Construction accounts for 6.5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on aggregate, which is a considerable sector of the economy. The commercial and residential sectors continue to support the construction industry. These sectors consume a lot of energy over the life cycle of buildings, making them an extracting key of greenhouse gas emissions. As the result of the country’s rapid urbanization, the number of buildings, energy consumption, and carbon emissions and environmental pollution in general, are all on the rise. According to the Indian Central Energy Authority’s report, building energy consumption has increased from 14% in the 1970s to over 33% in 2004–2005, thanks to a near-consistent 8% increase in yearly energy consumption in the residential and commercial sectors. Lighting, air conditioning, refrigeration, appliances, and water heating are the primary uses of electricity in both the residential and commercial sectors. Economic growth, construction growth, and human development are all predicted to drive up energy consumption in Indian structures. As India’s living standards rise, the demand for energy to power equipment such as televisions, air conditioning, heating units, refrigerators, and lighting will soar. The business sector will continue to flourish, as will the transition from rural to urban living. This will result in a significant increase in emissions from the buildings sector alone, necessitating aggressive efforts to reduce building energy usage through various approaches [19]. Building rating systems are a popular technique for accelerating progress toward energy efficiency and sustainability in structures. Currently, the country uses two rating systems: LEED and Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA).

The Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and the government agency Green Building Council India (GBCI) administer LEED-India, which examines buildings’ environmental and energy efficiency during the design, construction, and operation stages to promote the green building idea in India. The Green Building Council of India (GBCI) is now aiding the US Green Building Council’s LEED rating process in India [20]. Buildings are rated platinum, gold, silver, or certified based on their green building points. LEED is advancing rapidly in India; there are at least nine different LEED categories, including those for new commercial construction and substantial restoration projects, existing building operation and maintenance, commercial interiors, housing, schools, neighborhood development, and retail.

Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA) is a national grading system established by The Energy and Resources Institute of India, which has been adopted by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy of India to foster the development of sustainable construction projects in the country. It is an indigenously constructed rating system that is perfectly tailored to climate fluctuations, architectural practices, and existing construction methods, to revive passive architecture [21]. It takes into account the national environmental issues, regional climate circumstances, and indigenous solutions. It emphasizes passive solar solutions for improving visual and indoor thermal comfort and recommends using refrigeration-based and energy-intensive air conditioning systems only in extreme circumstances of extreme heat [22]. There has been a growing trend in the commercial sector to consider sustainability issues, and several such projects have recently opted for one of the two commonly used building rating systems. The Central Public Works Department of India (CPWD) is a premier Central Government authority in charge of public sector works in India. All CPWD constructions in India follow the GRIHA rating system. CPWD follows their own green rating manual which covers all sustainable design features implemented for their large of number structures being built every year. CPWD green rating manual is the initiatives of Government of India for sustainable development and welfare measures which affect sustainability. Rating is proposed in nine criteria such as Architectural Planning and Design, Quality and Safety, Sustainable Building Materials, Green Construction Measures, Water Conservation Measures, Energy Efficiency and Conservation, Waste Management, Welfare Measures, and Landscape and Horticulture. Rating is based on marks which can be up to the maximum 100 marks limit and projects are rated as Green, Green Plus and Super Green [23].

There are more green and energy rating systems in India. The Energy Conservation Building Code (ECBC) was developed in India for new commercial buildings in 2007 and the code pursues minimum energy standards for commercial buildings having a connected load of 100 kW [24]. In 2001, the Indian Green Building Council (IGBC) as part of the CII was established to achieve a sustainable built environment and facilitate India to be a global leader in the sustainable built environment by 2025. The council provides services in new green building rating, certification, and green building training [25]. BEE Star Label is a program run by the Indian government’s Bureau of Energy Efficiency under Ministry of Power that promotes energy efficiency. The program provides information on the energy consumption of products and devices using different standardized methods [26].

1.3. Sustainable Construction in Afghanistan

For the last four decades, Afghanistan has been experiencing the scourge of war. From the Soviet invasion and occupation in 1979, to the Civil War from 1989 to 2001, culminating in the American invasion following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and the collapse of the Afghan government in August 2021 by the hands of Taliban, peace, stability, and progress have been elusive for most Afghans. The current war continues to ravage the majority of the country with a peaceful resolution unlikely in the near future. Due to the absence of culturally correct, indigenous construction materials and techniques, the current construction and reconstruction methods in Afghanistan are not sustainable [27].

The capital city of Afghanistan, Kabul, has experienced a remarkable growth rate in population and building since 2001. This rapid and uncontrolled growth of building construction caused some problems from different perspectives, especially from the sustainability perspective. The capital city, Kabul has implemented the lowest sustainable practices in the building sector in all those buildings built after the year 2000 [28].

A government agency, Ministry of Urban Development and Lands (MUDL) work for building sustainable buildings, but their lack of knowledge of sustainable buildings lead to worsen the current condition of sustainable buildings in the country [29].

The main objective of this paper was to identify and compare the barriers the construction sector in the United States, India and Afghanistan to the implementation of sustainable projects and suggest ways to address them.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Designing the Questionnaire

The questionnaire was designed using the findings of the literature study as a guide. The questionnaire was created to address the research’s questions and objectives, and it was created to be completed by the responder without the presence of the researcher. The list of questions that were sent to respondents is listed in Appendix A. To facilitate survey development for usage on the internet, SurveyMonkey, an online application and hosting site, was employed [30]. The questionnaire which includes 14 multiple choice questions and one free comment was sent to about 285 construction industry professionals in all three countries, the United States, Afghanistan and India to observe the difficulty and problems regarding sustainable construction. The selection of these three countries was based on taking the United States as a developed country, India as a developing country, and Afghanistan as an undeveloped country. A total of 201 questionnaire responses were collected, of which 72 were from the United States, 59 from Afghanistan and 70 were from India and this yields a total response rate of 70.5%. The analysis of responses was used to identify the current barriers in the implementation of sustainable construction. The majority of the questions in the survey were intentionally brief and closed-ended. Individuals such as contractors, subcontractors, clients, consultants, developers, facility managers, and other specialists from the construction sector received the questionnaire, which was distributed to local professionals with experience in the United States, Afghanistan and India’s building and construction industries (both private and government sectors). These individuals were deemed suitable to complete the questionnaire. The questionnaire was also designed to determine each respondent’s professional experience, the type of organization they worked for and their function within the organization, and their perceptions of the extent to which sustainable construction principles have been implemented.

2.2. Reliability of Questionnaires

The internal consistency of a concept measure is referred to as reliability [31]. It could also note whether the scale being used gives consistent results each time the test is conducted [32]. There are various methods for determining a question’s reliability, including the test re-test method, internal consistency, and alternate form [33]. Internal consistency is chosen as the strategy for measuring reliability in this study. The questionnaires’ reliability was tested using the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) method, which is used for assessing how important an independent variable’s effect is in determining the variability in a set of measurements.

The ANOVA test is the initial step in determining what factors influence a data set. An extra testing was done on the methodological components that contribute meaningfully to the data set’s inconsistency after the test is completed. The F-test is used to produce extra data that align with the proposed regression models using the ANOVA test findings [34]. The F-statistic (also known as the F-ratio) is a result of the test formula to identify the variability between and within samples. The F-ratio statistic of the test is near to one if there is no real difference between the tested groups, which is known as the null hypothesis. The F-distribution is the distribution of all potential F statistic values. The numerator degrees of freedom and the denominator degrees of freedom are two characteristic numbers that define this group of distribution functions [35]. The influence of a single variable on a single test statistic is investigated using a one-way ANOVA. It checks to see if all of the samples are the same. The one-way ANOVA is used to see if there are any statistically significant differences in the means of three or more unrelated groups.

The two-factor one-way ANOVA was used to statistically assess the responses from all three surveys. The analysis of the results is based on the null and alternative hypotheses. The three research sample results were used as treatments for the analysis. The null hypothesis is assumed to be true in the fields of variance analysis, factorial design, and design of experiments, and the test is done using the available data. Then, it is checked to see if there are enough data to decide if the null hypothesis is true or not, and if so, a choice is taken. In this study, the null hypothesis (H₀) was chosen since all of the research papers considered had the same result, whereas the alternative hypothesis (H₁) was chosen because at least one research paper differed [36].

H₀. 

All answer categories have the same answer.

H₁. 

At least one differs or have possible outliers/out numbers.

There are three separate survey questionnaires, one in United States, one in Afghanistan and one in India. The common questions from all three surveys are considered, grouped, and statistically evaluated using a two-factor one-way ANOVA. The overview for ANOVA test is shown in

Table 1. Overview of the analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Source	DF	Sum of Squares (SS)	Mean Squares (MS)	F-Statistics
Between groups	k − 1	$S{S}_B=S_{i=1}^k{n}_i{({\overline{\mathrm{x}}}_i-\overline{\mathrm{x}})}^2$	$M{S}_B=S{S}_B/\left(K+1\right)$	$M{S}_B/M{S}_w$
Within groups	N − k	$S{S}_W=S_{i=1}^k\left(n_i-1\right)s_i^2$	$M{S}_w=S{S}_W/\left(N-K\right)$
Total	N − 1	$S{S}_T=S{S}_B+S{S}_W$

(DF)—Degree of freedom between groups; k = the number of treatments or independent comparison groups; N = total number of observations or total sample size; $S{S}_B—$The sum of squares between groups; $S{S}_W—$The sum of squares within groups; $S{S}_T—$The total sum of squares; $M{S}_B—$Mean square between groups; $M{S}_w—$Mean square within groups; F-Statistic $F=\frac{M{S}_B}{M{S}_w}$.

. The significance level is set at 0.05 or 5%.

2.3. Survey

In this study, a survey was conducted in three different countries, the United States, Afghanistan and India. The respondents are the construction companies’ owners, engineers, project managers, contractors and others. The respondents were asked to answer questions regarding sustainable construction and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or equivalent rating system and sustainable construction practices. The list of questions sent for the survey are listed in the Appendix A.

3. Results

3.1. Demographic Distribution of Respondents

The first question asked respondents is to choose their role in the company (i.e., Engineer, Contractor, Project Manager, or other). This is to determine the demographic distribution of the members of the population samples and the level of decision-maker capability. The demographic distribution of respondents for the survey is listed in

Table 2. Demographic distribution of respondents.

Country	Owners	Engineers	Contractors	Project Managers	Others
USA	8.3%	51.4%	6.9%	25.0%	8.3%
India	17.1%	54.3%	10.0%	11.4%	7.1%
Afghanistan	13.6%	54.2%	6.8%	20.3%	5.1%

below.

3.2. Education and Training

Factors such as lack of training and education, lack of information and combined research and inaccuracy of a definition of sustainable construction have been mentioned under the education and training barrier for sustainable construction. Construction professionals in developing countries lack suitable training in their roles in completing sustainable development. The barrier of lacking education and training has been reported in some studies [37,38], which insisted that education and training in sustainable construction are rare due to less work commitments and lack of sponsorship from employers [39].

Furthermore, according to the survey conducted by Nwokoro [39], the education and training of professionals were ranked second out of ten social factors which are needed for sustainable construction. The study suggested that educational organizations should include sustainable construction in professional construction programs which will help the construction professionals to get knowledge about sustainable construction and to educate others [40]. This indicates an apparent disparity between experience, education, and training. Pitt et al. [41] also acknowledged barriers such as lack of training and education in sustainable design and construction, lack of awareness of sustainable building, lack of designer’s skills, and several other factors as barriers to sustainable construction.

3.2.1. Level of Knowledge and Understanding of Sustainable Construction Projects

To gain an insight into the level of awareness and knowledge among construction professionals concerning the concept of sustainable buildings and sustainability, the respondents were asked to rate their awareness and knowledge of this subject matter and their perception of it, based on their experience and level of understanding on the subject. Survey results are shown in

Table 3. Level of respondents’ knowledge in sustainable construction projects.

Country	Highly	Moderate	Very Low
USA	67.6%	28.2%	4.2%
India	28.6%	58.6%	12.9%
Afghanistan	8.6%	25.9%	65.5%

.

The results show that the level of sustainable knowledge in the United State is higher compared to India and Afghanistan. A total of 95.8% of respondents considered themselves to have moderate to high knowledge of the concept of sustainable construction. The concept of sustainability is widespread in the United States than in India and Afghanistan. The degree of awareness in India and Afghanistan is lower; 28.6% and 8.6%, respectively, of members consider themselves to have high knowledge, while the rest 71.5% and 91.4%, respectively, consider themselves to have moderate to very low knowledge. This could be a deterrent to the implementation of long-term initiatives of sustainable projects in India and Afghanistan.

3.2.2. Availability of Training and Seminars Opportunities for Employees

Availability of training opportunities to enable workers in gaining knowledge on sustainable construction was asked considering the employees’ participation in training, seminars, or other professional development courses regularly. Training and seminars in the construction sector are critical for developing a long-term construction workforce. On account of this question, the surveyees were asked to choose one of the answers, either frequently, occasionally, or never (see

Table 4. Attendance of employees to sustainable project seminars and trainings.

Country	Frequently	Occassionally	Never
USA	41.7%	50.0%	8.3%
India	31.4%	54.3%	14.3%
Afghanistan	8.6%	25.9%	65.5%

).

Survey responses from the United States show that there are many opportunities for trainings and seminars. A total of 91.7% of the respondents answered that there are frequent or occasional trainings fostered by their companies to increase sustainable construction awareness. This shows that most companies provide enough training opportunities for their employees for sustainable projects. On the other hand, 8.3% of respondents reported that their companies do not let workers participate in any training regarding sustainable projects and this can be a barrier in the implementation of sustainable construction projects. This scale is lower in Indians and Afghans respondents. Only 31.4% Indian and 8.6% Afghans respondents answered that there are frequent seminars and trainings of sustainable projects.

An unsatisfying level of awareness can be a hindrance to the implementation of sustainable projects mostly in India and Afghanistan, and this might require companies to take steps in increasing training opportunities to eradicate the information barrier. Respondents agreed that implementing skills such as training and capacity enhancement will help the disadvantaged workers. This will also create awareness about the benefits of sustainable building construction. New sustainable building technologies are inverted every day and they demand people to learn and develop their skills before they can adapt and implement them. The analysis of the survey data is shown in

Table 5. Analysis of variance on the attendance of employees to training and seminars.

Source	DF	Seq SS	Adj MS	F-Value	p-Value
Between groups	2	38.22	2.78	0.0779	0.926
Within groups	6	1471.33	123.22
Total	8	1509.55

.

There is a good level of knowledge about sustainable construction in the United States than in India and Afghanistan. Lack of information and experience by construction businesses owners, advisors, and contractors on sustainable practices have caused the high initial cost of the projects and delay of the growth of the sustainable building market. In analysis, the p-value was found to be 0.926 which is greater than the significant value hence failing to reject the hypothesis tested. This situation brings the question of what should be done to generate, progress, apply and diffuse information among experts to inspire and change the management systems of construction companies. Employers and employees in construction sector should advance their knowledge on sustainability by attending training on sustainable projects.

3.3. Economic Barriers

The project cost is one of the most important factors to be considered when it comes to sustainable building construction. The increase in the initial cost is the most common argument for not including sustainability components in construction designs [42]. The additional costs and those connected with sustainable buildings compliance and certification often need owners to add a separate line item to the project budget. The cost for integrating sustainable design in buildings depends mostly on a wide range of factors including building type, project location, local climate, site conditions, and familiarity of the project team with sustainable design. There could be a misconception that the initial cost of sustainable buildings is much higher. That is why many studies are more concentrated on the management of the initial cost for sustainable buildings. Gundogan [43] mentioned in his report that there is a small green growth of 2.42% in the entire growth of cost. Hwang [44] argued that both the initial and operating costs of the building could be less expensive if high-technology and low-technology solutions are combined in the right way.

3.3.1. Sustainable Construction Cost

Another question was asked to understand if sustainable buildings are considered to be relatively expensive. The results of the survey are plotted in Figure 1.

As per the question on the LEED registered, green, and sustainable buildings being expensive, the majority of respondents from all three countries agreed that sustainable buildings are relatively expensive compared to regular or conventional construction options. More than 80% respondents from all three countries answered that sustainable building options are expensive compared to regular construction. Various reasons for the higher cost have been documented in the literature, such as the contractor’s unfamiliarity with green design and materials, lack of prior experience, unfamiliar methods, additional inspection and testing during construction, lack of performance information, and lack of supplier and manufacturer support [45]. It has been proposed that these obstacles can be overcome by providing fiscally innovative arrangements and financial incentives for minimizing the excess expenditures, which can be recouped through increased rentals. It is suggested that governments should continue to provide incentives for construction industry to adopt sustainable green construction until the required level of demand is met [46].

The analysis of the results is shown in

Table 6. Analysis of cost variance on sustainable construction.

Source	DF	Seq SS	Adj MS	F-Value	p-Value
Between groups	2	28.67	14.33	0.0805	0.9233
Within groups	9	1601.99	177.99
Total	11	1630.66

. p-value was found to be 0.9233 which fails to reject the null hypothesis. It can be said that the higher construction cost can be one of the barriers to the implementation of sustainable projects both in all three countries, the United States, India and Afghanistan.

3.3.2. Financial Support from Banks for the Implementation of Sustainable Projects

In this question, respondents were asked to evaluate the level of difficulty in getting finances from a bank for sustainable constructions. The results of the survey are shown in

Table 7. The level of difficulty in financing.

Country	Difficult	Easy	Do Not Know
USA	45.1%	49.3%	5.6%
India	61.4%	27.1%	11.4%
Afghanistan	76.3%	15.3%	8.5%

.

The results of the survey from all three countries show that there is a certain level of difficulty in obtaining finances from banks for sustainable projects, but this is not the main barrier for implementation of sustainable projects because there is a better percentage of respondents from the United States, about 49% answering that it is easy to obtain finances from banks. This tells us that a bank might be ready for providing funds for sustainable projects.

Table 8. Analysis of variance on financing for sustainable construction.

Source	DF	Seq SS	Adj MS	F-Value	p-Value
Between groups	2	29.55	14.78	0.0404	0.9607
Within groups	6	2196.01	366.00
Total	8	2225.56

shows the analysis of the survey on financing for sustainable construction projects. Although the situation is not the same in India and Afghanistan, about 61% and 76%, respectively, of respondents agreed to the fact that getting finances from banks is one of the barriers to the implementation of sustainable projects.

The results above were analyzed by using the ANOVA Test method. p-value for data from the questionnaire was found to be 0.9607 which is less than a significant level. Thus, our results reject the hypothesis, the majority of the respondents from the United States have stated that financing from banks is not a barrier to the implementation of sustainable projects. Although most projects are administered by private companies and government agencies, banks in all three countries have demonstrated their willingness to provide financial support to diverse companies for the implementation of sustainable projects. Based on the percentage of respondents who identified this as a major barrier, it appears that certain banks have been making it difficult for small firms to access financial assistance. This can be a stumbling block for some of the companies.

3.4. Perception of the Role of Government and Need for Policy for Sustainable Construction

3.4.1. The Government Initiation

The role of the government to take more initiatives and enforce the practices regarding sustainable construction was asked. Participant views were analyzed on whether or not the government should participate in the implementation of sustainable projects. The data in

Table 9. Necessity of government intervention.

Country	Agreed	Disagreed
USA	91.7%	8.3%
India	88.6%	11.4%
Afghanistan	91.4%	8.6%

show that the majority of respondents (91.7% in the United States, 88.6% in India and 91.4% in Afghanistan) agreed that the government intervention was necessary to ensure the adoption of green construction practices.

The respondents from all three countries have answered that governments should participate in the implementation of sustainable practices. The results propose that it is essential for governments to introduce standards related to the enforcement of green construction practices to raise awareness and encourage stakeholders in construction industry. If the government imposes environmental and green building criteria in the construction industry, implementation is likely to move faster.

The majority of professionals believe that green construction can only be promoted if the government is committed to doing so, according to the survey [47]. The government might provide incentives and prizes to the construction industry and consumers for designing green buildings that are both environmentally friendly and cost-effective. Since the governments of the United States and India provide considerable energy subsidies, sustainability and energy efficiency are not a key priority for builders, designers, and customers. However, government in Afghanistan still depends on its neighboring countries on energy supply, so it could be an issue as well for sustainable construction in the country. The governments’ participation is regarded as a crucial factor in supporting the practice of sustainable construction, according to the literature [48,49]. Other change drivers, on the other hand, can be equally important. To understand which factors inspire construction companies to undertake sustainable construction, it is critical to identify the change drivers. From ANOVA test results in

Table 10. Analysis of variance on the need for government intervention in fostering sustainable practices.

Source	DF	Seq SS	Adj MS	F-Value	p-Value
Between groups	2	38.223	19.111	0.0653	0.9374
Within groups	6	1755.337	292.5562
Total	8	1793.56

, p-value is equal to 0.9374 which is greater than 0.05 (significant level), thus the data fail to reject the null hypothesis and the respondents agree that government should take more initiatives to help companies in the implementation of sustainable projects.

3.4.2. Construction Policy

The respondents were asked, “Is there a need for specific policy changes for construction in your country?”. More than 71% of respondents from all three countries agreed that there is a need in policy changes regarding sustainable construction in their countries. As a result of the survey respondents from India, Afghanistan and the United States, 74.3%, 89.3% and 71.8%, respectively, agreed while 25.7%, 10.7% and 28.2%of the respondents disagreed with the policy changes in the construction industry saying everything is working well according to the performance of the present rules and regulations governed by various construction and environmental protection agencies.

3.5. The Clients’ Interest in Sustainable Construction

Respondents were asked if there was lack of interest from clients in pursuing sustainable projects. This was to bring understanding on whether lack of expressed interest from the clients was one of the barriers in the implementation of sustainable projects. Figure 2 shows the client’s interest in sustainable projects.

The survey shows that in the United States 51.4% of respondents reported receiving good expressed interest from clients concerning sustainable design and construction and clients are interested in pursuing sustainable construction projects. The statistics are different from India and Afghanistan where only 34.3% and 27.1% of respondents observed high interest from their clients. This shows that there are fewer clients who are interested in pursuing sustainable design. On the other side of the data, 8.3% of respondents from the United States felt lack of expressed interest from clients in pursuing sustainable design. The difference could be caused by a low level of awareness of sustainable design and its importance in protecting the environment for the current and future generations or the higher cost of sustainable construction. The results were further analyzed to test for variance by ANOVA test as shown in

Table 11. Analysis of variance on client’s interest toward sustainable projects.

Source	DF	Seq SS	Adj MS	F-Value	p-Value
Between groups	2	32.666	16.333	0.1132	0.8948
Within groups	6	865.333	144.222
Total	8	897.999

.

Results from the United States show that p-value is equal to 0.8948, a value which is greater than our significant level (0.05). Survey results fail to reject the null hypothesis. As per the questions based on the projects done by the respondents’ companies, preference of customers about sustainable construction, and lack of interest from clients for sustainable design, it can be reflected that in the United States there is a development of interest from customers and companies in sustainable construction. On the other hand, the survey from India and Afghanistan has directed a lack of interest from the occupants. This can also tell that there is greater awareness of the importance of sustainable projects in the United States than in India and Afghanistan and clients have developed a greater interest in protecting their environments in the United States than in India and Afghanistan.

3.6. Barriers Individual Company Facing during Implementation of Sustainable Projects

On other question, survey respondents were asked to compare the barriers their companies are facing in the implementation of sustainable projects and other regular projects. More than 64% of respondents from all three countries agreed that their companies are facing more troubles implementing sustainable projects comparing with regular projects. As a result of the survey respondents from India, Afghanistan and the United States, 69.6%, 84.7% and 64.8%, respectively, stated that there are more troubles in the implementation of sustainable projects while 30.4%, 15.3% and 35.2% of the respondents expressed that the level of barriers of the implementation of sustainable projects is the same as other regular projects.

The difference can be caused by the fact that sustainable construction idea is more dominant in the United States and is not only enforced by LEED under the United States Green Buildings Council but also other agencies for environmental protection that are fostering the agenda in various areas [49]. Agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and others, in the United States, are working in making and implementing various laws to govern the environmental protection and the processes carried out on them such as industrial waste disposal systems, the methods of constructing commercial buildings sustainably and others [50]. The above are missing factors in India, Afghanistan and many more developing and undeveloped countries.

3.7. Green Building Rating System Performance

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is the most widely used green building rating system in the world and the certification is a globally recognized symbol of sustainability achievement and leadership. It is available for all building types and provides a framework for healthy, highly efficient, and cost-saving green buildings. India uses two rating systems: LEED and Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA) while there is no such as rating system in Afghanistan.

Health benefits of LEED Buildings include (1) Employers in LEED-certified spaces report higher recruitment and retention rates, and increased employee productivity, (2) It creates healthier spaces with cleaner air, access to daylight, and is free from harmful chemicals found in paints and finishing, and (3) Improving indoor air quality can reduce absenteeism and work hours affected by asthma, respiratory allergies, depression, and stress, and leads to and self-reported improvements in productivity [51].

According to the assessment done by Goel, et al. [52], it is reported that their buildings have achieved environmental protection are restoration actions such as lowering 34.0% CO₂ emissions, 25.0% energy consumed, 11.0% water consumed, 25.0% energy on average used in buildings compared to commercial buildings, 1.3 million tons of coal equivalent saved each year, 78 million tons of avoided CO₂ emissions.

Many LEED or GRIHA registered projects could be failed to achieve certification due to various reasons. To assess the performance of green building rating system, respondents were asked a few additional questions. The first is on the documentation process and respondents were asked if the certification documentation is cumbersome. In response to this question, more than 62% of respondents from all three countries agreed that the documentation process of sustainable project is difficult. Respondents from India, Afghanistan and United States, 68.1%, 75.9% and 62%, respectively, agreed that the documentation process of sustainable projects is troublesome while 31.9%, 24.1% and 38% disagreed with the documentation process to be troublesome.

Respondents were also asked to tell if they think that the rating certification is a good method to assess the quality of buildings in terms of sustainability. About 78% of respondents from all three countries agreed and the remaining 22% disagreed.

The number of LEED certified projects in the United States has risen from 296 certifications in 2006 to over 67,000 in 2018 [53]. The respondents were asked to tell the average percentage of clients who prefer to pursue LEED Certification. The level of clients’ interest in pursuing sustainable building rating system was about 74% combined in all three countries. About 27.5%, 12.1%, and 38.2% in United States, Afghanistan and India expressed that their clients were very satisfied to pursue sustainable building rating systems for their projects, 62.3%, 62.1% and 51.5% of the clients were satisfied and the remaining, 10.1%, 25.9% and 10.3% showed no interest in pursuing any sustainable building rating system.

3.8. Respondents’ Suggestions on LEED Performance Improvement

Survey respondents suggested that it is best to gradually follow the steps for other countries to adopt the certification system as well; instructions should be given to engineers and owners on the processes involved in registration and certification, and it should be made mandatory for all the companies to arrange for seminars for all of their employees to discuss the concepts and credibility of implementation of LEED in the construction industry. If lack of awareness about LEED among the construction industry is reduced, the quality of buildings will be improved and environmental impact will be reduced in a greater percentage.

4. Discussion

The results illustrated various barriers companies face during the implementation of sustainable projects in all selected countries, such as low availability of seminars and training opportunities for employees to boast the level of knowledge and understanding on sustainable concept, low level of awareness by clients and society in general on the importance of sustainability, low government support, poor policies and legislation, high construction and material cost of sustainable projects compared to regular buildings, and difficulties in obtaining finances from banks for supporting sustainable projects.

Comparing the three selected countries, it can be seen that the degree of awareness in the U.S. is the higher than India and Afghanistan. Additionally, banks in the U.S. are ready to support sustainable projects comparing banks in India and Afghanistan. Governments in developing and undeveloped countries need to take more steps in improving the level of awareness and training more employees. There is a need of improving the available policies and legislations as they play a major role in evolving the implementation of sustainable practice with the role of protecting our environments.

A number of stakeholders stated that the initial cost premium for sustainable construction is relatively expensive when compared to conventional construction, and that they prefer conventional construction unless the client specifies otherwise. According to the literature review, sustainable construction should be a widespread practice to reduce the initial cost, material makers should reduce the cost of sustainable building materials, and owners should be aware of possible savings from a life cycle cost perspective. Developers claim that the benefits of the building’s LEED certification boosts the real estate value and rental rate and something similar to LEED should be developed in undeveloped countries such as Afghanistan.

Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA) is another rating system widely used in India in construction sector. This rating system is endorsed by the Ministry of New & Renewable Energy (MNRE) of Indian government. This rating system evaluates the performance of building over the life of the project, covering all phases of a construction project, such as pre-construction, building design, construction and post-construction [54].

However, the survey was limited in three countries and the data are small. Selecting United States was considered as a developed, India as a developing and Afghanistan as an undeveloped country. Further research with a survey with more developed/developing/undeveloped countries with larger data from various regions may identify more specific barriers they are facing in the implementation of sustainable projects and this would provide higher reliability on the survey and increase the accuracy in the data analysis.

5. Conclusions

Sustainable construction and development is a complex system engineering problem that merges with technical, political, social and economic aspects. The objective of this survey was to identify and compare the barriers construction industry experiencing in the implementation of sustainable projects in developed countries (represented by the United States), developing countries (represented by India) and an undeveloped countries (represented by Afghanistan). To accomplish the objective, the questionnaire was distributed to professionals of construction industries in USA, India and Afghanistan. Several conclusions emerge and can be drawn from the analysis of this research as follows:

• The survey’s results illustrate the need for new legislation, rules, and standards in all three selected countries in order to achieve sustainability and environmental protection. Governments might provide some economic incentives for employing local resources in adopting rules and guidelines to support sustainable practices.
• The respondents from the United States have a higher awareness of sustainable construction concepts due to the frequent availability of training and seminar opportunities. Whilst raising understanding and awareness of sustainable applications in developed, developing and undeveloped nations could have a significant impact on the use of sustainable construction principles on a larger scale, particularly among stakeholders in the construction sector. This could be accomplished by implementing appropriate guidelines, methods, or approaches that are based on earlier industry research and are more practical and effective. Organizing more talks, seminars, trainings, and workshops, as well as instructing small and medium-sized stakeholders and developers to improve their awareness and understanding.
• Greater effort is required to raise the level of awareness and clients’ interest in order to accelerate the growth, adoption and implementation of sustainability concepts in developing and undeveloped countries. The main responsibility lies on the government to encourage the implementation and adopt the concept of sustainable construction. This can be done by making steps to increase social awareness by trainings, advertising and making rules and legislations guiding sustainable construction.
• The design which leads to sustainable construction for most cities in Afghanistan can be an effective tool for demonstrating sustainable solutions to both urban and rural communities. The sustainable design strategies are powerful research, education and marketing tool for having sustainable community planning and development. In Kabul, capital city of Afghanistan, there is lack of policies and regulations, low level of capacity of the responsible government entities such as Ministry of Urban Development and Land (MUDL) and Kabul Municipality (KM) and most importantly lack of builders’ awareness about the long term benefits of sustainable construction [28].
• The rapid urbanization, globalization and expanding economy are some of the challenges the construction industry is facing in India which result socio-economic challenges and an increase in consumption of building materials such as glass, cement, metals and ceramic. Using these materials in an unsustainable way causes environmental degradation. The great way to avoid such impacts on social life and economy is to have sustainable buildings which use minimum energy and can help minimize the energy crisis in the country.

This necessitates a review of the current roadblocks and the need to overcome them in order for the construction industry to smoothly transition to and implement the new regulations.