Darko_2017 - Review of Barriers to Green Building Adoption

Basic Article Info:

Article key Darko_2017
Title Review of Barriers to Green Building Adoption
Year 2017
Review type systematic review
Main topic Barriers to Green Building adoption
Subjects area(s) Buildings, construction and facilities
Built environment scale Building system
Application(s) Practice, Implementation
Geographically focused no
Prisma diagram used no
Study focus start 2000
Study focus end 2015
Search string not provided
No. of original sources 36
Synthesis method qualitative
Quantitative map included no
Conflict of interest not declared specifically
Comments Conference papers have been excluded without further evaluation of quality.

 

Details about searches

Search sources
Search source name Source type Comments Weblink
Scopus Online Database Scopus is the world's largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed research literature. With over 22,000 titles from more than 5,000 international publishers. https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic
Keywords used in search barriers, challenges, green building, green construction, obstacles, sustainable building, sustainable construction

 

Authorship

Authors
Name Email Organisation Address Country
Amos Darko* amos.darko@connect.polyu.hk Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Hung Hom, Kowloon Hong Kong
Amos Darko* amos.darko@connect.polyu.hk Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University 11 Yuk Choi Rd, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong Hong Kong
Albert P. C. Chan Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Hung Hom, Kowloon Hong Kong

 

Funding

Funding sources No funding sources recorded


Article publication information:

Article type Journal article
Article category Text
Geographical scale International
Language English
Chapter or part
Conference date
Conference venue
Published date 2016-09-30
Edition
Issue 3
Journal Sustainable Development
Pagination 167-179
Peer reviewed yes
Publication place
Publisher John Wiley and Sons Ltd
School / department or centre
Series volume no.
Series title
Series sort no.
Volume 25
Website owner
Copyrights of article John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Licences of article
Identifiers of article DOI: 10.1002/sd.1651, ISSN: 10991719


Quality assessment

Quality measure Details Score Comments
QA question 1 Are the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review clearly delineated? 1 = “Yes” = Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described. general but concrete description of aimsto GB adoption published in academic (peer-reviewed) journals
QA question 2 Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? 0 = ”No” = research question and inclusion criteria not outlined in detail. not provided
QA question 3 Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? 1 = “Yes” = explicit justification of the study designs/types included in the review. only descriptive studies exist on this topic?
QA question 4 Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 0 =”No” = no information on search strategy, or not fulfilling criteria for “Yes” and “Partially”. 1 database used (Scopus)
QA question 5 Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in study selection. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 6 Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in data extraction. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 7 Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 0 =”No” = No list of studies excluded at a full-text stage. not provided
QA question 8 Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? 0 =”No” = no, or partial description of the included studies not provided
QA question 9 Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 0 =”No” = no mention of RoB assessment of individual included studies. not provided
QA question 10 Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 0 =”No” = no report of the sources of funding for individual studies included in the review. not provided
QA question 11 If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 12 If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 13 Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? 0 =”No” = no discussion of the potential impact of RoB in individual studies. not provided
QA question 14 Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? 0 =”No” = No explanation or discussion of heterogeneity present in the results. not provided
QA question 15 If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 16 Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? 1 = “Yes” = The authors reported no competing interests OR the authors described their funding sources and how they managed potential conflicts of interest. Funding sources disclosed in "Acknowledgemets"
Quality index Overall rating (Quality Index) assigned to each SR, highlighting whether major concerns arose during quality assessment that may affect overall conclusions of a SR: A = Minimal flaws; B = Some flaws; C = Major flaws in many aspects of the review. C no protocol, limited scope of the search; methodological quality and RoB of included studies not considered; included studies not well described, heterogeneity not explored; no list of excluded studies with reasons
Suggested review type Actual review type:systematic map, systematic review, rapid review, scoping review, narrative review, etc. rapid review N/A
Risk of bias level How likely are the main conclusions of the review to be biased? Basing on review type and quality index and quality_index_comment assign: high moderate or low risk? high no protocol; limited scope of the search; methodological quality and RoB of included studies not considered; no list of excluded studies with reasons