Barriers inhibiting the Adoption of Rammed Earth Construction in a Developing Country

Barriers inhibiting the Adoption of Rammed Earth Construction in a Developing Country | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Barriers inhibiting the Adoption of Rammed Earth Construction in a Developing Country Anita Odame Adade-Boateng, Kofi Agyekum, Stephen Akunyumu, Frederick Wireko Manu, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8249439/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 14 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Sustainable construction practices is crucial to fostering development without depleting critical resources. This study investigates the adoption of rammed earth (RE) by specifically assessing the potential barriers inhibiting its adoption in the construction industry. Primary data, sourced from literature, was used to develop a structured close-ended questionnaire, which was subsequently administered to 114 construction professionals in Ghana. Descriptive analysis, Krushal-Wallis, and Exploratory Factor Analysis were used to analyze the data. The findings indicate that while professionals possess a general understanding of sustainability, they were less conversant with specific sustainable practices, such as RE construction. The result suggests that a strong affinity for conventional materials, the absence of a dedicated local guidelines, and limited knowledge are critical sub-factors that prevent the widespread adoption of RE in Ghana. Further analysis revealed four principal barriers hindering RE’s adoption: systemic barriers, technological and financial barriers, socio-cultural and user acceptance barrier, and logistical and socio-economic barriers. The factor analysis confirmed systemic barriers, such as inadequate guidelines and regulation and minimal academic coverage, as the most significant impediments to RE construction adoption in Ghana. Academic and industrial institutions must create forums to promote knowledge of RE and other vernacular techniques among students and professionals respectively. The government and policy-makers need to implement policies and establish structures that would revive interest in vernacular construction. The findings contextualizes realities on the perception of RE construction techniques in Ghana. Therefore, it significantly contributes to the acceleration of sustainable construction practices in Ghana and in the sub-Saharan region at large. Rammed earth Vernacular architecture Earthen building Sustainable construction Construction professionals Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1 Introduction Adopting eco-friendly construction techniques and materials has become an imperative for the construction industry due to its substantial environmental impact. The industry’s activities pose severe challenges in developing countries, where rapid population growth and industrialization drives extensive construction activities including territorial expansion (Agyekum et al., 2020 ). This further leads to significant resource depletion (Willar et al., 2020 ). Anecdotal evidence supported by literature reveals buildings accounts for the production of at least 37% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and consumes about 36% of global energy (Agyekum et al., 2020 , 2021 ; United Nations Environment Programme, 2023 ). This demand of materials and energy for buildings, which contributes significantly to GHG emissions, directly and indirectly drives global warming and climate change (Ansah et al., 2020 ; Addy et al., 2021 ). The widespread adoption of cementitious materials for wall construction and demand for energy in Ghana exacerbate this issue, with cement alone responsible for about 10% of the nation’s total Carbon (CO 2 ) emissions, and buildings accounting for 43% of total energy consumption in 2019 (Lokko et al., 2023 ; Ministry of Works and Housing, 2024 ). In Ghana, the construction industry significantly contributes to the gross domestic product (GDP) and employs about 450,000 workers (Ghana Statistical Service, 2022 ; International Trade Administration, 2023 ). Yet, literature has well-reported detrimental impacts of its activities in the landscape. Agyekum and Amudjie ( 2024 ) note that the Ghanaian construction industry (GCI), like the global construction sector, extensively exploits natural resources and generates substantial environmental waste. Koranteng et al. ( 2021 ) highlight challenges in delivering essential services like water and electricity to meet increasing demand. These have mounted intense pressure on the industry to explore techniques that will reduce the demand for some of these resources, while promoting their efficient usage. In recent times, Ghana has made notable sustainability progress by submitting its nationally determined contribution (NDCs) and launching a decarbonization roadmap for the built environment (Ministry of Works and Housing, 2024 ; Oduro et al., 2024 ). Nonetheless, extant studies highlight the GCI’s slow adoption of eco-friendly building practices (Ampratwum et al., 2021 ; Amudjie et al., 2023 ), indicating a significant gap between policy initiatives and on-site implementation. Low carbon construction techniques, with their potential for eco-friendly environments and cost savings through economies of scale, offer the construction industry a promising alternative to conventional building practices. Using local biogenic (such as hempcrete) and geogenic materials for building represents one of such approach (Lokko et al., 2023 ). Vernacular construction, also known as traditional construction encompasses the use of local techniques and available construction materials to provide building structures (Widera, 2021 ; Nguyen et al., 2011 ). It depicts the culture, social lifestyle of a locality and takes into consideration specifics of the microclimate of a particular region. Earth or soil is considered one of the vernacular materials used predominantly in the sub-Saharan African region. It encompasses adobe (or mudbrick), wattle and daub, cob, earthbags, and the like. Coupled with the need to foster sustainable buildings (i.e. low carbon buildings) at the barest minimum cost makes geogenic construction technique like the rammed earth construction an optimal choice for green buildings in Ghana (Widera, 2021 ). Montalbano et al. ( 2024 ) summarized a few relevant features of rammed earth building material that can foster circularity in the construction industry as: rammed earth is natural and does not produce waste; it can easily be recycled and reused several times. In furtherance, Nouri et al. ( 2021 ) established rammed earth as a more sustainable material than fired clay brick after conducting a lifecycle assessment on the two materials based on the framework in ISO 14040:2006 standard. In the experiment, the embodied energy and carbon emission of a ton of rammed earth was found to be about 4,646 MJ and 1,245 kg CO 2 lesser than that of fired clay bricks respectively. A comparative assessment on users’ comfort and thermal performance of vernacular buildings in the western part of sub-Sahara Africa, recommended the adoption of rammed earth (Widera, 2021 ). In Ghana, a few studies have focused on the broad subject of vernacular materials (Azunu, 2017 ; Agyekum et al., 2020 ; Tekpe et al., 2022 ). Despite the plethora of research on green construction advocating the adoption of traditional materials as a sustainable approach to construction (Agyekum et al., 2020 , 2021 ), scant literature exist on the potential utilization of the rammed earth technology. Additionally, the difficulty in searching for literature pertaining to this subject area underscores the limited research in this area. Following these gaps in the literature, the overarching aim of this study is to explore the potential barriers inhibiting the use of rammed earth construction technology in Ghana. To this end, two objectives were established: (1) to assess the level of knowledge of rammed earth among construction professionals; and (2) to identify potential barriers militating against the adoption of rammed earth within the GCI. This study contributes to the global discourse on sustainable construction by investigating and providing empirical data and insights on the level of awareness and potential barriers of rammed earth construction among construction professionals in Ghana. Accordingly, this investigation will elucidate professionals’ readiness to embrace rammed earth construction, simultaneously offering actionable insights to construction professional groups and policymakers towards the advancement of rammed earth construction within the Ghanaian construction landscape. Overall, aligned with the responsibility of achieving the sustainable development goals, particularly goal 11 (sustainable cities and communities), 12 (responsible consumption and production), 13 (climate action) and 15 (life on land), this study will help foster sustainable construction practice and policies in Ghana. 2 Literature Review 2.1 Vernacular Architecture Housing, as a component of the built environment, provides shelter, comfort, and healthy living spaces (Arceo et al., 2024 ). Beyond providing spatial cues and environmental aesthetics, housing satisfies social, cultural and emotional needs of man (Fernandes et al., 2015 ; Salgın et al., 2017 ). It reflects the intricate relationship between humans and their environment, influenced mainly by ecological, political, cultural, geographical, and technological factors (Alrashed et al., 2017 ; Ahmed and Khan, 2023 ). One architectural concept that epitomise this relationship is vernacular architecture. Vernacular stems from the Latin word vernaculus , meaning domestic, indigenous, local and native. Glassie ( 1990 , 2000 ) describes vernacular buildings as structures shaped by culture and context, which reflect local needs, materials and traditions. Vernacular construction extend sustainable solutions, through practices that enhances thermal and energy performances with minimal environmental implications (Agyekum et al., 2020 ). Subsequently influencing occupants’ productivity, health and satisfaction (Kürüm Varolgüneş, 2019 ; González-Lezcano, 2023 ). Vernacular construction techniques, documented extensively in literature, vary across regions and materials. Builders utilize geogenic (soil and stone) and biogenic (fronds, wood) materials to construct cob, wattle and daub, rammed earth, compressed earth blocks, adobe, mud walls structures (Creang et al., 2010 ). Indigenous building designs often include features like facades, elongated roof eaves, pine and spruce logs as rainspout (Salgın et al., 2017 ). Local builders also give considerations to the building’s geographical location, orientation, and shape in order to optimise indoor living conditions (Fernandes et al., 2015 ). Vernacular buildings can incorporate passive design strategies like courtyard, earth-shelter, dome, tulou, stepwell, wind tower, roof pond and so on (Alrashed et al., 2017 ; Mirabi and Akrami Abarghuie, 2021 ; Ahmed and Khan, 2023 ). Ghana’s vernacular architecture depicts the country’s diverse geological, climatic, ecological and ethno-cultural landscapes. This multifaceted interplay between environmental conditions and sociocultural contexts has given rise to a number of local construction practices across the terrain. Indigenous materials such as palm frond, bamboo, coconut branches, fronds, soils, stones and timber are used for erecting timber-framed structures, pile dwellings, rammed earth, mud, cob, adobe buildings and wattle-and-daub structures (Danso, 2018 ; Agyekum et al., 2020 ; Tekpe et al., 2022 ). Design considerations, including building form, orientation, and passive strategies (e.g. Courtyard design), have been incorporated in local construction practices (Amos-Abanyie et al., 2013 ; Danso, 2013 , 2018 ). Principles of green buildings and climate-responsive design strategies have long been embedded in vernacular construction practices. Such that, for instance, pile dwellings – typically elevated structures constructed primarily from bamboo or timber – can provide liveable spaces above potential water level in coastal or flood-prone areas. However, colonization, modernization, and gentrification have, marginalized these primitive practices (Twumasi-Ampofo and Oppong, 2016 ). The shift from vernacular construction began when the nation embraced colonial and colonial-modern architecture, even those buildings fashioned after the likes of those in Europe (Roux, 2004 ; Ahmed and Khan, 2023 ). Prudon and Normandin ( 2018 ) maintain that convectional construction materials have dominated modern architectural practices. As a result, sustainable alternatives like rammed earth construction have been overshadowed. Rammed earth emerges as a promising alternative with superior environmental sustainability envisaged from various lenses: operational energy, embodied energy, waste management and material circularity. 2.2 Rammed Earth Construction Rammed earth (RE) is a traditional construction technique that entails the compaction of moist, uncemented soil within a temporary formwork to create solid, monolithic walls (Ciancio and Beckett, 2013 ; Nitelik Gelirli and Arpacıoğlu, 2022 ). It encompasses the use of moistened mixture of soil comprising varying proportions of clay, sand and gravel, which is compacted into rigid formworks to create structural elements. This versatile technique allows the creating of walls and blocks using carefully selected soils through manual or mechanical ramming (Montalbano et al., 2024 ). Nitelik Gelirli and Arpacıoğlu ( 2022 ) highlight two primary types of rammed earth construction: unstabilized rammed earth (URE) and stabilized rammed earth (SRE). URE, also called traditional rammed earth, constitutes a precisely formulated mixture of unadulterated sand, silt, water and clay as the cementitious agent (Alter, 2020 ; Montalbano et al., 2024 ). This method, used for millennia, is common in regions such as the Rhône-Alpes region in France and tropical areas with suitable soils (Dorothée, 2018 ). In the views of Kocak and Grant ( 2023 ), preferred soils for URE should have a cohesive clay content of at least 20%. In contrast, SRE incorporates additional cementitious materials, such as cement or lime, and/or other additives specifically to enhance certain properties of the resulting structure (Kocak and Grant, 2023 ; Montalbano et al., 2024 ). Bui et al. ( 2009 ) assert that the SRE exhibits superior wet strength, erosion resistance and mechanical properties when compared to URE. However, Maniatidis and Walker ( 2003 ) posit that comparable performance to SRE can be achieved with URE through the implementation of appropriate design strategies and construction methodologies specifically tailored for earth buildings. This suggests that the choice between the two transcends material availability to broader design considerations and construction technique. Several studies reveal that rammed earth construction contains lower carbon and embodied energy compared to concrete and fired clay bricks, especially when materials are from on-site or close by (Nanz et al., 2019 ; Nouri et al., 2021 ). Demolished concrete structures create waste management problems. However, with rammed earth, materials can be reused when the structure is demolished. This provides little to no waste to the environment (Ciancio and Beckett, 2013 ; Montalbano et al., 2024 ). Other studies show that earth construction offers a cost-efficient and flexible way of construction, since materials are available and easily accessible (Zami and Lee, 2010 ; Kulshreshtha et al., 2020 ). The availability of various earthen material like clay and sand for rammed earth construction play a crucial role in its usage, since this can affect the cost of transportation, environmental impact and cost of construction (Agyekum et al., 2020 ). The flexibility of rammed earth construction is seen in its ability to be adapted in various climatic zones. The method of construction allows easy modifications in form and style during the construction process (Dabaieh, 2014 ). Despite its labour-intensive nature, rammed earth construction does not require relatively high level of training, thus the availability of unskilled labour suffice (Gangarao et al., 2020 ). Darko et al. ( 2020 ) posit that aside striving for energy efficiency, the indoor environment of rammed earth buildings possess quality properties due to its natural and non-toxic materials composition. This property creates healthier indoor environments and contributes immensely to occupants’ health, satisfaction and productivity within the building (Ciancio and Beckett, 2015 ; Mensah and Laryea, 2023 ). Per Strazzeri and Karrech ( 2023 ), rammed earth buildings have low maintenance cost and are characterized by appreciable thermal, acoustic and fire-resistance performance. The minimal energy consumption for active cooling systems within rammed earth buildings leads to substantial cost savings for occupants. In Egypt, for example, the operational energy efficiency of rammed earth structures enables occupants to save over 50% on cooling cost compared to conventional buildings (Adegun and Adedeji, 2017 ). Elsewhere in Zheijang, China, studies show the average annual carbon emission of the whole life cycle of rammed earth buildings is 17.37kg/m 3 , which accounts for about at most 38% of that of convectional material like reinforced concrete (Zhou et al., 2012 ; Wan et al., 2022 ). 2.3 Barriers to Rammed Earth Construction Despite the historical significance and potential benefits of earthen construction in Ghana, several barriers hinder its widespread adoption within the built environment. Literature reveals these obstacles as spanning technical and technological; social and cultural; regulatory and political; economic, and environmental domains (Nikyema and Blouin, 2020 ; Morel et al., 2021 ; Zami, 2021 ). Table 1 contains a summary of the barriers identified in the literature search. Technical and technological barriers inhibit the adoption and integration of innovation systems and methodologies that could otherwise promote advancements in sustainable construction (Agyekum and Amudjie, 2024 ). A systematic review by Pelé-Peltier et al. ( 2023 ) highlight challenges including the difficulty to understanding earthen material behaviour, the scalability to modern building sizes, the lack of scientific data and research investment, variability of material and quality control, and engineering related constraints. Furthermore, several authors emphasize issues related to the durability of the soil constituents under adverse environmental conditions and infestations of rodents and insects (Danso, 2013 ; Kulshreshtha et al., 2020 ). While appropriate materials selection and compaction technologies can enhance the longevity RE structures, the limited availability and high cost of skilled professionals for post-construction maintenance, repairs and alterations present a significant operational challenges (Zami, 2020 ). Another crucial barrier is the minimal inclusion of RE construction in academic curricula and professional development programs, which hinders widespread adoption (Nikyema and Blouin, 2020 ). Although some people perceive RE as low-tech construction method. This perception potentially translate to assumptions undermining its economic and technical properties. However, Strazzeri and Karrech ( 2023 ) argue that, in practice, RE is relatively more expensive than other variants of earthen construction. Additionally, as noted by Agyekum et al. ( 2020 ) and Zami ( 2021 ), RE construction procedure requires specialized building professionals. Kulshreshtha et al. (2020) emphasize that the unavailability of skilled labour can lead to inferior construction quality, which subsequently poses challenges in obtaining building permits, securing loans and insurance, while also resulting in higher maintenance cost (Nwaki et al., 2023 ). Social and cultural barriers constitute impediments stemming from stakeholders’ perceptions, scepticism and preferences that fundamentally influence acceptance or rejection of RE (Pelé-Peltier et al., 2023 ). These inhibitors manifest through societal misconceptions and cultural resistance. According to extant literature, building with earth, as seen in RE construction, is predominantly associated with poverty and dirt (Solomon-Ayeh, 2009 ; Acheampong et al., 2014 ). Another common misconception about earthen building is its perceived inferior aesthetic appearance (Zami and Lee, 2011 ). The significant resistance to vernacular construction can also be attributed to strong industrial and user preferences for conventional building techniques and materials (Pelé-Peltier et al., 2023 ). Clients tend to perceive conventional materials as more aesthetically appealing and synonymous with affluence. Industry players’ lack understanding of rammed earth construction reinforces negative perceptions as it often leads to poor construction quality. Overall, this barrier persists in society due to the limited social awareness and knowledge of rammed earth construction’s inherent benefits (Zami and Lee, 2011 ; Zami, 2021 ). Regulatory and political barriers represent legal and institutional frameworks that affect the viability of rammed earth construction. These barriers raise critical concerns regarding the adoption of RE construction since they encompass both government and industry’s direct and indirect influence on the adoption of earthen materials (Kulshreshtha et al., 2020 ). This factor constitutes the absence of dedicated regulations concerning earthen materials and construction for quality assurance, unclear compliance pathways, and insufficient support from governmental and industrial institutions (Nwaki et al., 2023 ; Pelé-Peltier et al., 2023 ; Strazzeri and Karrech, 2023 ). Financial barriers encompass issues relating to cost, funding, and market conditions. Strazzeri and Karrech ( 2023 ) assert that RE construction can be expensive. While they did not specifically identity cost drivers, Pelé-Peltier et al. ( 2023 ) revealed that materials certification requirements, fragmented construction procedures, and project size and complexity can significant influence the cost of construction. Other components include lack of fiscal incentives, uncertain return on investment, insufficient market strategies and promotion, and limited research grants and investments (Zami and Lee, 2011 ; Danso, 2013 ; Nwaki et al., 2023 ). According to Acheampong et al. ( 2014 ) and Zami ( 2021 ), the scarcity of professionals and limited expertise in RE construction reflects prevailing market conditions. Climate and geographic constraints constitute environmental barriers rammed earth construction adoption. Environmental factors like wind and rain significantly influences the durability of earthen buildings. Extant studies confirm that RE buildings in regions exposed to intense rainfall patterns may experience rain-driven erosion, consequently degrading the quality of building elements (Bui et al., 2009 ; Rosicki and Narloch, 2022 ). A review by Morel et al. ( 2021 ) elucidates how seasonal changes induce water molecule absorption-desorption phenomena on earthen wall surfaces, consequently causing significant disparities in indoor-outdoor humidity levels that potentially impact thermal comfort. Table 1 Summary of Barriers hindering the adoption of Rammed Earth Construction Code Barriers Literature Sources BB1 Limited public and industry knowledge regarding the benefits of rammed earth [5]; [16]; [24] BB2 High-initial cost [5]; [18]; [24] BB3 Absence of dedicated local building codes and regulation [10]; [19]; [24] BB4 Challenges with material sourcing [8]; [9]; [18]; [25] BB5 Inadequate support from government and industrial institutions [2]; [15]; [18] BB6 Limited availability of skilled labour [3]; [16]; [18]; [20]; [22] BB7 Cultural and aesthetic perceptions [2]; [11]; [18]; [23] BB8 Engineering related challenges [2]; [14]; [16]; [18]; [21] BB9 Strong industrial and user preferences for conventional building techniques/materials [7]; [13]; [15]; [18] BB10 Limited research and data on performance of rammed earth building elements [14]; [16]; [18] BB11 Climate and geographic constraints [14]; [15]; [19] BB12 Lack of fiscal incentives [2]; [15]; [19] BB13 Minimal academic curriculum coverage and professional training programs [16]; [20]; [25] BB14 Unclear compliance pathways [6]; [15] BB15 Insufficient market strategies and promotion [16]; [18]; [19]; [22] BB16 Return on investment uncertainty [7]; [13]; [16]; [25] BB17 Lack of research investment [7]; [16]; [18] BB18 Complexity of modern building sizes/designs [7]; [16]; [18]; [24] BB19 Higher cost of maintenance [17]; [20] BB20 Difficulty in obtaining building permits, loans and insurance [7]; [20] BB21 Unavailability of digital technologies and modern mechanization [4]; [9]; [10] BB22 Quality control deficiencies [9]; [22] BB23 The labour-intensive nature of rammed earth construction [9]; [10] BB24 Competition from other Green Building Techniques and Products [1]; [12] Notes : 1 = Abera ( 2024 ); 2 = Acheampong et al. ( 2014 ); 3 = Addy et al. ( 2021 ); 4 = Agyekum et al. ( 2020 ); 5 = Ali et al. ( 2021 ); 6 = Ashurmamadova and Rexhepi ( 2024 ); 7 = Danso ( 2013 ); 8 = Eo et al. ( 2022 ); 9 = Gomaa et al ( 2023 ); 10 = Kloft et al. (2024); 11 = Kulshreshtha et al. (2020); 12 = Lokko et al. ( 2024 ); 13 = Mohamed et al. ( 2023 ); 14 = Morel et al. ( 2021 ); 15 = Nikyema and Blouin ( 2020 ); 16 = Nwaki et al. ( 2023 ); 17 = Oguntona et al. ( 2023 ); 18 = Pelé-Peltier et al. ( 2023 ); 19 = Rosicki and Narloch ( 2022 ); 20 = Samarasinghe and Falk ( 2022 ); 21 = Solomon-Ayeh ( 2009 ); 22 = Strazzeri and Karrech ( 2023 ); 23 = Twumasi-Ampofo and Oppong ( 2016 ); 24 = Zami ( 2021 ); 25 = Zami and Lee ( 2011 ). Source: Authors’ construct (2025) 3 Research Method 3.1 Approach/Strategy A quantitative approach, particularly a structured survey instrument (i.e. questionnaire), was employed to achieve the objectives of this study. This approach is considered appropriate as it enables researchers to collect data from a relatively large sample size (Walliman, 2021 ) while allowing researchers to examine social phenomena through rigorous statistical analysis, allowing for systematic hypothesis testing and validation (Ishtiaq, 2019; Apuke, 2017). Furthermore, it facilitates the generalization of findings regarding a phenomenon – in this case, assessing professionals’ level of awareness and identifying the potential barriers hindering the adoption of rammed earth construction technology in Ghana. This methodological approach has been extensively adopted in extant studies focusing on green construction practices (Acheampong et al., 2014 ; Addy et al., 2021 ; Agyekum et al., 2021 ; Addy et al., 2022 ). The questionnaire was structured into three distinct parts. Part 1 was intended to collects respondents’ demographic information. Part 2 sought to gather respondents’ knowledge on rammed earth construction as a green building strategy. In this section, respondents were required to rank various statements on rammed earth construction technique based on a five-point Likert scale (where 1 = highly unware; 2 = unaware; 3 = moderately aware; 4 = aware; 5 = highly aware). Part 3 attempted to gather respondents’ perceptions of barriers inhibiting the widespread adoption of rammed earth construction in Ghana. This category required respondents to indicate their level of agreement with the 22 barriers identified through an extensive literature review on a five-point Likert scale (where 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree). 3.2 Survey Administration Prior to the main distribution of the questionnaire, a two-step piloting procedure was conducted. This ensured the appropriateness of the research instrument and promoted consistency in its administration to targeted respondents (Creswell, 2009 ). First, the questionnaire was reviewed by two academic professors, both experts in sustainable construction practices. Based on their feedback, necessary adjustments were made to enhance clarity and reduce ambiguity. Subsequently, the second pilot stage involved 11 construction professionals, working in either a construction or a consultancy firm, who were consulted on the suitability of the instrument. Their feedback indicated the instrument was appropriate, allowing for its full administration. The unit of analysis for the study was construction professionals (Construction Managers, Engineers, Quantity Surveyors, Architects, Project Managers, Academics and Real Estate Practitioners) employed in either construction, consultancy or research organizations within the Ghanaian built environment. With emphasis on the fact that professionals needed to have knowledge and experience of vernacular construction concepts including rammed earth construction, it was difficult in reaching those professionals with significant in-depth knowledge and experience on the subject under review. Previous studies (Agyekum et al., 2020 ; Addy et al., 2021 ; Amudjie et al., 2023 ; Botchway et al., 2023 ) within the study milieu have revealed the difficult involved in securing a suitable sample frame for construction professionals. Despite the burgeoning interest for vernacular construction in Ghana, the absence of a comprehensive dataset on professionals who specialize in earthen construction warrants the use of non-probability sampling techniques – particularly purposive and snowballing techniques. Purposive sampling is used to intentionally select respondents who possess specific characteristics (e.g. knowledge on a certain issue of interest) (Adu and Miles, 2023 ). Snowballing sampling on the other hand, allows researchers to select participants based on recommendation/referrals from initial participants (Adu and Miles, 2023 ). The study used purposive technique to identify known professionals willing to partake in the study. And the snowballing technique enabled some referrals from the participants. Against this backdrop, a total of 114 valid responses were gathered and analyzed. 3.3 Data Analysis Participants’ responses were coded, analyzed and interpreted using Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) software, version 27. Descriptive statistics, including frequency, mean and median, were utilized to summarize the data. The study also adopted inferential statistical techniques, such as Kruskal-Wallis and Factor Analysis, to test hypotheses and identify components within the data (Pandey and Pandey, 2021 ).. All results were presented in tables and figures. Prior to testing for differences in awareness among professionals, the results from both the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests showed that all the p -values for the nine statements were less than significant level of 0.05. Accordingly, the null hypothesis was rejected since the data was not normally distributed. Since the data does not follow a normal distribution, Kruskal-Wallis H test, a non-parametric test was deemed suitable to test variations in respondents’ level of knowledge of rammed earth as a sustainable construction technique. According to Takyi-Annan and Zhang ( 2023 ), Krushal-Wallis is an alternative to a one-way ANOVA, which is ideal: (1) when an investigation involving three or more independent conditions; (2) when three or more groups are to independently assess each of the conditions; (3) when data does not follow the assumptions of a parametric test. This test works by ranking the data across the groups, coupled with a test statistic based on the sum of ranks for each professional group. The results are subsequently reported with chi-square values and their respective p-values (Abu-Khader and Sweis, 2024 ). Additionally, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was adopted to examine and cluster the barriers hindering the adoption of rammed earth in Ghana under principal components. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to check the reliability and consistency of the instrument. The reliability of a study’s instrument is described as its consistency or repeatability (Pandey and Pandey, 2021 ). The values ranges from 0 to 1, where a value closer to 1 means greater internal consistency according to Wipulanusat et al. ( 2020 ). The threshold of 0.7 or greater is generally considered acceptable for demonstrating adequate reliability (Tavakol and Dennick, 2011 ). 4 Data Analysis and Discussion The survey conducted within Ghana’s construction industry reflect the presence of professionals with diverse backgrounds as shown in Fig. 1 . Of the 114 respondents, Quantity Surveyors represented the largest group at 31% ( n = 35), followed by Construction Managers at 21% ( n = 24), Engineers at 16% ( n = 18), and Architects at 15% ( n = 17). Project Managers made up 11% ( n = 13), Academics 5% ( n = 6), and one respondent (1%) identified as a Real estate developer. 51% ( n = 58) of the respondents held bachelor’s degrees, 52 (46%) had masters’ degrees, 3 (3%) possessed doctorate degrees, and a respondent (1%) held a Higher National Diploma. Regarding professional experience, 71 (62%) respondents reported less than 5 years of work experience, 30 (26%) had 5–10 years of experience, 3 (3%) had 11–15 years of experience, 6 (5%) had 16–20 years of experience, and 4 (4%) possessed more than 20 years of experience in the built environment. Pertaining to the application of RE construction techniques in Ghana, the data revealed limited engagement among professionals. A significant number 38% ( n = 43) indicated they ‘ rarely ’ participated in such projects. Furthermore, 32% ( n = 36) stated they ‘ never ’ utilized the RE technique, while 29% ( n = 33) did so ‘ occasionally ’. Conversely, only 2% ( n = 2) of professionals reported ‘ very frequently ’ engagement with RE construction. This observation aligns with the slow uptake of sustainable practices within the industry (Addy et al., 2021 ; Agyekum et al., 2020 ), and it reflects a gradual, rather than widespread, revival of this ancient building technique within the contemporary Ghanaian society. 4.1 Level of Awareness of Rammed Earth as a Sustainable Construction Material Table 2 details the level of awareness of rammed earth construction techniques in Ghana. The research instrument used for collect data demonstrated a high degree of internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.862, which is above the generally accepted criteria of 0.70. As a result, the instrument was considered reliable. Per the descriptive statistics, the median score of four according to the 5-point Likert scale, for all the statements, is suggestive that construction professionals are aware/ in agreement with all the statements. The mean scores were subsequently used to rank the statements. Averagely, construction professionals portray a moderately awareness of rammed earth construction and its merits, as mean scores range from 3.24 to 3.80. Statements S1 ( Mean = 3.80, SD = 1.130 ), S4 ( Mean = 3.79; SD = 1.052 ) and S3 ( Mean = 3.77; SD = 1.137 ) were highly ranked among professionals. This implies that professionals portray a relatively higher level of awareness of the concept of sustainable construction techniques, since it is a broad subject from which rammed earth construction is a part of. Meanwhile, respondents exhibit moderate awareness level of the different types of rammed earth construction (S6: Mean = 3.24; SD = 1.170 ) and its ability to enhance building performance (S8: Mean = 3.53; SD = 1.154 ). Furthermore, the table highlights the test statistic and decisions from the Krushal-Wallis test for all the statements. The decisions were based on, (1) when p -value ≥ 0.05, the hypothesis is retained; (2) and when the p -value < 0.05, the hypothesis is rejected. With six degrees of freedom, the test results revealed two statistically significant statements (i.e. S3 and S7), since they yielded p -values less than 0.05. Hence, they were rejected. The remaining statements were retained since their p -values were greater than 0.05. Comparatively, the professionals in the GCI show a similar level of awareness across the most aspects of rammed earth, their knowledge on the specific construction process and the associated benefits varies significantly by professional groups. Table 2 Level of awareness of Rammed Earth of Professionals in Ghana Cronbach’s alpha = 0.862 KW Test Statistics (df = 6) Code Statement Mean Median SD Rank Chi-square Asym. Sig Decision S1 I am conversant with sustainable construction techniques 3.80 4 1.130 1st 6.858 0.334 Retain S2 I consider rammed earth a sustainable construction technique 3.65 4 1.013 5th 6.523 0.367 Retain S3 I am aware rammed earth construction involves compacting selected soils within a formwork to create building elements 3.77 4 1.137 3rd 14.698 0.023 Reject S4 I am aware rammed earth construction requires significant skills and expertise 3.79 4 1.052 2nd 7.304 0.294 Retain S5 I recognize rammed earth construction is a viable alternative to conventional techniques 3.60 4 1.079 6th 4.835 0.565 Retain S6 I am knowledgeable about the different types of rammed earth construction (e.g., stabilized and unstabilized) 3.24 3 1.170 9th 5.653 0.463 Retain S7 I am aware of the benefits of using rammed earth construction for the environment and building users 3.58 4 1.088 7th 12.809 0.046 Reject S8 I am aware of the indoor performance characteristics of rammed earth buildings 3.53 4 1.154 8th 8.600 0.197 Retain S9 I know that the materials used in rammed earth construction are abundantly available in Ghana 3.67 4 1.180 4th 7.588 0.270 Retain Average 3.23 Note(s) : Rankings are based on mean scores Source: Field data (2025) Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the mean scores of each professional group and the sum of mean ranking, illustrating the differences in the level of awareness of rammed earth construction. As evinced in the line graph and bar chart, there is a huge disparity in the mean scores of the professionals and the mean rank of all the statements. This explains professionals are not on the same level of awareness as far as rammed earth construction is concerned. Architects demonstrate higher mean scores ( Mean = 4.50 ) for all the statements except for S6 ( Mean = 3.50 ). The real estate developer professional group exhibited the least mean scores across all the statements ( Mean = 3.00 ), and even worst for S8 and S9 ( Mean = 2.00 ). Source: Field data (2025) Source: Field data (2025) 4.2 Barriers to Rammed Earth Adoption in the Ghanaian Construction Industry The 24 barriers hindering the adoption of RE construction technique in Ghana was subjected to an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). This analytical tool is used to ascertain systematic co-variations from a list of variables (Aït-Sahalia and Xiu, 2019 ). Amos et al. ( 2020 ) agree that it is not only useful as a data reducing technique, but also an effective indicator of the significance of the various subcategories of variables. It is highlighted in Osei-Kyei et al. ( 2017 ) that initial tests including internal consistency, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, must precede an FA, in order to ascertain the data’s appropriateness for this technique. Cronbach’s Alpha was used to determine the internal consistency of the dataset. A high value of 0.944 was realized, indicating a high degree of consistency among respondents as far as the barriers are concerned. The KMO statistic was 0.886, which implies dataset is adequate for the FA since it is greater than the minimum value (0.6) and close to 1.0 (Shrestha, 2021 ). The Bartlett’s test of sphericity yielded an approximate chi-square value of 1712.460 with 253 degree of freedom. The associated significance was minimal ( p = 0.000 ). This denote that the population correlation matrix is not an identity matrix. Table 3 displays mean scores, standard deviations and communalities (before and after removal of BB1) of the identified hindrances to rammed earth construction. As presented in Table 3 , the mean score for twenty-two of the identified variables exceeded 3.50. This gives the indication that, on average, respondents agreed that these factors significantly hinder the exploitation of rammed earth construction in Ghana. In contrast, the lower mean scores recorded for BB2 and BB4 suggest that respondents perceive these barriers as less impactful to adopting rammed earth. Subsequently, BB1 was removed from the analysis, as it has a communality value less than 0.5, even when approximated. Amos et al. ( 2020 ) iterate that this kind are statistically independent variable that need not to be combined with other ones. Table 3 Descriptive Statistics and Communalities for Barriers of Rammed Earth Construction Barriers Mean Rank SD Communalities Initial Extraction (1st ) Extraction (2nd ) Limited public and industry knowledge regarding the benefits of rammed earth (BB1) 4.04 3rd 0.990 1.000 0.437* Deleted High-initial cost (BB2) 3.46 24th 1.065 1.000 0.692 0.696 Absence of dedicated local building codes and regulation (BB3) 4.09 2nd 0.955 1.000 0.735 0.738 Challenges with material sourcing (BB4) 3.48 23rd 1.099 1.000 0.580 0.585 Inadequate support from government and industrial institutions (BB5) 3.95 5th 1.088 1.000 0.746 0.750 Limited availability of skilled labour (BB6) 3.75 15th 1.079 1.000 0.703 0.727 Cultural and aesthetic perceptions (BB7) 3.73 16th 1.067 1.000 0.615 0.643 Engineering related challenges (BB8) 3.75 14th 1.012 1.000 0.543 0.567 Strong industrial and user preferences for conventional building techniques/materials (BB9) 4.10 1st 0.950 1.000 0.687 0.661 Limited research and data on performance of rammed earth building elements (BB10) 3.86 9th 1.072 1.000 0.616 0.630 Climate and geographic constraints (BB11) 3.52 21st 1.075 1.000 0.498 0.477 Lack of fiscal incentives (BB12) 3.66 17th 0.958 1.000 0.559 0.550 Minimal academic curriculum coverage and professional training programs (BB13) 4.03 4th 0.982 1.000 0.768 0.768 Unclear compliance pathways (BB14) 3.87 8th 0.936 1.000 0.666 0.670 Insufficient market strategies and promotion (BB15) 3.93 6th 0.966 1.000 0.795 0.794 Return of investment uncertainty (BB16) 3.77 11th 0.960 1.000 0.702 0.703 Lack of research investment (BB17) 3.78 10th 0.975 1.000 0.520 0.522 Complexity of modern building sizes/designs (BB18) 3.91 7th 0.965 1.000 0.554 0.553 Higher cost of maintenance (BB19) 3.60 18th 1.028 1.000 0.690 0.697 Difficulty in obtaining building permits, loans and insurance (BB20) 3.51 22nd 0.998 1.000 0.735 0.739 Unavailability of digital technologies and modern mechanization (BB21) 3.59 19th 0.948 1.000 0.678 0.697 Quality control deficiencies (BB22) 3.77 12th 0.941 1.000 0.749 0.750 The labour-intensive nature of rammed earth construction (BB23) 3.75 13th 0.955 1.000 0.644 0.648 Competition from other Green Building Techniques and Products (BB24) 3.58 20th 1.055 1.000 0.591 0.590 Source: Field data (2025) The principal component analysis served as the extraction method, and Varimax was used as the rotation method. The rotation for the 23 variables resulted in a four-factor solution, with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, explaining 65.901% of the total variance. Varimax rotation was used due to its simplicity and widespread usage in orthogonal rotation (Kaiser, 1958 ; Kissi et al., 2020 ). The 23 remaining variables in Table 4 show factor loadings are close or above 0.50, with 19 of them exceeding 0.60. The factors were categorized into four factors and were labelled with a suitable nomenclature based on the researcher’s discretion, due to the logical groupings and thematic relationships identified among the variables. They are: (1) Systemic Barriers; (2) Technological and Financial Barriers; (3) Socio-Cultural and User Acceptance Barrier; and (4) Logistical and Socio-Economic Barrier. Table 4 Principal Factor Analysis Component Code Factor loadings Eigenvalue % of Variance Explained Cumulative % of Variance Explained Systemic Barrier BB3 0.575 10.391 45.179 45.179 BB13 0.833 BB14 0.703 BB15 0.823 BB16 0.681 BB17 0.605 Technological and Financial Barrier BB11 0.519 1.761 7.654 52.834 BB12 0.493 BB19 0.736 BB20 0.785 BB21 0.761 BB22 0.649 BB24 0.549 Socio-Cultural and User Acceptance Barrier BB7 0.728 1.683 7.319 60.152 BB8 0.605 BB9 0.692 BB10 0.646 BB18 0.460 BB23 0.661 Logistical and Socio-Economic Barrier BB2 0.755 1.322 5.749 65.901 BB4 0.683 BB5 0.720 BB6 0.713 Notes : Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis; Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization; a rotation converged in nine iterations. Source: Field data (2025) 5 Discussion 5.1 Knowledge of Rammed Earth in the Ghanaian Construction Industry Generally, the concepts of sustainability and sustainable construction practices have become increasingly prevalent in the construction industry due to concerns emanating from the surge in construction activities and its consequent impacts on the environment and on natural resources (Amudjie et al., 2023 ). Literature underscores that rammed earth is an eco-friendly construction technique that readily offers environmental and economic appeals (Agyekum et al., 2020 ; Ciancio and Beckett, 2015 ). Findings from this study presents a lucid pattern of conceptual awareness following S1 (“ I am conversant with sustainable construction techniques ,” Mean = 3.80 ) and S4 (“ I am aware rammed earth construction requires significant skills and expertise,” Mean = 3.79 ). While RE is recognized as a specialized construction technique, there is a dearth of technical knowledge in the Ghanaian construction industry. This can be observed in the low mean scores attributed to S6 (“ I am knowledgeable about the different types of rammed earth construction “) and S8 (“ I am aware of the indoor performance characteristics of rammed earth buildings ”). This aligns with literature, that although buildings constructed with rammed earth are beneficial to the environment and well-being of occupants (Mensah and Laryea, 2023 ), its uptake is often restricted by the lack of expertise (Gangarao et al., 2020 ). The absence of education and research to understand RE characteristics, and dedicated standards affect RE’s usage and knowledge among stakeholders. As noted by Addy et al. ( 2021 ), a culture of non-participation and lack of enthusiasm from stakeholders in adopting eco-friendly practices can result in professionals’ disinterest, subsequently impacting their actions and willingness to engage with new subjects. This lack of engagement suggests that professionals may actively avoid information and training sessions that could expose them to such construction techniques. This lack of detailed expertise is not unique to Ghana; a similar situation is prevalent among professionals in the UK (Zami, 2021 ) and South Africa (Oguntona et al., 2023 ). The findings also underscore a disparity in the level of awareness across professional groups. Per the Kruskal-Wallis test in Table 2 two statements (S3 and S7) out of the nine statements were rejected, since their p -values were lesser than 0.50. This implies that respondents’ views on these two statements varied and are statistically significant. Comparatively, results from the mean scores and mean rankings in Figs. 2 and 3 identify architect as the professional group with a significantly higher mean ranks on these statements. This implies that architects, who are often involved in the initial design and specification of materials, have a deeper conceptual and technical grasp of rammed earth, while other professionals, such as construction managers and quantity surveyors, may have a less comprehensive understanding of RE and its application. For instance, Samarasinghe and Falk ( 2022 ) reported that the knowledge of architects was critical to the development of New Zealand’s own standards and guidelines. This differences in professionals’ views underscore the significant role that inadequate information channels and existing misconceptions about earthen construction play in the adoption of RE in Ghana. In all, it is can deduced that professionals’ knowledge on rammed earth construction is neutral. Neutrality in this sense refers to having moderate understanding of the properties, benefits, qualities and application of rammed earth. This explains why the potential for sustainable development is recognized in Ghana but is less patronized. Additionally, this level of exposure imply that professionals would be less confident recommending rammed earth as a viable option against conventional materials to potential clients (Acheampong et al., 2014 ). However, promoting the right information and targeted training programs is essential to close this knowledge gap and foster greater confidence and enthusiasm for rammed earth within the GCI. The knowledge gap can be closed by creating public and professionals’ awareness through community-based forums and by showing successful RE projects, highlighting indoor performance and energy efficiency reports. It is also imperative for professional bodies and academic institutions to collaborate effectively to bridge awareness gap in order to foster the adoption of RE in the GCI. 5.2 Barriers of Rammed Earth in the Ghanaian Construction Industry Extant studies emphasize that embracing vernacular construction techniques, like rammed earth, often meet resistance despite their relevance to a sustainable development (Heffernan and Wilde, 2020 ; Adegun and Adedeji, 2017 ). The factor analysis demonstrate that the barriers to the adoption of RE in Ghana can be envisaged as four principal barriers. The first principal barrier is systemic barrier. This factor accounted for 45.179% of the total variance with an eigenvalue of 10.391. It highlights the lack of a formal and institutional framework to bolster the adoption of RE construction. This constitutes six variables namely: Absence of dedicated local building codes and regulation, Minimal academic curriculum coverage and professional training programs, Unclear compliance pathways, Insufficient market strategies and promotion, Return of investment uncertainty, Lack of research investment. Minimal academic curriculum coverage and professional training programs has a mean score of 4.03 and the highest factor loading of 0.833. Nwaki et al. ( 2023 ) and Zami and Lee ( 2011 ) highlighted a similar sentiment. It is not enough only advocating for sustainable construction practices, such as RE, without introducing them into academic curriculum and training programs. Universities and training institutions in Ghana could develop special modules and program like the Germany’s “specialist in earth building” that exposes construction professionals to RE construction (Samarasinghe and Falk, 2022 ). The next factor is Insufficient market strategies and promotion (Mean = 3.93, FL = 0.823). The likelihood of a widespread RE adoption requires the rollout of a comprehensive market strategy, using creative avenues to expose the public to the benefits of RE buildings. Roxana and Maria ( 2019 ), for instance, noted that cultural festivities are great avenues to showcase earth construction techniques will celebrating ones culture. Another important factor is Unclear compliance pathways (Mean = 3.87, FL = 0.703). This represents the absence of a structured protocol for designing, constructing, acquiring permits and insuring RE structures. As a vernacular construction technique, the approach to RE construction can vary significantly depending on one’s jurisdiction, often without a clear, standardized set of guidelines. This lack of uniformity can lead to inconsistent outcomes and hinder wider adoption. As Ashurmamadova and Rexhepi ( 2024 ) recommend, a clear and unified modality for RE should be established to replace the reliance on segregated opinions and construction methodologies. When there is low awareness and trust in a product, the possibility of gaining investor attention remain low. Despite the enormous benefits consistent with RE, such as its sustainability, Return on investment (ROI) uncertainty (Mean = 3.77, FL = 0.681) remains a significant barrier. Professionals perceive the cost of construction and the rate of returns on RE projects to be unpredictable given their present level of awareness (Nwaki et al., 2023 ; Zami and Lee, 2011 ). This also aligns with findings by Mohamed et al. ( 2023 ), who opine that such uncertainty is commonplace in the adoption of unconventional construction techniques. Furthermore, the Lack of research investment (Mean = 3.78, FL = 0.605) implies that little to no effort is being made to update the knowledge base of RE construction in Ghana. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle: without research, there is a lack of data on long-term performance, costs, and best practices, which, in turn, fuels the uncertainty around ROI and makes it difficult for professionals to recommend RE as a viable investment. The Absence of dedicated local building codes and regulations (Mean = 4.09, FL = 0.575) is another significant barrier. Respondents agree that the lack of localized regulatory framework and policies to govern the use of earthen materials directly affects the quality of earthen structures and, consequently, erodes public’s trust in RE construction (Nwaki et al., 2023 ; Zami and Lee, 2011 ). Having knowledgeable policymakersand dedicated frameworks to standardize earthen construction is acritical step towards embracing RE (Samarasinghe and Falk, 2022 ). The second principal barrier is technological and financial barrier. It explains 7.654% of the total variance with an eigenvalue of 1.761. It constitutes seven variables including climate and geographic constraints, lack of fiscal incentives, higher cost of maintenance, difficulty in obtaining building permits, loans and insurance, unavailability of digital technologies and modern mechanization, quality control deficiencies, and competition from other green building techniques and products. Professionals consider difficulty in obtaining building permits, loans and insurance (Mean = 3.51, FL = 0.785) a significant challenge. This issue persist primarily due to the lack of clear quality assurance protocols for RE buildings, along with inadequate guidelines and expertise with regulatory and financial institutions. Consequently, financial institutions are often reluctant to invest in projects with high uncertainty levels. Another critical barrier is the higher cost of maintaining RE structures (Mean = 3.60, FL = 0.739). Although studies (e.g. Oguntona et al., 2023 ) have established the long-term financial benefits of green buildings, the perception of high maintenance costs serve as a major hindrance. Specific issues consistent with RE, such as termite attacks and weathering (Nwaki et al., 2023 ), warrants a timely and costly maintenance interventions to sustain the building. This ultimately contributes to professionals’ disinterest in the technique. The unavailability of digital technologies and modern mechanization (Mean = 3.59, FL = 0.761) for RE projects is also perceived as another barrier. Agyekum et al. ( 2022 ) note that the GCI relies largely on physical force and manual work for its products. Again, the maturity level of adopting relevant technologies such as 3D printing, Building Information Modeling and robotics remain low in developing countries (Addy et al., 2022 ; Olatunde et al., 2022 ), including Ghana. Even though the use of digital technologies and equipment are able to enhance project time and cost (Kloft et al., 2024 ), the GCI faces some constraints to their adoption including the financial capacity of contractors, logistical procedures in procuring such technologies and regulatory frameworks (Agyekum et al., 2022 ). These consequently hampers their exploitation for sustainable RE structures. The succeeding barrier is quality control deficiencies (Mean = 3.77, FL = 0.649). The quality of an RE structure is tied to several factors including the choice of material, expertise and tools (Gomaa et al., 2023 ). It is also dependent on the availability of database, established guidelines and rating systems, which are lacking within the region, hence respondents’ disposition to RE adoption. Another barrier worth considering is competition from other green building techniques and products (Mean = 3.58, FL = 0.549). While a competitive market can drive down costs (Abera, 2024 ), this particular challenge for rammed earth is nuanced. Although rammed earth is a highly sustainable option, it faces competition from techniques and materials that are also paraded as “green” but may have a higher environmental impact. This is corroborated by Lokko et al. ( 2024 ) and Nouri et al. ( 2021 ), who underscore the high embodied and operational carbon inherent with certain vernacular building techniques, such as fired clay brick. Professional perceive that a crowded market of green materials can make it difficult for RE to be recognized. Climate and geographic constraints (Mean = 3.52, FL = 0.519) and the lack of fiscal incentives (Mean = 3.66, FL = 0.493) are the last factors under this principal barrier. As an earth-based material, RE structures are susceptible to distinct vulnerabilities, such as seasonal changes and heavy rainfalls. As a result, the integrity of the building elements buildings could experience rain-driven erosion, which can temper with the (Rosicki and Narloch, 2022 ). The absence of incentives from government such as tax exemptions or subsidies and grants for using RE makes it less appealing venture. This aligns with Addy et al. ( 2021 ), who also noted that such supportive opportunities have not been implemented by the government. Socio-cultural and user acceptance barrier follows as the third principal barrier, explaining 7.319% of the total variance with an eigenvalue of 1.683. This constitutes six variables including cultural and aesthetic perceptions, engineering related challenges, strong industrial and user preferences for conventional buildings techniques/materials, complexity of modern building and designs, and labor-intensive nature of RE construction. Professionals consider cultural and aesthetic perceptions (Mean = 3.73, FL = 0.728) of RE structures as a critical barrier. This perception is consistent with Storr’s ( 2008 ) view that individuals’ decisions are predominantly influenced by their social environment and relationships. A general misconception about the performance of earthen structures persists, and they often characterized by a low social image, which is attributed to poverty and underdevelopment (Nwaki et al., 2023 ). Twumasi-Ampofo and Oppong ( 2016 ) added that the trend of gentrification in urban centers is further complicating this challenge, consequently creating a cultural gap where many rich traditional heritages are being forgotten in the attempt to modernize our communities. Strong industrial and user preferences for conventional building materials (Mean = 4.10, FL = 0.692) is another barrier to the acceptance of RE. Due to a lack of research, clear guidelines, and the perceived high risks associated with RE, the industry is inclined to resist it in favor of conventional materials like glass, which can be unsustainable given Ghana’s geographical and climatic context (Ashurmamadova and Rexhepi, 2024 ; Mohamed et al., 2023 ). The limited research and data on performance of rammed earth building elements (Mean = 3.86, FL = 0.646) is a critical barrier to its adoption. The absence of a dedicated database or readily available studies makes it rather arduous for professionals to recommend this approach to clients and investors. Due to the absence of tangible data on long-term performance, structural integrity, and cost-effectiveness, professionals are unable to build a strong business case for using RE; as a result, they are forced to rely on conventional materials with established performance records (Pelé-Peltier et al., 2023 ; Zami and Lee, 2011 ). Furthermore, the labor-intensive nature of RE construction (Mean = 3.58, FL = 0.661) also hinders its widespread use. The absence of dedicated, readily available equipment to ease the labor-intensive process makes it less appealing. This is a finding endorsed by Gomaa et al ( 2023 ), who reported that many professionals still rely on conventional ramming techniques and wooden formworks, which contribute to the labor-intensive nature of RE projects. For the clientele, a more labor-intensive project is associated with higher costs and longer project timelines (Gomaa et al., 2023 ). In order to mitigate these perceived risks, clients and professionals often opt for conventional techniques that require a predictable labor budget, even if they are less sustainable in the long term. Engineering-related challenges (Mean = 3.75, FL = 0.605) pertaining to the durability of material, proper soil selection, the appropriate mixture of additives, meeting structural requirements, directly contribute to the low acceptance of RE. The absence of research and related funding further complicates this issue, as academics lack the data and findings to present to the industry (Pelé-Peltier et al., 2023 ). This is a critical point, as the industry’s slow uptake of innovative techniques is often directly linked to the absence of credible, data-driven evidence (Nwaki et al., 2023 ). As a consequence, the industry’s trust in RE remains low, hindering its widespread use. Another critical hindrance to adoption is the complexity of modern buildings designs (Mean = 3.91, FL = 0.460). Without dedicated research to explore the characteristics of suitable soils and establish state-of-the-art methodologies, professionals cannot confidently apply traditional RE techniques in their contemporary, complex designs (Pelé-Peltier et al., 2023 ). This disconnect between traditional methods and modern architectural demands restricts the versatility of RE and confines its use to simpler and more conventional projects. The decisions of the built environment is often based on perception. As Zami’s ( 2021 ) noted, people blame construction materials and technologies when buildings are poorly designed or lack aesthetic appeal. Therefore, a key strategy to revive interest in earthen construction, particularly RE, would be for scientists and industrial practitioners to collaborate on developing a prototype of an ultramodern building constructed with RE. This would serve as tangible proof of concept. The last principal barrier is logistical and socio-economic barrier. This component accounts for 5.749% of the total variance explained, with an eigenvalue of 1.322. It constitutes variables that encompass both operational and market-based challenges to RE adoption: high initial cost, challenges with material sourcing, inadequate support from government and industrial institutions and limited availability of skilled labor. The perceive cost of RE construction (Mean = 3.46, FL = 0.755) is deemed a significant barrier. This is supported by findings in Nwaki et al. ( 2023 ) and Zami and Lee ( 2011 ). Zami ( 2021 ) emphasize that cost is the most critical concern for people. Professionals, particularly quantity surveyors, who prioritize providing clients value for their money, would often recommend conventional materials due to the perception of RE as being more expensive, especially in the short term. The unavailability of equipment and lack of dedicated financial packages to support RE construction projects further reinforces this barrier (Nikyema and Blouin, 2020 ). In the event where financial institutions are willing to invest or offer loans for RE projects, the high uncertainties associated with this technique result in very high interest rates and unfavorable terms. Additionally, the adoption of RE in Ghana is further constrained by the inadequate support from government and industrial institutions (Mean = 3.95, FL = 0.720). In expressing a similar sentiment, Addy et al. ( 2021 ) mentioned that the government of Ghana has scant incentives to boost the adoption of sustainable construction practices like RE. This is a major hindrance, as it underscores the absence of an enabling environment for interested parties. Consequently, professionals are inclined to choose conventional construction in lieu of RE construction. Government and policy-makers could actively enhance green buildings by developing targeted policies and incentives to revive interest in vernacular construction. The limited availability of skilled labor (Mean = 3.75, FL = 0.713) is viewed as another critical barrier to the adoption of RE in Ghana. Although conventional RE construction can rely on unskilled labor (Strazzeri and Karrech, 2023 ), it is a specialized field that requires informed technical decisions regarding soil selection and a proficient workforce (Samarasinghe and Falk, 2022 ). The number of professionals trained in this specialized field is limited, primarily because there is a lack of demand and insufficient job opportunities. This creates a less competitive market for potential contractors. Furthermore, most Ghanaian professionals base their competitiveness on their propensity to reduce cost of construction in lieu of technology (Addy et al., 2021 ). This practice favors large firms, often leading to RE projects being awarded based on price rather than expertise. Subsequently, a professional’s lack of exposure and education compels them to rely on a “rule of thumb” approach, which is likely to result in a suboptimal quality work. Challenges with material sourcing (Mean = 3.48, FL = 0.683) also slows the pace of RE adoption. RE enables creative designs through the blending and staggering of soil material (Eo et al., 2022 ), and desired earthen materials may abundant locally. However, Gomaa et al. ( 2023 ) averred that the quality and properties of the RE element can vary significantly based on the sourcing conditions. Professionals consider the sourcing of materials to be critical, particularly in the bid to develop quality RE structures, in the face of inadequate education and research. This, coupled with an underdeveloped green building market, render material with desired properties acquisition difficult to identify. This finding contrasts with the situation in the UK, where, Zami ( 2021 ) noted, the barrier of sourcing has been largely overcome due to a more developed market for earth-based products. 6 Implications There is an urgency to embrace and practice sustainable housing delivery, especially given the unprecedented population growth and the burgeoning demand for infrastructure. The findings from the study prove that despite the immense benefits inherent in rammed earth construction, professionals in the Ghanaian built environment exhibit moderate awareness of this knowledge. This finding challenges the assumption that a global body of knowledge is uniformly accessible. This knowledge gap is fostered by factors including the lack of research and funding, inadequate education, and institutional support. Consequently, it underscores the need for academic research to shift from merely showing RE’s viability to actively developing context-specific, data-driven evidence and standards that can be directly applied in the local industry. The study also highlights a need for a grand collaboration between academia and industry to produce and disseminate locally curated data on RE’s performance and other properties. From the study, other limitations to RE included the absence of a dedicated local building code and guidelines, inadequate support from government and institutions, and a lack of fiscal incentives. Interventions from the government and policy-making bodies are crucial to creating a favorable environment where RE and other earthen-based technologies would advance. The perception of people regarding earthen-products and buildings could be changed when the government draw the attention of the public to them, by implementing fiscal incentives, like tax exemptions, and establishing clear pathways to obtain permits and control quality. Doing this would positively influence the perception of people and rekindle trust in vernacular construction techniques in Ghana. From a broader point of view, these issues pertaining to the adoption of sustainable construction practices, such as RE, are not only specific to Ghana but also to other sub-Saharan African economies, for instance, Nigeria (Ojelabi et al., 2024 ) and Burkina Faso (Nikyema and Blouin, 2020 ). 7 Conclusion The transition to a green economy is an imperative to developing all aspect of the economy, while mitigating various environmental, economic and social risks. This shift is particularly salient for nations like Ghana that are highly dependent on their natural resources for economic sustenance. Environmental and social issues, such population growth and its related consequence on the climate, requires a fundamental rethinking of how to proceed into the future without depleting critical resources. This urgency has fueled several studies, especially within the built environment, focused on examining and projecting various sustainable practices, including rammed earth construction. This research investigated the awareness and potential barriers hindering the adoption of rammed earth construction in Ghana. Using a structured questionnaire, a survey was conducted among 114 construction professionals in Ghana. The findings reveal that professionals are more aware of the general concept of sustainability rather than with specific details, like rammed earth construction. Additionally, the findings from the study proves that Architects, project managers and construction managers exhibit higher level of awareness of RE construction than the other professional groups used in the study. On average, the study concludes that professionals are moderately aware of the concept of rammed earth construction. Four principal barriers emerged based on the exploratory factor analysis: systemic, technological and financial, socio-cultural and user acceptance, and logistical and socio-economic barriers. It is worth noting that absence of dedicated local building codes and regulation; quality control deficiencies; strong industrial and user preferences for conventional buildings techniques/materials; and inadequate support from government and industrial institutions emerged as the highly ranked sub-factors. Therefore, the study proffers that key stakeholders such as policymakers and construction professional associations make informed policies and enactments to increase awareness and use of rammed earth as a sustainable building material. Professional bodies could also collaborate with government agencies or non-profit organizations to develop comprehensive frameworks for ensuring the safety and reliability of rammed earth construction. Theoretically, the findings of the study have established the knowledge of sustainable construction materials (rammed earth) in the context of a typical developing country like Ghana, wherein studies in this regard are scant. Subsequently, educational institutions such as universities, TVET institutes and training centers need to introduce and tailor courses to inform students about the merits of rammed earth and other earthen materials. This will enhance the dissemination of information about rammed earth construction within the industry. More importantly, these findings will assist researchers in identifying gaps pertinent for further studies. Granting the goal of this study was attained, several limitations have been acknowledged. First, the use of a quantitative research design limited the respondents’ ability to fully express their views in regards to the studies objectives. Future research could benefit from employing qualitative or mixed research approaches to gain deeper insights into practitioners’ opinions and measure the utility of rammed earth construction in Ghana. Another limitation was the potential bias in sampling or representation of construction professionals selected for the study. Nonetheless, this is common when dealing with undefined or difficult-to-quantify populations. Therefore, it is recommended that future studies use a large sample size to improve generalizability of findings. An intriguing direction for future studies is suggested, as omnibus policies may not sufficiently address the unique factors and barriers associated with the adoption of sustainable construction materials like the rammed earth. Declarations Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all respondents who partook in the study for dedicating their time to share their valuable insights. In addition, the authors are grateful to the reviewers for their constructive remarks and valuable suggestions. Author contributions A. O. A: Project administration, Conceptualization, Writing-review & editing; K. A: Writing-review & editing, Methodology; S. A: Writing-review & editing, Methodology; F. W. M: Writing-review & editing; G. K. N: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. Funding No funds, grants, or other support was received. Data availability Data are contained within the article. Conflicts of interests The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article Ethical Approval and Accordance The study was approved by the Human and Social Science Research Ethics Committee (HuSSREC) of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and institutional guidelines. Consent to Participate Written informed consent to publish anonymized data was obtained from all participants. No participant under the age of 18 was included in this study; hence, there was no need for such consent to be sought as such. Consent to Publish Written informed consent to participate was obtained from all participants involved in the study. There were no participants who were under the age of 18 involved in this study. References Abera, Y.A. (2024), “Sustainable building materials: A comprehensive study on eco-friendly alternatives for construction”, Composites and Advanced Materials , SAGE Publications Ltd, Vol. 33, p. 26349833241255957, doi: 10.1177/26349833241255957. Abu-Khader, W. and Sweis, R. (2024), “Ghaleb Jalil Sweis and Husam Abu Hajar”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. , doi: 10.1108/ECAM-10-2024-1436. Acheampong, A., Hackman, J., Ayarkwa, J. and Agyekum, K. (2014), “Factors inhibiting the use of indigenous building materials (IBM) in the Ghanaian construction industry”, ADRRI Journal (Multidisciplinary) , Vol. 8 No. 8. Addy, M., Adinyira, E., Danku, J.C. and Dadzoe, F. (2021), “Impediments to the development of the green building market in sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Ghana”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment , Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 193–207. Addy, M.N., Adinyira, E., Dadzoe, F. and Opoku, D. (2022), “The market for green buildings in Sub-Saharan Africa: experts perspective on the economic benefits in Ghana”, Journal of Construction in Developing Countries , Universiti Sains Malaysia Press, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 173–188. Adegun, O.B. and Adedeji, Y.M.D. (2017), “Review of economic and environmental benefits of earthen materials for housing in Africa”, Frontiers of Architectural Research , Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 519–528, doi: 10.1016/j.foar.2017.08.003. Adu, P. and Miles, D.A. (2023), Dissertation Research Methods: A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing Up Your Research in the Social Sciences , 1st ed., Routledge, London, doi: 10.4324/9781003268154. Agyekum, K., Adinyira, E. and Oppon, J.A. (2021), “Factors limiting the adoption of hemp as an alternative sustainable material for green building delivery in Ghana”, International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation , Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 202–218, doi: 10.1108/IJBPA-11-2020-0100. Agyekum, K. and Amudjie, J. (2024), “Challenges to implementing circular economy: empirical evidence among built environment firms in Ghana”, International Journal of Construction Management , Taylor & Francis, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 281–297, doi: 10.1080/15623599.2023.2222993. Agyekum, K., Kissi, E. and Danku, J.C. (2020), “Professionals’ views of vernacular building materials and techniques for green building delivery in Ghana”, Scientific African , Vol. 8, p. e00424, doi: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00424. Agyekum, K., Pittri, H., Botchway, E.A., Amudjie, J., Kumah, V.M.A., Kotei-Martin, J.N. and Oduro, R.A. (2022), “Exploring the Current Technologies Essential for Health and Safety in the Ghanaian Construction Industry”, Merits , Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 314–330, doi: 10.3390/merits2040022. Ahmed, I. and Khan, T. (2023), “Finding post-colonial identity through vernacular and climate responsive adaptations: the architecture of Bangladesh from 1947 to 1971”, Open House International , Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 384–408, doi: 10.1108/OHI-03-2023-0064. Aït-Sahalia, Y. and Xiu, D. (2019), “Principal Component Analysis of High-Frequency Data”, Journal of the American Statistical Association , Taylor and Francis Ltd., Vol. 114 No. 525, pp. 287–303, doi: 10.1080/01621459.2017.1401542. Ali, E.B., Anufriev, V.P. and Amfo, B. (2021), “Green economy implementation in Ghana as a road map for a sustainable development drive: A review”, Scientific African , Vol. 12, p. e00756, doi: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e00756. Alrashed, F., Asif, M. and Burek, S. (2017), “The Role of Vernacular Construction Techniques and Materials for Developing Zero-Energy Homes in Various Desert Climates”, Buildings , Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 17, doi: 10.3390/buildings7010017. Alter, L. (2020), “What Is Rammed Earth Construction?”, Treehugger , March, available at: https://www.treehugger.com/dirt-rammed-earth-4847413 (accessed 28 July 2024). Amos, D., Au-Yong, C.P. and Musa, Z.N. (2020), “Developing key performance indicators for hospital facilities management services: a developing country perspective”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management , Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 2715–2735, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-11-2019-0642. Amos-Abanyie, S., Afram, S., Olympio, G. and Nkrumah, K. (2013), “passive building design of mass housing development in the warm-humid regions of Ghana - a path to sustainable building design”. Ampratwum, G., Agyekum, K., Adinyira, E. and Duah, D. (2021), “A framework for the implementation of green certification of buildings in Ghana”, International Journal of Construction Management , Taylor & Francis, Vol. 21 No. 12, pp. 1263–1277, doi: 10.1080/15623599.2019.1613207. Amudjie, J., Agyekum, K., Adinyira, E., Amos-Abanyie, S. and Botchway, E.A. (2023), “Implementing the principles of circular economy in the construction industry: exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of strategies”, Construction Innovation , Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/CI-10-2022-0270. Ansah, M.K., Chen, X., Yang, H., Lu, L. and Lam, P.T.I. (2020), “An integrated life cycle assessment of different façade systems for a typical residential building in Ghana”, Sustainable Cities and Society , Vol. 53, p. 101974, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101974. Arceo, A., O’Brien, W. and Touchie, M. (2024), “Ten questions concerning the environmental impacts of housing built form”, Building and Environment , Vol. 256, p. 111490, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111490. Ashurmamadova, S. and Rexhepi, G. (2024), Building a Sustainable Future: Adoption, Barriers, And Pathways To Progress In Sustainability - Case Of Sustainable Construction. , Universiteti I Evropës Juglindore, Macedonia, 12 July, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33469.06889. Azunu, F.K. (2017), “The use of local building materials and its challenges in Ghana: a case study of Denkyembour district–Akwatia”, University of Education, Winneba.(UEW). Botchway, E.A., Agyekum, K., Kotei-Martin, J.N. and Afram, S.O. (2023), “Utilization of simulation tools for building performance assessment among design professionals”, International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation , Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/IJBPA-01-2023-0006. Bui, Q.B., Morel, J.-C., Reddy, B. and Ghayad, W. (2009), “Durability of rammed earth walls exposed for 20 years to natural weathering”, Building and Environment , pp. 912–919, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.07.001. Ciancio, D. and Beckett, C. (2013), “Rammed earth: an overview of a sustainable construction material”, Proceedings of the 3rd Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies Conference , pp. 1–9. Ciancio, D. and Beckett, C. (Eds.). (2015), Rammed Earth Construction: Cutting-Edge Research on Traditional and Modern Rammed Earth , CRC Press, London, doi: 10.1201/b18046. Creang, E., Ciotoiu, I., Gheorghiu, D. and Nash, G. (2010), “Vernacular architecture as a model for contemporary design”, WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment , WIT Press, Vol. 128, pp. 157–171. Creswell, J.W. (2009), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method Aproaches , 3rd edition., SAGE Publications Ltd. Dabaieh, M. (2014), Building with Rammed Earth , doi: 10.13140/2.1.4198.3048. Danso, H. (2013), “Building Houses with Locally Available Materials in Ghana: Benefits and Problems”, International Journal of Science and Technology 2049-7318 , Vol. 2, pp. 225–231. Danso, H. (2018), “Suitability of soil for earth construction as building material”, Advancements in Civil Engineering & Technology , Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 199–211. Darko, A., Chan, A.P.C., Owusu-Manu, D.-G., Gou, Z. and Man, J.C.-F. (2020), “Adoption of Green Building Technologies in Ghana”, in Gou, Z. (Ed.), Green Building in Developing Countries , Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 217–235, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-24650-1_12. Dorothée, A. (2018), “Recognition of a heritage in danger: rammed-earth architecture in Lyon city, France”, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science , Vol. 143 No. 1, p. 012054, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/143/1/012054. Eo, M., Mn, E. and Pt, M. (2022), “Review and Practical Processes on Rammed Earth Wall Construction”, Discovery , Vol. 58 No. 318, pp. 637–653. Fernandes, J., Mateus, R., Bragança, L. and Correia da Silva, J.J. (2015), “Portuguese vernacular architecture: the contribution of vernacular materials and design approaches for sustainable construction”, Architectural Science Review , Taylor & Francis, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 324–336, doi: 10.1080/00038628.2014.974019. Gangarao, H., Johnson, D., Liang, R. and Blanford, M. (2020), “Reviving Rammed Earth as a Sustainable Construction Technique”, Cityscape , US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 387–393. Ghana Statistical Service. (2022), Quarterly Labour Force Report , Ghana Anual Household Income and Expenditure Survey and Ghana Statistical Survey, p. 132. Glassie, H. (1990), “Architects, vernacular traditions, and society”, Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review , Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 9–21. Glassie, H. (2000), Vernacular Architecture , Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Gomaa, M., Xie, Y. and Bao, D.W. (2023), “Automation in rammed earth construction for industry 4.0: Precedent work, current progress and future prospect”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 398, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136569. González-Lezcano, R.A. (2023), “Editorial: Design of efficient and healthy buildings”, Frontiers in Built Environment , Frontiers, Vol. 9, doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2023.1210956. Heffernan, E. and Wilde, P. de. (2020), “Group self-build housing: A bottom-up approach to environmentally and socially sustainable housing”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 243, p. 118657, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118657. International Trade Administration. (2023), “Ghana - Construction and Infrastructure Industry”, 26 November, available at: https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/ghana-construction-and-infrastructure-industry (accessed 2 June 2024). Kaiser, H.F. (1958), “The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis”, Psychometrika , Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 187–200, doi: 10.1007/BF02289233. Kissi, E., Ahadzie, D.K., Debrah, C. and Adjei-Kumi, T. (2020), “Underlying strategies for improving entrepreneurial skills development of technical and vocational students in developing countries: using Ghana as a case study”, Education + Training , Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 62 No. 5, pp. 599–614, doi: 10.1108/ET-11-2019-0264. Kloft, H., Salamatian, A., Gosslar, J., Dorresteijn, E. and Lowke, D. (2024), “Robotic Rammed Earth-Concrete (RREC): A Novel Additive Manufacturing Technology to Strengthen Rammed Earth Structures by Integrated Rammed Concrete Parts”, in Beckett, C., Bras, A., Fabbri, A., Keita, E., Perlot, C. and Perrot, A. (Eds.), Second RILEM International Conference on Earthen Construction , Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp. 60–70, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-62690-6_7. Kocak, S. and Grant, A. (2023), “Enhancing the mechanical properties of polymer-stabilized rammed earth construction”, Construction Materials , MDPI, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 377–388. Koranteng, C., Simons, B., Abrokwa Gyimah, K. and Nkrumah, J. (2021), “Ghana’s green building assessment journey: an appraisal of the thermal performance of an office building in Accra”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology , Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 188–205, doi: 10.1108/JEDT-02-2021-0109. Kulshreshtha, Y., Mota, Nelson.J.A., Jagadish, K.S., Bredenoord, J., Vardon, P.J., Van Loosdrecht, M.C.M. and Jonkers, H.M. (2020), “The potential and current status of earthen material for low-cost housing in rural India”, Construction and Building Materials , Vol. 247, p. 118615, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118615. Kürüm Varolgünes, F. (2019), “Evaluation of vernacular and new housing indoor comfort conditions in cold climate – a field survey in eastern Turkey”, International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis , Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 207–226, doi: 10.1108/IJHMA-02-2019-0019. Lokko, M., Manu, F.W., Mboup, N., Etman, M.A., Raugei, M., Niang, I., Ametepe, K., et al. (2024), “Comparing the whole life cycle carbon impact of conventional and biogenic building materials across major residential typologies in Ghana and Senegal”, Sustainable Cities and Society , Vol. 106, p. 105332, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2024.105332. Lokko, M., Wireko Manu, F., Mboup, N., Aly Etman, M.A., Raugei, M., Niang, I., Ametepe, K., et al. (2023), “Comparing the Life Cycle Carbon Impact of Conventional and Biogenic Building Materials Across Major Residential Typologies in Ghana and Senegal”, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4612096. Maniatidis, V. and Walker, P. (2003), “A Review of Rammed Earth Construction for DTi Partners in Innovation Project ‘Developing Rammed Earth for UK Housing’”, Natural Building Technology Group, Department of Architecture & Civil Engineering University of Bath , pp. 1–118. Mensah, S. and Laryea, S. (2023), “Explaining the lower usage rate of indigenous construction materials in Ghanaian public buildings using bounded rationality”, Heliyon , Vol. 9 No. 7, p. e17645, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17645. Ministry of Works and Housing. (2024), Climate Action Roadmaps for Buildings and Construction, Ghana , Ministry of Works and Housing, UN Environment Programme, Global Alliance for Building and Construction, UN-Habitat, Ghana, pp. 1–84. Mirabi, E. and Akrami Abarghuie, F. (2021), “Investigating the climate-adaptive design strategies of residential earth-sheltered buildings in Iran”, International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation , Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 1029–1048, doi: 10.1108/IJBPA-05-2021-0076. Mohamed, M.A.S., Ibrahim, A.O., Bashir, F.M., Chammam, A., Gnaba, H., Kadhim, S.I. and Khalilpoor, N. (2023), “An assessment of the barriers to the adoption of green building technologies in Saudi Arabia”, International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies , Vol. 18, pp. 872–880, doi: 10.1093/ijlct/ctad064. Montalbano, G., Santi, G. and Najem, K. (2024), “Rammed Earth Construction: A Circular Solution For Sustainable Building”, Vol. 11, presented at the Proceedings of International Structural Engineering and Construction, doi: 10.14455/ISEC.2024.11(1).SUS-01. Morel, J.-C., Charef, R., Hamard, E., Fabbri, A., Beckett, C. and Bui, Q.-B. (2021), “Earth as construction material in the circular economy context: practitioner perspectives on barriers to overcome”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , Royal Society, Vol. 376 No. 1834, p. 20200182, doi: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0182. Nanz, L., Rauch, M., Honermann, T. and Auer, T. (2019), “Impacts on the Embodied Energy of Rammed Earth Façades During Production and Construction Stages”, Journal of Facade Design and Engineering , Vol. 7, pp. 75–88, doi: 10.7480/jfde.2019.1.2786. Nguyen, A.-T., Tran, Q.-B., Tran, D.-Q. and Reiter, S. (2011), “An investigation on climate responsive design strategies of vernacular housing in Vietnam”, Building and Environment , Vol. 46 No. 10, pp. 2088–2106, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.04.019. Nikyema, G.A. and Blouin, V.Y. (2020), “Barriers to the adoption of green building materials and technologies in developing countries: The case of Burkina Faso”, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science , IOP Publishing, Vol. 410 No. 1, p. 012079, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/410/1/012079. Nitelik Gelirli, D. and Arpacioglu, Ü. (2022), “Earth Buildings from Traditional to Present”, pp. 147–172. Nouri, H., Safehian, M. and Mir Mohammad Hosseini, S.M. (2021), “Life cycle assessment of earthen materials for low-cost housing a comparison between rammed earth and fired clay bricks”, International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation , Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 364–377, doi: 10.1108/IJBPA-02-2021-0021. Nwaki, W., Sofolahan, O. and Eze, E. (2023), “Inhibitors to Earth-based Materials Adoption in Urban Housing Construction: The View of Design Experts”, Civil and Sustainable Urban Engineering , Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 123–137. Oduro, S., Pittri, H., Simons, B., Baah, B., Anteh, E.D. and Oduro, J.A. (2024), “Awareness of net zero energy buildings among construction professionals in the Ghanaian construction industry”, Built Environment Project and Asset Management , Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/BEPAM-01-2024-0001. Oguntona, O., Akinradewo, O., Mokono, O., Fatai, O. and Aigbavboa, C. (2023), Limitations of Futuristic Building Materials for Achieving Sustainability in the Construction Industry , doi: 10.54941/ahfe1003096. Ojelabi, R.A., Mohammed, T.A. and Oladiran, O.J. (2024), “Awareness and Implementation Challenges of the Green Retrofitting in Building Enclosure in the Nigerian Construction Industry”, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science , Vol. 1342 No. 1, p. 012023, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1342/1/012023. Olatunde, N.A., Gento, A.M., Okorie, V.N., Oyewo, O.W., Mewomo, M.C. and Awodele, I.A. (2022), “Construction 4.0 technologies in a developing economy: awareness, adoption readiness and challenges”, Frontiers in Engineering and Built Environment , Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 108–121, doi: 10.1108/FEBE-08-2022-0037. Osei-Kyei, R., Chan, A.P.C. and Ameyaw, E.E. (2017), “A fuzzy synthetic evaluation analysis of operational management critical success factors for public-private partnership infrastructure projects”, Benchmarking: An International Journal , Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 2092–2112, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-07-2016-0111. Pandey, P. and Pandey, M.M. (2021), Research Methodology Tools and Techniques , Bridge Center. Pelé-Peltier, A., Charef, R. and Morel, J.-C. (2023), “Factors affecting the use of earth material in mainstream construction: a critical review”, Building Research & Information , Routledge, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 119–137, doi: 10.1080/09613218.2022.2070719. Prudon, T. and Normandin, K. (Eds.). (2018), “Concrete and Modernism: Technology and Conservation”, Proceedings of the Docomomo International Specialist Committee/Technolog y Sessions during the 3rd Annual Docomomo US National Symposium. , Docomomo US, Minnesota, USA, pp. 1–44. Rosicki, L. and Narloch, P. (2022), “Studies on the Ageing of Cement Stabilized Rammed Earth Material in Different Exposure Conditions”, Materials , Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Vol. 15 No. 3, p. 1090, doi: 10.3390/ma15031090. Roux, H.L. (2004), “Modern Architecture in Post-Colonial Ghana and Nigeria”, Architectural History , Vol. 47, pp. 361–392, doi: 10.1017/S0066622X00001805. Roxana, F.E. and Maria, B.S. (2019), “Interdisciplinary approach in promoting earth construction techniques in the Banat region, Romania”, Proceedings of INTCESS 2019- 6th International Conference on Education and Social Sciences, 4-6 February 2019 , Dubai, U.A.E. Salgin, B., Bayram, Ö.F., Akgün, A. and Agyekum, K. (2017), “Sustainable Features of Vernacular Architecture: Housing of Eastern Black Sea Region as a Case Study”, Arts , Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Vol. 6 No. 3, p. 11, doi: 10.3390/arts6030011. Samarasinghe, D.A.S. and Falk, S. (2022), “Promoting Earth Buildings for Residential Construction in New Zealand”, Buildings , Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Vol. 12 No. 9, p. 1403, doi: 10.3390/buildings12091403. Shrestha, N. (2021), “Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis”, American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics , Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 4–11. Solomon-Ayeh, K.A. (2009), “OPPORTUNITY FOR THE INCREASED USE OF CLAY POZZOLANA – THE BRRI EXPERIENCE”. Storr, V.H. (2008), “The market as a social space: On the meaningful extraeconomic conversations that can occur in markets”, The Review of Austrian Economics , Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 135–150, doi: 10.1007/s11138-007-0034-0. Strazzeri, V. and Karrech, A. (2023), “Qualitative and quantitative study to assess the use of rammed earth construction technology in Perth and the south-west of Western Australia”, Cleaner Materials , Vol. 7, p. 100169, doi: 10.1016/j.clema.2023.100169. Takyi-Annan, G.E. and Zhang, H. (2023), “A Multivariate Analysis of the Variables Impacting the Level of BIM Expertise of Professionals in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) Industries of the Developing World Using Nonparametric Tests”, Buildings , Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Vol. 13 No. 7, p. 1606, doi: 10.3390/buildings13071606. Tavakol, M. and Dennick, R. (2011), “Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha”, International Journal of Medical Education , International Journal of Medical Education (IJME), Nottingham, United Kingdom, Vol. 2, pp. 53–55. Tekpe, E., Ansah, S.K. and Akomah, B.B. (2022), “Appropriate Technology and Design: A Solution for Sustainable and Affordable Housing Delivery in Major Cities of Ghana”, Journal of Engineering Research and Reports , pp. 18–29, doi: 10.9734/jerr/2022/v23i8739. Twumasi-Ampofo, K. and Oppong, R.A. (2016), “Traditional Architecture and Gentrification in Kumasi Revisited”, African Journal of Applied Research (AJAR) , Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 97–109. United Nations Environment Programme. (2023), Building Materials and the Climate: Constructing a New Future , United Nations, Nairobi. Walliman, N. (2021), Research Methods: The Basics , Routledge. Wan, L., Ng, E., Liu, X., Zhou, L., Tian, F. and Chi, X. (2022), “Innovative Rammed Earth Construction Approach to Sustainable Rural Development in Southwest China”, Sustainability , Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Vol. 14 No. 24, p. 16461, doi: 10.3390/su142416461. Widera, B. (2021), “Comparative analysis of user comfort and thermal performance of six types of vernacular dwellings as the first step towards climate resilient, sustainable and bioclimatic architecture in western sub-Saharan Africa”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , Vol. 140, p. 110736, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.110736. Willar, D., Waney, E.V.Y., Pangemanan, D.D.G. and Mait, R.E.G. (2020), “Sustainable construction practices in the execution of infrastructure projects: The extent of implementation”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment , Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 106–124, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-07-2019-0086. Wipulanusat, W., Panuwatwanich, K., Stewart, R.A. and Sunkpho, J. (2020), “Applying Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Design to Innovation Management”, in Panuwatwanich, K. and Ko, C.-H. (Eds.), The 10th International Conference on Engineering, Project, and Production Management , Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp. 485–495, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-1910-9_40. Zami, M. (2021), “Barriers hindering acceptance of earth construction in the urban context of the United Kingdom”, Architectural Engineering and Design Management , Vol. 18, pp. 1–18, doi: 10.1080/17452007.2021.1995314. Zami, M.S. (2020), “A Conceptual Framework Outlining Factors Affecting the Acceptance of Earth as a Sustainable Building Material in the United Kingdom”, European Journal of Sustainable Development , Vol. 9 No. 3, p. 241, doi: 10.14207/ejsd.2020.v9n3p241. Zami, M.S. and Lee, A. (2010), “Economic benefits of contemporary earth construction in low-cost urban housing – State-of-the-art review”, Journal of Building Appraisal , Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 259–271, doi: 10.1057/jba.2009.32. Zami, M.S. and Lee, A. (2011), “Inhibitors of adopting stabilised earth construction to address urban low cost housing crisis: An understanding by construction professionals”, Journal of Building Appraisal , Vol. 6 No. 3–4, pp. 227–240, doi: 10.1057/jba.2010.25. Zhou, X., Ge, J. and Yan, Y. (2012), “Research of CO2 Emission of Residential Buildings in Zhejiang Province Based on Life Cycle Assessment”, Advanced Materials Research , Vol. 461, pp. 255–258, doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.461.255. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 24 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 20 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 18 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 13 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 09 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 05 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 Dec, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 26 Dec, 2025 Editor invited by journal 15 Dec, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 11 Dec, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 11 Dec, 2025 First submitted to journal 11 Dec, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8249439","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":566447322,"identity":"2829f32f-e9a0-4c9f-87a9-fe9b2f0b8b95","order_by":0,"name":"Anita Odame Adade-Boateng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Anita","middleName":"Odame","lastName":"Adade-Boateng","suffix":""},{"id":566447323,"identity":"0e8e80b8-6c1c-44a8-8130-711cfe835946","order_by":1,"name":"Kofi Agyekum","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kofi","middleName":"","lastName":"Agyekum","suffix":""},{"id":566447324,"identity":"e43b88e2-7af3-4ff3-9f0c-544200b4afb3","order_by":2,"name":"Stephen Akunyumu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Stephen","middleName":"","lastName":"Akunyumu","suffix":""},{"id":566447325,"identity":"d6a0c137-ab69-4c26-8565-68cebda70e6a","order_by":3,"name":"Frederick Wireko Manu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Council for Scientific and Industrial Research","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Frederick","middleName":"Wireko","lastName":"Manu","suffix":""},{"id":566447326,"identity":"0a617c9a-4301-47c4-913d-cc4c71cee92d","order_by":4,"name":"Godsway Kobla Nunekpeku","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Godsway","middleName":"Kobla","lastName":"Nunekpeku","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-01 10:53:34","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8249439/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8249439/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":99211927,"identity":"bba5ee70-db5b-4f6d-a609-29091f8c33e0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 08:21:06","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":260831,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Ghanasvernaculararchitecturerammedearthconstruction2025.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8249439/v1/a1f3be7733d68a5fdcd6aadd.docx"},{"id":99317021,"identity":"44637bed-1595-4bfd-95e3-c3e7025a46e9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:29:36","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":7179,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"7655a91d927148d6837309b4b34551ab.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8249439/v1/e5ef9349f63284955a78e9df.json"},{"id":99316726,"identity":"a6c27551-5faa-4630-b97f-34f5c7743804","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:29:04","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":256652,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"7655a91d927148d6837309b4b34551ab1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8249439/v1/50889cf7ee7cee8133d19022.xml"},{"id":99211931,"identity":"05904328-95b0-49fe-a66d-3e542338751c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 08:21:06","extension":"xml","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":253511,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"7655a91d927148d6837309b4b34551ab1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8249439/v1/d2519a95de4dfad59f79754b.xml"},{"id":99211930,"identity":"2fb686fb-5503-471a-bf28-c852632e2dbe","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 08:21:06","extension":"html","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":270882,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8249439/v1/0e487d3a9317bb18ca7b41d0.html"},{"id":99317700,"identity":"00adcc4b-f56a-4c2f-9703-c1d10665e6f4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:30:37","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":81477,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRespondents’ Profile\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8249439/v1/37d197320cc73384920966ff.png"},{"id":99211936,"identity":"afb6cc8c-0339-44e1-828e-109408221c06","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 08:21:07","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":73738,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMean Values of Responses of Construction Professionals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Field data (2025)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8249439/v1/730cd10715d8d7bae77eb3e4.png"},{"id":99211929,"identity":"f65bcc89-5239-41fd-8e9f-9569003bc978","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 08:21:06","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":69065,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMean ranking of Construction Professionals in Ghana.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Field data (2025)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8249439/v1/2c09bb2bd1f9c19eaf3bad83.png"},{"id":99323713,"identity":"12c1c26b-c86d-448a-9aea-9789d4e299ba","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:46:05","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1526955,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8249439/v1/a13c8e78-9d60-4c17-9d6e-e897b05ae131.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Barriers inhibiting the Adoption of Rammed Earth Construction in a Developing Country","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAdopting eco-friendly construction techniques and materials has become an imperative for the construction industry due to its substantial environmental impact. The industry\u0026rsquo;s activities pose severe challenges in developing countries, where rapid population growth and industrialization drives extensive construction activities including territorial expansion (Agyekum et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This further leads to significant resource depletion (Willar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR93\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Anecdotal evidence supported by literature reveals buildings accounts for the production of at least 37% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and consumes about 36% of global energy (Agyekum et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; United Nations Environment Programme, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This demand of materials and energy for buildings, which contributes significantly to GHG emissions, directly and indirectly drives global warming and climate change (Ansah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Addy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The widespread adoption of cementitious materials for wall construction and demand for energy in Ghana exacerbate this issue, with cement alone responsible for about 10% of the nation\u0026rsquo;s total Carbon (CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e) emissions, and buildings accounting for 43% of total energy consumption in 2019 (Lokko et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Ministry of Works and Housing, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Ghana, the construction industry significantly contributes to the gross domestic product (GDP) and employs about 450,000 workers (Ghana Statistical Service, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; International Trade Administration, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Yet, literature has well-reported detrimental impacts of its activities in the landscape. Agyekum and Amudjie (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) note that the Ghanaian construction industry (GCI), like the global construction sector, extensively exploits natural resources and generates substantial environmental waste. Koranteng et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) highlight challenges in delivering essential services like water and electricity to meet increasing demand. These have mounted intense pressure on the industry to explore techniques that will reduce the demand for some of these resources, while promoting their efficient usage. In recent times, Ghana has made notable sustainability progress by submitting its nationally determined contribution (NDCs) and launching a decarbonization roadmap for the built environment (Ministry of Works and Housing, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Oduro et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Nonetheless, extant studies highlight the GCI\u0026rsquo;s slow adoption of eco-friendly building practices (Ampratwum et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Amudjie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), indicating a significant gap between policy initiatives and on-site implementation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLow carbon construction techniques, with their potential for eco-friendly environments and cost savings through economies of scale, offer the construction industry a promising alternative to conventional building practices. Using local biogenic (such as hempcrete) and geogenic materials for building represents one of such approach (Lokko et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Vernacular construction, also known as traditional construction encompasses the use of local techniques and available construction materials to provide building structures (Widera, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Nguyen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). It depicts the culture, social lifestyle of a locality and takes into consideration specifics of the microclimate of a particular region. Earth or soil is considered one of the vernacular materials used predominantly in the sub-Saharan African region. It encompasses adobe (or mudbrick), wattle and daub, cob, earthbags, and the like. Coupled with the need to foster sustainable buildings (i.e. low carbon buildings) at the barest minimum cost makes geogenic construction technique like the rammed earth construction an optimal choice for green buildings in Ghana (Widera, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Montalbano et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) summarized a few relevant features of rammed earth building material that can foster circularity in the construction industry as: rammed earth is natural and does not produce waste; it can easily be recycled and reused several times. In furtherance, Nouri et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) established rammed earth as a more sustainable material than fired clay brick after conducting a lifecycle assessment on the two materials based on the framework in ISO 14040:2006 standard. In the experiment, the embodied energy and carbon emission of a ton of rammed earth was found to be about 4,646 MJ and 1,245 kg CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e lesser than that of fired clay bricks respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA comparative assessment on users\u0026rsquo; comfort and thermal performance of vernacular buildings in the western part of sub-Sahara Africa, recommended the adoption of rammed earth (Widera, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In Ghana, a few studies have focused on the broad subject of vernacular materials (Azunu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Agyekum et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Tekpe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Despite the plethora of research on green construction advocating the adoption of traditional materials as a sustainable approach to construction (Agyekum et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), scant literature exist on the potential utilization of the rammed earth technology. Additionally, the difficulty in searching for literature pertaining to this subject area underscores the limited research in this area. Following these gaps in the literature, the overarching aim of this study is to explore the potential barriers inhibiting the use of rammed earth construction technology in Ghana. To this end, two objectives were established: (1) to assess the level of knowledge of rammed earth among construction professionals; and (2) to identify potential barriers militating against the adoption of rammed earth within the GCI.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study contributes to the global discourse on sustainable construction by investigating and providing empirical data and insights on the level of awareness and potential barriers of rammed earth construction among construction professionals in Ghana. Accordingly, this investigation will elucidate professionals\u0026rsquo; readiness to embrace rammed earth construction, simultaneously offering actionable insights to construction professional groups and policymakers towards the advancement of rammed earth construction within the Ghanaian construction landscape. Overall, aligned with the responsibility of achieving the sustainable development goals, particularly goal 11 (sustainable cities and communities), 12 (responsible consumption and production), 13 (climate action) and 15 (life on land), this study will help foster sustainable construction practice and policies in Ghana.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Vernacular Architecture\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eHousing, as a component of the built environment, provides shelter, comfort, and healthy living spaces (Arceo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Beyond providing spatial cues and environmental aesthetics, housing satisfies social, cultural and emotional needs of man (Fernandes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Salgın et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). It reflects the intricate relationship between humans and their environment, influenced mainly by ecological, political, cultural, geographical, and technological factors (Alrashed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Ahmed and Khan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). One architectural concept that epitomise this relationship is vernacular architecture. Vernacular stems from the Latin word \u003cem\u003evernaculus\u003c/em\u003e, meaning domestic, indigenous, local and native. Glassie (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) describes vernacular buildings as structures shaped by culture and context, which reflect local needs, materials and traditions. Vernacular construction extend sustainable solutions, through practices that enhances thermal and energy performances with minimal environmental implications (Agyekum et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Subsequently influencing occupants\u0026rsquo; productivity, health and satisfaction (K\u0026uuml;r\u0026uuml;m Varolg\u0026uuml;neş, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Gonz\u0026aacute;lez-Lezcano, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVernacular construction techniques, documented extensively in literature, vary across regions and materials. Builders utilize geogenic (soil and stone) and biogenic (fronds, wood) materials to construct cob, wattle and daub, rammed earth, compressed earth blocks, adobe, mud walls structures (Creang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Indigenous building designs often include features like facades, elongated roof eaves, pine and spruce logs as rainspout (Salgın et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Local builders also give considerations to the building\u0026rsquo;s geographical location, orientation, and shape in order to optimise indoor living conditions (Fernandes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Vernacular buildings can incorporate passive design strategies like courtyard, earth-shelter, dome, tulou, stepwell, wind tower, roof pond and so on (Alrashed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Mirabi and Akrami Abarghuie, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Ahmed and Khan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGhana\u0026rsquo;s vernacular architecture depicts the country\u0026rsquo;s diverse geological, climatic, ecological and ethno-cultural landscapes. This multifaceted interplay between environmental conditions and sociocultural contexts has given rise to a number of local construction practices across the terrain. Indigenous materials such as palm frond, bamboo, coconut branches, fronds, soils, stones and timber are used for erecting timber-framed structures, pile dwellings, rammed earth, mud, cob, adobe buildings and wattle-and-daub structures (Danso, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Agyekum et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Tekpe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Design considerations, including building form, orientation, and passive strategies (e.g. Courtyard design), have been incorporated in local construction practices (Amos-Abanyie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Danso, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Principles of green buildings and climate-responsive design strategies have long been embedded in vernacular construction practices. Such that, for instance, pile dwellings \u0026ndash; typically elevated structures constructed primarily from bamboo or timber \u0026ndash; can provide liveable spaces above potential water level in coastal or flood-prone areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, colonization, modernization, and gentrification have, marginalized these primitive practices (Twumasi-Ampofo and Oppong, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The shift from vernacular construction began when the nation embraced colonial and colonial-modern architecture, even those buildings fashioned after the likes of those in Europe (Roux, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Ahmed and Khan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Prudon and Normandin (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) maintain that convectional construction materials have dominated modern architectural practices. As a result, sustainable alternatives like rammed earth construction have been overshadowed. Rammed earth emerges as a promising alternative with superior environmental sustainability envisaged from various lenses: operational energy, embodied energy, waste management and material circularity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Rammed Earth Construction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRammed earth (RE) is a traditional construction technique that entails the compaction of moist, uncemented soil within a temporary formwork to create solid, monolithic walls (Ciancio and Beckett, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Nitelik Gelirli and Arpacıoğlu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). It encompasses the use of moistened mixture of soil comprising varying proportions of clay, sand and gravel, which is compacted into rigid formworks to create structural elements. This versatile technique allows the creating of walls and blocks using carefully selected soils through manual or mechanical ramming (Montalbano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Nitelik Gelirli and Arpacıoğlu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) highlight two primary types of rammed earth construction: unstabilized rammed earth (URE) and stabilized rammed earth (SRE).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eURE, also called traditional rammed earth, constitutes a precisely formulated mixture of unadulterated sand, silt, water and clay as the cementitious agent (Alter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Montalbano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This method, used for millennia, is common in regions such as the Rh\u0026ocirc;ne-Alpes region in France and tropical areas with suitable soils (Doroth\u0026eacute;e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). In the views of Kocak and Grant (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), preferred soils for URE should have a cohesive clay content of at least 20%. In contrast, SRE incorporates additional cementitious materials, such as cement or lime, and/or other additives specifically to enhance certain properties of the resulting structure (Kocak and Grant, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Montalbano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Bui et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) assert that the SRE exhibits superior wet strength, erosion resistance and mechanical properties when compared to URE. However, Maniatidis and Walker (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) posit that comparable performance to SRE can be achieved with URE through the implementation of appropriate design strategies and construction methodologies specifically tailored for earth buildings. This suggests that the choice between the two transcends material availability to broader design considerations and construction technique.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral studies reveal that rammed earth construction contains lower carbon and embodied energy compared to concrete and fired clay bricks, especially when materials are from on-site or close by (Nanz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Nouri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Demolished concrete structures create waste management problems. However, with rammed earth, materials can be reused when the structure is demolished. This provides little to no waste to the environment (Ciancio and Beckett, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Montalbano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Other studies show that earth construction offers a cost-efficient and flexible way of construction, since materials are available and easily accessible (Zami and Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Kulshreshtha et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The availability of various earthen material like clay and sand for rammed earth construction play a crucial role in its usage, since this can affect the cost of transportation, environmental impact and cost of construction (Agyekum et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The flexibility of rammed earth construction is seen in its ability to be adapted in various climatic zones. The method of construction allows easy modifications in form and style during the construction process (Dabaieh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Despite its labour-intensive nature, rammed earth construction does not require relatively high level of training, thus the availability of unskilled labour suffice (Gangarao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Darko et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) posit that aside striving for energy efficiency, the indoor environment of rammed earth buildings possess quality properties due to its natural and non-toxic materials composition. This property creates healthier indoor environments and contributes immensely to occupants\u0026rsquo; health, satisfaction and productivity within the building (Ciancio and Beckett, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Mensah and Laryea, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Per Strazzeri and Karrech (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), rammed earth buildings have low maintenance cost and are characterized by appreciable thermal, acoustic and fire-resistance performance. The minimal energy consumption for active cooling systems within rammed earth buildings leads to substantial cost savings for occupants. In Egypt, for example, the operational energy efficiency of rammed earth structures enables occupants to save over 50% on cooling cost compared to conventional buildings (Adegun and Adedeji, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Elsewhere in Zheijang, China, studies show the average annual carbon emission of the whole life cycle of rammed earth buildings is 17.37kg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e, which accounts for about at most 38% of that of convectional material like reinforced concrete (Zhou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Wan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Barriers to Rammed Earth Construction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the historical significance and potential benefits of earthen construction in Ghana, several barriers hinder its widespread adoption within the built environment. Literature reveals these obstacles as spanning technical and technological; social and cultural; regulatory and political; economic, and environmental domains (Nikyema and Blouin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Morel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Zami, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e contains a summary of the barriers identified in the literature search.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnical and technological barriers inhibit the adoption and integration of innovation systems and methodologies that could otherwise promote advancements in sustainable construction (Agyekum and Amudjie, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). A systematic review by Pel\u0026eacute;-Peltier et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) highlight challenges including the difficulty to understanding earthen material behaviour, the scalability to modern building sizes, the lack of scientific data and research investment, variability of material and quality control, and engineering related constraints. Furthermore, several authors emphasize issues related to the durability of the soil constituents under adverse environmental conditions and infestations of rodents and insects (Danso, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Kulshreshtha et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). While appropriate materials selection and compaction technologies can enhance the longevity RE structures, the limited availability and high cost of skilled professionals for post-construction maintenance, repairs and alterations present a significant operational challenges (Zami, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR96\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Another crucial barrier is the minimal inclusion of RE construction in academic curricula and professional development programs, which hinders widespread adoption (Nikyema and Blouin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Although some people perceive RE as low-tech construction method. This perception potentially translate to assumptions undermining its economic and technical properties. However, Strazzeri and Karrech (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) argue that, in practice, RE is relatively more expensive than other variants of earthen construction. Additionally, as noted by Agyekum et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) and Zami (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), RE construction procedure requires specialized building professionals. Kulshreshtha \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e(2020) emphasize that the unavailability of skilled labour can lead to inferior construction quality, which subsequently poses challenges in obtaining building permits, securing loans and insurance, while also resulting in higher maintenance cost (Nwaki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial and cultural barriers constitute impediments stemming from stakeholders\u0026rsquo; perceptions, scepticism and preferences that fundamentally influence acceptance or rejection of RE (Pel\u0026eacute;-Peltier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). These inhibitors manifest through societal misconceptions and cultural resistance. According to extant literature, building with earth, as seen in RE construction, is predominantly associated with poverty and dirt (Solomon-Ayeh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Acheampong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Another common misconception about earthen building is its perceived inferior aesthetic appearance (Zami and Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The significant resistance to vernacular construction can also be attributed to strong industrial and user preferences for conventional building techniques and materials (Pel\u0026eacute;-Peltier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Clients tend to perceive conventional materials as more aesthetically appealing and synonymous with affluence. Industry players\u0026rsquo; lack understanding of rammed earth construction reinforces negative perceptions as it often leads to poor construction quality. Overall, this barrier persists in society due to the limited social awareness and knowledge of rammed earth construction\u0026rsquo;s inherent benefits (Zami and Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Zami, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegulatory and political barriers represent legal and institutional frameworks that affect the viability of rammed earth construction. These barriers raise critical concerns regarding the adoption of RE construction since they encompass both government and industry\u0026rsquo;s direct and indirect influence on the adoption of earthen materials (Kulshreshtha et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This factor constitutes the absence of dedicated regulations concerning earthen materials and construction for quality assurance, unclear compliance pathways, and insufficient support from governmental and industrial institutions (Nwaki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Pel\u0026eacute;-Peltier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Strazzeri and Karrech, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinancial barriers encompass issues relating to cost, funding, and market conditions. Strazzeri and Karrech (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) assert that RE construction can be expensive. While they did not specifically identity cost drivers, Pel\u0026eacute;-Peltier et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) revealed that materials certification requirements, fragmented construction procedures, and project size and complexity can significant influence the cost of construction. Other components include lack of fiscal incentives, uncertain return on investment, insufficient market strategies and promotion, and limited research grants and investments (Zami and Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Danso, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Nwaki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). According to Acheampong et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) and Zami (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), the scarcity of professionals and limited expertise in RE construction reflects prevailing market conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eClimate and geographic constraints constitute environmental barriers rammed earth construction adoption. Environmental factors like wind and rain significantly influences the durability of earthen buildings. Extant studies confirm that RE buildings in regions exposed to intense rainfall patterns may experience rain-driven erosion, consequently degrading the quality of building elements (Bui et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Rosicki and Narloch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). A review by Morel et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) elucidates how seasonal changes induce water molecule absorption-desorption phenomena on earthen wall surfaces, consequently causing significant disparities in indoor-outdoor humidity levels that potentially impact thermal comfort.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSummary of Barriers hindering the adoption of Rammed Earth Construction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCode\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBarriers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiterature Sources\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited public and industry knowledge regarding the benefits of rammed earth\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[5]; [16]; [24]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh-initial cost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[5]; [18]; [24]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbsence of dedicated local building codes and regulation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[10]; [19]; [24]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChallenges with material sourcing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[8]; [9]; [18]; [25]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInadequate support from government and industrial institutions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[2]; [15]; [18]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited availability of skilled labour\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[3]; [16]; [18]; [20]; [22]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCultural and aesthetic perceptions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[2]; [11]; [18]; [23]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEngineering related challenges\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[2]; [14]; [16]; [18]; [21]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrong industrial and user preferences for conventional building techniques/materials\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[7]; [13]; [15]; [18]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited research and data on performance of rammed earth building elements\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[14]; [16]; [18]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClimate and geographic constraints\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[14]; [15]; [19]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of fiscal incentives\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[2]; [15]; [19]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMinimal academic curriculum coverage and professional training programs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[16]; [20]; [25]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnclear compliance pathways\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[6]; [15]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInsufficient market strategies and promotion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[16]; [18]; [19]; [22]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReturn on investment uncertainty\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[7]; [13]; [16]; [25]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of research investment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[7]; [16]; [18]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComplexity of modern building sizes/designs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[7]; [16]; [18]; [24]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigher cost of maintenance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[17]; [20]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifficulty in obtaining building permits, loans and insurance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[7]; [20]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnavailability of digital technologies and modern mechanization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[4]; [9]; [10]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuality control deficiencies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[9]; [22]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe labour-intensive nature of rammed earth construction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[9]; [10]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompetition from other Green Building Techniques and Products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[1]; [12]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNotes\u003c/b\u003e: 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Abera (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e); 2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Acheampong et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e); 3\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Addy et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e); 4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Agyekum et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e); 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Ali et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e); 6\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Ashurmamadova and Rexhepi (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e); 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Danso (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e); 8\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Eo et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e); 9\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Gomaa et al (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e); 10\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Kloft \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e(2024); 11\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Kulshreshtha \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e(2020); 12\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Lokko et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e); 13\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Mohamed et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e); 14\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Morel et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e); 15\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Nikyema and Blouin (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e); 16\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Nwaki et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e); 17\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Oguntona et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e); 18\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Pel\u0026eacute;-Peltier et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e); 19 = Rosicki and Narloch (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e); 20\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Samarasinghe and Falk (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e); 21\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Solomon-Ayeh (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e); 22\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strazzeri and Karrech (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e); 23\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Twumasi-Ampofo and Oppong (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e); 24\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Zami (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e); 25\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Zami and Lee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eSource: Authors\u0026rsquo; construct (2025)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3 Research Method","content":" \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Approach/Strategy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA quantitative approach, particularly a structured survey instrument (i.e. questionnaire), was employed to achieve the objectives of this study. This approach is considered appropriate as it enables researchers to collect data from a relatively large sample size (Walliman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) while allowing researchers to examine social phenomena through rigorous statistical analysis, allowing for systematic hypothesis testing and validation (Ishtiaq, 2019; Apuke, 2017). Furthermore, it facilitates the generalization of findings regarding a phenomenon \u0026ndash; in this case, assessing professionals\u0026rsquo; level of awareness and identifying the potential barriers hindering the adoption of rammed earth construction technology in Ghana. This methodological approach has been extensively adopted in extant studies focusing on green construction practices (Acheampong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Addy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Agyekum et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Addy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The questionnaire was structured into three distinct parts. Part 1 was intended to collects respondents\u0026rsquo; demographic information. Part 2 sought to gather respondents\u0026rsquo; knowledge on rammed earth construction as a green building strategy. In this section, respondents were required to rank various statements on rammed earth construction technique based on a five-point Likert scale (where 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;highly unware; 2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;unaware; 3\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;moderately aware; 4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;aware; 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;highly aware). Part 3 attempted to gather respondents\u0026rsquo; perceptions of barriers inhibiting the widespread adoption of rammed earth construction in Ghana. This category required respondents to indicate their level of agreement with the 22 barriers identified through an extensive literature review on a five-point Likert scale (where 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree; 2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;disagree; 3\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;neutral; 4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;agree; 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Survey Administration\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrior to the main distribution of the questionnaire, a two-step piloting procedure was conducted. This ensured the appropriateness of the research instrument and promoted consistency in its administration to targeted respondents (Creswell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). First, the questionnaire was reviewed by two academic professors, both experts in sustainable construction practices. Based on their feedback, necessary adjustments were made to enhance clarity and reduce ambiguity. Subsequently, the second pilot stage involved 11 construction professionals, working in either a construction or a consultancy firm, who were consulted on the suitability of the instrument. Their feedback indicated the instrument was appropriate, allowing for its full administration. The unit of analysis for the study was construction professionals (Construction Managers, Engineers, Quantity Surveyors, Architects, Project Managers, Academics and Real Estate Practitioners) employed in either construction, consultancy or research organizations within the Ghanaian built environment. With emphasis on the fact that professionals needed to have knowledge and experience of vernacular construction concepts including rammed earth construction, it was difficult in reaching those professionals with significant in-depth knowledge and experience on the subject under review. Previous studies (Agyekum et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Addy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Amudjie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Botchway et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) within the study milieu have revealed the difficult involved in securing a suitable sample frame for construction professionals. Despite the burgeoning interest for vernacular construction in Ghana, the absence of a comprehensive dataset on professionals who specialize in earthen construction warrants the use of non-probability sampling techniques \u0026ndash; particularly purposive and snowballing techniques. Purposive sampling is used to intentionally select respondents who possess specific characteristics (e.g. knowledge on a certain issue of interest) (Adu and Miles, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Snowballing sampling on the other hand, allows researchers to select participants based on recommendation/referrals from initial participants (Adu and Miles, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The study used purposive technique to identify known professionals willing to partake in the study. And the snowballing technique enabled some referrals from the participants. Against this backdrop, a total of 114 valid responses were gathered and analyzed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants\u0026rsquo; responses were coded, analyzed and interpreted using Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) software, version 27. Descriptive statistics, including frequency, mean and median, were utilized to summarize the data. The study also adopted inferential statistical techniques, such as Kruskal-Wallis and Factor Analysis, to test hypotheses and identify components within the data (Pandey and Pandey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).. All results were presented in tables and figures. Prior to testing for differences in awareness among professionals, the results from both the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests showed that all the \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-values for the nine statements were less than significant level of 0.05. Accordingly, the null hypothesis was rejected since the data was not normally distributed. Since the data does not follow a normal distribution, Kruskal-Wallis H test, a non-parametric test was deemed suitable to test variations in respondents\u0026rsquo; level of knowledge of rammed earth as a sustainable construction technique. According to Takyi-Annan and Zhang (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), Krushal-Wallis is an alternative to a one-way ANOVA, which is ideal: (1) when an investigation involving three or more independent conditions; (2) when three or more groups are to independently assess each of the conditions; (3) when data does not follow the assumptions of a parametric test. This test works by ranking the data across the groups, coupled with a test statistic based on the sum of ranks for each professional group. The results are subsequently reported with chi-square values and their respective p-values (Abu-Khader and Sweis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was adopted to examine and cluster the barriers hindering the adoption of rammed earth in Ghana under principal components. Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha coefficient was used to check the reliability and consistency of the instrument. The reliability of a study\u0026rsquo;s instrument is described as its consistency or repeatability (Pandey and Pandey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The values ranges from 0 to 1, where a value closer to 1 means greater internal consistency according to Wipulanusat et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The threshold of 0.7 or greater is generally considered acceptable for demonstrating adequate reliability (Tavakol and Dennick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4 Data Analysis and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe survey conducted within Ghana\u0026rsquo;s construction industry reflect the presence of professionals with diverse backgrounds as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. Of the 114 respondents, Quantity Surveyors represented the largest group at 31% (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;35), followed by Construction Managers at 21% (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;24), Engineers at 16% (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18), and Architects at 15% (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;17). Project Managers made up 11% (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13), Academics 5% (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6), and one respondent (1%) identified as a Real estate developer. 51% (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;58) of the respondents held bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degrees, 52 (46%) had masters\u0026rsquo; degrees, 3 (3%) possessed doctorate degrees, and a respondent (1%) held a Higher National Diploma. Regarding professional experience, 71 (62%) respondents reported less than 5 years of work experience, 30 (26%) had 5\u0026ndash;10 years of experience, 3 (3%) had 11\u0026ndash;15 years of experience, 6 (5%) had 16\u0026ndash;20 years of experience, and 4 (4%) possessed more than 20 years of experience in the built environment. Pertaining to the application of RE construction techniques in Ghana, the data revealed limited engagement among professionals. A significant number 38% (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;43) indicated they \u0026lsquo;\u003cb\u003erarely\u003c/b\u003e\u0026rsquo; participated in such projects. Furthermore, 32% (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;36) stated they \u0026lsquo;\u003cb\u003enever\u003c/b\u003e\u0026rsquo; utilized the RE technique, while 29% (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;33) did so \u0026lsquo;\u003cb\u003eoccasionally\u003c/b\u003e\u0026rsquo;. Conversely, only 2% (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2) of professionals reported \u0026lsquo;\u003cb\u003every frequently\u003c/b\u003e\u0026rsquo; engagement with RE construction. This observation aligns with the slow uptake of sustainable practices within the industry (Addy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Agyekum et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), and it reflects a gradual, rather than widespread, revival of this ancient building technique within the contemporary Ghanaian society.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Level of Awareness of Rammed Earth as a Sustainable Construction Material\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e details the level of awareness of rammed earth construction techniques in Ghana. The research instrument used for collect data demonstrated a high degree of internal consistency, with a Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha of 0.862, which is above the generally accepted criteria of 0.70. As a result, the instrument was considered reliable. Per the descriptive statistics, the median score of four according to the 5-point Likert scale, for all the statements, is suggestive that construction professionals are aware/ in agreement with all the statements. The mean scores were subsequently used to rank the statements. Averagely, construction professionals portray a moderately awareness of rammed earth construction and its merits, as mean scores range from 3.24 to 3.80. Statements S1 (\u003cem\u003eMean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.80, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.130\u003c/em\u003e), S4 (\u003cem\u003eMean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.79; SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.052\u003c/em\u003e) and S3 (\u003cem\u003eMean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.77; SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.137\u003c/em\u003e) were highly ranked among professionals. This implies that professionals portray a relatively higher level of awareness of the concept of sustainable construction techniques, since it is a broad subject from which rammed earth construction is a part of. Meanwhile, respondents exhibit moderate awareness level of the different types of rammed earth construction (S6: \u003cem\u003eMean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.24; SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.170\u003c/em\u003e) and its ability to enhance building performance (S8: \u003cem\u003eMean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.53; SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.154\u003c/em\u003e). Furthermore, the table highlights the test statistic and decisions from the Krushal-Wallis test for all the statements. The decisions were based on, (1) when \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.05, the hypothesis is retained; (2) and when the \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, the hypothesis is rejected. With six degrees of freedom, the test results revealed two statistically significant statements (i.e. S3 and S7), since they yielded \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-values less than 0.05. Hence, they were rejected. The remaining statements were retained since their \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-values were greater than 0.05. Comparatively, the professionals in the GCI show a similar level of awareness across the most aspects of rammed earth, their knowledge on the specific construction process and the associated benefits varies significantly by professional groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevel of awareness of Rammed Earth of Professionals in Ghana\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.862\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKW Test Statistics (df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCode Statement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMean\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMedian\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSD\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRank\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eChi-square\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAsym. Sig\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDecision\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI am conversant with sustainable construction techniques\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.130\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1st\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.858\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.334\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRetain\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI consider rammed earth a sustainable construction technique\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.013\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.523\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.367\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRetain\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI am aware rammed earth construction involves compacting selected soils within a formwork to create building elements\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.137\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3rd\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.698\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.023\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReject\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI am aware rammed earth construction requires significant skills and expertise\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.79\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.052\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2nd\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.304\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.294\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRetain\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI recognize rammed earth construction is a viable alternative to conventional techniques\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.079\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.835\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.565\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRetain\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI am knowledgeable about the different types of rammed earth construction (e.g., stabilized and unstabilized)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.170\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.653\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.463\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRetain\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI am aware of the benefits of using rammed earth construction for the environment and building users\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.088\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.809\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.046\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReject\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI am aware of the indoor performance characteristics of rammed earth buildings\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.154\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.600\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.197\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRetain\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI know that the materials used in rammed earth construction are abundantly available in Ghana\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.180\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.588\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.270\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRetain\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAverage\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3.23\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"9\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote(s)\u003c/em\u003e: Rankings are based on mean scores\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSource: Field data (2025)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigures\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e illustrate the mean scores of each professional group and the sum of mean ranking, illustrating the differences in the level of awareness of rammed earth construction. As evinced in the line graph and bar chart, there is a huge disparity in the mean scores of the professionals and the mean rank of all the statements. This explains professionals are not on the same level of awareness as far as rammed earth construction is concerned. Architects demonstrate higher mean scores (\u003cem\u003eMean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.50\u003c/em\u003e) for all the statements except for S6 (\u003cem\u003eMean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.50\u003c/em\u003e). The real estate developer professional group exhibited the least mean scores across all the statements (\u003cem\u003eMean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.00\u003c/em\u003e), and even worst for S8 and S9 (\u003cem\u003eMean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.00\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSource: Field data (2025)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSource: Field data (2025)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Barriers to Rammed Earth Adoption in the Ghanaian Construction Industry\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe 24 barriers hindering the adoption of RE construction technique in Ghana was subjected to an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). This analytical tool is used to ascertain systematic co-variations from a list of variables (A\u0026iuml;t-Sahalia and Xiu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Amos et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) agree that it is not only useful as a data reducing technique, but also an effective indicator of the significance of the various subcategories of variables. It is highlighted in Osei-Kyei et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) that initial tests including internal consistency, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and the Bartlett\u0026rsquo;s Test of Sphericity, must precede an FA, in order to ascertain the data\u0026rsquo;s appropriateness for this technique.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha was used to determine the internal consistency of the dataset. A high value of 0.944 was realized, indicating a high degree of consistency among respondents as far as the barriers are concerned. The KMO statistic was 0.886, which implies dataset is adequate for the FA since it is greater than the minimum value (0.6) and close to 1.0 (Shrestha, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The Bartlett\u0026rsquo;s test of sphericity yielded an approximate chi-square value of 1712.460 with 253 degree of freedom. The associated significance was minimal (\u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.000\u003c/em\u003e). This denote that the population correlation matrix is not an identity matrix. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e displays mean scores, standard deviations and communalities (before and after removal of BB1) of the identified hindrances to rammed earth construction. As presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, the mean score for twenty-two of the identified variables exceeded 3.50. This gives the indication that, on average, respondents agreed that these factors significantly hinder the exploitation of rammed earth construction in Ghana. In contrast, the lower mean scores recorded for BB2 and BB4 suggest that respondents perceive these barriers as less impactful to adopting rammed earth. Subsequently, BB1 was removed from the analysis, as it has a communality value less than 0.5, even when approximated. Amos et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) iterate that this kind are statistically independent variable that need not to be combined with other ones.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive Statistics and Communalities for Barriers of Rammed Earth Construction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBarriers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRank\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunalities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInitial\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExtraction (1st )\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExtraction (2nd )\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited public and industry knowledge regarding the benefits of rammed earth (BB1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3rd\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.990\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.437*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeleted\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh-initial cost (BB2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.065\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.692\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.696\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbsence of dedicated local building codes and regulation (BB3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2nd\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.955\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.735\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.738\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChallenges with material sourcing (BB4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23rd\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.099\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.580\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.585\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInadequate support from government and industrial institutions (BB5)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.088\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.746\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.750\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited availability of skilled labour (BB6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.079\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.703\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.727\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCultural and aesthetic perceptions (BB7)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.067\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.615\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.643\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEngineering related challenges (BB8)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.012\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.543\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.567\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrong industrial and user preferences for conventional building techniques/materials (BB9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1st\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.950\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.687\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.661\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited research and data on performance of rammed earth building elements (BB10)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.072\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.616\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.630\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClimate and geographic constraints (BB11)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21st\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.075\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.477\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of fiscal incentives (BB12)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.958\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.559\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.550\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMinimal academic curriculum coverage and professional training programs (BB13)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.982\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.768\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.768\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnclear compliance pathways (BB14)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.87\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.936\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.666\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.670\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInsufficient market strategies and promotion (BB15)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.966\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.795\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.794\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReturn of investment uncertainty (BB16)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.960\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.702\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.703\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of research investment (BB17)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.975\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.520\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.522\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComplexity of modern building sizes/designs (BB18)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.965\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.554\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.553\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigher cost of maintenance (BB19)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.028\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.690\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.697\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifficulty in obtaining building permits, loans and insurance (BB20)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22nd\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.998\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.735\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.739\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnavailability of digital technologies and modern mechanization (BB21)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.59\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.948\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.678\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.697\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuality control deficiencies (BB22)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.941\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.749\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.750\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe labour-intensive nature of rammed earth construction (BB23)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.955\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.644\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.648\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompetition from other Green Building Techniques and Products (BB24)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20th\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.055\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.591\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.590\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eSource: Field data (2025)\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe principal component analysis served as the extraction method, and Varimax was used as the rotation method. The rotation for the 23 variables resulted in a four-factor solution, with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, explaining 65.901% of the total variance. Varimax rotation was used due to its simplicity and widespread usage in orthogonal rotation (Kaiser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1958\u003c/span\u003e; Kissi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The 23 remaining variables in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e show factor loadings are close or above 0.50, with 19 of them exceeding 0.60. The factors were categorized into four factors and were labelled with a suitable nomenclature based on the researcher\u0026rsquo;s discretion, due to the logical groupings and thematic relationships identified among the variables. They are: (1) Systemic Barriers; (2) Technological and Financial Barriers; (3) Socio-Cultural and User Acceptance Barrier; and (4) Logistical and Socio-Economic Barrier.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrincipal Factor Analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComponent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCode\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFactor loadings\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEigenvalue\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e% of Variance Explained\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCumulative % of Variance Explained\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSystemic Barrier\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.575\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.391\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45.179\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45.179\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.833\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.703\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.823\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.681\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.605\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnological and Financial Barrier\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.519\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.761\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.654\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e52.834\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.493\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.736\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.785\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.761\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.649\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.549\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocio-Cultural and User Acceptance Barrier\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.728\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.683\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.319\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60.152\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.605\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.692\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.646\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.460\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.661\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLogistical and Socio-Economic Barrier\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.755\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.322\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.749\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e65.901\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.683\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.720\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBB6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.713\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNotes\u003c/b\u003e: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis; Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization; a rotation converged in nine iterations.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSource: Field data (2025)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5 Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Knowledge of Rammed Earth in the Ghanaian Construction Industry\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGenerally, the concepts of sustainability and sustainable construction practices have become increasingly prevalent in the construction industry due to concerns emanating from the surge in construction activities and its consequent impacts on the environment and on natural resources (Amudjie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Literature underscores that rammed earth is an eco-friendly construction technique that readily offers environmental and economic appeals (Agyekum et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Ciancio and Beckett, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Findings from this study presents a lucid pattern of conceptual awareness following S1 (\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eI am conversant with sustainable construction techniques\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eMean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.80\u003c/em\u003e) and S4 (\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eI am aware rammed earth construction requires significant skills and expertise,\u0026rdquo; Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.79\u003c/em\u003e). While RE is recognized as a specialized construction technique, there is a dearth of technical knowledge in the Ghanaian construction industry. This can be observed in the low mean scores attributed to S6 (\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eI am knowledgeable about the different types of rammed earth construction\u003c/em\u003e\u0026ldquo;) and S8 (\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eI am aware of the indoor performance characteristics of rammed earth buildings\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;). This aligns with literature, that although buildings constructed with rammed earth are beneficial to the environment and well-being of occupants (Mensah and Laryea, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), its uptake is often restricted by the lack of expertise (Gangarao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The absence of education and research to understand RE characteristics, and dedicated standards affect RE\u0026rsquo;s usage and knowledge among stakeholders. As noted by Addy et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), a culture of non-participation and lack of enthusiasm from stakeholders in adopting eco-friendly practices can result in professionals\u0026rsquo; disinterest, subsequently impacting their actions and willingness to engage with new subjects. This lack of engagement suggests that professionals may actively avoid information and training sessions that could expose them to such construction techniques. This lack of detailed expertise is not unique to Ghana; a similar situation is prevalent among professionals in the UK (Zami, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and South Africa (Oguntona et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The findings also underscore a disparity in the level of awareness across professional groups. Per the Kruskal-Wallis test in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e two statements (S3 and S7) out of the nine statements were rejected, since their \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-values were lesser than 0.50. This implies that respondents\u0026rsquo; views on these two statements varied and are statistically significant. Comparatively, results from the mean scores and mean rankings in Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e identify architect as the professional group with a significantly higher mean ranks on these statements. This implies that architects, who are often involved in the initial design and specification of materials, have a deeper conceptual and technical grasp of rammed earth, while other professionals, such as construction managers and quantity surveyors, may have a less comprehensive understanding of RE and its application. For instance, Samarasinghe and Falk (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) reported that the knowledge of architects was critical to the development of New Zealand\u0026rsquo;s own standards and guidelines. This differences in professionals\u0026rsquo; views underscore the significant role that inadequate information channels and existing misconceptions about earthen construction play in the adoption of RE in Ghana. In all, it is can deduced that professionals\u0026rsquo; knowledge on rammed earth construction is neutral. Neutrality in this sense refers to having moderate understanding of the properties, benefits, qualities and application of rammed earth. This explains why the potential for sustainable development is recognized in Ghana but is less patronized. Additionally, this level of exposure imply that professionals would be less confident recommending rammed earth as a viable option against conventional materials to potential clients (Acheampong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). However, promoting the right information and targeted training programs is essential to close this knowledge gap and foster greater confidence and enthusiasm for rammed earth within the GCI. The knowledge gap can be closed by creating public and professionals\u0026rsquo; awareness through community-based forums and by showing successful RE projects, highlighting indoor performance and energy efficiency reports. It is also imperative for professional bodies and academic institutions to collaborate effectively to bridge awareness gap in order to foster the adoption of RE in the GCI.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 Barriers of Rammed Earth in the Ghanaian Construction Industry\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eExtant studies emphasize that embracing vernacular construction techniques, like rammed earth, often meet resistance despite their relevance to a sustainable development (Heffernan and Wilde, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Adegun and Adedeji, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The factor analysis demonstrate that the barriers to the adoption of RE in Ghana can be envisaged as four principal barriers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe first principal barrier is systemic barrier. This factor accounted for 45.179% of the total variance with an eigenvalue of 10.391. It highlights the lack of a formal and institutional framework to bolster the adoption of RE construction. This constitutes six variables namely: Absence of dedicated local building codes and regulation, Minimal academic curriculum coverage and professional training programs, Unclear compliance pathways, Insufficient market strategies and promotion, Return of investment uncertainty, Lack of research investment. Minimal academic curriculum coverage and professional training programs has a mean score of 4.03 and the highest factor loading of 0.833. Nwaki et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and Zami and Lee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) highlighted a similar sentiment. It is not enough only advocating for sustainable construction practices, such as RE, without introducing them into academic curriculum and training programs. Universities and training institutions in Ghana could develop special modules and program like the Germany\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;specialist in earth building\u0026rdquo; that exposes construction professionals to RE construction (Samarasinghe and Falk, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The next factor is Insufficient market strategies and promotion (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.93, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.823). The likelihood of a widespread RE adoption requires the rollout of a comprehensive market strategy, using creative avenues to expose the public to the benefits of RE buildings. Roxana and Maria (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), for instance, noted that cultural festivities are great avenues to showcase earth construction techniques will celebrating ones culture. Another important factor is Unclear compliance pathways (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.87, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.703). This represents the absence of a structured protocol for designing, constructing, acquiring permits and insuring RE structures. As a vernacular construction technique, the approach to RE construction can vary significantly depending on one\u0026rsquo;s jurisdiction, often without a clear, standardized set of guidelines. This lack of uniformity can lead to inconsistent outcomes and hinder wider adoption. As Ashurmamadova and Rexhepi (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) recommend, a clear and unified modality for RE should be established to replace the reliance on segregated opinions and construction methodologies. When there is low awareness and trust in a product, the possibility of gaining investor attention remain low. Despite the enormous benefits consistent with RE, such as its sustainability, Return on investment (ROI) uncertainty (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.77, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.681) remains a significant barrier. Professionals perceive the cost of construction and the rate of returns on RE projects to be unpredictable given their present level of awareness (Nwaki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Zami and Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). This also aligns with findings by Mohamed et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), who opine that such uncertainty is commonplace in the adoption of unconventional construction techniques. Furthermore, the Lack of research investment (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.78, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.605) implies that little to no effort is being made to update the knowledge base of RE construction in Ghana. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle: without research, there is a lack of data on long-term performance, costs, and best practices, which, in turn, fuels the uncertainty around ROI and makes it difficult for professionals to recommend RE as a viable investment. The Absence of dedicated local building codes and regulations (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.09, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.575) is another significant barrier. Respondents agree that the lack of localized regulatory framework and policies to govern the use of earthen materials directly affects the quality of earthen structures and, consequently, erodes public\u0026rsquo;s trust in RE construction (Nwaki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Zami and Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Having knowledgeable policymakersand dedicated frameworks to standardize earthen construction is acritical step towards embracing RE (Samarasinghe and Falk, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second principal barrier is technological and financial barrier. It explains 7.654% of the total variance with an eigenvalue of 1.761. It constitutes seven variables including climate and geographic constraints, lack of fiscal incentives, higher cost of maintenance, difficulty in obtaining building permits, loans and insurance, unavailability of digital technologies and modern mechanization, quality control deficiencies, and competition from other green building techniques and products. Professionals consider difficulty in obtaining building permits, loans and insurance (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.51, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.785) a significant challenge. This issue persist primarily due to the lack of clear quality assurance protocols for RE buildings, along with inadequate guidelines and expertise with regulatory and financial institutions. Consequently, financial institutions are often reluctant to invest in projects with high uncertainty levels. Another critical barrier is the higher cost of maintaining RE structures (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.60, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.739). Although studies (e.g. Oguntona et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) have established the long-term financial benefits of green buildings, the perception of high maintenance costs serve as a major hindrance. Specific issues consistent with RE, such as termite attacks and weathering (Nwaki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), warrants a timely and costly maintenance interventions to sustain the building. This ultimately contributes to professionals\u0026rsquo; disinterest in the technique. The unavailability of digital technologies and modern mechanization (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.59, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.761) for RE projects is also perceived as another barrier. Agyekum et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) note that the GCI relies largely on physical force and manual work for its products. Again, the maturity level of adopting relevant technologies such as 3D printing, Building Information Modeling and robotics remain low in developing countries (Addy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Olatunde et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), including Ghana. Even though the use of digital technologies and equipment are able to enhance project time and cost (Kloft et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), the GCI faces some constraints to their adoption including the financial capacity of contractors, logistical procedures in procuring such technologies and regulatory frameworks (Agyekum et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). These consequently hampers their exploitation for sustainable RE structures. The succeeding barrier is quality control deficiencies (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.77, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.649). The quality of an RE structure is tied to several factors including the choice of material, expertise and tools (Gomaa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). It is also dependent on the availability of database, established guidelines and rating systems, which are lacking within the region, hence respondents\u0026rsquo; disposition to RE adoption. Another barrier worth considering is competition from other green building techniques and products (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.58, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.549). While a competitive market can drive down costs (Abera, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), this particular challenge for rammed earth is nuanced. Although rammed earth is a highly sustainable option, it faces competition from techniques and materials that are also paraded as \u0026ldquo;green\u0026rdquo; but may have a higher environmental impact. This is corroborated by Lokko et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) and Nouri et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), who underscore the high embodied and operational carbon inherent with certain vernacular building techniques, such as fired clay brick. Professional perceive that a crowded market of green materials can make it difficult for RE to be recognized. Climate and geographic constraints (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.52, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.519) and the lack of fiscal incentives (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.66, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.493) are the last factors under this principal barrier. As an earth-based material, RE structures are susceptible to distinct vulnerabilities, such as seasonal changes and heavy rainfalls. As a result, the integrity of the building elements buildings could experience rain-driven erosion, which can temper with the (Rosicki and Narloch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The absence of incentives from government such as tax exemptions or subsidies and grants for using RE makes it less appealing venture. This aligns with Addy et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), who also noted that such supportive opportunities have not been implemented by the government.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocio-cultural and user acceptance barrier follows as the third principal barrier, explaining 7.319% of the total variance with an eigenvalue of 1.683. This constitutes six variables including cultural and aesthetic perceptions, engineering related challenges, strong industrial and user preferences for conventional buildings techniques/materials, complexity of modern building and designs, and labor-intensive nature of RE construction. Professionals consider cultural and aesthetic perceptions (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.73, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.728) of RE structures as a critical barrier. This perception is consistent with Storr\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) view that individuals\u0026rsquo; decisions are predominantly influenced by their social environment and relationships. A general misconception about the performance of earthen structures persists, and they often characterized by a low social image, which is attributed to poverty and underdevelopment (Nwaki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Twumasi-Ampofo and Oppong (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) added that the trend of gentrification in urban centers is further complicating this challenge, consequently creating a cultural gap where many rich traditional heritages are being forgotten in the attempt to modernize our communities. Strong industrial and user preferences for conventional building materials (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.10, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.692) is another barrier to the acceptance of RE. Due to a lack of research, clear guidelines, and the perceived high risks associated with RE, the industry is inclined to resist it in favor of conventional materials like glass, which can be unsustainable given Ghana\u0026rsquo;s geographical and climatic context (Ashurmamadova and Rexhepi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Mohamed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The limited research and data on performance of rammed earth building elements (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.86, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.646) is a critical barrier to its adoption. The absence of a dedicated database or readily available studies makes it rather arduous for professionals to recommend this approach to clients and investors. Due to the absence of tangible data on long-term performance, structural integrity, and cost-effectiveness, professionals are unable to build a strong business case for using RE; as a result, they are forced to rely on conventional materials with established performance records (Pel\u0026eacute;-Peltier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Zami and Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, the labor-intensive nature of RE construction (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.58, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.661) also hinders its widespread use. The absence of dedicated, readily available equipment to ease the labor-intensive process makes it less appealing. This is a finding endorsed by Gomaa et al (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), who reported that many professionals still rely on conventional ramming techniques and wooden formworks, which contribute to the labor-intensive nature of RE projects. For the clientele, a more labor-intensive project is associated with higher costs and longer project timelines (Gomaa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In order to mitigate these perceived risks, clients and professionals often opt for conventional techniques that require a predictable labor budget, even if they are less sustainable in the long term. Engineering-related challenges (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.75, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.605) pertaining to the durability of material, proper soil selection, the appropriate mixture of additives, meeting structural requirements, directly contribute to the low acceptance of RE. The absence of research and related funding further complicates this issue, as academics lack the data and findings to present to the industry (Pel\u0026eacute;-Peltier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This is a critical point, as the industry\u0026rsquo;s slow uptake of innovative techniques is often directly linked to the absence of credible, data-driven evidence (Nwaki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). As a consequence, the industry\u0026rsquo;s trust in RE remains low, hindering its widespread use. Another critical hindrance to adoption is the complexity of modern buildings designs (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.91, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.460). Without dedicated research to explore the characteristics of suitable soils and establish state-of-the-art methodologies, professionals cannot confidently apply traditional RE techniques in their contemporary, complex designs (Pel\u0026eacute;-Peltier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This disconnect between traditional methods and modern architectural demands restricts the versatility of RE and confines its use to simpler and more conventional projects. The decisions of the built environment is often based on perception. As Zami\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) noted, people blame construction materials and technologies when buildings are poorly designed or lack aesthetic appeal. Therefore, a key strategy to revive interest in earthen construction, particularly RE, would be for scientists and industrial practitioners to collaborate on developing a prototype of an ultramodern building constructed with RE. This would serve as tangible proof of concept.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe last principal barrier is logistical and socio-economic barrier. This component accounts for 5.749% of the total variance explained, with an eigenvalue of 1.322. It constitutes variables that encompass both operational and market-based challenges to RE adoption: high initial cost, challenges with material sourcing, inadequate support from government and industrial institutions and limited availability of skilled labor. The perceive cost of RE construction (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.46, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.755) is deemed a significant barrier. This is supported by findings in Nwaki et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and Zami and Lee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Zami (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) emphasize that cost is the most critical concern for people. Professionals, particularly quantity surveyors, who prioritize providing clients value for their money, would often recommend conventional materials due to the perception of RE as being more expensive, especially in the short term. The unavailability of equipment and lack of dedicated financial packages to support RE construction projects further reinforces this barrier (Nikyema and Blouin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In the event where financial institutions are willing to invest or offer loans for RE projects, the high uncertainties associated with this technique result in very high interest rates and unfavorable terms. Additionally, the adoption of RE in Ghana is further constrained by the inadequate support from government and industrial institutions (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.95, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.720). In expressing a similar sentiment, Addy et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) mentioned that the government of Ghana has scant incentives to boost the adoption of sustainable construction practices like RE. This is a major hindrance, as it underscores the absence of an enabling environment for interested parties. Consequently, professionals are inclined to choose conventional construction in lieu of RE construction. Government and policy-makers could actively enhance green buildings by developing targeted policies and incentives to revive interest in vernacular construction. The limited availability of skilled labor (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.75, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.713) is viewed as another critical barrier to the adoption of RE in Ghana. Although conventional RE construction can rely on unskilled labor (Strazzeri and Karrech, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), it is a specialized field that requires informed technical decisions regarding soil selection and a proficient workforce (Samarasinghe and Falk, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The number of professionals trained in this specialized field is limited, primarily because there is a lack of demand and insufficient job opportunities. This creates a less competitive market for potential contractors. Furthermore, most Ghanaian professionals base their competitiveness on their propensity to reduce cost of construction in lieu of technology (Addy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This practice favors large firms, often leading to RE projects being awarded based on price rather than expertise. Subsequently, a professional\u0026rsquo;s lack of exposure and education compels them to rely on a \u0026ldquo;rule of thumb\u0026rdquo; approach, which is likely to result in a suboptimal quality work. Challenges with material sourcing (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.48, FL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.683) also slows the pace of RE adoption. RE enables creative designs through the blending and staggering of soil material (Eo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), and desired earthen materials may abundant locally. However, Gomaa et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) averred that the quality and properties of the RE element can vary significantly based on the sourcing conditions. Professionals consider the sourcing of materials to be critical, particularly in the bid to develop quality RE structures, in the face of inadequate education and research. This, coupled with an underdeveloped green building market, render material with desired properties acquisition difficult to identify. This finding contrasts with the situation in the UK, where, Zami (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) noted, the barrier of sourcing has been largely overcome due to a more developed market for earth-based products.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6 Implications","content":"\u003cp\u003eThere is an urgency to embrace and practice sustainable housing delivery, especially given the unprecedented population growth and the burgeoning demand for infrastructure. The findings from the study prove that despite the immense benefits inherent in rammed earth construction, professionals in the Ghanaian built environment exhibit moderate awareness of this knowledge. This finding challenges the assumption that a global body of knowledge is uniformly accessible. This knowledge gap is fostered by factors including the lack of research and funding, inadequate education, and institutional support. Consequently, it underscores the need for academic research to shift from merely showing RE\u0026rsquo;s viability to actively developing context-specific, data-driven evidence and standards that can be directly applied in the local industry. The study also highlights a need for a grand collaboration between academia and industry to produce and disseminate locally curated data on RE\u0026rsquo;s performance and other properties.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e From the study, other limitations to RE included the absence of a dedicated local building code and guidelines, inadequate support from government and institutions, and a lack of fiscal incentives. Interventions from the government and policy-making bodies are crucial to creating a favorable environment where RE and other earthen-based technologies would advance. The perception of people regarding earthen-products and buildings could be changed when the government draw the attention of the public to them, by implementing fiscal incentives, like tax exemptions, and establishing clear pathways to obtain permits and control quality. Doing this would positively influence the perception of people and rekindle trust in vernacular construction techniques in Ghana. From a broader point of view, these issues pertaining to the adoption of sustainable construction practices, such as RE, are not only specific to Ghana but also to other sub-Saharan African economies, for instance, Nigeria (Ojelabi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) and Burkina Faso (Nikyema and Blouin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7 Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe transition to a green economy is an imperative to developing all aspect of the economy, while mitigating various environmental, economic and social risks. This shift is particularly salient for nations like Ghana that are highly dependent on their natural resources for economic sustenance. Environmental and social issues, such population growth and its related consequence on the climate, requires a fundamental rethinking of how to proceed into the future without depleting critical resources. This urgency has fueled several studies, especially within the built environment, focused on examining and projecting various sustainable practices, including rammed earth construction. This research investigated the awareness and potential barriers hindering the adoption of rammed earth construction in Ghana. Using a structured questionnaire, a survey was conducted among 114 construction professionals in Ghana. The findings reveal that professionals are more aware of the general concept of sustainability rather than with specific details, like rammed earth construction. Additionally, the findings from the study proves that Architects, project managers and construction managers exhibit higher level of awareness of RE construction than the other professional groups used in the study. On average, the study concludes that professionals are moderately aware of the concept of rammed earth construction. Four principal barriers emerged based on the exploratory factor analysis: systemic, technological and financial, socio-cultural and user acceptance, and logistical and socio-economic barriers. It is worth noting that absence of dedicated local building codes and regulation; quality control deficiencies; strong industrial and user preferences for conventional buildings techniques/materials; and inadequate support from government and industrial institutions emerged as the highly ranked sub-factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, the study proffers that key stakeholders such as policymakers and construction professional associations make informed policies and enactments to increase awareness and use of rammed earth as a sustainable building material. Professional bodies could also collaborate with government agencies or non-profit organizations to develop comprehensive frameworks for ensuring the safety and reliability of rammed earth construction. Theoretically, the findings of the study have established the knowledge of sustainable construction materials (rammed earth) in the context of a typical developing country like Ghana, wherein studies in this regard are scant. Subsequently, educational institutions such as universities, TVET institutes and training centers need to introduce and tailor courses to inform students about the merits of rammed earth and other earthen materials. This will enhance the dissemination of information about rammed earth construction within the industry. More importantly, these findings will assist researchers in identifying gaps pertinent for further studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGranting the goal of this study was attained, several limitations have been acknowledged. First, the use of a quantitative research design limited the respondents\u0026rsquo; ability to fully express their views in regards to the studies objectives. Future research could benefit from employing qualitative or mixed research approaches to gain deeper insights into practitioners\u0026rsquo; opinions and measure the utility of rammed earth construction in Ghana. Another limitation was the potential bias in sampling or representation of construction professionals selected for the study. Nonetheless, this is common when dealing with undefined or difficult-to-quantify populations. Therefore, it is recommended that future studies use a large sample size to improve generalizability of findings. An intriguing direction for future studies is suggested, as omnibus policies may not sufficiently address the unique factors and barriers associated with the adoption of sustainable construction materials like the rammed earth.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to thank all respondents who partook in the study for dedicating their time to share their valuable insights. In addition, the authors are grateful to the reviewers for their constructive remarks and valuable suggestions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA. O. A: Project administration, Conceptualization, Writing-review \u0026amp; editing; K. A: Writing-review \u0026amp; editing, Methodology; S. A: Writing-review \u0026amp; editing, Methodology; F. W. M: Writing-review \u0026amp; editing; G. K. N: Writing \u0026ndash; original draft, Methodology, Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo funds, grants, or other support was received.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData availability\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData are contained within the article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConflicts of interests\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical Approval and Accordance\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was approved by the Human and Social Science Research Ethics Committee (HuSSREC) of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and institutional guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent to Participate\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten informed consent to publish anonymized data was obtained from all participants. No participant under the age of 18 was included in this study; hence, there was no need for such consent to be sought as such.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent to Publish\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten informed consent to participate was obtained from all participants involved in the study. There were no participants who were under the age of 18 involved in this study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbera, Y.A. (2024), \u0026ldquo;Sustainable building materials: A comprehensive study on eco-friendly alternatives for construction\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eComposites and Advanced Materials\u003c/em\u003e, SAGE Publications Ltd, Vol. 33, p. 26349833241255957, doi: 10.1177/26349833241255957.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbu-Khader, W. and Sweis, R. (2024), \u0026ldquo;Ghaleb Jalil Sweis and Husam Abu Hajar\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eEngineering, Construction and Architectural Management.\u003c/em\u003e, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-10-2024-1436.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAcheampong, A., Hackman, J., Ayarkwa, J. and Agyekum, K. (2014), \u0026ldquo;Factors inhibiting the use of indigenous building materials (IBM) in the Ghanaian construction industry\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eADRRI Journal (Multidisciplinary)\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 8 No. 8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAddy, M., Adinyira, E., Danku, J.C. and Dadzoe, F. (2021), \u0026ldquo;Impediments to the development of the green building market in sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Ghana\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eSmart and Sustainable Built Environment\u003c/em\u003e, Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 193\u0026ndash;207.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAddy, M.N., Adinyira, E., Dadzoe, F. and Opoku, D. (2022), \u0026ldquo;The market for green buildings in Sub-Saharan Africa: experts perspective on the economic benefits in Ghana\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eJournal of Construction in Developing Countries\u003c/em\u003e, Universiti Sains Malaysia Press, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 173\u0026ndash;188.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdegun, O.B. and Adedeji, Y.M.D. (2017), \u0026ldquo;Review of economic and environmental benefits of earthen materials for housing in Africa\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eFrontiers of Architectural Research\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 519\u0026ndash;528, doi: 10.1016/j.foar.2017.08.003.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdu, P. and Miles, D.A. (2023), \u003cem\u003eDissertation Research Methods: A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing Up Your Research in the Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 1st ed., Routledge, London, doi: 10.4324/9781003268154.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgyekum, K., Adinyira, E. and Oppon, J.A. (2021), \u0026ldquo;Factors limiting the adoption of hemp as an alternative sustainable material for green building delivery in Ghana\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation\u003c/em\u003e, Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 202\u0026ndash;218, doi: 10.1108/IJBPA-11-2020-0100.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgyekum, K. and Amudjie, J. (2024), \u0026ldquo;Challenges to implementing circular economy: empirical evidence among built environment firms in Ghana\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Construction Management\u003c/em\u003e, Taylor \u0026amp; Francis, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 281\u0026ndash;297, doi: 10.1080/15623599.2023.2222993.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgyekum, K., Kissi, E. and Danku, J.C. (2020), \u0026ldquo;Professionals\u0026rsquo; views of vernacular building materials and techniques for green building delivery in Ghana\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eScientific African\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 8, p. e00424, doi: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00424.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgyekum, K., Pittri, H., Botchway, E.A., Amudjie, J., Kumah, V.M.A., Kotei-Martin, J.N. and Oduro, R.A. (2022), \u0026ldquo;Exploring the Current Technologies Essential for Health and Safety in the Ghanaian Construction Industry\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eMerits\u003c/em\u003e, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 314\u0026ndash;330, doi: 10.3390/merits2040022.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhmed, I. and Khan, T. (2023), \u0026ldquo;Finding post-colonial identity through vernacular and climate responsive adaptations: the architecture of Bangladesh from 1947 to 1971\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eOpen House International\u003c/em\u003e, Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 384\u0026ndash;408, doi: 10.1108/OHI-03-2023-0064.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA\u0026iuml;t-Sahalia, Y. and Xiu, D. (2019), \u0026ldquo;Principal Component Analysis of High-Frequency Data\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eJournal of the American Statistical Association\u003c/em\u003e, Taylor and Francis Ltd., Vol. 114 No. 525, pp. 287\u0026ndash;303, doi: 10.1080/01621459.2017.1401542.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAli, E.B., Anufriev, V.P. and Amfo, B. (2021), \u0026ldquo;Green economy implementation in Ghana as a road map for a sustainable development drive: A review\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eScientific African\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 12, p. e00756, doi: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e00756.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlrashed, F., Asif, M. and Burek, S. (2017), \u0026ldquo;The Role of Vernacular Construction Techniques and Materials for Developing Zero-Energy Homes in Various Desert Climates\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eBuildings\u003c/em\u003e, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 17, doi: 10.3390/buildings7010017.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlter, L. (2020), \u0026ldquo;What Is Rammed Earth Construction?\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eTreehugger\u003c/em\u003e, March, available at: https://www.treehugger.com/dirt-rammed-earth-4847413 (accessed 28 July 2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmos, D., Au-Yong, C.P. and Musa, Z.N. (2020), \u0026ldquo;Developing key performance indicators for hospital facilities management services: a developing country perspective\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eEngineering, Construction and Architectural Management\u003c/em\u003e, Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 2715\u0026ndash;2735, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-11-2019-0642.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmos-Abanyie, S., Afram, S., Olympio, G. and Nkrumah, K. (2013), \u0026ldquo;passive building design of mass housing development in the warm-humid regions of Ghana - a path to sustainable building design\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmpratwum, G., Agyekum, K., Adinyira, E. and Duah, D. (2021), \u0026ldquo;A framework for the implementation of green certification of buildings in Ghana\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Construction Management\u003c/em\u003e, Taylor \u0026amp; Francis, Vol. 21 No. 12, pp. 1263\u0026ndash;1277, doi: 10.1080/15623599.2019.1613207.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmudjie, J., Agyekum, K., Adinyira, E., Amos-Abanyie, S. and Botchway, E.A. (2023), \u0026ldquo;Implementing the principles of circular economy in the construction industry: exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of strategies\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eConstruction Innovation\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/CI-10-2022-0270.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnsah, M.K., Chen, X., Yang, H., Lu, L. and Lam, P.T.I. (2020), \u0026ldquo;An integrated life cycle assessment of different fa\u0026ccedil;ade systems for a typical residential building in Ghana\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eSustainable Cities and Society\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 53, p. 101974, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101974.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArceo, A., O\u0026rsquo;Brien, W. and Touchie, M. (2024), \u0026ldquo;Ten questions concerning the environmental impacts of housing built form\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eBuilding and Environment\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 256, p. 111490, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111490.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAshurmamadova, S. and Rexhepi, G. (2024), \u003cem\u003eBuilding a Sustainable Future: Adoption, Barriers, And Pathways To Progress In Sustainability - Case Of Sustainable Construction.\u003c/em\u003e, Universiteti I Evrop\u0026euml;s Juglindore, Macedonia, 12 July, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33469.06889.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAzunu, F.K. (2017), \u0026ldquo;The use of local building materials and its challenges in Ghana: a case study of Denkyembour district\u0026ndash;Akwatia\u0026rdquo;, University of Education, Winneba.(UEW).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBotchway, E.A., Agyekum, K., Kotei-Martin, J.N. and Afram, S.O. (2023), \u0026ldquo;Utilization of simulation tools for building performance assessment among design professionals\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/IJBPA-01-2023-0006.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBui, Q.B., Morel, J.-C., Reddy, B. and Ghayad, W. (2009), \u0026ldquo;Durability of rammed earth walls exposed for 20 years to natural weathering\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eBuilding and Environment\u003c/em\u003e, pp. 912\u0026ndash;919, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.07.001.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCiancio, D. and Beckett, C. (2013), \u0026ldquo;Rammed earth: an overview of a sustainable construction material\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the 3rd Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies Conference\u003c/em\u003e, pp. 1\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCiancio, D. and Beckett, C. (Eds.). (2015), \u003cem\u003eRammed Earth Construction: Cutting-Edge Research on Traditional and Modern Rammed Earth\u003c/em\u003e, CRC Press, London, doi: 10.1201/b18046.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreang, E., Ciotoiu, I., Gheorghiu, D. and Nash, G. (2010), \u0026ldquo;Vernacular architecture as a model for contemporary design\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eWIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment\u003c/em\u003e, WIT Press, Vol. 128, pp. 157\u0026ndash;171.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell, J.W. (2009), \u003cem\u003eResearch Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method Aproaches\u003c/em\u003e, 3rd edition., SAGE Publications Ltd.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDabaieh, M. (2014), \u003cem\u003eBuilding with Rammed Earth\u003c/em\u003e, doi: 10.13140/2.1.4198.3048.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDanso, H. (2013), \u0026ldquo;Building Houses with Locally Available Materials in Ghana: Benefits and Problems\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Science and Technology 2049-7318\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 2, pp. 225\u0026ndash;231.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDanso, H. (2018), \u0026ldquo;Suitability of soil for earth construction as building material\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eAdvancements in Civil Engineering \u0026amp; Technology\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 199\u0026ndash;211.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDarko, A., Chan, A.P.C., Owusu-Manu, D.-G., Gou, Z. and Man, J.C.-F. (2020), \u0026ldquo;Adoption of Green Building Technologies in Ghana\u0026rdquo;, in Gou, Z. (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eGreen Building in Developing Countries\u003c/em\u003e, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 217\u0026ndash;235, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-24650-1_12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDoroth\u0026eacute;e, A. (2018), \u0026ldquo;Recognition of a heritage in danger: rammed-earth architecture in Lyon city, France\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eIOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 143 No. 1, p. 012054, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/143/1/012054.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEo, M., Mn, E. and Pt, M. (2022), \u0026ldquo;Review and Practical Processes on Rammed Earth Wall Construction\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eDiscovery\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 58 No. 318, pp. 637\u0026ndash;653.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFernandes, J., Mateus, R., Bragan\u0026ccedil;a, L. and Correia da Silva, J.J. (2015), \u0026ldquo;Portuguese vernacular architecture: the contribution of vernacular materials and design approaches for sustainable construction\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eArchitectural Science Review\u003c/em\u003e, Taylor \u0026amp; Francis, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 324\u0026ndash;336, doi: 10.1080/00038628.2014.974019.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGangarao, H., Johnson, D., Liang, R. and Blanford, M. (2020), \u0026ldquo;Reviving Rammed Earth as a Sustainable Construction Technique\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eCityscape\u003c/em\u003e, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 387\u0026ndash;393.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGhana Statistical Service. (2022), \u003cem\u003eQuarterly Labour Force Report\u003c/em\u003e, Ghana Anual Household Income and Expenditure Survey and Ghana Statistical Survey, p. 132.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlassie, H. (1990), \u0026ldquo;Architects, vernacular traditions, and society\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eTraditional Dwellings and Settlements Review\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 9\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlassie, H. (2000), \u003cem\u003eVernacular Architecture\u003c/em\u003e, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGomaa, M., Xie, Y. and Bao, D.W. (2023), \u0026ldquo;Automation in rammed earth construction for industry 4.0: Precedent work, current progress and future prospect\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 398, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136569.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGonz\u0026aacute;lez-Lezcano, R.A. (2023), \u0026ldquo;Editorial: Design of efficient and healthy buildings\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Built Environment\u003c/em\u003e, Frontiers, Vol. 9, doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2023.1210956.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeffernan, E. and Wilde, P. de. (2020), \u0026ldquo;Group self-build housing: A bottom-up approach to environmentally and socially sustainable housing\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 243, p. 118657, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118657.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInternational Trade Administration. (2023), \u0026ldquo;Ghana - Construction and Infrastructure Industry\u0026rdquo;, 26 November, available at: https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/ghana-construction-and-infrastructure-industry (accessed 2 June 2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaiser, H.F. (1958), \u0026ldquo;The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003ePsychometrika\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 187\u0026ndash;200, doi: 10.1007/BF02289233.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKissi, E., Ahadzie, D.K., Debrah, C. and Adjei-Kumi, T. (2020), \u0026ldquo;Underlying strategies for improving entrepreneurial skills development of technical and vocational students in developing countries: using Ghana as a case study\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eEducation + Training\u003c/em\u003e, Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 62 No. 5, pp. 599\u0026ndash;614, doi: 10.1108/ET-11-2019-0264.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKloft, H., Salamatian, A., Gosslar, J., Dorresteijn, E. and Lowke, D. (2024), \u0026ldquo;Robotic Rammed Earth-Concrete (RREC): A Novel Additive Manufacturing Technology to Strengthen Rammed Earth Structures by Integrated Rammed Concrete Parts\u0026rdquo;, in Beckett, C., Bras, A., Fabbri, A., Keita, E., Perlot, C. and Perrot, A. (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eSecond RILEM International Conference on Earthen Construction\u003c/em\u003e, Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp. 60\u0026ndash;70, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-62690-6_7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKocak, S. and Grant, A. (2023), \u0026ldquo;Enhancing the mechanical properties of polymer-stabilized rammed earth construction\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eConstruction Materials\u003c/em\u003e, MDPI, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 377\u0026ndash;388.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoranteng, C., Simons, B., Abrokwa Gyimah, K. and Nkrumah, J. (2021), \u0026ldquo;Ghana\u0026rsquo;s green building assessment journey: an appraisal of the thermal performance of an office building in Accra\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eJournal of Engineering, Design and Technology\u003c/em\u003e, Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 188\u0026ndash;205, doi: 10.1108/JEDT-02-2021-0109.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKulshreshtha, Y., Mota, Nelson.J.A., Jagadish, K.S., Bredenoord, J., Vardon, P.J., Van Loosdrecht, M.C.M. and Jonkers, H.M. (2020), \u0026ldquo;The potential and current status of earthen material for low-cost housing in rural India\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eConstruction and Building Materials\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 247, p. 118615, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118615.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eK\u0026uuml;r\u0026uuml;m Varolg\u0026uuml;nes, F. (2019), \u0026ldquo;Evaluation of vernacular and new housing indoor comfort conditions in cold climate \u0026ndash; a field survey in eastern Turkey\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis\u003c/em\u003e, Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 207\u0026ndash;226, doi: 10.1108/IJHMA-02-2019-0019.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLokko, M., Manu, F.W., Mboup, N., Etman, M.A., Raugei, M., Niang, I., Ametepe, K., \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e (2024), \u0026ldquo;Comparing the whole life cycle carbon impact of conventional and biogenic building materials across major residential typologies in Ghana and Senegal\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eSustainable Cities and Society\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 106, p. 105332, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2024.105332.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLokko, M., Wireko Manu, F., Mboup, N., Aly Etman, M.A., Raugei, M., Niang, I., Ametepe, K., \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e (2023), \u0026ldquo;Comparing the Life Cycle Carbon Impact of Conventional and Biogenic Building Materials Across Major Residential Typologies in Ghana and Senegal\u0026rdquo;, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4612096.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eManiatidis, V. and Walker, P. (2003), \u0026ldquo;A Review of Rammed Earth Construction for DTi Partners in Innovation Project \u0026lsquo;Developing Rammed Earth for UK Housing\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eNatural Building Technology Group, Department of Architecture \u0026amp; Civil Engineering University of Bath\u003c/em\u003e, pp. 1\u0026ndash;118.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMensah, S. and Laryea, S. (2023), \u0026ldquo;Explaining the lower usage rate of indigenous construction materials in Ghanaian public buildings using bounded rationality\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eHeliyon\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 9 No. 7, p. e17645, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17645.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinistry of Works and Housing. (2024), \u003cem\u003eClimate Action Roadmaps for Buildings and Construction, Ghana\u003c/em\u003e, Ministry of Works and Housing, UN Environment Programme, Global Alliance for Building and Construction, UN-Habitat, Ghana, pp. 1\u0026ndash;84.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMirabi, E. and Akrami Abarghuie, F. (2021), \u0026ldquo;Investigating the climate-adaptive design strategies of residential earth-sheltered buildings in Iran\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation\u003c/em\u003e, Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 1029\u0026ndash;1048, doi: 10.1108/IJBPA-05-2021-0076.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMohamed, M.A.S., Ibrahim, A.O., Bashir, F.M., Chammam, A., Gnaba, H., Kadhim, S.I. and Khalilpoor, N. (2023), \u0026ldquo;An assessment of the barriers to the adoption of green building technologies in Saudi Arabia\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 18, pp. 872\u0026ndash;880, doi: 10.1093/ijlct/ctad064.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMontalbano, G., Santi, G. and Najem, K. (2024), \u0026ldquo;Rammed Earth Construction: A Circular Solution For Sustainable Building\u0026rdquo;, Vol. 11, presented at the Proceedings of International Structural Engineering and Construction, doi: 10.14455/ISEC.2024.11(1).SUS-01.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorel, J.-C., Charef, R., Hamard, E., Fabbri, A., Beckett, C. and Bui, Q.-B. (2021), \u0026ldquo;Earth as construction material in the circular economy context: practitioner perspectives on barriers to overcome\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003ePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, Royal Society, Vol. 376 No. 1834, p. 20200182, doi: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0182.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNanz, L., Rauch, M., Honermann, T. and Auer, T. (2019), \u0026ldquo;Impacts on the Embodied Energy of Rammed Earth Fa\u0026ccedil;ades During Production and Construction Stages\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eJournal of Facade Design and Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 7, pp. 75\u0026ndash;88, doi: 10.7480/jfde.2019.1.2786.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNguyen, A.-T., Tran, Q.-B., Tran, D.-Q. and Reiter, S. (2011), \u0026ldquo;An investigation on climate responsive design strategies of vernacular housing in Vietnam\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eBuilding and Environment\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 46 No. 10, pp. 2088\u0026ndash;2106, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.04.019.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNikyema, G.A. and Blouin, V.Y. (2020), \u0026ldquo;Barriers to the adoption of green building materials and technologies in developing countries: The case of Burkina Faso\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eIOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science\u003c/em\u003e, IOP Publishing, Vol. 410 No. 1, p. 012079, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/410/1/012079.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNitelik Gelirli, D. and Arpacioglu, \u0026Uuml;. (2022), \u0026ldquo;Earth Buildings from Traditional to Present\u0026rdquo;, pp. 147\u0026ndash;172.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNouri, H., Safehian, M. and Mir Mohammad Hosseini, S.M. (2021), \u0026ldquo;Life cycle assessment of earthen materials for low-cost housing a comparison between rammed earth and fired clay bricks\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation\u003c/em\u003e, Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 364\u0026ndash;377, doi: 10.1108/IJBPA-02-2021-0021.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNwaki, W., Sofolahan, O. and Eze, E. (2023), \u0026ldquo;Inhibitors to Earth-based Materials Adoption in Urban Housing Construction: The View of Design Experts\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eCivil and Sustainable Urban Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 123\u0026ndash;137.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOduro, S., Pittri, H., Simons, B., Baah, B., Anteh, E.D. and Oduro, J.A. (2024), \u0026ldquo;Awareness of net zero energy buildings among construction professionals in the Ghanaian construction industry\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eBuilt Environment Project and Asset Management\u003c/em\u003e, Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/BEPAM-01-2024-0001.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOguntona, O., Akinradewo, O., Mokono, O., Fatai, O. and Aigbavboa, C. (2023), \u003cem\u003eLimitations of Futuristic Building Materials for Achieving Sustainability in the Construction Industry\u003c/em\u003e, doi: 10.54941/ahfe1003096.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOjelabi, R.A., Mohammed, T.A. and Oladiran, O.J. (2024), \u0026ldquo;Awareness and Implementation Challenges of the Green Retrofitting in Building Enclosure in the Nigerian Construction Industry\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eIOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 1342 No. 1, p. 012023, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1342/1/012023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlatunde, N.A., Gento, A.M., Okorie, V.N., Oyewo, O.W., Mewomo, M.C. and Awodele, I.A. (2022), \u0026ldquo;Construction 4.0 technologies in a developing economy: awareness, adoption readiness and challenges\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Engineering and Built Environment\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 108\u0026ndash;121, doi: 10.1108/FEBE-08-2022-0037.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOsei-Kyei, R., Chan, A.P.C. and Ameyaw, E.E. (2017), \u0026ldquo;A fuzzy synthetic evaluation analysis of operational management critical success factors for public-private partnership infrastructure projects\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eBenchmarking: An International Journal\u003c/em\u003e, Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 2092\u0026ndash;2112, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-07-2016-0111.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePandey, P. and Pandey, M.M. (2021), \u003cem\u003eResearch Methodology Tools and Techniques\u003c/em\u003e, Bridge Center.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePel\u0026eacute;-Peltier, A., Charef, R. and Morel, J.-C. (2023), \u0026ldquo;Factors affecting the use of earth material in mainstream construction: a critical review\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eBuilding Research \u0026amp; Information\u003c/em\u003e, Routledge, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 119\u0026ndash;137, doi: 10.1080/09613218.2022.2070719.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrudon, T. and Normandin, K. (Eds.). (2018), \u0026ldquo;Concrete and Modernism: Technology and Conservation\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the Docomomo International Specialist Committee/Technolog y Sessions during the 3rd Annual Docomomo US National Symposium.\u003c/em\u003e, Docomomo US, Minnesota, USA, pp. 1\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRosicki, L. and Narloch, P. (2022), \u0026ldquo;Studies on the Ageing of Cement Stabilized Rammed Earth Material in Different Exposure Conditions\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eMaterials\u003c/em\u003e, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Vol. 15 No. 3, p. 1090, doi: 10.3390/ma15031090.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoux, H.L. (2004), \u0026ldquo;Modern Architecture in Post-Colonial Ghana and Nigeria\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eArchitectural History\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 47, pp. 361\u0026ndash;392, doi: 10.1017/S0066622X00001805.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoxana, F.E. and Maria, B.S. (2019), \u0026ldquo;Interdisciplinary approach in promoting earth construction techniques in the Banat region, Romania\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eProceedings of INTCESS 2019- 6th International Conference on Education and Social Sciences, 4-6 February 2019\u003c/em\u003e, Dubai, U.A.E.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalgin, B., Bayram, \u0026Ouml;.F., Akg\u0026uuml;n, A. and Agyekum, K. (2017), \u0026ldquo;Sustainable Features of Vernacular Architecture: Housing of Eastern Black Sea Region as a Case Study\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eArts\u003c/em\u003e, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Vol. 6 No. 3, p. 11, doi: 10.3390/arts6030011.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSamarasinghe, D.A.S. and Falk, S. (2022), \u0026ldquo;Promoting Earth Buildings for Residential Construction in New Zealand\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eBuildings\u003c/em\u003e, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Vol. 12 No. 9, p. 1403, doi: 10.3390/buildings12091403.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShrestha, N. (2021), \u0026ldquo;Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 4\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSolomon-Ayeh, K.A. (2009), \u0026ldquo;OPPORTUNITY FOR THE INCREASED USE OF CLAY POZZOLANA \u0026ndash; THE BRRI EXPERIENCE\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStorr, V.H. (2008), \u0026ldquo;The market as a social space: On the meaningful extraeconomic conversations that can occur in markets\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eThe Review of Austrian Economics\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 135\u0026ndash;150, doi: 10.1007/s11138-007-0034-0.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStrazzeri, V. and Karrech, A. (2023), \u0026ldquo;Qualitative and quantitative study to assess the use of rammed earth construction technology in Perth and the south-west of Western Australia\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eCleaner Materials\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 7, p. 100169, doi: 10.1016/j.clema.2023.100169.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTakyi-Annan, G.E. and Zhang, H. (2023), \u0026ldquo;A Multivariate Analysis of the Variables Impacting the Level of BIM Expertise of Professionals in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) Industries of the Developing World Using Nonparametric Tests\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eBuildings\u003c/em\u003e, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Vol. 13 No. 7, p. 1606, doi: 10.3390/buildings13071606.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTavakol, M. and Dennick, R. (2011), \u0026ldquo;Making sense of Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Medical Education\u003c/em\u003e, International Journal of Medical Education (IJME), Nottingham, United Kingdom, Vol. 2, pp. 53\u0026ndash;55.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTekpe, E., Ansah, S.K. and Akomah, B.B. (2022), \u0026ldquo;Appropriate Technology and Design: A Solution for Sustainable and Affordable Housing Delivery in Major Cities of Ghana\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eJournal of Engineering Research and Reports\u003c/em\u003e, pp. 18\u0026ndash;29, doi: 10.9734/jerr/2022/v23i8739.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTwumasi-Ampofo, K. and Oppong, R.A. (2016), \u0026ldquo;Traditional Architecture and Gentrification in Kumasi Revisited\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eAfrican Journal of Applied Research (AJAR)\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 97\u0026ndash;109.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnited Nations Environment Programme. (2023), \u003cem\u003eBuilding Materials and the Climate: Constructing a New Future\u003c/em\u003e, United Nations, Nairobi.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalliman, N. (2021), \u003cem\u003eResearch Methods: The Basics\u003c/em\u003e, Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWan, L., Ng, E., Liu, X., Zhou, L., Tian, F. and Chi, X. (2022), \u0026ldquo;Innovative Rammed Earth Construction Approach to Sustainable Rural Development in Southwest China\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Vol. 14 No. 24, p. 16461, doi: 10.3390/su142416461.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWidera, B. (2021), \u0026ldquo;Comparative analysis of user comfort and thermal performance of six types of vernacular dwellings as the first step towards climate resilient, sustainable and bioclimatic architecture in western sub-Saharan Africa\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 140, p. 110736, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.110736.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWillar, D., Waney, E.V.Y., Pangemanan, D.D.G. and Mait, R.E.G. (2020), \u0026ldquo;Sustainable construction practices in the execution of infrastructure projects: The extent of implementation\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eSmart and Sustainable Built Environment\u003c/em\u003e, Emerald Publishing Limited, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 106\u0026ndash;124, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-07-2019-0086.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWipulanusat, W., Panuwatwanich, K., Stewart, R.A. and Sunkpho, J. (2020), \u0026ldquo;Applying Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Design to Innovation Management\u0026rdquo;, in Panuwatwanich, K. and Ko, C.-H. (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe 10th International Conference on Engineering, Project, and Production Management\u003c/em\u003e, Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp. 485\u0026ndash;495, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-1910-9_40.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZami, M. (2021), \u0026ldquo;Barriers hindering acceptance of earth construction in the urban context of the United Kingdom\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eArchitectural Engineering and Design Management\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 18, pp. 1\u0026ndash;18, doi: 10.1080/17452007.2021.1995314.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZami, M.S. (2020), \u0026ldquo;A Conceptual Framework Outlining Factors Affecting the Acceptance of Earth as a Sustainable Building Material in the United Kingdom\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Sustainable Development\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 9 No. 3, p. 241, doi: 10.14207/ejsd.2020.v9n3p241.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZami, M.S. and Lee, A. (2010), \u0026ldquo;Economic benefits of contemporary earth construction in low-cost urban housing \u0026ndash; State-of-the-art review\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eJournal of Building Appraisal\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 259\u0026ndash;271, doi: 10.1057/jba.2009.32.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZami, M.S. and Lee, A. (2011), \u0026ldquo;Inhibitors of adopting stabilised earth construction to address urban low cost housing crisis: An understanding by construction professionals\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eJournal of Building Appraisal\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 6 No. 3\u0026ndash;4, pp. 227\u0026ndash;240, doi: 10.1057/jba.2010.25.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhou, X., Ge, J. and Yan, Y. (2012), \u0026ldquo;Research of CO2 Emission of Residential Buildings in Zhejiang Province Based on Life Cycle Assessment\u0026rdquo;, \u003cem\u003eAdvanced Materials Research\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 461, pp. 255\u0026ndash;258, doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.461.255.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-cities","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Cities](https://www.springer.com/journal/44327)","snPcode":"44327","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/44327/3","title":"Discover Cities","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Rammed earth, Vernacular architecture, Earthen building, Sustainable construction, Construction professionals","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8249439/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8249439/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eSustainable construction practices is crucial to fostering development without depleting critical resources. This study investigates the adoption of rammed earth (RE) by specifically assessing the potential barriers inhibiting its adoption in the construction industry. Primary data, sourced from literature, was used to develop a structured close-ended questionnaire, which was subsequently administered to 114 construction professionals in Ghana. Descriptive analysis, Krushal-Wallis, and Exploratory Factor Analysis were used to analyze the data. The findings indicate that while professionals possess a general understanding of sustainability, they were less conversant with specific sustainable practices, such as RE construction. The result suggests that a strong affinity for conventional materials, the absence of a dedicated local guidelines, and limited knowledge are critical sub-factors that prevent the widespread adoption of RE in Ghana. Further analysis revealed four principal barriers hindering RE\u0026rsquo;s adoption: systemic barriers, technological and financial barriers, socio-cultural and user acceptance barrier, and logistical and socio-economic barriers. The factor analysis confirmed systemic barriers, such as inadequate guidelines and regulation and minimal academic coverage, as the most significant impediments to RE construction adoption in Ghana. Academic and industrial institutions must create forums to promote knowledge of RE and other vernacular techniques among students and professionals respectively. The government and policy-makers need to implement policies and establish structures that would revive interest in vernacular construction. The findings contextualizes realities on the perception of RE construction techniques in Ghana. Therefore, it significantly contributes to the acceleration of sustainable construction practices in Ghana and in the sub-Saharan region at large.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Barriers inhibiting the Adoption of Rammed Earth Construction in a Developing Country","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-12-30 08:21:01","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8249439/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-01-24T08:45:33+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-21T03:00:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-18T16:39:38+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"330232365030093861121987440354472573260","date":"2026-01-18T15:36:57+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"156861900775810078709606610615902051735","date":"2026-01-14T03:34:35+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-09T12:26:45+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-05T16:34:38+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"269984286023335801611924149631885020731","date":"2026-01-02T23:44:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"322364437715286656211801581439629573123","date":"2025-12-26T12:01:52+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-12-26T08:55:38+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-12-15T14:28:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-12-12T04:41:18+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-12-11T10:48:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Cities","date":"2025-12-11T10:15:36+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-cities","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Cities](https://www.springer.com/journal/44327)","snPcode":"44327","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/44327/3","title":"Discover Cities","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"fa9bc444-397a-4fe3-8e4b-698e0f08a85c","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 30th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-06T09:26:37+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-12-30 08:21:01","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8249439","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8249439","identity":"rs-8249439","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}