CHAPTER FOUR
1.0 Introduction
This chapter presents the result and discussion of this study investigated “Challenges of
Integrating Renewable Energy System into Building design and Construction”. The chapter
has been discussed under the following g sub-headings:
1. Presentation of demographic information of respondents
2. Analysis of research questions
100 questionnaires were administered while 95 retrieved on the spot to ensure 95% returns, with
all being good and used for analysis. The data were processed and analyzed using the Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 25.0 version.
1.1 Presentation of Demographic Information of Respondents
1.1.1 Gender
1.1.1 Gender of respondents
Table 1.1.1 presents the gender distribution the sample. The male sample which represent the
majority have 56.8%, the female sample is with 41.1% while the remaining 2.1% preferred not
indicate their gender.
Gender Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Male 54 56.8 56.8
Female 39 41.1 97.9
Prefer Not To Say 2 2.1 100.0
Total 95 100.0
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2024
1.1.2 Age group of respondents
Table 1.1.2 presents the age group of the respondents. Respondents who are 31-35 years had the
highest response with 32.6%, followed by those in the age range 36-40 years with 24.2% while
those within 20-25years and 26-30years age range accounted for 7.4% and 20% of the study
participants respectively. Those who are above 40 years constitute 15.8% of the total sample.
Table 1.1.2: Age
Age Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
20-25 7 7.4 7.4
26-30 19 20.0 27.4
31-35 31 32.6 60.0
36-40 23 24.2 84.2
>40 15 15.8 100.0
Total 95 100.0
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2025
1.1.3 Highest Educational qualification of respondent
Table 1.1.3 presents the highest educational qualification of respondents. The result reveals that
[Link] holders takes the lead with 42.1%, followed by Ph.D., [Link]. [Link] and HND with 20%,
18.9% and 15.8% respectively while ND holders constitute 3.2% of the total sample.
Table 1.1.3: Highest Educational qualification of respondents
Academic Qualification Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
ND 3 3.2 3.2
HND 15 15.8 18.9
[Link] 40 42.1 61.1
[Link] [Link] 18 18.9 80.0
Ph.D. 19 20.0 100.0
Total 95 100.0
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2025
1.1.4 Professional Discipline of respondents
Table 1.1.4 presents the professional discipline of the study participants. The result shows that
more than one-third (34.7%) of the respondents are Quantity Surveyors, closely followed by Civil
Engineers with 23.2% while architects and Builders accounted for 17.9% and 18.9% of the total
sample respectively. Others disciplines gulf 5.3% of .the sample.
Table 1.1.4: Professional discipline of respondents
Professional discipline Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Architecture 17 17.9 17.9
Civil Engineering 22 23.2 41.1
Quantity Surveying 33 34.7 75.8
Building Technology 18 18.9 94.7
Others 5 5.3 100.0
Total 95 100.0
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2025
1.1.5 Years of Experience in the construction Industry
Table 1.1.5 presents the respondents’ work experience. Respondents with 5-10years’ experience
had the highest response with 33.7%, those with less than 5years is 28.4% while those 11-15
years and 16-20 years of experience represent 25.3% and 9.5% of the total sample respectively.
Table 1.1.5: Years of Experience in the construction Industry
Years of Experience Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
<5yrs 27 28.4 28.4
5-10yrs 32 33.7 62.1
11-15yrs 24 25.3 87.4
16-20yrs 9 9.5 96.8
>20yrs 3 3.2 100.0
Total 95 100.0
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2025
1.1.6 Type of Organization
Table 1.1.6 presents the type of organization. Respondents from government agency accounted
for 33.7% of the total sample, those from private firm is next with 28.4% while 16.8%, 14.7% and
6.3% respondents represent NGO, academia and self-employed respectively.
Table 1.1.6: Type of Organization
Type of Organization Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Private Firm 27 28.4 28.4
Government Agency 32 33.7 62.1
NGO 16 16.8 78.9
Academic Institution 14 14.7 93.7
Self Employed 6 6.3 100.0
Total 95 100.0
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2024
1.2 Analysis of Research Questions
1.2.1: Challenges of Integrating Renewable Energy into Building
Table 1.2.1 indicates the respondents’ perceptions on the challenges of integrating renewable
energy into building. The result shows that all the challenges have all the mean scores within the
range MS > 3.87 ≤ 4.14 and MS> 4.14 ≤ 5.00, and an overall mean score (OMS) of 4.06 for all
the challenges of integrating renewable energy into building, as shown in Table 1.2.1, which
indicates that the respondents strongly agree / agree with the challenges of integrating renewable
energy into building. Most notable among the challenges of integrating renewable energy into
building are the ones with the MS values of 4.06 and above, noting here that the OMS value is
4.06. From this result, the respondents can be deemed to agree with challenges of integrating
renewable energy into building – high initial cost discourages renewable energy adoption,
compatibility issues exist with older building infrastructure, there are inadequate government
incentives or subsidies., the variable nature of solar/wind makes them unreliable without storage,
energy storage systems are too expensive for most buildings and existing building codes and
policies do not favor integration.
Table 1.2.1: Challenges of Integrating Renewable Energy into Building
S/N Challenges Mean Stdev. OMS RANK
1 High initial cost discourages renewable energy
4.08 1.217
adoption. 5th
2 Lack of technical expertise hinders integration. 4.03 .916 7th
3 Compatibility issues exist with older building
4.08 .907
infrastructure. 6th
4 There are inadequate government incentives or
4.12 .977
subsidies. 3rd
5 The variable nature of solar/wind makes them
4.14 .820
unreliable without storage. 1st
6 Energy storage systems are too expensive for most
4.11 1.067
buildings. 4th
7 Lack of awareness among stakeholders limits
3.87 1.142 4.06
adoption. 10th
8 Visual/aesthetic concerns limit use in residential
4.01 1.077
buildings. 8th
9 Maintenance costs and complexity discourage
3.98 1.158
users. 9th
10 Existing building codes and policies do not favor
4.13 1.104
integration. 2nd
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2025
1.2.2: Effects of Inadequate Integration of Renewable Energy System into Buildings
Table 1.2.2 indicates the respondents’ perceptions on the effects of inadequate integration of
renewable energy system into buildings. The result shows that all the effects have all the mean
scores within the range MS > 3.69 ≤ 4.16 and MS> 4.16 ≤ 5.00, and an overall mean score (OMS)
of 3.87 for all the effects of inadequate integration of renewable energy system into buildings, as
shown in Table 1.2.2, which indicates that the respondents strongly agree / agree with the effects
of inadequate integration of renewable energy system into buildings. Most notable among the
effects of inadequate integration of renewable energy system into buildings are the ones with the
MS values of 3.87 and above, noting here that the OMS value is 3.87. From this result, the
respondents can be deemed to agree with effects of inadequate integration of renewable energy
system into buildings – greater reliance on fossil fuels, increased operating and energy costs,
reduced building energy efficiency and poor indoor air quality and occupant comfort.
Table 1.2.2: Effects of Inadequate Integration of Renewable Energy System into Buildings
S/N Effects Mean Stdev. OMS RANK
1 Greater reliance on fossil fuels 4.16 1.379 1st
2 Increased operating and energy
3.88 1.184
costs 4th
3 Reduced building energy
3.99 1.301
efficiency 2nd
4 Poor indoor air quality and
3.88 1.100 3.87
occupant comfort 3rd
5 Higher carbon emissions 3.78 1.256 6th
6 Reduced property value 3.83 1.366 5th
7 Missed access to government
3.69 1.255
incentives 8th
8 Failure to meet modern building
3.77 1.440
standards or codes 7th
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2025
1.2.3: Strategies for Improving the Integration of Renewable Energy System into Buildings
Table 1.2.3 indicates the respondents’ perceptions on the strategies for improving the integration
of renewable energy system into buildings. The result shows that all the strategies have all the
mean scores within the range MS > 3.76 ≤ 4.17 and MS> 4.17 ≤ 5.00, and an overall mean score
(OMS) of 3.93 for all the strategies for improving the integration of renewable energy system into
buildings, as shown in Table 1.2.3, which indicates that the respondents strongly agree / agree
with the strategies for improving the integration of renewable energy system into buildings. Most
notable among the strategies for improving the integration of renewable energy system into
buildings are the ones with the MS values of 3.93 and above, noting here that the OMS value is
3.93. From this result, the respondents can be deemed to agree with strategies for improving the
integration of renewable energy system into buildings – renewable energy should be included
early in building design planning, government grants/subsidies should be provided for solar and
wind systems, building-integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) should be encouraged and energy storage
and battery solutions should be invested in,
Table 1.2.3: Strategies for Improving the Integration of Renewable Energy System into
Buildings
S/N Strategies Mean Stdev. OMS RANK
1 Renewable energy should be
included early in building 4.17 1.007
design planning 1st
2 Government grants/subsidies
should be provided for solar 4.01 1.087
and wind systems 3rd
3 Trainings should be offered
for professionals on renewable 3.84 1.232
energy integration 6th
4 Building-integrated
photovoltaic (BIPV) should be 3.93 1.113
encouraged 4th
5 Energy storage and battery 3.93
4.02 1.072
solutions should be invested in 2nd
6 Building codes should be
reviewed and improved to 3.81 1.123
mandate sustainability 7th
7 Retrofitting of existing
buildings should be 3.91 1.313
incentivized 5th
8 Public-private partnerships
should be used for green 3.76 1.412
building promotion 8th
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2025
APPENDIX
CHALLENGES OF INTEGRATING RENEWABLE ENERGY INTO BUILDING
S/ Challenges 5 4 3 2 1 Mean Stdev.
N
1 High initial cost 44 36 3 (3.2) 3 9
discourages renewable (46.3%) (37.9% (3.2%) (9.5%) 4.08 1.217
energy adoption. )
2 Lack of technical 25 60 2 4 4
expertise hinders (26.3%) (63.2% (2.1%) (4.2%) (4.2%) 4.03 .916
integration. )
3 Compatibility issues 34 43 11 6 1 (1.1
exist with older building (35.8%) (45.3% (11.6%) (6.3%) 4.08 .907
infrastructure. )
4 There are inadequate 37 43 7 5 3
government incentives or (38.9%) (45.3% (7.4%) (5.3%) (3.2%) 4.12 .977
subsidies. )
5 The variable nature of 35 42 14 4
solar/wind makes them (36.8%) (44.2% (14.7%) (4.2%)
4.14 .820
unreliable without )
storage.
6 Energy storage systems 42 34 10 5 4
are too expensive for (44.2%) (35.8% (10.5%) (5.3%) (4.2%) 4.11 1.067
most buildings. )
7 Lack of awareness 30 41 14 2 8
among stakeholders (31.6%) (43.2% (14.7%) (2.1%) (8.4%) 3.87 1.142
limits adoption. )
8 Visual/aesthetic 33 46 6 4 6
concerns limit use in (34.7%) (48.4% (6.3%) (4.2%) (6.3%) 4.01 1.077
residential buildings. )
9 Maintenance costs and 37 36 13 1 8
complexity discourage (38.9%) (37.9% (13.7%) (1.1%) (8.4%) 3.98 1.158
users. )
10 Existing building codes 43 36 7 3 6
and policies do not favor (45.3%) (37.9% (7.4%) (3.2%) (6.35) 4.13 1.104
integration. )
EFFECTS OF INADEQUATE INTEGRATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEM
INTO BUILDINGS
S/N Effects Of Inadequate 5 4 3 2 1 Mean Stdev.
Integration
Renewable Energy In
Building
1 Greater reliance on 60 16 5 2 12
4.16 1.379
fossil fuels (63.2%) (16.8% (5.3%) (2.1%) (12.65)
2 Increased operating and 31 45 3 9 7
3.88 1.184
energy costs (32.6%) (47.4%) (3.2%) (9.5%) (7.4%)
3 Reduced building 43 33 5 3 11
3.99 1.301
energy efficiency (45.3%) (34.7%) (5.3%) (3.2%) (11.6%)
4 Poor indoor air quality 29 43 12 5 6
and occupant comfort (30.5%) (45.3%) (12.6% (5.3%) (6.3%) 3.88 1.100
)
5 Higher carbon 30 40 9 6 10
3.78 1.256
emissions (31.6%) (42.1%) (9.5%) (6.3%) (10.5%)
6 Reduced property value 40 27 13 2 13
(42.1%) (28.4%) (13.7% (2.1%) (13.7%) 3.83 1.366
)
7 Missed access to 25 43 12 3 12
government incentives (26.3%) (45.3%) (12.6% (3.2%) (12.6 3.69 1.255
)
8 Failure to meet modern 39 30 6 5 15
building standards or (41.1%) (31.6%) (6.3%) (5.3%) (15.8%) 3.77 1.440
codes
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING THE INTEGRATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY
SYSTEM INTO BUILDINGS
S/ Strategies 5 4 3 2 1 Mean Stdev.
N
1 Renewable energy 46 29 11 8 1
should be included (48.4% (30.5%) (11.6% (8.4%) (1.1%)
4.17 1.007
early in building ) )
design planning
2 Government 36 38 13 2 6
grants/subsidies (37.9% (40.0%) (13.7% (2.1%) (6.3%)
should be provided for ) ) 4.01 1.087
solar and wind
systems
3 Trainings should be 35 34 8 12 6
offered for (36.8% (35.8%) (8.4%) (12.6%) (6.3%)
professionals on ) 3.84 1.232
renewable energy
integration
4 Building-integrated 34 37 11 9 4
photovoltaic (BIPV) (35.8% (38.9%) (11.6% (9.5%) (4.2%) 3.93 1.113
should be encouraged ) )
5 Energy storage and 36 40 8 7 4
battery solutions (37.95) (42.1%) (8.4%) (7.4%) (4.2%) 4.02 1.072
should be invested in
6 Building codes should 32 32 13 17 1
be reviewed and (33.7% (33.7%) (13.7% (17.9%) (1.1%)
3.81 1.123
improved to mandate ) )
sustainability
7 Retrofitting of existing 41 30 8 6 10
buildings should be (43.2% (31.6%) (8.4%) (6.3%) (10.5%) 3.91 1.313
incentivized )
8 Public-private 37 32 6 6 14
partnerships should be (38.9% (33.7%) (6.3%) (6.3%) (14.7%)
3.76 1.412
used for green )
building promotion