Challenges and Opportunities for Promoting Sustainability in Public Buildings

Abstract

The building and construction sector remains largely climate-unfriendly as a significant global greenhouse gas emitter. Public buildings can play a significant role in promoting sustainability practices. Unlike developed countries that have successfully promoted sustainable building practices, developing countries have experienced slow progress in implementing sustainable practices in public buildings. This research study investigated the challenges and opportunities for improving sustainability practices in public buildings from a multi-stakeholder perspective within the context of developing countries. Using Indonesian public buildings as a case study, a wide range of stakeholders directly involved in the public building sector such as policy-makers, building owners, building professionals, and building users were interviewed over two time periods of 2019 and 2023. The interview results show consistent findings on challenges and possible opportunities with respect to regulation, occupant behavior, and the primacy of technical intervention in the practice of sustainable buildings. Despite the importance of strong policy and the role of technology in sustainability practices in public buildings, this study advocates the need for greater intervention in occupant behavior so that sustainable practices in public buildings can be continuously promoted.

Full text

Academic Editor: Aliakbar Kamari
Received: 28 November 2024
Revised: 28 December 2024
Accepted: 4 January 2025
Published: 7 January 2025
Citation: Atmoko, D.; Susilawati, C.;
Devi, B.; Wilkinson, S.; Puspitarini, I.;
Lukito, J.A.; Goonetilleke, A.
Challenges and Opportunities for
Promoting Sustainability in Public
Buildings. Sustainability 2025,17, 403.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
su17020403
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/).
Article
Challenges and Opportunities for Promoting Sustainability in
Public Buildings
Darmawan Atmoko 1, Connie Susilawati 2, * , Bernadetta Devi 2, Sara Wilkinson 3, Intan Puspitarini 4,
Jose Arif Lukito 1and Ashantha Goonetilleke 5
1Indonesian Ministry of Finance, Jakarta 10410, Indonesia; darmawan.atmoko@kemenkeu.go.id (D.A.)
2Faculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane 4000, Australia
3Faculty of Design Architecture and Building, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo 2007, Australia;
sara.wilkinson@uts.edu.au
4School of Public Asset Management, Polytechnique of State Finance STAN,
Tangerang Selatan 15412, Indonesia; intan.puspitarini@pknstan.ac.id
5Faculty of Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane 4000, Australia;
a.goonetilleke@qut.edu.au
*Correspondence: c.susilawati@qut.edu.au
Abstract: The building and construction sector remains largely climate-unfriendly as
a significant
global greenhouse gas emitter. Public buildings can play a significant role
in promoting sustainability practices. Unlike developed countries that have successfully
promoted sustainable building practices, developing countries have experienced slow
progress in implementing sustainable practices in public buildings. This research study in-
vestigated the challenges and opportunities for improving sustainability practices in public
buildings from a multi-stakeholder perspective within the context of developing countries.
Using Indonesian public buildings as a case study, a wide range of stakeholders directly
involved in the public building sector such as policy-makers, building owners, building
professionals, and building users were interviewed over two time periods of 2019 and 2023.
The interview results show consistent findings on challenges and possible opportunities
with respect to regulation, occupant behavior, and the primacy of technical intervention
in the practice of sustainable buildings. Despite the importance of strong policy and the
role of technology in sustainability practices in public buildings, this study advocates the
need for greater intervention in occupant behavior so that sustainable practices in public
buildings can be continuously promoted.
Keywords: public buildings; stakeholders; green buildings; sustainable buildings;
sustainability policy; climate change; developing country; Indonesia
1. Introduction
The building and construction sector requires government interventions to mitigate
climate change impacts. Buildings are globally responsible for the production of around
39% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and account for 36% of total energy use [
1
].
Growth in energy consumption and GHG emissions are contributing to global average
temperature increases and may lead to catastrophic climate-change-related events in the
future [
2
]. Growing levels of energy consumption and climate change also pose significant
challenges to key sustainable development goals [
3
]. In response to these impacts, there has
been an increase in policy and strategy initiatives to ensure the application of sustainable
building practices.
Sustainability 2025,17, 403 https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020403

Sustainability 2025,17, 403 2 of 20
Sustainable buildings have been substantially agreed by scholars and practitioners
to be buildings that take into account environmental, social, and economic issues in their
performance. However, the terms, sustainable building and green building have frequently
been used interchangeably in different contexts [
4
]. Sustainable building terminology is
used to discuss the indoor environmental health of buildings [
5
], while green building
terms are used to examine similar topics [
6
]. Practically, sustainable building performance
is measured by relatively similar categories to a green building [
7
]. This includes economic,
social, and environmental outcomes.
Despite significant global initiatives, developed and developing countries have
achieved varying progress in responding to the issue of sustainable buildings. For ex-
ample, the trend towards sustainable buildings in the United States of America (USA) has
increased since 2008 [
8
]. Similarly, the United Kingdom (UK) has successfully introduced
a zero-carbon
built environment program [
9
], and recently 68% of the commercial building
stock in the UK has green building certification by LEED (Leadership in Energy and En-
vironmental Design) and/or BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental
Assessment Method) [10].
In contrast, besides some improvements introduced to boost sustainability practices in
the building sector, such as regulations and policies [
11
], developing countries have strug-
gled to improve sustainability practices in their building sectors. Past research has reported
the slow progress of sustainable buildings in developing countries such as Thailand [
12
],
Vietnam [
13
], Malaysia [
14
], Nigeria [
15
], Ghana [
16
], Brazil [
17
], and Indonesia [
18
]. With
such slow progress, strategies to promote sustainability in the building sector have become
paramount in developing countries. This is also because emissions from construction
activities in developing nations account for two-thirds of the global emissions, and this
trend is likely to rise by 13 percent by 2035 [
19
]. Thus, addressing issues for implementing
sustainability practices in the building sector is a significant and critical contribution to
climate action in developing countries.
The practice of sustainability in private buildings can be different to equivalent princi-
ples in the public sector. Profit orientation is the main difference between private and public
building management [
20
]. In the public sector, on the other hand, building management
may focus on improving their buildings’ performance in order to provide better service for
both internal (occupants) and external (clients) stakeholders [21].
The nature and complexity of public management influence all actions of government,
including public building sustainability improvement processes. Unlike profit-based
real estate management, which focuses on tenants’ demands in their property decision
processes, non-profit organizations’ real estate decision-making process is more influenced
by stakeholders; therefore, it is frequently perceived that the success of any decision-making
process is determined when agreement is reached, rather than when the clients’ demands
or the supply of resources have been met [
22
,
23
]. Thus, stakeholders’ knowledge and
experiences are key in exploring issues of sustainability practice in public buildings.
Many countries have achieved different levels of policy innovation in public asset
management including sustainability. Some governments have succeeded in reforming
public asset management, such as Australia [
24
], Canada [
25
], and New Zealand [
26
], while
some developing countries are still working towards managing common issues of pre-
reform situations. Five issues in pre-reform public asset management have been identified,
which are, the lack of policy frameworks, fragmentation of management, management
inefficiency, lack of information, and lack of transparency and accountability [
27
]. It is
now crucial for the countries that are still left behind in terms of the reform agenda to
innovate strategies and policies to implement better practices of public asset management.

Sustainability 2025,17, 403 3 of 20
The issue has guided approaches and strategies to improve public building sustainability
in Indonesia.
International policies in relation to sustainability practices in public buildings have
emphasized the importance of government leadership. Government leadership in adapting
public buildings to be more sustainable through policy development and implementation
is crucial [
28
]. By developing appropriate policies and showcasing sustainable public
building projects, governments can encourage and stimulate the private sector to follow the
examples and comply with regulations, standards, and policies on improving sustainability
practices in private buildings [
28
]. Hence, governments have a critical role in developing
appropriate policies and providing examples of sustainable buildings by implementing
these policies in public buildings.
The importance of public buildings in transforming sustainability in the building
sector in the context of developing countries was investigated using selected Indonesian
government buildings as a case study for this research. Indonesia has one of the largest
shares of global construction emissions amongst developing countries [
19
]. The Indonesian
central government owns, occupies, and manages over 200,000 public buildings, with
a total value of around 16 billion USD [
29
]. Despite this significant portfolio of public
buildings located across the country, government leadership in sustainability practices in
buildings is low [
30
]. Since the introduction of sustainable building practices in 2008 with
the establishment of the Green Building Council of Indonesia (GBCI), to date, there has
only been the construction of two new sustainable public buildings and one public building
retrofit project [31].
Overall, it is important to explore how sustainable buildings can be progressed in de-
veloping countries. This is because developing nations will continue to experience a boom
in building stock and population [
32
]. This boom will be the main driver for the increase in
energy demand in buildings, which is expected to increase by 50% by 2050 [
33
]. Further-
more, the slow progress in transforming public buildings to become sustainable buildings
warrants investigating the challenges and identifying opportunities for sustainable building
practices. To date, studies have only explored barriers to improving sustainability practices
in public buildings in developing countries solely from a government perspective [
34
,
35
].
There is a knowledge gap in relation to stakeholder perspectives to develop comprehensive
policy [
32
]. Specific to Indonesia, Fitriani and Ajayi [
18
] have identified factors that hinder
the performance of sustainability practices in the Indonesian building industry. Their
study discussed the barriers using responses to questionnaires administered to building
construction professionals. However, investigating the challenges based on the experi-
ences of multiple actors, including building owners, managers, and users, can result in
a more
in-depth unlocking of the barriers and opportunities to sustainability practices in
Indonesia. In addition, most studies [
18
] have focused limited attention on public sector
buildings, particularly in Indonesia. However, there is momentum and opportunity for
transforming a significant number of public buildings in Jakarta to be more sustainable
due to the relocation of Indonesia’s capital city [
36
]. This study contributes to filling the
knowledge gap in understanding the challenges and opportunities based on responses
from multi-stakeholders for enhancing sustainability performance in the public building
sector in the context of developing countries such as Indonesia.
2. Materials and Methods
This exploratory research was informed by the perceptions and opinions of key actors
who have significant roles in sustainability transitions, specifically in public buildings. The
actors often have knowledge, experience, awareness, and authority to create changes in both
policy and implementation [
37
]. The stakeholders’ or actors’ contributions to sustainability

Sustainability 2025,17, 403 4 of 20
practices are intrinsic. This is also the case in public sector asset management [
38
]. Therefore,
interpreting responses obtained by interviewing key actors offers the best potential for
gaining insights into the critical factors associated with improving the sustainability of
existing public buildings in developing countries, which could also contribute to improving
the sustainability features incorporated into the design of new buildings.
2.1. Data Collection
This study employed semi-structured interviews, which provided more in-depth
outputs in comparison to survey techniques conducted in sustainable construction projects
in Indonesia [
18
]. The study conducted two sets of interviews in 2019 and 2023 with the
same questions related to the challenges and opportunities to sustainable practices in public
buildings. The 2023 interviews were conducted after the announcement of the relocation
of the Indonesian capital city. The relocation of Indonesia’s capital city from Jakarta to
Nusantara on Kalimantan Island was announced by President Joko Widodo on 26 August
2019 [
39
]. This relocation created the opportunity for sustainable public building adaptation
in Jakarta due to the fact that a large number of public buildings would fall vacant.
The selection of interview participants is crucial for conducting semi-structured in-
terviews [
40
]. This research collected diverse perspectives from public building owners,
managers, and users. Thus, the interview participants for this study were selected from
state and non-state actors as guided by Phan [
41
], which ensures the purposiveness and
representativeness of the selection of the sample.
State actors such as policy-makers were selected as they play a key role in developing
and implementing government sustainability policies and agendas. Inevitably, the role
of a policy-maker is important in determining the sustainability agenda direction [
41
].
However, executive bureaucrats also substantially influence the direction of policy formu-
lated by the government. They are the people who deal with problem-solving, stakeholder
consultation, lobbying, and persuading both institutional and non-institutional actors in
the policy development area [
42
]. The executive bureaucracy holds values, has expertise
and experience in policy development, and understands the root problems associated with
policy implementation [
43
]. Involving state actors in investigating sustainability issues in
public buildings therefore enhances the validity and trustworthiness of the data collected
in the research process. In addition, non-state actors also influence the development and
progress of the public policy agenda. In many policy development cases, they collaborate
with state actors to create a specific policy goal [
44
]. This applies in most policy contexts,
including sustainability policy.
According to Kincaid [
45
], the key stakeholders who influence the process of decision-
making on improving the sustainability of buildings are investors, professionals, market
players, law and regulation makers, and users. These stakeholder classifications were
adapted in this research study within the context of public sector buildings. The research
therefore categorized participants into five groups: policy-makers (PMs), building pro-
fessionals (BPs), building owners (BOs), and building users (BUs). The code for each
participant was defined based on the number of participants in the stakeholder group. For
example, the policy-maker group (PM) in 2019 had ten participants with codes from PM1
to PM10. This code system was also used for other stakeholder groups. The 41 participants
were selected based on their experience related to sustainable public building issues in
policy development or implementation (see Table 1). The main selection criteria for the
interview participants were based on their duties and roles in relation to government asset
management. The other criteria related to the location of this study included two levels of
government that manage government assets in Jakarta, central government, and the local
government of Jakarta.

Sustainability 2025,17, 403 5 of 20
Table 1. List of Interviewees.
Stakeholder Code Stakeholder Group Number of
Interviewees (2019)
Number of
Interviewees (2023)
PM Policy-Maker 10 (PM1 to PM10) 3 (PM11 to PM13)
BP Building Professional 4 (BP1 to BP4) 2 (BP5 to BP6)
BO Building Owner 11 (BO1 to BO11) 3 (BO12 to BO14)
BU Building User 5 (BU1 to BU5) 3 (BU6 to BU8)
-
For the policy-maker participants, the interview participants were selected from
government agencies, which are responsible for regulation related to government
building standards and government asset management policies and standards.
-
The building professional participants were selected if they were implementing gov-
ernment policies and involved in sustainable public building projects.
-
The selection of government buildings was determined by the flood risk of the location
of the building. Then, building owners and building users of the selected government
buildings were considered representative owners and users of the selected buildings.
The main selection criteria of the participants were based on their roles and responsi-
bilities and not the type of public buildings or individuals’ experiences. This approach was
adopted to ensure the reliability and validity of the interview data.
2.2. Interview Questions
The semi-structured interview questions were designed to achieve the research objec-
tives. Kallio et al. [
34
] suggested that designing appropriate questions is a critical step for
successfully exploring the knowledge and experience of the interview participants. The
questions were prepared and pilot-tested before the commencement of the semi-structured
interviews to ensure their appropriateness and to meet the purpose of the research objec-
tives [
46
]. The final version of the semi-structured questions is provided in Appendix A.
These aligned with the following research objectives: Identifying barriers to the implemen-
tation of sustainability practices in public buildings; Identifying opportunities to improve
sustainability practices in public buildings.
The questions were designed to capture the experience and perspectives of the targeted
group. The questions for policy-makers focused on the extent to which existing regulations
and policies on public building construction and management have been adapted to the
issue of climate change and sustainability. The questions also explored the challenges
associated with implementing policy on sustainable public buildings.
The questions for the professional group explored problems and opportunities for
public buildings to be sustainably adapted and the real phenomenon of public building
adaptation. The questions for this group were also tailored to discuss issues in relation to
the readiness of professionals to deal with public building adaptation projects and their
professional perspectives on the possibility of adaptation of public buildings.
For the building owner group, the questions focused more on the extent to which
current regulations and policies accommodate building sustainability practices and on the
challenges and success factors inherent in improving energy efficiency through building
adaptation. It is important to note that building owners have multiple interests in relation
to public buildings. In the private sector, a building owner primarily focuses from an
investment perspective. However, in the public sector, a building owner occupies the role
of building manager and user.
Finally, the building user group was queried about their feelings and experience in re-
lation to the transformation of public buildings from conventional to sustainable buildings.

Sustainability 2025,17, 403 6 of 20
Some of the questions explored the extent of their involvement in public building adapta-
tion projects, and their feelings as occupants of the buildings, before and after adaptation.
The semi-structured interviews were conducted in the Indonesian language and were
transcribed and translated into English. The qualitative data gathered from the interviews
were then analyzed thematically. Data analysis in qualitative research needs to be conducted
in a precise, consistent, and comprehensive manner for the outcomes to be considered
credible [
47
]. Thematic analysis is used in qualitative research, which involves identifying,
analyzing, organizing, describing, and reporting themes that emerge from the data set [
48
].
The interview transcripts of all participants as a unit of analysis were identified based on
similar topics; then, categories and a coding scheme were developed. The coding scheme,
then, was tested to ensure the clarity and consistency of the categories. An iterative process
was conducted for checking coding consistency until sufficient coding consistency was
achieved. When it was achieved, the coding rules were applied to code the entire corpus of
text from the interview transcripts. Following this step, coding consistency was assessed
again to ensure it was coded in a consistent and reliable manner. The final steps were,
drawing conclusions and deriving meaning from the data. Microsoft Excel was utilized to
manually scrutinize the thematic analysis.
3. Results
3.1. The 2019 Interview Findings
The 2019 interview outcomes identified nine themes of challenges and four themes
of opportunities for improving the sustainability of public buildings. Table 2presents the
themes of the challenges and opportunities based on the responses from the interviewees.
Table 2. Findings from the 2019 interviews: challenges and opportunities.
Challenges Opportunities
•
Lack of mandate on public building sustainability
•Government institution initiative and
government officers’ participation
•Improper policy development •Budget feasibility
•Lack of coordination between
government agencies
•Basic skills to upgrade existing buildings to be
sustainable buildings
•Limited knowledge of sustainable buildings
•Attraction to sustainable public buildings
through physical appearance.
•Lack of awareness of sustainability practices
•Problem with staff placement and rotation
•Lack of leadership
•Lack of international support
•Challenges in retrofitting of existing buildings
for sustainability
The 2019 interview findings highlighted the challenges to improving public building
sustainability mainly from the government’s perspective. The following top five themes
emerged from the interviews: lack of mandate, improper policy development, poor coordi-
nation between government agencies, government human resource management issues
such as staff rotation, and lack of leadership. From those findings, the lack of a mandate
was a dominant issue that most interview participants considered the root cause for the lack
of success in implementing sustainability practices in Indonesian public buildings. In total,
46 of the 457 codes identified as issues/challenges in sustainable public buildings were
linked to the lack of a mandate. Despite the use of advanced technology in the process of
accelerating sustainability practices in the building sector, the requirement of a mandate on
sustainable building performance is unavoidable [
49
]. Thus, a strong mandate is required
to establish a comprehensive framework for sustainable public buildings.

Sustainability 2025,17, 403 7 of 20
In addition, the issues of policies, coordination, human resources, and leadership
have caused policy implementation gaps. Interviewees noted that the existing policies
were not well-planned and often implemented in a rush (BO6). The policies were also
silent on the question of rewards and punishments and were too rigid and lacked means of
evaluation (BO6). As a consequence, the policies have been largely set aside as guides to
building management. This policy and implementation gap was emphasized as a barrier
to improving sustainable building practices in developing countries [50,51].
It was reported that poor coordination creates complex challenges in the process of
improving public building sustainability. Poor coordination involves limited stakeholder
engagement, lack of policy synergy, and lack of data integration between key agencies.
National and local coordination is crucial for the effectiveness of sustainable building
policies and should be incorporated into policy planning for implementation [
52
]. More-
over, besides the importance of coordination, the commitment of government organization
leaders is crucial in the implementation of policy and real examples of leadership to en-
courage building occupants to develop sustainability practices. Managerial discretion for
sustainability performance is crucial [
53
]. Therefore, proper and comprehensive policy
development and coordination between agencies should be consistently actioned by gov-
ernment and leadership, which should be an integral part of policy implementation to
ensure significant progress on sustainable buildings in the public sector.
Another challenge is problems related to mismatched placements of staff and a general
lack of human resources. Staffing changes are a problem, especially if they are responsible
for overseeing the project (PM5, PM6, PM7). The replacement of the person in charge dur-
ing the project can create many difficulties for contractors with identifying and reporting
problems, or progress, especially when there is limited knowledge of sustainable construc-
tion (BP1, BP2). Staff rotation should be a means to enrich the employees’ skills and ensure
the sustainability of a project or business process [
54
]. However, according to the 2019
interview findings, due to the limited number of employees skilled in sustainable building
practices, staff rotation can be a barrier to maintaining the sustainability performance of
public buildings. Hence, ensuring the availability of skilled and knowledgeable personnel
is critical before conducting staff rotation in the context of improving the sustainability of
public buildings.
Besides challenges from the government side, critical issues related to ‘people’ were
raised by the interviewees in relation to the lack of knowledge and awareness of sustain-
ability practices. Building users and professionals were identified as stakeholders with
inadequate conceptual knowledge of building sustainability. This problem is reflected in
instances of improper installation and design, as well as in the absence of experienced
certified personnel. This lack of capacity has hampered the attainment of optimum re-
sults in sustainable public buildings. The limited knowledge of building sustainability
on the part of building professionals, managers, and users was discussed at great length
by the interviewees (BO5, BO6, BO7). Public building contractors still held conventional
renovation perspectives in relation to sustainability projects (BO2). Others failed to apply
green standards to the project (BU2). This behavior occurred not only among contractors
as technical executors of the project, but also among experienced project planners who
had limited knowledge of sustainable building design (PM5). This situation has also been
documented by researchers [
55
] in the case of Nigerian green construction development.
Hence, it raises concerns regarding industry readiness for sustainability, which is important
to accelerate sustainability practices in government buildings.
Lack of awareness was also raised as a contributing factor to the limited progress on
sustainable public buildings. Although knowledge might be available, a lack of awareness
of lifestyles and habits relating to sustainability practice was perceived as contributing to

Sustainability 2025,17, 403 8 of 20
the slow progress of sustainable public building construction. Lack of awareness is one of
the biggest challenges in sustainable building development [
56
]. This evidence underscores
the fact that awareness and behavior are critical factors in improving the sustainability of
public buildings.
Another two challenges that contribute to the limited growth of sustainable public
buildings are international support and difficulties in the sustainable building retrofitting
process. International institutions such as the World Bank play an important role in many
development programs in developing countries. They not only provide financial and
technical support but also, in many cases, influence policy development and government
decision-making. These important roles of international organizations were emphasized
by the interview participants in relation to how they can help accelerate the progress in
sustainable public buildings. The role of international agencies, such as UNEP and IFC
who are key promotors of sustainable buildings globally, was noted [
57
]. Thus, it is an
opportunity to have their support in accelerating sustainable public buildings.
The final challenge identified from the 2019 interviews was the difficult process of
retrofitting existing buildings. In the case of existing public buildings, achieving a sus-
tainable building does not lie in reaching the ultimate point due to difficulties in adapting
existing physical buildings (BO1, BO8). From a policy-maker perspective, existing building
designs and conditions represent the tasks to be carried out to reach the desired standard
of sustainability (PM6, PM9, PM10). Existing building structures pose a significant chal-
lenge to transform conventional buildings to be sustainable [
58
]. Therefore, considering
the existing building structure in the strategic approach to achieving a sustainable public
building, it is necessary to ensure that the required building standards are met.
On the other hand, among the challenges, interviewees considered some opportunities
to unlock barriers to sustainable public buildings. These include sustainability initiatives,
budget availability, basic skills and knowledge regarding sustainable buildings, and the
attraction of sustainable buildings. These aspects open opportunities for the development
of sustainable public buildings in the future.
This study revealed that budget availability was not a significant problem in improving
public building sustainability. This result contradicts other research findings [
56
] that
limited budget availability in many countries is one of the main challenges to building
sustainability. Other researchers have stated that the main issue is not the lack of a budget
but rather budget allocation [
35
]. When the government identifies sustainable buildings as
a political priority, there is a budget allocation to execute sustainable building development
projects [
35
]. Thus, budget allocation can accelerate the implementation of sustainable
public building initiatives.
Interviewees commented that there is a very basic ability among building profession-
als to conduct public building sustainability projects. Some small technical interventions to
existing public buildings were considered to have been completed effectively and profes-
sionally. Kasai and Jabaour [
17
] and Alam et al. [
35
] stated that basic skills in sustainable
buildings in the construction workforce are essential for the development of sustainability
practices in buildings. However, interviewees emphasized that one of the barriers to the
implementation of sustainable public buildings is the lack of knowledge of sustainable
buildings among all the other stakeholders (building owners, managers, and users).
The physical appearance of sustainable public buildings has been recognized as
an attraction.
The current material technology for sustainable buildings provides a modern,
aesthetic appearance that attracts public attention [
59
]. Even though some spaces can be
misused by occupants, overall, the buildings look more modern and capture more fresh air
and sunlight. The users typically feel more comfortable with the building’s interior design.

Sustainability 2025,17, 403 9 of 20
Building user groups provided positive responses on the improvements undertaken on the
adapted public buildings.
3.2. The 2023 Interview Findings
In the 2023 interviews, respondents were asked about the challenges and enablers
that will promote sustainable public buildings in Jakarta after the capital city relocation.
This stage was critical to understanding the key issues in addressing sustainability practice
within the context of significant efforts in transforming public buildings in Jakarta. In
addition, the interviews were framed in the context of the asset lifecycle to investigate
critical issues in all stages of the lifecycle. Hence, these findings can be used to develop
policy to transform public buildings in Jakarta to be sustainable.
Most participants agreed that sustainability is not ‘a new thing’ in public asset man-
agement in Indonesia. Legislation, even though it is inadequate and problematic, has
components that support sustainability practices in public asset management at the central
government and Jakarta provincial government levels [60].
Despite much progress, the 2023 interview findings further confirm that the current
regulatory framework is the main barrier to progressing sustainable public buildings (see
Table 3). This is because the regulations do not provide a clear direction at the planning stage
and incentives at the maintenance and operational stages to promote sustainable public
buildings. The lack of a comprehensive framework for promoting sustainable buildings is
also the experience of some developing countries (Nigeria [
15
], Malaysia [
14
], Brazil [
17
]).
This is a priority to be addressed. Hence, to enable the promotion of sustainable buildings
due to the post-capital city relocation or not, the public asset management regulatory
framework needs to be reformed.
Table 3. Findings from 2023 Interview: Challenges and Opportunities.
Challenges Opportunities
•Limited knowledge on green buildings.
•Lack of flexibility on zoning (land use).
•Challenges to implement/promote green
buildings, especially for existing buildings.
•Limited budget to renovate existing buildings
to meet green building criteria.
•Issue of data availability, reliability, and accuracy.
•Green building certification is too complex.
•
Retrofitting or new buildings requires technical
expertise and an extensive budget.
•Regulation and budget to promote green
buildings among government assets.
•Political willingness and leadership.
•Key institutions to promote green buildings,
including state asset management agency.
•Flexibility in spatial planning for mixed use to
meet sustainable or green building requirements.
•Accurate and reliable data systems to support
planning and innovation.
•Administrative and technical burdens to be a
green building.
•Limited number of government staff that have
the green building certification.
•The institutional attitudes are mostly on
short-term goals, the lowest development costs.
•Poor data to compare the quality of
conventional and green buildings.
•Having human resources that are capable of
promoting green buildings and their
associated requirements.
•Having green building codes and guidelines
will help to expedite implementation.
•Most government buildings will not meet the
rating standard of green building certification.
•Changing individual habits and behavior can
be difficult and takes time.
•Tropical climate can be a barrier to changing
building users’ behavior.
•The use of rating tools for green buildings.
•Green building will cut operational and
maintenance costs.
•Clean and better air quality.
•Changing behaviour can be part of
individual-driven initiatives.
•There is no vision to maintain long-term
building performances including proper
strategies for building disposal.
•Need for short- and long-term planning.
•
Repurpose government buildings for mixed uses.
•Third party collaboration and cooperation.
“
. . .
..The main thing is regulation. It is important to have a regulation that provides
a clear direction or vision to all [actors involved in managing] public buildings and

Sustainability 2025,17, 403 10 of 20
organisations that require retrofitting. Public buildings need to follow this regulation
accompanied with the financial support to implement the regulation” (BU6).
Furthermore, reforming public asset management towards sustainability requires
political willingness and leadership (Table 3). Undertaking a sustainable building agenda is
influenced by political priorities [
61
]. The leadership should primarily come from political
leaders because green building projects are influenced by political interests requiring
communication and coordination with the high-level decision makers (PM12). For green
buildings to become a priority, high-level decision makers need to understand the concept of
and the need for sustainable buildings. Ultimately, their leadership and political willingness
are important to promote collaboration among relevant actors and to ensure the conduct of
regulatory and budgetary reforms (PM12). Leadership and political willingness are key to
having a clear vision at all stages to enhance long-term building performance, including
strategies for disposal.
In addition, promoting sustainable buildings is not just physical. It involves behavioral
change and community acceptance, especially when these require technological changes.
Personal behavior can be a support or barrier to building sustainability practice [
62
]. This
is in line with the interview results, which was mentioned by an interview participant
from the building user group. Rejection by users and stakeholders may happen in a public
building retrofit due to a lack of readiness to change behavior (BU6).
Increasing the awareness of occupants and users regarding how they can adapt to
new functions of the building is needed to promote the implementation of sustainability
principles in public buildings. “Not all users can immediately adapt to changes due
to retrofit for smart offices” (BU6). A respondent suggested that governments need to
work with non-government institutions to campaign for green, or sustainable, buildings
similar to what the government has done for the new capital city (BP6). Campaigns are
urgently needed, so the government must collaborate with other entities. That is, changing
habits and willingness to change are key to transformation, regardless of whether there
is a legal basis or not. Encouraging building users to change their behavior to adapt
to sustainable building practices is key to successfully achieving sustainable building
policy implementation targets [
63
]. Therefore, willingness can only be delivered if there are
campaigns for increasing knowledge awareness. A respondent believed that the new capital
relocation is timely for changing Jakarta (BP6). Many public buildings may become idle
or vacant once the new capital city in East Kalimantan is functioning. Therefore, ensuring
changes to key stakeholders’ behavior for adapting sustainable public buildings in Jakarta
is a critical stage to be achieved in line with the decision on the capital city relocation.
The Ministry of Finance established the State Asset Management Agency of Indonesia
(Lembaga Manajemen Aset Negara–LMAN) in 2017, with the specific task of managing and
optimizing the value and use of under-utilized public buildings. The primary responsibility
of this office was asset optimization through repurposing based on market demands.
According to a respondent, the government’s vision for repurposing existing under-utilized
and vacant buildings does not consider, or adopt, sustainable building practices (BP6). This
finding is linked to the findings by Virgayanti [
11
], who noted that sustainable regulations
are perceived as weak, ambiguous, and debatable, which represents the government’s
point of view. Thus, in line with the 2019 interview findings, the mandate for sustainable
buildings needs to be strengthened.
All respondents agreed with the urgency to adopt sustainable building practices,
especially if the under-utilized buildings will be repurposed post-capital city relocation.
However, unlike the development of new buildings that have adopted the concept of green
buildings in the new capital city of Nusantara, the policy to adopt the green building
concept for existing government buildings in Jakarta remains unclear. To fill this gap,

Sustainability 2025,17, 403 11 of 20
respondents suggested that the Green Building Council Indonesia needs to develop guide-
lines for the adoption of the green building concept for existing government buildings in
Jakarta (BP6). However, adapting existing buildings to be sustainable buildings is more
challenging than developing new buildings due to physical constraints and the unavail-
ability of building data [
64
]. This issue can apply to conventional buildings and heritage
buildings, as it was mentioned by one of the participants that several heritage buildings
need to be repurposed (BP6). Therefore, this requires not only guidelines from the green
building agency, but also a special framework from the government to repurpose existing
public buildings.
Furthermore, a building user respondent believed that sustainable building concepts
need to be applied at different stages of the asset lifecycle such as design, construction,
maintenance, renovation, and disposal (BU6). For example, in an office in Cikini, Jakarta,
a green building concept has been adopted, but receiving the green building certificate
remains a challenge (BP6). It has only adopted partial requirements for a green building.
In promoting asset optimization, a policy-maker respondent raised a critical point
regarding data availability for spatial planning, especially if the idea on mixed use is
considered. In the current situation, although imperfect, a respondent suggested that
the Jakarta provincial government had started to consider more flexible use in its spatial
planning. For example, if a certain area had been allocated for offices previously, then it
would not be easy to accommodate a caféand other retail businesses. However, now mixed
uses have been promoted in office buildings. Mixed use should be profitable, generating
revenue, but should also consider environmental aspects such as water storage, green
spaces, and green buildings (PM12). The next step is for a comprehensive study and
real-time data to be available to enable more careful consideration to promote mixed use
(PM12). Many underutilized buildings have been repurposed for mixed use to support the
city and surrounding community’s needs [
65
]. Therefore, mixed use can be an option for
public building optimization.
For example, maximizing asset utilization in Lapangan Banteng areas in central Jakarta
is a primary focus (BO14). The approach can be broadened not only at the building scale
but also for area-based development (BO14). In this area, there has been a proposal to
connect the Ministry of Finance headquarters with a church, mosque, and other complexes
(e.g., businesses, apartments, and museums).
4. Discussion
The research findings from the 2019 and 2023 interviews enrich the understanding
of the challenges and opportunities to transform public buildings from conventional to
sustainable buildings. The 2019 interviews explored key actors’ knowledge and experience
in promoting the sustainability of public buildings. The 2023 interviews further docu-
mented challenges and opportunities to enhance sustainability in public sector buildings
with specific nuance regarding the capital city relocation policy. For this reason, the 2023
interviews focused on sustainable public buildings in Jakarta post-capital city relocation.
Even though the two sets of interviews were conducted at different time frames and politi-
cal moments (i.e., the decision of the capital city relocation), these two sets of interviews
were strongly connected to the five factors: regulation and policies, organizational issues,
technical problems, data, and people. The four consolidated themes consisting of people,
regulation and policies, technical issues, and organizational issues are presented in Table 4.

Sustainability 2025,17, 403 12 of 20
Table 4. Consolidation themes from 2019 and 2023 interviews.
Challenges Opportunities
Regulation and Policies (11 themes)
Lack of mandate on public building energy
efficiency (2019) Budget feasibility (2019)
Improper policy development (2019) Regulation and budget to promote green buildings
within government assets (2023)
Lack of flexibility on zoning (2023)
Flexibility in spatial planning for mixed uses to meet
sustainable or green building requirements (2023)
Limited budget to renovate existing buildings to
meet green building standards (2023)
Having green building codes and guidelines will
help to expedite the implementation (2023)
Administrative and technical burdens to be a green
building (2023) The use of rating tool for green buildings (2023)
Repurpose government buildings for mixed use (2023)
Organisation issues (8 themes)
Lack of coordination (2019) Key institutions to promote green buildings include
the state asset management agency (2023)
Lack of international support (2019) Accurate and reliable data systems to support
planning and innovation (2023)
Issue of data availability, reliability and accuracy (2023) Need for short and long-term planning (2023)
The institutional attitudes are mostly on short-term
goals, the lowest development costs (2023)
Poor data to evaluate the quality of conventional and
green buildings (2023)
People (15 themes)
Lack of knowledge (2019) Initiative and participation (2019)
Lack of awareness (2019) Initial skills in sustainable buildings (2019)
Problems with staff placement and rotation (2019) Political willingness and leadership (2023)
Lack of leadership (2019)
Having human resources that are capable of
promoting green buildings and their associated
requirements (2023)
Limited knowledge of green buildings (2019)
Changing behaviour can be part of individual-driven
initiatives (2023)
Retrofitting or new buildings requires technical
expertise and an extensive budget (2023)
Limited number of government staff that has green
building certification (2023)
Changing individual habits and behaviour can be
difficult and takes time (2023)
Tropical climate can be a barrier in changing of
building users’ behaviour (2023)
There is no vision to maintain long-term building
performances including proper strategies for their
disposal (2023)
Technical issues (7 themes)
Problem with physical intervention in the
building (2019) Adapted buildings are attractive (2019)
Challenges to implement/promote green buildings,
especially in existing buildings (2023)
Green building will cut operational and maintenance
costs (2023)
Green building certification is too complex (2023) Clean and better air quality (2023)
Most government buildings will not meet the rating
standard of green building certification
4.1. Regulation and Policies
Regulations to support the implementation of sustainable public buildings are avail-
able in Indonesia [
60
]. The central and provincial governments have introduced regulations

Sustainability 2025,17, 403 13 of 20
to implement green buildings and sustainability practices. Such regulations can be viewed
as significant progress with an opportunity for public building managers, users, decision-
makers, and other key practitioners to progress sustainability practices in Indonesian
public buildings. In the literature, the availability of regulations has been acknowledged as
an enabling factor for sustainable public buildings [11]. Therefore, the existence of regula-
tions on green building and other associated sustainability practices in public buildings
should be appreciated in transforming the building and construction sector to be more
sustainable in coping with climate change issues.
The existence of regulations alone, however, is not enough, especially when the regula-
tory framework is perceived as weak for its implementation and the absence of governing
critical components such as budgeting. In this study it was found that the current regula-
tions do not comprehensively address budget issues—without a budget, the regulations
cannot be implemented effectively. For example, the regulation of the Ministry of Public
Work number 02/PRT/M/2015 about green building does not regulate sustainable ren-
ovation. This is one of the aspects that result in the renovation budget not being used
for the sustainable retrofitting of public buildings in Indonesia. This lack of regulation
on prioritizing budget allocation for sustainable public building renovation to meet sus-
tainability requirements was identified as a key challenge, and this can be considered as
the absence of a strong mandate within the existing sustainable building regulations. In
line with these findings, Virgayanti [
11
] found that current regulations for sustainable
buildings in Indonesia are perceived as weak and ambiguous due to the highly hierarchical
regulatory framework that lacks encouragement or incentive norms. For regulations to be
effective or have a strong mandate, the government should provide incentives (i.e., budget
allocation) to accelerate sustainable building growth [66]. If the Government of Indonesia
wants to improve its regulatory process, then Alam et al. [
35
] recommend that regulation
should be supported by political will. That is, the authors explained that regulations need
to be presented clearly with detailed guidelines and strongly supported with appropriate
resources such as a budget and procurement process [
35
]. Detailed guidelines need to have
an encouragement system, such as a reward and punishment [35].
4.2. Organizational Issues
The government’s administrative and bureaucratic system was raised as a topic dur-
ing the two sets of interviews. The positive aspect is that many Indonesian government
institutions have voluntarily promoted green practices in their buildings through reno-
vations. Two newly constructed public buildings have been certified as green buildings.
GBCI [
31
] also listed one existing green public building. This number, however, is very low
in comparison to a total of 60 certified green buildings in Indonesia [
31
]. Compared to the
neighboring countries of Malaysia and Singapore, Indonesian progress in the uptake of
sustainable public buildings (and across the building and construction sector) is very low.
In 2020, Singapore had greened more than 40% of its buildings [
67
]. The Green Building
Index has certified 619 buildings in Malaysia [68].
The research study found that the lack of coordination between key government
agencies in the implementation of existing green building policies, and other policies to
boost sustainability in public buildings, was relatively poor. Kasai and Jabbour [
17
] argue
that coordination is a critical issue for an effective organization that is capable of moving
towards sustainability.
Another crucial factor that constrains green projects is the lack of engagement between
government institutions and international agencies. In the context of developing countries,
the support of international agencies is important in any development program, including
energy efficiency [
69
]. It is even possible, in some developing countries, that international

Sustainability 2025,17, 403 14 of 20
support can act as political catalyst to escalate an agenda into a position of national priority.
International agencies can influence governments in developing countries to prioritize
a particular
program. Their support varies from financial to technical support. Any type
of strong international agency support can be a key success factor for the improvement of
sustainability practices in buildings. Therefore, integrating policies and the organizational
roles of the government and industry sectors are considered critical aspects for the success
of accelerating sustainable public buildings. This study confirmed the previous findings.
4.3. Technical Issues
Green public buildings are a favorable achievement not only for the institution to
showcase their commitment to sustainability and for mitigating climate change impacts
through their assets, but also for leading by example to demonstrate to the private sector
and the community. The physical appearance of green public buildings is a nationwide
attraction. This study found that the physical attractiveness of green buildings creates
a good
impression on occupants. Occupants may have no knowledge or awareness of sus-
tainability, but they become attracted by the new physical appearance of the buildings after
the adaptation to the extent that green buildings are seen as an icon in the particular area.
The attractiveness of a sustainable building’s appearance to occupants and the commu-
nity and the physical appearance is one element of sustainable building performance [
70
].
Sustainable buildings’ appearance will create public attention [
59
]. Hence, if sustainable
public buildings attract the attention of their occupants and the public favorably, then this
is evidence that the green public building project has achieved one of its objectives. This
feedback can then be motivating for other public buildings despite many challenges that
may have had to be managed.
Retrofitting existing buildings to be sustainable is a challenging process. The main
problems facing the sustainability of existing buildings are technical [
64
,
71
]. The technical
issues include design and sustainable material challenges. Kasai and Jabbour [
17
], who con-
ducted a case study for greening higher educational institution buildings in Brazil, found
that existing building design and sustainable materials were not matched in execution by
the projected green program. In promoting sustainability in public buildings in Australia,
Alam et al. [
35
] reported challenges in technical interventions, i.e., energy efficiency of exist-
ing buildings, but the material issue was not a problem. One possible reason is that because
of the different contexts, material issues are mainly faced by developing nations [
72
]. The
findings of the current study are therefore consistent and make a further contribution to
the existing knowledge base.
4.4. People
This research finding demonstrates that people-related issues such as knowledge,
skills, initiative and participation, awareness, and leadership are key to progressing sus-
tainable public buildings. The people aspects connect to stakeholders’ participation in
sustainable buildings. Although not a new finding as it was raised four decades ago [
73
],
stakeholder participation is still relevant. The findings from this study continue to advocate
for the importance of considering user participation in designing sustainable buildings.
For example, there is a policy in one government agency that created opportunities for
users to participate in an energy-efficient buildings program that has encouraged them to
enjoy the process of energy efficiency improvement as a habit. This is one practice that
has successfully contributed to overcoming barriers to public building sustainability. To
increase user participation, the voluntary approach has been found to have limited suc-
cess [
74
,
75
]. A combination of top-down and bottom-up policy approaches is favorable for
improving outcomes and enhancing participation in sustainable buildings [
76
]. Therefore,

Sustainability 2025,17, 403 15 of 20
a participation approach will complement a strong mandate from the top in sustainable
public building implementation.
In addition to user participation, basic sustainability-related skills that building owners
and users have are also valuable in promoting sustainable public buildings. These basic
skills hold promise for further sustainable building skills development, which is the key
to contributing to improving sustainability practices in public buildings. The participants
did not directly emphasize the importance of basic skills that can be further developed
to support sustainability practices. Other researchers [
17
,
35
] have noted that basic skills
are important in technically supporting new sustainable developments and adaptations
of buildings. When strong regulation is established, the enhancement of basic skills may
be accelerated. Particularly in the context of public sector organizations, a mandate and
policy are important drivers to achieve organizational goals and objectives [
35
]. Therefore,
basic skills in sustainable buildings and the development of a mandate complement other
supporting factors in improving sustainability practices in public buildings.
However, this study documented some critical challenges besides knowledge and
awareness of sustainable buildings. It was found that inadequate human resource allo-
cation can be a challenge to the success of sustainable public building development. The
appointment of the right personnel in the right position is important if staff placement
is to boost organizational performance [
77
]. The misallocation of human resources in
terms of numbers or capabilities can retard performance. This applies to any program in
an organization. In this study, it applies to public building management. Poor staff alloca-
tion can create challenges around having a sufficient number of appropriately qualified
staff to conduct sustainable building programs.
5. Conclusions
The inputs from 41 participants from two interview campaigns (2019 and 2023) were
analyzed to identify the challenges and opportunities for improving sustainability practices
in public buildings. The 2023 interviews were conducted after the announcement of the
relocation of the Indonesian capital city. This study used Indonesian public buildings as the
focus of analysis to answer the following question: To what extent have the key perceptions
regarding the challenges and opportunities for improving sustainability practices in public
buildings from a multi-stakeholder perspective within the context of developing countries.
The two sets of interview findings identified four key factors to promote sustainability
practices in public buildings in developing countries, including, regulation and policies,
organizational issues, technical issues, and people-related issues. Based on the research
findings, this study has contributed to enriching the knowledge base for promoting sustain-
ability in public buildings. Specifically, this study argues for the combination of
a strong
mandate for sustainable public buildings through the effective implementation of the
regulatory framework with the promotion of people’s participation in sustainable public
building development. This approach is arguably able to deal with the challenges and
maximize the opportunities to achieve sustainability in public buildings. The findings
provide guidance to develop broader policy frameworks with some adaptations in a similar
context beyond Indonesia. Such an approach is expected to accelerate the implementation
of sustainability practices in public buildings in developing countries.
Limitations are acknowledged in line with knowledge dissemination in this study
as a pathway for future research. The limitations associated with the 2019 and 2023
interviews could have been influenced by political uncertainty in Indonesia, since there
was a presidential election and capital city relocation was widely debated at the time of
data collection. This study identified, analyzed, and validated the qualitative aspects to
improve public building sustainability. It is suggested that future research should analyze

Sustainability 2025,17, 403 16 of 20
quantitative data such as energy efficiency that will enrich analysis for the successful
measurement of sustainable public building development.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.A., C.S. and A.G.; data curation, D.A., C.S., B.D., S.W.,
I.P., J.A.L. and A.G.; formal analysis, D.A., C.S., B.D. and A.G.; supervision, C.S., S.W. and A.G.;
writing—original draft, D.A.; writing—review and editing, D.A., C.S., B.D., S.W., I.P., J.A.L. and A.G.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Australia Award Scholarship (OASIS ID: ST000RCS7) and
Property Research Trust (Project number: 2208004).
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was approved by the University Human Research
Ethics Committee (UHREC) of Queensland University of Technology approval number 2453 and 6580).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data is unavailable due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Directorate General of State Assets Management,
Indonesia Ministry of Finance and all interview participants for their generous support during
the research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. Semi-structured Interview Questions.
A. Challenges on improvement of Indonesia public building sustainability practice
Identify barriers that the interviewees found in implementation of sustainable public buildings
Questions for policy-makers, building professionals, owners, and users:
1.
In your experience, what are the hindering factors for transforming existing public buildings to be more
energy-efficient? Can you explain? (Probes)
a. Financial
b. Administrative
c. Knowledge
d. Awareness
e. Physical
f. Social
g. Assessment
h. Procurements
i. Legal (ambiguity)
j. Others
2. Why do they become hindering factors for public building sustainability?
3. Based on your opinion, can you rank the hindering factors from the most important to the least
important?
Questions for Owners:
1. Why do you decide (not decide) to retrofit/adapt your building to be more sustainable or
energy-efficient?
2. Do you think sustainable buildings give you many benefits? Could you explain? (When many experts
and evidence show the benefits of sustainable buildings, do you think conventional buildings give
optimum support to your organization?)
3. What do you think is the most significant difference between sustainable buildings and conventional
buildings?
4. What are the barriers and challenges to transform conventional buildings to be more sustainable?
5. What is the most significant barrier or challenge?

Sustainability 2025,17, 403 17 of 20
Table A1. Cont.
B. Opportunities enabling the improvement of Indonesia’s public building sustainability practice
Identify factors that should be taken into consideration as a potential aspect to improve Indonesian public
building sustainability practice based on interviewees’ knowledge and experience.
Questions for policy-makers, building professionals, owners, and users:
1.
In your experience, what are the supporting factors that can accelerate the transformation of
existing public buildings to be more energy-efficient? Can you explain? (Probes)
a. Financial
b. Administrative
c. Knowledge
d. Awareness
e. Physical
f. Social
g. Assessment
h. Procurements
i. Legal
j. Others
2. Why do they become supporting factors for public building adaptation?
3.
Based on your opinion, can you rank the supporting factors from the most important to the
least important?
Questions for Owners:
1. What are the supporting factors that currently exist or are expected to exist to transform
conventional buildings to be more sustainable?
2. What are the most significant supporting factors?
References
1.
International Energy Agency. 2019 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction. 2019. Available online: https://www.iea.org/
reports/global-status-report-for-buildings-and-construction-2019f (accessed on 25 May 2022).
2.
IPCC. Summary for Policymakers: Global Warming of 1.5
◦
C. 2018. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/
sites/2/2022/06/SPM_version_report_LR.pdf (accessed on 16 August 2024).
3.
Masson-Delmotte, V.; Zhai, P.; Pörtner, H.O.; Roberts, D.; Skea, J.; Shukla, P.R. Global Warming of 1.5
◦
C: IPCC Special Report on
Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5
◦
C Above Pre-Industrial Levels in Context of Strengthening Response to Climate Change, Sustainable
Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022; Available online: https://www.
ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2022/06/SR15_Full_Report_HR.pdf (accessed on 16 August 2024).
4.
Wilkinson, S.; Dixon, T.; Miller, N.; Sayce, S. Sustainable Real Estate: A snapshot of where we are. In Routledge Handbook of
Sustainable Real Estate; Wilkinson, S., Dixon, T., Miller, N., Sayce, S., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018.
5.
Ajayi, S.O.; Oyedele, L.O.; Jaiyeoba, B.; Kadiri, K.; David, S.A. Are sustainable buildings healthy? An investigation of lifecycle
relationship between building sustainability and its environmental health impacts. World J. Sci. Technol. Sustain. Dev. 2016,13,
190–204. [CrossRef]
6.
Hedge, A.; Miller, L.; Dorsey, J.A. Occupant comfort and health in green and conventional university buildings. Work 2014,49,
363–372. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7.
Bassi, A.M.; McDougal, K.; Uzsoki, D. Sustainable Asset Valuation Tool Building. International Institute for Sustainable
Development. 2017. Available online: https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/sustainable-asset-valuation-tool-
buildings.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2022).
8.
Miller, N.; Kok, N. Existing Building Retrofit: Economic payoff. In Routledge Handbook of Sustainable Real Estate; Wilkinson, S.,
Dixon, T., Miller, N., Sayce, S., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 114–131.
9.
Rydin, Y.; Turcu, C. Key trends in policy for low-energy built environments: A 20-year review. Local Environ. 2014,19, 560–566.
[CrossRef]
10.
Duhamel, D.; Welch, E.M.; Khalil, S.; Lim, Y.C.; Yerzhanova, I. The Top Ten Global Cities for Green Buildings. 2016. Available
online: https://www.eco- business.com/research/the-top-10-global-cities-for-green-buildings/ (accessed on 1 August 2024).
11.
Virgayanti, W. Legal framework on green building in Indonesia and the alternative policy. J. Rechts Vinding Media Pembin. Huk.
Nas. 2017,6, 227–242. [CrossRef]
12.
Shen, W.; Tang, W.; Siripanan, A.; Lei, Z.; Duffield, C.F.; Hui, F.K.P. Understanding the green technical capabilities and barriers to
green buildings in developing countries: A case study of Thailand. Sustainability 2018,10, 3585. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2025,17, 403 18 of 20
13.
Nguyen, H.T.; Skitmore, M.; Gray, M.; Zhang, X.; Olanipekun, A.O. Will green building development take off? An exploratory
study of barriers to green building in Vietnam. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017,127, 8–20. [CrossRef]
14.
Roslee, N.N.; Abdul Tharim, A.H.; Jaffar, N. Investigation on the barriers of green building development in Malaysia. Malays. J.
Sustain. Environ. (MySE) 2022,9, 37–58.
15.
Aliu, J.; Oke, A.E.; Austin Odia, O.; Akanni, P.O.; Leo-Olagbaye, F.; Aigbavboa, C. Exploring the barriers to the adoption of
environmental economic practices in the construction industry. Manag. Environ. Qual. 2024; in press. [CrossRef]
16.
Darko, A.; Zhang, C.; Chan, A.P. Drivers for green building: A review of empirical studies. Habitat Int. 2017,60, 34–49. [CrossRef]
17.
Kasai, N.; Jabbour, C.J.C. Barriers to green buildings at two Brazilian Engineering Schools. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2014,3,
87–95. [CrossRef]
18.
Fitriani, H.; Ajayi, S. Investigation of requisite measures for enhancing sustainable construction practices in Indonesia. Eng.
Constr. Archit. Manag. 2023,30, 2602–2620. [CrossRef]
19.
International Finance Corporation. Building Green: Sustainable Construction in Emerging Markets. 2023. Available online:
https://www.ifc.org/content/dam/ifc/doc/2023/building-green-sustainable-construction-in-emerging-markets.pdf (accessed
on 25 August 2024).
20.
Kaganova, O.; Nayyar-Stone, R. Municipal real property asset management: An overview of world experience, trends and
financial implications. J. Real Estate Portf. Manag. 2000,6, 307–326. [CrossRef]
21.
Edwards, M.; Clough, R. Corporate Governance and Performance: An Exploration of the Connection in a Public Sector Context; University
of Canberra: Canberra, Australia, 2005.
22.
Grabowski, L.J. Real Estate Decision Making: An Actor Network Theory Analysis of Four, Small, Charitable Organizations; Georgia State
University: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2012.
23.
Armstrong, A.; Jia, X.; Totikidis, V. Parallels in Private and Public Sector Governance. Centre for International Corporate
Governance Research, Victoria University. 2005. Available online: https://vuir.vu.edu.au/948/1/Parallels_in_Private_and_
Public_Sector_Governance.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2022).
24.
Conway, F. Federal Asset Management in Australia. In Managing Government Property Asset: International Experiences, 1st ed.;
Kaganova, O., McKellar, J., Eds.; The Urban Institute Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
25.
McKellar, J. The Management Framework for real Property-Government of Canada. In Managing Government Property Asset:
International Experiences, 1st ed.; Kaganova, O., McKellar, J., Eds.; The Urban Institute Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; p. 49.
26.
Dow, P.; Gillies, I.; Nichols, G.; Polen, S. New Zealand: State Real Property Asset. In Managing Government Property Asset:
International Experience, 1st ed.; The Urban Institute Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
27.
Kaganova, O.; McKellar, J.; Peterson, G. Introduction. In Managing Government Property Asset: International Experiences, 1st ed.;
Kaganova, O., McKellar, J., Eds.; The Urban Institute Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
28.
Iwan, A.; Poon, K.K. The role of governments and green building councils in cities transformation to become sustainable: Case
studies of Hong Kong (East) and Vancouver (West). Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2018,13, 556–570. [CrossRef]
29.
The Ministry of Finance of Indonesia. Indonesian Government Owned Asset Report; Directorat General of State Asset Management,
The Ministry of Finance of Indonesia: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2017.
30.
Wimala, M.; Akmalah, E.; Sururi, M.R. Breaking through the Barriers to Green Building Movement in Indonesia: Insights from
Building Occupants. Energy Procedia 2016,100, 469–474. [CrossRef]
31.
Green Building Council Indonesia (GBCI). Certified Building. Green Building Council Indonesia. 2024. Available online:
https://www.gbcindonesia.org/certbuilding (accessed on 25 September 2024).
32.
Dean, B.; Dulac, J.; Petrichenko, K.; Graham, P. Towards Zero-Emission Efficient and Resilient Buildings: Global Status Report.
2016. Available online: https://wedocs.unep.org/rest/bitstreams/45611/retrieve (accessed on 25 September 2024).
33.
International Energy Agency. Energy Technology Perspectives 2016: Towards Sustainable Urban Energy Systems; OECD/IEA: Paris,
France, 2016; Available online: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/37fe1db9-5943- 4288-82bf- 13a0a0d74568/Energy_
Technology_Perspectives_2016.pdf (accessed on 26 November 2024).
34.
Tokede, O.; Udawatta, N.; Luther, M. Retrofitting heritage office buildings in the UK: A case study. Built Environ. Proj. Asset
Manag. 2018,8, 39–50. [CrossRef]
35.
Alam, M.; Zou, P.X.; Stewart, R.A.; Bertone, E.; Sahin, O.; Buntine, C.; Marshall, C. Government championed strategies to
overcome the barriers to public building energy efficiency retrofit projects. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019,44, 56–69. [CrossRef]
36.
Bonita, R.; Wadley, D. Disposal of government offices in Jakarta pending relocation of the Indonesian capital: An application of
multi-criteria analysis. Prop. Manag. 2022,40, 591–628. [CrossRef]
37.
Fischer, L.-B.; Newig, J. Importance of actors and agency in sustainability transitions: A systematic exploration of the literature.
Sustainability 2016,8, 476. [CrossRef]
38.
Gelderman, C.J.; Semeijn, J.; Vluggen, R. Development of sustainability in public sector procurement. Public Money Manag. 2017,
37, 435–442. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2025,17, 403 19 of 20
39.
Gorbiano, M.I. Jokowi Announces East Kalimantan as Site of New Capital. The Jakarta Post. 2019. Available online: https://www.
thejakartapost.com/news/2019/08/26/breaking-jokowi-announces-east-kalimantan-as-site-of-new-capital.html (accessed on
25 February 2022).
40.
Blandford, A. Semi-structured qualitative studies. In The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd ed.; Soegaard, M., Dam,
R.F., Eds.; The Interaction Design Foundation: Aarhus, Denmark, 2013; Available online: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/
1436174/2/semi-structured_qualitative_studies.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2021).
41.
Phan, L.T.V. The Role of Mayor-Based Leadership in Promoting Sustainable Local Policies. A Case of Bristol, the United Kingdom.
2017. Available online: https://theses.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/123456789/5539/Phan,%20Le%20Thuong%20Vi%20s464
4131-_PLANET_Europe_Master_thesis.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 25 August 2022).
42. Cahn, M.A. Institutional and Noninstitutional Actors in the Policy Process. Public Policy Essent. Read. 2012,2, 199–206.
43.
Quah, J.S. The role of the public bureaucracy in policy implementation in five ASEAN countries: A comparative overview. In The
Role of the Public Bureaucracy in Policy Implementation in Five ASEAN Countries; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2016;
pp. 1–97. [CrossRef]
44.
Tantivess, S.; Walt, G. The role of state and non-state actors in the policy process: The contribution of policy networks to the
scale-up of antiretroviral therapy in Thailand. Health Policy Plan. 2008,23, 328–338. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45.
Kincaid, D. Adapting Buildings for Changing Uses: Guidelines for Change of Use Refurbishment, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2022.
46.
Kallio, H.; Pietilä, A.M.; Johnson, M.; Kangasniemi, M. Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a
qualitative semi-structured interview guide. J. Adv. Nurs. 2016,72, 2954–2965. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47.
Nowell, L.S.; Norris, J.M.; White, D.E.; Moules, N.J. Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int. J. Qual.
Methods 2017,16. [CrossRef]
48. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006,3, 77–101. [CrossRef]
49.
Franco, M.A.J.Q.; Pawar, P.; Wu, X. Green building policies in cities: A comparative assessment and analysis. Energy Build. 2021,
231, 110561. [CrossRef]
50.
Abisuga, A.O.; Okuntade, T.F. The current state of green building development in Nigerian construction industry: Policy and
implications. In Green Building in Developing Countries: Policy, Strategy and Technology; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020;
pp. 129–146.
51.
Hui, F.K.P.; Ulya, P.F.; Wilson, S.; Meyliawati, A.; Aye, L. Green Buildings in Makassar, Indonesia. In Green Building in Developing
Countries: Policy, Strategy and Technology; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 109–127.
52.
Evans, M.; Yu, S.; Staniszewski, A.; Jin, L.; Denysenko, A. The international implications of national and local coordination on
building energy codes: Case studies in six cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,191, 127–134. [CrossRef]
53. Liao, Z.; Zhang, M. The influence of responsible leadership on environmental innovation and environmental performance: The
moderating role of managerial discretion. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020,27, 2016–2027. [CrossRef]
54.
Szwarc, E.; Goli ´nska-Dawson, P.; Bocewicz, G.; Banaszak, Z. Robust Scheduling of Multi-Skilled Workforce Allocation: Job
Rotation Approach. Electronics 2024,13, 392. [CrossRef]
55.
Omopariola, E.D.; Olanrewaju, O.I.; Albert, I.; Oke, A.E.; Ibiyemi, S.B. Sustainable construction in the Nigerian construction
industry: Unsustainable practices, barriers and strategies. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2024,22, 1158–1184. [CrossRef]
56.
Liu, T.; Chen, L.; Yang, M.; Sandanayake, M.; Miao, P.; Shi, Y.; Yap, P.S. Sustainability considerations of green buildings: A detailed
overview on current advancements and future considerations. Sustainability 2022,14, 14393. [CrossRef]
57.
Debrah, C.; Chan, A.P.C.; Darko, A. Green finance gap in green buildings: A scoping review and future research needs. Build.
Environ. 2022,207, 108443. [CrossRef]
58.
Amoah, C.; Smith, J. Barriers to the green retrofitting of existing residential buildings. J. Facil. Manag. 2024,22, 194–209. [CrossRef]
59.
Liu, T.T.; Cao, M.Q.; Fang, Y.S.; Zhu, Y.H.; Cao, M.S. Green building materials lit up by electromagnetic absorption function: A
review. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2022,112, 329–344. [CrossRef]
60.
Susilawati, C.; Devi, B.; Atmoko, D.; Wilkinson, S.; Goonetilleke, A.; Arif Lukito, J. Optimising Government Assets in
Jakarta, Indonesia, Post Relocation of the Capital City. Property Research Trust, The United Kingdom. 2014. Avail-
able online: https://www.propertyresearchtrust.org/uploads/1/3/4/8/134819607/optimising_government_assets_in_jakarta_
indonesia_post_relocation_of_the_capital_city.pdf (accessed on 25 October 2024).
61.
Economidou, M.; Todeschi, V.; Bertoldi, P.; Agostino, D.; Zangheri, P.; Castellazzi, L. Review of 50 years of EU energy efficiency
policies for buildings. Energy Build. 2020,225, 110322. [CrossRef]
62.
Xie, X.; Lu, Y.; Gou, Z. Green building pro-environment behaviors: Are green users also green buyers? Sustainability 2017,9, 1703.
[CrossRef]
63.
Pioppi, B.; Piselli, C.; Crisanti, C.; Pisello, A.L. Human-centric green building design: The energy saving potential of occupants’
behaviour enhancement in the office environment. J. Build. Perform. Simul. 2020,13, 621–644. [CrossRef]
64.
Wilkinson, S.J.; Remøy, H.; Langston, C. Sustainable Building Adaptation: Innovations in Decision-Making; John Wiley & Sons:
Chichester, UK, 2014.

Sustainability 2025,17, 403 20 of 20
65.
Remøy, H.; Wilkinson, S. Repurposing and adaptation. In Resilient Building Retrofits: Combating the Climate Crisis; Sayce, S.,
Wilkinson, S., Armstrong, G., Organ, S., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2023; pp. 145–161.
66.
Sahid, S.; Sumiyati, Y.; Purisari, R. Strengthening green building policies in Indonesia. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 780, p. 012050.
67.
Zhang, D.; Tu, Y. Green building, pro-environmental behavior and well-being: Evidence from Singapore. Cities 2021,108, 102980.
[CrossRef]
68. Ha, C.Y.; Khoo, T.J.; Koo, Z.Y. Current status of green building development in Malaysia. Prog. Energy Environ. 2023,25, 1–9.
69.
Nurcahyanto; Urmee, T. Development of Energy Service Company (ESCO) Market to Promote Energy Efficiency Programmes in
Developing Countries. In Transition Towards 100% Renewable Energy; Sayigh, A., Ed.; Innovative Renewable Energy; Springer:
Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 283–294.
70. Wilde, P.D. Building Performance Analysis; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018.
71. Douglas, J. Building Adaptation, 2nd ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006.
72.
Zhang, X. Investigation of Factors Restraining the Implementation of Green Buildings in Mainland China. Organ. Technol. Manag.
Constr. 2014,6, 1134–1140.
73. Kantrowitz, M. Energy efficient buildings: An opportunity for user participation. J. Archit. Educ. 1984,37, 26–31.
74.
Baldwin, R. Environment assessment of buildings in the UK. In Proceedings of the Green Building Challenge ’98 Conference: An
International Conference on the Performance Assessment of Buildings, Vancouver, QC, Canada, 26–28 October 1998; pp. 10–16.
75.
Chidiak, M. Lessons from the French experience with voluntary agreements for greenhouse-gas reduction. J. Clean. Prod. 2002,10,
121–128. [CrossRef]
76.
Trencher, G.; Broto, V.C.; Takagi, T.; Sprigings, Z.; Nishida, Y.; Yarime, M. Innovative policy practices to advance building energy
efficiency and retrofitting: Approaches, impacts and challenges in ten C40 cities. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016,66, 353–365. [CrossRef]
77. Goffee, R.; Jones, G. Creating the best workplace on earth. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2013,91, 98–106, 150. [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.