Your browser does not fully support modern features. Please upgrade for a smoother experience.
The Real-World Use of Building Energy Regulations as a Mechanism to Accelerate Climate Resilience in the Global South: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor: Tariené Gaum , Jacques Laubscher , Henry Odiri Igugu

International research and policy frameworks underscore the value of mandatory energy regulations in reducing energy demand and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the built environment. However, Global South (GS) countries experience several challenges in effectively implementing building energy efficiency codes (BEECs), as codes are either absent, unevenly adopted or inconsistently enforced. A poor alignment with the specific climatic, socio-economic and construction realities further limits the potential of BEECs to support GS climate resilience. This research aims to identify opportunities to enhance building energy regulatory practices by exploring recent progress in the field. It also systematically evaluates existing mandatory BEECs in the GS to identify models and principles that could guide the development of more effective codes, specifically for GS countries without BEECs. It is hypothesised that the mandatory BEECs currently implemented in GS countries can be analysed using contextually relevant criteria to reveal common regulatory patterns, strengths, and shortcomings, thereby informing a climate-responsive framework suited to GS realities. This research implemented a two-tiered literature review. After determining the broad regulatory context, an exploratory review of the current state of the art in BEEC research was conducted. These publications (primarily 2016–2025) were obtained via a systematic query in Scopus. Following the exploratory review, this study performed a Systematic Quantitative Literature Review (SQLR) to assess mandatory BEECs from 18 GS countries. The findings reveal that BEECs are useful for delivering energy-efficient buildings in the real world. However, ample opportunities exist to improve their comprehensiveness in context and coverage. Improving regulatory implementation systems and structures, along with robust stakeholder engagement, can support better BEEC design and enforcement. To address the need for contextualised BEECs, the SQLR helped develop a taxonomy by comparing the mandatory codes. This research also introduces the Sustainable Level Indicator Model, Matrix, and Map (SLIM3) prototype, proposed as a decision-support tool, and hosted on an interactive online platform, thereby potentially contributing to real-world building energy regulatory practices. The SLIM3 tool organises the mandatory BEECs into a coherent, accessible framework that could assist GS decision-makers in benchmarking existing and new codes, identifying gaps and prioritising contextually appropriate improvements, thus contributing to a more resource-efficient built environment.

  • built environment
  • building energy efficiency codes (BEECs)
  • building regulations
  • climate resilience
  • Global South (GS)
  • Sustainable Level Indicator Model, Matrix, and Map (SLIM3)
The built environment is a major contributor to climate change, accounting for 30–40% of global energy demand and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions [1]. Generally, the construction, operation and end-of-life management of buildings are resource-intensive processes that often strain the natural environment and critical infrastructure, such as the energy grid [2][3][4]. This challenge is exacerbated by the growth of the building sector, largely driven by rapidly expanding cities [5]. Global estimates show that the building sector could grow by nearly 70% between 2022 and 2050, from approximately 253 billion m2 of built floor area to 291 billion m2 by 2030 and 427 billion m2 by 2050 [6][7]. A large portion of that growth is expected in the Global South (GS), and the projected GS urban expansion (which is linked directly to population growth) is expected to increase building sector energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [8][9]. Ultimately, concerted action is needed to ensure a sustainable and climate-resilient built environment.
Building energy efficiency codes (BEECs) are essential regulatory instruments for reducing energy demand and GHG emissions in the built environment [10]. However, the GS mostly lack BEECs, and where policies exist, they remain unevenly adopted, inconsistently enforced, and often do not respond to specific contextual and micro-climatic conditions [11][12]. Although international research and existing policies emphasise the importance of developing contextual energy regulations and codes, GS regulatory frameworks are often informed by the Global North (GN) practices [13]. However, the GN approaches often assume advanced technical and institutional capacity, available economic resources, and formal construction practices [14]. These are not representative of the GS contexts [15][16], further emphasising the knowledge gap. In addition, the misalignment limits the effectiveness of BEECs in the GS as mechanisms for supporting climate resilience in rapidly urbanising regions. For context, the term “Global South” has historically proved difficult to define, especially due to challenges in classifying economic perspectives and geographical delineation. However, the term highlights inequalities and economic indicators that delineate the world into different regions. It originates from the work of Willy Brandt (German Chancellor, 1969–1974) via the Independent Commission on International Development Issues (ICDI) [17]. Brandt led a global panel of experts and politicians to produce the 1980 report North-South: A Programme for Survival [18], also known as the Brandt Report. The Brandt Report divides the world into two concepts, but while the report argued that the “North” and “South” classifications are not a permanent grouping, it identified these classifications as broadly synonymous with “developed” and “developing” [18]. Four decades after the original report, an extensive study by Lees [19] tested the current relevance of the Brandt Line for international relations by using “politically relevant measures of inequality and dissatisfaction”. Despite changes in G77 membership, Lees [19] used the 1980 members as a constant for the GS. On the other hand, the GN comprises “the states that were members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1980”. It could be argued that this methodology ensures replicability by reviewing “… the same groups of states through time …” [19]. Ultimately, the study concluded that the Brandt Line remains an appropriate geopolitical representation of global economic inequality [19], highlighting development opportunities.
Previous reviews have often focused on specific building energy regulation components, such as the requirements and specifications for mechanical heating and cooling equipment [20], building occupants [21][22], indoor environmental performance [23], and passive design measures [24]. Other researchers reviewed broader issues in connection with BEECs, such as life-cycle benefits [25] and energy labelling programmes [26]. Some closely aligned studies are not recent, such as the 2010 publication by Iwaro and Mwasha [27], but these helped build understanding in the field, with the article being highly cited. In addition, reviews focused on specific countries and regions, such as the studies on the United States [28][29], Hong Kong [30][31], and North America [23]. Nevertheless, a real-world perspective on BEEC practices is lacking, especially given the current regulatory landscape.
To address the identified knowledge gap, it is necessary to examine the roles and status of available BEECs in the GS and identify best practices to support the development of contextually appropriate BEECs. The resultant research question is: How can recent research and practice on building energy regulations inform more effective, context-specific codes and accelerate climate resilience, especially in the GS? This study adopts three specific objectives to address this research question. Firstly, it highlights the implementation status of building energy regulations globally, with an emphasis on the state of codes in the GS region. Secondly, it seeks to identify and discuss opportunities which could improve building energy regulatory practices in the real world, based on a review of existing research. Finally, this paper aims to briefly demonstrate an approach that could enhance the contextualisation of BEECs and decision-making, which ultimately helps improve climate resilience in the GS and built environment.
The discussions in this paper are organised in a logical flow using the following structure. Section 2 outlines the methods used to address the objectives of this paper. Section 3 provides further context about the current landscape of building energy regulations in a positional synopsis. Section 4 presents recent studies and globally relevant findings that support improved regulatory practices. Section 5 discusses the development of a novel online platform as a contextualised tool to aid real-world decision-making in the GS, thereby addressing a significant gap in practice. Section 6 concludes the paper and outlines directions for future search.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/encyclopedia6050107

References

  1. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction 2024/2025: Not Just Another Brick in the Wall—The Solutions Exist. Scaling Them Will Build on Progress and Cut Emissions Fast; UNEP: Paris, France, 2025.
  2. Ahmed, A.; Ge, T.; Peng, J.; Yan, W.-C.; Tee, B.T.; You, S. Assessment of the renewable energy generation towards net-zero energy buildings: A review. Energy Build. 2022, 256, 111755.
  3. Gallego-Schmid, A.; Chen, H.-M.; Sharmina, M.; Mendoza, J.M.F. Links between circular economy and climate change mitigation in the built environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260, 121115.
  4. Kolokotsa, D. The role of smart grids in the building sector. Energy Build. 2016, 116, 703–708.
  5. Zhong, C.; Guo, H.; Swan, I.; Gao, P.; Yao, Q.; Li, H. Evaluating trends, profits, and risks of global cities in recent urban expansion for advancing sustainable development. Habitat Int. 2023, 138, 102869.
  6. International Energy Agency (IEA). Global Buildings Sector CO2 Emissions and Floor Area in the Net Zero Scenario, 2020–2050. Available online: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-buildings-sector-co2-emissions-and-floor-area-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2020-2050 (accessed on 5 March 2026).
  7. International Energy Agency. Total Floor Area by Use in the Net Zero Scenario, 2010–2030. Available online: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/total-floor-area-by-use-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2010-2030-2 (accessed on 9 April 2025).
  8. Moslen, M.; Miebaka, C.A. Population Growth and Environmental Pollution in the Global South. In Biomonitoring of Pollutants in the Global South; Izah, S.C., Ogwu, M.C., Hamidifar, H., Eds.; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2024; pp. 127–152.
  9. Rahman, M.M.; Husnain, M.I.u.; Azimi, M.N. An environmental perspective of energy consumption, overpopulation, and human capital barriers in South Asia. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 4420.
  10. Zabalza, I.; Gesteira, L.G.; Uche, J. The impact of building energy codes evolution on the residential thermal demand. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 2022, 44, 588.
  11. Evans, M.; Roshchanka, V.; Graham, P. An international survey of building energy codes and their implementation. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 158, 382–389.
  12. Al-Soufi Al-Sukkari, T.; El-Daghar, K.; Galal, K.; Afify, A. Towards effective implementation of building energy efficiency codes in Tripoli, Lebanon: Key actions for enforcement. Herit. Sustain. Dev. 2024, 6, 771–790.
  13. Igugu, H.; Laubscher, J.; Gaum, T. Building Energy Performance Gap: A Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Review of Global Research Themes. Enq. ARCC J. Archit. Res. 2025, 22, 1–21.
  14. International Energy Agency. All Countries Targeted for Zero-Carbon-Ready Codes for New Buildings by 2030. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/all-countries-targeted-for-zero-carbon-ready-codes-for-new-buildings-by-2030 (accessed on 5 March 2026).
  15. Geissler, S.; Österreicher, D.; Macharm, E. Transition towards Energy Efficiency: Developing the Nigerian Building Energy Efficiency Code. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2620.
  16. Cox, S. Building Energy Codes: Policy Overview and Good Practices; National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2016.
  17. World Bank. Brandt Commission—1v, Folder ID 1205784, ISAD Reference Code WB IBRD/IDA DEC-03-21. Available online: https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/088013024662628422-0560011984/original/WorldBankGroupArchivesfolder1205784.pdf (accessed on 3 May 2026).
  18. Brandt, W. North South: A Programme for Survival; Report of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues; MIT: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1980.
  19. Lees, N. The Brandt Line after forty years: The more North–South relations change, the more they stay the same? Rev. Int. Stud. 2021, 47, 85–106.
  20. Pérez-Lombard, L.; Ortiz, J.; Coronel, J.F.; Maestre, I.R. A review of HVAC systems requirements in building energy regulations. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 255–268.
  21. O’Brien, W.; Tahmasebi, F.; Hong, T.Z. Occupant Aspects of Building Energy Codes And Standards. Ashrae J. 2023, 65, 52–57.
  22. O’Brien, W.; Tahmasebi, F.; Andersen, R.K.; Azar, E.; Barthelmes, V.; Belafi, Z.D.; Berger, C.; Chen, D.; De Simone, M.; d’Oca, S.; et al. An international review of occupant-related aspects of building energy codes and standards. Build. Environ. 2020, 179, 106906.
  23. Perera, I.; Hewage, K.; Rana, A.; Sadiq, R. Combining Energy Performance and Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) in Buildings: A Systematic Review on Common IEQ Guidelines and Energy Codes in North America. Energies 2025, 18, 1740.
  24. Liu, C.; Sharples, S.; Mohammadpourkarbasi, H. A Review of Building Energy Retrofit Measures, Passive Design Strategies and Building Regulation for the Low Carbon Development of Existing Dwellings in the Hot Summer–Cold Winter Region of China. Energies 2023, 16, 4115.
  25. Crawford, R.H.; Bartak, E.L.; Stephan, A.; Jensen, C.A. Evaluating the life cycle energy benefits of energy efficiency regulations for buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 63, 435–451.
  26. Fossati, M.; Scalco, V.A.; Linczuk, V.C.C.; Lamberts, R. Building energy efficiency: An overview of the Brazilian residential labeling scheme. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 65, 1216–1231.
  27. Iwaro, J.; Mwasha, A. A review of building energy regulation and policy for energy conservation in developing countries. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 7744–7755.
  28. Sun, X.; Brown, M.A.; Cox, M.; Jackson, R. Mandating better buildings: A global review of building codes and prospects for improvement in the United States. WIREs Energy Environ. 2016, 5, 188–215.
  29. Xie, Y.; Tyler, M.; Huckett, J.; Bartlett, R.; Chen, Y.; Salcido, V.; Mendon, V.; Rosenberg, M. A Review of the Evaluation of Building Energy Code Compliance in the United States. Energies 2023, 16, 5874.
  30. Lam, J.C.; Hui, S.C.M. A review of building energy standards and implications for Hong Kong. Build. Res. Inf. 1996, 24, 131–140.
  31. Ma, Z.; Wang, S. Building energy research in Hong Kong: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 1870–1883.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Academic Video Service
Feedback

Quick Survey

Encyclopedia MDPI is conducting a targeted survey to identify the specific barriers hindering efficient research. We invite you to spend 3 minutes defining the priorities for our next generation of structured knowledge tools.
Take Survey