A Review of Nigerian Green Building Policy Frameworks and Its Integration in Sustainable Urban Planning

1. Introduction

As urbanisation intensifies worldwide, there is a need for cities to evolve in environmentally sustainable ways [1,2]. Green building (GB) and Green Building Policy (GBP) refers to the practice of designing, constructing, and operating buildings in ways that reduces its environmental impacts, enhance occupant well-being, and improve energy and resource efficiency across the entire building’s lifecycle [3]. A Green Building Policy Framework (GBPF) is a regulations of building guidelines-principles, standards, and practice that are integrated and consistent with each other and are aimed at planning, designing, constructing, and maintaining a built environment [4]. The basic idea is to minimize the environmental footprint while promoting resource efficiency and occupant comfort [5]. The concept is grounded on green materials, building performance, life cycle building design and social sustainability in the built environment [6]. Green Building Rating System (GBRS) The concept of GBRS may be described as a system which use independent rating to evaluate the green practice of buildings using life cycle building stage parameters by a GBPF [7]. A high number of parameters is employed for evaluating a building in accordance with a plurality of sustainability scores [8]. Additionally, several country-neutral ratings have been established in response to the socio-economic requirements of diverse nations [9].

The conceptual framework of GB in Nigeria is a vital factor in tackling environmental issues within the built environment [10]. Unegbu [11] said that the problems with the built environment in Nigeria are energy efficiency in buildings and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. People think that the idea of GB fits with the way Nigerian cities are growing in a sustainable way [12]. Federal Ministry of Works and Housing (FMWH) deals with the construction and building ho new homes for Nigerians [13,14]. Green Building Policy Frameworks (GBPFs) and Green Building Policies (GBP) are a set of rules, laws, strategies, institutions, and standards that affect building plans, processes, and constructions in a way that is good for the environment [15]. GBPFs are policies that help people use building resources in a way that is good for the environment [9]. The policy frameworks of GBPFs encompass building specifications, including material selections, energy conservation, water conservation, and GHG reduction within the building development processes [16]. GBPFs contain the rules that govern the building process in GB, as well as the necessary building provisions [17]. GBPFs can also be seen as a link that connects ecological concerns to the building industry [18,19]. These frameworks remain significant in the development of nations like Nigeria in terms of ensuring a climate-resilient development framework [20]. Nigeria demands the incorporation of GBP into the urban development framework (Atanda & Olukoya, 2019). Nigeria also remains one of the states in Africa that faces significant challenges in the urban sustainability of the country [21]. Some of the urban sustainability challenges in the country include poorly addressed waste management practices in the urban regions of the country [12]. Despite the GBPFs of the Nigerian Energy Efficiency & Green Building Council (NEEBC) and the Nigerian Green Building Council (GBCN) framework, there seems to be a significant lag in the urban plan [22].

This review will try to determine to what extent Nigerian GBPFs have been incorporated into sustainable urban plans. The review will seek to answer these research questions:

• What GBRS have already been adopted in international nations?
• What are the main GBPs in action in Nigeria?
• To what extent are these policies supported by existing urban plans?

Answering these questions, the review aims to search for the gaps and make recommendations concerning the strategic directions for improving the sustainability of Nigerian cities.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

This study adopts a narrative literature review with systematic elements to evaluate the extent to which Nigerian Green Building Policy Frameworks (GBPFs) are integrated into sustainable urban planning. A narrative review was considered appropriate because the subject spans multiple disciplines, including architecture, urban planning, environmental policy, climate governance, and sustainable development. Furthermore, many relevant sources exist in the form of policy documents, government reports, institutional publications, and grey literature that are not always captured in conventional systematic review databases.

To improve transparency and methodological rigor, systematic review procedures were incorporated, including a structured search strategy, predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, quality assessment analysis. This approach enabled a comprehensive synthesis of both academic literature and policy documents while maintaining analytical flexibility. Mendely cite was used to organize and manage reference which was converted from APA to IEEE reference guide version 11.29.2023 in accordance with journal standards.

2.2. Data Sources and Search Strategy

The review was conducted between January and April 2026 using peer-reviewed literature and policy documents published between 2000 and 2025. The selected timeframe corresponds with the period during which green building concepts, sustainability policies, and climate-responsive urban planning gained increasing attention globally and within Nigeria.

Academic literature was retrieved from major scholarly databases, including:

• Scopus
• Web of Science
• ScienceDirect
• SpringerLink
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Google Scholar

In addition, relevant policy and institutional documents were collected from:

• National Building Code (NBC)
• National Housing Policy
• Energy Efficiency Building Code (EEBC)
• National Adaptation Strategy and Plan of Action on Climate Change for Nigeria (NASPA-CCN)
• Green Building Council of Nigeria (GBCN)
• United Nations Habitat (UN-Habitat)
• World Green Building Council (WGBC)
• International Finance Corporation (IFC)

The search strategy combined keywords and Boolean operators. Examples of search strings included:

• “green building” AND Nigeria
• “green building policy” AND urban planning
• “sustainable urban development” AND Nigeria
• “green building rating system” OR LEED OR BREEAM OR EDGE
• “urban sustainability” AND Africa
• “policy integration” AND “green building”

Truncation and alternative keyword combinations were used where appropriate to maximize retrieval and reduce omission of relevant studies.

2.3. Study Selection Process

The study selection process followed four stages, following the PRISMA method [23,24]:

Stage 1: Identification

An initial search yielded 347 records from academic databases and institutional repositories.

Stage 2: Screening

About 54 duplicate records were removed, resulting in 293 unique publications. Titles and abstracts were subsequently screened for relevance to green building policies, sustainability governance, urban planning, and implementation frameworks.

Stage 3: Eligibility Assessment

A total of 196 publications were subjected to full-text assessment after 97 records were excluded from the 293 papers during title and abstract screening. Studies that lacked relevance to policy frameworks, urban planning integration, or the Nigerian context were the ones excluded here.

Stage 4: Inclusion

Following the eligibility assessment, 99 sources were further excluded, resulting in 97 sources being included in the final review. These comprised peer-reviewed journal articles, conference papers, policy documents, institutional reports, and international framework publications. Table 1 and Figure 1 explained these stages in summary.

A review flow diagram illustrating the selection process is presented in Figure 1.

2.4. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were selected according to predefined criteria to ensure relevance and consistency.

• Inclusion Criteria

• Published between 2000 and 2025.
• Focused on green building policies, frameworks, standards, or certification systems.
• Addressed sustainable urban planning, environmental governance, or climate-responsive development.
• Examined Nigeria or provided international comparative experiences relevant to developing countries.
• Published in peer-reviewed journals, official policy documents, or reputable institutional reports.

• Exclusion Criteria

• Technical building design studies without policy or planning relevance.
• Studies focused solely on building materials or engineering performance.
• Publications unrelated to urban planning or sustainability governance.
• Editorials, opinion pieces, and non-verifiable online sources.
• Duplicate publications.

2.5. Quality Assessment

To enhance the reliability of the review, all selected sources were subjected to a quality assessment process. Academic articles were evaluated based on publication source, methodological clarity, relevance to the research objectives, and citation credibility. Policy documents were assessed according to institutional authority, policy relevance, implementation significance, and applicability to sustainable urban planning.

Priority was given to peer-reviewed journal articles, official government publications, and reports from internationally recognized organizations. Sources with insufficient methodological transparency or weak relevance to the research questions were excluded.

2.6. Comparative Policy Analysis

A comparative policy analysis was undertaken to benchmark Nigerian green building frameworks against internationally recognized systems, including LEED (United States), BREEAM (United Kingdom), Green Star (South Africa and Australia), EDGE (International Finance Corporation), and Green Mark (Singapore).

The comparison focused on:

• Regulatory enforcement mechanisms.
• Certification requirements.
• Institutional arrangements.
• Financial incentives.
• Urban planning integration.
• Climate responsiveness.

This comparative approach facilitated the identification of transferable lessons and policy opportunities relevant to the Nigerian context.

2.7. Limitations of the Study

The study is limited by its reliance on secondary data sources and the availability of published literature on Nigerian green building policies. Some policy implementation outcomes may not be fully documented in the literature. Furthermore, because the review adopts a narrative approach, the findings depend partly on the interpretation and synthesis of existing evidence. Nevertheless, the inclusion of systematic search procedures, quality assessment, and enhances the reliability and transparency of the review findings. Table 2 presents some sample research articles used in this research in summary.

2.8. Nigeria’s Climatic Diversity and GB Implications

This research is focused on Nigeria owing to the growing rate of urban centers and the varied rate of adoption of GB concepts. Additionally, Nigeria is a diverse country in terms of climate. As a result, this is a critical case study [30]. Nigeria is a country in West Africa that enjoys diverse climates. As a result, Nigeria is divided into different climatic zones. Relating to modern climate classifications, Nigeria is divided into 5 different climatic zones. The zones are:

• Hot and arid Sahelian zone in the north;
• Hot and humid zone in the south;
• Temperate and humid Middle Belt;
• Temperate and dry Northern Plateau; and
• Cool highland zone.

The Sahelian zone includes states such as Borno and Sokoto in the Northern part of Nigeria. Passive cooling is the best GB option in this zone. Passive cooling entails shading, building mass, and reduced glazing. The hot and humid southern zone includes states such as Lagos and Port Harcourt [31]. A hybrid option is necessary in this zone [32]. This option entails better insulations and rainwater harvesting [33]. The Middle Belt includes Abuja, Jos, and other states. Jos Plateau is a highland zone that requires the utilization of solar radiation during the cold season. As a result, GB concepts are applicable to this zone. The diverse climates in Nigeria make a case for a GB policy that is applicable to different zones. As a result, this study supports the argument that a universal GB policy is not applicable to Nigeria [34].

This can be seen in Nigeria’s varying climatic conditions, as depicted in Figure 2. Nigeria has the entire range of tropical climates and can be divided into five major zones of climates. Each zone has unique characteristics in terms of rainfall, temperature, and humidity [36]. This has led to the need to conduct individual zone studies on sustainable and GB practices [35]. In the Sudanian and Sahel savannas, passive-cooling is an integral part of the adaptation and mitigation strategy in Nigeria [37]. This is due to the fact that naturally shaded and ventilated buildings, as well as buildings made of heavyweight materials, will assist in mitigating the heat-stress and provide fascinating cooling strategies ([35,38]. Though, in the Tropical Rainforest Climate zone, buildings has unique characteristics, like the need to use materials suitable for humidity control, like lighter materials [35].

3. Green Building

3.1. Evolution of GBP in Nigeria (2000–Date)

The 1st regulatory development in the built environment in Nigeria was launched with the establishment of the NBC in 2006. The main objective of the NBC was to enhance quality, safety, and sustainable construction works [39]. Although the NBC marked a significant achievement in the built environment, it was not sufficient in addressing sustainability, thus the need to review it [40,41]. Subsequently, various regulatory initiatives in the built environment in Nigeria focused on addressing issues related to the environment [42]. International nations and Non-govental institutions helped Nigeria create the Energy Efficiency Building Code (EEBC) to make buildings more energy efficient and meet global standards for an economy with low emissions [43,44]. The National Adaptation Strategy and Plan of Action on Climate Change for Nigeria 2011 (NASPA-CCN) on global warming also talked about how climate change affects buildings [45]. The Green Building Council of Nigeria (GBCN) was set up in 2010, which was the second most important institutional change [46]. The GBCN’s main goal was to make Nigeria’s built environment more sustainable so that it could meet global standards like BREEAM, LEED, and EDGE [47,48]. The GBCN was created to make the built environment more sustainable, but it didn’t get very far because not many people knew about it [49]. In 2025, people knew more about green certifications, but they still did not have enough resources, governmental or nongovernmental supports [50]. All of these changes show that Nigeria’s builts-paces ought to be more sustainable, which means that they have to be more in line with each other [11,51,52].

3.1.1. Conceptual Framework

It is very important to use building materials that support climate-resilient design. Laterites, bamboo, and adobe are a few construction supplies that have a lot of potential to make buildings more comfortable while also being good for the environment [53]. This potential can lead to better sustainability, lower costs, and more acceptance. It is essential to note, though, that policy frameworks need to be made to allow passive design-based strategies to be effective, as well as reducing global warming by construction supplies [54]. The GBC does not work well in Nigeria because of the country’s different social, economic, and climate conditions [30]. So, GBPFs like the NASPA-CCN, EEBC, and NBC ought to be made. These GBPs significantly influence building practices and contribute to the sustainability of cities by incorporating environmental, social, and economic objectives (Figure 3). This calls for region-specific green design strategies in Nigeria [55]. Adopting context-relevant GBRSs, similar to regional adaptations of LEED, can further support sustainable development across Nigeria.

3.2. Green Building Rating System (GBRS)

GBRS have been defined as “the assessment systems that rate the sustainability of buildings, with a focus on the following categories: indoor environmental quality, energy efficiency, and material utilization” [9]. The scope of the GBRS varies (as shown in Table 3), from global to regional or national, depending on the geographical context in which it is applied. The scope is further varied by the flexibility of the rating systems applied. Various factors are rated by the GBRS in relation to the environmental performance of buildings, and one such important aspect is energy efficiency.

The building sector and its occupant use account for a large share of carbon emissions globally, with the sector also having high emissions density. GBRSs aim to reduce toxic emissions, lessening environmental degradation while improving occupant comfort [62]. Some of the most widely recognized GBRSs around the world include BREEAM and LEED.

3.2.1. Detailed Explanation of BREEAM and LEED GBRS

BREEAM and LEED are two of the most well-known green building rating systems with unique methodologies and sustainability assessment criteria [8,62,63,64]. The methodology of BREEAM, which dates back to 1921 through the British government’s Building Research Establishment, uses a percentage rating system between 30% and 85% and above [58,65], as presented in Table 4. The system is based on the United Kingdom Government’s Standard Assessment Procedure for CO2 emissions and energy costs ratings, with powerful government support and approval of associated software used within the United Kingdom [58].

While LEED follows a points-based rating system, which ranges from 40 to over 80 points, as depicted in Table 4. The most recent edition, LEED v5, indicates a holistic shift to a new paradigm for sustainability, with credits allocated to six major areas, including human health (20%), climate change (35%), the green economy (10%), water resources (15%), community/natural resources (5%) and biodiversity (10%) of particular interest is the recognition of outstanding environmental performance by BREEAM and LEED, where LEED ratings of 80 points or more, denoted by Platinum, and BREEAM ratings of over 100 points, which incorporate renewable energy technologies, indicate a commitment to the global community to enhance innovation and excellence in the field of sustainable building practices [58,64].

3.3. International GBPF

Across the world, GBPFs has been recognized as crucial instrument for ensuring urban development is in line with environmental sustainability goals, like climate-change mitigation [66]. There are many well-known international building assessment tools, such as BREEAM in the UK, Green-Star in Australia, and LEED in the US [67]. These tools have been getting better and better at things like managing materials and water, saving energy, and cutting down on ecological toxins [6]. Different countries have used these tools to make sure that building codes are followed better. Malaysia incorporated statewide GB strategies into urban development in a manner that was supported by the relevant countrywide incentive schemes for compliance [24]. This is similarly seen in South Korea, where the promotion of GB activities was undertaken through comparative analysis for the enforcement of regulations, technological innovation in the adoption process, and collaborations in enforcing international agreements like the Doha amendments and the Kyoto Protocol [68]. Regardless of the disparities in the case of different countries in terms of the adoption of GB strategies in urban development, the main factor in their success lies in their orientation in the country’s urban development framework.

3.4. Nigerian GBPFs

In the case of Nigeria, the application of GB practices is a new trend. At present, the country lacks a mandatory GBC. There have been some documents on the application of GB practices in Nigerian architecture:

• GBCN [69,70] (Abisuga & Okuntade, 2019)
• National Adaptation Strategy and Plan of Action on Climate Change (NASPA-CCN) [71]
• Nigerian Energy Efficiency Building Code (EEBC) [30,43,72]
• National Building Code (NBC) [14,40,41]

The comparative analysis in Table 5 shows that Nigeria has several policy instruments that support green building and sustainable development, including the NBC, EEBC, National Housing Policy, NASPA-CCN, and GBCN initiatives. However, these frameworks operate largely in isolation, with weak enforcement, limited institutional coordination, and inadequate integration into urban planning processes. While some policies address energy efficiency, climate resilience, and sustainable housing, none provides a comprehensive and legally binding framework for green building implementation. Consequently, the main challenge is not the absence of policies but the lack of policy integration, effective enforcement, and coordinated governance necessary to mainstream green building practices in Nigerian cities.

Its implementation, however, has been hampered by a lack of political will, enforcement, and awareness [52,73]. Research literature suggests that despite the ratification of international treaties including the Paris agreement and the Kyoto Protocol by the Nigerian government, the country faces challenges in terms of regulatory efficiency, lack of capacity in the required institutions, and inadequately designed financing mechanisms to operationalize GB strategies efficiently [74,75]. There have been recommendations for a Nigerian National Standard for Green Buildings (NNSGB) to reflect the best international practices in the design, material selection, and construction of buildings in a manner in harmony with the Nigerian eco-socio context [76] (Dodo et al., 2014). There have been localized studies to conceptualize the implementation strategies for the application of the framework of green principles to the cities of Abuja to reflect the significance of raising awareness about the program in terms of financial rewards in collaboration with the master plan of the cities [51]. To keep in mind the application of digital innovations in the enhancement of sustainability aspects of the building construction mechanisms in the country related to GB principles in the Nigerian context refers to the evolving trend of utilizing the service of the ‘Green BIM’ tool [77,78] in the Nigerian context to analyze the efficiency of the building in terms of sustainability.

3.5. Gaps and Lessons from Comparative Insights

Contrary to Malaysia and South Korea, the GBPFs in Nigeria are fragmented. This makes the framework less integrated into the urban plan of the country compared to international best practices. The lack of a rating system in the country makes the framework less successful due to a lack of mechanisms for enforcement. This highlights that for a successful GBPF internationally, there is a need for a legal framework in place, governed by urban governance [79].

The following table (i.e. Table 6) summarizes both international and Nigerian GBPF, this indicate the policy framework or the assessment type, the originating country where it is practiced, the purpose of the framework, the implementation status which indicates the area of coverage where the policy or framework is applied, its relevance to urban planning and reference or sources indicating the authors names and the year of its publication.

3.6. International Best Practices in Sustainable Urban Planning

Global best practices in sustainable urban planning demonstrate that integrated policies, stakeholder participation, and adaptive frameworks are central to building resilient and inclusive cities. Across Europe, Asia, and Africa, successful approaches commonly emphasize compact urban form, energy-efficient infrastructure, and coordinated governance. Other nations, like the Netherlands, Italy, and Sweden, use integrated planning tools to link their land use, transport, and energy plans. The Dutch Sustainable City initiates using the back-casting methodology having more than 100 stakeholders, to design long-term spatial integrations and energy saving strategies [84]. In Italy, ISO 14001 certification, sustainability reporting, and Local Agenda 21 have been used to make sure that urban planning and community sustainability are in line with each other [85]. At the city level, energy efficiency has been taken into account in many ways, such as when designing buildings, transportation systems, and green spaces, taking Singapore and Vienna as examples [86,87]. Burgos in Spain has achieved compact urban design with low automobile dependency, leading to improved urban health results [88]. Participatory governance in South Africa and Brazil further illustrates how inclusivity and local knowledge strengthen urban sustainability initiatives [89], while China’s hybrid eco-city models highlight the need to adapt global best practices to local contexts [90]. Table 7 summarizes Nigerian GBPs with global relevance.

It clearly shows that the potential for a Nigerian transition from being a GB policy follower to a GB solution-contributing country. Greater international-local linkage is required. Nigeria can benefit from international best practices in the matters of overall framework coalescence, certifications, and incentive schemes to also export locally developed innovations for improving the malleability of GB frameworks.

4. Sustainable Urban Planning in Nigeria

4.1. Overview of Urban Planning Policy Frameworks

Sustainable urban planning in Nigeria is mostly guided by the Urban and Regional Planning Act, 1992, revised in 2004, which divides responsibilities among federal, state, and local governments [95]. Alongside this act, the National Physical Development Plan and several state master plans theoretically aim at guiding development that is orderly and sensitive to the environment [96]. However, the full provisions of the Federal Planning Law have only been completely integrated into only 11 of Nigeria’s 36 states. This clearly indicates a wide gap in implementation [95,97]. While in theory, national frameworks advance balanced development, zoning, and environmental sustainability, in operation, weak institutional capacity, the duplication of mandates, and a lack of technical know-how at the local level often circumvent progress [11]. This has been evident through sprawl, pressure on infrastructure, and unplanned settlements within Nigeria’s major cities: Lagos, Port Harcourt, and Kano.

4.2. Case Studies of Urban Planning in Practice

Some of the cities in Nigeria that reflect the progress and setbacks in the Many cities in Nigeria that reflect the progress and setbacks in the development of sustainable cities in the country include Lagos [98]. Although the city has a multi-level planning system, there is a wide gap between planning and implementation due to inadequate funds, corruption in the use of land, and lack of enforcement, despite the city’s partnership with other countries of the world [99]. In Port Harcourt, the city’s planners have adequate knowledge about sustainable planning but lack the power to regulate [12]. This city also faces challenges in terms of inadequate infrastructural facilities for sustainable development [100]. Even though Abuja has an articulated master plan, it is facing challenges in terms of informality, inequality, and gentrification, which are all aspects of the recently raised issue of social sustainability in Abuja [101]. Kano, which is one of the fastest-growing cities in Nigeria, is a representation of challenges in terms of rapid urbanization in Nigeria [102]. Even though it has an articulated master plan, rapid development in this city has outgrown its planning capability, leading to urban sprawl, inadequate housing, and inadequate infrastructural facilities [11]. This has led to policy infringement in terms of regulatory policies in this city. As a result, environmental regulations have been infringed upon in this city [103,104,105,106] . Although the city lacks adequate infrastructural facilities, the recent studies on the city reflect the city’s poor ecological protection.

4.3. Major Barriers to Sustainable Urban Planning

Some studies have pointed to the following systemic factors militating against efficient urban planning in the Nigerian environment. Fragmented legal and administrative structure of conflicting responsibilities between the three levels of the Nigerian government [107]. Corruption and speculation in the regime of land allocation and permit schemes (Adisa, 2020). Non-involvement of stakeholders in urban plans and the lack of engagement of the different levels of the Nigerian government in urban plan schemes [29]. Absence or inadequate funds for urban plans in the Nigerian context [11].

4.4. Opportunities and Recommendations

• Despite the challenges, some opportunities exist for the Nigeria urban planning system to align to the sustainability objectives:
• Improve the capabilities of existing institutions: Enact the Urban & Regional Planning Act in all states. Establish well-funded Local Planning Authorities.
• Integrated Data Systems: Enhance spatial and demographic information for planning purposes through the utilization of information technology systems.
• Community inclusion: Use community engagement planning strategies in a manner akin to the Sustainable Cities Programme. This was successful in community problem-solving prioritization [108].
• Policy reform: Align land use, environmental, and infrastructure policies. Also, decentralize the planning powers to make them more responsive.

4.5. Lessons for Nigeria

• In the foregoing international examples, the following transferable lessons have been identified:
• Alignment of the legal and institutional framework: there needs to be clarity in the national plans.
• Public participation and co-design practices promote a sense of localized ownership.
• Multisectoral integration (such as energy + housing + transport) improves resilience.
• Higher urban density and compact urban growth patterns promote less sprawl.
• Monitoring and feedback systems, for example the use of green indicators or sustainability audits.

These strategies differ from the current fragmented approach to urban planning in Nigeria but also offer a guide for possible reforms based on evidence presented in the context of the international best practices (see Table 8 below).

4.6. Weak Enforcement of GBPs in Nigeria

Corruption and weak governance are major entanglements to the enforcement of GB rules in Nigeria [110]. When corruption permeates the public sector, enforcement may be selective, lacking in transparency and accountability [111]. Such policies often become “paper tigers,” existing in name only but with few real teeth. Institutional quality is primarily low, with rent-seeking behavior acting as an impediment in implementing sustainable practices [110]. There are various impediments related to financial issues as well. For example, environmental and urban planning agencies are often underfunded [112]. There is also a lack of capacity and resources on the part of enforcement agencies to monitor compliance, recruit competent personnel, etc. [113] Another problem is that ministries have overlapping responsibilities, which has led to regulatory duplication and conflicts that make it harder to enforce the rules [111,113]. Another big problem is the culture of the institutions. For instance, enforcement agencies often do not have the political will to do their jobs [113]. People are more interested in starting new agencies than making systems that are honest. In some cases, the government has been found to break the laws it makes, which encourages a culture of impunity [30]. Lastly, low levels of public knowledge and professional expertise make it harder to promote green buildings [114]. For instance, developers and even government officials do not know about sustainability standards, which can lead to unintentional noncompliance of GB policies.

5. Result and Discussion

5.1. Key Findings of the Review

The review identified three major findings regarding the integration of Green Building Policy Frameworks (GBPFs) into sustainable urban planning in Nigeria.

5.1.1. Finding 1: Fragmentation of Green Building Policy Frameworks

The analysis revealed that Nigeria possesses several policy instruments that support sustainable building development, including the NBC, the Energy Efficiency Building Code EEBC, the NHP, and the NASPA-CCN [30,40,41,43,71,115]. However, these frameworks operate largely as independent instruments with limited institutional coordination and weak policy integration [11,30,116]. Although each framework addresses specific sustainability objectives, there is no unified national green building framework linking building regulations, climate policies, housing strategies, and urban planning processes [30,76]. Consequently, responsibilities are distributed across multiple institutions, including the FMWH, NESREA, state planning authorities, and the GBCN, resulting in policy overlap and governance fragmentation [13,14,46,107,117].

5.1.2. Finding 2: Weak Enforcement and Implementation Mechanisms

A second major finding is the persistent gap between policy formulation and implementation. While several policies promote environmental sustainability and resource efficiency, enforcement mechanisms remain weak and inconsistent across the country [11,42,52,73,116,118,119]. The NBC and EEBC provide important regulatory guidance, yet compliance remains limited due to inadequate institutional capacity, insufficient technical expertise, weak monitoring systems, and funding constraints [30,44,118]. Evidence from major Nigerian cities, including Lagos, Abuja, Port Harcourt, and Kano, demonstrates that urban growth frequently occurs without adequate sustainability controls, contributing to urban sprawl, infrastructure pressure, and environmental degradation [11,12,95,97].

5.1.3. Finding 3: Absence of a National Green Building Certification and Rating System

The review further revealed that Nigeria lacks a nationally recognized and legally supported green building certification system [30,46,47]. Although international rating systems such as LEED, BREEAM, EDGE, Green Star, and Green Mark have successfully promoted sustainable construction practices globally [8,9,58,62], their adoption within Nigeria remains limited [47,116,118]. Unlike South Africa, Kenya, Malaysia, and Singapore, where certification frameworks are supported through legislation, incentives, and institutional mechanisms [47,67,116,118,120,121], Nigeria continues to rely primarily on voluntary initiatives and awareness campaigns [30,74,118]. The absence of a national certification framework restricts the establishment of measurable sustainability benchmarks and limits the monitoring of environmental performance within the building sector [76].

5.1.4. Finding 4: International Best Practices Highlight the Importance of Integrated Governance

The comparative analysis demonstrated that countries with successful GB transitions share common characteristics, including strong legislative support, institutional coordination, financial incentives, stakeholder engagement, and effective monitoring systems [9,19,20]. South Africa’s Green Star SA framework, Singapore’s Green Mark scheme, and Malaysia’s GBI illustrate how green building policies can be effectively integrated into broader urban development strategies [24,120,122]. These countries have successfully linked building regulations, environmental policies, certification systems, and urban planning objectives within coherent governance frameworks [86,87,88]. In contrast, the Nigerian policy landscape remains fragmented, limiting the integration of GBP into sustainable urban development [11,74,107,123].

5.1.5. Overall Finding

The review concludes that Nigeria’s principal challenge is not the absence of sustainability-related policies, but the lack of an integrated and enforceable framework capable of coordinating green building implementation across the urban development sector. The evidence suggests that stronger institutional coordination, mandatory sustainability standards, enhanced enforcement mechanisms, and the establishment of a national green building certification system are necessary to accelerate the transition toward sustainable and climate-resilient cities in Nigeria [20,30,67,118].

5.2. Discussion

The findings reveal that the primary challenge facing GB development in Nigeria is not the absence of sustainability-related policies but the fragmentation of governance structures responsible for their implementation. Although the NBC, EEBC, NHP, and NASPA-CCN contain provisions that support sustainable development, these frameworks often operate independently and lack effective institutional coordination. This observation is consistent with studies that identify governance fragmentation, weak regulatory enforcement, and limited inter-agency collaboration as major barriers to sustainable building adoption in developing countries [124,125,126,127]. The broader urban sustainability literature further emphasizes that successful GB transitions depend on integrated governance systems that align building regulations, urban planning frameworks, environmental policies, and climate objectives [128,129].

The comparative analysis demonstrates that countries such as South Africa, Kenya, Singapore, and Malaysia have achieved greater progress in green building implementation through coordinated institutional arrangements, legally recognized certification systems, targeted financial incentives, and robust enforcement mechanisms [4,67,130,131,132,133,134]. South Africa’s Green Star certification framework and Kenya’s emerging GBPs illustrate how regulatory support and stakeholder collaboration can accelerate sustainable construction practices, while Singapore’s Green Mark Scheme highlights the effectiveness of mandatory standards and incentive-based approaches in driving market transformation [86,134,135,136,137,138].

These findings also suggest that policy coherence and institutional collaboration are critical determinants of successful green building implementation. In Nigeria, the continued separation of planning, housing, environmental management, and construction regulation has constrained the integration of green building principles into mainstream urban development processes. Consequently, achieving sustainable urban growth will require the establishment of a unified national GBF, stronger regulatory enforcement, climate-responsive building standards, and enhanced collaboration among government agencies, professional bodies, academic institutions, and private-sector stakeholders [76,78,82,139]. Such reforms would align Nigeria’s built environment sector with international best practices and contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 13 (Climate Action) [71,140,141,142,143].

6. Conclusion and Recommendations

6.1. Conclusion

This analysis seeks to assess the present circumstances and incorporation of GBPFs in Nigeria within the broader context of sustainable urban planning. Even though tools like the NBC (2018) [14], the NHP (2016) [13], and other state-level environmental planning laws have helped a lot with making policies, GBP is still broken up and mostly top-down. Comparative studies from South Africa and Kenya have demonstrated that the mainstreaming of GBPs relies on institutional alignment, incentives, and capacity development. Kenya’s green building practice through the Green Building Society shows how important it is to work together to govern, while South Africa’s GBP through Green Star SA is backed by laws and incentives. But Nigeria’s GB efforts are not going well because there is not enough coordination between the government agencies like FMWH, NESREA, and state planning agencies.

The study has shown that it is very important to move toward a policymaking process that is more integrated. To make Nigeria’s green building practices fit with the Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goal 11, it is important to combine environmental sustainability with housing and planning policies. Financial incentives like tax breaks, low-interest loans, and approvals, as well as professional training through organisations like the Nigerian Institute of Architects (NIA), the Nigerian Institute of Town Planners (NITP), etc., are very important. Ultimately, it is important to move toward a more comprehensive approach to GB policymaking.

6.2. Recommendations

6.2.1. Policy Recommendations

The results show that Nigeria needs to create a framework to speed up the implementation of GBP. First, there needs to be a binding National GBF that includes the NBC (2018) [14,76], the NHP (2016) [144], and the NASPA-CCN Policy (2021) [71,145]. The framework would be the basis for creating sustainability performance indicators that follow the rules set by SDG 11. The FMWH, the Ministry of Environment, and NESREA would put the framework into action. Secondly, the government could give the private sector incentives to use GBP in Nigeria. The incentives could include things like green tax rebates, low-interest loans, and the Green Construction Fund, which would help green construction projects in Nigeria. The latter would be based on the green tax rebate programs used in Kenya and South Africa [67,131,146,147]. Third, Nigeria needs to improve the skills of its most important groups. The upgrade could be achieved by working with the Nigerian Institute of Architects (NIA), the Nigerian Institute of Town Planners (NITP) [148], and other relevant organizations in Nigeria in collaboration with the World Green Building Council [135]. Fourth, there is a need to enhance enforcement in Nigeria. This can be done by creating a Green Building Compliance and Monitoring Unit, which will be responsible for conducting audits, offering incentives, and imposing penalties. Lastly, the advancement of green buildings in Nigeria can be realized through enhanced cooperation, awareness, and the formulation of policies regarding green buildings in Nigeria. This can be done by embracing globally recognized green building best practices and creating a national research hub on green buildings [135].

6.3. Future Research Direction

Future research should move beyond policy reviews and focus on empirical investigations of green building implementation across Nigerian cities and climatic zones. Studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of existing policy frameworks, assess barriers to enforcement, and examine stakeholder perceptions regarding green building adoption. Further research should also explore the feasibility of developing a national green building rating system tailored to Nigeria’s climatic, economic, and socio-cultural conditions. In addition, comparative studies involving other African and developing countries could provide valuable insights into policy integration, governance mechanisms, and incentive structures that support sustainable urban development. Finally, future work should investigate the role of emerging technologies, including BIM, smart city systems, and digital monitoring tools, in enhancing green building performance and policy implementation in Nigeria.