literature review of sustainable building

Sustainable Buildings: A Comprehensive Review and Classification of Challenges and Issues, Benefits, and Future Directions

• First Online: 17 November 2023

Cite this chapter

• Mehrdad Ghahramani 4 ,
• Daryoush Habibi 4 ,
• Mehran Ghahramani 5 ,
• Morteza Nazari-Heris 6 &
• Asma Aziz 4  

Part of the book series: Indoor Environment and Sustainable Building ((IESB))

210 Accesses

During the last few years, the importance of moving toward sustainable industries has been recognized by everyone, which has a significant influence on global warming. One of the most important objectives of sustainability is to reach energy efficiency and reduce carbon emission. Due to the importance of this issue, a huge amount of valuable studies have been done in this field, and a significant number of studies still are required to investigate the limitations of this topic. This study aims to have a comprehensive review of sustainable buildings from various perspectives. The most important contribution of this chapter is to study the challenges, obstacles, objectives, interests, and preferences of sustainable buildings from the perspective of different stakeholders. The review process involved analyzing papers published on three scientific and reliable databases, including review articles, conference proceedings, and journal papers. The papers focused more on the details of different aspects of improving energy efficiency and energy reduction to minimize the environmental, economic, social, and other impacts of fossil fuels. The outcomes of this study provide a valuable reference for stakeholders, including governments, policymakers, researchers, and decision-makers, and offer suggestions from the selected past studies. The review highlights the need for researchers to consider the challenges, benefits, and recommendations for future work in this area. The paper provides motivation and attracts future research endeavors to enhance energy efficiency in buildings and achieve sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Ghahramani, M., & Abapour, M. (2023, February). Optimal energy management of a parking lot in the presence of renewable sources. In 2023 8th international conference on technology and energy management (ICTEM) (pp. 1–5). IEEE.

Google Scholar  

Hosseinzadeh, N., Aziz, A., Mahmud, A., Gargoom, A., & Rabbani, M. (2021). Voltage stability of power systems with renewable-energy inverter-based generators: A review. Electronics, 10 (2), 115.

Article   Google Scholar  

Pradhan, P., Ahmad, I., Habibi, D., Aziz, A., Al-Hanahi, B., & Masoum, M. A. (2021). Optimal sizing of energy storage system to reduce impacts of transportation electrification on power distribution transformers integrated with photovoltaic. IEEE Access, 9 , 144687–144698.

Ghahramani, M., Nojavan, S., Zare, K., & Mohammadi-ivatloo, B. (2018). Application of load shifting programs in next day operation of distribution networks. In Operation of distributed energy resources in smart distribution networks (pp. 161–177). Academic Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Asadi, S., Nazari-Heris, M., Nasab, S. R., Torabi, H., & Sharifironizi, M. (2020). An updated review on net-zero energy and water buildings: Design and operation. In Food-energy-water nexus resilience and sustainable development: Decision-making methods, planning, and trade-off analysis (pp. 267–290). Springer.

Ghahramani, M., Nojavan, S., Zare, K., & Mohammadi-ivatloo, B. (2018). Short-term scheduling of future distribution network in high penetration of electric vehicles in deregulated energy market. In Operation of distributed energy resources in smart distribution networks (pp. 139–159). Academic Press.

Das, C. K., Bass, O., Kothapalli, G., Mahmoud, T. S., & Habibi, D. (2018). Optimal placement of distributed energy storage systems in distribution networks using artificial bee colony algorithm. Applied Energy, 232 , 212–228.

Ghahramani, M., Nazari-Heris, M., Zare, K., & Mohammadi-ivatloo, B. (2020). Optimal energy and reserve management of the electric vehicles aggregator in electrical energy networks considering distributed energy sources and demand side management. In Electric vehicles in energy systems: Modelling, integration, analysis, and optimization (pp. 211–231). Springer.

Nazari-Heris, M., & Asadi, S. (2023). Reliable energy management of residential buildings with hybrid energy systems. Journal of Building Engineering, 71 , 106531.

Kuhlman, T., & Farrington, J. (2010). What is sustainability? Sustainability, 2 (11), 3436–3448.

Abdellatif, M., & Al-Shamma’a, A. (2015). Review of sustainability in buildings. Sustainable Cities and Society, 14 , 171–177.

Dutil, Y., Rousse, D., & Quesada, G. (2011). Sustainable buildings: An ever evolving target. Sustainability, 3 (2), 443–464.

Omer, A. M. (2008). Energy, environment and sustainable development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12 (9), 2265–2300.

Stevanović, S. (2013). Optimization of passive solar design strategies: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25 , 177–196.

Berge, A., & Johansson, P. Ä. R. (2012). Literature review of high performance thermal insulation . Chalmers University of Technology.

Muhamad, W. N. W., Zain, M. Y. M., Wahab, N., Aziz, N. H. A., & Abd Kadir, R. (2010, January). Energy efficient lighting system design for building. In 2010 international conference on intelligent systems, modelling and simulation (pp. 282–286). IEEE.

Gholamzadehmir, M., Del Pero, C., Buffa, S., & Fedrizzi, R. (2020). Adaptive-predictive control strategy for HVAC systems in smart buildings – A review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 63 , 102480.

Campisano, A., Butler, D., Ward, S., Burns, M. J., Friedler, E., DeBusk, K., et al. (2017). Urban rainwater harvesting systems: Research, implementation and future perspectives. Water Research, 115 , 195–209.

Pidou, M., Memon, F. A., Stephenson, T., Jefferson, B., & Jeffrey, P. (2007, September). Greywater recycling: Treatment options and applications. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability , 160(3), 119–131. Thomas Telford Ltd.

Ghahramani, M., Sadat-Mohammadi, M., Nazari-Heris, M., Asadi, S., & Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B. (2021). Introduction and literature review of the operation of multi-carrier energy networks. In Planning and operation of multi-carrier energy networks (pp. 39–57). Springer.

Huovila, P. (2007). Buildings and climate change: Status, challenges, and opportunities . UNEP.

Nojavan, S., Majidi, M., Najafi-Ghalelou, A., Ghahramani, M., & Zare, K. (2017). A cost-emission model for fuel cell/PV/battery hybrid energy system in the presence of demand response program: ε-constraint method and fuzzy satisfying approach. Energy Conversion and Management, 138 , 383–392.

Ghahramani, M., Nazari-Heris, M., Zare, K., & Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B. (2018). Energy management of electric vehicles parking in a power distribution network using robust optimization method. Journal of Energy Management and Technology, 2 (3), 22–30.

Pérez-Lombard, L., Ortiz, J., & Pout, C. (2008). A review on buildings energy consumption information. Energy and Buildings, 40 (3), 394–398.

Röck, M., Saade, M. R. M., Balouktsi, M., Rasmussen, F. N., Birgisdottir, H., Frischknecht, R., et al. (2020). Embodied GHG emissions of buildings – The hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation. Applied Energy, 258 , 114107.

Salama, M., & Hana, A. R. (2010, September). Green buildings and sustainable construction in The United Arab Emirates. In Proceedings of the 26th annual ARCOM conference (pp. 1397–1405). Springer.

Laski, J., & Burrows, V. (2017). From thousands to billions: Coordinated action towards 100% net zero carbon buildings by 2050 . UNEP.

Yuan, Y., Yu, X., Yang, X., Xiao, Y., Xiang, B., & Wang, Y. (2017). Bionic building energy efficiency and bionic green architecture: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 74 , 771–787.

Häkkinen, T. (2012). Sustainability and performance assessment and benchmarking of buildings . European Commission.

Akram, M. W., Mohd Zublie, M. F., Hasanuzzaman, M., & Rahim, N. A. (2022). Global prospects, advance technologies and policies of energy-saving and sustainable building systems: A review. Sustainability, 14 (3), 1316.

Li, Q. S., Shu, Z. R., & Chen, F. B. (2016). Performance assessment of tall building-integrated wind turbines for power generation. Applied Energy, 165 , 777–788.

Wang, W., Zmeureanu, R., & Rivard, H. (2005). Applying multi-objective genetic algorithms in green building design optimization. Building and Environment, 40 (11), 1512–1525.

Natephra, W., Yabuki, N., & Fukuda, T. (2018). Optimizing the evaluation of building envelope design for thermal performance using a BIM-based overall thermal transfer value calculation. Building and Environment, 136 , 128–145.

Gholami, H., Røstvik, H. N., & Müller-Eie, D. (2019). Holistic economic analysis of building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) system: Case studies evaluation. Energy and Buildings, 203 , 109461.

Alnaser, N. W., & Flanagan, R. (2007). The need of sustainable buildings construction in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Building and Environment, 42 (1), 495–506.

Amaral, R. E., Brito, J., Buckman, M., Drake, E., Ilatova, E., Rice, P., et al. (2020). Waste management and operational energy for sustainable buildings: A review. Sustainability, 12 (13), 5337.

Aksamija, A. (2013). Sustainable facades: Design methods for high-performance building envelopes . Wiley.

Sfakianaki, E. (2015). Resource-efficient construction: Rethinking construction towards sustainability. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 12 (3), 233–242.

Geng, S., Wang, Y., Zuo, J., Zhou, Z., Du, H., & Mao, G. (2017). Building life cycle assessment research: A review by bibliometric analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 76 , 176–184.

Araújo, C., Almeida, M., Bragança, L., & Barbosa, J. A. (2016). Cost–benefit analysis method for building solutions. Applied Energy, 173 , 124–133.

Juan, Y. K., Hsu, Y. H., & Xie, X. (2017). Identifying customer behavioral factors and price premiums of green building purchasing. Industrial Marketing Management, 64 , 36–43.

Ghahramani, M., Nazari-Heris, M., Zare, K., & Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B. (2022). A two-point estimate approach for energy management of multi-carrier energy systems incorporating demand response programs. Energy, 249 , 123671.

Liu, Y., Fang, F., & Li, Y. (2014). Key issues of land use in China and implications for policy making. Land Use Policy, 40 , 6–12.

Lai, J., Yik, F., & Jones, P. (2008). Expenditure on operation and maintenance service and rental income of commercial buildings. Facilities, 26 (5/6), 242–265.

Vaughter, P., McKenzie, M., Lidstone, L., & Wright, T. (2016). Campus sustainability governance in Canada: A content analysis of post-secondary institutions’ sustainability policies. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17 (1), 16–39.

Fattouh, B., & El-Katiri, L. (2015). A brief political economy of energy subsidies in the Middle East and North Africa . The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.

Chan, A. P. C., Darko, A., Olanipekun, A. O., & Ameyaw, E. E. (2018). Critical barriers to green building technologies adoption in developing countries: The case of Ghana. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172 , 1067–1079.

Edwards, L., & Edwards, L. J. (1995). Practical risk management in the construction industry . Thomas Telford.

Book   Google Scholar  

Aktas, B., & Ozorhon, B. (2015). Green building certification process of existing buildings in developing countries: Cases from Turkey. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31 (6), 05015002.

Fitriani, H., & Ajayi, S. (2022). Barriers to sustainable practices in the Indonesian construction industry. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 66 , 1–23.

Asman, G. E., Kissi, E., Agyekum, K., Baiden, B. K., & Badu, E. (2019). Critical components of environmentally sustainable buildings design practices of office buildings in Ghana. Journal of Building Engineering, 26 , 100925.

Castleton, H. F., Stovin, V., Beck, S. B., & Davison, J. B. (2010). Green roofs; building energy savings and the potential for retrofit. Energy and Buildings, 42 (10), 1582–1591.

Berawi, M. A., Miraj, P., Windrayani, R., & Berawi, A. R. B. (2019). Stakeholders’ perspectives on green building rating: A case study in Indonesia. Heliyon, 5 (3), e01328.

Xia, B., & Chan, A. P. (2012). Measuring complexity for building projects: A Delphi study. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 19 (1), 7–24.

Navaratnam, S., Satheeskumar, A., Zhang, G., Nguyen, K., Venkatesan, S., & Poologanathan, K. (2022). The challenges confronting the growth of sustainable prefabricated building construction in Australia: Construction industry views. Journal of Building Engineering, 48 , 103935.

Hong, T., Kim, J., & Lee, M. (2019). A multi-objective optimization model for determining the building design and occupant behaviors based on energy, economic, and environmental performance. Energy, 174 , 823–834.

Bambrook, S. M., Sproul, A. B., & Jacob, D. (2011). Design optimisation for a low energy home in Sydney. Energy and Buildings, 43 (7), 1702–1711.

Brambilla, A., Salvalai, G., Imperadori, M., & Sesana, M. M. (2018). Nearly zero energy building renovation: From energy efficiency to environmental efficiency, a pilot case study. Energy and Buildings, 166 , 271–283.

Wood, H. L., Piroozfar, P., & Farr, E. R. (2013, September). Understanding complexity in the AEC industry. In 29th annual ARCOM conference (pp. 859–869). Springer.

Rahman, M. (2010). Complexity in building design. In Proceedings of the 3rd international Holcim forum for Sustainable construction, “re-inventing construction” (pp. 14–17). Springer.

Harputlugil, T. (2019). A research on selecting the green building certification system suitable for Turkey. GRID-Architecture Planning and Design Journal, 2 (1), 25–53.

Ulubeyli, S., & Kazanci, O. (2018). Holistic sustainability assessment of green building industry in Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 202 , 197–212.

Darko, A., Chan, A. P. C., Ameyaw, E. E., He, B. J., & Olanipekun, A. O. (2017). Examining issues influencing green building technologies adoption: The United States green building experts’ perspectives. Energy and Buildings, 144 , 320–332.

Kim, J. T., & Yu, C. W. F. (2018). Sustainable development and requirements for energy efficiency in buildings – The Korean perspectives. Indoor and Built Environment, 27 (6), 734–751.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Geng, Y., Dong, H., Xue, B., & Fu, J. (2012). An overview of Chinese green building standards. Sustainable Development, 20 (3), 211–221.

Gillingham, K., Newell, R., & Palmer, K. (2006). Energy efficiency policies: A retrospective examination. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31 , 161–192.

Geng, Y., Zhu, Q., Doberstein, B., & Fujita, T. (2009). Implementing China’s circular economy concept at the regional level: A review of progress in Dalian, China. Waste Management, 29 (2), 996–1002.

Umar, U. A., & Khamidi, M. F. (2012, June). Determined the level of green building public awareness: Application and strategies. In International conference on civil, offshore and environmental engineering, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia (pp. 1–6). Springer.

Lin, B., Yu, Q., Li, Z., & Zhou, X. (2013). Research on parametric design method for energy efficiency of green building in architectural scheme phase. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 2 (1), 11–22.

Sichali, M., & Banda, L. J. (2017). Awareness, attitudes and perception of green building practices and principles in the Zambian construction industry. International Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 6 (5), 215–220.

Hlásny, T., König, L., Krokene, P., Lindner, M., Montagné-Huck, C., Müller, J., et al. (2021). Bark beetle outbreaks in Europe: State of knowledge and ways forward for management. Current Forestry Reports, 7 , 138–165.

Shad, R., Khorrami, M., & Ghaemi, M. (2017). Developing an Iranian green building assessment tool using decision making methods and geographical information system: Case study in Mashhad city. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67 , 324–340.

Nikyema, G. A., & Blouin, V. Y. (2020). Barriers to the adoption of green building materials and technologies in developing countries: The case of Burkina Faso. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 410 (1), 012079. IOP Publishing.

Hwang, B. G., & Tan, J. S. (2012). Green building project management: Obstacles and solutions for sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 20 (5), 335–349.

Ahn, Y. H., Pearce, A. R., Wang, Y., & Wang, G. (2013). Drivers and barriers of sustainable design and construction: The perception of green building experience. International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 4 (1), 35–45.

Gulghane, A. A., & Khandve, P. V. (2015). Management for construction materials and control of construction waste in construction industry: A review. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 5 (4), 59–64.

Mohamed, S., Smith, R., Rodrigues, L., Omer, S., & Calautit, J. (2021). The correlation of energy performance and building age in UK schools. Journal of Building Engineering, 43 , 103141.

Lakhdari, K., Sriti, L., & Painter, B. (2021). Parametric optimization of daylight, thermal and energy performance of middle school classrooms, case of hot and dry regions. Building and Environment, 204 , 108173.

Optis, M., & Wild, P. (2010). Inadequate documentation in published life cycle energy reports on buildings. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15 , 644–651.

Ghahramani, M., Nazari-Heris, M., Zare, K., & Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B. (2019). Energy and reserve management of a smart distribution system by incorporating responsive-loads/battery/wind turbines considering uncertain parameters. Energy, 183 , 205–219.

Altan, H., Gasperini, N., Moshaver, S., & Frattari, A. (2015). Redesigning terraced social housing in the UK for flexibility using building energy simulation with consideration of passive design. Sustainability, 7 (5), 5488–5507.

Esfandiari, M., Mohamed Zaid, S., Ismail, M. A., Reza Hafezi, M., Asadi, I., Mohammadi, S., et al. (2021). Occupants’ satisfaction toward indoor environment quality of platinum green-certified office buildings in tropical climate. Energies, 14 (8), 2264.

Hu, M., Su, Y., Darkwa, J., & Riffat, S. (2020). Implementation of passive radiative cooling technology in buildings: A review. Buildings, 10 (12), 215.

Yu, W., Li, B., Jia, H., Zhang, M., & Wang, D. (2015). Application of multi-objective genetic algorithm to optimize energy efficiency and thermal comfort in building design. Energy and Buildings, 88 , 135–143.

Ciugudeanu, C., Beu, D., & Rastei, E. (2016). Living building laboratory – Educational building project in Cluj-Napoca. Energy Procedia, 85 , 125–131.

Chandel, S. S., Sharma, A., & Marwaha, B. M. (2016). Review of energy efficiency initiatives and regulations for residential buildings in India. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54 , 1443–1458.

Li, D. H., Yang, L., & Lam, J. C. (2013). Zero energy buildings and sustainable development implications – A review. Energy, 54 , 1–10.

Inayati, I., Soelami, F. X. N., & Triyogo, R. (2017). Identification of existing office buildings potential to become green buildings in energy efficiency aspect. Procedia Engineering, 170 , 320–324.

Reinhart, C. F., Mardaljevic, J., & Rogers, Z. (2006). Dynamic daylight performance metrics for sustainable building design. Leukos, 3 (1), 7–31.

Al Dakheel, J., Tabet Aoul, K., & Hassan, A. (2018). Enhancing green building rating of a school under the hot climate of UAE; renewable energy application and system integration. Energies, 11 (9), 2465.

Chel, A., & Kaushik, G. (2018). Renewable energy technologies for sustainable development of energy efficient building. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 57 (2), 655–669.

McCoy, A. P., Zhao, D., Ladipo, T., Agee, P., & Mo, Y. (2018). Comparison of green home energy performance between simulation and observation: A case of Virginia, United States. Journal of Green Building, 13 (3), 70–88.

Luo, L., Yang, L., & Hanafiah, M. M. (2018). Construction of renewable energy supply chain model based on LCA. Open Physics, 16 (1), 1118–1126.

Ghahramani, M., Nazari-Heris, M., Zare, K., & Mohammadi-ivatloo, B. (2019). Robust short-term scheduling of smart distribution systems considering renewable sources and demand response programs. In Robust optimal planning and operation of electrical energy systems (pp. 253–270). Springer.

Serrano, W. (2020). iBuilding: Artificial intelligence in intelligent buildings. In Advances in computational intelligence systems: Contributions presented at the 19th UK workshop on computational intelligence, September 4–6, 2019, Portsmouth, UK 19 (pp. 395–408). Springer.

Chen, Q., Kleinman, L., & Dial, A. (2015). Energy performance of campus leed® buildings: Implications for green building and energy policy. Journal of Green Building, 10 (3), 137–160.

Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Berardi, U., Tookey, J., Li, D. H. W., & Kariminia, S. (2016). Exploring the advantages and challenges of double-skin façades (DSFs). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 60 , 1052–1065.

Khalid, F., Dincer, I., & Rosen, M. A. (2016). Techno-economic assessment of a renewable energy based integrated multigeneration system for green buildings. Applied Thermal Engineering, 99 , 1286–1294.

Shaikh, P. H., Nor, N. B. M., Sahito, A. A., Nallagownden, P., Elamvazuthi, I., & Shaikh, M. S. (2017). Building energy for sustainable development in Malaysia: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 75 , 1392–1403.

Doukas, D. I., & Bruce, T. (2017). Energy audit and renewable integration for historic buildings: The case of Craiglockhart Primary School. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 38 , 77–85.

Xie, M., Li, C., Wang, Y., & Wang, J. (2018). Comprehensive utilization of renewable energy for new civil buildings in Shanghai. Energy Procedia, 152 , 336–341.

Iwan, A., & Poon, K. K. (2018). The role of governments and green building councils in cities’ transformation to become sustainable: Case studies of Hong Kong (East) and Vancouver (West). International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 13 , 556–570.

Mills, E. (2011). Building commissioning: A golden opportunity for reducing energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Energy Efficiency, 4 , 145–173.

Slepov, V. A., Burlachkov, V. K., Danko, T. P., Kosov, M. E., Volkov, I. I., Ivolgina, N. V., & Sekerin, V. D. (2017). Model for integrating monetary and fiscal policies to stimulate economic growth and sustainable debt dynamics. European Research Studies Journal . https://doi.org/10.35808/ersj/847

Xie, H., Clements-Croome, D., & Wang, Q. (2017). Move beyond green building: A focus on healthy, comfortable, sustainable and aesthetical architecture. Intelligent Buildings International, 9 (2), 88–96.

Fischer, E. A. (2010). Issues in green building and the federal response: An introduction . DIANE Publishing.

Allen, J. H., & Potiowsky, T. (2008). Portland’s green building cluster: Economic trends and impacts. Economic Development Quarterly, 22 (4), 303–315.

Zhang, L., Wu, J., & Liu, H. (2018). Turning green into gold: A review on the economics of green buildings. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172 , 2234–2245.

Ghodeswar, B. M. (2008). Building brand identity in competitive markets: A conceptual model. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17 (1), 4–12.

Olubunmi, O. A., Xia, P. B., & Skitmore, M. (2016). Green building incentives: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 59 , 1611–1621.

Yudelson, J. (2010). The green building revolution . Island Press.

Reddy, V. S. (2016). Sustainable construction: Analysis of its costs and financial benefits. International Journal of Innovative Research in Engineering and Management, 3 (6), 522–525.

Zhang, D., & Tu, Y. (2021). Green building, pro-environmental behavior and well-being: Evidence from Singapore. Cities, 108 , 102980.

Allen, J. G., MacNaughton, P., Laurent, J. G. C., Flanigan, S. S., Eitland, E. S., & Spengler, J. D. (2015). Green buildings and health. Current Environmental Health Reports, 2 , 250–258.

Dewlaney, K. S., & Hallowell, M. (2012). Prevention through design and construction safety management strategies for high performance sustainable building construction. Construction Management and Economics, 30 (2), 165–177.

Plessis, C. D. (2001). Sustainability and sustainable construction: The African context. Building Research & Information, 29 (5), 374–380.

Bond, S. (2011). Barriers and drivers to green buildings in Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 29 (4/5), 494–509.

Lu, W., Chi, B., Bao, Z., & Zetkulic, A. (2019). Evaluating the effects of green building on construction waste management: A comparative study of three green building rating systems. Building and Environment, 155 , 247–256.

Ahn, C., Lee, S., Peña-Mora, F., & Abourizk, S. (2010). Toward environmentally sustainable construction processes: The US and Canada’s perspective on energy consumption and GHG/CAP emissions. Sustainability, 2 (1), 354–370.

Yiing, C. F., Yaacob, N. M., & Hussein, H. (2013). Achieving sustainable development: Accessibility of green buildings in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 101 , 120–129.

Sassi, P. (2006). Strategies for sustainable architecture . Taylor & Francis.

Robichaud, L. B., & Anantatmula, V. S. (2011). Greening project management practices for sustainable construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 27 (1), 48–57.

Swan, L. G., & Ugursal, V. I. (2009). Modeling of end-use energy consumption in the residential sector: A review of modeling techniques. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13 (8), 1819–1835.

Liu, X., & Hu, W. (2019). Attention and sentiment of Chinese public toward green buildings based on Sina Weibo. Sustainable Cities and Society, 44 , 550–558.

Ciroth, A., Finkbeiner, M., Traverso, M., Hildenbrand, J., Kloepffer, W., Mazijn, B., et al. (2011). Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment: Making informed choices on products . UNEP.

Shi, X., Tian, Z., Chen, W., Si, B., & Jin, X. (2016). A review on building energy efficient design optimization from the perspective of architects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 65 , 872–884.

Hanna, K., McGuigan, E., Noble, B., & Parkins, J. (2019). An analysis of the state of impact assessment research for low carbon power production: Building a better understanding of information and knowledge gaps. Energy Research & Social Science, 50 , 116–128.

Soares, N., Costa, J. J., Gaspar, A. R., & Santos, P. (2013). Review of passive PCM latent heat thermal energy storage systems towards buildings’ energy efficiency. Energy and Buildings, 59 , 82–103.

Chen, X., Yang, H., & Sun, K. (2016). A holistic passive design approach to optimize indoor environmental quality of a typical residential building in Hong Kong. Energy, 113 , 267–281.

Tsanas, A., & Xifara, A. (2012). Accurate quantitative estimation of energy performance of residential buildings using statistical machine learning tools. Energy and Buildings, 49 , 560–567.

Darko, A., Chan, A. P., Owusu-Manu, D. G., & Ameyaw, E. E. (2017). Drivers for implementing green building technologies: An international survey of experts. Journal of Cleaner Production, 145 , 386–394.

Hwang, T., & Kim, J. T. (2011). Effects of indoor lighting on occupants’ visual comfort and eye health in a green building. Indoor and Built Environment, 20 (1), 75–90.

UNEP Sustainable Building, & Construction Initiative. (2008). The Kyoto protocol, the clean development mechanism, and the building and construction sector: A report for the UNEP sustainable buildings and construction initiative.. UNEP/Earthprint.

He, Y., Wong, N. H., Kvan, T., Liu, M., & Tong, S. (2022). How green building rating systems affect indoor thermal comfort environments design. Building and Environment, 224 , 109514.

Sadineni, S. B., Madala, S., & Boehm, R. F. (2011). Passive building energy savings: A review of building envelope components. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15 (8), 3617–3631.

Bauer, M., Mösle, P., & Schwarz, M. (2009). Green building: Guidebook for sustainable architecture . Springer.

Denholm, P., & Kulcinski, G. L. (2004). Life cycle energy requirements and greenhouse gas emissions from large scale energy storage systems. Energy Conversion and Management, 45 (13–14), 2153–2172.

Haufler, V. (2013). A public role for the private sector: Industry self-regulation in a global economy . Carnegie Endowment.

Kibert, C. J. (2016). Sustainable construction: Green building design and delivery . Wiley.

Owen, R., Amor, R., Palmer, M., Dickinson, J., Tatum, C. B., Kazi, A. S., et al. (2010). Challenges for integrated design and delivery solutions. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 6 (4), 232–240.

Hauge, Å. L., Thomsen, J., & Berker, T. (2011). User evaluations of energy efficient buildings: Literature review and further research. Advances in Building Energy Research, 5 (1), 109–127.

Zhao, D., McCoy, A. P., Du, J., Agee, P., & Lu, Y. (2017). Interaction effects of building technology and resident behavior on energy consumption in residential buildings. Energy and Buildings, 134 , 223–233.

Todd, J. A., Crawley, D., Geissler, S., & Lindsey, G. (2001). Comparative assessment of environmental performance tools and the role of the green building challenge. Building Research & Information, 29 (5), 324–335.

Alyami, S. H., Rezgui, Y., & Kwan, A. (2015). The development of sustainable assessment method for Saudi Arabia built environment: Weighting system. Sustainability Science, 10 , 167–178.

Sacks, R., Eastman, C., Lee, G., & Teicholz, P. (2018). BIM handbook: A guide to building information modeling for owners, designers, engineers, contractors, and facility managers . Wiley.

Kats, G. (2013). Greening our built world: Costs, benefits, and strategies . Island Press.

Ulewicz, R., & Blaskova, M. (2018). Sustainable development and knowledge management from the stakeholders’ point of view. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 18 . https://doi.org/10.17512/pjms.2018.18.2.29

Abidin, N. Z. (2010). Investigating the awareness and application of sustainable construction concept by Malaysian developers. Habitat International, 34 (4), 421–426.

Häkkinen, T., & Belloni, K. (2011). Barriers and drivers for sustainable building. Building Research & Information, 39 (3), 239–255.

Jalaei, F., Jrade, A., & Nassiri, M. (2015). Integrating decision support system (DSS) and building information modeling (BIM) to optimize the selection of sustainable building components. Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), 20 (25), 399–420.

Hou, D., & Al-Tabbaa, A. (2014). Sustainability: A new imperative in contaminated land remediation. Environmental Science & Policy, 39 , 25–34.

Singh, C. S. (2018). Green construction: Analysis on green and sustainable building techniques. Civil Engineering Research Journal, 4 (3), 555638.

Elkhapery, B., Kianmehr, P., & Doczy, R. (2021). Benefits of retrofitting school buildings in accordance to LEED v4. Journal of Building Engineering, 33 , 101798.

Steinemann, A., Wargocki, P., & Rismanchi, B. (2017). Ten questions concerning green buildings and indoor air quality. Building and Environment, 112 , 351–358.

Zhang, L., Wu, J., & Liu, H. (2018). Policies to enhance the drivers of green housing development in China. Energy Policy, 121 , 225–235.

Hafez, F. S., Sa’di, B., Safa-Gamal, M., Taufiq-Yap, Y. H., Alrifaey, M., Seyedmahmoudian, M., et al. (2023). Energy efficiency in sustainable buildings: A systematic review with taxonomy, challenges, motivations, methodological aspects, recommendations, and pathways for future research. Energy Strategy Reviews, 45 , 101013.

Noailly, J. (2012). Improving the energy efficiency of buildings: The impact of environmental policy on technological innovation. Energy Economics, 34 (3), 795–806.

Chang, R. D., Soebarto, V., Zhao, Z. Y., & Zillante, G. (2016). Facilitating the transition to sustainable construction: China’s policies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 131 , 534–544.

Du, Q., Yan, Y., Huang, Y., Hao, C., & Wu, J. (2021). Evolutionary games of low-carbon behaviors of construction stakeholders under carbon taxes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (2), 508.

Wu, P., Song, Y., Hu, X., & Wang, X. (2018). A preliminary investigation of the transition from green building to green community: Insights from LEED ND. Sustainability, 10 (6), 1802.

Sussman, E. (2008). Reshaping municipal and county laws to foster green building, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. NYU Environmental Law Journal, 16 , 1.

Claudet, J., Bopp, L., Cheung, W. W., Devillers, R., Escobar-Briones, E., Haugan, P., et al. (2020). A roadmap for using the UN decade of ocean science for sustainable development in support of science, policy, and action. One Earth, 2 (1), 34–42.

Li, J., & Colombier, M. (2009). Managing carbon emissions in China through building energy efficiency. Journal of Environmental Management, 90 (8), 2436–2447.

Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration, 80 (1), 1–22.

Jiang, J., Xie, D., Ye, B., Shen, B., & Chen, Z. (2016). Research on China’s cap-and-trade carbon emission trading scheme: Overview and outlook. Applied Energy, 178 , 902–917.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Engineering, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia

Mehrdad Ghahramani, Daryoush Habibi & Asma Aziz

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

Mehran Ghahramani

College of Engineering, Lawrence Technological University, Southfield, MI, USA

Morteza Nazari-Heris

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehrdad Ghahramani .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Lawrence Technological University, Southfield, MI, USA

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Ghahramani, M., Habibi, D., Ghahramani, M., Nazari-Heris, M., Aziz, A. (2024). Sustainable Buildings: A Comprehensive Review and Classification of Challenges and Issues, Benefits, and Future Directions. In: Nazari-Heris, M. (eds) Natural Energy, Lighting, and Ventilation in Sustainable Buildings. Indoor Environment and Sustainable Building. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41148-9_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41148-9_1

Published : 17 November 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-41147-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-41148-9

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

A comprehensive review on green buildings research: bibliometric analysis during 1998–2018

1 School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tianjin University, No. 135 Yaguan Road, Tianjin, 300350 China

2 Tianjin University Research Institute of Architectural Design and Urban Planning Co., Ltd, Tianjin, 300072 China

3 Center for Green Buildings and Sponge Cities, Georgia Tech Tianjin University Shenzhen Institute, Shenzhen, 518071 Guangdong China

Umme Marium Ahmad

Xiaotong wang.

4 School of Architecture & Built Environment, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

Associated Data

Buildings account for nearly 2/5ths of global energy expenditure. Due to this figure, the 90s witnessed the rise of green buildings (GBs) that were designed with the purpose of lowering the demand for energy, water, and materials resources while enhancing environmental protection efforts and human well-being over time. This paper examines recent studies and technologies related to the design, construction, and overall operation of GBs and determines potential future research directions in this area of study. This global review of green building development in the last two decades is conducted through bibliometric analysis on the Web of Science, via the Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index databases. Publication performance, countries’ characteristics, and identification of key areas of green building development and popular technologies were conducted via social network analysis, big data method, and S-curve predictions. A total of 5246 articles were evaluated on the basis of subject categories, journals’ performance, general publication outputs, and other publication characteristics. Further analysis was made on dominant issues through keyword co-occurrence, green building technologies by patent analysis, and S-curve predictions. The USA, China, and the UK are ranked the top three countries where the majority of publications come from. Australia and China had the closest relationship in the global network cooperation. Global trends of the top 5 countries showed different country characteristics. China had a steady and consistent growth in green building publications each year. The total publications on different cities had a high correlation with cities’ GDP by Baidu Search Index. Also, barriers and contradictions such as cost, occupant comfort, and energy consumption were discussed in developed and developing countries. Green buildings, sustainability, and energy efficiency were the top three hotspots identified through the whole research period by the cluster analysis. Additionally, green building energy technologies, including building structures, materials, and energy systems, were the most prevalent technologies of interest determined by the Derwent Innovations Index prediction analysis. This review reveals hotspots and emerging trends in green building research and development and suggests routes for future research. Bibliometric analysis, combined with other useful tools, can quantitatively measure research activities from the past and present, thus bridging the historical gap and predicting the future of green building development.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11356-021-12739-7.

Introduction

Rapid urban development has resulted in buildings becoming a massive consumer of energy (Yuan et al. 2013 ), liable for 39% of global energy expenditure and 68% of total electricity consumption in the USA (building). In recent years, green buildings (GBs) have become an alternative solution, rousing widespread attention. Also referred to as sustainable buildings, low energy buildings, and eco-buildings, GBs are designed to reduce the strain on environmental resources as well as curb negative effects on human health by efficiently using natural resources, reducing garbage, and ensuring the residents’ well-being through improved living conditions ( Agency USEP Indoor Air Quality ; Building, n.d ). As a strategy to improve the sustainability of the construction industry, GBs have been widely recognized by governments globally, as a necessary step towards a sustainable construction industry (Shen et al. 2017 ).

Zuo and Zhao ( 2014 ) reviewed the current research status and future development direction of GBs, focusing on connotation and research scope, the benefit-difference between GBs and traditional buildings, and various ways to achieve green building development. Zhao et al. ( 2019 ) presented a bibliometric report of studies on GBs between 2000 and 2016, identifying hot research topics and knowledge gaps. The verification of the true performance of sustainable buildings, the application of ICT, health and safety hazards in the development of green projects, and the corporate social responsibility were detected as future agenda. A scientometrics review of research papers on GB sources from 14 architectural journals between 1992 and 2018 was also presented (Wuni et al. 2019a ). The study reported that 44% of the world participated in research focusing on green building implementation; stakeholder management; attitude assessment; regulations and policies; energy efficiency assessment; sustainability performance assessment; green building certification, etc.

With the transmission of the COVID-19 virus, society is now aware of the importance of healthy buildings. In fact, in the past 20 years, the relationship between the built environment and health has aroused increasing research interest in the field of building science. Public spaces and dispersion of buildings in mixed-use neighborhoods are promoted. Furthermore, telecommuting has become a trend since the COVID-19 pandemic, making indoor air quality even more important in buildings, now (Fezi 2020 ).

The system for evaluating the sustainability of buildings has been established for nearly two decades. But, systems dedicated to identifying whether buildings are healthy have only recently appeared (McArthur and Powell 2020 ). People are paying more and more attention to health factors in the built environment. This is reflected in the substantial increase in related academic papers and the increase in health building certification systems such as WELE and Fitwel (McArthur and Powell 2020 ).

Taking the above into consideration, the aim of this study is to examine the stages of development of GBs worldwide and find the barriers and the hotpots in global trends. This study may be beneficial to foreign governments interested in promoting green building and research in their own nations.

Methodology

Overall description of research design.

Since it is difficult to investigate historical data and predict global trends of GBs, literature research was conducted to analyze their development. The number of published reports on a topic in a particular country may influence the level of industrial development in that certain area (Zhang et al. 2017 ). The bibliometric analysis allows for a quantitative assessment of the development and advancement of research related to GBs and where they are from. Furthermore, it has been shown that useful data has been gathered through bibliometrics and patent analysis (Daim et al. 2006 ).

In this report, the bibliometric method, social network analysis (SNA), CiteSpace, big data method, patent analysis, and S-curve analysis are used to assess data.

Bibliometrics analysis

Bibliometrics, a class of scientometrics, is a tool developed in 1969 for library and information science. It has since been adopted by other fields of study that require a quantitative assessment of academic articles to determine trends and predict future research scenarios by compiling output and type of publication, title, keyword, author, institution, and countries data (Ho 2008 ; Li et al. 2017 ).

Social network analysis

Social network analysis (SNA) is applied to studies by modeling network maps using mathematics and statistics (Mclinden 2013 ; Ye et al. 2013 ). In the SNA, nodes represent social actors, while connections between actors stand for their relationships (Zhang et al. 2017 ). Correlations between two actors are determined by their distance from each other. There is a variety of software for the visualization of SNA such as Gephi, Vosviewer, and Pajek. In this research, “Pajek” was used to model the sequence of and relationships between the objects in the map (Du et al. 2015 ).

CiteSpace is an open-source Java application that maps and analyzes trends in publication statistics gathered from the ISI-Thomson Reuters Scientific database and produces graphic representations of this data (Chen 2006 ; Li et al. 2017 ). Among its many functions, it can determine critical moments in the evolution of research in a particular field, find patterns and hotspots, locate areas of rapid growth, and breakdown the network into categorized clusters (Chen 2006 ).

Big data method

The big data method, with its 3V characters (volume, velocity, and variety), can give useful and accurate information. Enormous amounts of data, which could not be collected or computed manually through conventional methods, can now be collected through public data website. Based on large databases and machine learning, the big data method can be used to design, operate, and evaluate energy efficiency and other index combined with other technologies (Mehmood et al. 2019 ). The primary benefit of big data is that the data is gathered from entire populations as opposed to a small sample of people (Chen et al. 2018 ; Ho 2008 ). It has been widely used in many research areas. In this research, we use the “Baidu Index” to form a general idea of the trends in specific areas based on user interests. The popularity of the keywords could imply the user’s behavior, user’s demand, user’s portrait, etc. Thus, we can analyze the products or events to help with developing strategies. However, it must be noted that although big data can quantitatively represent human behavior, it cannot determine what motivates it. With the convergence of big data and technology, there are unprecedented applications in the field of green building for the improved indoor living environment and controlled energy consumption (Marinakis 2020 ).

Patent analysis

Bibliometrics, combined with patent analysis, bridges gaps that may exist in historical data when predicting future technologies (Daim et al. 2006 ). It is a trusted form of technical analysis as it is supported by abundant sources and commercial awareness of patents (Guozhu et al. 2018 ; Yoon and Park 2004 ). Therefore, we used patent analysis from the Derwent patent database to conduct an initial analysis and forecast GB technologies.

There are a variety of methods to predict the future development prospects of a technology. Since many technologies are developed in accordance with the S-curve trend, researchers use the S-curve to observe and predict the future trend of technologies (Bengisu and Nekhili 2006 ; Du et al. 2019 ; Liu and Wang 2010 ). The evolution of technical systems generally goes through four stages: emerging, growth, maturity, and decay (saturation) (Ernst 1997 ). We use the logistics model (performed in Loglet Lab 4 software developed by Rockefeller University) to simulate the S-curve of GB-related patents to predict its future development space.

Data collection

The Web of Science (WOS) core collection database is made up of trustworthy and highly ranked journals. It is considered the leading data portal for publications in many fields (Pouris and Pouris 2011 ). Furthermore, the WOS has been cited as the main data source in many recent bibliometric reviews on buildings (Li et al. 2017 ).

Access to all publications used in this paper was attained through the Science Citation Index-Expanded and the Social Sciences Citation Index databases. Because there is no relevant data in WOS before 1998, our examination focuses on 1998 to 2018. With consideration of synonyms, we set a series of green building-related words (see Appendix ) in titles, abstracts, and keywords for bibliometric analysis. For example, sustainable, low energy, zero energy, and low carbon can be substituted for green; housing, construction, and architecture can be a substitute for building (Zuo and Zhao 2014 ).

Analytical procedure

The study was conducted in three stages; data extraction was the first step where all the GB-related words were screened in WOS. Afterwards, some initial analysis was done to get a complete idea of GB research. Then, we made a further analysis on countries’ characteristics, dominant issues, and detected technology hotspots via patent analysis (Fig. ​ (Fig.1 1 ).

Analytical procedure of the article

Results and analysis

General results.

Of the 6140 publications searched in the database, 88.67% were articles, followed by reviews (6.80%), papers (3.72%), and others (such as editorial materials, news, book reviews). Most articles were written in English (96.78%), followed by German (1.77%), Spanish (0.91%), and other European languages. Therefore, we will only make a further analysis of the types of articles in English publications.

The subject categories and their distribution

The SCI-E and SSCI database determined 155 subjects from the pool of 5246 articles reviewed, such as building technology, energy and fuels, civil engineering, environmental, material science, and thermodynamics, which suggests green building is a cross-disciplinary area of research. The top 3 research areas of green buildings are Construction & Building Technology (36.98%), Energy & Fuels (30.39%), and Engineering Civil (29.49%), which account for over half of the total categories.

The journals’ performance

The top 10 journals contained 38.8% of the 5246 publications, and the distribution of their publications is shown in Fig. ​ Fig.2. 2 . Impact factors qualitatively indicate the standard of journals, the research papers they publish, and researchers associated with those papers (Huibin et al. 2015 ). Below, we used 2017 impact factors in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) to determine the journal standards.

The performance of top10 most productive journals

Publications on green building have appeared in a variety of titles, including energy, building, environment, materials, sustainability, indoor built environment, and thermal engineering. Energy and Buildings, with its impact factor 4.457, was the most productive journal apparently from 2009 to 2017. Sustainability (IF = 2.075) and Journal of Cleaner Production (IF = 5.651) rose to significance rapidly since 2015 and ranked top two journals in 2018.

Publication output

The total publication trends from 1998 to 2018 are shown in Fig. ​ Fig.3, 3 , which shows a staggering increase across the 10 years. Since there was no relevant data before 1998, the starting year is 1998. Before 2004, the number of articles published per year fluctuated. The increasing rate reached 75% and 68% in 2004 and 2007, respectively, which are distinguished in Fig. ​ Fig.3 3 that leads us to believe that there are internal forces at work, such as appropriate policy creation and enforcement by concerned governments. There was a constant and steady growth in publications after 2007 in the worldwide view.

The number of articles published yearly, between 1998 and 2018

The characteristics of the countries

Global distribution and global network were analyzed to illustrate countries’ characteristics. Many tools such as ArcGIS, Bibexcel, Pajek, and Baidu index were used in this part (Fig. ​ (Fig.4 4 ).

Analysis procedure of countries’ characteristics

Global distribution of publications

By extracting the authors’ addresses (Mao et al. 2015 ), the number of publications from each place was shown in Fig. ​ Fig.5 5 and Table ​ Table1. 1 . Apparently, the USA was the most productive country accounting for 14.98% of all the publications. China (including Hong Kong and Taiwan) and the UK followed next by 13.29% and 8.27% separately. European countries such as Italy, Spain, and Germany also did a lot of work on green building development.

Global geographical distribution of the top 20 publications based on authors’ locations

Global research network

Global networks illustrate cooperation between countries through the analysis of social networks. Academic partnerships among the 10 most productive countries are shown in Fig. ​ Fig.6. 6 . Collaboration is determined by the affiliation of the co-authors, and if a publication is a collaborative research, all countries or institutions will benefit from it (Bozeman et al. 2013 ). Every node denotes a country and their size indicates the amount of publications from that country. The lines linking the nodes denote relationships between countries and their thickness indicates the level of collaboration (Mao et al. 2015 ).

The top 10 most productive countries had close academic collaborative relationships

It was obvious that China and Australia had the strongest linking strength. Secondly, China and the USA, China, and the UK also had close cooperation with each other. Then, the USA with Canada and South Korea followed. The results indicated that cooperation in green building research was worldwide. At the same time, such partnerships could help countries increase individual productivity.

Global trend of publications

The time-trend analysis of academic inputs to green building from the most active countries is shown in Fig. ​ Fig.7 7 .

The publication trends of the top five countriesbetween 1998 and 2018 countries areshown in Fig 7.

Before 2007, these countries showed little growth per year. However, they have had a different, growing trend since 2007. The USA had the greatest proportion of publications from 2007, which rose obviously each year, reaching its peak in 2016 then declined. The number of articles from China was at 13 in 2007, close to the USA. Afterwards, there was a steady growth in China. Not until 2013 did China have a quick rise from 41 publications to 171 in 2018. The UK and Italy had a similar growth trend before 2016 but declined in the last 2 years.

Further analysis on China, the USA, and the UK

Green building development in china, policy implementation in china.

Green building design started in China with the primary goal of energy conservation. In September 2004, the award of “national green building innovation” of the Ministry of Construction was launched, which kicked off the substantive development of GB in China. As we can see from Fig. ​ Fig.7, 7 , there were few publications before 2004 in China. In 2004, there were only 4 publications on GB.

The Ministry of Construction, along with the Ministry of Science and Technology, in 2005, published “The Technical Guidelines for Green Buildings,” proposing the development of GBs (Zhang et al. 2018 ). In June 2006, China had implemented the first “Evaluation Standard for Green Building” (GB/T 50378-2006), which promoted the study of the green building field. In 2007, the demonstration of “100 projects of green building and 100 projects of low-energy building” was launched. In August 2007, the Ministry of Construction issued the “Green Building Assessment Technical Regulations (try out)” and the “Green Building Evaluation Management,” following Beijing, Tianjin, Chongqing, and Shanghai, more than 20 provinces and cities issued the local green building standards, which promoted GBs in large areas in China.

At the beginning of 2013, the State Council issued the “Green Building Action Plan,” so the governments at all levels continuously issued incentive policies for the development of green buildings (Ye et al. 2015 ). The number of certified green buildings has shown a blowout growth trend throughout the country, which implied that China had arrived at a new chapter of development.

In August 2016, the Evaluation Standard for Green Renovation of Existing Buildings was released, encouraging the rise of residential GB research. Retrofitting an existing building is often more cost-effective than building a new facility. Designing significant renovations and alterations to existing buildings, including sustainability measures, will reduce operating costs and environmental impacts and improve the building’s adaptability, durability, and resilience.

At the same time, a number of green ecological urban areas have emerged (Zhang et al. 2018 ). For instance, the Sino-Singapore Tianjin eco-city is a major collaborative project between the two governments. Located in the north of Tianjin Binhai New Area, the eco-city is characterized by salinization of land, lack of freshwater, and serious pollution, which can highlight the importance of eco-city construction. The construction of eco-cities has changed the way cities develop and has provided a demonstration of similar areas.

China has many emerging areas and old centers, so erecting new, energy efficiency buildings and refurbishing existing buildings are the best steps towards saving energy.

Baidu Search Index of “green building”

In order to know the difference in performance among cities in China, this study employs the big data method “Baidu Index” for a smart diagnosis and assessment on green building at finer levels. “Baidu Index” is not equal to the number of searches but is positively related to the number of searches, which is calculated by the statistical model. Based on the keyword search of “green building” in the Baidu Index from 2013 to 2018, the top 10 provinces or cities were identified (Fig. ​ (Fig.8 8 ).

Baidu Search Index of green building in China 2013–2018 from high to low

The top 10 search index distributes the east part and middle part of China, most of which are the high GDP provinces (Fig. ​ (Fig.9). 9 ). Economically developed cities in China already have a relatively mature green building market. Many green building projects with local characteristics have been established (Zhang et al. 2018 ).

TP GDP & Search Index were highly related

We compared the city search index (2013–2018) with the total publications of different cities by the authors’ address and the GDP in 2018. The correlation coefficient between the TP and the search index was 0.9, which means the two variables are highly related. The correlation coefficient between the TP and GDP was 0.73, which also represented a strong relationship. We inferred that cities with higher GDP had more intention of implementation on green buildings. The stronger the local GDP, the more relevant the economic policies that can be implemented to stimulate the development of green buildings (Hong et al. 2017 ). Local economic status (Yang et al. 2018 ), property developer’s ability, and effective government financial incentives are the three most critical factors for green building implementation (Huang et al. 2018 ). However, Wang et al. ( 2017 ) compared the existing green building design standards and found that they rarely consider the regional economy. Aiming at cities at different economic development phases, the green building design standards for sustainable construction can effectively promote the implementation of green buildings. Liu et al. ( 2020 ) mainly discussed the impact of sustainable construction on GDP. According to the data, there is a strong correlation between the percentage of GDP increments in China and the amount of sustainable infrastructure (Liu et al. 2020 ). The construction of infrastructure can create jobs and improve people’s living standards, increasing GDP as a result (Liu et al. 2020 ).

Green building development in the USA and the UK

The sign that GBs were about to take-off occurred in 1993—the formation of the United States Green Building Council (USGBC), an independent agency. The promulgation of the Energy Policy Act 2005 in the USA was the key point in the development of GBs. The Energy Policy Act 2005 paid great attention to green building energy saving, which also inspired publications on GBs.

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), a popular metric for sustainable buildings and homes (Jalaei and Jrade 2015 ), has become a thriving business model for green building development. It is a widely used measure of how buildings affect the environment.

Another phenomenon worth discussion, combined with Fig. ​ Fig.7, 7 , the increasing rate peaked at 75% in 2004 and 68% in 2007 while the publications of the UK reached the peak in 2004 and 2007. The UK Green Building Council (UKGBC), a United Kingdom membership organization, created in 2007 with regard to the 2004 Sustainable Building Task Group Report: Better Buildings - Better Lives, intends to “radically transform,” all facets of current and future built environment in the UK. It is predicted that the establishment of the UKGBC promoted research on green buildings.

From the China, the USA, and the UK experience, it is predicted that the foundation of a GB council or the particular projects from the government will promote research in this area.

Barriers and contradicts of green building implement

On the other hand, it is obvious that the USA, the UK, and Italian publications have been declining since 2016. There might be some barriers and contradicts on the adoption of green buildings for developed countries. Some articles studied the different barriers to green building in developed and developing countries (Chan et al. 2018 ) (Table ​ (Table2). 2 ). Because the fraction of energy end-uses is different, the concerns for GBs in the USA, China, and the European Union are also different (Cao et al. 2016 ).

Top Barriers for Green building in US, UK and China

It is regarded that higher cost is the most deterring barrier to GB development across the globe (Nguyen et al. 2017 ). Other aspects such as lack of market demand and knowledge were also main considerations of green building implementation.

As for market demand, occupant satisfaction is an important factor. Numerous GB post-occupancy investigations on occupant satisfaction in various communities have been conducted.

Paul and Taylor ( 2008 ) surveyed personnel ratings of their work environment with regard to ambience, tranquility, lighting, sound, ventilation, heat, humidity, and overall satisfaction. Personnel working in GBs and traditional buildings did not differ in these assessments. Khoshbakht et al. ( 2018 ) identified two global contexts in spite of the inconclusiveness: in the west (mainly the USA and Britain), users experienced no significant differences in satisfaction between green and traditional buildings, whereas, in the east (mainly China and South Korea), GB user satisfaction is significantly higher than traditional building users.

Dominant issues

The dominant issues on different stages.

Bibliometric data was imported to CiteSpace where a three-stage analysis was conducted based on development trends: 1998–2007 initial development; 2008–2015 quick development; 2016–2018 differentiation phase (Fig. ​ (Fig.10 10 ).

Analysis procedure of dominant issues

CiteSpace was used for word frequency and co-word analysis. The basic principle of co-word analysis is to count a group of words appearing at the same time in a document and measure the close relationship between them by the number of co-occurrences. The top 50 levels of most cited or occurred items from each slice (1998 to 2007; 2008 to 2015; 2016 to 2018) per year were selected. After merging the similar words (singular or plural form), the final keyword knowledge maps were generated as follows.

Initial phase (1998–2007)

In the early stage (Fig. ​ (Fig.11), 11 ), “green building” and “sustainability” were the main two clusters. Economics and “environmental assessment method” both had high betweenness centrality of 0.34 which were identified as pivotal points. Purple rings denote pivotal points in the network. The relationships in GB were simple at the initial stage of development.

Co-word analysis from 1998–2007

Sustainable construction is further enabled with tools that can evaluate the entire life cycle, site preparation and management, materials and their reusability, and the reduction of resource and energy consumption. Environmental building assessment methods were incorporated to achieve sustainable development, especially at the initial project appraisal stage (Ding 2008 ). Green Building Challenge (GBC) is an exceptional international research, development, and dissemination effort for developing building environmental performance assessments, primarily to help researchers and practitioners in dealing with difficult obstacles in assessing performance (Todd et al. 2001 ).

Quick development (2008–2015)

In the rapid growing stage (Fig. ​ (Fig.12), 12 ), pivot nodes and cluster centers were more complicated. Besides “green building” and “sustainability,” “energy efficiency” was the third hotspot word. The emergence of new vocabulary in the keyword network indicated that the research had made progress during 2008 – 2015. Energy performance, energy consumption, natural ventilation, thermal comfort, renewable energy, and embodied energy were all energy related. Energy becomes the most attractive field in achieving sustainability and green building. Other aspects such as “life cycle assessment,” “LEED,” and “thermal comfort” became attractive to researchers.

Co-word analysis from 2008–2015

The life cycle assessment (LCA) is a popular technique for the analysis of the technical side of GBs. LCA was developed from environmental assessment and economic analysis which could be a useful method to evaluate building energy efficiency from production and use to end-use (Chwieduk 2003 ). Much attention has been paid to LCA because people began to focus more on the actual performance of the GBs. Essentially, LCA simplifies buildings into systems, monitoring, and calculating mass flow and energy consumption over different stages in their life cycle.

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) was founded by the USGBC and began in the early twenty-first century (Doan et al. 2017 ). LEED is a not-for-profit project based on consumer demand and consensus that offers an impartial GB certification. LEED is the preferred building rating tool globally, with its shares growing rapidly. Meanwhile, UK’s Building Research Establishment Assessment Method (BREEAM) and Japan’s Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE) have been in use since the beginning of the twenty-first century, while New Zealand’s Green Star is still in its earlier stages. GBs around the world are made to suit regional climate concerns and need.

In practice, not all certified green buildings are necessarily performing well. Newsham et al. ( 2009 ) gathered energy-use information from 100 LEED-certified non-residential buildings. Results indicated that 28–35% of LEED structures actually consumed higher amounts of energy than the non-LEED structures. There was little connection in its actual energy consumption to its certification grade, meaning that further improvements are required for establishing a comprehensive GB rating metric to ensure consistent performance standards.

Thermal comfort was related to many aspects, such as materials, design scheme, monitoring system, and human behaviors. Materials have been a focus area for improving thermal comfort and reducing energy consumption. Wall (Schossig et al. 2005 ), floor (Ansuini et al. 2011 ), ceiling (Hu et al. 2018 ), window, and shading structures (Shen and Li 2016 ) were building envelopes which had been paid attention to over the years. Windows were important envelopes to improve thermal comfort. For existing and new buildings, rational use of windows and shading structures can enhance the ambient conditions of buildings (Mcleod et al. 2013 ). It was found that redesigning windows could reduce the air temperature by 2.5% (Elshafei et al. 2017 ), thus improving thermal comfort through passive features and reducing the use of active air conditioners (Perez-Fargallo et al. 2018 ). The monitoring of air conditioners’ performance could also prevent overheating of buildings (Ruellan and Park 2016 ).

Differentiation phase (2016–2018)

In the years from 2016 to 2018 (Fig. ​ (Fig.13), 13 ), “green building,” ”sustainability,” and “energy efficiency” were still the top three hotspots in GB research.

Co-word analysis from 2016–2018

Zero-energy building (ZEB) became a substitute for low energy building in this stage. ZEB was first introduced in 2000 (Cao et al. 2016 ) and was believed to be the solution to the potential ramifications of future energy consumption by buildings (Liu et al. 2019 ). The EU has been using ZEB standards in all of its new building development projects to date (Communuties 2002 ). The USA passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, aiming for zero net energy consumption of 1 out of every 2 commercial buildings that are yet to be built by 2040 and for all by 2050 (Sartori et al. 2012 ). Energy consumption became the most important factor in new building construction.

Renewable energy was a key element of sustainable development for mankind and nature (Zhang et al. 2013 ). Using renewable energy was an important feature of ZEBs (Cao et al. 2016 ; Pulselli et al. 2007 ). Renewable energy, in the form of solar, wind, geothermal, clean bioenergy, and marine can be used in GBs. Solar energy has been widely used in recent years while wind energy is used locally because of its randomness and unpredictable features. Geothermal energy is mainly utilized by ground source heat pump (GSHP), which has been lauded as a powerful energy system for buildings (Cao et al. 2016 ). Bioenergy has gained much popularity as an alternative source of energy around the globe because it is more stable and accessible than other forms of energy (Zhang et al. 2015 ). There is relatively little use of marine energy, yet this may potentially change depending on future technological developments (Ellabban et al. 2014 ).

Residential buildings receive more attention because people spend 90% of their time inside. Contrary to popular belief, the concentration of contaminants found indoors is more than the concentration outside, sometimes up to 10 times or even 100 times more (agency). The renovation of existing buildings can save energy, upgrade thermal comfort, and improve people’s living conditions.

Energy is a substantial and widely recognized cost of building operations that can be reduced through energy-saving and green building design. Nevertheless, a consensus has been reached by academics and those in building-related fields that GBs are significantly more energy efficient than traditional buildings if designed, constructed, and operated with meticulousness (Wuni et al. 2019b ). The drive to reduce energy consumption from buildings has acted as a catalyst in developing new technologies.

Compared with the article analysis, patents can better reflect the practical technological application to a certain extent. We extracted the information of green building energy-related patent records between 1998 and 2018 from the Derwent Innovations Index database. The development of a technique follows a path: precursor–invention–development–maturity. This is commonly known as an S-type growth (Mao et al. 2018 ). Two thousand six hundred thirty-eight patents were found which were classified into “Derwent Manual Code,” which is the most distinct feature just like “keywords” in the Derwent Innovations Index. Manual codes refer to specific inventions, technological innovations, and unique codes for their applications. According to the top 20 Derwent Manual Code which accounted for more than 80% of the total patents, we classified the hotspots patents into three fields for further S-curve analysis, which are “structure,” “material,” and “energy systems” (Table ​ (Table3 3 ).

Top 20 keywords in classified patents

Sustainable structural design (SSD) has gained a lot of research attention from 2006 to 2016 (Pongiglione and Calderini 2016 ). The S-curve of structure* (Fig. ​ (Fig.14) 14 ) has just entered the later period of the growth stage, accounting for 50% of the total saturation in 2018. Due to its effectiveness and impact, SSD has overtime gained recognition and is now considered by experts to be a prominent tool in attaining sustainability goals (Pongiglione and Calderini 2016 ).

The S-curves of different Structure types from patents

Passive design is important in energy saving which is achieved by appropriately orientating buildings and carefully designing the building envelope. Building envelopes, which are key parts of the energy exchange between the building and the external environment, include walls, roofs, windows, and floors. The EU increased the efficiency of its heat-regulating systems by revamping building envelopes as a primary energy-saving task during 2006 to 2016 (Cao et al. 2016 ).

We analyzed the building envelope separately. According to the S-curve (Fig. ​ (Fig.14), 14 ), the number of patents related to GB envelops are in the growth stage. At present, building envelops such as walls, roofs, windows, and even doors have not reached 50% of the saturated quantity. Walls and roofs are two of the most important building envelops. The patent contents of walls mainly include wall materials and manufacturing methods, modular wall components, and wall coatings while technologies about roofs mainly focus on roof materials, the combination of roof and solar energy, and roof structures. Green roofs are relatively new sustainable construction systems because of its esthetic and environmental benefits (Wei et al. 2015 ).

The material resources used in the building industry consume massive quantities of natural and energy resources consumptions (Wang et al. 2018 ). The energy-saving building material is economical and environmentally friendly, has low coefficient heat conductivity, fast curing speed, high production efficacy, wide raw material source and flame, and wear resistance properties (Zhang et al. 2014 ). Honeycomb structures were used for insulating sustainable buildings. They are lightweight and conserve energy making them eco-friendly and ideal for construction (Miao et al. 2011 ).

According to the S-curve (Fig. ​ (Fig.15), 15 ), it can be seen that the number of patents on the GB “material” is in the growth stage. It is expected that the number of patents will reach 50% of the total saturation in 2022.

The S-curves of a different material from patents

Building material popularly used comprised of cement, concrete, gypsum, mortar compositions, and boards. Cement is widely used in building material because of its easy availability, strong hardness, excellent waterproof and fireproof performance, and low cost. The S-curve of cement is in the later period of the growth stage, which will reach 90% of the total saturation in 2028. Composite materials like Bamcrete (bamboo-concrete composite) and natural local materials like Rammed Earth had better thermal performance compared with energy-intensive materials like bricks and cement (Kandya and Mohan 2018 ). Novel bricks synthesized from fly ash and coal gangue have better advantages of energy saving in brick production phases compared with that of conventional types of bricks (Zhang et al. 2014 ). For other materials like gypsum or mortar, the numbers of patents are not enough for S-curve analysis. New-type green building materials offer an alternative way to realize energy-saving for sustainable constructions.

Energy system

The energy system mainly included a heating system and ventilation system according to the patent analysis. So, we analyzed solar power systems and air conditioning systems separately. Heat* included heat collecting panels and a fluid heating system.

The results indicated that heat*-, solar-, and ventilation-related technologies were in the growth stage which would reach 50% of the total saturation in 2022 (Fig. ​ (Fig.16). 16 ). Photovoltaic technology is of great importance in solar energy application (Khan and Arsalan 2016 ).

The S-curves of energy systems from patents

On the contrary, air conditioning technologies had entered into the mature stage after a decade of development. It is worth mentioning that the design of the fresh air system of buildings after the COVID-19 outbreak is much more important. With people spending the majority of their time inside (Liu et al. 2019 ), volatile organic compounds, formaldehyde, and carbon dioxide received the most attention worldwide (Wei et al. 2015 ). Due to health problems like sick building syndrome, and more recently since the COVID-19 outbreak, the supply of fresh air can drastically ameliorate indoor air quality (IAQ) (Liu et al. 2019 ). Regulating emissions from materials, enhanced ventilation, and monitoring air indoors are the main methods used in GBs for maintaining IAQ (Wei et al. 2015 ). Air circulation frequency and improved air filtration can reduce the risk of spreading certain diseases, while controlling the airflow between rooms can also prevent cross-infections. Poor indoor air quality and ventilation provide ideal conditions for the breeding and spreading of viruses by air (Chen et al. 2019 ). A diverse range of air filters coupled with a fresh air supply system should be studied. A crucial step forward is to create a cost-effective, energy-efficient, intelligent fresh air supply system (Liu et al. 2017 ) to monitor, filter outdoor PM2.5 (Chen et al. 2017 ), and saving building energy (Liu and Liu 2005 ). Earth-air heat exchanger system (EAHE) is a novel technology that supplies fresh air using underground soil heat (Chen et al. 2019 ).

A total of 5246 journal articles in English from the SCI and SSCI databases published in 1998–2018 were reviewed and analyzed. The study revealed that the literature on green buildings has grown rapidly over the past 20 years. The findings and results are summarized:

Data analysis revealed that GB research is distributed across various subject categories. Energy and Buildings, Building and Environment, Journal of Cleaner Production, and Sustainability were the top journals to publish papers on green buildings.

Global distribution was done to see the green building study worldwide, showing that the USA, China, and the UK ranked the top three countries, accounting for 14.98%, 13.29%, and 8.27% of all the publications respectively. Australia and China had the closest relationship on green building research cooperation worldwide.

Further analysis was made on countries’ characteristics, dominant issues through keyword co-occurrence, green building technology by patent analysis, and S-curve prediction. Global trends of the top 5 countries showed different characteristics. China had a steady and consistent growth in publications each year while the USA, the UK, and Italy were on a decline from 2016. The big data method was used to see the city performance in China, finding that the total publications had a high correlation with the city’s GDP and Baidu Search Index. Policies were regarded as the stimulation for green building development, either in China or the UK. Also, barriers and contradictions such as cost, occupants’ comfort, and energy consumption were discussed about the developed and developing countries.

Cluster and content analysis via CiteSpace identified popular and trending research topics at different stages of development; the top three hotspots were green buildings, sustainability, and energy efficiency throughout the whole research period. Energy efficiency has shifted from low to zero energy buildings or even beyond it in recent years. Energy efficiency was the most important drive to achieve green buildings while LCA and LEED were the two potential ways to evaluate building performance. Thermal comfort and natural ventilation of residential buildings became a topic of interest to the public.

Then, we combined the keywords with “energy” to make further patent analysis in Derwent Innovations Index. “Structure,” “material,” and “energy systems” were three of the most important types of green building technologies. According to S-curve analysis, most of the technologies of energy-saving buildings were on the fast-growing trend, and even though there were conflicts and doubts in different countries on GB adoption, it is still a promising field.

Future directions

An establishment of professional institutes or a series of policies and regulations on green building promulgated by government departments will promote research development (as described in the “Further Analysis on China, the USA, and the UK” section). Thus, a policy enacted by a formal department is of great importance in this particular field.

Passive design is important in energy saving which is ensured by strategically positioning buildings and precisely engineering the building envelope, i.e., roof, walls, windows, and floors. A quality, the passive-design house is crucial to achieving sustained thermal comfort, low-carbon footprint, and a reduced gas bill. The new insulation material is a promising field for reducing building heat loss and energy consumed. Healthy residential buildings have become a focus of future development due to people’s pursuit of a healthy life. A fresh air supply system is important for better indoor air quality and reduces the risk of transmission of several diseases. A 2020 study showed the COVID-19 virus remains viable for only 4 hours on copper compared to 24 h on cardboard. So, antiviral materials will be further studied for healthy buildings (Fezi 2020 ).

With the quick development of big data method and intelligent algorithms, artificial intelligence (AI) green buildings will be a trend. The core purpose of AI buildings is to achieve optimal operating conditions through the accurate analysis of data, collected by sensors built into green buildings. “Smart buildings” and “Connected Buildings” of the future, fitted with meters and sensors, can collect and share massive amounts of information regarding energy use, water use, indoor air quality, etc. Analyzing this data can determine relationships and patterns, and optimize the operation of buildings to save energy without compromising the quality of the indoor environment (Lazarova-Molnar and Mohamed 2019 ).

The major components of green buildings, such as building envelope, windows, and skylines, should be adjustable and versatile in order to get full use of AI. A digital control system can give self-awareness to buildings, adjusting room temperature, indoor air quality, and air cooling/heating conditions to control power consumption, and make it sustainable (Mehmood et al. 2019 ).

Concerns do exist, for example, occupant privacy, data security, robustness of design, and modeling of the AI building (Maasoumy and Sangiovanni-Vincentelli 2016 ). However, with increased data sources and highly adaptable infrastructure, AI green buildings are the future.

This examination of research conducted on green buildings between the years 1998 and 2018, through bibliometric analysis combined with other useful tools, offers a quantitative representation of studies and data conducted in the past and present, bridging historical gaps and forecasting the future of green buildings—providing valuable insight for academicians, researchers, and policy-makers alike.

(DOCX 176 kb)

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analyzed throughout the current study are available in the Web of Science Core Collection.

(From Web of Science Core Collection)

Topic: (“bioclimatic architect*” or “bioclimatic build*” or “bioclimatic construct*” or “bioclimatic hous*” or “eco-architect*” or “eco-build*” or “eco-home*” or “eco-hous*” or “eco-friendly build*” or “ecological architect*” or “ecological build*” or “ecological hous*” or “energy efficient architect*” or “energy efficient build*” or “energy efficient construct*” or “energy efficient home*” or “energy efficient hous*” or “energy efficient struct*” or “energy saving architect*” or “energy saving build*” or “energy saving construct*” or “energy saving home*” or “energy saving hous*” or “energy saving struct*” or “green architect*” or “green build*” or “green construct*” or “green home*” or “low carbon architect*” or “low carbon build*” or “low carbon construct*” or “low carbon home*” or “low carbon hous*” or “low energy architect*” or “low energy build*” or “low energy construct*” or “low energy home*” or “low energy hous*” or “sustainable architect*” or “sustainable build*” or “sustainable construct*” or “sustainable home*” or “sustainable hous*” or “zero energy build*” or “zero energy home*” or “zero energy hous*” or “net zero energy build*” or “net zero energy home*” or “net zero energy hous*” or “zero-carbon build*” or “zero-carbon home*” or “zero-carbon hous*” or “carbon neutral build*” or “carbon neutral construct*” or “carbon neutral hous*” or “high performance architect*” or “high performance build*” or “high performance construct*” or “high performance home*” or “high performance hous*”)

Time span: 1998-2018。 Index: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI。

Author contributions

Ying Li conceived the frame of the paper and wrote the manuscript. Yanyu Rong made the data figures and participated in writing the manuscript. Umme Marium Ahmad helped with revising the language. Xiaotong Wang consulted related literature for the manuscript. Jian Zuo contributed significantly to provide the keywords list. Guozhu Mao helped with constructive suggestions.

This study was supported by The National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.51808385).

Declarations

This manuscript is ethical.

Not applicable.

The authors declare no competing interest.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Agency USEP Indoor Air Quality https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq.
• Ansuini R, Larghetti R, Giretti A, Lemma M. Radiant floors integrated with PCM for indoor temperature control. Energy Build. 2011; 43 :3019–3026. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.07.018. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bengisu M, Nekhili R. Forecasting emerging technologies with the aid of science and technology databases. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2006; 73 :835–844. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2005.09.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bozeman B, Fay D, Slade CP. Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the-state-of-the-art. J Technol Transf. 2013; 38 :1–67. doi: 10.1007/s10961-012-9281-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Building AG Importance of Green Building. https://www.greenbuilt.org/about/importance-of-green-building
• Cao XD, Dai XL, Liu JJ. Building energy-consumption status worldwide and the state-of-the-art technologies for zero-energy buildings during the past decade. Energy Build. 2016; 128 :198–213. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.06.089. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chan APC, Darko A, Olanipekun AO, Ameyaw EE. Critical barriers to green building technologies adoption in developing countries: the case of Ghana. J Clean Prod. 2018; 172 :1067–1079. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.235. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen CC, Lo TH, Tsay YS, Lee CY, Liu KS. Application of a novel formaldehyde sensor with MEMS (micro electro mechanical systems) in indoor air quality test and improvement in medical spaces. Appl Ecol Environ Res. 2017; 15 :81–89. doi: 10.15666/aeer/1502_081089. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen CM. CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2006; 57 :359–377. doi: 10.1002/asi.20317. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen X, Lu WS, Xue F, Xu JY. A cost-benefit analysis of green buildings with respect to construction waste minimization using big data in Hong Kong. J Green Build. 2018; 13 :61–76. doi: 10.3992/1943-4618.13.4.61. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen XY, Niu RP, Lv LN, Kuang DQ, LOP (2019) Discussion on existing problems of fresh air system. In: 4th International Conference on Advances in Energy Resources and Environment Engineering, vol 237. IOP Conference Series-Earth and Environmental Science. Iop Publishing Ltd, Bristol. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/237/4/042030
• Chwieduk D. Towards sustainable-energy buildings. Appl Energy. 2003; 76 :211–217. doi: 10.1016/s0306-2619(03)00059-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Communuties CotE (2002) Directive of the European parliament and the council.
• Daim TU, Rueda G, Martin H, Gerdsri P. Forecasting emerging technologies: use of bibliometrics and patent analysis. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2006; 73 :981–1012. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2006.04.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ding GKC. Sustainable construction - the role of environmental assessment tools. J Environ Manag. 2008; 86 :451–464. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.025. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doan DT, Ghaffarianhoseini A, Naismith N, Zhang TR, Ghaffarianhoseini A, Tookey J. A critical comparison of green building rating systems. Build Environ. 2017; 123 :243–260. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.07.007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Du HB, Li BL, Brown MA, Mao GZ, Rameezdeen R, Chen H. Expanding and shifting trends in carbon market research: a quantitative bibliometric study. J Clean Prod. 2015; 103 :104–111. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.094. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Du HB, Liu DY, Lu ZM, Crittenden J, Mao GZ, Wang S, Zou HY. Research development on sustainable urban infrastructure from 1991 to 2017: a bibliometric analysis to inform future innovations. Earth Future. 2019; 7 :718–733. doi: 10.1029/2018ef001117. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellabban O, Abu-Rub H, Blaabjerg F. Renewable energy resources: current status, future prospects and their enabling technology. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2014; 39 :748–764. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.113. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elshafei G, Negm A, Bady M, Suzuki M, Ibrahim MG. Numerical and experimental investigations of the impacts of window parameters on indoor natural ventilation in a residential building. Energy Build. 2017; 141 :321–332. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.02.055. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ernst H. The use of patent data for technological forecasting: the diffusion of CNC-technology in the machine tool industry. Small Bus Econ. 1997; 9 :361–381. doi: 10.1023/A:1007921808138. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fezi BA. Health engaged architecture in the context of COVID-19. J Green Build. 2020; 15 :185–212. doi: 10.3992/1943-4618.15.2.185. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guozhu, et al. Bibliometric analysis of insights into soil remediation. J Soils Sediments. 2018; 18 :2520–2534. doi: 10.1007/s11368-018-1932-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ho S-Y. Bibliometric analysis of biosorption technology in water treatment research from 1991 to 2004. Int J Environ Pollut. 2008; 34 :1–13. doi: 10.1504/ijep.2008.020778. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hong WX, Jiang ZY, Yang Z, (2017) Iop (2017) Analysis on the restriction factors of the green building scale promotion based on DEMATEL. In: 2nd International Conference on Advances in Energy Resources and Environment Engineering, vol 59. IOP Conference Series-Earth and Environmental Science. Iop Publishing Ltd, Bristol. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/59/1/012064
• Hu J, Kawaguchi KI, Ma JJB. Retractable membrane ceiling on indoor thermal environment of residential buildings. Build Environ. 2018; 146 :289–298. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.09.035. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang N, Bai LB, Wang HL, Du Q, Shao L, Li JT. Social network analysis of factors influencing green building development in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018; 15 :16. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15122684. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huibin D, Guozhu M, Xi L, Jian Z, Linyuan W. Way forward for alternative energy research: a bibliometric analysis during 1994-2013. Sustain Energy Rev. 2015; 48 :276–286. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.094. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jalaei F, Jrade A. Integrating building information modeling (BIM) and LEED system at the conceptual design stage of sustainable buildings. Sustain Cities Soc. 2015; 18 (95-10718):95–107. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2015.06.007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kandya A, Mohan M. Mitigating the urban heat island effect through building envelope modifications. Energy Build. 2018; 164 :266–277. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.01.014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khan J, Arsalan MH. Solar power technologies for sustainable electricity generation - a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2016; 55 :414–425. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.135. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khoshbakht, et al. Are green buildings more satisfactory? A review of global evidence. Habitat Int. 2018; 74 :57–65. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2018.02.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lazarova-Molnar S, Mohamed N. Collaborative data analytics for smart buildings: opportunities and models. Clust Comput. 2019; 22 :1065–1077. doi: 10.1007/s10586-017-1362-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li X, Wu P, Shen GQ, Wang X, Teng Y. Mapping the knowledge domains of building information modeling (BIM): a bibliometric approach. Autom Constr. 2017; 84 :195–206. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2017.09.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu CY, Wang JC. Forecasting the development of the biped robot walking technique in Japan through S-curve model analysis. Scientometrics. 2010; 82 :21–36. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0055-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu GL, et al. A review of air filtration technologies for sustainable and healthy building ventilation. Sustain Cities Soc. 2017; 32 :375–396. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2017.04.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu J, Liu GQ. Some indoor air quality problems and measures to control them in China Indoor. Built Environ. 2005; 14 :75–81. doi: 10.1177/1420326x05050362. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu ZB, Li WJ, Chen YZ, Luo YQ, Zhang L. Review of energy conservation technologies for fresh air supply in zero energy buildings. Appl Therm Eng. 2019; 148 :544–556. doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.11.085. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu ZJ, Pyplacz P, Ermakova M, Konev P. Sustainable construction as a competitive advantage. Sustainability. 2020; 12 :13. doi: 10.3390/su12155946. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maasoumy M, Sangiovanni-Vincentelli A. Smart connected buildings design automation: foundations and trends found trends. Electron Des Autom. 2016; 10 :1–3. doi: 10.1561/1000000043. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mao G, Zou H, Chen G, Du H, Zuo J. Past, current and future of biomass energy research: a bibliometric analysis. Sustain Energy Rev. 2015; 52 :1823–1833. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.141. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mao GZ, Shi TT, Zhang S, Crittenden J, Guo SY, Du HB. Bibliometric analysis of insights into soil remediation. J Soils Sediments. 2018; 18 :2520–2534. doi: 10.1007/s11368-018-1932-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marinakis V. Big data for energy management and energy-efficient buildings. Energies. 2020; 13 :18. doi: 10.3390/en13071555. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McArthur JJ, Powell C. Health and wellness in commercial buildings: systematic review of sustainable building rating systems and alignment with contemporary research. Build Environ. 2020; 171 :18. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106635. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mcleod RS, Hopfe CJ, Kwan A. An investigation into future performance and overheating risks in Passivhaus dwellings. Build Environ. 2013; 70 :189–209. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.08.024. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mclinden D. Concept maps as network data: analysis of a concept map using the methods of social network analysis. Eval Program Plann. 2013; 36 :40–48. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.05.001. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mehmood MU, Chun D, Zeeshan, Han H, Jeon G, Chen K. A review of the applications of artificial intelligence and big data to buildings for energy-efficiency and a comfortable indoor living environment. Energy Build. 2019; 202 :13. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109383. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miao XL, Yao Y, Wang Y, Chu YP. Experimental research on the sound insulation property of lightweight composite paper honeycomb core wallboard. In: Jiang ZY, Li SQ, Zeng JM, Liao XP, Yang DG, editors. Manufacturing Process Technology, Pts 1-5. Stafa-Zurich: Advanced Materials Research. Trans Tech Publications Ltd; 2011. pp. 1334–1339. [ Google Scholar ]
• Newsham GR, Mancini S, Energy BJ. Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Yes, but… Energy Build. 2009; 41 :897–905. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.03.014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen HT, Skitmore M, Gray M, Zhang X, Olanipekun AO. Will green building development take off? An exploratory study of barriers to green building in Vietnam. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2017; 127 :8–20. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.012. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul WL, Taylor PA. A comparison of occupant comfort and satisfaction between a green building and a conventional building. Build Environ. 2008; 43 :1858–1870. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2007.11.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perez-Fargallo A, Rubio-Bellido C, Pulido-Arcas JA, Gallego-Maya I, Guevara-Garcia FJ. Influence of adaptive comfort models on energy improvement for housing in cold areas. Sustainability. 2018; 10 :15. doi: 10.3390/su10030859. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pongiglione M, Calderini C. Sustainable structural design: comprehensive literature review. J Struct Eng. 2016; 142 :15. doi: 10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0001621. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pouris A, Pouris A. Scientometrics of a pandemic: HIV/AIDS research in South Africa and the World. Scientometrics. 2011; 86 :541–552. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0277-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pulselli RM, Simoncini E, Pulselli FM, Bastianoni S. Emergy analysis of building manufacturing, maintenance and use: Em-building indices to evaluate housing sustainability. Energy Build. 2007; 39 :620–628. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.10.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruellan M, Park H, Bennacer R. Residential building energy demand and thermal comfort: thermal dynamics of electrical appliances and their impact. Energy Build. 2016; 130 :46–54. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.07.029. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sartori I, Napolitano A, Voss K. Net zero energy buildings: a consistent definition framework. Energy Build. 2012; 48 :220–232. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.01.032. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schossig P, Henning HM, Gschwander S, Haussmann T (2005) Micro-encapsulated phase-change materials integrated into construction materials. Solar Energy Mater Solar Cells 89:297-306
• Shen C, Li XT. Solar heat gain reduction of double glazing window with cooling pipes embedded in venetian blinds by utilizing natural cooling. Energy Build. 2016; 112 :173–183. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.11.073. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shen L, Yan H, Fan H, Wu Y, Zhang Y. An integrated system of text mining technique and case-based reasoning (TM-CBR) for supporting green building design. Build Environ. 2017; 124 :388–401. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.08.026. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Todd JA, Crawley D, Geissler S, Lindsey G. Comparative assessment of environmental performance tools and the role of the Green Building Challenge. Build Res Inf. 2001; 29 :324–335. doi: 10.1080/09613210110064268. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang H, Chiang PC, Cai Y, Li C, Wang X, Chen TL, Wei S, Huang Q. Application of wall and insulation materials on green building: a review. Sustainability. 2018; 10 :21. doi: 10.3390/su10093331. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang J, Liu Y, Ren J, Cho S, (2017) Iop (2017) A brief comparison of existing regional green building design standards in China. In: 2nd International Conference on Advances in Energy Resources and Environment Engineering, vol 59. IOP Conference Series-Earth and Environmental Science. Iop Publishing Ltd, Bristol. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/59/1/012013
• Wei WJ, Ramalho O, Mandin C. Indoor air quality requirements in green building certifications. Build Environ. 2015; 92 :10–19. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.03.035. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wuni IY, Shen GQP, Osei-Kyei R. Scientometric review of global research trends on green buildings in construction journals from 1992 to 2018. Energy Build. 2019; 190 :69–85. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.02.010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wuni IY, Shen GQP, Osei RO (2019b) Scientometric review of global research trends on green buildings in construction journals from 1992 to 2018 Energy Build 190:69-85 doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.02.010
• Yang XD, Zhang JY, Zhao XB. Factors affecting green residential building development: social network analysis. Sustainability. 2018; 10 :21. doi: 10.3390/su10051389. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ye L, Cheng Z, Wang Q, Lin H, Lin C, Liu B. Developments of Green Building Standards in China. Renew Energy. 2015; 73 :115–122. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2014.05.014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ye Q, Li T, Law R. A coauthorship network analysis of tourism and hospitality research collaboration. J Hosp Tour Res. 2013; 37 :51–76. doi: 10.1177/1096348011425500. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoon B, Park Y. A text-mining-based patent network: analytical tool for high-technology trend. J High Technol Manag Res. 2004; 15 :37–50. doi: 10.1016/j.hitech.2003.09.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yuan XL, Wang XJ, Zuo J. Renewable energy in buildings in China-a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2013; 24 :1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.022. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang HT, Hu D, Wang RS, Zhang Y. Urban energy saving and carbon reduction potential of new-types of building materials by recycling coal mining wastes. Environ Eng Manag J. 2014; 13 :135–144. doi: 10.30638/eemj.2014.017. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang HZ, Li H, Huang BR, Destech Publicat I (2015) Development of biogas industry in Beijing. 2015 4th International Conference on Energy and Environmental Protection. Destech Publications, Inc, Lancaster
• Zhang SF, Andrews-Speed P, Zhao XL, He YX. Interactions between renewable energy policy and renewable energy industrial policy: a critical analysis of China’s policy approach to renewable energies. Energy Policy. 2013; 62 :342–353. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.063. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang Y, Huang K, Yu YJ, Yang BB. Mapping of water footprint research: a bibliometric analysis during 2006-2015. J Clean Prod. 2017; 149 :70–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.067. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang Y, Kang J, Jin H. A review of Green Building Development in China from the perspective of energy saving. Energies. 2018; 11 :18. doi: 10.3390/en11020334. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao XB, Zuo J, Wu GD, Huang C. A bibliometric review of green building research 2000-2016. Archit Sci Rev. 2019; 62 :74–88. doi: 10.1080/00038628.2018.1485548. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zuo J, Zhao ZY. Green building research-current status and future agenda: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2014; 30 :271–281. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.021. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Accessibility Links

• Skip to content
• Skip to search IOPscience
• Skip to Journals list
• Accessibility help
• Accessibility Help

Click here to close this panel.

Purpose-led Publishing is a coalition of three not-for-profit publishers in the field of physical sciences: AIP Publishing, the American Physical Society and IOP Publishing.

Together, as publishers that will always put purpose above profit, we have defined a set of industry standards that underpin high-quality, ethical scholarly communications.

We are proudly declaring that science is our only shareholder.

A Literature Review of Methods in Research on Green Building Cost Analysis

R B Yasinta 1 , C Utomo 1 and Y Rahmawati 2

Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering , Volume 930 , 4th International Conference on Civil Engineering Research (ICCER 2020), 22-23 July 2020, Surabaya, Indonesia Citation R B Yasinta et al 2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 930 012014 DOI 10.1088/1757-899X/930/1/012014

Article metrics

1438 Total downloads

Share this article

Author e-mails.

[email protected]

Author affiliations

1 Department of Civil Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Indonesia.

2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia.

Buy this article in print

Development greatly influences environmental sustainability and quality. The concept of green building is one solution to minimize environmental damage due to construction. The concept of green building requires greater investment than conventional building. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) impacts the cost of planning, building's operational and maintenance cost and residual cost. Recently, research of green building on cost analysis is developing rapidly. There are so many studies of green building on cost analysis with different methods. This research addressed several relevant methods and is expected to set clear which methods to use for the future research under green building topics. This journal is meant to find out research method used in determining green building on cost analysis. The method to be carried out is a literature review of 14 relevant reputable journals from 2013-2020. The most widely used method is the Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA).

Export citation and abstract BibTeX RIS

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence . Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Green Building Architecture: A Literature Review on Designing Techniques

Buildings are found to be both, one of the biggest consumer of energy and producer of greenhouse gases. It has become a global issue. According to the National Institute of Building Sciences(USA), buildings generate 35 percent of the carbon dioxide (the primary greenhouse gas associated with climate change), 49 percent of the sulphur dioxide, and 25 percent of the nitrogen oxide found in the air. Since buildings are accountable for this scenario, it has imposed an immediate requirement to not only think of, but implement sustainability in every new construction instantly. This will render us a sustained environment and a healthy ecosystem. Green Buildings are buildings that subscribe to the principle of conscientious handling of natural resources, which means causing as little environmental interference as possible, using environment friendly materials, requires low operational energy, utilizes renewable sources of energy to fulfil its requirements, follows high-quality and longevity as a guideline for construction and last but not least, must be economically viable. Albeit the problem is common in developing nations. The paper focuses on green design as a vital transformation of contemporary architecture practiced in developing nations. It endeavours to present some environmental and physical design approaches for green buildings in promptly developing countries chiefly India. In this regard, the study presents hands on analysis of basics and principles of green architecture, theories and viewpoints outlined in the field and also the analysis of efficacious cases of environment friendly buildings in India.

Related Papers

JIGNASHA PATEL

— In this project prepared a working model on green society which not only provides occupant an ecofriendly environment but it also focuses on re-use of waste materials. Minimal CO2 emission, Less electricity consumption and gives zero discharge. Majority it has solar panels to produce electricity but even biogas plant which emit methane gas (used as cooking fuel) and other gases also produce electricity. Also windmill installed contributes to electricity production .The hydraulic jump in the canal behind the society also helps in electricity production hence the generated electricity can be used to run the appliances in the house of the society .Here the sand filters are used to filter out grey water and sewage water which can be used in watering the plants in the garden.Most importantly green techniques like double coated window , cavity wall, cooling pipes , cooling tower incommercial building , porous pipe , rain water harvesting , zigzag LED light arrangements, low flow fixture in washroom etc... Have been included for thermal insulation, acoustics, proper ventilation and lighting and reduces use of water. This whole society is ultimately created on the basis of three important techniques i.e. 3R (Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle)

nandini lochan

IAEME Publication

The building designers are presently going through a transition phase. As due to the known energy implications of poorly designed buildings and related environmental issues, Government is imposing a number of controlling measures. These include building energy codes, green rating systems, and environmental clearance norms. At present very few guideline or support is available to the architects to incorporate all the above additional requirements during the design process. Standard architectural practice does not cover the energy/environmental considerations in common projects unless otherwise specified under scope of services. This paper is about formulating the design process for energy efficient buildings. The necessary data for which has been gathered through the survey conducted by the author from the architects working in various capacities. The paper starts with discussion on process and related aspects of designing energy efficient buildings. The sub topics define the methodology for establishing design process, including description of the participants and their selection criteria and, finally present the outcome of the survey in the form of a matrix.

International Journal of Research (IJR)

Edupedia Publications

Green buildings are designed to reduce the overall impact of the built environment on human health and the natural environment. This paper enumerates the various methods of bringing in energy efficiency. It introduces the Bureau of Energy Efficiency BEE (a national body) and presents an overview of the “Energy Conservation Building Code” (ECBC). In this paper, a case study of IIT Kanpur has been presented in detail. Despite its huge campus spread over an area of 4.3 square kilometres (1,100 acres) surprisingly, it uses only 605 kWh/m2 per year. Some more “Energy Efficient” buildings of India are also mentioned .In view of fast depleting energy reserves, energy conservation is need of the hour. Efficiently design homes and offices can cut energy bill substantially. The Bureau of Energy Efficiency, the relevant code and the Star Rating program, will go a long way to encourage energy efficiency. This program will help identify the careless owners who are frittering away the precious sources of energy. Continued support from the State Governments and the private sector is essential for the success of the program. We need to wake up and act- and act fast before it is too late. Looking to the dwindling sources of energy and the danger of climatic deterioration caused by high carbon emissions, energy efficient buildings are necessity of today.

In India, the environmental problems are increasing day by day and year by year due to leading urbanisation. An increase in demands of new residential and commercial buildings is sign of economic development but with this comes an increased consumption of more energy, raw materials and resources and becoming impossible to meet such demands of consumer with increasing population. Preserving India's ecology and finite resources is now more than important. Green building and green revolution in general are growing and has become the preferred model or concept by engineers, government and financial bodies to meet all these issues regarding environment and health issues. Considering all these impacts this paper consists of different Affordable Green construction strategies & technologies, their benefits, affordable construction activities and some alternative materials, and some suggestions to regulatory bodies to achieve Green development and creating " GO GREEN AWARENESS " among people of India.

— In almost every country, a significant part of total greenhouse gas emissions come from buildings. According to World Watch Institute, about 40% of the energy use is dedicated to construction and operations of buildings. A green building depletes the natural resources to a minimum during its construction and operation. The aim of green building design is to minimize the demand on non renewable resources, maximize the utilization efficiency of these resources when in use, and maximize the reuse, recycling, and utilization of renewable resources. A green building rating system is an evaluation tool that measures environmental performance of a building through its life cycle. A comprehensive and suitable to Indian climate and buildings, National Rating System, called GRIHA (Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment), was developed by MNRE based on the initial work carried out at The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). The present paper is regarding the reassessment of evaluation tools of GRIHA methodology with the help of a case study. The HAREDA (Haryana Renewable Energy Development Agency) building which has been awarded five stars by ADaRSH (Association of Development and Research of Sustainable Habitats) has been selected for the case study. On the basis of TERI-GRIHA methodology, a reassessment has been conducted to found out if any misappropriation is present in the initial stage of assessment and also to countercheck the performance of existing unique features of the design in the operational stage. Also distinctions between pre-construction and post-construction criteria have been advocated. I. INTRODUCTION The concepts of sustainable construction and green building are the recent responses to address environmental problems and reduce the overall impacts of the building sector on the natural environment. In the last two decades, in both developing and developed countries, the attention on construction of green buildings and retrofitting of existing buildings by using low-carbon and green technologies has grown considerably. In India the two green rating systems being followed are: LEED India (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)-administered by the Indian Green building Council (IGBC) and GRIHA-Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment developed by TERI (The Energy and Research Institute). TERI's green building rating system GRIHA has been developed as an instrumental tool to evaluate and rate the environmental performance of a building. GRIHA is a guiding and performance-oriented system where points are earned for meeting the design and performance intent of the criteria. Each criterion has a number of points assigned to it. It means that a project intending to meet the criterion would qualify for the points. GRIHA has a 100 point system consisting of some core points, which are mandatory to be met while the rest are optional points, which can be earned by complying with the commitment of the criterion for which the point is allocated. The innovation points are available over and above the 100 point system. This means that a project can hypothetically apply for a maximum of 104 points. But the final scoring shall be done out of 100 points. Different levels of certification (one star to five stars) are awarded based on the number of points earned. The minimum points required for certification is 50. Buildings scoring 50 to 60 points, 61 to 70 points, 71 to 80 points, and 81 to 90 points shall get one star, 'two stars', 'three stars' and 'four stars' respectively. A building scoring 91 to 100 points will get the maximum rating viz. five stars. There are in total of 34 criteria's in the GRIHA methodology.

Green architecture practices in Egypt are very limited and their progress does not go with constant steps as required for mitigating local environmental problems. This research analyses the context of green architecture practices in Egypt. This is achieved through comparing it with other countries that have achieved remarkable success in applying green architecture principles. The two selected experiences are the United States of America and India. By analyzing the contexts of green architecture practices in these countries, it was found that the progress of these practices is a result of the integration of several factors which are: stakeholders, energy codes, supportive factors, incentives, leading projects and rating systems. The study analyses some of these factors in the three countries of study to figure out the potentials and deficiencies of each factor in the Egyptian context. This will lead to conclude some strategies that can pave the way for better application of green architecture principles in Egypt.

ali mamhoori

RELATED PAPERS

Ijetrm Journal

Mahendra Pratap Choudhary

Zankhana Gajjar

Interal Res journa Managt Sci Tech

International Res Jour Managt Socio Human

Dhruvak Aggarwal

Sarika Bahadure

Sonam Gupta

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research

Victor Jose , Sithara Sunney

GRIHA Council, TERI Press

Bishal Goswami

Life Science Archives LSA

Rahul Vavhal

Mayank Chaurasia

Pankaj Bahadure

Dr. Suchith Reddy Arukala

DUYGU ERTEN

IJERA Journal

Krishna Kumar

Sumantra Misra

IJLRET Journal

Gayatri Vyas

Sriram Somasundaram

American journal of Engineering Research (AJER) , Manoj Kumar Sharma

Nirmal Kishnani

IOSR Journals

SYED M A Q B O O L GEELANI

atiwb.nic.in

Madhumita Roy

Narayanan A.M

Bhalchandra Tankkar

Neena Sekharan

Amira Elnokaly

A.meenatchi sundaram

JASH MATHEW

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024