Next Article in Journal
Study on the Microclimatic Effects of Plant-Enclosure Conditions and Water–Green Space Ratio on Urban Waterfront Spaces in Summer
Previous Article in Journal
Empowering Sustainability: A Consumer-Centric Analysis Based on Advanced Electricity Consumption Predictions
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Engineering and Design for Sustainable Construction: A Bibliometric Analysis of Current Status and Future Trends

by
Mohammad Masfiqul Alam Bhuiyan
* and
Ahmed Hammad
*
Construction Engineering and Management, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 1H9, Canada
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(7), 2959; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072959
Submission received: 29 January 2024 / Revised: 23 March 2024 / Accepted: 26 March 2024 / Published: 2 April 2024

Abstract

:
The purpose of this study is to investigate the state of engineering and design research for sustainable construction. It aims to report the current status and future trends within this dynamic field, combining econometric and content analysis using the Bibliometrix R encapsulation tool. This study reviewed academic journals using bibliometric analysis. We selected articles by searching the Scopus database. Primarily relevant articles were identified and screened. The dataset comprised a substantial compilation of 731 journal articles from 278 sources published between January 2000 and June 2023, which formed the basis of the in-depth analysis. The importance of sustainable construction is gradually gaining more attention, and engineering and design are the significant phases of construction. This research identifies that sustainable construction is nothing in isolation; instead, it warrants the holistic integration of multiple factors, as illustrated in the Sankey diagram. Recycling, durability, life cycle assessment, innovative materials, and energy efficiency have emerged as central themes, reflecting global concern to enhance sustainability, reduce environmental impacts, and optimize resource utilization. This study is a valuable resource for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers, offering guidelines for collaborative efforts towards sustainable development. This paper paves the way for interdisciplinary cooperation and strategic alignment among diverse stakeholders, promoting innovative approaches to sustainable construction.

1. Introduction

In the face of unprecedented global challenges, such as climate change, resource insufficiency, and social inequality, sustainable construction has gained prominence to foster a more resilient and equitably built environment. Integrating engineering and design principles in the construction industry has become a vital strategy to address pressing environmental, social, and economic concerns with an increasing need for sustainable development. Understanding the current status and future trends in engineering and design for sustainable construction becomes essential to shaping a more sustainable world as global awareness of the need for sustainable development intensifies. The concept of sustainable development, introduced by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in the ‘Brundtland Report’ of 1987, advocates for the prudent use of resources to meet present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs [1,2].
The purpose of sustainable construction is to achieve ‘maximum value with minimum harm’, ensuring that economic, social, technical, and environmental factors are systematically integrated into every project [3,4,5]. This vision, commonly known as the pillars of sustainability, echoes the core principles outlined by the 2005 World Summit on Social Development, emphasizing the interrelationships of the environment, economy, social structure, technology, and equity [6]. Considering this connection, the essence of sustainable construction lies in the collective responsibility to consider the well-being of all members of society, from local communities to the global population, involved in the decision-making processes.
The concept of the five major phases in construction projects, namely, feasibility, engineering, procurement, construction, and operation, is widely recognized and has become a standard framework in the construction industry [7,8]. The idea was introduced to provide a systematic and organized approach to managing the different stages of a construction project, from its initial conception to its long-term operation and maintenance. Sustainable construction’s success lies in applying engineering practices and design ingenuity. Engineers play a pivotal role in implementing energy-efficient technologies, resilient structures, and resource optimization strategies, while designers prioritize occupant well-being, human-centric spaces, and eco-friendly materials. This research highlights the relationship between engineering and design in pursuing sustainable construction practices. To comprehend the current state of research and progress in engineering and design for sustainable construction, a thorough bibliometric analysis is presented, examining scholarly literature published between 2000 and June 2023. This review aims to illustrate research and interest in this dynamic field by exploring publication trends; identifying influential authors, institutions, and journals; and mapping the main research clusters.
Bibliometrix R encapsulation is a powerful and widely used tool for bibliometric analysis, providing researchers with a robust platform to comprehensively assess scholarly literature [9]. Using this encapsulation tool, we can review and analyze the vast corpus of journal articles on engineering and design for sustainable construction, ensuring a rigorous and data-driven approach to the research. Applying Bibliometrix R facilitates the quantitative and qualitative assessment of key indicators, including publication trends, authorship patterns, influential papers, and thematic shifts in research focus [10,11]. This allows us to gain insights into the evolution of sustainable construction as an academic discipline over the past two decades, capturing pivotal milestones and influential works that have shaped the field’s development.
Through this in-depth bibliometric analysis, stakeholders in the construction industry, including policymakers, researchers, and practitioners, will gain valuable insights into the progress made and the challenges ahead. The objective of this research is to answer the following questions: What is the status of the research in the engineering and design fields for sustainable construction? How did the theme evolve? And finally, what is the potential research direction in the future?
This review analyzes recent publications and discussions around global sustainability priorities, technological advancements, and policy shifts to provide valuable clues about the areas where further research is warranted. Potential research directions may encompass exploring novel sustainable construction materials, developing resilient and adaptive building designs to address climate change impacts, integrating circular economy principles into construction practices, investigating the role of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in optimizing sustainable design solutions, and fostering research on social equity and inclusivity in sustainable construction practices.
The rest of the paper is arranged as follows: Section 2 summarizes the literature. Section 3 explains the research methodology and the collection of research data. Section 4 first summarizes and evaluates the existing literature, then presents a keyword analysis of the literature to effectively achieve the research objectives proposed in this study. After that, a discussion is presented in Section 5, and future trends are explained in Section 6. Finally, Section 7 summarizes the findings and points out future research needs.

2. Literature Review

Sustainability refers to the capacity of systems, processes, and actions to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs [2]. It encompasses three pillars: environmental, social, and economic, known as the triple bottom line [12,13]. However, researchers have also suggested a fourth pillar, ‘technical’, concerned with matters related to the performance, quality, and service life of a building or structure [1,3]. Like various other sectors, sustainable practices have become increasingly important in construction. Green building certification systems like LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) have set standards for sustainable building design and construction [14,15]. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations provide a framework for global sustainability initiatives, with Goal 11 focusing explicitly on sustainable cities and communities [16]. Key sustainability goals in the construction sector include creating net-zero-energy buildings, minimizing greenhouse gas emissions, improving indoor environmental quality, promoting an equitable society, and preserving natural resources [17].

2.1. Sustainable Construction

Sustainable construction is essential due to its significant impact on the world and human well-being. Construction accounts for a substantial portion of global energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and resource consumption [18]. By adopting sustainable practices, the construction industry can reduce its environmental footprint, conserve resources, mitigate climate change, and enhance the quality of life for occupants and communities.
Construction activities can substantially harm the environment, including habitat destruction, carbon emissions, and waste generation [19]. To overcome these challenges, sustainable construction practices must be adapted more widely. This includes using low-carbon and eco-friendly materials, implementing energy-efficient building designs, and promoting sustainable site selection and urban planning [20]. The construction industry is expected to shift towards circular economy principles, where materials are reused, recycled, or repurposed to minimize waste [21]. Smart technologies and data-driven decision-making will significantly optimize building performance and resource efficiency [22].

2.2. Engineering and Design for Sustainable Construction

The engineering and design phases are often closely connected, with design activities being an essential component of the overall engineering process. Therefore, in practice, the engineering phase encompasses both engineering and design aspects, working together to develop detailed engineering plans, architectural designs, and specifications for the construction project [7,8]. During this stage, engineers, architects, and other design professionals collaborate to develop detailed plans and drawings for the construction project.
Design and engineering play a crucial role in contributing to sustainable construction by incorporating principles and practices that prioritize environmental, social, technical, and economic considerations [23]. Designers are vital in incorporating sustainable design strategies that optimize energy efficiency, natural lighting, and ventilation. Passive design techniques, such as orientation, shading, and building envelope design, can reduce energy consumption for heating, cooling, and lighting [24]. Engineers and designers conduct life cycle assessments (LCA) to evaluate the environmental impact of a building or infrastructure project throughout its entire life cycle, including construction, operation, and end-of-life phases [25,26,27]. Engineers and designers can incorporate renewable energy systems, such as solar panels, wind turbines, and geothermal systems, into building design. Integrating renewable energy sources reduces dependence on fossil fuels and lowers greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to a more sustainable energy supply for the building [28]. Both designers and engineers play a role in selecting sustainable building materials with low environmental impact, such as recycled, reclaimed, or locally sourced materials [29]. Designers can incorporate strategies to minimize construction waste generation, and engineers can plan for the efficient recycling or reuse of construction materials. Integration of smart building technologies allows for better control and optimization of energy use, lighting, and HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) systems [30]. Engineers and designers can develop resilient and adaptive designs that consider the potential impacts of climate change, extreme weather events, and natural disasters. By integrating sustainable design and engineering principles, construction projects can significantly reduce their environmental footprint, enhance resource efficiency, and create buildings and infrastructure that are better suited to withstand future challenges [31,32,33].

3. Methodology

This research employed a thorough bibliometric approach to investigate the area of sustainable design and construction. In this phase, we carried out the database search after determining the candidate keyword(s), choosing the best keywords, and selecting them [9].

3.1. Research Methods

This research used the standard bibliometric analysis process, which includes five steps: research design, data collection, data analysis, data visualization, and data interpretation [34]. Several R-based software (Version 4.2.3) packages are available for measuring document information [9]. Citan, for instance, may be used to determine several literature metrics like the h-index and l-index. It does not, however, have co-citation analysis features when compared to bibliometric analysis [35]. Similarly, Science Text lacks modules for data input and manipulation [36]. Thus, combining content analysis, this research explored the topic using the Bibliometrix R encapsulation tool (version 4.2.3) through bibliometric analysis. The research framework used in the study is shown in Figure 1.

3.2. Database Search

Database selection to collect high-quality data was the first step of this bibliometric analysis. This study used several previous bibliometric and systematic studies as references [9,37,38,39,40,41]; however, the area of analysis was different, and it used Scopus for data collection. Scopus covers more than 7000 publishers and contains more than 87 million documents, starting in 1788. This database has over 94,000 affiliated institutions and 1.8 billion cited references [42]. Data extraction and filtering were the next steps. This paper used the search strategy adopted by Le and Elmughrabi (2020) and Wen et al. (2023) [9,43]. The following retrieval string was used in the retrieval: TS = ‘sustainable design’, ‘sustainable construction’, and ‘sustainable engineering’. The search was conducted in July 2023; therefore, this paper considers the period from January 2000 to June 2023.
The type of literature was restricted to journal papers because these publications often present more significant and high-quality research [44]. A preliminary list of 2167 publications was the outcome of this search. The titles, abstracts, and keywords of these records were verified manually to remove irrelevant publications [45]. This data-cleansing procedure eliminated 1436 articles without connection to sustainable design and construction. The final number of bibliographic entries acquired was 731, and these records served as the analytical dataset for this work. A summary of the dataset is shown in Figure 2.

4. Results

Bibliometric analysis is a quantitative technique commonly employed in literature reviews [9]. Wen et al. (2023), for example, used bibliometric analysis to investigate the global research trends of supply chain management in construction projects to analyze the current status and future prospects. Following their method, this paper first examines the annual number of publications to comprehend the overall evolution of sustainable design and engineering research. The country-based distribution of publications is evaluated in the second stage to understand the growth of research concerns in this field in different nations. The prominent authors in sustainable design and engineering are analyzed in the third stage to understand the focus of the research. Furthermore, this paper evaluates the keywords and recommends future research topics.

4.1. Overview of Sustainable Design and Construction Research

4.1.1. Annual Distribution of Sustainable Design and Engineering Publications

The annual production and distribution of scientific publications directly relate to global sustainable development initiatives. Specifically, the Brundtland Report (1987) was the first document that defined ‘sustainable development’ and emphasized the need for integrating environmental, social, and economic considerations to achieve a sustainable future. The Kyoto Protocol (1997) was an international treaty setting bindings for developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Millennium Development Goals (2000) were a set of eight global development goals focused on issues like poverty, education, health, and gender equality, with a target date of 2015. Most importantly, the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which provide a universal framework to address global challenges and means to achieve sustainable development by 2030.
The annual distribution of published documents on sustainable design and engineering is shown in Figure 3. The overall number of published articles fluctuated at an annual growth rate of 21.25% in the period 2000–2022, reaching a publishing peak in 2022. Again, the number of papers published in the first six months of 2023 equals 86.6% of the overall publication of 2022. The published timeframe studied can be divided into 2000–2015 and 2015 onwards. Following the eight Millennium Development Goals (2000), initiatives on sustainable construction also began. However, it experienced slower growth before 2008 and a little faster afterwards. Following the SDGs in 2015, global concern for sustainable development increased, affecting the construction sector too. Its reflection is seen in the rapid growth in research publications starting in 2016.

4.1.2. Citation Analysis

An analysis of citations was conducted to provide insights into the trends, impacts, and cross-disciplinary influences of published articles within engineering and design for sustainable construction. A total of 14,667 citations were identified for the 731 papers within the selected timeframe. The total number of citations per year of the chosen articles was 2406.4, among which the paper with the highest TC and TC per year was by Provis J.L., published in Cement and Concrete Research [46]. It also maintained a high normalized TC, signifying its consistent impact in this research field. In this review paper, the authors presented the advances in alkaline-activated cement and concrete as components of sustainable engineering. The article published by Baddoo N.R. in the Journal of Constructional Steel Research has also been highly recognized by the research community [47]. This article reviewed the articles of the past 20 years to identify the impacts of stainless steel in sustainable construction and suggested design and engineering methods for the optimum sustainable solutions. The paper published by Limbachiya M. in Construction and Building Materials presented a critique of the extensive production of concrete and suggested using recycled concrete aggregates and fly ash to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions [48]. The article by Hassan A. published in the Journal of Cleaner Production boasted the highest number of citations per year (TC per year = 54.60), indicating its acceptance despite being recently published [49]. Asteris P.G.’s paper in Cement and Concrete Research (2021) and Mugahed Amran Y.H.’s paper in Structures (2018) both have high TC per year, suggesting that they have the potential to be highly cited in the future [50,51]. In summary, the data presented demonstrates a wide diversity of citation trends in engineering and design for sustainable construction. This indicates a mix of established and emerging contributions, all contributing to the field’s continuous evolution. Table 1 presents the selected articles’ top 20 total citation scores and citations per year.

4.1.3. Major Country Analysis

A country analysis was conducted to provide valuable insights into the global distribution of research efforts in engineering and design for sustainable construction. The analysis highlights significant contributions, emerging research nations, and the various geographical representations within the research environment. Figure 4 depicts publications concerning sustainable construction in various nations worldwide. Between 2000 and 2023, 72 nations or regions published articles, while 32 countries published one to five papers, indicating that there is still much room for study in many countries. The USA, China, the UK, Australia, and India are the five countries with the most publications worldwide. The data illustrates that, compared to African nations, developed countries such as North America and the United Kingdom have published more papers, indicating that developed countries play an influential role in sustainable design and engineering. The United States leads in this respect with 305 articles, indicating a significant contribution to the research field in this area. China comes in second with 240 articles, suggesting significant research production. The United Kingdom, Australia, and India also stand out, with 163, 95, and 50 publications, demonstrating their active participation.
Furthermore, other nations with smaller populations, such as Nigeria, Malaysia, and South Korea, exhibit a growing interest and commitment in the sector. The data represents various nations from several continents, showing the global aspect of sustainable construction research. Comparing research output from different continents can aid in identifying regional variances and trends. Countries with fewer publications may imply research gaps, giving chances for future contributions. However, a lack of technology, insufficient research funds, and talent pool may impede many developing countries from actively contributing to the research.
Table 2 shows the total citations (TC) and average article citations in engineering and design for sustainable construction for various nations. The United States has the highest TC (2545), suggesting excellent research influence and contribution. China follows closely behind with a TC of 2195, demonstrating a significant effect on the field. The United Kingdom is ranked third in TC, with 1854 articles cited on average. Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, and Germany have strong TC values, highlighting their contributions to sustainable construction research. European nations with high TC values include France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece, indicating a significant research presence in the region. Iran comes out with a TC of 238 and an average number of article citations of 39.7, demonstrating a considerable influence despite a lower publication count. Malaysia and Nigeria have high average article citation rates, showing their importance and expanding effect. High-TC nations like the United States, China, and the United Kingdom may be prospective collaborators for emerging-impact countries.
The collaboration frequencies between pairs of countries in engineering and design for sustainable construction are shown in Figure 5. China and Hong Kong, as well as the United States and China, have the greatest partnership frequency, with 14 collaborations each. Collaborations between China and Hong Kong may signify regional cooperation in East Asia. China has 12 collaborations with Australia and 12 with the United Kingdom, highlighting its significance as a worldwide collaborator. The United States also works closely with China and Canada (9), demonstrating its worldwide engagement. Egypt and Saudi Arabia interact significantly (8), potentially implying partnerships throughout the Middle East. Collaboration between Malaysia and Nigeria (5) indicates expanding relationships between nations with growing research outputs. Collaborations between the United States and the Republic of Korea (6) showcase connections between established and emerging economies. Collaborations between the United Kingdom and Greece (4) may imply collaborations for consolidated expertise, whereas collaborations between the United Kingdom and South Africa (4) may indicate collaborations in solving particular regional concerns.

4.1.4. The Most Relevant and Influential Journals

The articles from 278 journals were analyzed in this study. Figure 6 shows the top 20 journals with the most publications in engineering and design for sustainable construction. Journal of Cleaner Production, Sustainability, Construction and Building Materials, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Engineering Sustainability and Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management are the five most prominent journals with the most published articles. The main research fields of these journals cover sustainable development, sustainability, construction, design, engineering, project management, etc.
The production of sources from 2000 to 2023 is shown in Figure 7, which provides valuable insight into the evolution of research output in different influential journals with time. Between 2000 and 2009, there appears to have been little to no significant publishing activity in the journals reviewed. The lack of publications implies that the focus on sustainable construction and engineering is still in its early stages, with research output only beginning to gain pace. A noteworthy shift occurred in about 2010, defined by a slow but constant increase in publishing activity across the bulk of the investigated journals. During this time, there was a rising understanding of the need for sustainable construction techniques and the integration of engineering and design concepts to achieve these aims. The figure shows a significant rise in publishing activity across virtually all journals beginning in 2016. This stage was characterized by increased research interest and a greater emphasis on sustainability and the integration of engineering and design in construction practices.
The Journal of Cleaner Production has grown remarkably since 2018 and soon peaked, reflecting a significant worldwide movement for cleaner and more sustainable manufacturing processes. Construction and Building Materials has significantly increased publishing since 2011 due to a greater focus on sustainable construction materials and their environmental effects. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Engineering Sustainability, Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management and Journal of Construction Engineering and Management show a gradual increase beginning in the mid-2000s, indicating a developing commitment to sustainable practices in engineering and building. The consistent rise in research output, notably in the recent decade, emphasizes the growing need to combine sustainable principles, engineering, and design techniques to address environmental, economic, and social aspects.

4.1.5. Leading Researchers

The study of the top 20 authors in sustainable construction, provided in Table 3, gives significant insights into their contributions and influence within the field. The researchers’ h-index, total citations (TC), number of publications (NP), and production years (PY) reflect the extent of their expertise. Researchers, notably Li Y., Liu X., and Liu Z., have been active since around 2010 and have gained significant total citations and h-index scores. This indicates that their work is highly credited for contributing to sustainable construction research. With seven publications and 48 total citations, researcher Wang X. exhibits an excellent balance between the number of publications and their impact, indicating influential contributions. Frangopol D.M. has published three papers since 2016, receiving the highest citations among the top researchers. Researchers such as Chen Y., Chen Z., and Kineber A.F. are new to the sector, with production years beginning in 2021 and 2022. Despite a limited number of publications, their high h-index scores and total citations indicate impactful contributions. Their research has already acquired recognition, and these scholars exhibit the potential for eventual growth and significance in the study area. Li H., Liu Y., and Klotz L. have been contributing to sustainable construction research for a long time and have impressive h-index scores and total citations. These scholars’ continuous publications and influence demonstrate their dedication to improving sustainable construction practices.
Figure 8 depicts the publications of the top 10 authors over time, with the volume of the sphere representing yearly NPs and the color depth of the sphere related to annual TCs. Li H. has consistently published research articles since 2006 and peaked in 2023. His research contributed to engineering, design, sustainability, and construction journals. He published a notable number of papers on innovative technologies like integrating BIM and IoT for sustainable engineering, sustainability assessment, bamboo structures, off-site constructions, etc. [69,70,71,72,73,74]. Liu Y. started publishing in 2013, and his paper was mainly cited in 2021. Starting with publishing on topics like risk evaluation of power grid projects, his research interest has shifted towards sustainable construction, and he has published several papers on green chemistry, sustainable urban development, and mechanical properties for sustainable engineering [75,76,77,78]. The research activities of Wang X. have increased notably since 2020, and so far, he has published seven articles in different journals. His publication covered topics like evaluation and sustainable use of recycled materials, integration of BIM for sustainable engineering, sustainability assessment of zero-energy buildings, digital twin technologies, performance analysis, etc. [79,80,81,82,83,84]. Chen Y. has published six papers since 2021 and has received 60 citations. He published articles on BIM-IoT integration and using advanced materials for sustainable construction [79,85,86,87,88]. Liu X. has been working on sustainable construction since 2010 and has published five articles in this research area [89,90,91,92,93]. He received the highest number of citations in 2022 for his publication on digital twin technologies for sustainable smart city design [93].
Some countries prefer domestic research activities, whereas others prefer international collaborations. A graphical representation of single-country publications (SCP) and multiple-country publications (MCP) of the top 20 countries is given in Figure 9. The USA has published the highest number of articles on sustainable construction, most of which are within the country (SCP = 97). China has the second-highest number of papers published. Surprisingly, there is a greater rate of multiple-country production (MCP: 32) than in the United States. Around 12.31% of the publications involve author cooperation from several nations, emphasizing international relationships. The MCP ratio is 35.56%, implying that more than one-third of all articles published in China collaborate with writers from other countries. With higher multi-country partnerships, China indicates its strategic approach to global research networks. The United Kingdom maintains a well-rounded presence with domestic and international ties. Meanwhile, Australia, Spain, India, and Italy show a growing tendency for international collaboration, which may be due to common interests and resource sharing. On the other hand, Canada, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia promote international cooperation, demonstrating their commitment to forging global research ties. In contrast, nations such as Korea, Brazil, and France indicate a preference for domestic research, which may aim to tackle regional concerns.

4.2. Keyword Analysis

4.2.1. High-Frequency Keyword Analysis

Analysis of keywords is useful to identify trendy topics because authors use keywords as a vivid, representative, and concise description of the research contents [9,94]. High-frequency keywords (Table 4), word clouds (Figure 10), and word tree maps (Figure 11) were generated using the bibliometric analysis tool to obtain information about the occurrence of keywords in engineering and design for sustainable construction. The size of the keywords in the word cloud proportionately corresponds to their occurrence in the dataset. The top 10 keywords in this research field are sustainable development, construction industry, architectural design, design, construction sustainability, life cycle, environmental impact, structural design, and project management.
Studying the most frequently occurring keywords in sustainable construction research gives valuable insights into the domain’s main topics and priority areas. The keyword ‘sustainable development’ appears to be the most frequent, indicating the importance of balancing environmental, social, and economic factors in construction. The repeated use of the ‘construction industry’ stresses the sector’s essential role in fostering sustainable change, while ‘architectural design’ underlines the importance of producing environmentally conscious and aesthetically acceptable structures. The terms ‘design’ and ‘construction’ emphasize the need to incorporate sustainable concepts throughout the project lifespan, from ideas to reality. The co-occurrence of ‘sustainability’ and ‘life cycle’ underlines the necessity for a comprehensive strategy considering the whole lifespan of buildings and infrastructure. ‘Environmental impact’ and ‘structural design’ indicate minimizing adverse environmental impacts while maintaining structural integrity. ‘Project management’ and ‘civil engineering’ emphasize the management and engineering elements of implementing sustainability. These terms represent a multidisciplinary approach to sustainable building, including design, engineering, management, and environmental concerns.

4.2.2. Word Tree Map Analysis

The word tree map in Figure 11 visually represents the frequency and relative importance of various keywords in the dataset. It helps researchers and stakeholders identify current trends, key topics, and patterns without needing detailed data analysis. The larger size of the shapes of the keywords indicates higher occurrence, and the smaller size signifies lower occurrence. The layout of keywords in the tree map provides an understanding of their relationship and hierarchy, where closely related terms are clustered nearby. Considering the overall timeframe of this study, sustainable development appears as the central theme of all research.

4.2.3. Analysis of Keywords’ Frequency over Time

Figure 12 illustrates the cumulative occurrence of essential keywords from January 2000 to June 2023. It is evident from the analysis that significant development took place in sustainable construction research, giving importance to continually improving engineering and design practices. As can be seen, there is a relatively smaller number of the keyword ‘construction’ and similar terms beginning in 2000, suggesting that sustainable construction techniques were not a widespread study issue then. However, with time, the cumulative occurrence of ‘construction industry’ and ‘construction’ increases, indicating a growing awareness of the construction industry’s effect on environmentally conscious practices.
The keyword ‘sustainable development’ shows remarkable development across the study period, significantly beyond 2015 following the declaration of the SDGs, indicating the long-term effort of researchers and practitioners to develop sustainable methods in various sectors. The growing usage of this term reflects the inclusion of environmental, social, technical, and economic concerns into engineering and design processes.
Words like ‘architectural design’ and ‘design’ are growing steadily, indicating that sustainable concepts are included in the early stages of projects, underscoring the importance of considering sustainability from the beginning. The data also show an interesting pattern in the growing usage of the terms ‘life cycle’, ‘environmental impact’, and ‘structural design’ over time. It indicates a rising emphasis on evaluating projects across the entire life cycle, comprehending their environmental effects, and improving structural design for sustainability.
The cumulative frequency of these terms increases as we approach the most recent years. This acceleration might imply that sustainable engineering and design are gaining acceptance worldwide due to increased environmental concerns, governmental reforms, and innovations in sustainability.

4.2.4. Analysis of Topics’ Trends over Time

An analysis of Figure 13 reveals a significant trend in how research focus has gradually shifted towards sustainable construction. Though the study period of this research started in 2000, there was hardly any topics in early 2000 that focused on sustainable development. The term ‘sustainability’ started gaining attention around 2012 and has been consistently discussed later.
The topics ‘sustainable design’ and ‘engineering’ also came into discussion concurrently once sustainability issues in construction emerged. As a topic, ‘sustainable construction’ showed a progressive increase in research starting from around 2016 and reaching a peak around 2020–2021. Notably, the rise of research interest around 2018–2020 on BIM, life cycle assessment, durability, green building, LEED, material (fly ash, concrete, etc.), mechanical properties, etc. reflects a holistic technology-driven approach to reshaping the landscape of engineering and design for sustainable construction.

5. Discussion

The analysis in Section 4 reveals that sustainable construction has been gradually getting more attention, particularly since around 2015. The engineering and design phase is one of the most vital stages in executing sustainable construction. However, there are several factors closely related to this aspect. As shown in Figure 14, we developed a Sankey diagram illustrating the data flow to understand the relationship and connections between different components. The 20 topmost keywords and titles and 15 sources (journals) were used in this Sankey diagram. For data analysis, keywords were kept in the middle field, paper titles on the left, and the sources on the right. The paper titles are linked to these keywords on the left, indicating how each article is tied to specific subjects. The sources are connected to the keywords on the right side, showing where the research is published. The width of the lines linking the categories represents the information flow and the number of items moving from one type to another. The varying widths of the lines give an insight into the distribution of research topics across different sources and how they are interconnected. We chose the top 20 keywords in the middle field, considering their significance within sustainable engineering and design research.
The keywords ‘sustainable’, ‘design’, ‘building’, ‘construction’, and ‘engineering’ have the widest line, indicating their prominence. Again, topics covering sustainability, sustainable development, sustainable construction, the construction industry, BIM, sustainable design, and engineering have wider lines focusing on their concerns. We noticed a co-occurrence of keywords for most of the topics related to sustainable construction. For example, the topic ‘sustainability’ has the widest line and is thematically connected to all 20 keywords under discussion. It has the widest flows in sustainable, design, engineering, and construction. Again, ‘sustainable development’ has the second broader line in the list of topics and has wider flows towards the keywords sustainable, design, construction, and engineering. The topic ‘sustainable construction’ is the third on the list and is connected to 18 keywords with a higher flow towards sustainable design, construction, and engineering. Again, ‘sustainable design’ flows towards 16 keywords and ‘engineering’ flows towards 13. If we analyze the middle field, the keyword ‘sustainable’ is at the top of the list. It has 19 incoming flows from the topics. It also has 12 outgoing flows towards the sources, with the Journal of Cleaner Production, Sustainability, and the Journal of Building Engineering being the most prominent. The keywords ‘design’ and ‘construction’ have incoming flows from all the topics and 12 outgoing flows towards sources. Again, the keyword ‘engineering’ stands fifth in the list, with 16 incoming flows from the topic and 10 outgoing flows towards sources.
In summary, this diagram represents the co-occurring patterns and thematic connections of topics with the most prominent keywords. As the ideas seamlessly flow across domains, it also expresses the multidimensional nature of this research field. It means that whenever we talk about sustainability or sustainable construction, we must consider design, engineering, building, etc. Similarly, while developing sustainable design or engineering, we must consider multiple factors, as shown in the left field of Figure 14.

6. Future Trend

We anticipate diverse future research trends and directions in sustainable construction engineering and design phases following the bibliometric analysis made above. A short description of a few significant aspects is given below:

6.1. Enhanced Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Knowledge Sharing

Many studies addressed interdisciplinary collaboration and knowledge sharing in sustainable construction, like supply chain collaboration and management for sustainable construction, architectural and structural engineering collaboration for structural optimization in BIM projects, interactive workspaces for effective collaboration, digital adoption for stakeholders’ collaboration in construction projects, etc. [74,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103]. Future trends are expected to see deeper collaborations between architects, engineers, environmental scientists, and other professionals to develop holistic solutions that address all sustainability challenges in construction.

6.2. Technological Advancement and Innovation

Studies have explored smart technologies and applications of BIM, like the dynamic evolution of synergies between BIM and sustainability, the green BIM concept, BIM-based LCA and energy analysis for optimized sustainable building design, BIM and IoT integration for sustainable building, cost and time analysis of a robotically built wall, digital engineering and BIM, BIM-CFD integration in design and performance analysis, integration of BIM and GIS for sustainable built environments, etc. [59,79,81,93,101,104,105,106,107,108,109]. The future will witness the adoption of digital tools for efficient project management, design optimization for net-zero and positive-energy buildings, advanced data-driven decision-making, integration of artificial intelligence (AI), IoT, advanced analytics to optimize resource utilization, and means to ensure real-time monitoring and control of construction works.

6.3. Climate-Resilient Design and Adaption

The impact of climate change on construction techniques has initiated research on adaptive and climate-resilient designs, such as the impact of sustainable design on climate change, the environmental effects of using different construction codes, etc. [106,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120]. There will be a greater emphasis on climate-resilient design in the future, considering adaptive techniques to mitigate extreme weather events, sea-level rise, and urban heat islands. Solutions will blend nature-based techniques with advanced materials to enhance sustainability.

6.4. Innovations in Materials

Research is taking place to produce more environment-friendly, durable, recyclable materials, for example, the use of demolished concrete materials in civil engineering structures, the performance evaluation of multi-story buildings of lightweight reinforced concrete comprising local waste materials, vernacular construction techniques and materials for developing zero-energy homes in desert climates, the use of artificial neural networks to design the composition of cement-stabilized rammed earth, advances in alkali-activated materials, etc. [46,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129]. Future research will likely focus on producing recycled material contents, exploring biomaterials, and developing techniques to minimize carbon emissions and resource consumption while maintaining structural integrity.

6.5. Renewable Energy Integration

The importance of using renewable energy integration is gaining popularity as a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is badly needed for sustainable development. Research like renewable energy for passive house heating, low carbon and low-embodied materials for buildings, use of renewable energy technologies for sustainable development, passive design approaches for green building rating tools, etc. took place and is underway for advanced technologies [24,28,29,130,131,132]. Future research will incorporate energy-efficient technologies and designs to make optimum use of renewable energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in construction.

6.6. Circular Economy and Life Cycle Assessment

Compared to a linear economy, where resources are extracted, used, and disposed of, in a circular economy, nothing is a waste. In a circular economy, reuse, repair, refurbishment, remanufacturing, repurposing, and recycling of products are carried out as far as possible to maximize value [133]. A good number of studies have already taken place to conduct life cycle assessment and ensure a circular economy, for example, life cycle-based smart sustainable city strategic frameworks, engineering and construction industrial frameworks for a circular economy, life cycle environmental and economic performance of nearly zero-energy buildings, global economy and ecosystem and opportunities for circular economy strategies, contributions of the circular economy to the SDGs through sustainable construction, digital technologies for circular economy in the construction industry, transformation towards a circular economy and demolition waste management, simulation-based construction management concept in a circular economy, etc. [25,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142]. In the future, researchers and practitioners are likely to concentrate more on optimizing material use, extending the life cycle of buildings, and minimizing waste generation to maximize value in construction.

6.7. Policy and Regulations

The 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm was a historical point in the global dialogue on environmental concerns. ‘Our Common Future’, a study that popularized the concept of sustainable development, placed sustainability firmly on the global agenda in 1987. The green building movement gained momentum in the early 2000s, emphasizing sustainable construction processes and the design of environmentally friendly structures. The United Nations defined the 2030 SDGs for global sustainability in 2015. Goal 11 focuses on sustainable cities and communities, highlighting the importance of sustainable construction in promoting livable and inclusive urban infrastructure. The policy and regulations to promote global sustainable development have evolved over time [2,16,143,144,145,146,147]. Today, sustainability is an intrinsic element of discussions in many construction sectors, including design, engineering, urban planning, and policymaking. It is predicted to rise significantly in the future.

6.8. Education and Capacity Building

Education and capacity building are essential for all stakeholders involved in sustainable construction for all construction phases, including operation, maintenance, and demobilization. A few examples of this initiative include an online tool to promote sustainability in construction engineering education, augmented reality gaming in sustainable design education, integrated advanced education in sustainable design and construction, a sustainable decision-making module for public procurement, women as sustainability leaders in engineering: evidence from industry and academia, etc. [98,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160]. Education and capacity building will gain more importance in the future, and more research will likely take place to implement sustainability in construction.

7. Conclusions

This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of research on engineering and design for sustainable construction using the recently developed Bibliometrix tool in R. It scrutinizes a robust dataset of Scopus containing 731 journal articles published between January 2000 and June 2023. It aims to provide a holistic view of the current status and future trends in engineering and design for sustainable construction. These publications represent an overview of the research conducted in this field, considering the annual distribution of publications, citations, country analysis, and the most relevant and influential journals, including leading researchers and their countries. The main findings in this area are summarized as follows: (1) The analysis of annual distribution highlights a noticeable upward trend in research outcomes, reflecting the accelerating interest and importance of sustainable construction practices in recent years. This sector experienced slower growth before 2008 and faster afterwards. Following the SDGs in 2015, global concern for sustainable development increased, reflecting rapid growth in research publications in this field starting in 2016. (2) The progression of citations indicates that the best paper in this field was authored by Provis J.L. [46], which highlighted innovations in materials for better sustainability. The paper from Baddoo N.R. on the resilient use of stainless steel in construction received the second highest citation, indicating its contribution in this field [47]. (3) The U.S. remains in the top position for its influence and contribution to research in this field. (4) The Journal of Cleaner Production has grown remarkably since 2018 in sustainable engineering and design research, reflecting a significant worldwide movement for sustainable development. This shift is notable in the case of other journals as well. (5) Li H. is the most represented researcher in this field, having published 11 articles in total and received 294 citations. In addition, Li Y., Liu X., and Liu Z. have been active for a long time and have gained significant total citation and h-index scores.
This analysis forecasts a significant advancement in different key areas of sustainable construction due to its novelty. It also identifies that sustainable construction is nothing in isolation; instead, it warrants the holistic integration of multiple factors, as presented in the Sankey diagram. Recycling, durability, life cycle assessment, innovative materials, and energy efficiency emerged as central themes, reflecting global concern to enhance sustainability, reduce environmental impacts, and optimize resource utilization. Notably, the interest in integrating ‘BIM’ with other existing methods signifies a growing concern about using digital tools to foster sustainable construction practices.
It is essential to acknowledge the limitations of this study arising from using a single database (Scopus) and the tool Bibliometrix R encapsulation, which may present a research scenario different from the existing one. Future research endeavors may consider a more comprehensive interpretation of data using other methods that integrate multiple databases to provide deeper insights into sustainable construction practices and trends.
This study provides a comprehensive overview of engineering and design in sustainable construction, as well as the field’s evolution and future path, and suggests actionable insights for multiple stakeholders. It can help researchers discover emergent research clusters, promoting collaborative efforts to overcome complex technical and design issues in sustainable construction. Industry experts can gain valuable knowledge about emerging patterns, allowing them to customize their strategy with the field’s evolution. This research can help policymakers make decisions that promote sustainable construction techniques. As the global construction industry continues to pivot towards sustainability, this analysis is a valuable compass guiding researchers, practitioners, and policymakers towards informed decision-making and impactful action.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.A.B. and A.H.; methodology, M.M.A.B.; software, M.M.A.B.; validation, M.M.A.B. and A.H.; formal analysis, M.M.A.B.; investigation, M.M.A.B.; resources, M.M.A.B.; data curation, M.M.A.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M.A.B.; writing—review and editing, A.H.; visualization, M.M.A.B.; supervision, A.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received Mission Alliance Grant: ALLRP 577032-2022 from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Hill, R.C.; Bowen, P.A. Sustainable Construction: Principles and a Framework for Attainment. Constr. Manag. Econ. 1997, 15, 223–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Keeble, B.R. The Brundtland Report: ‘Our Common Future’. Med. War 1988, 4, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Alam Bhuiyan, M.M.; Hammad, A. A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Support System for Selecting the Most Sustainable Structural Material for a Multistory Building Construction. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Farzanehrafat, M.; Akbarnezhad, A.; Ghoddousi, P. Analysis of Different Views towards Social Sustainability in Construction. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Oulu, Finland, 15–18 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
  5. Schoolman, E.; Guest, J.; Bush, K.; Bell, A. How Interdisciplinary Is Sustainability Research? Analyzing the Structure of an Emerging Scientific Field. Sustain. Sci. 2012, 7, 67–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Müller, J., II. 5 2005 World Summit Outcome United Nations World Summit, 16 September 2005. In Reforming United Nations; Brill Nijhoff: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 442–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. CII Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI); Pathfinder LLC. Available online: https://www.pathfinderinc.com/news/project-definition-rating-index-pdri (accessed on 13 August 2023).
  8. PMI PMBOK®. Guide. Available online: https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/pmbok (accessed on 13 August 2023).
  9. Wen, S.; Tang, H.; Ying, F.; Wu, G. Exploring the Global Research Trends of Supply Chain Management of Construction Projects Based on a Bibliometric Analysis: Current Status and Future Prospects. Buildings 2023, 13, 373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liao, L.; Yang, C.; Quan, L. Construction Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Development. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 382, 135230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Saad, M.; Jones, M.; James, P. A Review of the Progress towards the Adoption of Supply Chain Management (SCM) Relationships in Construction. Eur. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2002, 8, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ding, G.K.C. Sustainable Construction—The Role of Environmental Assessment Tools. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 86, 451–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business; Conscientious Commerce; New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 1998; ISBN 978-0-86571-392-5. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ade, R.; Rehm, M. The Unwritten History of Green Building Rating Tools: A Personal View from Some of the ‘Founding Fathers’. Build. Res. Inf. 2020, 48, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Khodadadzadeh, T. Green Building Project Management: Obstacles and Solutions for Sustainable Development. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2016; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
  17. Sahlol, D.G.; Elbeltagi, E.; Elzoughiby, M.; Abd Elrahman, M. Sustainable Building Materials Assessment and Selection Using System Dynamics. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 35, 101978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shen, L.-Y.; Li Hao, J.; Tam, V.W.-Y.; Yao, H. A Checklist for Assessing Sustainability Performance of Construction Projects. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2007, 13, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Holling, C.S. Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems 2001, 4, 390–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Schröpfer, V.L.M.; Tah, J.; Kurul, E. Mapping the Knowledge Flow in Sustainable Construction Project Teams Using Social Network Analysis. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2017, 24, 229–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kiani Mavi, R.; Gengatharen, D.; Kiani Mavi, N.; Hughes, R.; Campbell, A.; Yates, R. Sustainability in Construction Projects: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Iyer-Raniga, U.; Erasmus, P.; Huovila, P.; Maity, S. Circularity in the Built Environment: A Focus on India. World Sustain. Ser. 2019, 739–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Abdelaal, F.; Guo, B.H.W. Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Green Building Design and Assessment: New Zealand Case. Build. Environ. 2021, 201, 107960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chen, X.; Yang, H.; Lu, L. A Comprehensive Review on Passive Design Approaches in Green Building Rating Tools. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 50, 1425–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Alshuwaikhat, H.M.; Adenle, Y.A.; Almuhaidib, T. A Lifecycle-Based Smart Sustainable City Strategic Framework for Realizing Smart and Sustainability Initiatives in Riyadh City. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sartori, T.; Drogemuller, R.; Omrani, S.; Lamari, F. A Schematic Framework for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Green Building Rating System (GBRS). J. Build. Eng. 2021, 38, 102180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, N.; Chang, Y.-C.; Nunn, C. Lifecycle Assessment for Sustainable Design Options of a Commercial Building in Shanghai. Build. Environ. 2010, 45, 1415–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chel, A.; Kaushik, G. Renewable Energy Technologies for Sustainable Development of Energy Efficient Building. Alex. Eng. J. 2018, 57, 655–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cabeza, L.F.; Barreneche, C.; Miró, L.; Morera, J.M.; Bartolí, E.; Inés Fernández, A. Low Carbon and Low Embodied Energy Materials in Buildings: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 23, 536–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. García-Sanz-Calcedo, J.; de Sousa Neves, N.; Almeida Fernandes, J.P. Measurement of Embodied Carbon and Energy of HVAC Facilities in Healthcare Centers. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 289, 125151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Adhikari, P.; Mahmoud, H.; Xie, A.; Simonen, K.; Ellingwood, B. Life-Cycle Cost and Carbon Footprint Analysis for Light-Framed Residential Buildings Subjected to Tornado Hazard. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 32, 101657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Labaran, Y.H.; Mathur, V.S.; Muhammad, S.U.; Musa, A.A. Carbon Footprint Management: A Review of Construction Industry. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2022, 9, 100531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sameer, H.; Bringezu, S. Building Information Modelling Application of Material, Water, and Climate Footprint Analysis. Build. Res. Inf. 2021, 49, 593–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zupic, I.; Čater, T. Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organ. Res. Methods 2014, 18, 429–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gagolewski, M. Bibliometric Impact Assessment with R and the CITAN Package. J. Informetr. 2011, 5, 678–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. Bibliometrix: An R-Tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Adebowale, O.J.; Agumba, J.N. Applications of Augmented Reality for Construction Productivity Improvement: A Systematic Review. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2022; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Marcher, C.; Giusti, A.; Matt, D.T. Decision Support in Building Construction: A Systematic Review of Methods and Application Areas. Buildings 2020, 10, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Minhas, M.R.; Potdar, V. Development of an Effective System for Selecting Construction Materials for Sustainable Residential Housing in Western Australia. Appl. Math. 2020, 11, 825–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Xie, H.; Zhang, Y.; Zeng, X.; He, Y. Sustainable Land Use and Management Research: A Scientometric Review. Landsc. Ecol. 2020, 35, 2381–2411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhu, X.; Meng, X.; Zhang, M. Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Methods in Construction: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2021, 27, 372–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Elsevier How Scopus Works-Scopus; Elsevier Solutions. Available online: https://www-elsevier-com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content?dgcid=RN_AGCM_Sourced_300005030 (accessed on 9 August 2023).
  43. Le, P.L.; Elmughrabi, W.; Dao, T.-M.; Chaabane, A. Present Focuses and Future Directions of Decision-Making in Construction Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020, 20, 490–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hosseini, M.R.; Martek, I.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Aibinu, A.A.; Arashpour, M.; Chileshe, N. Critical Evaluation of Off-Site Construction Research: A Scientometric Analysis. Autom. Constr. 2018, 87, 235–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Babalola, O.; Ibem, E.O.; Ezema, I.C. Implementation of Lean Practices in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Review. Build. Environ. 2019, 148, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Provis, J.L.; Palomo, A.; Shi, C. Advances in Understanding Alkali-Activated Materials. Cem. Concr. Res. 2015, 78, 110–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Baddoo, N.R. Stainless Steel in Construction: A Review of Research, Applications, Challenges and Opportunities. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2008, 64, 1199–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Limbachiya, M.; Meddah, M.S.; Ouchagour, Y. Use of Recycled Concrete Aggregate in Fly-Ash Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 27, 439–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hassan, A.; Arif, M.; Shariq, M. Use of Geopolymer Concrete for a Cleaner and Sustainable Environment—A Review of Mechanical Properties and Microstructure. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 223, 704–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Asteris, P.G.; Skentou, A.D.; Bardhan, A.; Samui, P.; Pilakoutas, K. Predicting Concrete Compressive Strength Using Hybrid Ensembling of Surrogate Machine Learning Models. Cem. Concr. Res. 2021, 145, 106449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mugahed Amran, Y.H.; Alyousef, R.; Rashid, R.S.M.; Alabduljabbar, H.; Hung, C.-C. Properties and Applications of FRP in Strengthening RC Structures: A Review. Structures 2018, 16, 208–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yang, J.; Du, Q.; Bao, Y. Concrete with Recycled Concrete Aggregate and Crushed Clay Bricks. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 1935–1945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Dixon, P.G.; Gibson, L.J. The Structure and Mechanics of Moso Bamboo Material. J. R. Soc. Interface 2014, 11, 20140321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Frangopol, D.M.; Soliman, M. Life-Cycle of Structural Systems: Recent Achievements and Future Directions. In Structures and Infrastructure Systems; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; Volume 12, pp. 46–65. [Google Scholar]
  55. Lapinski, A.R.; Horman, M.J.; Riley, D.R. Lean Processes for Sustainable Project Delivery. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2006, 132, 1083–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Frangopol, D.M.; Dong, Y.; Sabatino, S. Bridge Life-Cycle Performance and Cost: Analysis, Prediction, Optimisation and Decision-Making. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2017, 13, 1239–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Müller, H.S.; Haist, M.; Vogel, M. Assessment of the Sustainability Potential of Concrete and Concrete Structures Considering Their Environmental Impact, Performance and Lifetime. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 67, 321–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Becerik-Gerber, B.; Gerber, D.J.; Ku, K. The Pace of Technological Innovation in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Education: Integrating Recent Trends into the Curricula. Electron. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2011, 16, 411–432. [Google Scholar]
  59. Wang, H.; Pan, Y.; Luo, X. Integration of BIM and GIS in Sustainable Built Environment: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Autom. Constr. 2019, 103, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Becerik-Gerber, B.; Kensek, K. Building Information Modeling in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction: Emerging Research Directions and Trends. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2010, 136, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cass, D.; Mukherjee, A. Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Highway Construction Operations by Using a Hybrid Life-Cycle Assessment Approach: Case Study for Pavement Operations. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 137, 1015–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Saieg, P.; Sotelino, E.D.; Nascimento, D.; Caiado, R.G.G. Interactions of Building Information Modeling, Lean and Sustainability on the Architectural, Engineering and Construction Industry: A Systematic Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 788–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rahimi, M.; Ghezavati, V. Sustainable Multi-Period Reverse Logistics Network Design and Planning under Uncertainty Utilizing Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR) for Recycling Construction and Demolition Waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 1567–1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ganey, R.; Berman, J.; Akbas, T.; Loftus, S.; Daniel Dolan, J.; Sause, R.; Ricles, J.; Pei, S.; van de Lindt, J.; Blomgren, H.-E. Experimental Investigation of Self-Centering Cross-Laminated Timber Walls. J. Struct. Eng. 2017, 143, 04017135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Levitt, R.E. CEM Research for the Next 50 Years: Maximizing Economic, Environmental, and Societal Value of the Built Environment. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2007, 133, 619–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ahmed, H.U.; Mohammed, A.A.; Rafiq, S.; Mohammed, A.S.; Mosavi, A.; Sor, N.H.; Qaidi, S.M.A. Compressive Strength of Sustainable Geopolymer Concrete Composites: A State-of-the-Art Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Basu, D.; Misra, A.; Puppala, A.J. Sustainability and Geotechnical Engineering: Perspectives and Review. Can. Geotech. J. 2014, 52, 96–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Macillo, V.; Fiorino, L.; Landolfo, R. Seismic Response of CFS Shear Walls Sheathed with Nailed Gypsum Panels: Experimental Tests. Thin-Walled Struct. 2017, 120, 161–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Li, H.; Ng, S.T.; Skitmore, M. Stakeholder Impact Analysis during Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Green Buildings—A Chinese Context. Build. Environ. 2018, 128, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Li, H.; Xia, Q.; Wang, L.; Ma, Y. Sustainability Assessment of Urban Water Environment Treatment Public-Private Partnership Projects Using Fuzzy Logic. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2020, 18, 1251–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Li, H.; Liang, M.; Han, H.; Zhang, W. Building Mechanism of the Initial Trust Motivation of Owners toward Contractors. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2023; ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mimendi, L.; Lorenzo, R.; Li, H. An Innovative Digital Workflow to Design, Build and Manage Bamboo Structures. Sustain. Struct. 2022, 2, 000011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wang, Y.; Li, H.; Wu, Z. Attitude of the Chinese Public toward Off-Site Construction: A Text Mining Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 238, 117926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Xue, X.; Shen, Q.; Fan, H.; Li, H.; Fan, S. IT Supported Collaborative Work in A/E/C Projects: A Ten-Year Review. Autom. Constr. 2012, 21, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Liu, Y.; Liu, P.; Gao, S.; Wang, Z.; Luan, P.; González-Sabín, J.; Jiang, Y. Construction of Chemoenzymatic Cascade Reactions for Bridging Chemocatalysis and Biocatalysis: Principles, Strategies and Prospective. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 420, 127659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Pu, B.; Zhou, X.; Liu, Y.; Liu, B.; Jiang, L. Mechanical Behavior of Concrete-Filled Rectangular Steel Tubular Composite Truss Bridge in the Negative Moment Region. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 2021, 8, 795–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Shi, J.; Kang, X.; Mao, L.; Jiang, Y.; Zhao, S.; Liu, Y.; Zhai, B.; Jin, H.; Guo, L. Supercritical CO2-Applied Equipment for Chemical Synthesis and Transformation: Current Status and Perspectives. Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 459, 141608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zhang, L.; Zhang, K.; Wang, C.; Liu, Y.; Wu, X.; Peng, Z.; Cao, H.; Li, B.; Jiang, J. Advances and Prospects in Metal–Organic Frameworks as Key Nexus for Chemocatalytic Hydrogen Production. Small 2021, 17, 2102201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Chen, Y.; Wang, X.; Liu, Z.; Cui, J.; Osmani, M.; Demian, P. Exploring Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Internet of Things (IoT) Integration for Sustainable Building. Buildings 2023, 13, 288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chen, Z.; Ma, R.; Du, Y.; Wang, X. State-of-the-Art Review on Research and Application of Original Bamboo-Based Composite Components in Structural Engineering. Structures 2022, 35, 1010–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kang, K.-Y.; Wang, X.; Wang, J.; Xu, S.; Shou, W.; Sun, Y. Utility of BIM-CFD Integration in the Design and Performance Analysis for Buildings and Infrastructures of Architecture, Engineering and Construction Industry. Buildings 2022, 12, 651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Su, M.; Yang, B.; Wang, X. Research on Integrated Design of Modular Steel Structure Container Buildings Based on BIM. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2022, 2022, 4574676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wang, Z.; Wang, X.; Zhu, P.; Liu, H.; Yan, X.; Wei, D. Mix-Proportion Design Methods and Sustainable Use Evaluation of Recycled Aggregate Concrete Used in Freeze-Thaw Environment. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2023, 35, 04022401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Wei, J.; Li, J.; Zhao, J.; Wang, X. Hot Topics and Trends in Zero-Energy Building Research—A Bibliometrical Analysis Based on CiteSpace. Buildings 2023, 13, 479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Chen, Y.; Dang, B.; Fu, J.; Zhang, J.; Liang, H.; Sun, Q.; Zhai, T.; Li, H. Bioinspired Construction of Micronano Lignocellulose into an Impact Resistance “Wooden Armor” with Bouligand Structure. ACS Nano 2021, 16, 7525–7534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Fan, L.; Wei, J.; Chen, Y.; Feng, J.; Sareh, P. Shear Performance of Large-Thickness Precast Shear Walls with Cast-in-Place Belts and Grouting Sleeves. ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertain. Eng. Syst. Part A Civ. Eng. 2023, 9, 04023005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Huang, B.; Lei, J.; Ren, F.; Chen, Y.; Zhao, Q.; Li, S.; Lin, Y. Contribution and Obstacle Analysis of Applying BIM in Promoting Green Buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Tang, X.; Wu, Y.; Zhai, W.; Chu, T.; Li, L.; Huang, B.; Hu, T.; Yuan, K.; Chen, Y. Iron-Based Nanocomposites Implanting in N, P Co-Doped Carbon Nanosheets as Efficient Oxygen Reduction Electrocatalysts for Zn-Air Batteries. Compos. Commun. 2022, 29, 100994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ataei, A.; Bradford, M.A.; Valipour, H.R.; Liu, X. Experimental Study of Sustainable High Strength Steel Flush End Plate Beam-to-Column Composite Joints with Deconstructable Bolted Shear Connectors. Eng. Struct. 2016, 123, 124–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Cao, S.; Liu, X.; Er, H. Dujiangyan Irrigation System—A World Cultural Heritage Corresponding to Concepts of Modern Hydraulic Science. J. Hydro-Environ. Res. 2010, 4, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Dai, Y.; Wang, Z.A.; Li, Y.; Wang, J.; Ren, J.; Zhang, P.; Liu, X. Genome Engineering and Synthetic Biology for Biofuels: A Bibliometric Analysis. Biotechnol. Appl. Biochem. 2020, 67, 824–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Wang, L.; Chen, X.; Su, D.; Liu, S.; Liu, X.; Jiang, S.; Gao, H.; Yang, W. Mechanical Performance of a Prefabricated Subway Station Structure Constructed by Twin Closely-Spaced Rectangular Pipe-Jacking Boxes. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2023, 135, 105062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Xia, H.; Liu, Z.; Efremochkina, M.; Liu, X.; Lin, C. Study on City Digital Twin Technologies for Sustainable Smart City Design: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Geographic Information System and Building Information Modeling Integration. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 84, 104009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zheng, X.; Le, Y.; Chan, A.P.C.; Hu, Y.; Li, Y. Review of the Application of Social Network Analysis (SNA) in Construction Project Management Research. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 1214–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Akintoye, A.; McIntosh, G.; Fitzgerald, E. A Survey of Supply Chain Collaboration and Management in the UK Construction Industry. Eur. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2000, 6, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. do Carmo, C.S.T.; Sotelino, E.D. A Framework for Architecture and Structural Engineering Collaboration in Bim Projects Through Structural Optimization. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2022, 27, 223–239. [Google Scholar]
  97. Chan, F.T.S.; Kumar, N. Global Supplier Development Considering Risk Factors Using Fuzzy Extended AHP-Based Approach. Omega 2007, 35, 417–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Fisher, C.D. Padlet: An Online Tool for Learner Engagement and Collaboration. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2017, 16, 163–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Gryc, H.; da Silva, J. Global Engineers Thinking Locally: Creating Kindergartens for Africa. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Civ. Eng. 2013, 166, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Leicht, R.M.; Messner, J.I.; Anumba, C.J. A Framework for Using Interactive Workspaces for Effective Collaboration. Electron. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2009, 14, 180–203. [Google Scholar]
  101. Li, Y.; Sun, H.; Li, D.; Song, J.; Ding, R. Effects of Digital Technology Adoption on Sustainability Performance in Construction Projects: The Mediating Role of Stakeholder Collaboration. J. Manag. Eng. 2022, 38, 04022016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. London, K.; Pablo, Z. An Actor–Network Theory Approach to Developing an Expanded Conceptualization of Collaboration in Industrialized Building Housing Construction. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2017, 35, 553–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Ogunnusi, M.; Omotayo, T.; Hamma-Adama, M.; Awuzie, B.O.; Egbelakin, T. Lessons Learned from the Impact of COVID-19 on the Global Construction Industry. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2021, 20, 299–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Al Hattab, M. The Dynamic Evolution of Synergies between BIM and Sustainability: A Text Mining and Network Theory Approach. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 37, 102159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Araszkiewicz, K. Green BIM Concept-Scandinavian Inspirations. Arch. Civ. Eng. 2016, 62, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Asare, K.A.B.; Ruikar, K.D.; Zanni, M.; Soetanto, R. BIM-Based LCA and Energy Analysis for Optimised Sustainable Building Design in Ghana. Sn Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 1855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Atta, I.; Bakhoum, E.S.; Marzouk, M.M. Digitizing Material Passport for Sustainable Construction Projects Using BIM. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 43, 103233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. García de Soto, B.; Agustí-Juan, I.; Hunhevicz, J.; Joss, S.; Graser, K.; Habert, G.; Adey, B.T. Productivity of Digital Fabrication in Construction: Cost and Time Analysis of a Robotically Built Wall. Autom. Constr. 2018, 92, 297–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Hosseini, M.R.; Jupp, J.; Papadonikolaki, E.; Mumford, T.; Joske, W.; Nikmehr, B. Position Paper: Digital Engineering and Building Information Modelling in Australia. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2020, 10, 331–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Acar, E.; Yalçın, N. Task-Related pro-Environmental Behaviours of Architectural Designers: LEED-Based Evidence from Turkey. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2019, 15, 121–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Acharya, S.; Chakrabarti, A. A Conceptual Tool for Environmentally Benign Design: Development and Evaluation of a Proof of Concept. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 2020, 34, 30–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Ahmed, N.; Abdel-Hamid, M.; Abd El-Razik, M.M.; El-Dash, K.M. Impact of Sustainable Design in the Construction Sector on Climate Change. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021, 12, 1375–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Almirall, C.; Petit-Boix, A.; Sanjuan-Delmás, D.; de la Fuente, A.; Pujadas, P.; Josa, A. Environmental Effects of Using Different Construction Codes Applied to Reinforced Concrete Beam Designs Based on Model Code 2010 and Spanish Standard EHE-08. Eng. Struct. 2019, 179, 438–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Fleischman, R.B.; Kim Seeber, P.E. New Construction for Resilient Cities: The Argument for Sustainable Low Damage Precast/Prestressed Concrete Building Structures in the 21st Century. Sci. Iran. 2016, 23, 1578–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Grigorian, M.; Kamizi, M. High-Performance Resilient Earthquake-Resisting Moment Frames. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Struct. Build. 2022, 175, 401–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Guerrero, J.A.R.; Yang, T.Y.; Swei, O. Earthquake and Deterioration Inclusive Probabilistic Life Cycle Assessment (EDP-LCA) Framework for Buildings. Resilient Cities Struct. 2023, 2, 30–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Haeri, S.M. The Role of Geotechnical Engineering in Sustainable and Resilient Cities. Sci. Iran. 2016, 23, 1658–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Hao, H.; Bi, K.; Chen, W.; Pham, T.M.; Li, J. Towards next Generation Design of Sustainable, Durable, Multi-Hazard Resistant, Resilient, and Smart Civil Engineering Structures. Eng. Struct. 2023, 277, 115477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Haque, M.O.; Aman, J.; Mohammad, F. Construction Sustainability of Container-Modular-Housing in Coastal Regions towards Resilient Community. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2022, 12, 467–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Lori, G.; Morison, C.; Larcher, M.; Belis, J. Sustainable Facade Design for Glazed Buildings in a Blast Resilient Urban Environment. Glass Struct. Eng. 2019, 4, 145–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Ahsana, P.V.; Rao, K.B.; Anoop, M.B. Stochastic Analysis of Flexural Strength of Rc Beams Subjected to Chloride Induced Corrosion. Mater. Res. 2015, 18, 1224–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Akadiri, P.O.; Olomolaiye, P.O.; Chinyio, E.A. Multi-Criteria Evaluation Model for the Selection of Sustainable Materials for Building Projects. Autom. Constr. 2013, 30, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Akadiri, P.O.; Olomolaiye, P.O. Development of Sustainable Assessment Criteria for Building Materials Selection. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2012, 19, 666–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Al Ghonamy, A.; Esam, M.; Aichouni, M.; Abdulwahab, M.; Ashraf, N.; Subhi, O. Significance of Life Cycle Costing for Selection of Building Construction Materials. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Advances in Civil, Structural and Construction Engineering-CSCE 2015, Rome, Italy, 18–19 April 2015; Institute of Research Engineers and Doctors: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 94–98. [Google Scholar]
  125. Al-Bared, M.A.M.; Ayub, A.; Mohd Yunus, N.Z.; Hamonangan Harahap, I.S.; Marto, A. Application of Demolished Concrete Material (DCM) in Civil Engineering Structures—A Review. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 2018, 9, 2345–2352. [Google Scholar]
  126. Al-Kutti, W.A.; Islam, A.B.M.S.; Kazmi, Z.A.; Sodangi, M.; Anwar, F.; Nasir, M.; Ahmed, M.A.A.; Alotaibi, K.S. Structural Performance and SWOT Analysis of Multi-Story Buildings of Lightweight Reinforced Concrete Comprising Local Waste Materials. Earthq. Struct. 2022, 23, 493–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Alrashed, F.; Asif, M.; Burek, S. The Role of Vernacular Construction Techniques and Materials for Developing Zero-Energy Homes in Various Desert Climates. Buildings 2017, 7, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Alsadi, A.; Matthews, J.C.; Matthews, E. Environmental Impact Assessment of the Fabrication of Pipe Rehabilitation Materials. J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2020, 11, 05019004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Anysz, H.; Narloch, P. Designing the Composition of Cement Stabilized Rammed Earth Using Artificial Neural Networks. Materials 2019, 12, 1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Badescu, V.; Sicre, B. Renewable Energy for Passive House Heating: Part I. Building Description. Energy Build. 2003, 35, 1077–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Garlík, B. Energy Sustainability of a Cluster of Buildings with the Application of Smart Grids and the Decentralization of Renewable Energy Sources. Energies 2022, 15, 1649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Zakeri, B.; Syri, S. Corrigendum to “Electrical Energy Storage Systems: A Comparative Life Cycle Cost Analysis” [Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42 (2015) 569–596]. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 53, 1634–1635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Canadian Climate Institute. Canada’s Net Zero Future; Canadian Climate Institute: Toronto, AB, Canada, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  134. Fagone, C.; Santamicone, M.; Villa, V. Architecture Engineering and Construction Industrial Framework for Circular Economy: Development of a Circular Construction Site Methodology. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Goggins, J.; Moran, P.; Armstrong, A.; Hajdukiewicz, M. Lifecycle Environmental and Economic Performance of Nearly Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB) in Ireland. Energy Build. 2016, 116, 622–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Gorecki, J.; Nunez-Cacho, P.; Rutkowska, M. Study on Circular Economy Implementation Propensity of Construction Companies in Context of Prevailing Management Styles. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Ibn-Mohammed, T.; Mustapha, K.B.; Godsell, J.; Adamu, Z.; Babatunde, K.A.; Akintade, D.D.; Acquaye, A.; Fujii, H.; Ndiaye, M.M.; Yamoah, F.A.; et al. A Critical Analysis of the Impacts of COVID-19 on the Global Economy and Ecosystems and Opportunities for Circular Economy Strategies. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Ogunmakinde, O.E.; Egbelakin, T.; Sher, W. Contributions of the Circular Economy to the UN Sustainable Development Goals through Sustainable Construction. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 178, 106023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Rodrigo, N.; Omrany, H.; Chang, R.; Zuo, J. Leveraging Digital Technologies for Circular Economy in Construction Industry: A Way Forward. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2023, 13, 85–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Shooshtarian, S.; Maqsood, T.; Caldera, S.; Ryley, T. Transformation towards a Circular Economy in the Australian Construction and Demolition Waste Management System. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 30, 89–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Utrilla, P.N.-C.; Górecki, J.; Maqueira, J.M. Simulation-Based Management of Construction Companies under the Circular Economy Concept-Case Study. Buildings 2020, 10, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Wei, H.-H.; Skibniewski, M.J.; Shohet, I.M.; Yao, X. Lifecycle Environmental Performance of Natural-Hazard Mitigation for Buildings. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2016, 30, 04015042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Cato, M.S. Green Economics: An Introduction to Theory, Policy and Practice; Earthscan: London, UK; Sterling, VA, USA, 2009; ISBN 978-1-84407-570-6. [Google Scholar]
  144. Energy Policies Energy Policies of IEA Countries: Norway 2017; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD): Paris, France, 2017; ISBN 9789264014701. [CrossRef]
  145. Dawson, B.; Spannagle, M. United Nations framework convention on climate change (Unfccc). In The Complete Guide to Climate Change; Routledge: London, UK, 2008; pp. 392–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Complet. Guide Clim. Chang. 2022, 392–403.
  147. Yusuf, S.Z.; Hussin, K.; Azali, N.H. Child Safety Policy in High-Rise Building as Preventive Measures of Child Falls—A Review. J. Teknol. 2015, 73, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Adeosun, F.E.; Oke, A.E. Examining the Awareness and Usage of Cyber Physical Systems for Construction Projects in Nigeria. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2022, 22, 281–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Alahmad, M.; Brink, H.; Brumbaugh, A.; Rieur, E. Integrating Sustainable Design into Architectural Engineering Education: UNL-AE Program. J. Archit. Eng. 2011, 17, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Atabay, S.; Pelin Gurgun, A.; Koc, K. Incorporating BIM and Green Building in Engineering Education: Assessment of a School Building for LEED Certification. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2020, 25, 04020040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Ayer, S.K.; Messner, J.I.; Anumba, C.J. Augmented Reality Gaming in Sustainable Design Education. J. Archit. Eng. 2016, 22, 04015012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Benner, J.; McArthur, J.J. Data-Driven Design as a Vehicle for BIM and Sustainability Education. Buildings 2019, 9, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Brncich, A.; Shane, J.S.; Strong, K.C.; Passe, U. Using Integrated Student Teams to Advance Education in Sustainable Design and Construction. Int. J. Constr. Educ. Res. 2011, 7, 22–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Clevenger, C.M.; Abdallah, M.; Wu, W.; Barrows, M. Assessing an Online Tool to Promote Sustainability Competencies in Construction Engineering Education. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2019, 145, 04018014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Garcia-Segura, T.; Montalban-Domingo, L.; Amalia Sanz, M.; Lozano-Torro, A. Sustainable Decision-Making Module: Application to Public Procurement. J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 2020, 146, 04020004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. García-Segura, T.; Montalbán-Domingo, L.; Sanz-Benlloch, A.; Domingo, A.; Catalá, J.; Pellicer, E. Enhancing a Comprehensive View of the Infrastructure Life Cycle through Project-Based Learning. J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 2023, 149, 05022002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Graham, E.; Warren-Myers, G. Investigating the Efficacy of a Professional Education Program in Promoting Sustainable Residential Construction Practices in Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 210, 1238–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Harrison, J.; Klotz, L. Women as Sustainability Leaders in Engineering: Evidence from Industry and Academia. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2010, 26, 727–734. [Google Scholar]
  159. Laguarda Mallo, M.F.; Espinoza, O. Awareness, Perceptions and Willingness to Adopt Cross-Laminated Timber by the Architecture Community in the United States. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 94, 198–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Zadeh, A.A.; Peng, Y.; Puffer, S.M.; Garvey, M.D. Sustainable Sand Substitutes in the Construction Industry in the United States and Canada: Assessing Stakeholder Awareness. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Research framework.
Figure 1. Research framework.
Sustainability 16 02959 g001
Figure 2. Main information of the study.
Figure 2. Main information of the study.
Sustainability 16 02959 g002
Figure 3. Annual scientific production of sustainable engineering and design research.
Figure 3. Annual scientific production of sustainable engineering and design research.
Sustainability 16 02959 g003
Figure 4. Worldwide publication on sustainable engineering and design (2000–2023).
Figure 4. Worldwide publication on sustainable engineering and design (2000–2023).
Sustainability 16 02959 g004
Figure 5. Countries’ Collaboration World Map.
Figure 5. Countries’ Collaboration World Map.
Sustainability 16 02959 g005
Figure 6. Top 20 journals related to sustainable engineering and design.
Figure 6. Top 20 journals related to sustainable engineering and design.
Sustainability 16 02959 g006
Figure 7. The production of sources over time.
Figure 7. The production of sources over time.
Sustainability 16 02959 g007
Figure 8. Top 10 authors’ publications over time in sustainable construction research.
Figure 8. Top 10 authors’ publications over time in sustainable construction research.
Sustainability 16 02959 g008
Figure 9. Corresponding author’s countries (single-country publications and multiple-country publications).
Figure 9. Corresponding author’s countries (single-country publications and multiple-country publications).
Sustainability 16 02959 g009
Figure 10. Word Cloud.
Figure 10. Word Cloud.
Sustainability 16 02959 g010
Figure 11. Word tree map.
Figure 11. Word tree map.
Sustainability 16 02959 g011
Figure 12. Words’ frequency over time.
Figure 12. Words’ frequency over time.
Sustainability 16 02959 g012
Figure 13. Topic trend over time.
Figure 13. Topic trend over time.
Sustainability 16 02959 g013
Figure 14. Sankey diagram showing connections between titles, keywords, and sources.
Figure 14. Sankey diagram showing connections between titles, keywords, and sources.
Sustainability 16 02959 g014
Table 1. Most total citation scores and citations per year.
Table 1. Most total citation scores and citations per year.
PaperReferenceTotal Citations (TC)TC per YearNormalized TC
Provis JL, 2015, Cem Concr Res[46]86796.3316.21
Baddoo NR, 2008, J Constr Steel Res[47]61738.5613.00
Limbachiya M, 2012, Constr Build Mater[48]37231.009.20
Yang J, 2011, Constr Build Mater[52]28822.156.37
Hassan A, 2019, J Clean Prod[49]27354.6010.56
Dixon PG, 2014, J R Soc Interface[53]24424.409.12
Frangopol DM, 2016, Struct Infrastructure Eng[54]22127.639.52
Lapinski AR, 2006, J Constr Eng Manage[55]21311.837.33
Shen LY, 2007, J Civ Eng Manage[18]20812.243.69
Frangopol DM, 2017, Struct Infrastructure Eng[56]20329.007.65
Müller HS, 2014, Constr Build Mater[57]20020.007.48
Mugahed Amran YH, 2018, Structures[51]18030.006.53
Becerik-Gerber B, 2011, Electron J Inf Technol Constr[58]17413.383.85
Asteris PG, 2021, Cem Concr Res[50]16254.009.66
Wang H, 2019, Autom Constr[59]15430.805.96
Becerik-Gerber B, 2010, J Prof Issues Eng Educ Pract[60]1309.295.71
Babalola O, 2019, Build Environ[45]12324.604.76
Cass D, 2011, J Constr Eng Manage[61]1229.382.70
Saieg P, 2018, J Clean Prod[62]12120.174.39
Rahimi M, 2018, J Clean Prod[63]11719.504.24
Ganey R, 2017, J Struct Eng[64]10014.293.77
Levitt Re, 2007, J Constr Eng Manage[65]975.711.72
Ahmed Hu, 2021, Sustainability[66]9632.005.73
Basu D, 2014, Can Geotech J[67]959.503.55
Macillo V, 2017, Thin Walled Struct[68]9513.573.58
Table 2. Most cited countries.
Table 2. Most cited countries.
CountryTCAverage Article Citations
USA254523.6
China219524.4
United Kingdom185441.2
India45322.6
Australia37010.3
Canada33218.4
Hong Kong31319.6
Germany28140.1
France26433.0
Italy25913.6
Spain25011.9
Iran23839.7
Portugal21733.4
Malaysia21419.5
Greece18526.4
Yemen18018.0
Brazil16618.4
Nigeria16623.7
Korea1189.10
Singapore10521.0
Table 3. Top 20 influential authors.
Table 3. Top 20 influential authors.
Authorh_IndexTCNPPY_Start
Li H7294112006
Liu Y612172013
Chen Y46062021
Chen Z47742021
García-Sanz-Calcedo J44942018
Kim S44352016
Luo X421642019
Wang X44872013
Frangopol DM344432016
Hallowell MR317632012
Jin R310832018
Kineber AF32732022
Klotz L36632010
Lepech MD310132008
Li W32142017
Li Y312152012
Li Z31742019
Liu B31932020
Liu X312752010
Liu Z37042019
Table 4. High-frequency keywords and their occurrences in sustainable engineering and design.
Table 4. High-frequency keywords and their occurrences in sustainable engineering and design.
KeywordsFrequency
sustainable development368
construction industry156
architectural design111
design74
construction68
sustainability68
life cycle67
environmental impact65
structural design63
project management61
civil engineering60
decision making48
recycling46
energy efficiency44
intelligent buildings40
sustainable construction40
design and construction39
buildings37
compressive strength36
architecture35
concrete construction34
durability34
building materials32
climate change31
surveys31
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alam Bhuiyan, M.M.; Hammad, A. Engineering and Design for Sustainable Construction: A Bibliometric Analysis of Current Status and Future Trends. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2959. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072959

AMA Style

Alam Bhuiyan MM, Hammad A. Engineering and Design for Sustainable Construction: A Bibliometric Analysis of Current Status and Future Trends. Sustainability. 2024; 16(7):2959. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072959

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alam Bhuiyan, Mohammad Masfiqul, and Ahmed Hammad. 2024. "Engineering and Design for Sustainable Construction: A Bibliometric Analysis of Current Status and Future Trends" Sustainability 16, no. 7: 2959. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072959

APA Style

Alam Bhuiyan, M. M., & Hammad, A. (2024). Engineering and Design for Sustainable Construction: A Bibliometric Analysis of Current Status and Future Trends. Sustainability, 16(7), 2959. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072959

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop