Next Article in Journal
A Data-Driven Battery Energy Storage Regulation Approach Integrating Machine Learning Forecasting Models for Enhancing Building Energy Flexibility—A Case Study of a Net-Zero Carbon Building in China
Previous Article in Journal
Horizontal Vibration of the Coupled Rope–Car–Rail System in High-Speed Elevators Under Building Sway Excitation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Experimental Comparison of Ventilation Strategies for Condensation Risk in Underground Wheat Granaries
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 15
Issue 19
10.3390/buildings15193609
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Literature Review of Sustainable Building Research: Bibliometric Analysis from 2015–2025

by
Yuehong Lu
1,
Yang Zhang
1,2,
Zhijia Huang
1,3,*,
Bo Cheng
1,
Changlong Wang
1,
Yanhong Sun
1,
Hongguang Zhang
1 and
Jiao Li
1
1
School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Anhui University of Technology, Ma’anshan 243002, China
2
School of Metallurgical Engineering, Anhui University of Technology, Ma’anshan 243002, China
3
School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Ma’anshan University, Ma’anshan 243002, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2025, 15(19), 3609; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15193609
Submission received: 3 September 2025 / Revised: 25 September 2025 / Accepted: 2 October 2025 / Published: 8 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Green Building and Environmental Comfort)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study presents a novel integrative review of 329 review articles on sustainable buildings from 2015 to 2025, combining quantitative bibliometrics with qualitative insights to map the field’s evolution and pinpoint critical future pathways. Seven core research themes were identified in this study: (1) material and advanced construction technologies, (2) energy efficiency and renewable energy systems, (3) digitalization and smart technologies, (4) policy, standards, and certification, (5) sustainable design and optimization, (6) stakeholder and socio-economic factors, (7) other (cross-cutting) topics. Key findings reveal a surge in publications post-2020, driven by global net-zero commitments, with China, Australia, and Hong Kong leading research output. Innovations in low-carbon materials (e.g., hemp concrete, geopolymers), artificial intelligent (AI)-driven energy optimization, and digital tools (e.g., building information modeling (BIM), internet of things (IoT)) dominate recent advancements. However, challenges persist, including policy fragmentation, scalability barriers for sustainable materials, and socio-economic disparities in green building adoption. The study proposes a unique future research framework emphasizing nanotechnology-enhanced materials, interpretable AI models, harmonized global standards, and inclusive stakeholder engagement. This review provides actionable recommendations to bridge gaps between technological innovation, policy frameworks, and practical implementation in sustainable construction.

1. Introduction

In response to the escalating climate crisis, achieving carbon neutrality has emerged as a key strategy to curb greenhouse gas emissions and address the environmental problems caused by the development of mankind [1,2]. In this context, more than 130 countries have committed to carbon neutrality goals, most targeting timelines between 2050 and 2070 [3,4]. The built environment plays a substantial role in this effort, responsible for approximately 30–40% of worldwide energy consumption and a third of carbon dioxide emissions [5,6,7,8,9]. Sustainable buildings (SUBs), an umbrella term encompassing green buildings (GBs), nearly/net zero energy buildings (ZEBs), and zero carbon buildings (ZCBs), are designed to minimize environmental impact while improving energy performance, occupant health, and economic outcomes. Consequently, the adoption of SUB practices is widely considered a crucial approach for supporting carbon neutrality objectives and combating climate change [10,11].
In the literature, SUBs are frequently characterized by their reduced dependence on virgin resources and lower energy demands, alongside diminished emissions and waste output relative to conventional construction practices [12,13]. Some scholars further define SUBs as GBs that exhibit enhanced greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation potential, thereby supporting the achievement of ZCB objectives [14]. As defined by the US Environmental Protection Agency [15], a GB is conceptualized as a structure designed, constructed, and operated through processes that prioritize environmental responsibility and resource efficiency across its entire lifespan. The World Green Building Council (WorldGBC) defines GBs as those designed to mitigate negative impacts on the climate and natural environment throughout their life cycle, while simultaneously improving human quality of life [16]. The understanding of GBs is continually evolving; they are commonly defined as “providing people with healthy, applicable, efficient space and natural harmonious architecture with the maximum savings on resources (energy, land, water, materials), protection for the environment and reduced pollution throughout its whole lifecycle” [17,18,19].
Despite the rapid global adoption of the ZEB concept since its emergence in the early 2000s, consensus regarding its precise definition has yet to be achieved. [20,21]. Torcellini et al. [21], for instance, proposed four distinct definitions for ZEB, including site ZEB, source ZEB, cost ZEB, and emissions ZEB. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), a ZEB operates without fossil fuels. Instead, it meets its energy demands solely through on-site renewable sources, primarily solar power [22]. Numerous studies on building performance define ZEBs by their core characteristic: the net-zero annual equilibrium of their energy demand and renewable energy supply [23,24,25]. Although the building sector is widely committed to cutting carbon emissions, it lacks a globally accepted nomenclature or benchmark for ZCBs [26]. A variety of terms are frequently employed when referring to ZCBs, such as carbon neutral, zero carbon, net-zero carbon, zero energy, zero net energy, net-zero energy, near-zero energy, passive house, energy plus, 100% renewable, fossil-fuel free, and climate neutral [27,28]. The scope of balanced goals for ZCBs falls into four categories, defined by the calculation period and the geographic availability of renewable energy [29]: (1) on-site renewables for operational carbon; (2) on-site renewables for full-life-cycle carbon; (3) on-/off-site renewables for operational carbon; (4) on-/off-site renewables for full-life-cycle carbon. In summary, while these terms are often connected and used interchangeably, they represent a conceptual hierarchy with increasing levels of specificity and meanings, as illustrated in Figure 1:
  • Sustainable building (SUB): This is the broadest umbrella term, and it encompasses the entire triple bottom line of sustainability: environmental, societal, and economic impact across the building’s full life cycle.
  • Green building (GB): It is a subset of SUB, primarily focusing on the environmental aspect (i.e., energy, water, materials, waste, and indoor environmental quality) of sustainability.
  • Zero carbon building (ZCB): It focuses explicitly on the carbon emissions impact, aiming for a whole-life-cycle carbon neutrality that encompasses embodied carbon from materials and construction, not just operational energy.
  • Zero energy building (ZEB): It specifically targets the energy aspect to achieve energy self-sufficiency in the building.
The European Commission has established a comprehensive strategy aimed at attaining climate neutrality by 2050. Directive 2024/1275/EU [30] on energy efficiency requires member states to compile detailed reports on structures failing to satisfy nearly ZEB criteria and to implement corrective actions for enhancing building energy performance [31]. Key European directives, including the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) [32], the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) [33], and the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) [34], form a foundational framework that supports energy retrofitting and the integration of renewable sources to meet nearly ZEB standards in both new and existing building stock. As the cornerstone of the European Union’s sustainability agenda, the European Green Deal operationalizes the objectives of the UN 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [35]. Similarly, the U.S. Department of Energy has set targets for the realization of zero-energy homes by 2020 and commercial ZEBs by 2025 [36]. Furthermore, federal initiatives aim to fully decarbonize all public buildings by 2045 [37]. In Australia, the Zero Emissions Residential Task Group of the Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council (ASBEC) put forward a national definition and pathway for nearly ZCBs as early as 2012 [38], advocating for a coherent and regulated long-term transition toward zero carbon in alignment with industry consensus, acknowledging nearly ZEBs/ZCBs as crucial for meeting 2050 net-zero emissions goals. Parallel efforts are also observed in China, where the government has introduced an array of policies, standards, regulatory measures, and incentive programs designed to advance energy-efficient and low-carbon building practices [39,40]. In 2019, China issued the national standard Technical Standard for Nearly Zero Energy Buildings GB/T51350-2019 [41] and national standard Calculation Standard for Carbon Emissions of Buildings GB/T 51366-2019 [42]. In addition, China has unveiled its “dual-carbon” strategy, targeting the realization of carbon emission peaking by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060. This initiative reflects China’s commitment to promoting sustainable development and fostering a shared future for humankind [43,44]. Concurrently, numerous other countries have also established goals to achieve carbon neutrality between 2050 and 2070.
Sustainable/green building rating tools (SBRT/GBRT) serve as essential frameworks for assessing the sustainability of buildings, and numerous countries have developed their own nationally tailored SBRT/GBRT to measure and reduce the environmental impact of buildings, e.g., BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method), developed by the UK, LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), developed by the USA, CASBEE (Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency), developed by Japan, and GREEN STAR, developed by Australia [45,46]. These rating systems are widely recognized as a valuable benchmark for evaluating the environmental performance of buildings. Numerous studies have undertaken comparative analyses of different building assessment tools [47,48,49], with several studies focusing on comparing specific assessment tools, e.g., LEED and ITACA [50], BEAM and LEED [51], LEED and BREEAM [52]. In general, LEED and BREEAM have received the most scholarly attention, predominantly due to their global prevalence. Few other studies have extended beyond comparing these major systems to evaluate other regional assessment methods [53,54].
Over the past decade, the implementation of ZEBs has been broadly classified into passive and active strategies, and prior reviews have further distinguished passive strategies into passive sustainable design (i.e., geographical and meteorological factors such as site planning, layout planning, ventilation, and natural lighting) and energy-saving techniques (i.e., thermal insulation, shading design, lighting design) [55,56]. The active strategies include renewable energy systems (i.e., photovoltaic system, wind turbine system, geothermal system) and backup systems (i.e., fuel cell system, district heating and/or cooling system) [20,56]. In recent years, substantial artificial intelligence (AI) applications have been explored in buildings, which involve design optimization [57,58,59,60], smart control of building energy systems [60,61,62], load prediction [63,64,65], and fault detection of energy devices [66,67,68]. The use of AI-driven optimization during the design phase, which employs surrogate models, is critical for integrating holistic sustainability into building projects. The integration of AI during the building design phase facilitates the holistic adoption of strategic sustainability measures. This proactive approach significantly enhances building performance from the outset of the life cycle, thereby precluding the necessity for costly future retrofits [69].
Numerous studies have been conducted on SUBs from a specific perspective (e.g., passive strategies, active strategies, design optimization, policies, rating tools, AI-driven applications, etc.). However, few studies have systematically and comprehensively investigated the current state of SUBs by synthesizing existing review literature. This study aims to identify the characteristic distribution of the existing review literature using bibliometric analysis and analyze the main research themes as well as the motivations in the research field of SUBs. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the main research framework of this study, which contains three stages. Section 3 shows a comprehensive overview of 329 review articles combining quantitative and qualitative analytical methodologies, and examines key focus areas, identifies motivations, challenges/gaps, and prospective future directions in the field. Finally, Section 4 presents the conclusions and the main limitations.

2. Methodology

Figure 2 illustrates the three-stage research framework of this study: bibliometric analysis, scientometric analysis, and qualitative analysis. The choice of database is critical in scientific reviews, as it directly influences the quality of the findings [70,71,72]. Scopus covers peer-reviewed literature across scientific, technical, medical, social science, and arts and humanities disciplines. It indexes over 27,000 journals, 210,000 books, and 9 million conference papers, making it a widely used database for bibliometric studies. Therefore, Scopus was chosen as the source database for literature retrieval in this research. In stage 1, a bibliometric search was conducted in the Scopus database to obtain the comprehensive literature of a given topic for further analysis; article title search was employed to retrieve the words “sustainable building” OR “zero carbon building” OR “green building” OR “zero energy building” OR “low carbon building” OR “low energy building”. Title search is a more precise, targeted strategy compared to keyword or abstract searching, and the results of title search are highly relevant and central to the predefined topic. This approach minimizes “noise” from articles that only mention the keywords peripherally. The publication time was set to cover the last ten years, from 2015 to 2025, and the written language was refined as English. As a result, a total of 5458 documents were identified, containing 2939 journal articles, 1665 conference papers, 333 review papers, 323 book chapters, 43 editorial materials, 41 errata, 34 conference reviews, 31 books, 17 retracted, 13 notes, 11 short surveys, 4 letters, and 4 data papers. Review papers offer a comprehensive synthesis of existing research, saving time by consolidating scattered studies into a coherent overview. By organizing, analyzing, and interpreting vast bodies of literature, they advance scholarship and are thus invaluable for researchers, educators, and policymakers. Subsequently, the titles, abstracts, and keywords were further checked and screened to make sure the selected studies met the scope of this paper. Finally, 329 review papers remained for conducting further analysis in the next stage.
In stage 2, the scientometric approach was employed to quantitatively assess research impact, citation dynamics, and knowledge evolution within a field using large-scale academic datasets, which can enhance literature reviews by addressing objectivity concerns in SUBs research samples. This study aims to identify the most influential sources, countries, keywords, and review papers in the studied field, and then classify research topics into several clusters for conducting in-depth analysis and identifying key findings and challenges. In this study, science mapping was employed to analyze and visualize bibliometric networks by using VOSviewer version 1.6.20.0. The manual of this software is freely available to download and includes supplementary details explaining the data analysis and science mapping procedures [73,74].
In stage 3, a comprehensive qualitative analysis was conducted on key review articles to summarize the main research themes and key findings and challenges, since these review articles are generally regarded as cornerstones in each research theme and offer researchers a consolidated overview of current advancements, critical insights, and future research directions by synthesizing diverse studies.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Overview of Publication Trends

Figure 3 presents the annual count of review articles on SUBs over the last ten-year period (January 2015–July 2025), revealing significant fluctuations and long-term trends in the research output of this field. The publications show an overall growth trend, from 11 publications (2015) to 57 publications (2024), indicating surging academic and industrial interest in SUBs. Publication growth was slow during the first five years but accelerated rapidly in the subsequent five-year period. In addition, the sharp rise in 2024 suggests a peak in research activity, possibly driven by global net-zero commitments (e.g., COP28, stricter building codes). The drop to 40 publications in 2025 is attributed to incomplete data for that year, as only the first half was included.

3.2. Results of Scientometric Analysis

3.2.1. Analysis of Article Sources

Figure 4 illustrates the most popular and suitable journals for publication in the SUB field, as identified through journal source analysis using VOSviewer software. A total of 112 sources were identified among the 329 review papers, and the minimum number of papers was set to 2 for each of the sources. Finally, 34 connected sources were obtained, and detailed information is provided in Table 1. The size of a journal’s node and label corresponds to its number of publications; thus, larger nodes indicate a higher publication output. Therefore, it is obvious that Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews is the most popular journal, having the highest publication number, 40 articles, and the highest citation number, 3931. The second-most popular journal was observed to be Sustainability (Switzerland) (publication number: 33, citation number: 1250), followed by Buildings (publication number: 23, citation number: 502), Energy and Buildings (publication number: 20, citation number: 1993), and Energies (publication number: 20, citation number: 539). The line connecting two nodes reflects two key characteristics: the frequency of citations between two journals and the link strength between two journals. Specifically, a thicker line represents a higher citation frequency, while a shorter distance indicates a stronger link strength between journals. With a total link strength score of 108, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews is the most active journal in the studied field, followed by Building and Environment with a total link strength score of 91. Although the number of articles published in Environmental Chemistry Letters, Cleaner Engineering and Technology, and Automation in Construction was less than 3, and the citation number was less than 200, these three journals have the highest impact on the field of SUBs, reflected by avg. norm. citations. The color of the node represents the average publication year of articles in that journal. The data indicate that Frontiers in Built Environment began publishing research on SUBs in 2025, and Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, Results in Engineering and Journal of Facilities Management started publishing related articles in 2024. By contrast, Applied Energy, Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports, and Journal of Management in Engineering were the first to start publishing related articles.

3.2.2. Analysis of Article Regions

Figure 5 illustrates the main countries active in SUB research, reflecting the relationship and contribution of different regions in this field. In VOSviewer, the minimum number of articles and the minimum citation number were set to 2 and 100, respectively. Finally, a total of 26 countries were identified from 71 countries, as shown in Table 2. The largest node was observed to be China, which had the highest number of published articles, with 83, and the highest citation numbers, with 5799. This was followed by Australia (articles = 44, citations = 3529) and Hong Kong (articles = 39, citations = 3868), and it is obvious that these three countries have made considerable contributions in the studied field. In China, the dual-carbon policy launched in 2020 may be a key factor that has greatly stimulated the enthusiasm for investigating SUBs. In Australia, the globally recognized GBRS (i.e., Green Star) program, policy guidance and promotion, and innovative technologies are possibly the main factors that greatly promote SUB development. In Hong Kong, BEAM Plus, promoted by the Hong Kong Green Building Council (HKGBC), and the “Hong Kong Climate Action Plan 2050”, launched by the government, have facilitated the low-carbon transformation of the construction industry and the realization of the global carbon neutrality goal. In addition, as the node color reflects the average publication period of articles in a country, Egypt (articles = 9), South Africa (articles = 16), Saudi Arabia (articles = 11), and Brazil (articles = 8) have recently paid great attention to the review studies regarding SUB. By contrast, Spain (articles = 7), Italy (articles = 15), and France (articles = 6) have conducted earlier review studies on the related field. Although Japan, Egypt, and New Zealand each published fewer than 10 review articles, with less than 700 citations, they demonstrate the highest impact on SUB research as reflected by their average normalized citation values.

3.2.3. Analysis of Keywords

Figure 6 presents the core keywords identified from the selected review articles that were analyzed using “Author keyword” in VOSviewer. The threshold for the minimum number of occurrences was four, and keywords representing the same concept (e.g., “green building” versus “green buildings” versus “green building (gb)”, “net zero energy building” versus “net-zero energy building” versus “nearly zero energy building” versus “zero-energy buildings” versus “zero energy buildings” versus “nzeb”, “energy saving” versus “ energy conservation”) were combined to reduce redundancy. Ultimately, 46 keywords were retained from the initial pool of 1082 after applying the thresholds, and the detailed information of the core keywords is provided in Table 3. As the size of nodes and fonts corresponds to keyword frequency, “green buildings” (occurrences: 85) emerges as the most prevalent keyword, with “zero energy buildings” (occurrences: 45), “energy efficiency” (occurrences: 34), and “sustainable building” (occurrences: 24) following in descending order. In addition, the thickness of the connection line clearly reflects the link strength between two nodes; in other words, it reflects the frequency of co-occurrence or the intensity of cooperation of the pair of keywords. The high total link strength of a node is the sum of all connection strengths of the node. It was observed that the high total link strength of “green buildings” and “sustainability” reflect their roles as cross-cutting themes in SUB research, linking sustainable development, renewable energy, and energy efficiency topics. Keyword occurrence periods are color-coded, revealing a clear shift: while earlier literature frequently addressed “construction industry”, “review”, “life cycle assessment”, “green buildings”, and “barriers”, contemporary research focuses on “sustainable construction”, “artificial intelligence”, “bibliometric analysis”, “sustainable materials”, “smart cities”, “building information modeling”, and “building materials”. Although the keywords “construction industry,” “systematic review”, “circular economy”, “energy conservation”, “sustainable construction”, “artificial intelligence”, and “energy” each have no more than 10 occurrences, their high average normalized citation scores demonstrate their notable impact in recent research.

3.2.4. Analysis of Document Citations

Figure 7 presents the map of citation patterns for key documents, which were derived based on citation number and normal citations determined in VOSviewer. The threshold for the minimum citation number was 150; initially, 45 items out of 329 review articles were determined to meet the threshold, but only 31 items were observed to be connected and were thus selected for analysis. Detailed information on the top 31 most highly cited review articles is provided in Table 4. Two principal metrics, citation number and normal citation, are generally accepted to serve as important measures of an article’s academic influence and value. In terms of citation number, two review articles, i.e., “A critical comparison of green building rating systems”, published in 2017 and “Drivers for green building: a review of empirical studies”, published in 2017, are particularly notable for having the most citations. In terms of normal citation, another three review articles, i.e., “Residential net-zero energy buildings: review and perspective”, “Energy efficiency in sustainable buildings: a systematic review with taxonomy, challenges, motivations, methodological aspects, recommendations, and pathways for future research”, and “Assessment of the renewable energy generation towards net-zero energy buildings: a review”, were deemed the most influential articles, although they were all published after 2020, and the citation numbers were less than 300. It is notable that only 6 out of the 31 most highly cited review articles were identified as being published after 2020.
Table 4. List of 31 most highly cited review papers.
Table 4. List of 31 most highly cited review papers.
ArticleTitleSourceCitation NumbersNorm. Citations
Wu (2021) [76]Residential net-zero energy buildings: review and perspectiveRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews2705.35
Hafez (2023) [77]Energy efficiency in sustainable buildings: a systematic review with taxonomy, challenges, motivations, methodological aspects, recommendations, and pathways for future researchEnergy Strategy Reviews2635.29
Ahmed (2022) [78]Assessment of the renewable energy generation towards net-zero energy buildings: a reviewEnergy and Buildings2975.18
Doan (2017) [79]A critical comparison of green building rating systemsBuilding and Environment4864.81
Darko (2017) [80]Drivers for green building: a review of empirical studiesHabitat International3683.64
Debrah (2022b) [81]Artificial intelligence in green buildingAutomation in Construction1692.95
Debrah (2022a) [82]Green finance gap in green buildings: a scoping review and future research needsBuilding and Environment1662.89
Chastas (2016) [83]Embodied energy in residential buildings-towards the nearly zero energy building: a literature reviewBuilding and Environment3342.77
Olubunmi (2016) [84]Green building incentives: a reviewRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews3232.68
D’agostino (2019) [85]What is a nearly zero energy building? overview, implementation and comparison of definitionsJournal of Building Engineering3132.48
Mattoni (2018) [49]Critical review and methodological approach to evaluate the differences among international green building rating toolsRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews2592.44
Darko (2016a) [86]Critical analysis of green building research trend in construction journalsHabitat International2872.38
Wuni (2019) [87]Scientometric review of global research trends on green buildings in construction journals from 1992 to 2018Energy and Buildings2892.29
Darko (2016b) [88]Review of barriers to green building adoptionSustainable Development2242.22
Liu (2019b) [89]Application and suitability analysis of the key technologies in nearly zero energy buildings in ChinaRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews2672.12
Zhao (2019) [90]A bibliometric review of green building research 2000–2016Architectural Science Review2662.11
Shan (2018) [91]Green building rating systems: global reviews of practices and research effortsSustainable Cities and Society2232.10
Zuo (2017) [92]Green building evaluation from a life-cycle perspective in australia: a critical reviewRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews2122.10
Zhang (2017) [93]Comparison of evaluation standards for green building in china, britain, united statesRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews2122.10
Cabeza (2020) [20]Technological options and strategies towards zero energy buildings contributing to climate change mitigation: a systematic reviewEnergy and Buildings1632.09
Chan (2017) [94]Barriers affecting the adoption of green building technologiesJournal of Management in Engineering2102.08
Geng (2019) [95]A review of operating performance in green buildings: energy use, indoor environmental quality and occupant satisfactionEnergy and Buildings2522.00
Darko (2019) [96]A scientometric analysis and visualization of global green building researchBuilding and Environment2511.99
Kylili (2015) [97]European smart cities: the role of zero energy buildingsSustainable Cities and Society2671.89
Chen (2015) [98]A comprehensive review on passive design approaches in green building rating toolsRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews2571.82
Zhang (2018) [99]Turning green into gold: a review on the economics of green buildingsJournal of Cleaner Production1931.82
Lu (2015) [100]Design optimization and optimal control of grid-connected and standalone nearly/net zero energy buildingsApplied Energy2121.50
Liu (2019a) [101]A comprehensive analysis on definitions, development, and policies of nearly zero energy buildings in chinaRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews1811.44
Wei (2015) [102]Indoor air quality requirements in green building certificationsBuilding and Environment2001.41
Zhao (2015) [103]Social problems of green buildings: from the humanistic needs to social acceptanceRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews1871.32
Zhang (2019) [104]A survey of the status and challenges of green building development in various countriesSustainability (Switzerland)1511.20
It is noted that some years, which follow the author name in the first column, contain a or b to distinguish different papers by the same author in the same year.
Buildings 15 03609 g007
Figure 7. Mapping of document citation patterns [49,77,79,80,81,83,84,85,87,89,91,92,94,95,96].
Figure 7. Mapping of document citation patterns [49,77,79,80,81,83,84,85,87,89,91,92,94,95,96].
Buildings 15 03609 g007

3.3. Analysis of Research Themes

The total of 329 articles were classified into five different research groups based on building types as indicated by their titles: GB, ZEB, ZCB, SUB, and MB (mixed buildings that significantly addressed multiple specific categories, e.g., both ZEB and ZCB). It is important to note that these categories are not mutually exclusive but reflect the paper’s emphasis. Figure 8 shows the research proportion of different types of buildings in the studied articles and the publication trends of different types of buildings in different years. It was found that studies on GB (41.95%) dominate the field, followed by SUB (27.36%) and ZEB (23.10%), while ZCB (6.99%) and MB (0.61%) only account for a small part. Further investigation reveals that research interest in GBs peaked in 2019 (21 publications), declined sharply to approximately 10 publications annually in 2021–2022, then rebounded to a second peak in 2022 (23 publications) before entering a renewed decline. The initial downturn may be attributed to pandemic-related disruptions, whereas the subsequent decrease likely reflects a research focus shift driven by dual-carbon policy priorities, particularly toward ZEB and SUB paradigms. Studies on ZEB and SUB have demonstrated consistent growth, culminating in peak publication outputs in 2024 (ZEB = 16, SUB = 25), and the government incentives (e.g., tax credits, grants) for ZEB/SUB are possibly a key factor that has boosted academic and industry interest. However, studies on ZCB have remained relatively stable, increasing only marginally from two publications in 2015 to four in 2024.
This study classifies SUB research into seven themes, and Figure 9 shows the categories of research themes (Figure 9a) and the publication trends under each category (Figure 9b). The seven themes are material and advanced construction technologies (17.0%), energy efficiency and renewable energy systems (15.2%), digitalization and smart technologies (10.0%), policy, standards, and certification (14.0%), sustainable design and optimization (17.9%), stakeholder and socio-economic factors (6.7%), and others (19.1%). The “others” category comprises articles addressing general or specific topics (e.g., terminology, indicators, critical success factors) that do not belong to the above six primary themes. An overall growth trend was observed for all seven themes. In the initial year (2015), all seven themes had limited publications, each with fewer than five articles. However, publications on both material and advanced construction technologies and energy efficiency and renewable energy systems numbered more than 10 in 2024; breakthroughs in sustainable materials (e.g., carbon-neutral cement), advances in solar/wind technology and policy implementation were the possible reasons accelerating the sharp increase in these publications. Similar publication numbers were observed for three categories in 2014, i.e., digitalization and smart technologies (9), sustainable design and optimization (8), and others (8). The remaining two categories, i.e., stakeholder and socio-economic factors and policy, standards, and certification, showed minor fluctuations. In addition, the publication reduction in several categories in 2020 and 2021 may be caused by COVID-19 pandemic disruptions. Increased attention and research output are anticipated for all seven themes in the future.
The seven research themes identified in this study paint a picture of the features of building sustainability. Theme 1—Material and advanced construction technologies, theme 2—Energy efficiency and renewable energy systems, and theme 3—Digitalization and smart technologies primarily address the environmental pillar, aiming to reduce resource consumption and ecological impact. Theme 4—Policy, standards, and certification provides the regulatory and evaluative framework for driving the of goals of building sustainability. Theme 5—Stakeholder and socio-economic factors mainly addresses the social and economic pillars, exploring drivers, barriers, and financial mechanisms. Theme 6—Sustainable design and optimization serves as an integrative practice that balances the three pillars of building sustainability (i.e., environment, society, and economy). Achieving true sustainability in the built environment demands simultaneous advancements across all interconnected areas, moving beyond a narrow focus on energy and carbon to embrace broader socio-economic well-being and resilience.

3.4. Analysis of Motivations, Key Findings, and Future Research Direction

Based on the seven research themes analyzed in Section 3.3, the motivations, key findings, and challenges/future research directions were further investigated and summarized as provided in Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7.
In the theme of material and advanced construction technologies, the construction industry is a major contributor to global carbon emissions, primarily due to energy-intensive materials like concrete and steel, and transitioning to sustainable materials could reduce construction-related emissions by up to 40%, aligning with global decarbonization goals.
  • The primary motivations are to reduce the environmental footprint of buildings by the following means: (1) Promoting innovative materials (e.g., hemp concrete [105], geopolymers [106]) that offer comparable structural performance with lower emissions. (2) Exploring biomaterials (e.g., piezoelectric materials for biomedical uses [107]) to bridge sustainability with functionality. (3) Reviving traditional techniques (e.g., cob construction [108]) for heritage preservation and modern sustainability, and implementation of 3D printing concrete technology in construction sector for enhancing the performance and sustainability of building projects [109,110,111]. (4) Quantifying embodied energy to highlight the life cycle impact of materials, pushing for low-carbon alternatives.
  • The main key findings include the following: (1) The dominance of embodied energy in ZEBs underscores the need for low-carbon materials like hemp concrete and GeoC. These materials not only reduce emissions but also utilize waste (e.g., industrial byproducts for GeoC). (2) Piezoelectric materials represent a dual-purpose innovation, combining structural functionality with energy generation.
  • The main challenges/future research directions include the following: (1) Invest in nanotechnology to enhance piezoelectric biomaterial properties. (2) Partner with manufacturers to standardize GeoC mix designs and test large-scale applications.
In the theme of energy efficiency and renewable energy systems, buildings consume about 40% of global energy, making energy efficiency and renewable energy critical for climate mitigation, and widespread ZEB adoption could cut global building energy use by 50%, significantly reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
  • The main motivations include the following: (1) Integrating renewables (solar, wind) to achieve energy self-sufficiency in ZEBs [25,112,113,114]. (2) Addressing intermittency issues in renewables via latent heat and thermochemical storage in thermal energy storage [115,116]. (3) Tailoring solutions (e.g., ZEBs in China) to local climates and infrastructure [39,117,118].
  • The main key findings include the following: (1) Climate-specific ZEB designs highlight the importance of localized solutions, rejecting a one-size-fits-all approach. (2) Phase change materials (PCMs) offer efficient thermal storage, addressing renewable energy intermittency. (3) Thermochemical storage is impractical for small-scale applications due to material limitations.
  • The main challenges/future research directions include the following: (1) Develop open-source platforms integrating lifecycle energy analysis with real-time monitoring. (2) Tailor ZEB configurations to regional climates using AI-driven optimization.
In the theme of digitalization and smart technologies, smart technologies could improve building energy efficiency by 20–30%, accelerating smart city development. Digital tools can optimize sustainability by enabling real-time monitoring and predictive analytics.
  • The main motivations include the following: (1) AI and GB [81]: Automating energy management and identifying efficiency trends. (2) Blockchain and BIM [119]: Enhancing transparency in supply chains and construction processes. (3) Digital Twins and IoT [120]: Simulating building performance to preempt inefficiencies.
  • The main key findings include the following: (1) AI and digital twins enable real-time energy management and predictive maintenance, reducing operational inefficiencies. For instance, advanced algorithms, including metaheuristic approaches and deep reinforcement learning, are employed to optimize the performance of building envelopes, HVAC systems and renewable energy systems, achieving a reduction in energy consumption of up to 25% [121,122,123]. (2) BIM can prevent up to 40% of unexpected design changes, produce cost estimates within a 3% margin of error, and cut the generation time required by up to 80%. In GB projects, the use of BIM for clash detection can lead to significant efficiencies, with savings of the contract value reaching 10% and a corresponding schedule reduction of 7%.
  • The main challenges/future research directions include the following: (1) Develop interpretable models for energy management and fault detection. (2) Use BIM for automated compliance checking with GB standards.
In the theme of policy, standards, and certification, stronger policies could increase GB market penetration from 10% to 50% by 2030. However, inconsistent policies hinder global GB adoption.
  • The main motivations include the following: (1) Harmonizing GBRSs (e.g., LEED, BREEAM) to standardize sustainability metrics [47,52]. (2) Analyzing ZEB policies in Europe and China to identify best practices [39,44,97]. (3) Incorporating health metrics (e.g., indoor air quality) into certifications [102].
  • The main key findings include the following: (1) Inconsistent ZEB definitions and regional policies (e.g., in Europe and China) create market fragmentation. (2) GBRS like LEED and BREEAM prioritize energy but overlook passive design and holistic sustainability. (3) Certification tools fail to address all sustainability dimensions (e.g., social equity). (4) Developing economies lag in GBs research and policy formulation.
  • The main challenges/future research directions include the following: (1) Align GBRSs with UN SDGs. (2) Link tax breaks to verified post-occupancy performance.
In the theme of sustainable design and optimization, design choices determine 80% of a building’s environmental impact, and optimized designs could reduce operational energy use by 30–60%.
  • The main motivations include the following: (1) Passive design strategies (e.g., natural ventilation) to minimize energy use [98,118,124,125]. (2) Algorithmic optimization for energy and carbon efficiency [126,127]. (3) Surrogate-assisted modeling to expedite design processes [57,128].
  • The main key findings include the following: (1) Passive design strategies (e.g., natural ventilation) are cost-effective yet undervalued in rating systems. (2) Digital tools automate optimization but often prioritize cost over operational energy savings.
  • The main challenges/future research directions include the following: (1) Use machine learning to automate multi-objective optimization. (2) Improve cost-efficiency of thermochemical storage for ZEBs.
In the theme of stakeholder and socio-economic factors, human behavior and economics drive GB adoption, and addressing socio-economic barriers could double GB adoption rates in developing nations.
  • The main motivations include the following: (1) Identifying the main drivers for GB adoption (e.g., high costs, lack of awareness) [80,88]. (2) Investigating economic viability to demonstrate long-term cost savings [99,128]. (3) Exploring green finance mechanisms to incentivize investments [82,129].
  • The main key findings include the following: (1) Non-financial incentives (e.g., expedited permitting, technical assistance, health benefits) drive GB adoption more effectively than financial incentives. For instance, Singapore’s Green Mark Gross Floor Area Incentives Scheme grants projects achieving the highest Platinum or Gold Plus ratings a bonus of up to 2% in total floor area [130]. This non-financial incentive allows owners to offset their investment in sustainable development by generating additional rentable or saleable space. (2) Public support exists but is hindered by knowledge gaps and rebound behaviors. (3) Green finance mechanisms are underdeveloped in emerging markets. (4) Stakeholder collaboration is weak, slowing GB development.
  • The main challenges/future research directions include the following: (1) Implement IoT feedback systems to promote energy-efficient habits. (2) Expand microloans and subsidies for GB projects in emerging markets.
In other themes, the topics are quite extensive, generally merging engineering, policy, and digital technologies for holistic solutions.
  • The main motivations include the following: (1) Identifying current developments, the state-of-the-art advancements, recurring trends and emerging patterns in GB research [131,132]. (2) Evaluating the post-occupancy performance of GBs [95,133].
  • The main key findings include the following: (1) Post-occupancy data reveals GBs outperform conventional buildings in user satisfaction, but IAQ inconsistencies persist. (2) Occupant behavior significantly impacts ZEB performance, emphasizing the need for user engagement. (3) Subjective classification of research frontiers complicates global benchmarking.
  • The main challenges/future research directions include the following: (1) Launch GB certification courses for professionals. (2) Establish research consortia to share ZEB best practices.
In summary, the motivations behind these research themes are deeply rooted in the urgent need to decarbonize the built environment while addressing technical, economic, and social barriers. By advancing materials, energy systems, digital tools, and policies, these studies lay the groundwork for a sustainable transformation in construction—one that balances environmental imperatives with human well-being and economic feasibility. Therefore, these motivations reflect a global imperative to mitigate climate change, optimize resource efficiency, and foster socio-economic resilience in the built environment. The key findings reveal both progress and persistent gaps in SUB research. While advancements in materials, digital tools, and design optimization are promising, challenges like policy fragmentation, stakeholder misalignment, and scalability barriers remain. Addressing these issues requires coordinated efforts across academia, industry, and policymakers to accelerate the transition to a sustainable built environment. The identified challenges underscore the need for systemic changes in research, policy, and industry practices. Future efforts must prioritize scalability (materials), transparency (AI), inclusivity (stakeholders), and global harmonization (standards). By addressing these gaps, the building sector can achieve its net-zero targets while ensuring equitable access to sustainable solutions.

3.5. Challenges and Future Directions

The preceding analysis of dominant research paradigms in this domain provides the foundation for identifying critical knowledge gaps and future research priorities in sustainable construction. Figure 10 presents a structured framework delineating prospective research trajectories, with primary recommendations encompassing the following:
For material and advanced construction technologies: Current research focuses on low-carbon materials such as hemp concrete and geopolymers, which reduce emissions by replacing traditional energy-intensive materials. Biomaterials such as piezoelectric systems merge sustainability with functionality, while traditional techniques (e.g., cob construction) offer heritage-compatible solutions. Future work must scale these materials through nanotechnology enhancements and industrial partnerships to standardize mixes such as GeoC for broader adoption.
For energy efficiency and renewable energy systems: ZEBs are central to cutting building energy use by integrating renewables, such as solar and wind, and mitigating intermittency through thermal storage (e.g., PCMs). However, thermochemical storage remains impractical for small-scale use. Future efforts should leverage AI-driven design optimization and open-source platforms to tailor ZEBs to regional climates and enhance real-time energy tracking.
For digitalization and smart technologies: AI and digital twins facilitate predictive maintenance, whereas blockchain and BIM improve supply chain transparency. However, dependence on opaque AI models and disjointed data hampers trust. Future research should focus on interpretable AI for energy management and leverage BIM to automate compliance checks, thereby simplifying the process of green certification.
For policy, standards, and certification: Inconsistent GB standards (e.g., LEED, BREEAM) and regional ZEB definitions, impede global advancement. Current standards and certifications prioritize energy efficiency and environmental performance, with social sustainability being underrepresented. The evolution of future SUB standards must therefore encompass a broader framework that integrates social equity, occupant health, and cultural heritage. This can be achieved by introducing credits for community engagement and local job creation (Social equity), extending health criteria beyond air quality to include well-being metrics such as access to natural light, biophilic design elements, and acoustic comfort (Occupant health), and incentivizing adaptive reuse as well as traditional techniques to reduce embodied carbon while maintaining cultural continuity (Cultural heritage).
For sustainable design and optimization: Operational energy can be reduced by 30–60% using passive strategies (e.g., natural ventilation) and algorithmic optimization (e.g., Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA)). However, digital tools often prioritize cost over sustainability. Machine learning offers new opportunities to balance multiple objectives, and cost reductions in thermal storage technologies could accelerate ZEB deployment.
For stakeholder and socio-economic factors: Non-financial incentives (e.g., health benefits) drive GB adoption more effectively than cost savings. However, knowledge gaps and weak stakeholder collaboration impede progress. IoT feedback systems can promote energy-efficient behavior, and green microloans could expand access in emerging markets.
For others: Empirical evidence from post-occupancy studies indicates superior occupant satisfaction levels in green-certified buildings relative to traditional counterparts. Nevertheless, significant variations in IAQ parameters and occupant engagement behaviors continue to present implementation challenges. This suggests the critical need for developing comprehensive professional accreditation systems and forming global knowledge-sharing consortia to institutionalize evidence-based best practices.
In summary, the future of sustainable construction hinges on scalable materials, integrated digital tools, inclusive policies, and socio-economic engagement. Addressing fragmentation in standards, stakeholder collaboration, and cost barriers will be critical to achieving net-zero targets equitably.

4. Conclusions

This study employed a rigorous mixed-methods approach to analyze the evolution of SUB research from 2015 to 2025, combining bibliometric, scientometric, and qualitative methodologies. The research framework comprised three key stages: (1) a systematic literature search in Scopus using keywords; (2) scientometric analysis using VOSviewer to map publication trends, regional contributions, keyword co-occurrence, and citation networks; (3) thematic analysis of 329 review papers to distill motivations, findings, and challenges across seven research themes. Research on SUBs has expanded significantly, particularly after 2020, driven by global net-zero commitments. The field is dominated by studies on GBs (41.95%), followed by SUBs (27.36%) and ZEBs (23.10%), with ZCBs receiving less attention (6.99%). China, Australia, and Hong Kong are the leading contributors, reflecting strong regional policy support and research investment.
The analysis identified seven key research themes: materials and advanced construction technologies, energy efficiency and renewable energy systems, digitalization and smart technologies, policy and certification, sustainable design and optimization, stakeholder and socio-economic factors, and other cross-cutting topics. Innovations in low-carbon materials, AI-driven energy management, and digital tools like BIM and IoT represent major advancements. Future research should focus on enhancing material performance through nanotechnology, developing interpretable AI models for building optimization, harmonizing international certification systems, and promoting inclusive stakeholder engagement. This review provides a foundational roadmap for accelerating progress toward ZEBs and ZCBs, emphasizing the need for integrating technological innovation with socio-economic and policy strategies.
This study has several limitations that also provide opportunities for future research: (1) The exclusive reliance on Scopus may have omitted relevant studies available in other databases, potentially affecting review comprehensiveness. (2) The restriction to English-language publications may overlook valuable insights from non-English studies. (3) The investigated literature is retrieved through title-based searches, which may have missed relevant reviews that used different terminology. (4) The contradictions between different studies were not explored in-depth in this study, which may cause confirmation bias and prevent a balanced, comprehensive perspective in the literature review. Therefore, future analyses of review articles should: (i) employ Boolean search operators across multiple databases to provide broader literature coverage; (ii) incorporate non-English studies, perhaps with the aid of machine translation tools, to capture diverse regional insights; (iii) explicitly seek out and analyze the contradictions between different studies to propose harmonized frameworks; (iv) intentionally include multiple document types to better capture policy reports and gray literature from underrepresented regions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.H.; methodology, Y.L.; software, Y.Z.; formal analysis, Y.S. and J.L.; writing—original draft preparation, B.C. and C.W.; writing—review and editing, H.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 51608001, and Youth Talent Program in Anhui University of Technology, grant number DT18200013.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Evro, S.; Oni, B.A.; Tomomewo, O.S. Global Strategies for a Low-Carbon Future: Lessons from the US, China, and EU’s Pursuit of Carbon Neutrality. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 461, 142635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Li, Y.; Antwi-Afari, M.F.; Anwer, S.; Mehmood, I.; Umer, W.; Mohandes, S.R.; Wuni, I.Y.; Abdul-Rahman, M.; Li, H. Artificial Intelligence in Net-Zero Carbon Emissions for Sustainable Building Projects: A Systematic Literature and Science Mapping Review. Buildings 2024, 14, 2752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zhao, Y.; Su, Q.; Li, B.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, X.; Zhao, H.; Guo, S. Have Those Countries Declaring “Zero Carbon” or “Carbon Neutral” Climate Goals Achieved Carbon Emissions-Economic Growth Decoupling? J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 363, 132450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chen, L.; Msigwa, G.; Yang, M.; Osman, A.I.; Fawzy, S.; Rooney, D.W.; Yap, P.-S. Strategies to Achieve a Carbon Neutral Society: A Review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2022, 20, 2277–2310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Invidiata, A.; Lavagna, M.; Ghisi, E. Selecting Design Strategies Using Multi-criteria Decision Making to Improve the Sustainability of Buildings. Build. Environ. 2018, 139, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Danish, M.S.S.; Senjyu, T.; Ibrahimi, A.M.; Ahmadi, M.; Howlader, A.M. A Managed Framework for Energy-efficient Building. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 21, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. UN Environment. Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction|UNEP-UN Environment Programme; UN Environment: Nairobi, Kenya, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  8. Myint, N.N.; Shafique, M.; Zhou, X.; Zheng, Z. Net zero carbon buildings: A review on recent advances, knowledge gaps and research directions. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2025, 22, e04200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kaitouni, S.I.; Romani, Z.; Jamil, A.; Ahachad, M. Zero carbon urban buildings (ZCUBs) in the era of climate change, digital transformation and energy transition: A scoping review from 2000 to 2024. Build. Environ. 2025, 280, 113116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Murali, D.; Suresh, M.; Martin, H.; Raman, R. Aligning Net Zero Carbon-built Environments with Sustainable Development Goals: Topic Modelling Approach to Integrating Technologies and Policies. Build. Environ. 2025, 281, 113156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Asif, M.; Naeem, G.; Khalid, M. Digitalization for Sustainable Buildings: Technologies, Applications, Potential, and Challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 450, 141814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zanni, M.-A.; Soetanto, R.; Ruikar, K. Defining the Sustainable Building Design Process: Methods for BIM Execution Planning in the UK. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag. 2014, 8, 562–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Brejnrod, K.N.; Kalbar, P.; Petersen, S.; Birkved, M. The Absolute Environmental Performance of Buildings. Build. Environ. 2017, 119, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, T.; Seo, S.; Liao, P.C.; Fang, D. GHG Emission Reduction Performance of State of-the-art Green Buildings: Review of Two Case Studies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 56, 484–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. US Environmental Protection Agency. Definition of Green Building. Available online: https://archive.epa.gov/greenbuilding/web/html/about.html.2016 (accessed on 4 April 2021).
  16. World Green Building Council. About Green Buildings. Available online: https://worldgbc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/WorldGBC-2021-Annual-Report.pdf (accessed on 24 February 2021).
  17. Li, Y.; Yu, W.; Li, B.; Yao, R. A Multidimensional Model for Green Building Assessment: A Case Study of A Highest-rated Project in Chongqing. Energy Build. 2016, 125, 231–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Haapio, A.; Viitaniemi, P. A Critical Review of Building Environmental Assessment Tools. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2008, 28, 469–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kibert, C.J. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  20. Cabeza, L.F.; Chàfer, M. Technological Options and Strategies Towards Zero Energy Buildings Contributing to Climate Change Mitigation: A Systematic Review. Energy Build. 2020, 219, 110009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Torcellini, P.; Pless, S.; Deru, M.; Crawley, D. Zero Energy Buildings: A Critical Look at the Definition. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACEEE Summer Study, Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 14–18 August 2006. [Google Scholar]
  22. Laustsen, J. Energy Efficiency Requirements in Building Codes, Energy Efficiency Policies for New Buildings; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2008; pp. 477–488. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lou, H.L.; Hsieh, S.H. A Review on Strategies in Achieving Net-Zero-Energy and Net-Zero-Carbon Buildings. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sun, Y.J. Sensitivity Analysis of Macro-parameters in the System Design of Net Zero Energy Building. Energy Build. 2015, 86, 464–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lu, Y.H.; Wang, S.W.; Zhao, Y.; Yan, C.C. Renewable Energy System Optimization of Low/Zero Energy Buildings Using Single-objective and Multi-objective Optimization Methods. Energy Build. 2015, 89, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Marszal, A.J.; Heiselberg, P.; Bourrelle, J.S.; Musall, E.; Voss, K.; Sartori, I.; Napolitano, A. Zero Energy Building-A Review of Definitions and Calculation Methodologies. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 971–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Riedy, C.; Lederwasch, A.J.; Ison, N. Defining Zero Emission Buildings—Review and Recommendations: Final Report; University of Technology Sydney: Sydney, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  28. Pan, W. System Boundaries of Zero Carbon Buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 37, 424–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yu, F.; Feng, W.; Leng, J.; Wang, Y.; Bai, Y. Review of the U.S. Policies, Codes, and Standards of Zero-Carbon Buildings. Buildings 2022, 12, 2060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. European Union; The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2024/1275/CEE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 on the Energy Performance of Buildings (Recast). Off. J. Eur. Union 2024. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/RO/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401275 (accessed on 8 May 2024).
  31. European Union; The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive (EU) 2023/1791 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 2023 on Energy Efficiency and Amending Regulation (EU) 2023/955 (Recast). Off. J. Eur. Union 2023. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2023/1791/oj (accessed on 20 September 2023).
  32. European Union; The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2012/27/CEE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on Energy Efficiency, Amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and Repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC 1 (Text with EEA Relevance). Off. J. Eur. Union 2012. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/RO/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32012L0027 (accessed on 14 November 2012).
  33. European Union; European Parliament and the Council. Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (consolidated version 01/01/2021). Off. J. Eur. Union 2010, 153, 13–35. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2010/31/oj (accessed on 18 June 2010).
  34. European Union; The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2009/28/CEE of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2009, on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources, Amending and Subsequently Repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (Text with Relevance to the EEA). Off. J. Eur. Union 2009. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/RO/TXT/?uri=celex:32009L0028 (accessed on 5 June 2009).
  35. Ejdys, J.; Szpilko, D. European Green Deal—Research Directions. A Systematic Literature Review. Econ. Environ. 2022, 81, 8–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Crawley, D.; Pless, S.; Torcellini, P. Getting to Net Zero; National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  37. US Department of Energy. Biden-Harris Administration Announces Steps to Electrify and Cut Emissions from Federal Buildings; US Department of Energy: Washington, DC, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  38. Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council (ASBEC). Net Zero Emission Homes: An Industry Roadmap; Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council (ASBEC): Darlinghurst, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  39. Yu, Z.; Gao, C.; Yang, J.; Wu, J.; Zhang, H. Overview of Research and Development of Nearly Zero Energy Buildings in China. Natl. Sci. Open 2024, 3, 20230083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, D.; Lin, Y. A Comprehensive Review on Definitions, Development, and Policies of Net-zero Carbon Buildings (nZCBs). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2025, 217, 115750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. GB 51350-2019; Technical Standard for Nearly-Zero Energy Building. China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2019. (In Chinese)
  42. GB 51366-2019; Standard for Building Carbon Emission Calculation. China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2019. (In Chinese)
  43. Zhang, Y.; Pan, W.; Teng, Y.; Chen, S.W. Construction Waste Reduction in Buildings Through Modular and Offsite Construction. J. Manag. Eng. 2024, 40, 4024026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bai, L.; Wang, L.; Song, Z.; Wang, Y.; Wang, S. Toward A Zero-carbon Building Future: Innovations and Challenges for Sustainable Development in China. Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol. 2025, 20, 531–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mao, J.; Yuan, H.; Xiong, L.; Huang, B. Research Review of Green Building Rating System under the Background of Carbon Peak and Carbon Neutrality. Buildings 2024, 14, 1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Illankoon, I.M.C.S.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Le, K.N.; Shen, L. Key Credit Criteria Among International Green Building Rating Tools. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Awadh, O. Sustainability and green building rating systems: LEED, BREEAM, GSAS and Estidama critical analysis. J. Build. Eng. 2017, 11, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Olanrewaju, O.I.; Enegbuma, W.I.; Donn, M. Operational, Embodied and Whole Life Cycle Assessment Credits in Green Building Certification Systems: Desktop Analysis and Natural Language Processing Approach. Build. Environ. 2024, 258, 111569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mattoni, B.; Guattari, C.; Evangelisti, L.; Bisegna, F.; Gori, P.; Asdrubali, F. Critical Review and Methodological Approach to Evaluate the Differences Among International Green Building Rating Tools. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 950–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Asdrubali, F.; Baldinelli, G.; Bianchi, F.; Sambuco, S. A Comparison Between Environmental Sustainability Rating Systems LEED and ITACA for Residential Buildings. Build. Environ. 2015, 86, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chen, H.; Lee, W.L. Energy Assessment of Office Buildings in China using LEED 2.2 and BEAM Plus 1.1. Energy Build. 2013, 63, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Suzer, O. Analyzing the Compliance and Correlation of LEED and BREEAM by Conducting A Criteria-based Comparative Analysis and Evaluating Dual-certified Projects. Build. Environ. 2019, 147, 158–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Olawumi, T.O.; Chan, D.W.M.; Chan, A.P.C.; Wong, J.K.W. Development of A Building Sustainability Assessment Method (BSAM)-for Developing Countries in sub-Saharan Africa. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 263, 121514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pham, T.L.; Nguyen, T.T. Green Building Certification as A Policy to Promote Green Building-A Study of Singapore, Taiwan, Australia, UK, US and Lessons for Vietnam. Int. J. Sustain. Constr. Eng. Technol. 2021, 12, 135–141. [Google Scholar]
  55. Oh, J.; Hong, T.; Kim, H.; An, J.; Jeong, K.; Koo, C. Advanced Strategies for Net-zero Energy Building: Focused on The Early Phase and Usage Phase of A Building’s Life Cycle. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Parvin, K.; Hossain, M.J.; Arsad, A.Z.; Jern Ker, P.; Hannan, M.A. Building Energy Technologies towards Achieving Net-zero Pathway: A Comprehensive Review, Challenges and Future Directions. J. Build. Eng. 2025, 100, 111795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Elwy, I.; Hagishima, A. The Artificial Intelligence Reformation of Sustainable Building Design Approach: A Systematic Review on Building Design Optimization Methods Using Surrogate Models. Energy Build. 2024, 323, 114769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zong, C.; Chen, X.; Deghim, F.; Staudt, J.; Geyer, P.; Lang, W. A Holistic Two-stage Decision-making Methodology for Passive and Active Building Design Strategies under Uncertainty. Build. Environ. 2024, 251, 111211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Alsharif, R.; Arashpour, M.; Golafshani, E.; Rashidi, A.; Li, H. Multi-objective Optimization of Shading Devices using Ensemble Machine Learning and Orthogonal Design of Experiments. Energy Build. 2023, 283, 112840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Dai, X.; Liu, J.; Zhang, X. A Review of Studies Applying Machine Learning Models to Predict Occupancy and Window-opening Behaviours in Smart Buildings. Energy Build. 2020, 223, 110159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bereketeab, L.; Zekeria, A.; Aloqaily, M.; Guizani, M.; Debbah, M. Energy Optimization in Sustainable Smart Environments with Machine Learning and Advanced Communications. IEEE Sens. J. 2024, 24, 5704–5712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhang, W.; Liu, F.; Fan, R. Improved Thermal Comfort Modeling for Smart Buildings: A Data Analytics Study. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2018, 103, 634–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sehovac, L.; Grolinger, K. Deep Learning for Load Forecasting: Sequence to Sequence Recurrent Neural Networks with Attention. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 36411–36426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. L’Heureux, A.; Grolinger, K.; Capretz, M.A.M. Transformer-based Model for Electrical Load Forecasting. Energies 2022, 15, 4993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hu, Y.; Lo, K.; Lisa Hsieh, I. AI-driven Short-term Load Forecasting Enhanced by Clustering in Multi-type University Buildings: Insights across Building Types and Pandemic Phases. J. Build. Eng. 2025, 104, 112417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Yan, Y.; Cai, J.; Tang, Y.; Chen, L. Fault Diagnosis of HVAC AHUs based on A BP-MTN Classifier. Build. Environ. 2023, 227, 109779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bi, J.; Wang, H.; Yan, E.; Wang, C.; Yan, K.; Jiang, L.; Yang, B. AI in HVAC Fault Detection and Diagnosis: A Systematic Review. Energy Rev. 2024, 3, 100071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hodavand, F.; Ramaji, I.J.; Sadeghi, N. Digital Twin for Fault Detection and Diagnosis of Building Operations: A Systematic Review. Buildings 2023, 13, 1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Manmatharasan, P.; Bitsuamlak, G.; Grolinger, K. AI-driven Design Optimization for Sustainable Buildings: A Systematic Review. Energy Build. 2025, 332, 115440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Oteng, D.; Zuo, J.; Sharifi, E. A Scientometric Review of Trends in Solar Photovoltaic Waste Management Research. Sol. Energy 2021, 224, 545–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to Conduct A Bibliometric Analysis: An Overview and Guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Omrany, H.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Berardi, U.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Li, D.H. Is Atrium An Ideal Form for Daylight in Buildings? Archit. Sci. Rev. 2020, 63, 47–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. VOSviewer Manual. 2020. Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.14.pdf (accessed on 8 November 2021).
  74. Park, J.Y.; Nagy, Z. Comprehensive Analysis of The Relationship between Thermal Comfort and Building Control Research—A Data-driven Literature Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 2664–2679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Jin, R.; Zou, P.X.; Piroozfar, P.; Wood, H.; Yang, Y.; Yan, L.; Han, Y. A science mapping approach based review of construction safety research. Saf. Sci. 2019, 113, 285–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wu, W.; Skye, H.M. Residential Net-zero Energy Buildings: Review and Perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 142, 110859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Hafez, F.S.; Sa’di, B.; Safa-Gamal, M.; Taufiq-Yap, Y.H.; Alrifaey, M.; Seyedmahmoudian, M.; Stojcevski, A.; Horan, B.; Mekhilef, S. Energy Efficiency in Sustainable Buildings: A Systematic Review with Taxonomy, Challenges, Motivations, Methodological Aspects, Recommendations, and Pathways for Future Research. Energy Strateg. Rev. 2023, 45, 101013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ahmed, A.; Ge, T.; Peng, J.; Yan, W.-C.; Tee, B.T.; You, S. Assessment of The Renewable Energy Generation towards Net-zero Energy Buildings: A Review. Energy Build. 2022, 256, 111755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Doan, D.T.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Naismith, N.; Zhang, T.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Tookey, J. A Critical Comparison of Green Building Rating Systems. Build. Environ. 2017, 123, 243–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Darko, A.; Zhang, C.; Chan, A.P.C. Drivers for Green Building: A Review of Empirical Studies. Habitat Int. 2017, 60, 34–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Debrah, C.; Chan, A.P.C.; Darko, A. Artificial Intelligence in Green Building. Autom. Constr. 2022, 137, 104192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Debrah, C.; Chan, A.P.C.; Darko, A. Green Finance Gap in Green Buildings: A Scoping Review and Future Research Needs. Build. Environ. 2022, 207, 108443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Chastas, P.; Theodosiou, T.; Bikas, D. Embodied Energy in Residential Buildings-towards The Nearly Zero Energy Building: A Literature Review. Build. Environ. 2016, 105, 267–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Olubunmi, O.A.; Xia, P.O.; Skitmore, M. Green Building Incentives: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 59, 1611–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. D’Agostino, D.; Mazzarella, L. What is a Nearly zero energy building? Overview, implementation and comparison of definitions. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 21, 200–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C. Critical analysis of green building research trend in construction journals. Habitat Int. 2016, 57, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wuni, I.Y.; Shen, G.Q.P.; Osei-Kyei, R. Scientometric review of global research trends on green buildings in construction journals from 1992 to 2018. Energy Build. 2019, 190, 69–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C. Review of Barriers to Green Building Adoption. Sust. Dev. 2016, 25, 167–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Liu, Z.; Liu, Y.; He, B.-J.; Xu, W.; Jin, G.; Zhang, X. Application and Suitability Analysis of The Key Technologies in Nearly Zero Energy Buildings in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 101, 329–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Zhao, X.; Zuo, J.; Wu, G.; Huang, C. A Bibliometric Review of Green Building Research 2000-2016. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2018, 62, 74–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Shan, M.; Hwang, B. Green Building Rating Systems: Global Reviews of Practices and Research Efforts. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 39, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Zuo, J.; Pullen, S.; Rameezdeen, R.; Bennetts, H.; Wang, Y.; Mao, G.; Zhou, Z.; Du, H.; Duan, H. Green Building Evaluation from A Life-cycle Perspective in Australia: A Critical Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 70, 358–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Zhang, Y.; Wang, J.; Hu, F.; Wang, Y. Comparison of Evaluation Standards for Green Building in China, Britain, United States. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 262–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Chan, A.P.C.; Darko, A.; Ameyaw, E.E.; Owusu-Manu, D.-G. Barriers Affecting the Adoption of Green Building Technologies. J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 33, 04016057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Geng, Y.; Ji, W.; Wang, Z.; Lin, B.; Zhu, Y. A Review of Operating Performance in Green Buildings: Energy Use, Indoor Environmental Quality and Occupant Satisfaction. Energy Build. 2019, 183, 500–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C.; Huo, X.; Owusu-Manu, D.-G. A scientometric analysis and visualization of global green building research. Build. Environ. 2019, 149, 501–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kylili, A.; Fokaides, P.A. European smart cities: The Role of Zero Energy Buildings. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2015, 15, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. 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]
  99. Zhang, L.; Wu, J.; Liu, H. Turning green into gold: A Review on The Economics of Green Buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 2234–2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Lu, Y.; Wang, S.; Shan, K. Design Optimization and Optimal Control of Grid-connected and Standalone Nearly/net Zero Energy Buildings. Appl. Energy 2015, 155, 463–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Liu, Z.; Zhou, Q.; Tian, Z.; He, B.; Jin, G. A Comprehensive Analysis on Definitions, Development, and Policies of Nearly Zero Energy Buildings in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 114, 109314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Wei, W.; Ramalho, O.; Mandin, C. Indoor Air Quality Requirements in Green Building Certifications. Build. Environ. 2015, 92, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Zhao, D.-X.; He, B.-J.; Johnson, C.; Mou, B. Social Problems of Green Buildings: From the Humanistic Needs to Social Acceptance. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 51, 1594–1609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Zhang, Y.; Wang, H.; Gao, W.; Wang, F.; Zhou, N.; Kammen, D.M.; Ying, X. A Survey of the Status and Challenges of Green Building Development in Various Countries. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Jami, T.; Karade, S.R.; Singh, L.P. A Review of The Properties of Hemp Concrete for Green Building Applications. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 239, 117852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Shehata, N.; Mohamed, O.A.; Sayed, E.T.; Abdelkareem, M.A.; Olabi, A.G. Geopolymer Concrete as Green Building Materials: Recent Applications, Sustainable Development and Circular Economy Potentials. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 836, 155577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Wang, R.; Sui, J.; Wang, X. Natural Piezoelectric Biomaterials: A Biocompatible and Sustainable Building Block for Biomedical Devices. ACS Nano 2022, 16, 17708–17728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Hamard, E.; Cazacliu, B.; Razakamanantsoa, A.; Morel, J.-C.; Cob, A. Vernacular Earth Construction Process in The Context of Modern Sustainable Building. Build. Environ. 2016, 106, 103–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Hassan, A.; Alomayri, T.; Noaman, M.F.; Zhang, C. 3D Printed Concrete for Sustainable Construction: A Review of Mechanical Properties and Environmental Impact. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2025, 32, 2713–2743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Takva, Ç.; Top, S.M.; Gökgöz, B.İ.; Gebel, Ş.; İlerisoy, Z.Y.; İlcan, H.; Şahmaran, M. Applicability of 3D concrete printing technology in building construction with different architectural design decisions in housing. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 98, 111257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Zhao, Y.; Meng, W.; Wang, P. Research progress of concrete 3D printing technology and its equipment system, material, and molding defect control. J. Eng. 2022, 6882386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Luo, D.; Liu, J.; Wu, H.; Zhang, G.; Pan, Z.; Huang, J. Advancing smart net-zero energy buildings with renewable energy and electrical energy storage. J. Energy Storage 2025, 114, 115850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Noh, Y.; Jafarinejad, S.; Anand, P. A Review on Harnessing Renewable Energy Synergies for Achieving Urban Net-Zero Energy Buildings: Technologies, Performance Evaluation, Policies, Challenges, and Future Direction. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Yang, L.; Feng, H. GIS for the potential application of renewable energy in buildings towards net zero: A perspective. Buildings 2023, 13, 1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Hawks, M.A.; Cho, S. Review and analysis of current solutions and trends for zero energy building (ZEB) thermal systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 189, 114028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Lizana, J.; Chacartegui, R.; Barrios-Padure, A.; Valverde, J.M. Advances in Thermal Energy Storage Materials and Their Applications towards Zero Energy Buildings: A Critical Review. Appl. Energy 2017, 203, 219–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Li, Y.; Feng, H. Pathways to urban net zero energy buildings in Canada: A comprehensive GIS-based framework using open data. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2025, 122, 106263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Anwar, M.W.; Ali, Z.; Javed, A.; Din, E.U.; Sajid, M. Analysis of the effect of passive measures on the energy consumption and zero-energy prospects of residential buildings in Pakistan. Build. Simul. 2021, 14, 1325–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Liu, Z.; Chi, Z.; Osmani, M.; Demian, P. Blockchain and Building Information Management (BIM) for Sustainable Building Development within the Context of Smart Cities. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Alnaser, A.A.; Maxi, M.; Elmousalami, H. AI-Powered Digital Twins and Internet of Things for Smart Cities and Sustainable Building Environment. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 12056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Lan, S.; Razmjooy, N. Enhancing the performance of zero energy buildings with boosted coyote optimization and elman neural networks. Energy Rep. 2024, 11, 5214–5226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Gao, Y.; Li, S.; Xiao, Y.; Dong, W.; Fairbank, M.; Lu, B. An Iterative Optimization and Learning-Based IoT System for Energy Management of Connected Buildings. IEEE Internet Things J. 2022, 9, 21246–21259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Wang, Y.; Wei, C. Design optimization of office building envelope based on quantum genetic algorithm for energy conservation. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 35, 102048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Zhang, H.; Yang, D.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Tao, Y.; Zhang, G.; Setunge, S.; Shi, L. A Critical Review of Combined Natural Ventilation Techniques in Sustainable Buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 141, 110795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Maghami, M.R.; Maghoul, A.; Thang, K.F.; Sundaram, S. Net zero energy buildings: An overview of passive and active designs. Energy Rep. 2025, 14, 1327–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Gan, V.J.L.; Lo, I.M.C.; Ma, J.; Tse, K.T.; Cheng, J.C.P.; Chan, C.M. Simulation Optimisation towards Energy Efficient Green Buildings: Current Status and Future Trends. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Longo, S.; Montana, F.; Sanseverino, E.R. A Review on Optimization and Cost-optimal Methodologies in Low-energy Buildings Design and Environmental Considerations. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 45, 87–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Munaro, M.R.; Tavares, S.F.; Bragança, L. Towards Circular and More Sustainable Buildings: A Systematic Literature Review on The Circular Economy in The Built Environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260, 121134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Akomea-Frimpong, I.; Kukah, A.S.; Jin, X.; Osei-Kyei, R.; Pariafsai, F. Green Finance for Green Buildings: A Systematic Review and Conceptual Foundation. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 356, 131869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Gou, Z.; Lau, S.S.-Y.; Prasad, D. Market readiness and policy implications for green buildings: Case study from Hong Kong. J. Green Build. 2013, 8, 162–173. Available online: https://jgb.kglmeridian.com/view/journals/jgrb/8/2/article-p162.xml (accessed on 1 April 2013). [CrossRef]
  131. Li, Y.; Rong, Y.; Ahmad, U.M.; Wang, X.; Zuo, J.; Mao, G. A Comprehensive Review on Green Buildings Research: Bibliometric Analysis during 1998–2018. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 46196–46214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Wang, C.; Che, Y.; Xia, M.; Lin, C.; Chen, Y.; Li, X.; Chen, H.; Luo, J.; Fan, G. The Evolution and Future Directions of Green Buildings Research: A Scientometric Analysis. Buildings 2024, 14, 345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Afroz, Z.; Gunay, H.B.; O’Brien, W. A Review of Data Collection and Analysis Requirements for Certified Green Buildings. Energy Build. 2020, 226, 110367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 15 03609 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual relationship between sustainable building terminology.
Figure 1. Conceptual relationship between sustainable building terminology.
Buildings 15 03609 g001
Buildings 15 03609 g002
Figure 2. An overview of the research framework.
Figure 2. An overview of the research framework.
Buildings 15 03609 g002
Buildings 15 03609 g003
Figure 3. Distribution of 329 review studies from 2015 to 2025.
Figure 3. Distribution of 329 review studies from 2015 to 2025.
Buildings 15 03609 g003
Buildings 15 03609 g004
Figure 4. Visualization of article’s sources.
Figure 4. Visualization of article’s sources.
Buildings 15 03609 g004
Buildings 15 03609 g005
Figure 5. Analysis of regions active in SUB research.
Figure 5. Analysis of regions active in SUB research.
Buildings 15 03609 g005
Buildings 15 03609 g006
Figure 6. Mapping of author-specified keywords.
Figure 6. Mapping of author-specified keywords.
Buildings 15 03609 g006
Buildings 15 03609 g008aBuildings 15 03609 g008b
Figure 8. Categorical breakdown of building types. (a) Distribution of different building types (MB: Mixed Buildings; GB: Green Buildings; ZEB: Zero Energy Buildings; ZCB: Zero Carbon Buildings; SUB: Sustainable Buildings). (b) Publication number of different building types in each year.
Figure 8. Categorical breakdown of building types. (a) Distribution of different building types (MB: Mixed Buildings; GB: Green Buildings; ZEB: Zero Energy Buildings; ZCB: Zero Carbon Buildings; SUB: Sustainable Buildings). (b) Publication number of different building types in each year.
Buildings 15 03609 g008aBuildings 15 03609 g008b
Buildings 15 03609 g009
Figure 9. Categorical breakdown of research themes. (a) Distribution of research themes. (b) Publication number of different research themes in each year.
Figure 9. Categorical breakdown of research themes. (a) Distribution of research themes. (b) Publication number of different research themes in each year.
Buildings 15 03609 g009
Buildings 15 03609 g010
Figure 10. Analysis of future research trends.
Figure 10. Analysis of future research trends.
Buildings 15 03609 g010
Table 1. Journal source of review articles related to SUBs.
Table 1. Journal source of review articles related to SUBs.
JournalTotal Link StrengthArticle NumberCitation NumberNorm. Citations 1Avg. CitationsAvg. Norm. Citations 2Avg. Pub. Year 3
Environmental Chemistry Letters221598.2 79.5 4.09 2023
Cleaner Engineering and Technology131458.0 48.3 2.67 2023
Automation in Construction321944.9 97.0 2.45 2023
Applied Energy1125514.9 275.5 2.43 2016
Results in Engineering62624.8 31.0 2.42 2024
Habitat International4037306.7 243.3 2.24 2017
Energy and Built Environment1421194.3 59.5 2.16 2023
Environment, Development and Sustainability72423.6 21.0 1.79 2024
Energy and Buildings6720199333.8 99.7 1.69 2021
Building and Environment9114205221.5 146.6 1.53 2019
Journal of Cleaner Production2015143922.7 95.9 1.52 2021
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy1263.0 3.0 1.51 2024
Applied Thermal Engineering322333.0 116.5 1.50 2021
Journal of Management in Engineering223032.7 151.5 1.37 2016
Energy Efficiency12892.7 44.5 1.34 2021
Construction and Building Materials142555.1 63.8 1.27 2022
Renewable Energy922642.5 132.0 1.24 2018
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews10840393148.2 98.3 1.21 2019
Journal of Building Engineering3119102322.6 53.8 1.19 2023
Sustainable Cities and Society3389068.8 113.3 1.10 2019
Environmental Science and Pollution Research72882.0 44.0 0.99 2022
Journal of Facilities Management42221.7 11.0 0.86 2024
Smart and Sustainable Built Environment23892.6 29.7 0.86 2020
Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology621371.3 68.5 0.66 2019
Buildings422350214.8 21.8 0.64 2023
Sustainability (switzerland)5033125019.8 37.9 0.60 2021
Journal of Green Building92971.0 48.5 0.48 2017
Frontiers in Built Environment1210.9 0.5 0.47 2025
Energies27205399.0 27.0 0.45 2022
Ecological Indicators22490.5 24.5 0.24 2017
International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation52120.4 6.0 0.18 2023
Built Environment Project and Asset Management22250.2 12.5 0.12 2017
Journal of Design and Built Environment12170.2 8.5 0.09 2019
Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports12100.1 5.0 0.04 2016
1 Norm. citation symbolizes the results of citation standardization by VOSviewer’s algorithm. It is obtained by dividing the total number of citations by the average citations published per year. 2 Avg. norm. citation symbolizes the normalized citation per article. It is obtained by dividing norm citations by the number of articles. 3 Avg. pub. year symbolizes the average publication year of articles published in the journal [75].
Table 2. Active regions of review articles related to SUBs.
Table 2. Active regions of review articles related to SUBs.
CountryTotal link StrengthArticle NumberCitation NumberNorm. CitationsAvg. CitationsAvg. Norm. CitationsAvg. Pub. Year
Japan36551212.0 102.4 2.40 2020
Egypt12955919.1 62.1 2.12 2023
New Zealand6166578.5 109.5 1.41 2022
Hong Kong24239386853.7 99.2 1.38 2020
Canada7817132922.6 78.2 1.33 2021
South Africa441631920.5 19.9 1.28 2023
Malaysia11132199440.5 62.3 1.26 2021
Australia22244352953.8 80.2 1.22 2020
United Kingdom7435208242.6 59.5 1.22 2021
United Arab Emirates1384149.7 51.8 1.22 2022
Italy8915178817.9 119.2 1.19 2019
Portugal563627.0 60.3 1.16 2022
Saudi Arabia51131912.2 29.0 1.11 2023
United States9233263535.4 79.8 1.07 2020
China32483579987.4 69.9 1.05 2021
Spain1378649.2 123.4 1.31 2018
Denmark664885.9 81.3 0.98 2020
Brazil183468.0 43.3 1.00 2023
Nigeria2393408.2 37.8 0.91 2021
India3327105921.0 39.2 0.78 2022
France3164474.4 74.5 0.74 2019
Greece453553.5 71.0 0.70 2022
South Korea2072784.7 39.7 0.67 2020
Turkey12144109.2 29.3 0.66 2022
Sweden751302.3 26.0 0.46 2021
Poland251342.1 26.8 0.41 2022
Table 3. Author-specified keywords of review articles related to SUBs.
Table 3. Author-specified keywords of review articles related to SUBs.
KeywordTotal Link StrengthOccurrencesAvg. CitationsAvg. Norm. CitationsAvg. Pub. Year
construction industry187176.3 1.79 2019
renewable energy412366.6 1.78 2022
systematic review13892.6 1.58 2021
circular economy12798.7 1.52 2022
energy conservation8962.0 1.50 2020
sustainable construction121044.8 1.46 2023
artificial intelligence17836.9 1.46 2023
energy15877.5 1.45 2021
climate change mitigation221359.9 1.44 2021
zero energy buildings534590.9 1.35 2021
sustainable development3017126.0 1.34 2020
energy efficiency453452.6 1.34 2022
review2615125.0 1.33 2019
literature review108103.6 1.25 2020
sustainability724570.2 1.16 2021
green buildings1078589.1 1.11 2019
construction16866.5 1.10 2020
building information modeling191041.9 1.07 2022
systematic literature review221161.1 1.02 2022
smart cities8722.9 1.00 2022
building materials8551.2 0.99 2022
barriers16879.4 0.99 2018
energy consumption12772.3 0.94 2022
sustainable buildings282460.0 0.88 2020
bibliometric analysis16836.4 0.88 2023
low energy buildings5751.7 0.72 2021
building design141141.8 0.71 2021
photovoltaics6563.4 0.66 2020
life cycle assessment191346.8 0.63 2019
low carbon buildings11628.2 0.56 2020
sustainable materials3929.3 0.50 2022
waste management8518.2 0.27 2022
Table 5. Motivations of reviewer articles on SUBs.
Table 5. Motivations of reviewer articles on SUBs.
Research ThemesMotivation
Material and advanced construction technologies
⬤
Assess the contribution of embodied energy to the total life-cycle energy of residential buildings. (Focus on material impacts)
⬤
Report the mitigation potential of different technologies and their role in climate change mitigation. (Includes material technologies)
⬤
Provide a thorough review of recent progress in piezoelectric biomaterials for biomedical applications.
⬤
Review the state-of-the-art of hemp concrete research for GBs.
⬤
Focus on geopolymer concrete (GeoC) as an eco-friendly alternative to traditional concrete.
⬤
Better describe cob construction techniques for heritage and modern SUBs.
Energy efficiency and renewable energy systems
⬤
Summarize potential of renewable sources to support ZEBs and design methods.
⬤
Review application and suitability analysis of key technologies in ZEBs in China.
⬤
Review energy efficiency of SUBs via taxonomy mapping.
⬤
Review latent heat and cold thermal energy storage systems for HVAC applications.
⬤
Review thermochemical energy storage materials for ZEBs.
⬤
Present a comprehensive review of ZEB design and control challenges.
Digitalization and smart technologies
⬤
Reveal synthesis between AI and GB, highlight research trends.
⬤
Present potential contribution of ZEBs towards achieving smart cities.
⬤
Explore the potential impact of blockchain and BIM integration in smart cities.
⬤
Conduct a systematic review of AI applications in Net-Zero Carbon Emissions for buildings.
⬤
Explore AI-driven digital twins and IoT for sustainable urban planning.
⬤
Address the integration of BIM with Green Building Assessment Schemes.
Policy, standards and certification
⬤
Discover development of GBRSs; identify strengths/weaknesses.
⬤
Explore ZEB definitions, issues, and implementation in Europe.
⬤
Understand issues influencing performance of green building rating tools.
⬤
Comprehensive review of GBRSs.
⬤
Compare latest evaluation standards of GB in different countries.
⬤
Overview of policies and building codes for ZEBs in China.
⬤
Analyze how indoor air quality (IAQ) is considered in GB certifications.
⬤
Roadmap for national standard development and policy formulation.
Sustainable design and optimization
⬤
Review passive design strategies cited in selected GBRSs.
⬤
Comprehensive review on design/control of grid-connected and standalone ZEBs.
⬤
Examine recent advancements in surrogate-assisted design optimization for SUBs.
⬤
Summarize algorithmic features for optimizing building energy and environmental performance.
⬤
Assess the role of computer simulation in minimizing life cycle energy consumption and carbon emissions in buildings.
Stakeholder and socio-economic factors
⬤
Holistic review of economic viability studies of GBs.
⬤
Identify and classify drivers for GB adoption.
⬤
Scoping review of green finance implementation in GBs.
⬤
Elicit common themes in studies of GB incentives.
⬤
Systematic review of barriers to GB adoption.
⬤
Examine criticality of barriers preventing GB technology adoption.
⬤
Investigate public attitudes and social acceptance of GBs.
Others
⬤
Extend previous manual reviews and address their weaknesses.
⬤
Detect status quo and trends of global GB research.
⬤
Analyze and visualize state-of-the-art global GB research.
⬤
Elicit common themes in studies of GB incentives.
⬤
Review post-occupancy performance of GBs.
Table 6. Key findings from reviewer articles on SUBs.
Table 6. Key findings from reviewer articles on SUBs.
Research ThemesKey Findings
Material and advanced construction technologies
⬤
Embodied energy dominates LCEA in ZEBs; total life cycle energy can be reduced by up to 50%.
⬤
Natural piezoelectric bio-materials show exceptional bio-compatibility and bio-safety for biomedical applications.
⬤
Hemp concrete is nearing mainstream adoption as a carbon-negative construction material.
⬤
Piezoelectric materials enable energy harvesting from building vibrations, reducing energy consumption.
⬤
Geopolymer concrete can replace traditional concrete, utilizing industrial/municipal waste for eco-friendly matrices.
⬤
No standardized mix designs exist for Geopolymer concrete due to varied precursor properties
⬤
Cob construction techniques are defined with detailed process parameters for heritage and modern applications.
Energy efficiency and renewable energy systems
⬤
No single ZEB configuration is optimal for all climates, regulations, and markets; local adaptation is required.
⬤
Different ZEB configurations are available for varied climates and building codes; practitioners must choose suitable technologies.
⬤
Joint application of key technologies is crucial; regional strategies vary by climate.
⬤
Highlight motivations, challenges, and pathways for energy efficiency in building sustainability.
⬤
PCMs excel in thermal energy storage for HVAC systems.
⬤
Thermochemical energy storage (TES) lacks materials suitable for small-scale building applications.
Digitalization and smart technologies
⬤
Early AI research focused on expert knowledge and fuzzy rules; data mining enables real-time monitoring.
⬤
ZEBs contribute to smart cities but face sustainability controversies (LCA, rebound effect).
⬤
AI applications in buildings focus on LCA, multi-objective optimization, and real-time energy management.
⬤
Digital twins integrated with IoT optimize building performance and urban resilience.
Policy, standards, and certification
⬤
Energy is the most important evaluation criterion in GBRSs.
⬤
Green buildings save energy but often less than expected; IAQ and occupant satisfaction vary.
⬤
ZEB definitions lack consistency, climate-sensitive design and system integration are challenging.
⬤
LEED is the most flexible tool; BREEAM is the strongest; no rating scheme assesses all sustainability aspects.
⬤
64 GB drivers identified; research interest is shifting from country-specific to global implications.
⬤
ZEB definitions are inconsistent; implementation varies across European countries.
⬤
CASBEE considers the most sustainability issues; certification tools are not homogeneous.
⬤
Developed economies lead GB research; critical success factors lack sustainability integration.
⬤
Simplified assessment methods are needed for greater uptake of LCA and LCC.
⬤
Suggestions for improving China’s GB standards include simplifying assessment items and involving professionals early.
⬤
ZEB projects in China are concentrated in cold climates, policies and evaluation systems need improvement.
⬤
IAQ is managed in all GB certifications via emission control, ventilation, and measurement.
⬤
Most GB studies focus on certification standards and technologies; stakeholder participation is low.
⬤
Passive design strategies reduce energy budgets but are undervalued in rating tools.
Sustainable design and optimization
⬤
Buildings can mitigate climate change through design, reducing embodied and operational energy.
⬤
Passive design strategies (e.g., insulation, shading) significantly reduce energy use but are undervalued in rating tools like LEED.
⬤
Primary optimization efforts typically focus on cost functions (e.g., Global Cost, Life Cycle Cost, and Investment Cost), whereas energy consumption during the building’s operational phase receives less emphasis.
⬤
For sustainable development and a future circular economy, optimizing building systems’ life cycle design—from production and operation to end-of-life—is becoming ever more critical.
⬤
Emerging digital tools (e.g., machine learning, data-driven design, parametric 3D modeling) automate early design exploration and enhance optimization decisions.
Stakeholder and socio-economic factors
⬤
Economic viability of GBs is inconsistent across life cycles and market participants.
⬤
Green finance in GBs is under-researched; China, the US, and Africa are major contributors.
⬤
Owners are more incentivized by non-financial incentives; governments are shifting to regulation.
⬤
Resistance to change and high costs are critical barriers to GB technology adoption.
⬤
Social and economic sustainability aspects need more attention; collaboration among actors is lacking.
⬤
Public prefers GBs but lacks familiarity; humanistic needs and rebound effects are key.
⬤
Most GB studies focus on certification standards and technologies; stakeholder participation is low.
Others
⬤
GB research grew steadily: 44% of countries are involved: subjectivity exists in classifying research frontiers.
⬤
Occupant behavior significantly impacts ZEB performance (e.g., energy-efficient practices).
⬤
Public awareness of GBs is low, but willingness to pay premiums exists when benefits are understood.
⬤
Post-occupancy evaluations show higher satisfaction in GBs, but IAQ performance varies globally.
Table 7. Challenges/future research directions from reviewer articles on SUBs.
Table 7. Challenges/future research directions from reviewer articles on SUBs.
Research ThemesChallenges/Future Research Directions
Material and advanced construction technologies
⬤
Fundamental understanding of piezoelectricity in biomaterials at the molecular level.
⬤
Improve power efficiency, reliability, and durability of piezoelectric materials for buildings.
⬤
Large-scale synthesis/manufacturing of natural piezoelectric biomaterials for practical applications.
⬤
Optimize hemp concrete manufacturing processes and mechanical performance for wider adoption.
⬤
Determine long-term durability of GeoC foundations.
⬤
Develop fire-, acid-, and heat-resistant GeoC for specialized applications (e.g., military, healthcare).
Energy efficiency and renewable energy systems
⬤
Lack of knowledge, understanding, and evidence hinders energy efficiency in buildings.
⬤
Whole life energy cycle analysis may be needed in energy efficiency regulations.
⬤
Find optimal technology combinations.
⬤
Develop holistic simulation models for ZEB design and real-time energy management.
⬤
Integrate life cycle energy analysis, energy storage systems, and smart operation management.
Digitalization and smart technologies
⬤
Apply BIM tools for GB design.
⬤
Lack of data on implemented technologies;
⬤
New data collection technologies and performance optimization are needed.
⬤
Explore AI integration with emerging technologies (digital twins, blockchain, robotics).
⬤
AI-enabled performance assessment.
⬤
Focus on green project management and AI technologies like BIM.
⬤
Merge ICT and energy technologies for smart city integration.
⬤
Address the “black-box” nature of AI algorithms (e.g., deep learning) in building applications.
Policy, standards and certification
⬤
Scope determination, combining techniques, global LCI database standardization.
⬤
Include economic and institutional factors in GBRSs; validate their impacts.
⬤
GBRSs should address environmental hazards, LCA, indoor comfort, and pollution.
⬤
Investigate China’s unique characteristics; harmonize evaluation indicators with standards.
⬤
Improve standards to cover the whole life cycle of ZEBs; enhance policies and regulations.
⬤
Harmonize IAQ approaches in GB certifications for transparency.
⬤
Establish unbiased post-occupant evaluation systems; study policy influences on market behavior.
⬤
Develop consolidated weighting systems for passive strategies in rating tools.
⬤
Governments should adopt newer incentive strategies and collaborate with the private sector.
Sustainable design and optimization
⬤
Develop simulation models and holistic decision tools for ZEB design and control.
⬤
Limited tools for decision-making on technical, policy, and financial aspects of ZEBs.
⬤
Real GB performance validation.
⬤
Optimize thermochemical energy storage systems for cost and efficiency in ZEBs.
Stakeholder and socio-economic factors
⬤
Identify key stakeholders; study regulatory performance and revisions in the GB market.
⬤
Occupant behavior affects ZEB success; component interactions must be considered.
⬤
Corporate social responsibility.
⬤
Investigate GBRS implementation, stakeholder perceptions, and corporate sustainability.
⬤
Increase stakeholder participation, provide training and raise environmental awareness.
Others
⬤
Explore barriers in developing countries.
⬤
Report mitigation potential (CO2 reduction).
⬤
Improve information on GB costs and benefits; prioritize GB education and research.
⬤
Provide comprehensive evidence on life-cycle costs and benefits of GBs.
⬤
Interdisciplinary cooperation is needed for ZEB implementation.
⬤
Develop strategies for GB technology adoption; focus on specific countries.
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

Lu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, Z.; Cheng, B.; Wang, C.; Sun, Y.; Zhang, H.; Li, J. A Literature Review of Sustainable Building Research: Bibliometric Analysis from 2015–2025. Buildings 2025, 15, 3609. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15193609

AMA Style

Lu Y, Zhang Y, Huang Z, Cheng B, Wang C, Sun Y, Zhang H, Li J. A Literature Review of Sustainable Building Research: Bibliometric Analysis from 2015–2025. Buildings. 2025; 15(19):3609. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15193609

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lu, Yuehong, Yang Zhang, Zhijia Huang, Bo Cheng, Changlong Wang, Yanhong Sun, Hongguang Zhang, and Jiao Li. 2025. "A Literature Review of Sustainable Building Research: Bibliometric Analysis from 2015–2025" Buildings 15, no. 19: 3609. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15193609

APA Style

Lu, Y., Zhang, Y., Huang, Z., Cheng, B., Wang, C., Sun, Y., Zhang, H., & Li, J. (2025). A Literature Review of Sustainable Building Research: Bibliometric Analysis from 2015–2025. Buildings, 15(19), 3609. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15193609

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