Research Status and Emerging Trends in Green Building Materials Based on Bibliometric Network Analysis
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Research Methods and Data Sources
2.1. Data Collection
2.2. Analysis Methods
- Statistical Characteristics Analysis. General Observation: Observe the number of publications per year and their trends, as well as the primary categories of papers published on the topic of green building materials. Research Network Analysis: Analyze the collaboration networks among institutions, regions, and authors to evaluate existing collaborative networks. Academic Influence Analysis: Conduct co-citation network analyses from the perspectives of journals, the literature, and authors to identify the current research themes and status in the field;
- Research Hotspots Evolution Trends Analysis. Utilize Key Clusters, Keyword Timeline, Keyword Burst, and Keyword Co-occurrence to analyze and evaluate the evolution of green building materials research, while predicting potential future research hotspots;
- Theoretical Knowledge Framework Construction and Future Research Directions. Sustainability Transitions Theory (STT) provides a framework for understanding the complex multi-dimensional processes involved in transitioning to a sustainable society. It highlights the interplay of technology, policy, societal norms, and practices in achieving long-term systemic changes that address global sustainability challenges [44,45]. Guided by sustainability transitions theory, we analyze GBM research through three lenses: (1) Niche Innovation: Emerging technologies challenging conventional practices, such as novel materials, (2) Regime Adaptation: Policy and industry standards integrating innovations, such as LEED certification updates, and (3) Landscape Pressures: Global imperatives steering research priorities, such as IPCC targets. Based on the results of the above analyses, construct the Theoretical Knowledge Framework for the field of green building materials and propose key future research directions to inspire ideas and further exploration by other scholars.
3. Results and Analysis
3.1. General Observation
3.2. Research Network Analysis
3.2.1. Collaboration Among Institutions
3.2.2. Collaboration Among Countries
3.3. Academic Influence Analysis
3.3.1. Document Co-Citation Analysis
3.3.2. Collaboration Among Authors
3.3.3. Journal Co-Citation Analysis
4. Research Hotspots and Evolution Trends
4.1. Keyword Clusters
4.2. Keyword Timeline
- Early Research (2003–2010). During this period, clusters like #0 Energy Conservation and #3 Green Building dominate early research, focusing on energy efficiency, sustainability, and design. These clusters align with the Regime Adaptation lens of STT, where efforts are focused on modifying existing systems and practices to incorporate sustainability principles. The emphasis on reducing energy consumption and promoting green building standards signifies the adaptation of the construction regime to address environmental concerns. Energy conservation and green building practices during this phase set the foundation for future developments in sustainable construction;
- Expanding Themes (2010–2015). As the research landscape evolved, clusters like #4 Construction Industry and #6 Sustainable Construction emerged, reflecting a broader focus on industry challenges, technology adoption, and sustainable development goals. This period saw the growing recognition of user-centric issues such as thermal comfort and indoor environmental quality in #7 Thermal Comfort. These clusters represent a shift toward Niche Innovation, where new technologies and materials begin to emerge within the green building sector, influencing the construction industry’s ability to adapt to new sustainability demands. At the same time, Regime Adaptation is still central, as the industry strives to integrate these innovations into existing practices and regulatory frameworks;
- Material Innovation (2015–2020). During this period, the research focus shifted more toward material innovation, with clusters such as #8 Compressive Strength and #10 Renewable Energy gaining prominence. These clusters emphasized the integration of advanced materials like phase change materials (PCMs) and renewable energy technologies into building designs, marking a robust Niche Innovation phase under the STT framework. The increasing focus on material science innovations, like the use of ceramic waste powder, illustrates a move toward more sustainable materials within the construction sector. The surge in PCM-related research during 2015–2020 can be contextualized within broader policy landscapes, notably the European Union’s Renovation Wave Strategy (2020). This policy initiative aimed to double annual energy renovation rates by 2030, prioritizing energy-efficient retrofits in existing buildings—a goal directly aligned with PCMs’ ability to reduce heating/cooling demands by 14–90% through latent heat storage [88]. The strategic alignment between material innovation and policy incentives illustrates how Regime Adaptation (policy frameworks) accelerates Niche Innovation by creating a market pull for sustainable technologies;
- Recent Trends (2020–2024). In recent years, clusters like #9 Sustainable Development and #11 Life Cycle Assessment highlight emerging interests in policy, health, and the environmental impact of green building materials. These clusters align with Landscape Pressures, as global forces, such as climate change mandates and sustainability goals, shape the direction of green building research. The inclusion of keywords like renewable energy and circular economy reflects the increasing urgency of addressing environmental challenges at a systemic level. These trends show a continued push for Niche Innovation through the integration of circular economy principles and advanced lifecycle assessments, aiming to reduce the environmental footprint of buildings while promoting resource efficiency.
4.3. Keyword Burst
- Early Research Focus (2003–2015). Keywords like “green building” (2003–2015) and “sustainable development” (2005–2013) show strong bursts during this period, representing Regime Adaptation in STT. During this phase, the research focused on adapting the construction industry to sustainability principles, emphasizing the integration of environmental considerations into mainstream building practices. Other terms, such as “energy conservation” (2008–2014) and “renewable energy” (2009–2013) reflect early efforts to introduce Niche Innovations within the green building sector, aiming to shift the construction industry toward more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly materials and practices. These terms underscore the foundational work of integrating sustainability into the established building practices of the time;
- Transition to Specialized Topics (2016–2021). Keywords like “energy performance” (2020–2021), “indoor air quality” (2018–2021), and “policy” (2017–2019) gained prominence, indicating a focus on Niche Innovation and Regime Adaptation in response to operational efficiency demands, user satisfaction, and regulatory frameworks. “Sustainability assessment” (2019) emerged as a prominent keyword, representing Landscape Pressures as governments and international bodies placed increasing emphasis on quantifying environmental impacts. This transition reflects the growing need for the construction sector to adapt to emerging environmental standards and policies, addressing global sustainability challenges through more specialized, actionable research.
- Recent Trends and Emerging Topics (2021–2024). More recent bursts include “strength” (2021–2024), “mechanical property” (2021–2024), and “compressive strength” (2021–2024), highlighting Niche Innovations in material performance and durability. The focus has shifted to developing advanced materials capable of withstanding environmental pressures while remaining sustainable. Emerging themes like “circular economy” (2022–2024), “carbon emission” (2022–2024), and “decision making” (2022–2024) reflect the growing influence of Landscape Pressures, driven by global calls for carbon neutrality and waste reduction. These topics underscore a significant shift toward sustainable material reuse, emissions reduction, and informed decision making in green construction [85,93,94,95], showing how the green building sector is increasingly aligning with global sustainability goals such as decarbonization and resource efficiency.
4.4. Keyword Co-Occurrence
5. Future Research Directions and Recommendations
- (1)
- Durability under Diverse Conditions: To be suitable for real-world applications, the biocomposite must retain at least 50% of its original properties after weathering exposure [98]. This underscores the need for rigorous testing and improvement in the material’s resistance to environmental factors, ensuring its long-term performance and reliability in real-world applications;
- (2)
- Cost–Benefit Equity: The results reveal considerable variation in the CO2 and economic benefits of carbonated recycled concrete aggregate (cRCA) technology across different countries, with CO2 benefits ranging from 0.7 in Brazil to 2.6 in Pakistan and economic benefits spanning from 18.5 in the USA to −5.6 in Pakistan [86]. Dynamic models that incorporate Net Present Value (NPV) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) analyses could help address this gap by providing a more comprehensive assessment of the long-term economic viability and environmental impact of cRCA technology, taking into account varying regional factors and improving cost–benefit equity;
- (3)
- Regulatory Harmonization: There is considerable variation in the completeness, accuracy, and compliance of lifecycle carbon accounting methods [99], suggesting that the regulatory efforts required will differ significantly between countries. A global open-access database for material properties would facilitate the development of context-specific standards, ensuring more tailored and accurate regulatory frameworks.
- (1)
- Advancement in Material Innovation and Performance. The development of high-performance durable materials that contribute to sustainability without compromising structural integrity remains a priority [100]. Future research should explore smart composites, phase change materials, and recycled aggregates, with a focus on improving their environmental performance and cost-effectiveness. Composite materials are also a direction worthy of research with regard to the potential of PCM-concrete composites harmonizing energy efficiency and structural integrity [101]. Moreover, reusing industrial by-products, such as ceramic powder and glass waste, presents a significant opportunity to mitigate environmental impacts and reduce the carbon footprint of construction materials;
- (2)
- Grants for pilot projects would be helpful, for instance, to allocate funding for emerging technologies, such as 3D-printed PCM modules, as seen in the EU’s Horizon Europe budget;
- (3)
- Technological integration and optimization: Emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), and big data analytics will play a key role in optimizing building design and improving operational efficiency. Additionally, they require the interoperability of building management systems (BMS) to streamline data sharing. These technologies can enable real-time performance monitoring, predictive modeling, and automated optimization of green buildings, offering substantial benefits for energy savings, resource management, and overall building performance. Furthermore, advanced simulation and optimization models are essential for lifecycle management and can guide the design and operation of energy-efficient buildings;
- (4)
- Circular Economy and Carbon Reduction Strategies. The adoption of circular economy principles in the construction industry is crucial for reducing waste and enhancing resource efficiency [83]. Future research should investigate innovative ways to recycle construction materials, reduce construction waste, and improve recycling rates during both material manufacturing and the construction process. Additionally, novel strategies to lower carbon emissions during material production and construction activities should be explored, alongside new sustainable manufacturing technologies that promote the use of low-carbon and renewable materials and expand initiatives like the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to incentivize decarbonization;
- (5)
- Interdisciplinary Collaboration, Policy Development, and Market Incentives. Future research should prioritize strengthening interdisciplinary collaboration between architects, engineers, environmental scientists, and policymakers to address the evolving challenges in green building practices. Such collaboration can foster innovative solutions that integrate technological advancements with sustainable construction practices. Additionally, policy support and market incentives are critical to the widespread adoption of green building materials. Research should focus on evaluating the effectiveness of existing green certification systems, identifying barriers to adoption, and developing policy frameworks that stimulate market demand. For example, the large-scale application of recycled aggregates can be accelerated through policy measures, such as the EU Circular Economy Action Plan, along with technological innovations like impurity separation technologies. Singapore’s “Zero Waste Building” initiative has increased the utilization rate of recycled aggregates through policy subsidies [102], demonstrating how Regime Adaptation (policy incentives) accelerates Niche Innovation (waste recycling technologies) to address Landscape Pressures (resource scarcity). Similarly, the cost of advanced materials like phase change materials (PCMs) can be reduced through mass production techniques, including 3D-printed customized modules. Global partnerships among governments, industries, and academic institutions can help refine these policies, create better incentives, and improve the standardization of green building practices across regions. By fostering these collaborations and refining policies, future research can drive the widespread adoption of green building materials, contributing to more sustainable construction practices worldwide;
- (6)
- Enhanced Lifecycle Assessment (LCA) and Sustainability Metrics. To better quantify the environmental, social, and economic impacts of green construction projects, future research must focus on improving lifecycle assessment (LCA) methods and developing standardized sustainability metrics. For instance, in resource-scarce areas, priority should be given to evaluating water consumption and local material utilization rates; whereas, in developed regions, the focus should be on carbon footprint and recycling rates. The sharing of global databases, such as Ecoinvent, can help reduce data barriers and enhance data consistency. These tools will help decision-makers evaluate the full environmental impact of green building materials from production to disposal, providing data that can inform policy decisions and guide industry practices. Moreover, developing tiered sustainability standards, such as the ISO 14040 [103] framework-A/B/C to accommodate varying resource contexts, and harmonizing ISO 14040/14044 [104,105] with regional needs, such as integrating circular economy indicators into the EU’s Level(s) Framework, can further enhance global consistency in sustainability assessments.
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Darko, A.; Chan, A.P. Critical analysis of green building research trend in construction journals. Habitat Int. 2016, 57, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Wei, W.; Ramalho, O.; Mandin, C. Indoor air quality requirements in green building certifications. Build. Environ. 2015, 92, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eichholtz, P.; Kok, N.; Quigley, J.M. Doing well by doing good? Green office buildings. Am. Econ. Rev. 2010, 100, 2492–2509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, B.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Z.; Pei, Z.; Davies, M. Measured energy use and indoor environment quality in green office buildings in China. Energy Build. 2016, 129, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balaban, O.; de Oliveira, J.A.P. Sustainable buildings for healthier cities: Assessing the co-benefits of green buildings in Japan. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 163, S68–S78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thatcher, A.; Milner, K. Is a green building really better for building occupants? A longitudinal evaluation. Build. Environ. 2016, 108, 194–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, J.K.W.; Zhou, J. Enhancing environmental sustainability over building life cycles through green BIM: A review. Autom. Constr. 2015, 57, 156–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, T.; Aibinu, A.A.; Stephan, A. Managing green building development–a review of current state of research and future directions. Build. Environ. 2019, 155, 83–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Y.; Kvan, T.; Liu, M.; Li, B. How green building rating systems affect designing green. Build. Environ. 2018, 133, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hossain, M.U.; Ng, S.T.; Antwi-Afari, P.; Amor, B. Circular economy and the construction industry: Existing trends, challenges and prospective framework for sustainable construction. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 130, 109948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Häkkinen, T.; Belloni, K. Barriers and drivers for sustainable building. Build. Res. Inf. 2011, 39, 239–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dwaikat, L.N.; Ali, K.N. Green buildings cost premium: A review of empirical evidence. Energy Build. 2016, 110, 396–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ofek, S.; Portnov, B.A. Differential effect of knowledge on stakeholders’ willingness to pay green building price premium: Implications for cleaner production. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 251, 119575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahn, Y.H.; Pearce, A.R.; Wang, Y.; Wang, G. Drivers and barriers of sustainable design and construction: The perception of green building experience. Int. J. Sustain. Build. Technol. Urban Dev. 2013, 4, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uğur, L.O.; Leblebici, N. An examination of the LEED green building certification system in terms of construction costs. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 1476–1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C.; Yang, Y.; Shan, M.; He, B.J.; Gou, Z. Influences of barriers, drivers, and promotion strategies on green building technologies adoption in developing countries: The Ghanaian case. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 200, 687–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, H.T.; Skitmore, M.; Gray, M.; Zhang, X.; Olanipekun, A.O. Will green building development take off? An exploratory study of barriers to green building in Vietnam. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 8–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Yang, L.; He, B.; Zhao, D. Green building in China: Needs great promotion. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2014, 11, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aktas, B.; Ozorhon, B. Green building certification process of existing buildings in developing countries: Cases from Turkey. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 05015002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wuni, I.Y.; Shen, G.Q.; 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]
- Wu, Z.; Shen, L.; Ann, T.W.; Zhang, X. A comparative analysis of waste management requirements between five green building rating systems for new residential buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 895–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newsham, G.R.; Mancini, S.; Birt, B.J. Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Yes, but…. Energy Build. 2009, 41, 897–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, G.K. Sustainable construction—The role of environmental assessment tools. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 86, 451–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkataravanappa, R.Y.; Lakshmikanthan, A.; Kapilan, N.; Chandrashekarappa, M.P.G.; Der, O.; Ercetin, A. Physico-mechanical property evaluation and morphology study of moisture-treated hemp–banana natural-fiber-reinforced green composites. J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mustafa, A.; Faisal, S.; Singh, J.; Rezki, B.; Kumar, K.; Moholkar, V.S.; Kutlu, O.; Aboulmagd, A.; Thabet, H.K.; El-Bahy, Z.M.; et al. Converting lignocellulosic biomass into valuable end products for decentralized energy solutions: A comprehensive overview. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2024, 72, 104065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Suzer, O. A comparative review of environmental concern prioritization: LEED vs other major certification systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 154, 266–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ansah, M.K.; Chen, X.; Yang, H.; Lu, L.; Lam, P.T. A review and outlook for integrated BIM application in green building assessment. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 48, 101576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scofield, J.H. Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Not really…. Energy Build. 2009, 41, 1386–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altomonte, S.; Schiavon, S. Occupant satisfaction in LEED and non-LEED certified buildings. Build. Environ. 2013, 68, 66–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Q.; Xue, J.; Liu, R.; Shen, G.Q.; Xiong, F. Green building policies in China: A policy review and analysis. Energy Build. 2023, 278, 112641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.; Chan, A.P.; Owusu, E.K.; Darko, A.; Gao, X. Critical success factors for green building promotion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Build. Environ. 2022, 207, 108452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C. Strategies to promote green building technologies adoption in developing countries: The case of Ghana. Build. Environ. 2018, 130, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Wu, J.; Liu, H. Policies to enhance the drivers of green housing development in China. Energy Policy 2018, 121, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.; Li, Y.; Zuo, J.; Hu, W.; Nie, Q.; Lei, H. Who drives green innovations? Characteristics and policy implications for green building collaborative innovation networks in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 143, 110875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broadus, R.N. Toward a definition of “bibliometrics”. Scientometrics 1987, 12, 373–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Li, M.; Sang, P. A bibliometric review of studies on construction and demolition waste management by using CiteSpace. Energy Build. 2022, 258, 111822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geng, Y.; Maimaituerxun, M. Research progress of green marketing in sustainable consumption based on CiteSpace analysis. Sage Open 2022, 12, 21582440221119835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2016, 106, 213–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 21930:2017; Sustainability in Buildings and Civil Engineering Works—Core Rules for Environmental Product Declarations of Construction Products and Services. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
- Chen, C. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2006, 57, 359–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markard, J.; Raven, R.; Truffer, B. Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 955–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loorbach, D.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Avelino, F. Sustainability transitions research: Transforming science and practice for societal change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2017, 42, 599–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuo, J.; Zhao, Z.Y. Green building research–current status and future agenda: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 30, 271–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darko, A.; Zhang, C.; Chan, A.P. Drivers for green building: A review of empirical studies. Habitat Int. 2017, 60, 34–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, A.P.C.; Darko, A.; Olanipekun, A.O.; Ameyaw, E.E. Critical barriers to green building technologies adoption in developing countries: The case of Ghana. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 1067–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olubunmi, O.A.; Xia, P.B.; Skitmore, M. Green building incentives: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 59, 1611–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darko, A.; Chan, A.P. Review of barriers to green building adoption. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 25, 167–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, A.P.; 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]
- Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C.; Ameyaw, E.E.; He, B.J.; Olanipekun, A.O. Examining issues influencing green building technologies adoption: The United States green building experts’ perspectives. Energy Build. 2017, 144, 320–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, B.G.; Ng, W.J. Project management knowledge and skills for green construction: Overcoming challenges. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2013, 31, 272–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Song, H.; Sang, P.; Chen, P.H.; Liu, X. Review of Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for green building projects. Build. Environ. 2019, 158, 182–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuerst, F.; McAllister, P. Green noise or green value? Measuring the effects of environmental certification on office values. Real Estate Econ. 2011, 39, 45–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Illankoon, I.C.S.; Tam, V.W.; Le, K.N.; Shen, L. Key credit criteria among international green building rating tools. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Shan, M.; Hwang, B.G. Green building rating systems: Global reviews of practices and research efforts. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 39, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, Z.; Fan, Z.; Tam, V.W.; Bian, Y.; Li, S.; Illankoon, I.C.S.; Moon, S. Green building evaluation system implementation. Build. Environ. 2018, 133, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, Y.; Zhao, W.; Zhong, R. The spatial distribution of green buildings in China: Regional imbalance, economic fundamentals, and policy incentives. Appl. Geogr. 2017, 88, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Chan, A.P.C.; Darko, A.; Ameyaw, E.E. Strategies for promoting green building technologies adoption in the construction industry—An international study. Sustainability 2017, 9, 969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.; Owusu-Manu, D.G.; Ameyaw, E.E. Drivers for implementing green building technologies: An international survey of experts. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 145, 386–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.; 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]
- Agyekum, K.; Adinyira, E.; Baiden, B.; Ampratwum, G.; Duah, D. Barriers to the adoption of green certification of buildings: A thematic analysis of verbatim comments from built environment professionals. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2019, 17, 1035–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robichaud, L.B.; Anantatmula, V.S. Greening project management practices for sustainable construction. J. Manag. Eng. 2011, 27, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, H.D.; Macchion, L. Risk management in green building: A review of the current state of research and future directions. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 25, 2136–2172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, K.; Li, Q.; Zhang, L.; Wu, X. BIM-based green building evaluation and optimization: A case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 320, 128824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, B.G.; Zhu, L.; Ming, J.T.T. Factors affecting productivity in green building construction projects: The case of Singapore. J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 33, 04016052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, B.G.; Tan, J.S. Green building project management: Obstacles and solutions for sustainable development. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 20, 335–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, B.G.; Zhu, L.; Wang, Y.; Cheong, X. Green building construction projects in Singapore: Cost premiums and cost performance. Proj. Manag. J. 2017, 48, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kibert, C.J. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gou, Z.; Xie, X. Evolving green building: Triple bottom line or regenerative design? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 600–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cole, R.J. Building environmental assessment methods: Redefining intentions and roles. Build. Res. Inf. 2005, 33, 455–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Platten, A.; Shen, L. Green property development practice in China: Costs and barriers. Build. Environ. 2011, 46, 2153–2160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X. Green real estate development in China: State of art and prospect agenda—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 47, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kats, G. Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits; Massachusetts Technology Collaborative: Boston, MA, USA, 2003; pp. 2–8. [Google Scholar]
- Debrah, C.; Chan, A.P.; Darko, A. Artificial intelligence in green building. Autom. Constr. 2022, 137, 104192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Shi, Q.; Zuo, J.; Huang, R.; Huang, J.; Pullen, S. Identifying the critical factors for green construction–an empirical study in China. Habitat Int. 2013, 40, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Zuo, J.; Pan, M.; Ge, Q.; Chang, R.; Feng, X.; Fu, Y.; Dong, N. The incentive mechanism and decision-making behavior in the green building supply market: A tripartite evolutionary game analysis. Build. Environ. 2022, 214, 108903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, N.; Zhang, D.; Zuo, J.; Miller, T.R.; Duan, H.; Schiller, G. Potential for CO2 mitigation and economic benefits from accelerated carbonation of construction and demolition waste. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 169, 112920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Y.; Li, C.; Zhou, L.; Huang, X.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, H. Factors affecting green building development at the municipal level: A cross-sectional study in China. Energy Build. 2021, 231, 110560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghamari, M.; See, C.H.; Hughes, D.; Mallick, T.; Reddy, K.S.; Patchigolla, K.; Sundaram, S. Advancing sustainable building through passive cooling with phase change materials, a comprehensive literature review. Energy Build. 2024, 312, 114164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Wu, P.; Song, Y.; Shou, W.; Chi, H.; Chong, H.Y.; Sutrisna, M. A comprehensive analysis of the credits obtained by LEED 2009 certified green buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 370–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Y.; Wu, Z.; Chang, R.; Li, Y. Building Information Modeling (BIM) for green buildings: A critical review and future directions. Autom. Constr. 2017, 83, 134–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, R.J.; Zou, P.X. Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model. Build. Environ. 2014, 73, 208–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, Q.; Chen, H.; Shi, X.; Wei, J. Stakeholder games in the evolution and development of green buildings in China: Government-led perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 122895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadegaridehkordi, E.; Hourmand, M.; Nilashi, M.; Alsolami, E.; Samad, S.; Mahmoud, M.; Alarood, A.A.; Zainol, A.; Majeed, H.D.; Shuib, L. Assessment of sustainability indicators for green building manufacturing using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 122905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Chen, X.; Wang, X.; Xu, Y.; Chen, P.H. A review of studies on green building assessment methods by comparative analysis. Energy Build. 2017, 146, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azhar, S.; Carlton, W.A.; Olsen, D.; Ahmad, I. Building information modeling for sustainable design and LEED® rating analysis. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, Y.; Wu, J. Economic returns to residential green building investment: The developers’ perspective. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2014, 47, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, B.P.; Mohanty, A.K.; Misra, M. Studies on durability of sustainable biobased composites: A review. RSC Adv. 2020, 10, 17955–17999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reeve, A.; Aisbett, E. National accounting systems as a foundation for embedded emissions accounting in trade-related climate policies. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 371, 133678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, W.; Liu, Y.; Wang, M.; Wang, W. Performance and economic analyses of low-energy ohmic heating cured sustainable reactive powder concrete with dolomite powder as fine aggregates. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 329, 129692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, Z.; Cunha, S.; Aguiar, J. Study on phase change materials integration in concrete: Form-stable PCM and direct addition. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2024, 189, 1293–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerdlap, P.; Low, J.S.G.; Ramakrishna, S. Zero waste manufacturing: A framework and review of technology, research, and implementation barriers for enabling a circular economy transition in Singapore. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 151, 104438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 14040:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
- ISO 14044:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
- Klüppel, H.J. The Revision of ISO Standards 14040-3-ISO 14040: Environmental management–Life cycle assessment–Principles and framework—ISO 14044: Environmental Management–Life Cycle Assessment–Requirements and Guidelines. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2005, 10, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Rank | Freq. | Year | Institutions |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 121 | 2010 | Hong Kong Polytechnic University |
2 | 89 | 2016 | Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB) |
3 | 83 | 2013 | Universiti Teknologi Malaysia |
4 | 64 | 2012 | National University of Singapore |
5 | 63 | 2005 | Tongji University |
6 | 56 | 2017 | Shenzhen University |
7 | 56 | 2009 | Chongqing University |
8 | 37 | 2012 | City University of Hong Kong |
9 | 36 | 2013 | University of New South Wales Sydney |
10 | 35 | 2007 | Tsinghua University |
11 | 35 | 2008 | State University System of Florida |
12 | 32 | 2016 | Universiti Malaya |
13 | 32 | 2012 | Tianjin University |
14 | 31 | 2005 | Harbin Institute of Technology |
15 | 30 | 2017 | Griffith University |
16 | 29 | 2013 | South China University of Technology |
17 | 29 | 2012 | University of Hong Kong |
18 | 28 | 2015 | Universiti Teknologi MARA |
19 | 28 | 2021 | National Institute of Technology (NIT System) |
20 | 25 | 2022 | Kwame Nkrumah University Science and Technology |
Rank | Freq | Year | Cited Document |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 132 | 2017 | Doan, D.T., 2017, Build. Environ. 2017, 123, 243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.07.007 [58] |
2 | 125 | 2014 | Zuo, J., 2014, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2014, 30, 271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.021 [46] |
3 | 86 | 2018 | Chan, A.P.C., 2018, J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.235 [48] |
4 | 82 | 2017 | Illankoon, I.C.S., 2017, J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.206 [59] |
5 | 81 | 2018 | Mattoni, B., 2018, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2018, 82, 950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.105 [60] |
6 | 73 | 2016 | Olubunmi, O.A., 2016, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2016, 59, 1611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.028 [49] |
7 | 72 | 2017 | Darko, A., 2017, Habitat. Int. 2017, 60, 34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.12.007 [47] |
8 | 71 | 2018 | Shan, M., 2018, Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 39, 172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.02.034 [61] |
9 | 68 | 2019 | Geng, Y., 2019, Energ. Build. 2019, 183, 500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.11.017 [56] |
10 | 66 | 2018 | Ding, Z., 2018, Build. Environ. 2018, 133, 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.02.012 [62] |
Rank | Freq | Year | Cited Author |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 391 | 2017 | Darko, A [1,18,34,35,47,48,50,51,52,65,66,67,82,83] |
2 | 382 | 2015 | Zuo, J. [37,46,64,84,85,86] |
3 | 309 | 2015 | Hwang, B.G. [53,61,72,73,74] |
4 | 241 | 2008 | Kibert, C.J. [75] |
5 | 239 | 2014 | Gou, Z.H. [18,76,77] |
6 | 232 | 2005 | Cole, R.J. [78] |
7 | 230 | 2013 | Zhang, X.L. [19,23,79,80] |
8 | 230 | 2006 | Kats, G. [81] |
9 | 215 | 2011 | USGBC |
10 | 209 | 2017 | Chan, A.P.C. [18,35,48,52,65,83] |
Rank | Freq. | Year | Cited Journal |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2136 | 2003 | Building and Environment |
2 | 1992 | 2005 | Energy and Buildings |
3 | 1674 | 2011 | Journal of Cleaner Production |
4 | 1550 | 2011 | Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews |
5 | 1147 | 2016 | Sustainability |
6 | 954 | 2005 | Building Research and Information |
7 | 948 | 2014 | Sustainable Cities and Society |
8 | 815 | 2009 | Energy Policy |
9 | 771 | 2010 | Applied Energy |
10 | 752 | 2018 | Journal of Building Engineering |
Cluster | Notes | Year | Keywords |
---|---|---|---|
0 | 16 | 2009 | green building; energy efficiency; performance management; green building codes; sick building syndrome|green buildings; thermal comfort; green glass space; earth air; passive design |
1 | 16 | 2015 | green building; sustainable construction; scient metric review; service performance satisfaction; indoor environmental quality|green buildings; waste management; waste generation; building rating tools; top pv system |
2 | 15 | 2017 | green building; indoor environmental quality; energy consumption; post-occupancy evaluation; operating performance|green buildings; green building certification; discrete choice experiment; knowledge base; indoor air quality |
3 | 15 | 2007 | green building; energy efficiency; life cycle assessment; thermal performance; sustainable architecture|sustainable development; energy conservation; economic poverty; complex safety; green bonds |
4 | 15 | 2016 | green building; web crawler; text mining; Chinese public; compaction failure mode|construction industry; green buildings; developing economy; resource effectiveness; green housing development |
5 | 15 | 2014 | green buildings; social change; sustainability transitions; stimulating policy; green dwelling|green building; passive design; machine learning; energy demand; surrogate model |
6 | 14 | 2013 | green building; sustainable development; sustainable buildings; sustainable development goals; stakeholder awareness|sustainable construction; analytical hierarchy process; partial least square; environmental sustainability; construction method |
7 | 14 | 2015 | green building; energy consumption; indoor environmental quality; post-occupancy evaluation; operating performance|thermal comfort; energy performance; surrogate model; dynamic multi-objective optimization; energy buildings |
8 | 13 | 2019 | compressive strength; ceramic waste powder; solar reflectivity; scanning electron microscopy; capillary water absorption|thermal conductivity; limestone filler; cement paste; waste glass powder; rolling shear performance |
9 | 13 | 2011 | sustainable development; green buildings; climate change; environmental Kuznets curve; European union|green building; project delivery; construction challenges; social criteria; sustainability indicators |
10 | 12 | 2012 | green building; building energy efficiency; phase change materials; compressive strength; Autodesk Revit|renewable energy; tall building; dynamic thermal simulation; electrical energy storage; ice storage |
11 | 11 | 2015 | green building; environmental impact; enclosure structure; target distance method; Indian construction industry|life cycle assessment; global warming; circular economy; renewable energy; service industries |
Rank | Freq. | Year | Keywords |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 1538 | 2003 | green building |
2 | 578 | 2007 | performance |
3 | 387 | 2008 | design |
4 | 353 | 2009 | green buildings |
5 | 309 | 2009 | construction |
6 | 293 | 2003 | energy efficiency |
7 | 272 | 2008 | energy |
8 | 246 | 2005 | sustainable development |
9 | 222 | 2013 | management |
10 | 197 | 2012 | impact |
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. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, X.; Xu, J.; Su, Y. Research Status and Emerging Trends in Green Building Materials Based on Bibliometric Network Analysis. Buildings 2025, 15, 884. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15060884
Li X, Xu J, Su Y. Research Status and Emerging Trends in Green Building Materials Based on Bibliometric Network Analysis. Buildings. 2025; 15(6):884. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15060884
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Xinfeng, Jiayuan Xu, and Ying Su. 2025. "Research Status and Emerging Trends in Green Building Materials Based on Bibliometric Network Analysis" Buildings 15, no. 6: 884. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15060884
APA StyleLi, X., Xu, J., & Su, Y. (2025). Research Status and Emerging Trends in Green Building Materials Based on Bibliometric Network Analysis. Buildings, 15(6), 884. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15060884