Next Article in Journal
Real-Time Image Analysis for Intelligent Aircraft De-Icing Decision Support Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Development of a Real-Time Online Automatic Measurement System for Propeller Manufacturing Quality Control
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sustainable Concrete with Recycled Aggregate from Plastic Waste: Physical–Mechanical Behavior
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 14
10.3390/app15147751
applsci-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

Insight from Review Articles of Life Cycle Assessment for Buildings

by
Yang Zhang
1,2,
Yuehong Lu
2,*,
Zhijia Huang
2,3,*,
Demin Chen
2,
Bo Cheng
2,
Dong Wang
2 and
Chengyu Lu
2
1
School of Metallurgical Engineering, Anhui University of Technology, Ma’anshan 243002, China
2
School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Anhui University of Technology, Ma’anshan 243002, China
3
School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Ma’anshan University, Ma’anshan 243002, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(14), 7751; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15147751
Submission received: 9 June 2025 / Revised: 29 June 2025 / Accepted: 7 July 2025 / Published: 10 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Challenges for Sustainable Building: Innovation, Development and Characterisation of New Material Products and Systems, 2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The building sector holds a significant position in the global energy consumption share, and its environmental impact continues to intensify, making the construction industry a key player in sustainable development. The application of life cycle assessment on buildings (LCA-B) is widely employed to evaluate building energy and environment performance, and thus is of great significance for ensuring the sustainability of the project. This work aims to provide a systematic overview of LCA-B development based on reviewed literature. A three-stage mixed research method is adopted in this study: Firstly, an overall analysis framework is constructed, and 327 papers related to building life cycle assessment published between 2009 and 2025 are screened out by using the bibliometric method; Then, through scientometrics analysis, the journal regions, sources, scholars, and keyword evolution are revealed and analyzed using VOSviewer tool, and the hotspots in the field of LCA-B (e.g., integration of building information modeling (BIM) in LCA-B, multi-dimensional framework of environment–society–culture) are preliminarily explored based on the selected highly cited papers. The research finds that: (1) the performance of low energy buildings is better than that of net zero energy buildings from the perspective of LCA; (2) software compatibility and data exchange are the main obstacles in the integration of BIM-LCA; (3) a multi-dimensional LCA framework covering the social or cultural aspects is expected for a comprehensive assessment of building performance. This study provides a systematic analysis and elaboration of review articles related to LCA-B and thereby provides researchers with in-depth insight into this field.

1. Introduction

The life cycle assessment (LCA) method serves as a comprehensive methodological framework for quantitatively evaluating the environmental sustainability of products and industrial processes throughout their cradle-to-grave life cycle stages [1,2,3]. This analytical approach systematically integrates material flow analysis, energy auditing, and environmental impact modeling across key life cycle phases, including raw material procurement, manufacturing, operational utilization, and end-of-life management (encompassing disposal, recycling, and recovery processes), and the definition of LCA is shown in Table 1. Consequently, LCA has emerged as a “cradle-to-grave” paradigm in environmental science, enabling a multidimensional assessment of resource depletion, pollutant emissions, and ecological footprint while facilitating informed decision-making for sustainable design and circular economy transitions [4,5,6].
Table 1. Definitions of LCA [2,5,7].
Table 1. Definitions of LCA [2,5,7].
AcronymConceptDefinition
LCILife cycle inventory analysisPhase of life cycle assessment involving the compilation and quantification of inputs and outputs for a product/process throughout its life cycle.
LCALife cycle assessmentCompilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a product/process throughout its life cycle.
LCCALife cycle cost analysisAnalysis of financial costs for a product/process throughout its life cycle.
LCEALife cycle energy analysisAnalysis of energy performance for a product/process throughout its life cycle.
LC(CO2)ALife cycle CO2 emissions analysisAnalysis of CO2 emissions for a product/process throughout its life cycle.
The application of LCA in the building construction sector (LCA-B) can be traced to about 30 years ago. According to the literature, LCA originated earliest in the manufacturing industry in the 1970s, and then was introduced into the building field in the 1980s [8]. Since 2000, LCA studies on buildings have achieved rapid growth [9]. For instance, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) began to promote the LCA standardization framework (such as ISO 14040/14044) around 2006, providing a methodological basis for its application in the field of building construction. Subsequently, research on LCA-B entered a rapid development, and China gradually incorporated LCA into the environmental management practices of the construction industry by drawing on the experiences of developed countries. Figure 1 shows a typical framework of the application of life cycle energy analysis for a building. In general, LCA includes analysis of four phases (i.e., production phase, construction phase, use phase, and end of life phase), the total life cycle energy of a building includes embodied energy (EE) and operational energy (OE) [10,11], and embodied energy in a building contains direct energy (i.e., energy usage encompassing on-site and off-site operations, covering building construction, component prefabrication, equipment assembly, material transportation, and administration) and indirect energy (i.e., energy used in material production, building renovation, refurbishment and deconstruction processes.) [12]. Over the last decade, the field of LCA-B has received remarkable achievement in technical methods, for instance, the combination of dynamic LCA and real-time data [13,14,15,16,17], integration of multi-scale assessment system such as the evaluation framework of environment–economy–society [18,19,20,21], interdisciplinary technical collaboration such as integration of building information modeling (BIM) and LCA [22,23,24,25]. LCA and related methodologies have emerged as critical tools for evaluating the environmental, economic, and social impacts of buildings throughout their life cycles [1,26,27,28,29].
Extensive case studies have been investigated to evaluate the environmental sustainability of buildings in various countries, e.g., USA [30,31], China [32,33], Australia [34,35], Malaysia [36], Spain [37], Finland [38,39], Canada [40,41], and the United Kingdom [42,43]. A systematic literature review can provide a holistic view of a specific topic by summarizing the findings, methodologies, and theoretical perspectives from multiple studies, enabling researchers to grasp the current state of the topic and explore research directions based on a broader academic vision. Many academic studies have reviewed the literature related to LCA-B from different perspectives. The review articles on LCA-B can be divided into the following main categories: construction materials (e.g., wood, steel, concrete) [35,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52], building types (e.g., residential buildings, office buildings, green buildings) [53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60], building components (e.g., HVAC, heat pump, building envelope system) [61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69], uncertainty and sensitivity analysis [13,16,17,31,70,71,72,73], evaluation method (e.g., LCA, life cycle energy analysis (LCEA), life cycle cost analysis (LCCA), and life cycle CO2 emissions analysis LC(CO2)A) [5,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81]. The concept of circular economy, exploring reuse, recycling, and design-for-disassembly, has further expanded the scope of LCA [82,83,84,85,86]. In addition, increasing studies have been conducted on the integration of digital twins, artificial intelligence (AI) and BIM in LCA-B. This integrated new technology can significantly improve the efficiency and accuracy of LCA, facilitate intelligent decision-making and help the construction industry to achieve the goal of carbon neutrality [22,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94]. Despite these advancements, challenges persist in data quality, technological heterogeneity, and temporal dynamics [73,86,95,96]. Notably, the lack of standardized databases for regional variations remains a barrier.
Applsci 15 07751 g001
Figure 1. Life cycle energy framework of a building based on [76,97].
Figure 1. Life cycle energy framework of a building based on [76,97].
Applsci 15 07751 g001
Based on various case studies, previous review articles of LCA-B have systematically summarized the methodologies, findings, and research directions mainly from a specific perspective (e.g., construction materials, building types, building components, uncertainty, integration of digital twins/artificial intelligence/BIM). However, few studies are observed on systematic and comprehensive investigating the current state of LCA-B that synthesize the existing review literature. Specifically, the findings and challenges summarized from the highly cited review papers are more convincing and enlightening. Therefore, the objective of this comprehensive systematic literature review is to identify the characteristic distribution of the existing review literature using bibliometric analysis and the key findings in the field of LCA-B. The organizational framework of this manuscript is systematically structured as follows—Section 2 elucidates the comprehensive research methodology employed in conducting the systematic literature review, which comprises three sequential phases: (i) systematic data acquisition, (ii) bibliometric performance assessment, and (iii) integrated quantitative–qualitative analytical framework. Section 3 provides a comprehensive overview of 327 review articles based on both quantitative and qualitative analytical methodologies, and then synthesizes the empirical findings derived from 30 highly cited review articles. Section 4 presents the conclusions and prospective directions for future investigation.

2. Methodology

A holistic method, combining quantitative and qualitative analysis, is adopted in this study. In general, the holistic method contains three stages, as shown in Figure 2. In stage 1, bibliometric analysis was conducted to search and collect review articles related to LCA-B. Web of Science (WoS) is commonly employed as a literature database as it provides high-quality and authoritative publications, and it was therefore chosen as the basic database source for this investigation. In the retrieval, an abstract search was firstly conducted as follows: AB = (Life cycle assessment OR life cycle analysis OR lca OR life cycle cost OR life cycle energy OR life cycle carbon emission) AND (building OR housing OR homes OR dwelling OR house), and it was labeled as #1. Secondly, topic search and author-specified keywords were combined together as follows: TS = ((Life cycle assessment OR Life cycle analysis OR lca OR Life cycle cost OR Life cycle energy OR life cycle carbon emission) AND (building OR housing OR homes OR dwelling OR house)) AND AK = (Life cycle assessment OR Life cycle analysis OR lca OR Life cycle cost OR Life cycle energy OR life cycle carbon emission), and it was labeled as #2. Thirdly, both #1 and #2 were considered and the published language was refined as English, the results show that 4300 documents satisfy the above requirement. Finally, 327 review articles were derived and thus selected as literature analysis samples for further investigation. Moreover, the publication time was set from 2009 to 2025.
In stage 2, scientometric analysis was conducted based on the 327 review articles, the co-occurrence of journal sources, regions, keywords, co-authorship, and document citations were investigated by VOSViewer version 1.6.20.0. VOSViewer has the advantage of visualizing complex networks and facilitating quantitative analysis for textual data mining applications [98,99]. A four-fold philosophical framework was further proposed to cluster the keywords based on the study of [76,100].
In stage 3, a comprehensive qualitative analysis was performed to summarize the key findings and challenges based on selected 30 highly cited review articles. The highly cited articles are widely accepted as the “cornerstone” of a certain field, which enable researchers to quickly grasp the current development status of this field and provide them with key findings and future research directions based on a comprehensive summary of multiple studies.

3. Results

In this section, a detail analysis of previous review papers on building LCA studies is presented using bibliometric analysis. Moreover, 30 highly cited papers are further selected and investigated through quantitative and qualitative analysis.

3.1. Scientometric Analysis

3.1.1. Publication Trend

Figure 3 presents the general trend of previous review papers on the application of LCA in buildings (LCA_B) results from 2009 to the end of April 2025. In general, the number of review papers related to LCA_B is increasing year by year, and it is observed that the publications are less than ten before 2014. Since 2020, the number of publications has exceeded 30 per year, showing that review papers of LCA_B have attracted an increasing interest in recent years. It is noted that the statistics do not cover the whole year of 2025.

3.1.2. Analysis of Article Sources

Exploring the journal sources published in the LCA_B field reflects the most popular and suitable journal for publication, as displayed in Figure 4. In VOSviewer, the minimum number of papers was set to 2 and the minimum citation number was set to 10, 27 sources were finally obtained from the 72 sources identified. As a larger size of the nodes and fonts indicated a larger number of articles published in that journal, the most popular journal was observed to be Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews with the highest publication number of 78 articles and the highest citation number of 10,162, followed by Sustainability (publication number: 35, citation number: 1316), Journal of Cleaner Production (publication number: 27, citation number: 2417), and International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (publication number: 20, citation number: 1125). In addition, a thick line between two nodes indicates a high frequency of citations between the two journals, and a long distance between the nodes indicates a weak link strength between the two journals. The publication period can be distinguished from the colors, and the recently published articles are shown in brighter colors. From the total link strength scores, as shown in Table 2, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews (the total link strength scores of 328) and Building and Environment (the total link strength scores of 192) are the two most active journals in the research. Although the article number from Environmental Chemistry Letters, Applied Energy, and Environmental Research Letters is less than 5, their impact on LCA-B research is the highest as reflected by the high number of citations.
Table 2. Journal source analysis of LCA-B review articles.
Table 2. Journal source analysis of LCA-B review articles.
JournalTotal Link StrengthArticle NumberCitation NumberNorm. Citations 1Avg. CitationsAvg. Norm. Citations 2Avg. Pub. Year 3
Environmental Chemistry Letters84110635.5276.58.92023
Applied Energy3727105.0355.02.52016
Environmental Research Letters1633654.2121.71.42019
Building and Environment19218132922.673.81.32020
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews3287810,16285.8130.31.12016
Journal of Cleaner Production12227241728.989.51.12019
Sustainable Cities and Society2632523.084.01.02020
Science of the Total Environment1332363.078.71.02019
Energy and Buildings15317238916.6140.51.02019
Journal of Environmental Management2276316.690.10.92019
Construction and Building Materials342233.855.80.92021
Journal of Building Engineering3342833.770.80.92019
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment3220112516.856.30.82020
Sustainability14135131627.937.60.82020
Waste Management1421601.580.00.82019
Sustainable Production and Consumption1081275.715.90.72023
Buildings55142119.215.10.72022
Engineering Structures321001.150.00.62015
Heliyon62281.114.00.62023
Renewable Energy521121.156.00.52017
Environmental Science and Pollution Research153861.428.70.52019
Environment Development and Sustainability62200.810.00.42023
Energies31131894.914.50.42022
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering52170.78.50.42023
Ecological Indicators72160.68.00.32023
Applied Sciences-Basel63300.610.00.22022
Bioresources12100.15.00.02019
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 [101].

3.1.3. Analysis of Article Regions

The relationship and contribution of the main countries mentioned in the LCA_B review articles is displayed in Figure 5, the minimum number of papers was set to five and the minimum citations was set to 100, and 24 countries were finally identified to meet the thresholds from 64 countries. As the node size represents the total number of published articles from that country and the connection lines between nodes represents the collaboration of countries, it is obvious that China (articles = 45, citations = 4442), United States (articles = 36, citations = 3874), and Italy (articles = 33, citations = 3036) have the most published LCA_B review papers, and the contributions of the three countries on LCA_B research are significant. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) launched by United States and dual-carbon policy launched by China are possibly the key factors stimulate the studies of LCA-B in the two countries. In Italy, the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive launched by European Union was converted into domestic regulations, combining with local subsidies and regional pilot projects, the popularization of LCA in buildings was greatly promoted. The colors reflect the publication period, South Korea (articles = 12), India (articles = 7), Switzerland (articles = 11), and Sweden (articles = 6) were countries that began to conduct review studies on relative topics earlier, while North Ireland (articles = 6), Denmark (articles = 13), Belgium (articles = 15), Austria (articles = 31), and Canada (articles = 32) were countries that paid more and more attention on the review studies of the development status of LCA_B later. It is observed that the four earlier countries (i.e., South Korea, India, Switzerland, and Sweden) has a relative few publications of review articles, while in the four later countries, Austria and Canada has a relative much higher publications of review articles than North Ireland and Denmark, which is mainly due to the differences in their policy support, technological maturity and academic attention. It should be noted that the average publication period of review articles is different from that of research articles. As shown in Table 3, China, Australia, and Spain are most active in the research from their high total link strength scores. Although the article numbers from North Ireland, Portugal, and Malaysia are no more than 10, their impact on LCA-B research is significant from the average normal citation scores.

3.1.4. Analysis of Co-Authorship

Academic collaboration can enhance professional knowledge of scholars and increase the quantity as well as quality of their articles. An author cooperative network of the selected literature was analyzed by VOSviewer, and the minimum number of articles and minimum citations of an author were set to 3 and 100, respectively. Finally, 36 authors were identified to meet the thresholds from a total of 1198 authors, which are displayed in Figure 6. In general, five main collaboration groups were observed to contain at least three scholars, for instance, Chen L, Chen Z, Fawzy S, Huang L, Osman AI, Rooney DW, and Yap P are in the same cluster, indicating that they have maintained a close collaborative relationship with effective knowledge exchange and have jointly produced multiple publications focused on LCA-B. A more detailed quantitative measurements of the scholars are sorted by the scores of average normal citations, as shown in Table 4. Although Rooney DW, Chen L, Yap P, Osman AI, Huang L, Chen Z, and Fawzy S are the most active researchers recently, they are actually among the most influential scholars in the domain of LCA-B review studies regarding the scores of average normal citations. Furthermore, Chen L and Yap P have made the greatest contribution in the field of LCA-B review research considering that they have the highest total citations.

3.1.5. Analysis of Keywords

Keywords reflect the core topics of a review article and can be analyzed using “Author keyword” in VOSViewer as shown in Figure 7 and Table 5. The minimum number of occurrences was set to 5, and keywords having the same semantic meanings (such as “life cycle assessment”versus “life cycle analysis” versus “lca”, “building information modeling” versus “building information modelling” versus “bim”, “buildings” versus “building”) were integrated. Finally, 36 keywords were identified to meet the thresholds from 1055 keywords. In Figure 7, as the size of the nodes and fonts represents the occurrences of the keywords, “life cycle assessment” (occurrences: 237) is observed to be the most frequently used keyword, followed by “buildings” (occurrences: 38), “sustainability” (occurrences: 31) and “building information modeling” (occurrences: 27). In addition, the distance and thickness of the connection line represents the strength of the relationship between the two keywords. The occurrence period of the keywords can be distinguished from the colors, and “energy”, “concrete”, “life cycle energy”, and “environmental performance” are the earlier frequently used keywords while “social life cycle assessment”, “life cycle sustainability assessment”, “scientometric analysis”, “literature review”, “bibliometric analysis”, “circular economy”, and “building information modeling” are hot topics in recent review articles. Although the occurrences of four keywords, i.e., “climate change”, “carbon emissions”, “construction industry”, and “building materials”, are all no more than 10, they are actually influential keywords in recent studies from the high scores of the average normal citation.
As indicated by Li et al. [76], all the keywords of a topic can be involved in four philosophical aspects, i.e., ontology, epistemology, methodology, and axiology, implicitly or explicitly. In this study, the keywords are divided into six clusters based on the above philosophical framework, indicating the main topics of LCA-B review articles, as shown in Figure 8.
  • Review studies on LCA-B encompasses dual dimensions: building classifications and internal components within buildings including structural components and energy systems. (1) Building classifications, such as residential units, commercial buildings, office buildings, refurbished buildings, nearly/net-zero energy buildings (nZEBs/ZEBs), green buildings, and passive houses. The aim is to understand their operational mechanisms and provide directions to establish performance benchmarks for different types of buildings and accelerate their implementation. (2) Building materials or structures, such as cement, concrete, building envelope, roof, and window, are investigated to explore appropriate strategies for reducing both energy consumption and GHG emissions. (3) Energy systems, such as heat pump, HVAC, and solar thermal systems, are examined to optimize sustainability practices.
  • Review studies address comprehensive evaluation perspectives of LCA-B: LCA, LCCA, LCEA, LC(CO2)A, and dynamic LCA are the most popular assessment viewpoints. LCA prioritizes comprehensive analysis of energy consumption and ecological impacts throughout product/system lifespans. LCCA adopts an economic lens to evaluate cost viability of energy usage and environmental impact. LCEA emphasizes quantifying total energy demands across building life cycles, encompassing material production, construction, operation, and deconstruction phases.
  • Research methods involved in LCA-B studies and review papers: In terms of LCA-B studies, building simulation and energy simulation are the basic and traditional approaches to derive building energy consumption during operation stage. Assessment tools, such as SimaPro, One Click LCA, Pleiades Equer, and Athena Impact Estimator, are the most used software to evaluate the potential environmental impacts [102]. In addition, the integration of digital technologies is assuming growing significance in low-carbon building practices, as evidenced by Building Information Modeling (BIM). This tool has demonstrated transformative potential in architectural planning, structural implementation, and data-driven lifecycle governance. In terms of LCA-B review articles: bibliometric analysis, machine learning, and science mapping are used in a high frequency recently. Bibliometric analysis focuses on external characteristics of the literature (such as author regions, article sources, keywords, and citation numbers) and aims to reveal the development disciplines and trends through quantitative indicators. Science mapping is commonly applied in bibliometric analysis to provide information visualization and network analysis through software (such as VOSviewer, CiteSpace) and machine learning.
  • Cost performance: Life cycle costing provides a comprehensive economic viewpoint for different stakeholders, which is more reasonable compared with the traditional cost analysis method that focuses on a certain stage.
  • Energy performance: Previous literature encompasses diverse energy classifications throughout the whole building life cycle, prioritizing operational energy (OE) and embodied energy (EE), while additionally detailing specific energy subtypes including primary energy, transportation-associated energy, and recurrent embodied energy. The tailored energy-saving strategies can be designed based on energy consumption and energy utilization efficiency analysis.
  • Environmental performance: Within the context of sustainable development, environmental consequences of buildings have garnered substantial interest and are extensively investigated by scholars. Contemporary examinations of environmental burdens in LCA-B predominantly focus on quantifying greenhouse gas discharges from the building sector, employing methodologies such as carbon footprint tracing and CO2 emission inventories to rigorously evaluate the environmental impact of construction-related activities.

3.1.6. Analysis of Article Citations

Citation number and normal citation are two main indicators reflecting the academic influence and value of an article. The two indicators are determined in VOSViewer software in this study, and the minimum citation number was set to 100. Finally, 52 items out of 327 articles were derived to satisfy the threshold. The top 30 highly cited review articles along with the source and citation number are listed based on the normal citations, as shown in Table 6. It is noted that two review articles, i.e., “Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review” and “Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: an overview”, are observed to have the most citations. Meanwhile, two other review articles, i.e., “Strategies to achieve a carbon neutral society: a review” and “Circular economy strategies for combating climate change and other environmental issues”, are identified as the most influential articles, although they have been published only for three years.
Table 6. List of 30 highly cited papers.
Table 6. List of 30 highly cited papers.
ArticleTitleSourceCitation NumbersNorm. Citations
Chen (2022) [103]Strategies to achieve a carbon neutral society: a reviewEnvironmental Chemistry Letters63311.59
Yang (2023) [83]Circular economy strategies for combating climate change and other environmental issuesEnvironmental Chemistry Letters28611.37
Rahman (2020) [104]Assessment of energy storage technologies: A reviewEnergy Conversion and Management4796.33
Manso (2021) [105]Green roof and green wall benefits and costs: A review of the quantitative evidenceRenewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews2725.88
Chen (2023) [106]Green construction for low-carbon cities: a reviewEnvironmental Chemistry Letters1254.97
Schiavoni (2016) [107]Insulation materials for the building sector: A review and comparative analysisRenewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews6664.30
Chau (2015) [108]A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildingsApplied Energy6384.21
Ghisellini (2018) [109]Exploring environmental and economic costs and benefits of a circular economy approach to the construction and demolition sector. A literature reviewJournal of Cleaner Production3673.99
Wu (2016) [110]A critical review of the use of 3-D printing in the construction industryAutomation in Construction5893.80
Dixit (2012) [97]Need for an embodied energy measurement protocol for buildings: a review paperRenewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews3243.75
Cabeza (2014) [5]Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A reviewRenewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews8983.65
Aditya (2017) [111]A review on insulation materials for energy conservation in buildingsRenewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews5213.52
Hertwich (2019) [112]Material efficiency strategies to reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with buildings, vehicles, and electronics-a reviewEnvironmental Research Letters2593.20
Ramesh (2010) [113]Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: an overviewEnergy and Buildings9302.97
Mukherjee (2020) [114]A review on municipal solid waste-to-energy trends in the USARenewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews2182.88
D’oca (2018) [115]The human dimensions of energy use in buildings: A reviewRenewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews2612.84
Kamali (2016) [116]Life cycle performance of modular buildings: A critical reviewRenewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews4032.60
Anand (2017) [117]Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: A critical reviewRenewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews3532.38
Khan (2021) [118]Sustainability assessment, potentials and challenges of 3d printed concrete structures: a systematic review for built environmental applicationsJournal of Cleaner Production1052.27
Nwodo (2019) [119]A review of life cycle assessment of buildings using a systematic approachBuildings and Environment1832.26
Soust-verdaguer (2017) [120]Critical review of bim-based LCA method to buildingsEnergy and Buildings3322.24
Buyle (2013) [121]Life cycle assessment in the construction sector: a reviewRenewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews3662.12
Vilches (2017) [122]Life cycle assessment (LCA) of building refurbishment: A literature reviewEnergy and Buildings3112.10
Shukla (2017) [123]Recent advancement in BIPV product technologies: A reviewEnergy and Buildings2951.99
Obrecht (2020) [96]Bim and lca integration: a systematic literature reviewSustainability1471.94
Fenner (2018) [124]The carbon footprint of buildings: a review of methodologies and applicationsRenewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews1781.94
Panteli (2020) [125]Building information modeling applications in smart buildings: from design to commissioning and beyond a critical reviewJournal of Cleaner Production1241.64
Ingrao (2018) [126]How can life cycle thinking support sustainability of buildings? investigating life cycle assessment applications for energy efficiency and environmental performanceJournal of Cleaner Production1471.60
Abd rashid (2015) [81]A review of life cycle assessment method for building industryRenewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews2391.58
Hong (2018) [127]Building simulation: ten challengesBuilding Simulation1411.53

3.2. Findings of Qualitative Analysis

3.2.1. Analysis of LCA Software

LCA software standardizes the complex LCA process through data integration, automated computing, visual analysis, and scenario simulation, helping users to efficiently identify environmental hotspots, optimize decisions, and promote the sustainability improvement of products, enterprises or policies. Ten software packages were identified from existing studies, all tools support core LCA standards (ISO 14040/44) but vary significantly in regional adaptability, data granularity, and user technical requirements. Seven are building-focused tools (i.e., Tally, Athena, OneClick LCA, BIM3LCA, LCAQuick, LCAbyg and HBERT), two are general software packages (i.e., SimaPro, Gabi), which provide versatile applicability across diverse housing LCA frameworks due to their broad methodological flexibility. Pleiades Equer considers impacts from all elements of built environment, which suits holistic housing and neighborhood LCAs. Tally, OneClick LCA, and BIM3LCA are best for BIM-based LCA workflows. Meanwhile, Athena, HBERT and LCAbyg are free/open-source and GaBi, SimaPro, OneClick LCA are expensive. The features of each software are provided in Table 7.
Table 7. Key software used in the literature studies [102].
Table 7. Key software used in the literature studies [102].
LCA SoftwareKey Application CharacteristicsStrengthsLimitations
Athena Impact Estimator (Canada)Specialized for North American building materials.Free to use; Detailed structural analysis.Limited global coverage; Outdated interface.
BIM3LCA (Denmark)BIM-integrated early design LCA.Revit/ArchiCAD compatibility; User-friendly.Europe-focused databases; Requires BIM skills.
HBERT (China)Open-source building energy and material LCA.Free; Links to energy simulation tools.Basic UI; Small user community.
LCAbyg (Denmark)Simplified LCA for Danish regulations.Fast compliance checks; Free for research.Nordic-region only; Limited complexity.
LCA-Quick (USA)Rapid early-stage carbon assessment.Excel-based simplicity; Fast results.Only CO2 analysis; No BIM integration.
OneClick LCA (Finland)Cloud-based certification support LEED/BREEAM.Compliance; Good BIM links.Subscription model; Advanced features limited.
Tally (USA)Revit-embedded material analysis.Real-time BIM-LCA feedback; US data strong.Revit-dependent; Global data lacking.
GaBi (Germany)Comprehensive industrial LCA.Dynamic modeling; Excellent databases.Expensive; Steep learning curve.
SimaPro (Netherlands)Advanced academic/professional LCA.Best database support; Customizable.Complex interface; High cost.
Pleiades + Equer (France)French energy-LCA integration.HQE certification ready.France-specific; Needs energy modeling expertise.

3.2.2. Analysis of Highly Cited Review Articles

Review articles are generally recognized as core studies that can synthesize existing findings from diverse studies, provide critical analysis for a specific field, and identify research gaps as well as future research directions for researchers. Therefore, the most influential articles were determined based on the citation features using VOSViewer, and 30 highly cited review articles were listed according to their normal citations, as shown in Table 6. For instance, Ramesh et al. [113] presented a critical review on LCEA of buildings including both residential buildings and office buildings, which shows the highest citation number of 930. Chen et al. [103] presented initiatives, decarbonization technologies, and carbon trading/tax to reach a carbon neutral economy, which shows a significant impact from the high citation number of 633, although this study was only published three years ago. In summary, the main topics in these highly cited articles include: (1) an evaluation perspective of LCA-B [5,108]; (2) different strategies for reducing building energy consumption and/or carbon emissions [83,104,107,123]; and (3) a tool-supported method [96,120,125]. Meanwhile, it is observed that the listed highly cited papers are mostly published in Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews.

3.2.3. Findings from Highly Cited Papers

Qualitative examination was further conducted based on the above highly cited review articles, aiming to facilitate the consolidation and refinement of key research issues in LCA-B. In general, the application of LCA in building can systematically assess the environmental impact throughout the entire life cycle of buildings and provide a scientific basis for sustainable building design as well as decision-making. However, its practice also faces challenges in the aspect of data, methods, and technology. The main preliminary findings and challenges/future research directions from these review articles are summarized and listed as shown in Table 8. The key findings and challenges/future research directions are systematically organized into the following principal categories.
  • Passive and active features are generally advocated for buildings while excessive use of these technologies may be counterproductive in the life cycle context [113]. This is mainly because the embodied carbon of high-performance materials and equipment is relatively high, and the cost of these materials and equipment are also high, low energy buildings are actually performing better from the perspective of LCA although the concept of self-sufficient buildings (e.g., net zero energy buildings) are widespread and promoted in many countries. Meanwhile, energy consumption reduction through many efficiency improvements is usually overestimated since building-users’ behavior can greatly affect the building energy consumption during use phase of buildings and thus is difficult to predict. Therefore, further investigation is required to identify their differences.
  • Many studies concluded that the LCA results of different cases lack comparability, mainly due to the complexity and diversity of building LCA [117,122,124]. (1) Differences in system boundaries definitions, i.e., the coverage of life cycle stages and inconsistency of functional units. For example, some studies focused on “Cradle to Gate” and others focused on “Cradle to Grave”. (2) Differences in data sources and assumptions, i.e., background databases, geographical and climatic conditions, technical parameters, and scenario assumptions. For example, material production, transportation, and energy consumption data may come from different databases, such as Ecoinvent, GaBi, China’s local database, etc., which cause the difference in results. (3) Differences in methodological and model selection, i.e., process-based LCA (PLCA) and input–output LCA (IO-LCA) and hybrid LCA, impact assessment model, and software tool selection. For example, the data sources, coverage and modeling are different for PLCA, IO-LCA, and hybrid LCA. (4) Differences in building characteristics and design, i.e., building function and types, material and technology selection, and regional adaptive design. For example, the energy usage patterns and intensities of buildings may vary significantly for buildings with different functions, such as office buildings, residential buildings, and hospital buildings. (5) Differences in the time span and data timeliness, i.e., the assumptions of buildings service life, parameter update due to technology upgradation. For example, the building lifespan used in most cases ranges from 50 years to 120 years. In addition, a large amount of data (i.e., material production, transportation, energy consumption, etc.) is required for building LCA, while the data is usually scattered and difficult to collect precisely in actual projects, especially the embodied carbon data in the supply chain. To overcome this challenge, much effort should be made to develop a set of standardized guidelines and methodology on the boundary scoping, methodology choices, and data inventories so as to establish benchmarks for building LCA.
  • The integration of BIM technology in LCA is widely acknowledged as it can achieve the visualization and dynamic management of the entire life cycle data of buildings, improving design efficiency and data accuracy. Nevertheless, the major issues can be summarized as follows: (1) The lack of a unified standard for data interfaces between different BIM software and LCA tools leads to obstacles in software compatibility and data exchange. (2) It is difficult to synchronize the energy consumption and maintenance data during the building operation stage to the BIM model in real time, which may lead to the deviation of LCA results from the actual situation. Furthermore, the data of the demolition and recycling stages are often ignored due to the lack of coordination of the industrial chain. (3) The integration of BIM-LCA requires professionals to master architectural modeling, LCA methods, and data analysis techniques simultaneously. However, the current talent reserve in the industry is insufficient and thus limits its promotion. The following solution paths are proposed: (1) Adopt unified data standards and long-term archiving formats; establish a digital twin for the entire life cycle and continuously record the changes in the building’s status. (2) Develop automated data synchronization tools to collect operation and maintenance data in real time and update models using the Internet of Things; combine machine learning to predict future trends and generate dynamic LCA input parameters at multiple time nodes; develop an LCA tool integrating uncertainty analysis. (3) Strengthen the construction of BIM-LCA courses in the education sector, improve the training and incentive system in the enterprise sector, promote standard and resource support, and accelerates optimization tools for BIM-LCA, based on these, a virtuous cycle of “talent cultivation-technology application—industry upgrading” will be gradually formed.
  • Extensive studies have been conducted to analyze environmental issues of buildings, but the social or cultural aspects were ignored. The main reason for this may be that the influence of social and cultural aspects is difficult to quantify since it faces challenges such as data collection and indicator design, which lead to the lack of standardized methods for social and cultural assessment. To address these issues, a multi-objective assessment including other assessment tools is required to increase the usefulness of building LCA for decision-making, and a multi-dimensional LCA framework of “environment–society–culture” can be constructed.
  • Circular economy principles, which focus on reducing waste, reusing materials, and recycling resources, are increasingly seen as critical to addressing climate change, promoting sustainability in the construction sector and achieving carbon neutrality. Therefore, circular economy principles offer a pathway to reduce waste and emissions, and LCA provides the tools to measure and optimize these efforts. In the construction sector, circular practices like modular construction [116] and recycling construction and demolition waste [109] can significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions. However, the implementation of circular economy strategies faces several challenges. One major barrier is the lack of standardized protocols for measuring the environmental and economic benefits of such practices. For example, Dixit [97] pointed out the need for an embodied energy measurement protocol for buildings, which is essential for evaluating the true impact of circular practices. In addition, as mentioned by Wu [110] in their review of 3D printing in construction, significant upfront investment in new technologies and infrastructure is required for transitioning to a circular economy. To address these challenges, approaches such as standardization, data availability, and technological integration will be crucial for their widespread adoption and success in achieving carbon neutrality, and the potential benefits offered by circular economy approaches, such as reducing material costs, lower emissions, and enhancing resource efficiency, make them a promising direction for future research and policy development. The high citation counts of these studies underscore their relevance and the urgent need for continued research and innovation in these areas.
In summary, emphasis was put on embodied energy, LCA standardization, and passive/active features in early years (2009–2015), an increase in studies on 3D printing, modular construction, and BIM-LCA integration was observed in the subsequent years (2016–2019), and recent studies have been paid more attention on carbon neutrality, circular economy, and advanced technologies like digital twins and artificial intelligence (2020–2025). In addition, the following three aspects have faced persistent challenges in the development of LCA-B: (1) Data inconsistency and lack of standardization mainly due to varied methodologies, regional disparities, diverse software and databases and ISO standards adoption. (2) Traditional LCAs often prioritize environmental metrics (e.g., carbon emissions) while neglecting economic factors (e.g., supply chain resilience) or social factors (e.g., occupant well-being, cultural heritage), holistic assessments (environmental, economic, social) are needed. (3) Underrepresentation of developing regions and rural areas in LCA-B terms mainly due to the limited infrastructure for monitoring energy/water use, material flows, or waste practices in rural/developing contexts.

4. Conclusions and Limitations

In this study, a three-stage mixed research method combining scientometric analysis and qualitative analysis is employed to investigate the review articles published in the LCA-B field from 2009 to 2025. Based on bibliometric research, 327 review articles are identified and selected as study samples, and the publication trend of these articles is derived. The following conclusions are obtained:
  • The most popular journal is observed to be Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, followed by Sustainability, Journal of Cleaner Production, and International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. Five main collaboration groups are obtained that contain at least three influential scholars. Rooney DW, Chen L, Yap P, Osman AI, Huang L, Chen Z, and Fawzy S are observed to be the most active recent researchers and are also among the most influential scholars in LCA-B review studies. China, United States, and Italy have the most published LCA-B review papers, and China, Australia, and Spain are most active in this field.
  • Thirty highly cited review articles were selected, based on which the main findings as well as challenges are summarized and synthesized from these influential articles: (1) Low-energy buildings demonstrate superior life cycle assessment outcomes compared to net-zero energy counterparts. (2) Comparability issues persist among LCA studies of various building cases, a set of standardized guidelines and methodology is essential for facilitating consistent benchmarking and cross-case comparison in the field. (3) Interoperability issues and data sharing limitations pose significant challenges for advancing BIM-LCA applications. (4) Developing an inclusive life cycle assessment model that incorporates socio-cultural factors is crucial for achieving complete building performance evaluations. (5) The lack of standardized protocols for measuring the environmental and economic benefits is the major barrier faced with the implementation of circular economy strategies.
There are three main limitations in this study: (1) Only one database, i.e., Web of Science, is used for selecting related articles, which may omit some key documents and thus cause an incomplete review of the literature. (2) The exclusion of non-English studies may overlook social or regional perspectives. (3) The initial selected review articles lack further screening and refinement, and some articles with inconsistent research content may still remain in the literature sample. Therefore, broader search strategies are expected to be employed to provide more comprehensive literature reviews, and the step of screening and refinement is required for the retrieved article samples in future analysis of review articles.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.H.; methodology, Y.L.; software, Y.Z.; formal analysis, C.L.; writing—original draft preparation, B.C. and Y.L.; writing—review and editing, D.C.; supervision, D.W. 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.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the support of Manish K. Dixit and Jose L. Fernández-Solís from College of Architecture, Texas A&M University, United States for the figures used in this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. ISO 14040; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. International Organisation for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  2. ISO 14044; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  3. Antonis, P.; Konstanitinos, K.; Antonis, P.; Lampros, K.; Maria, T.; Ioannis, P. Performance evaluation and life cycle analysis of RES-hydrogen hybrid energy system for office building. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 6286–6298. [Google Scholar]
  4. Asdrubali, F.; Baldassarri, C.; Fthenakis, V. Life cycle analysis in the construction sector: Guiding the optimization of conventional Italian buildings. Energy Build. 2013, 64, 73–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cabeza, L.F.; Rincón, L.; Vilariño, V.; Pérez, G.; Castell, A. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 29, 394–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Blengini, G.A.; Di, C.T. Energy-saving policies and low-energy residential buildings: An LCA case study to support decision makers in Piedmont (Italy). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2010, 15, 652–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. EC-JRC-IES. International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook. In General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment—Detailed Guidance, 1st ed.; European Commission-Joint Research Centre-Institute for Environment and Sustainability: Brussels, Belgium, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bekker, P.C.F. A life-cycle approach in building. Build. Environ. 1982, 17, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Geng, S.; Wang, Y.; Zuo, J.; Zhou, Z.; Du, H.; Mao, G. Building life cycle assessment research: A review by bibliometric analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 76, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ding, G. The Development of a Multi-Criteria Approach for the Measurement of Sustainable Performance for Built Projects and Facilities. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  11. Crowther, P. Design for disassembly to recover embodied energy. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Brisbane, Australia, 22–24 September 1999. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dixit, M.K.; Fernandez-Solis, J.L.; Lavy, S.; Culp, C.H. Identification of parameters for embodied energy measurement: A literature review. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 1238–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Su, S.; Li, X.; Zhu, Y. Dynamic assessment elements and their prospective solutions in dynamic life cycle assessment of buildings. Build Environ. 2019, 158, 248–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Su, S.; Zhu, C.; Li, X.; Wang, Q. Dynamic global warming impact assessment integrating temporal variables: Application to a residential building in China. Environ. Impact. Assess. Rev. 2021, 88, 106568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Phillips, R.; Fannon, D.; Eckelman, M.J. Dynamic modeling of future climatic and technological trends on life cycle global warming impacts and occupant satisfaction in US office buildings. Energy Build. 2022, 256, 111705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ramon, D.; Allacker, K.; Trigaux, D.; Wouters, H.; van Lipzig, N.P.M. Dynamic modelling of operational energy use in a building LCA: A case study of a Belgian office building. Energy Build. 2023, 278, 112634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Asdrubali, F.; Baggio, P.; Prada, A.; Grazieschi, G.; Guattari, C. Dynamic life cycle assessment modelling of a NZEB building. Energy 2020, 191, 116489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kiss, B.; Szalay, Z. Sensitivity of buildings’ carbon footprint to electricity decarbonization: A life cycle–based multi-objective optimization approach. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2022, 28, 953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Stephan, A.; Crawford, R.H.; de Myttenaere, K. Multi-scale life cycle energy analysis of a low-density suburban neighbourhood in Melbourne, Australia. Build Environ. 2013, 68, 35–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Stephan, A.; Crawford, R.H.; Bunster, V.; Warren-Myers, G.; Moosavi, S. Towards a multiscale framework for modeling and improving the life cycle environmental performance of built stocks. J. Ind. Ecol. 2022, 26, 1195–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Motuzienė, V.; Rogoža, A.; Lapinskienė, V.; Vilutienė, T. Construction solutions for energy efficient single-family house based on its life cycle multi-criteria analysis: A case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 532–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Juan, Y.; Hsing, N. BIM-Based Approach to Simulate Building Adaptive Performance and Life Cycle Costs for an Open Building Design. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rezaei, F.; Bulle, C.; Lesage, P. Integrating building information modeling and life cycle assessment in the early and detailed building design stages. Build. Environ. 2019, 153, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Morsi, D.M.A.; Ismaeel, W.S.E.; Ehab, A.; Othman, A.A.E. BIM-based life cycle assessment for different structural system scenarios of a residential building. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2022, 13, 101802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gao, H.; Wang, D.; Du, X.; Zhao, Z. An LCA-BIM integrated model for carbon-emission calculation of prefabricated buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 203, 114775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Leichter, M.; Piccardo, C. Assessing life cycle sustainability of building renovation and reconstruction: A comprehensive review of case studies and methods. Build. Environ. 2024, 262, 111817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hu, M. Balance between energy conservation and environmental impact: Lifecycle energy analysis and life-cycle environmental impact analysis. Energy Build. 2017, 140, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vandenbroucke, M.; Galle, W.; Temmerman, N.D.; Debacker, W.; Paduart, A. Using life cycle assessment to inform decision-making for sustainable buildings. Buildings 2015, 5, 536–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sharma, A.; Saxena, A.; Sethi, M.; Shree, V.; Varun. Life cycle assessment of buildings: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 871–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jungclaus, M.A.; Grant, N.; Torres, M.I.; Arehart, J.H.; Srubar, W.V., III. Embodied carbon benchmarks of single-family residential buildings in the United States. Sust. Cities Soc. 2024, 117, 105975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Shanbhag, S.S.; Dixit, M.K. A review of evolving climate and energy economy trends to enhance the dynamic life cycle assessment of buildings. Sust. Cities Soc. 2024, 111, 105560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Han, H.; Ge, Y.; Wang, Q.; Yang, Q.; Xing, L.; Ba, S.; Chen, G.; Tian, T.; Chen, X.; Jian, P. Life cycle techno-economic-environmental optimization for capacity design and operation strategy of grid-connected building distributed multi-energy system. Renew. Energy. 2024, 230, 120766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhang, J.; Asutosh, A.T.; Zhang, Y. Sustainability Research of Building Systems Based on Neural Network Predictive Models and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)-Emergy-Carbon Footprint Method. Sustainability 2024, 16, 329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jolly, R.; Fairweather, H.; Rayburg, S.; Rodwell, J. Life Cycle Assessment and Cost Analysis of Mid-Rise Mass Timber vs. Concrete Buildings in Australia. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sultana, R.; Khanam, T.; Rashedi, A.; Rajabipour, A. Integrating Noise into Life Cycle Assessment for Sustainable High-Rise Construction: A Comparative Study of Concrete, Timber, and Steel Frames in Australia. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pan, T.; Ocłon, P.; Cisek, P.; Nowak-Ocłon, M.; Yildirim, M.A.; Wang, B.; Fan, Y.V.; Varbanov, P.S.; Alwi, S.R.W. A comparative life cycle assessment of solar combined cooling, heating, and power systems based on RESHeat technology. Appl. Energy 2024, 359, 122754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Carrobe, A.; Castell, A.; Martorell, I. Life Cycle Assessment Comparison between an Earthbag Building and a Conventional Sahrawi Cement Blocks Building. Materials 2024, 17, 1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Ilgın, H.E.; Saviharju, A.; Karjalainen, M.; Hirvilammi, T. Life Cycle Assessment of an Office Building in Finland Using a Custom Assessment Tool. Buildings 2024, 14, 1944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mulya, K.S.; Ng, W.L.; Biro, K.; Ho, W.S.; Wong, K.Y.; Woon, K.S. Decarbonizing the high-rise office building: A life cycle carbon assessment to green building rating systems in a tropical country. Build. Environ. 2024, 225, 111437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. McNeil-Ayuk, N.; Jrade, A. Integrating Building Information Modeling and Life Cycle Assessment to Enhance the Decisions Related to Selecting Construction Methods at the Conceptual Design Stage of Buildings. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kathiravel, R.; Zhu, S.; Feng, H. LCA of net-zero energy residential buildings with different HVAC systems across Canadian climates: A BIM-based fuzzy approach. Energy Build. 2024, 306, 113905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Marsh, E.; Hattam, L.; Allen, S. A method to create weighted-average life cycle impact assessment results for construction products, and enable filtering throughout the design process. J. Clean. Prod. 2025, 491, 144467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Barbero, I.; Rezgui, Y.; Beach, T.; Petri, I. Social Life Cycle Assessment in the construction sector: Current work and directions for future research. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2024, 29, 1827–1845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Starzyk, A.; Rybak-ólka, K.; Nowysz, A.; Marchwinski, J.; Kozarzewska, A.; Koszewska, J.; Pietocha, A.; Vietrova, P.; Lacek, P.; Donderewicz, M.; et al. New Zero-Carbon Wooden Building Concepts: A Review of Selected Criteria. Energies 2024, 17, 4502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Soares, N.; Santos, P.; Gervásio, H.; Costa, J.J.; da Silva, L.S. Energy efficiency and thermal performance of lightweight steel-framed (LSF) construction: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 194–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cho, Y.S.; Kim, J.H.; Hong, S.U.; Kim, Y. LCA application in the optimum design of high rise steel structures. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 3146–3153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Duan, Z.C.; Huang, Q.; Zhang, Q. Life cycle assessment of mass timber construction: A review. Build. Environ. 2022, 221, 109320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bakindi, A.; Wiberg, A.H.; Norman, J.; Marsh, E.; Allen, S. Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment (H-LCA) for Buildings and Construction Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Build. Environ. 2025, 272, 112630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sultana, R.; Rashedi, A.; Khanam, T.; Jeong, B.; Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H.; Hussain, M. Life cycle environmental sustainability and energy assessment of timber wall construction: A comprehensive overview. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kravanja, G.; Mumtaz, A.R.; Kravanja, S. A comprehensive review of the advances, manufacturing, properties, innovations, environmental impact and applications of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete (UHPC). Buildings 2024, 14, 382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kylili, A.; Fokaides, P.A. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of phase change materials (PCMs) for building applications: A review. J. Build. Eng. 2016, 6, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Albuja-Sánchez, J.; Damián-Chalán, A. Leveraging Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) for Optimized Decision Making in Adobe Construction Materials. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Koo, C.; Hong, T.; Kim, J.; Kim, H. An integrated multi-objective optimization model for establishing the low-carbon scenario 2020 to achieve the national carbon emissions reduction target for residential buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 49, 410–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Islam, H.; Jollands, M.; Setunge, S. Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost implication of residential buildings—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 42, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zuo, J.; Pullen, S.; Rameezdeen, R.; Bennetts, H.; Wang, Y.; Mao, G.Z.; Zhou, Z.H.; Du, H.B.; Duan, H.B. Green building evaluation from a life-cycle perspective in Australia: A critical review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 70, 358–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lee, N.; Tae, S.; Gong, Y.; Roh, S. Integrated building life-cycle assessment model to support South Korea’s green building certification system (G-SEED). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 76, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Skaar, C.; Labonnote, N.; Gradeci, K. From zero emission buildings (ZEB) to zero emission neighbourhoods (ZEN): A mapping review of algorithm-based LCA. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Palomar-Torres, A.; Rey-Hernández, J.M.; Rey-Hernández, A.; Rey-Martínez, F.J. Decarbonizing Near-Zero-Energy Buildings to Zero-Emission Buildings: A Holistic Life Cycle Approach to Minimize Embodied and Operational Emissions Through Circular Economy Strategies. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 2670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mohammed, N.A.C.; Grewal, K.S.; Adesanya, M.A.; Debnath, S.; Farooque, A.A.; Selopal, G.S. Net Zero Energy-Ready Buildings: A Canadian Construction Perspective and Evaluation. Adv. Sustain. Syst. 2024, 8, 2400385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Soust-Verdaguer, B.; Llatas, C.; García-Martínez, A. Simplification in life cycle assessment of single-family houses: A review of recent developments. Build. Environ. 2016, 103, 215–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gobinath, P.; Traverso, M.; Crawford, R.H. Exploring the use phase social impacts of smart heating, ventilation and air conditioning control systems: A scoping review. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2024, 30, 165–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Marinelli, S.; Lolli, F.; Gamberini, R.; Rimini, B. Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) applied to residential heat pump systems: A critical review. Energy Build. 2019, 185, 210–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lamnatou, C.; Cristofari, C.; Chemisana, D.; Canaletti, J.L. Building-integrated solar thermal systems based on vacuum-tube technology: Critical factors focusing on life-cycle environmental profile. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 65, 1199–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Finnegan, S.; Jones, C.; Sharples, S. The embodied CO2 of sustainable energy technologies used in buildings: A review article. Energy Build. 2018, 181, 50–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pirvaram, A.; Talebzadeh, N.; Leung, S.N.; O’Brien, P.G. Radiative cooling for buildings: A review of techno-enviro-economics and life-cycle assessment methods. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 162, 112415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lamnatou, C.; Chemisana, D. Concentrating solar systems: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and environmental issues. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 916–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kourkoumpas, D.S.; Benekos, G.; Nikolopoulos, N.; Karellas, S.; Grammelis, P.; Kakaras, E. A review of key environmental and energy performance indicators for the case of renewable energy systems when integrated with storage solutions. Appl. Energy 2018, 231, 380–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Saner, D.; Juraske, R.; Kübert, M.; Blum, P.; Hellweg, S.; Bayer, P. Is it only CO2 that matters? A life cycle perspective on shallow geothermal systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 1798–1813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Yan, C.; Cheng, Q.; Cai, H. Life-Cycle Optimization of a Chiller Plant with Quantified Analysis of Uncertainty and Reliability in Commercial Buildings. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Feng, H.B.; Zhao, J.F.; Zhang, H.N.; Zhu, S.Y.; Li, D.Z.; Thurairajah, N. Uncertainties in whole-building life cycle assessment: A systematic review. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 50, 104191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Cellura, M.; Longo, S.; Mistretta, M. Sensitivity analysis to quantify uncertainty in life cycle assessment: The case study of an Italian tile. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 4697–4705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Su, S.; Zhang, H.; Zuo, J.; Li, X.D.; Yuan, J.F. Assessment models and dynamic variables for dynamic life cycle assessment of buildings: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 26199–26214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Salati, M.; Costa, A.A.; Silvestre, J.D. A Comprehensive Review of Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment for Buildings: Exploring Key Processes and Methodologies. Sustainability 2025, 17, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lu, K.; Jiang, X.Y.; Yu, J.Y.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Skitmore, M. Integration of life cycle assessment and life cycle cost using building information modeling: A critical review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 285, 125438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Tam, W.Y.V.; Le, K.N.; Tran, C.N.N.; Wang, J.Y. A review on contemporary computational programs for Building’s life-cycle energy consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions assessment: An empirical study in Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 4220–4230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Li, C.Z.; Lai, X.L.; Xiao, B.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Guo, S.; Zhao, Y.Y. A holistic review on life cycle energy of buildings: An analysis from 2009 to 2019. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 134, 110372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Altaf, M.; Alaloul, W.S.; Musarat, M.A.; Qureshi, A.H. Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) of construction projects: Sustainability perspective. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 25, 12071–12118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hurst, L.J.; O’Donovan, T.S. A review of the limitations of life cycle energy analysis for the design of fabric first low-energy domestic retrofits. Energy Build. 2019, 203, 109447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Larsen, V.G.; Tollin, N.; Sattrup, P.A.; Birkved, M.; Holmboe, T. What are the challenges in assessing circular economy for the built environment? A literature review on integrating LCA, LCC and S-LCA in life cycle sustainability assessment, LCSA. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 50, 104203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Satola, D.; Röck, M.; Houlihan-Wiberg, A.; Gustavsen, A. Life cycle GHG emissions of residential buildings in humid subtropical and tropical climates: Systematic review and analysis. Buildings 2020, 11, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Abd Rashid, A.F.; Yusoff, S. A review of life cycle assessment method for building industry. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 244–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Balasbaneh, A.T.; Sher, W. A systematic literature review of life cycle sustainability assessment of mass timber in the construction industry toward circular economy. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024, 1–37. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-024-05377-9 (accessed on 15 October 2024).
  83. Yang, M.Y.; Chen, L.; Wang, J.J.; Msigwa, G.; Osman, A.; Fawzy, S.; Rooney, D.W.; Yap, P.S. Circular economy strategies for combating climate change and other environmental issues. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2023, 21, 55–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hossain, M.U.; Ng, S.T. Critical consideration of buildings’ environmental impact assessment towards adoption of circular economy: An analytical review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 205, 763–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Husmann, J.; Beylot, A.; Perdu, F.; Pinochet, M.; Cerdas, F.; Herrmann, C. Towards consistent life cycle assessment modelling of circular economy strategies for electric vehicle batteries. Sustain. Prod. Consump. 2024, 50, 556–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. AlJaber, A.; Alasmari, E.; Martinez-Vazquez, P.; Baniotopoulos, C. Life cycle cost in circular economy of buildings by applying building information modeling (BIM): A state of the art. Buildings 2023, 13, 1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Neupane, B.; Belkadi, F.; Formentini, M.; Rozière, E.; Hilloulin, B.; Abdolmaleki, S.F.; Mensah, M. Machine learning algorithms for supporting life cycle assessment studies: An analytical review. Sustain. Prod. Consump. 2025, 56, 37–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Berges-Alvarez, I.; Martínez-Rocamora, A.; Marrero, M. A Systematic Review of BIM-Based Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment for Buildings. Sustainability 2024, 16, 11070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Tam, V.W.Y.; Zhou, Y.J.; Illankoon, C.; Le, K.N. A critical review on BIM and LCA integration using the ISO 14040 framework. Build. Environ. 2022, 213, 108865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Teng, Y.; Xu, J.Y.; Pan, W.; Zhang, Y. A systematic review of the integration of building information modeling into life cycle assessment. Build. Environ. 2022, 221, 109260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lu, K.; Deng, X.Y.; Jiang, X.Y.; Cheng, B.Q.; Tam, V.W.Y. A review on life cycle cost analysis of buildings based on building information modeling. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2023, 29, 268–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Shan, R.; Lai, W.; Tang, H.; Leng, X.; Gu, W. Residential Building Renovation Considering Energy, Carbon Emissions, and Cost: An Approach Integrating Machine Learning and Evolutionary Generation. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Rutkowski, R.; Raczynski, M.; Iwankowicz, R.; Nowak, R. Digital Twin in the Design and Dynamic Assessment of Energy Performance of Multi-Family Buildings. Energies 2024, 17, 6150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Ploszaj-Mazurek, M.; Rynska, E. Artificial Intelligence and Digital Tools for Assisting Low-Carbon Architectural Design: Merging the Use of Machine Learning, Large Language Models, and Building Information Modeling for Life Cycle Assessment Tool Development. Energies 2024, 17, 2997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Zheng, L.; Yan, X. A review of buildings dynamic life cycle studies by bibliometric methods. Energy Build. 2025, 332, 115453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Obrecht, T.P.; Röck, M.; Hoxha, E.; Passer, A. BIM and LCA integration: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Dixit, M.K.; Fernández-Solís, J.L.; Lavy, S.; Culp, C.H. Need for an embodied energy measurement protocol for buildings: A review paper. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 3730–3743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Measuring Scholarly Impact: Methods and Practice; Ding, Y., Rousseau, R., Wolfram, D., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 285–320. [Google Scholar]
  99. 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]
  100. Teng, Y.; Li, K.; Pan, W.; Ng, T. Reducing building life cycle carbon emissions through prefabrication: Evidence from and gaps in empirical studies. Build. Environ. 2018, 132, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. 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]
  102. Ruiz-Valero, L.; Arceo, A.; Kesik, T.; Touchie, M.; O’Brien, W. Life cycle assessment of housing and neighbourhoods: A systematic review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2025, 210, 115249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. 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]
  104. Rahman, M.M.; Oni, A.O.; Gemechu, E.; Kumar, A. Assessment of energy storage technologies: A review. Energy Conv. Manag. 2020, 223, 113295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Manso, M.; Teotónio, I.; Silva, C.M.; Cruz, C.O. Green roof and green wall benefits and costs: A review of the quantitative evidence. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 135, 110111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Chen, L.; Huang, L.P.; Hua, J.M.; Chen, Z.H.; Wei, L.L.; Osman, A.I.; Fawzy, S.; Rooney, D.W.; Dong, L.; Yap, P.S. Green construction for low-carbon cities: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2023, 21, 1627–1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Schiavoni, S.; D’Alessandro, F.; Bianchi, F.; Asdrubali, F. Insulation materials for the building sector: A review and comparative analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 62, 988–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Chau, C.K.; Leung, T.M.; Ng, W.Y. A review on life cycle assessment, life cycle energy assessment and life cycle carbon emissions assessment on buildings. Appl. Energy 2015, 143, 395–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ghisellini, P.; Ripa, M.; Ulgiati, S. Exploring environmental and economic costs and benefits of a circular economy approach to the construction and demolition sector. A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 178, 618–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Wu, P.; Wang, J.; Wang, X. A critical review of the use of 3-D printing in the construction industry. Autom. Constr. 2016, 68, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Aditya, L.; Mahlia, T.M.I.; Rismanchi, B.; Ng, H.M.; Hasan, M.H.; Metselaar, H.S.C.; Muraza, O.; Aditiya, H.B. A review on insulation materials for energy conservation in buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 73, 1352–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Hertwich, E.G.; Ali, S.; Ciacci, L.; Fishman, T.; Heeren, N.; Masanet, E.; Asghari, F.N.; Olivetti, E.; Pauliuk, S.; Tu, Q.; et al. Material efficiency strategies to reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with buildings, vehicles, and electronics—A review. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 043004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Ramesh, T.; Prakash, R.; Shukla, K.K. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 1592–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Mukherjee, C.; Denney, J.; Mbonimpa, E.G.; Slagley, J.; Bhowmik, R. A review on municipal solid waste-to-energy trends in the USA. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 119, 109512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. D’Oca, S.; Hong, T.; Langevin, J. The human dimensions of energy use in buildings: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 731–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Kamali, M.; Hewage, K. Life cycle performance of modular buildings: A critical review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 62, 1171–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Anand, C.K.; Amor, B. Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: A critical review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 67, 408–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Khan, S.A.; Koç, M.; Al-Ghamdi, S.G. Sustainability assessment, potentials and challenges of 3D printed concrete structures: A systematic review for built environmental applications. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 303, 127027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Nwodo, M.N.; Anumba, C.J. A review of life cycle assessment of buildings using a systematic approach. Build. Environ. 2019, 162, 106290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Soust-Verdaguer, B.; Llatas, C.; García-Martínez, A. Critical review of bim-based LCA method to buildings. Energy Build. 2017, 136, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Buyle, M.; Braet, J.; Audenaert, A. Life cycle assessment in the construction sector: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 26, 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Vilches, A.; Garcia-Martinez, A.; Sanchez-Montañes, B. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of building refurbishment: A literature review. Energy Build. 2017, 135, 286–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Shukla, A.K.; Sudhakar, K.; Baredar, P. Recent advancement in BIPV product technologies: A review. Energy Build. 2017, 140, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Fenner, A.E.; Kibert, C.J.; Woo, J.; Morque, S.; Razkenari, M.; Hakim, H.; Lu, X.S. The carbon footprint of buildings: A review of methodologies and applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 94, 1142–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Panteli, C.; Kylili, A.; Fokaides, P.A. Building information modelling applications in smart buildings: From design to commissioning and beyond a critical review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 265, 121766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Ingrao, C.; Messineo, A.; Beltramo, R.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Ioppolo, G. How can life cycle thinking support sustainability of buildings? Investigating life cycle assessment applications for energy efficiency and environmental performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 201, 556–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Hong, T.; Langevin, J.; Sun, K. Building simulation: Ten challenges. Build. Simul. 2018, 11, 871–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 15 07751 g002
Figure 2. Research framework of this study.
Figure 2. Research framework of this study.
Applsci 15 07751 g002
Applsci 15 07751 g003
Figure 3. Distribution of the 327 review studies from 2009 to 2025.
Figure 3. Distribution of the 327 review studies from 2009 to 2025.
Applsci 15 07751 g003
Applsci 15 07751 g004
Figure 4. Visualization of article’s sources.
Figure 4. Visualization of article’s sources.
Applsci 15 07751 g004
Applsci 15 07751 g005
Figure 5. Mapping of countries active in LCA_B review paper.
Figure 5. Mapping of countries active in LCA_B review paper.
Applsci 15 07751 g005
Applsci 15 07751 g006
Figure 6. Mapping of co-authorship in LCA-B review papers.
Figure 6. Mapping of co-authorship in LCA-B review papers.
Applsci 15 07751 g006
Applsci 15 07751 g007
Figure 7. Mapping of author-specified keywords.
Figure 7. Mapping of author-specified keywords.
Applsci 15 07751 g007
Applsci 15 07751 g008
Figure 8. Classification of keywords based on four-fold philosophical framework.
Figure 8. Classification of keywords based on four-fold philosophical framework.
Applsci 15 07751 g008
Table 3. Regional analysis of LCA-B review articles.
Table 3. Regional analysis of LCA-B review articles.
CountryTotal Link StrengthArticle NumberCitation NumberNorm. CitationsAvg. CitationsAvg. Norm. CitationsAvg. Pub. Year
North Ireland416119937.5199.86.252022
China37745444281.798.71.822020
Malaysia456121510.2202.51.712018
Portugal211069813.269.81.322019
Australia25131316039.4101.91.272019
India56716328.9233.11.272016
England21631207934.567.11.112020
Belgium1251592816.461.91.092021
USA24536387438.7107.61.082018
Switzerland6411116911.6106.31.062016
Italy16633303634.892.01.052019
Spain27530361731.1120.61.042018
Denmark621368212.652.50.972021
Germany6115111413.774.30.912019
Lithuania2772566.036.60.852020
Austria98104728.147.20.812021
Canada24732229725.871.80.812021
Sweden4564924.682.00.772017
Norway69115437.849.40.712019
France9722127114.657.80.662019
Brazil27134957.338.10.562020
Finland2351932.638.60.512020
Scotland3252362.347.20.472018
South Korea60125735.147.80.422014
Table 4. Analysis of influential scholars in LCA-B review articles.
Table 4. Analysis of influential scholars in LCA-B review articles.
ScholarAffiliationArticle NumbersTotal CitationsNorm. CitationsAvg. CitationsAvg. Norm. CitationsAvg. Pub. Year
Fawzy SQueen’s University Belfast3104427.9348.09.312022
Rooney DWQueen’s University Belfast4110635.5276.58.872023
Chen LChongqing University5115641.6231.28.322023
Yap PXi’an Jiaotong Liverpool University5115641.6231.28.322023
Osman AIQueen’s University Belfast382024.1273.38.042023
Chen ZXi’an Jiaotong Liverpool University323718.679.06.212023
Huang LChongqing University323718.679.06.212023
Allen SUniversity of Bath31497.949.72.632022
Dixit MKTexas A&M University48207.5205.01.892015
Rock MKatholieke University Leuven31664.655.31.542022
Soust-verdaguer BUniversity of Seville46065.8151.51.452018
Llatas CUniversity of Seville35314.2177.01.392017
Amor BUniversity of Sherbrooke45935.4148.31.342018
Garcia-martinez AUniversity of Seville47615.3190.31.322018
Al-ghamdi SGHamad Bin Khalifa University31653.555.01.162021
Ng STCity University of Hong Kong32053.568.31.162020
Kylili AFrederick University33573.2119.01.062017
Sala SEuropean Commission32873.195.71.022019
Roeck MGraz University of Technology41924.148.01.012021
Verones FNorwegian University of Science & Technology34773.0159.01.002015
Tam VWYWestern Sydney University52194.743.80.942021
Fokaides PAKaunas University of Technology43993.799.80.942018
Cellura MUniversity of Palermo55954.7119.00.932014
Zuo JUniversity of Adelaide43873.696.80.892018
Sonnemann GUniversity of Bordeaux32782.792.70.892019
Mistretta MUniversity Mediterranea Reggio Calabria44833.4120.80.862013
Passer AGraz of University Technology73785.954.00.852020
Longo SUniversity of Palermo44203.3105.00.822014
Birkved MUniversity of Southern Denmark41843.246.00.802021
Allacker KKatholieke University Leuven41683.142.00.772020
Saade MRMState University of Campinas (Spain)42222.855.50.702019
Shin SHanyang University41912.047.80.492011
Tae SHanyang University73323.247.40.452013
Ghisi EFederal University of Santa Catarina31061.235.30.412020
Chemisana DUniversity of Lleida52201.944.00.382018
Roh SHanyang University42031.450.80.362015
Table 5. Analysis of keywords in LCA-B review articles.
Table 5. Analysis of keywords in LCA-B review articles.
KeywordTotal Link StrengthOccurrencesAvg. CitationsAvg. Norm. CitationsAvg. Pub. Year
Climate change1710102.4 2.72 2020
Carbon emissions119127.7 2.45 2021
Construction industry126186.3 1.52 2019
Building materials96154.5 1.42 2020
Built environment22970.0 1.38 2021
Building life cycle157139.9 1.29 2018
Concrete105102.4 1.27 2017
Buildings7738117.2 1.20 2020
Energy1210134.1 1.16 2014
Building information modeling542778.1 1.16 2021
Circular economy452065.8 1.12 2021
Life cycle energy147214.0 1.08 2017
Literature review19932.3 1.07 2021
Review3518117.6 1.06 2018
Sustainability693171.4 1.06 2020
Embodied carbon241347.7 1.05 2021
Life cycle assessment28223783.8 1.03 2019
Environmental impact assessment17875.4 1.03 2019
Life cycle sustainability assessment211143.5 0.92 2022
Environmental performance9551.8 0.91 2017
Life cycle impact assessment6590.8 0.89 2018
Sustainable building17760.4 0.86 2020
Greenhouse gas11775.7 0.86 2019
Embodied energy2816123.3 0.85 2018
Global warming potential9548.6 0.83 2021
Energy efficiency361696.9 0.82 2018
Carbon footprint13956.9 0.79 2020
Environmental impacts321943.6 0.79 2020
Energy consumption5585.4 0.78 2018
Life cycle cost332271.4 0.76 2019
Green building10578.4 0.74 2019
Renewable energy10658.7 0.69 2018
Social life cycle assessment1165.2 0.59 2023
Life cycle9649.8 0.55 2018
Construction18638.2 0.50 2021
Bibliometric analysis14639.2 0.47 2021
Table 8. Key findings, challenges/future research directions from 30 highly cited papers.
Table 8. Key findings, challenges/future research directions from 30 highly cited papers.
Key FindingsChallenges/Future Research Directions
2009–2015
  • Excessive use of passive/active features in buildings can be counterproductive.
  • Low-energy buildings outperform self-sufficient (zero operating energy) buildings in life cycle assessments (LCAs).
  • Embodied energy becomes more significant as buildings become energy efficient.
  • Lack of accurate data and standardized methodologies hinders research.
  • Inhabitant behavior is unpredictable, limiting LCA practicality.
  • Case studies are difficult to compare due to varying properties (building type, climate, regulations, etc.).
  • Urban areas dominate research, with rural areas underrepresented.
  • The use-phase of buildings contributes the most to environmental impacts.
  • Explore effective incentive mechanisms and policy measures to motivate building developers and designers to integrate LCA in early design phase of construction projects.
  • Standardize embodied energy protocols and LCA methodologies.
  • Establish guidelines to address differing parameters and uncertainties.
  • Extend LCA scope to indoor environmental quality, building location and social dimensions.
2016–2019
  • Prefabricated structures tend to exhibit superior long-term sustainability metrics when assessed across entire life cycle phases.
  • LCA, LCC, and social life cycle assessment (SLCA) can be systematically integrated within a life cycle sustainability assessment model (LCSA).
  • When LCA is applied across the entire building scale, decisions based on isolated LCA of materials or components may lead to incorrect conclusions.
  • 3D printing and modular construction show promise for sustainability.
  • Integration of BIM-LCA simplifies early-stage design decisions.
  • Most LCAs focus on energy refurbishment, neglecting structural repairs.
  • Carbon footprint studies often yield inconsistent results.
  • Integrate human dimensions into the framework of LCA-B.
  • Include social and cultural dimensions in assessments.
  • Develop frameworks to integrate BIM and LCA seamlessly.
  • Standardize carbon emission measurement and reporting.
  • Integrate building design tools with LCA to enhance material flow and LCA data management.
2020–2025
  • Levelized cost of energy decreases with storage duration.
  • BIM integration with LCA improves design accuracy but faces interoperability challenges.
  • 3D printing concrete technology offers material flexibility and cost savings.
  • Key challenges for green construction: higher costs, longer timelines, poor staff coordination/awareness, data gaps, and inadequate policies.
  • Construction phase accounts for 20–50% of total carbon emissions.
  • Few studies clarify how green roofs and walls improve quality of life, biodiversity, esthetics, environmental health, and recreational opportunities.
  • Develop an LCA-B model that considers the behavioral factors of stakeholders.
  • Optimize BIM-LCA integration for replicable results.
  • Formulate stringent policies and enhance public understanding of green building to advance universal accessibility.
  • Promote negative emissions technologies for buildings.
  • Develop a systematic framework for life cycle assessment of net/nearly zero energy buildings.
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

Zhang, Y.; Lu, Y.; Huang, Z.; Chen, D.; Cheng, B.; Wang, D.; Lu, C. Insight from Review Articles of Life Cycle Assessment for Buildings. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 7751. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15147751

AMA Style

Zhang Y, Lu Y, Huang Z, Chen D, Cheng B, Wang D, Lu C. Insight from Review Articles of Life Cycle Assessment for Buildings. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(14):7751. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15147751

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Yang, Yuehong Lu, Zhijia Huang, Demin Chen, Bo Cheng, Dong Wang, and Chengyu Lu. 2025. "Insight from Review Articles of Life Cycle Assessment for Buildings" Applied Sciences 15, no. 14: 7751. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15147751

APA Style

Zhang, Y., Lu, Y., Huang, Z., Chen, D., Cheng, B., Wang, D., & Lu, C. (2025). Insight from Review Articles of Life Cycle Assessment for Buildings. Applied Sciences, 15(14), 7751. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15147751

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