Next Article in Journal
Experimental and DIC Study of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened by Basalt and Carbon Textile Reinforced Mortars in Flexure
Next Article in Special Issue
A Comparison of the Project Management Methodologies PRINCE2 and PMBOK in Managing Repetitive Construction Projects
Previous Article in Journal
Experimental and Numerical Investigation of a Novel Demountable Timber–Concrete Composite Floor
Previous Article in Special Issue
Thermal Diagnosis of Ventilation and Cooling Systems in a Sports Hall—A Case Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 13
Issue 7
10.3390/buildings13071764
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Trends and Interdisciplinarity Integration in the Development of the Research in the Fields of Sustainable, Healthy and Digital Buildings and Cities

by
Lina Seduikyte
1,*,
Indrė Gražulevičiūtė-Vileniškė
1,
Ingrida Povilaitienė
1,
Paris A. Fokaides
2 and
Domantas Lingė
1
1
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Kaunas University of Technology, Studentu Str. 48, LT-51367 Kaunas, Lithuania
2
School of Engineering, Frederick University, 7, Frederickou Str., Nicosia 1036, Cyprus
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2023, 13(7), 1764; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071764
Submission received: 16 June 2023 / Revised: 3 July 2023 / Accepted: 9 July 2023 / Published: 11 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Healthy, Digital and Sustainable Buildings and Cities)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This article provides a thorough bibliometric analysis of significant research trends in sustainability from 1988 until now, focusing on sustainable, healthy and digital buildings and cities. It exemplifies how research emphasis has shifted from explicit ecological investigations to nature-based solutions and city greening programs, with a rising interest in the many responsibilities of urban stakeholders in attaining sustainability. Despite weak integration at the literature and author cooperation levels, the “healthy buildings and cities” topic indicates promise for multidisciplinary integration. The “digital buildings and cities” topic, on the other hand, presents a more particular concern with strong cross-cluster collaboration and significant integration possibilities. Global relevance has been demonstrated through research on “sustainable buildings and cities,” mainly in journal papers. This topic’s study clusters show remarkable synergy across management, transportation, ecology, remote sensing and environmental engineering domains. In comparison to “healthy buildings and cities” and “digital buildings and cities” topics, the study of “sustainable buildings and cities” demonstrates a deeper level of interdisciplinary integration, highlighting the significant potential for further exploration within sustainability science research. This study emphasizes the ongoing worldwide relevance of sustainability science research and identifies significant opportunities for multidisciplinary integration across the investigated subjects.

1. Introduction

The assessment of the sustainability of buildings and cities is at the forefront of the environmental analysis of the built environment. At this point, at the European and World level, a significant number of research projects, standards and methods have been developed, to assess the sustainability aspects. At the same time, all techniques to assess buildings are digitized, as we are moving fast to the Industry 4.0 era, where all buildings-related information should be easily communicated among designers, users and stakeholders.
Buildings are essential components of cities, where people spend a substantial part of their lives living, working, studying or relaxing. However, the same buildings and the whole construction industry are also responsible for considerable energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and waste generation. Therefore, how the buildings and entire cities are designed, constructed and configured to operate is crucial for reducing the environmental impact of urbanization, improving the health and well-being of the population and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals [1] adopted by 193 countries.
The concept of sustainable cities has evolved over time and has been defined in different ways by different scholars and organizations. According to one of the initial explanations of sustainable development, it is “a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [2]. In other words, sustainable development seeks to find “a balance between economic development, environmental protection and social improvement” [3,4], and the main aim of sustainable urban development is to create “beautiful, distinctive, secure, healthy and high-quality places for people to live and work in that foster a strong sense of community, pride, social equity, integration and identity” [5]. Recently, there has been a growing recognition that achieving this certain objective is not solely reliant on tangible measures but “based on the principles of democracy, gender equality, solidarity, the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights, including freedom and equal opportunities for all” [6].

2. Theoretical Background, Literature Overview

Approaches to Sustainable Buildings and Cities

Several approaches towards sustainable buildings and cities were identified throughout the analyzed literature, depending on the context, priorities and resources available. The most common approaches are presented below.
Compact city: it is one of the leading paradigms of both sustainable development [7] and the New Urbanism movement [8]. The compactness of the city can be defined in the following three aspects [9]. Firstly, the urban form should be defined by high-density settlements, fewer dependences on automobiles and clear boundaries from the surrounding areas. Then spatial features should encourage mixed land use, diversity of life as well as clear and unique identities. Finally, social functions should aim for social equality, self-sufficiency in daily life and independence of government. The main critique of this approach is that compact cities, in order to reduce sprawl and minimize environmental impact, promote densification, whereas low-density urban forms are often considered to be more livable. However, that critique has been denied [10] as residents from compact cities are more satisfied with their neighborhood because, despite high density, this model also provides a better public transport network, accessibility and a variety of land uses.
Eco-city: the concept of eco-city is also broad; there are many overlaps with other approaches. Still, the following ten critical eco-city dimensions can be distinguished [11]: compact and mixed-use urban form, an abundance of the natural environment, walking and cycling infrastructure, extensive environmental technologies for water, energy and waste management, the central city with subcenters, high-quality public realm, human scale physical environment, innovation and driven economy, visionary—“debate and decide” and sustainability-based decision making. Essentially, eco-cities focus on environmental sustainability, promoting green infrastructure, renewable energy and zero-waste strategies while addressing social and economic issues [12,13,14,15].
Resilient city: resilience, in terms of cities, refers to the ability to absorb, adapt and respond to changes in an urban system. For this reason, cities should be conceptualized as complex adaptive systems and divided into components and analytical elements. Hence, this systematic approach allows a better understanding of how urban system design, planning and management work towards resiliency enhancements [16]. Overall, resilient cities focus on the adaptation to the challenges posed by climate change, such as extreme weather, natural disasters or sea-level rise, ensuring the continuity of essential services and minimizing the impact on the population [17,18,19,20].
Digital city: offer innovative services based on broadband communication and service-oriented computing [21]. Digital cities were built and made operational throughout the developed countries between the 1990s and the 2000s. Digital cities are distinguished by activities based on online services [22]. The fast spread of developing digital technologies, digital service creation and delivery necessitate new and more organized approaches to service design, development and management. There are numerous perspectives and strategic elements for developing digital services from diverse stakeholders, with different solutions stating how to design the digital service inside IT infrastructures or how to reuse design techniques learnt from prior Digital City initiatives [23,24,25].
According to a literature review, Digital City and Smart City are the most commonly used terms to describe a city’s smartness. Smart cities appear to be the inevitable successors of digital cities.
Smart city: there are many definitions of smart cities. The reason for that is the application of the term for two different kinds of domains: “hard” and “soft” [26]. The “hard” one includes buildings, energy grids, natural resources, water and waste management and mobility, while the “soft one” covers culture, education, policy innovations, social inclusion and governments. Depending on the domain, the role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) is also different—decisive for the “hard” and not so much in the “soft” domain. Anyway, the common conception of smart cities is the use of digital technologies to optimize urban systems, such as transport, energy, water and waste management, improving efficiency, reducing costs and enhancing citizens’ quality of life [27,28,29].
Healthy city: the World Health Organization (WHO) evolved the concept of “Healthy Cities” to improve city-based public health and environmental hygiene with a special focus on marginalized urban areas [30]. “Healthy Cities Project” was launched in Europe in the 1980s and has spread globally. The main principle of the initiative was that “health can be improved by modifying living conditions, namely, the physical environment and the social and economic conditions of everyday life” [31]. Eventually, the tools to measure the index of healthy cities were developed [32], and the index’s indicators fall into four main sectors: health, health services, socioeconomic indicators and environmental indicators. The latter is strongly dependent on urban development strategies. To succeed in the creation of healthy and sustainable cities, urban development has to promote access to green spaces, sports and leisure facilities, mitigation measures of air, water and noise pollution, walkability and cycling and public transportation modes. The observed spatial inequality can also reveal the existence of social inequality [33].
Differences in various approaches to sustainable buildings and cities are presented in Table 1.
This review aims to analyze patterns and trends of the scientific research related to sustainable, healthy and digital buildings and cities. Quantitative literature analysis and graphical visualization and analysis—knowledge mapping—were applied to understand better the current research situation and research frontiers [34] in the mentioned areas. According to Chen [35], the frontier of research reveals the emergence of theoretical trends and new topics. According to Price [34], the research frontier is the dynamic nature and ideological status of the research field; generally, the research frontier consists of approximately 40 or 50 recently published scientific papers. Knowledge mapping is part of the broader field of science metrology and is defined as a cross-disciplinary field of applied mathematics, information science and computer science; the purpose of it is to extract and visually reorganize the knowledge from a large number of previously published scientific research documents and to carry out knowledge discovery [36,37]. This study provides insights into research trends, identifies gaps and opportunities for multidisciplinary integration and highlights the global importance of sustainability science. By quantitatively analyzing the scientific literature, this analysis contributes to a deeper understanding of such areas as healthy, digital and sustainable buildings and cities and informs future research directions.

3. Methods

Web of Science (WoS) database was selected as a source of information and bibliometric data for quantitative literature analysis and knowledge mapping. According to Su et al. [37], WoS provides more complete references, indexes and researcher relationships than other databases. Chen [38] also mentions this database’s high standard and wide span: reference searches can be used to track previous research and monitor recent developments in content over the 100 years that are fully indexed.
CiteSpace 6.2.R2 Advanced was applied in this research. It is a citation visual analysis software developed from the background of scientometrics and knowledge visualization, which is specifically used to identify potential knowledge contained in the scientific literature [35,36,38,39]. According to its creator, this software can help researchers understand the basic knowledge of the discipline, find the classical literature in the field, discover research frontiers, and clarify the context of research evolution [39]. This software is widely used for bibliometric analysis and visualization. According to Su et al. [37], more than 15 000 papers have using the CiteSpace tool been published. The data format processed by CiteSpace software is based on the WoS data download format [38] and allows generating the merged networks, that characterize the development of the analyzed field over time, showing the most important footprints of the related research activities and performing cluster analysis, author cooperative analysis and co-citation (the frequency with which two documents are cited together by other documents) analysis [36,37]. The visual display of the bibliometric analysis of the CiteSpace tool can be characterized by network character with nodes (points in a network diagram at which links intersect or branch), links (the relationship between two nodes) and clusters (a group of similar findings that occur together).
This study collected the bibliometric data from the WoS core collection database, for the period 1988 until now, of the papers on the following topics:
-
Healthy buildings and cities: word combination “healthy buildings and cities” was entered into WoS database search engine;
-
Digital buildings and cities: word combination “digital buildings and cities” was entered into WoS database search engine;
-
Sustainable buildings and cities: word combination “sustainable buildings and cities” was entered into WoS database search engine.
The data were collected on the 28 February 2023. Publications issued in the year 2023 were included in the analysis sample, as the aim of the research was to identify research frontiers. Considering this, excluding the newest publications would not allow comprehensive research outcomes. In total, the data of 13,804 papers were collected (Table 2 and Table 3): 1064 papers on healthy buildings and cities, 2734 papers on digital buildings and cities and 10,006 papers on sustainable buildings and cities were identified.
This study performed the bibliometric analysis of this volume of the identified scientific literature and displayed the results visually.
Additionally, a separate topic of “sustainable cities” was analyzed, as the term “sustainable city” includes all previously mentioned fields. Result: 2060 articles selected for the systematic literature review.

4. Results

4.1. Healthy Buildings and Cities

The search on “healthy buildings and cities” provided the smallest number of results compared to other searches. During the time span 1988–February 2023, 1064 papers were published. The first three papers appeared in 1988, and the growth of published research in this field started in 2005. In 2021 and 2022, 130 and 125 publications were recorded, demonstrating the growing interest in the field. In 2018, 265 publications were recorded due to several important conferences focused on this topic held that year, including the 34th International Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture (PLEA)—Smart and Healthy Within the Two-Degree Limit. It is important to note that the predominant publication type in this search was conference papers and proceedings. The dominant fields of research according to WoS categories are Green Sustainable Science and Technology (288 publications), Architecture (228 publications), Public Environmental Occupational Health (212) and Environmental Sciences (179 publications). Civil Engineering has 103 recorded studies and Urban Studies—91 in the analyzed period. Three most cited publications in this research area were published in 2013, 2003 and 2017. The most cited contribution—multidisciplinary peer-reviewed research on contributions of nature or ecosystems to human well-being by Russell et al. [40]—has 328 citations in total; theoretical analysis of sense of place as a public health construct by Frumkin [41] has 305 citations in total, and the contribution by Nieuwenhuijsen et al. [42] from the field of epidemiology with 263 total number of citations deals with the involvement of environmental epidemiologists in better understanding of health effects of green spaces in urban environments. This demonstrates that the topic of “healthy buildings and cities” is under a wide umbrella of sustainability research and is strongly related to architecture, civil engineering, environmental and urban studies, and public health.
CiteSpace visualization for the search “healthy buildings and cities” are presented in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3.
It is possible to summarize that knowledge mapping of the topic “healthy buildings and cities” as reflected in the WoS database in the period 1988–2023 reveals its untapped potential for interdisciplinary integration, as it shares multiple topics. However, the existing research appears little integrated from the points of view of the literature sources and authors collaboration.

4.2. Digital Buildings and Cities

During the time span 1992–2023, 2734 papers were published. The first two papers appeared in 1992, and the growth of published research in this field started in 2005, exceeding several dozens of publications per year. In 2020, 2021 and 2022, respectively, 317, 391 and 366 publications were recorded, demonstrating the growing interest in the field. In 2019 394 publications were recorded due to several important conferences focused on this topic held that year, including the International Conference on Climate Resilient Cities—Energy Efficiency and Renewables in the Digital Era (CISBAT). It is important to note that the predominant publication type in this search was conference papers and proceedings, similar to the previous search. The dominant fields of research, according to WoS categories, are Remote Sensing (474 publications), Construction Building Technology (470 publications), Green Sustainable Science Technology (465) and Energy Fuels (411 publications). Civil Engineering has 206 recorded studies in the analyzed period, Architecture—148 and Urban Studies—128. The most cited publication in this research area was published in 2014 by Zanella et al. [43] and is review of technologies of internet of things and their application to smart cities. This contribution has 3061 citations in total. Other two most cited contributions were published in 2014 and 2019, respectively. Publication by Neirotti et al. [44] has total number of 1081 citations and is analysis and classification of smart city initiatives aimed and policy makers and city managers. Publication by Sachs et al. [45] is cited 561 times in total; it is theoretical study of sustainability science distinguishing necessary transformations, including the digital revolution for sustainable development, for the achievement of sustainable development goals. This demonstrates that the topic of “digital buildings and cities” is more specialized compared to previously analyzed.
CiteSpace visualization for the search “digital buildings and cities” are presented in Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6.
It is possible to summarize that knowledge mapping of the topic “digital buildings and cities” as reflected in the WoS database, reveals multiple shared topics and a wide array of research clusters with significant cases of cross-cluster collaboration and cluster integration. Compared to previously analyzed topic, research in the “digital buildings and cities” field appears more integrated, although with remaining untapped integration potential.

4.3. Sustainable Buildings and Cities

The search on “sustainable buildings and cities” provided the most significant number of results compared to other searches. During the time span 1988– 2023, 10 006 papers were published. The first three papers appeared in 1992, and the growth of published research in this field started in 2005. In 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022, respectively 1144, 1114, 1254 and 1237 publications were recorded, demonstrating the growing interest in the field. It is important to note that the predominant publication type in this search is a journal article, with two leading journals—Sustainable Cities and Society and Sustainability. The dominant fields of research according to WoS categories are Green Sustainable Science and Technology (3650 publications), Construction Building Technology (3130 publications), Energy Fuels (2779) and Environmental Sciences (2193 publications). Civil Engineering has 1637 recorded studies in the analyzed period, Urban Studies—1002, Architecture—558. The most cited publications in this area of research were published in 2014, 2007 and 2015, respectively. Contribution by Cabeza et al. [46] has 730 citations in total; it is the literature review on life cycle assessment, life cycle energy analysis and life cycle cost analysis studies carried out for environmental evaluation of buildings and building related industry and sector. Publiaction by Kennedy et al. [47] is cited 730 times in total as well and is comparative study of metabolism in cities—water, materials, energy and nutrient flows. The study by Haaland and van den Bosch [48] is cited 608 times in total and provides a literature review on the effects of urban densification and compact city development on urban green space and its planning. The research areas of “digital buildings and cities” and “sustainable buildings and cities” share common most cited publication—the previously mentioned study on implementation of sustainable development goals by Sachs et al. [45]. This demonstrates that “sustainable buildings and cities” is under a broad umbrella of sustainability research with currently predominant technological disciplines.
CiteSpace visualization for the search “sustainable buildings and cities” are presented in Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9.
It is possible to summarize that knowledge mapping of the topic “sustainable buildings and cities” as reflected in the WoS database, reveals multiple shared topics and a wide array of interrelated research clusters with significant cases of cross-cluster collaboration and cluster integration. Compared to the topics “healthy buildings and cities” and “digital buildings and cities”, research in “sustainable buildings and cities” appears more integrated, demonstrating that sustainability science research holds integration potential.

4.4. Sustainable Cities

As sustainable cities include healthy and digital buildings and cities, separate analyses were conducted for this topic. The data for that were collected on the 11 April 2023, and they include articles published until that time. Articles were selected based on the following inclusion and exclusion criteria: topic “sustainable city” or “sustainable cities”, document type: “article”, language: “English”, categories: “Construction Building Technology”, “Engineering Civil”, “Green Sustainable Science Technology”, “Environmental Sciences”; “Environmental Studies”, “Architecture”, “Urban Studies”, “Regional Urban Planning” and “Geography”. The number of published articles to some extent analyzing sustainable cities is growing each year. There are 64 articles published in 2023, 393 articles in 2022, 388 in 2021, 287 in 2020, 207 in 2019, 168 in 2018, etc.
The top 10 most-cited articles of the analyzed period are articles from 2004–2019 (see Table 4). They explore topics such as the importance of green urban spaces and ecosystems [49,50,51,52], the differences between concepts of sustainable, smart or digital cities [27,53,54], as well as transformative governance issues [45,55,56].
To not solely rely on the citation frequency, the co-citation analysis was carried out as it considers the collective influence of articles by examining the co-citation relationships between them, uncovers hidden connections, discovers emerging trends, overcomes biases and assesses research impact. In co-citation analysis conducted using CiteSpace, different elements are represented by colors, nodes and links to visualize and analyze the co-citation network. Nodes in the co-citation analysis represent individual articles or documents. Links, also known as edges or lines, connect the nodes in the co-citation network. They represent the co-citation relationships between articles. The thickness or intensity of the links indicates the strength or frequency of co-citation between two articles. CiteSpace enables the identification of clusters of related articles based on their co-citation patterns. A cluster represents a group of articles that are conceptually or thematically similar and frequently cited together. Clusters are visually depicted as densely connected groups of nodes, often with a different color or shading to differentiate them from the overall co-citation network.
After the data processing procedure, 1181 nodes out of 2060 sources were identified as connected via 3992 co-citation links, i.e., average 3.38 links per node. Then the data were visualized using automatic cluster identification and computation of nodes centrality (see Figure 10). This visualization reveals the significance of different articles in the network, their links and the relationship between different clusters: some overlap, and others are almost isolated.
The analyzed network consists of 12 major clusters. The ten largest clusters are presented in Table 5. Labels of the clusters are based on the top key terms, but those can be assigned using different algorithms—Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI) or Log-Likelihood Ratio (LLR). LSI is a more general summary of the concepts surrounding each cluster, while LLR provides a more concrete description of the topics within the cluster. Table 5 also reveals the main issues tackled in each of the most cited articles of the clusters.
Looking at the processed data (Figure 10 and Figure 11 and Table 5), it is clear that a certain topic unites the articles in clusters, and there is not much of the overlap between the different clusters except for the first two—“smart cities” and “smart sustainable cities”.
Cluster 1 is the largest and consists of 176 articles analyzing the relationship between sustainable and smart city concepts [27,28,50]. The shift from a more ecological approach (eco-city) to a more technocratic one (smart city) is recognized here. Yet, the limitations of both of those approaches are already highlighted as well.
Cluster 2 is closely related (almost overlapping) to the previously described cluster “smart city”. The main difference is that “sustainable cities” are not compared with the “smart ones” anymore. Instead, the term “smart sustainable city “(SSC) is established and conventionally used. Thus, there is also a change in the research strategies: it shifted from the concept definition towards studying the possibilities of using big data and information technologies to improve SSG development [57,58,59,60].
Cluster 3 is not linked to the first two but reveals a group of articles focused on sustainable development of eco-cities in Asia (i.e., Tianjin in China [12,13], Masdar City in the United Arab Emirates [14] or Songdo in South Korea [15].
Cluster 4 unifies articles about social–ecological–infrastructural systems [61], human-dominated [18] or human ecosystems [62,63]. The main idea of those articles is that cities or their parts do not function in isolation, but they are connected through the flows of energy, matter and information.
Cluster 5 consists of articles related to nature-based solutions (NBS) for urban development. They discuss the role of appropriate governance [67] and the benefits of greening the cities, such as social effects, increased inclusivity and environmental justice [17,65,66].
Cluster 6 brings together articles that examine the role and significance of urban stakeholders (i.e., municipalities, housing corporations, developers, city inhabitants and urban designers) [67,69]. Those articles also highlight the importance of social capital, a sense of community and attractiveness [68,70].
Cluster 7 includes articles analyzing the SDGs [1] and their interrelations, as the interactions among them did not always cause positive results [71,72]. For example, a systematic study [73] revealed that SDG 1 (no poverty) has a synergy with most of the other goals, while SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and production) is most commonly associated with trade-offs.
Cluster 8 includes articles aiming to understand how it is possible to create a more livable environment, considering such issues as pandemics [75,78] in both highly developed cities [19] as well as in developing ones [76].
Cluster 9 covers articles to some extent related to a circular economy, either it would be analysis of different indicators such as unemployment or waste management [78,79] or the role of urban agriculture [80], or the theoretical clarification of urban resilience [20].
Cluster 10 consists of articles tackling the issues of sustainability index construction and measurement—formulation of methodological frameworks [81,82] and overviewing and evaluating the existing practices [83,84].
From a temporal standpoint (see Figure 11), the oldest topic that emerged in the analyzed data set of the sustainability literature is the one that examines the social–ecological–infrastructural systems. It is followed by a group of research papers presenting the eco-city cases and their analysis. Subsequently, there was a shift in research emphasis towards nature-based solutions and the additional values generated by city greening initiatives, and the most recent cluster of articles deals with more intangible matters—the roles and contributions of various urban stakeholders in the process of reaching sustainability. It is also important to note that after 2015, when the UN General Assembly adopted SDGs [1], a group of articles examined the compatibility and mutual impact of different SDGs. Moreover, even though the idea of a circular economy has been known as far as the 1980s [85], in the sustainability literature, its importance also grew more significantly after the adoption of SDGs, as this particular economic system is based on the reuse and regeneration of materials or products, especially as a means of continuing production in a sustainable or environmentally friendly way. The quality of life and the requirements for the design of livable urban spaces is another cluster of articles relevant at that time. Still, the most enduring trend in sustainability research is the theme of “smart cities,” which emerged circa 2012, peaked in 2016, and continues to be a prominent topic of investigation in the contemporary literature. Almost parallel to this trend, the development of interest in the “smart sustainable cities” topic is also observed, although in the most recent years, there has been a decrease in scientific articles on the latter topic.

5. Conclusions and Discussion

This study is a general quantitative literature overview with qualitative insights; further research is required in order to understand deeper each distinguished subtopic. According to some researchers, CiteSpace bibliometric analysis has some limitations, for example, some maps and clusters are complex and require specialized domain knowledge for interpretation or the learning curve required to set accurate visualization parameters [86]; however it proved to be a valuable tool in this research.
The earliest theme that emerged from the examined data set of the sustainability literature is the one that investigates social–ecological–infrastructural systems. The research emphasis has shifted toward nature-based solutions and the additional values generated by city greening initiatives, and the most recent cluster of articles addresses more intangible issues—the roles and contributions of various urban stakeholders in achieving sustainability.
Following the adoption of the SDGs by the UN General Assembly in 2015, a set of papers appeared explicitly investigating the concerns of compatibility and mutual impact of multiple SDGs.
The concept of “smart cities,” which peaked in 2016 and remained a popular examination area in modern literature, is the most durable trend in sustainability research. Almost simultaneous to this trend is the growth of interest in the concept of “smart sustainable cities;” however, in recent years, there has been a reduction in research on the latter.
Research showed that studies on “healthy buildings and cities” yielded the fewest findings. 1064 articles were published in the WoS database between 1988 and 2023. The first articles were published in 1988, and the increase in published research on this topic began in 2005. In this search, conference papers and proceedings were the most common kind of publishing. “Healthy buildings and cities” fall under the broad banner of sustainability study and are closely connected to architecture, civil engineering, environmental and urban studies and public health. The knowledge mapping of the topic “healthy buildings and cities” demonstrates its latent potential for interdisciplinary integration, as it shares various issues, despite the fact that the present study appears to be poorly integrated from the standpoint of literature sources and author collaboration.
Between 1992 and 2023, 2734 papers on “digital buildings and cities” were published. The first articles were published in 1992, and the increase in published research on this topic began in 2005. Similar to the “healthy buildings and cities” search, the most common publication type in this search was conference papers and proceedings. Compared to prior studies, the issue of “digital buildings and cities” is more specific. This topic offers a wide range of research clusters with notable examples of cross-cluster collaboration and cluster integration. Compared to prior topics studied, research in “digital buildings and cities” looks more integrated, yet with unrealized integration potential.
Research showed that the research topic of “sustainable buildings and cities” was and still is very important worldwide, as from 1988 to 2023, 10 006 papers were identified in WoS database. The first articles were published in 1992, and the increase in published research in this topic began in 2005. The most common type of publication in this search is a journal article. The issue of “sustainable buildings and cities” falls within the broad umbrella of sustainability research, which includes the currently leading technical fields. According to our study, two sets of clusters were discovered, demonstrating tight integration across the domains of:
  • Management, transportation, ecology;
  • Remote sensing and environmental engineering, according to cited references.
In comparison to other analyzed topics (“healthy buildings and cities” and “digital buildings and cities,”) research in the field of “sustainable buildings and cities” looks more integrated, demonstrating that integration potential exists in sustainability science research.
This study revealed the ongoing worldwide relevance of sustainability science research and identified significant opportunities for multidisciplinary integration across the investigated subjects. As such, it sets the path for further study into these tendencies and prospective partnership opportunities in pursuing sustainability in the cities.
Even though the potential future development of sustainable cities remains complicated and not fully answered question; but, based on the results of the literature review, to successfully develop future cities, a multidisciplinary and integrated approach is essential. It involves embracement of compact city planning and development practices, integration of green and blue infrastructure, and promotion of resilience. Smart city concepts, supported by digital technologies and data-driven approaches, can also enhance urban livability and efficiency. Additionally, the creation of healthy cities requires considering factors such as urban sports facilities, access to nature and the well-being of residents. It is crucial to address spatial and social inequalities. Overall, the development of future cities should aim to achieve the balance between environmental, social and economic aspects to create livable, resilient and sustainable urban environments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.S.; data curation, D.L.; formal analysis, I.G.-V. and I.P.; investigation, I.G.-V. and I.P.; supervision, L.S.; validation, D.L.; writing—original draft, I.G.-V. and I.P.; writing—review and editing, L.S. and P.A.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015. Available online: https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/9814 (accessed on 10 April 2023).
  2. World Commission on Environment and Development (Ed.) Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  3. Council of Europe. The European Urban Charter; Council of Europe: Strasbourg, France, 1992; p. 60. [Google Scholar]
  4. Grazuleviciute-Vileniske, I.; Seduikyte, L.; Teixeira-Gomes, A.; Mendes, A.; Borodinecs, A.; Buzinskaite, D. Aging, living environment, and sustainability: What should be taken into account? Sustainability 2020, 12, 1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Commission of the European Communities. Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment. COM 2004, 60, 57. [Google Scholar]
  6. Council of European Union. Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy (No. 10917/06; p. 29). 2006. Available online: https://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2010917%202006%20INIT (accessed on 10 April 2023).
  7. Bibri, S.E.; Krogstie, J.; Kärrholm, M. Compact city planning and development: Emerging practices and strategies for achieving the goals of sustainability. Dev. Built Environ. 2020, 4, 100021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Duany, A.; Sorlien, S.; Wright, W. The SmartCode Version 9.2; The TownPaper Publisher: Orlando, FL, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  9. Dantzig, G.B.; Saaty, T.L. Compact City: A Plan for a Liveable Urban Environment; W. H. Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  10. Mouratidis, K. Is compact city livable? The impact of compact versus sprawled neighbourhoods on neighbourhood satisfaction. Urban Stud. 2018, 55, 2408–2430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kenworthy, J.R. The eco-city: Ten key transport and planning dimensions for sustainable city development. Environ. Urban. 2006, 18, 67–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Caprotti, F. Critical research on eco-cities? A walk through the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City, China. Cities 2014, 36, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Caprotti, F.; Springer, C.; Harmer, N. ‘Eco’ For Whom? Envisioning Eco-urbanism in the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city, China: ‘ECO’ FOR WHOM? Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2015, 39, 495–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cugurullo, F. How to Build a Sandcastle: An Analysis of the Genesis and Development of Masdar City. J. Urban Technol. 2013, 20, 23–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shwayri, S.T. A Model Korean Ubiquitous Eco-City? The Politics of Making Songdo. J. Urban Technol. 2013, 20, 39–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Desouza, K.C.; Flanery, T.H. Designing, planning, and managing resilient cities: A conceptual framework. Cities 2013, 35, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Andersson, E.; Langemeyer, J.; Borgström, S.; McPhearson, T.; Haase, D.; Kronenberg, J.; Barton, D.N.; Davis, M.; Naumann, S.; Röschel, L.; et al. Enabling Green and Blue Infrastructure to Improve Contributions to Human Well-Being and Equity in Urban Systems. Bioscience 2019, 69, 566–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Ernstson, H.; Van Der Leeuw, S.E.; Redman, C.L.; Meffert, D.J.; Davis, G.E.; Alfsen, C.; Elmqvist, T. Urban Transitions: On Urban Resilience and Human-Dominated Ecosystems. AMBIO 2010, 39, 531–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Kutty, A.A.; Wakjira, T.G.; Kucukvar, M.; Abdella, G.M.; Onat, N.C. Urban resilience and livability performance of European smart cities: A novel machine learning approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Meerow, S.; Newell, J.P.; Stults, M. Defining urban resilience: A review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 147, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nam, T.; Pardo, T.A. Conceptualizing Smart City with Dimensions of Technology, People, and Institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, College Park, MD, USA, 12–15 June 2011; pp. 282–291. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ishida, T. Digital City, Smart City and Beyond. In Proceedings of the 2017 International World Wide Web Conference Committee (IW3C2), published under Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 License, Perth, Australia, 3–7 April 2017. [Google Scholar]
  23. Keenahan, J.; MacReamoinn, R.; Paduano, C. Sustainable Design using Computational Fluid Dynamics in the Built Environment—A Case Study. J. Sustain. Archit. Civ. Eng. 2017, 19, 92–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Štěpánek, P.; Ge, M.; Walletzký, L. IT-Enabled Digital Service Design Principles—Lessons Learned from Digital Cities. In Information Systems. EMCIS 2017. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing; Themistocleous, M., Morabito, V., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pupeikis, D.; Morkūnaitė, L.; Daukšys, M.; Navickas, A.A.; Abromas, S. Possibilities of Using Building Information Model Data in Reinforcement Processing Plant. J. Sustain. Archit. Civ. Eng. 2021, 28, 80–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Albino, V.; Berardi, U.; Dangelico, R.M. Smart Cities: Definitions, Dimensions, Performance, and Initiatives. J. Urban Technol. 2015, 22, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lim, C.; Kim, K.-J.; Maglio, P.P. Smart cities with big data: Reference models, challenges, and considerations. Cities 2018, 82, 86–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yigitcanlar, T.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Foth, M.; Sabatini-Marques, J.; da Costa, E.; Ioppolo, G. Can cities become smart without being sustainable? A systematic review of the literature. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 45, 348–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Goli, S.; Arokiasamy, P.; Chattopadhayay, A. Living and health conditions of selected cities in India: Setting priorities for the National Urban Health Mission. Cities 2011, 28, 461–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Werna, E.; Harpham, T.; Blue, I.; Goldstein, G. From healthy city projects to healthy cities. Environ. Urban. 1999, 11, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Webster, P.; Sanderson, D. Healthy Cities Indicators—A Suitable Instrument to Measure Health? J. Urban Health 2013, 90, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Shen, J.; Cheng, J.; Huang, W.; Zeng, F. An Exploration of Spatial and Social Inequalities of Urban Sports Facilities in Nanning City, China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Price, D.J.D.S. Networks of scientific papers. Science 1965, 145, 510–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. 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] [Green Version]
  35. Chen, C. Mapping Scientific Frontiers; Springer-Verlag: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  36. Su, X.; Li, X.; Kang, Y. A bibliometric analysis of research on intangible cultural heritage using CiteSpace. Sage Open 2019, 9, 2158244019840119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Chen, C. How to Use CiteSpace; Leanpub: Victoria, BC, Canada, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  38. Chen, C. CiteSpace: A Practical Guide for Mapping Scientific Literature; Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  39. Russell, R.; Guerry, A.D.; Balvanera, P.; Gould, R.K.; Basurto, X.; Chan, K.M.; Klain, S.; Levine, J.; Tam, J. Humans and nature: How knowing and experiencing nature affect well-being. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2013, 38, 473–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Frumkin, H. Healthy places: Exploring the evidence. Am. J. Public Health 2003, 93, 1451–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Khreis, H.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Gascon, M.; Dadvand, P. Fifty Shades of Green: Pathway to Healthy Urban Living. Epidemiology 2017, 28, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zanella, A.; Bui, N.; Castellani, A.; Vangelista, L.; Zorzi, M. Internet of things for smart cities. IEEE Internet Things J. 2014, 1, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Neirotti, P.; De Marco, A.; Cagliano, A.C.; Mangano, G.; Scorrano, F. Current trends in Smart City initiatives: Sotylizedsed facts. Cities 2014, 38, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Sachs, J.D.; Schmidt-Traub, G.; Mazzucato, M.; Messner, D.; Nakicenovic, N.; Rockström, J. Six transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 805–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. 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]
  46. Kennedy, C.; Cuddihy, J.; Engel-Yan, J. The changing metabolism of cities. J. Ind. Ecol. 2007, 11, 43–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Haaland, C.; van Den Bosch, C.K. Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 760–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chiesura, A. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bulkeley, H.; Betsill, M. Rethinking Sustainable Cities: Multilevel Governance and the ‘Urban’ Politics of Climate Change. Environ. Politics 2005, 14, 42–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ahvenniemi, H.; Huovila, A.; Pinto-Seppä, I.; Airaksinen, M. What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities? Cities 2017, 60, 234–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. De Jong, M.; Joss, S.; Schraven, D.; Zhan, C.; Weijnen, M. Sustainable–smart–resilient–low carbon–eco–knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Haase, D.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Elmqvist, T. Ecosystem Services in Urban Landscapes: Practical Applications and Governance Implications. AMBIO 2014, 43, 407–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Cocchia, A. Smart and Digital City: A Systematic Literature Review. In Smart City; Dameri, R.P., Rosenthal-Sabroux, C., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 13–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nevens, F.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Gorissen, L.; Loorbach, D. Urban Transition Labs: Co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 50, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Venter, Z.S.; Barton, D.N.; Gundersen, V.; Figari, H.; Nowell, M. Urban nature in a time of crisis: Recreational use of green space increases during the COVID-19 outbreak in Oslo, Norway. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 104075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. 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]
  57. Bibri, S.E. Advancing Sustainable Urbanism Processes: The Key Practical and Analytical Applications of Big Data for Urban Systems and Domains. In Big Data Science and Analytics for Smart Sustainable Urbanism; Bibri, S.E., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 221–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bibri, S.E.; Krogstie, J. Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 31, 183–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bibri, S.E. The IoT for smart sustainable cities of the future: An analytical framework for sensor-based big data applications for environmental sustainability. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 38, 230–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Höjer, M.; Wangel, J. Smart Sustainable Cities: Definition and Challenges. In ICT Innovations for Sustainability; Hilty, L.M., Aebischer, B., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; Volume 310, pp. 333–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ramaswami, A.; Weible, C.; Main, D.; Heikkila, T.; Siddiki, S.; Duvall, A.; Pattison, A.; Bernard, M. A Social-Ecological-Infrastructural Systems Framework for Interdisciplinary Study of Sustainable City Systems: An Integrative Curriculum Across Seven Major Disciplines. J. Ind. Ecol. 2012, 16, 801–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Grimm, N.B.; Faeth, S.H.; Golubiewski, N.E.; Redman, C.L.; Wu, J.; Bai, X.; Briggs, J.M. Global Change and the Ecology of Cities. Science 2008, 319, 756–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Pickett, S.T.A.; Buckley, G.L.; Kaushal, S.S.; Williams, Y. Social-ecological science in the humane metropolis. Urban Ecosyst. 2011, 14, 319–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Brokking, P.; Mörtberg, U.; Balfors, B. Municipal Practices for Integrated Planning of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Development in the Stockholm Region. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Raymond, C.M.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Kabisch, N.; Berry, P.; Breil, M.; Nita, M.R.; Geneletti, D.; Calfapietra, C. A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 77, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Haase, D.; Kabisch, S.; Haase, A.; Andersson, E.; Banzhaf, E.; Baró, F.; Brenck, M.; Fischer, L.K.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Kabisch, N.; et al. Greening cities—To be socially inclusive? About the alleged paradox of society and ecology in cities. Habitat Int. 2017, 64, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Beck, D.; Ferasso, M. Bridging ‘Stakeholder Value Creation’ and ‘Urban Sustainability’: The need for better integrating the Environmental Dimension. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 89, 104316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Macke, J.; Rubim Sarate, J.A.; de Atayde Moschen, S. Smart sustainable cities evaluation and sense of community. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 239, 118103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Camboim, G.F.; Zawislak, P.A.; Pufal, N.A. Driving elements to make cities smarter: Evidences from European projects. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2019, 142, 154–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Beck, D.; Storopoli, J. Cities through the lens of Stakeholder Theory: A literature review. Cities 2021, 118, 103377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Stevenson, S.; Collins, A.; Jennings, N.; Köberle, A.C.; Laumann, F.; Laverty, A.A.; Vineis, P.; Woods, J.; Gambhir, A. A hybrid approach to identifying and assessing interactions between climate action (SDG13) policies and a range of SDGs in a UK context. Discover Sustainability 2021, 2, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Nilsson, M.; Griggs, D.; Visbeck, M. Policy: Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 2016, 534, 320–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Pradhan, P.; Costa, L.; Rybski, D.; Lucht, W.; Kropp, J.P. A Systematic Study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Interactions: A Systematic Study of SDG Interactions. Earth’s Future 2017, 5, 1169–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Klopp, J.M.; Petretta, D.L. The urban sustainable development goal: Indicators, complexity and the politics of measuring cities. Cities 2017, 63, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sharifi, A.; Khavarian-Garmsir, A.R. The COVID-19 pandemic: Impacts on cities and major lessons for urban planning, design, and management. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 749, 142391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Brelsford, C.; Lobo, J.; Hand, J.; Bettencourt, L.M.A. Heterogeneity and scale of sustainable development in cities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 8963–8968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ugolini, F.; Massetti, L.; Calaza-Martínez, P.; Cariñanos, P.; Dobbs, C.; Ostoić, S.K.; Marin, A.M.; Pearlmutter, D.; Saaroni, H.; Šaulienė, I.; et al. Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use and perceptions of urban green space: An international exploratory study. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 56, 126888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Rama, M.; Andrade, E.; Moreira, M.T.; Feijoo, G.; González-García, S. Defining a procedure to identify key sustainability indicators in Spanish urban systems: Development and application. Sustainable Cities Soc. 2021, 70, 102919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Feleki, E.; Vlachokostas, C.; Moussiopoulos, N. Characterization of sustainability in urban areas: An analysis of assessment tools with emphasis on European cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 43, 563–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Azunre, G.A.; Amponsah, O.; Peprah, C.; Takyi, S.A.; Braimah, I. A review of the role of urban agriculture in the sustainable city discourse. Cities 2019, 93, 104–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Mori, K.; Yamashita, T. Methodological framework of sustainability assessment in City Sustainability Index (CSI): A concept of constraint and maximization indicators. Habitat Int. 2015, 45, 10–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Haghshenas, H.; Vaziri, M. Urban sustainable transportation indicators for global comparison. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 15, 115–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. McCormick, K.; Anderberg, S.; Coenen, L.; Neij, L. Advancing sustainable urban transformation. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 50, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Shen, L.-Y.; Jorge Ochoa, J.; Shah, M.N.; Zhang, X. The application of urban sustainability indicators—A comparison between various practices. Habitat Int. 2011, 35, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Stahel, W.R.; Reday-Mulvey, G. Jobs for Tomorrow: The Potential for Substituting Manpower for Energy; Vantage Press: Burlington, VT, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  86. Synnestvedt, M.B.; Chen, C.; Holmes, J.H. CiteSpace II: Visualization and knowledge discovery in bibliographic databases. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings; American Medical Informatics Association: Washington, WA, USA, 2005; Volume 2005, p. 724. [Google Scholar]
Buildings 13 01764 g001 550
Figure 1. CiteSpace visualization of keywords and cluster analysis for the search “healthy buildings and cities” in the period 1988–2023. The nodes represent keywords, lines that connect nodes are keyword co-occurrence links. The top 10 dominant keywords were: city (58), impact (52), physical activity (51), environment (46), built environment (43), health (42), public health (40), exposure (34), quality (29) and performance (26). The cluster analysis of keyword distribution demonstrates close integration of disciplines and according to analyzed topics except of toxicology.
Figure 1. CiteSpace visualization of keywords and cluster analysis for the search “healthy buildings and cities” in the period 1988–2023. The nodes represent keywords, lines that connect nodes are keyword co-occurrence links. The top 10 dominant keywords were: city (58), impact (52), physical activity (51), environment (46), built environment (43), health (42), public health (40), exposure (34), quality (29) and performance (26). The cluster analysis of keyword distribution demonstrates close integration of disciplines and according to analyzed topics except of toxicology.
Buildings 13 01764 g001
Buildings 13 01764 g002 550
Figure 2. CiteSpace visualization of the reference co-citation network and cluster analysis for the search “healthy buildings and cities” in the period 1988–2023. The nodes are cited references, lines that connect nodes are co-citation links. Analysis reveals only two significant clusters of co-citation networks, labelled according to keywords: office building and air disinfection system. It is possible to conclude that there’s very little integration in co-citation compared to keyword analysis.
Figure 2. CiteSpace visualization of the reference co-citation network and cluster analysis for the search “healthy buildings and cities” in the period 1988–2023. The nodes are cited references, lines that connect nodes are co-citation links. Analysis reveals only two significant clusters of co-citation networks, labelled according to keywords: office building and air disinfection system. It is possible to conclude that there’s very little integration in co-citation compared to keyword analysis.
Buildings 13 01764 g002
Buildings 13 01764 g003 550
Figure 3. CiteSpace visualization of co-author network and cluster analysis for the search “healthy buildings and cities” in the period 1988–2023. The nodes represent the authors of publications in the author collaboration network. Analysis reveals only one significant cluster of co-authoring and several smaller ones. It is possible to conclude that there’s much less integration in co-authoring compared to keyword analysis.
Figure 3. CiteSpace visualization of co-author network and cluster analysis for the search “healthy buildings and cities” in the period 1988–2023. The nodes represent the authors of publications in the author collaboration network. Analysis reveals only one significant cluster of co-authoring and several smaller ones. It is possible to conclude that there’s much less integration in co-authoring compared to keyword analysis.
Buildings 13 01764 g003
Buildings 13 01764 g004 550
Figure 4. CiteSpace visualization of keywords and cluster analysis for the search “digital buildings and cities” in the period 1992–2023. The nodes represent keywords, lines that connect nodes are keyword co-occurrence links. The top 10 dominant keywords were: city (138), smart city (119), model (110), system (77), impact (60), area (49), digital twin (48), performance (47), management (44), building (44). The cluster analysis of keyword distribution demonstrates close integration of disciplines and according to analyzed topics.
Figure 4. CiteSpace visualization of keywords and cluster analysis for the search “digital buildings and cities” in the period 1992–2023. The nodes represent keywords, lines that connect nodes are keyword co-occurrence links. The top 10 dominant keywords were: city (138), smart city (119), model (110), system (77), impact (60), area (49), digital twin (48), performance (47), management (44), building (44). The cluster analysis of keyword distribution demonstrates close integration of disciplines and according to analyzed topics.
Buildings 13 01764 g004
Buildings 13 01764 g005 550
Figure 5. CiteSpace visualization of the reference co-citation network and cluster analysis for the search “digital buildings and cities” in the period 2000–2023. The nodes are cited references, lines that connect nodes are co-citation links. Analysis reveals 11 significant clusters of co-citation network, labelled according to keywords in the graph. It is visible that part of the clusters are separated and part are very closely merged. This graph reveals close integration between fields of remote sensing and chemical engineering, civil engineering and computer science and physical geography and imaging science according to cited references.
Figure 5. CiteSpace visualization of the reference co-citation network and cluster analysis for the search “digital buildings and cities” in the period 2000–2023. The nodes are cited references, lines that connect nodes are co-citation links. Analysis reveals 11 significant clusters of co-citation network, labelled according to keywords in the graph. It is visible that part of the clusters are separated and part are very closely merged. This graph reveals close integration between fields of remote sensing and chemical engineering, civil engineering and computer science and physical geography and imaging science according to cited references.
Buildings 13 01764 g005
Buildings 13 01764 g006 550
Figure 6. CiteSpace visualization of co-author network and cluster analysis for the search “healthy buildings and cities” in the period 1988–2023. The nodes represent the authors of publications in the author collaboration network. Analysis reveals several clusters of co-authors and wide cross-cluster author collaboration.
Figure 6. CiteSpace visualization of co-author network and cluster analysis for the search “healthy buildings and cities” in the period 1988–2023. The nodes represent the authors of publications in the author collaboration network. Analysis reveals several clusters of co-authors and wide cross-cluster author collaboration.
Buildings 13 01764 g006
Buildings 13 01764 g007 550
Figure 7. CiteSpace visualization of keywords and cluster analysis for the search “sustainable buildings and cities” in the period 1992–2023. The nodes represent keywords, lines that connect nodes are keyword co-occurrence links. The top 10 dominant keywords were: city (878), performance (636), impact (621), system (565), model (492), building (459), design (430), climate change (357), energy (350) and management (339). The cluster analysis of keyword distribution demonstrates close integration of disciplines and according to analyzed topics.
Figure 7. CiteSpace visualization of keywords and cluster analysis for the search “sustainable buildings and cities” in the period 1992–2023. The nodes represent keywords, lines that connect nodes are keyword co-occurrence links. The top 10 dominant keywords were: city (878), performance (636), impact (621), system (565), model (492), building (459), design (430), climate change (357), energy (350) and management (339). The cluster analysis of keyword distribution demonstrates close integration of disciplines and according to analyzed topics.
Buildings 13 01764 g007
Buildings 13 01764 g008 550
Figure 8. CiteSpace visualization of the reference co-citation network and cluster analysis for the search “sustainable buildings and cities” in the period 2006–2023. The nodes are cited references, lines that connect nodes are co-citation links. Analysis reveals 12 significant clusters of co-citation network, labelled according to keywords in the graph. It is visible that there are no separate clusters; they are merged at least with one or two clusters. Two groups of clusters can be identified, revealing close integration between fields of (1) management, transportation, ecology and (2) remote sensing and environmental engineering, according to cited references.
Figure 8. CiteSpace visualization of the reference co-citation network and cluster analysis for the search “sustainable buildings and cities” in the period 2006–2023. The nodes are cited references, lines that connect nodes are co-citation links. Analysis reveals 12 significant clusters of co-citation network, labelled according to keywords in the graph. It is visible that there are no separate clusters; they are merged at least with one or two clusters. Two groups of clusters can be identified, revealing close integration between fields of (1) management, transportation, ecology and (2) remote sensing and environmental engineering, according to cited references.
Buildings 13 01764 g008
Buildings 13 01764 g009 550
Figure 9. CiteSpace visualization of co-author network and cluster analysis for the search “sustainable buildings and cities” in the period 2006–2023. The nodes represent the authors of publications in the author collaboration network. Analysis reveals interlinked clusters of co-authors and cross-cluster author collaboration.
Figure 9. CiteSpace visualization of co-author network and cluster analysis for the search “sustainable buildings and cities” in the period 2006–2023. The nodes represent the authors of publications in the author collaboration network. Analysis reveals interlinked clusters of co-authors and cross-cluster author collaboration.
Buildings 13 01764 g009
Buildings 13 01764 g010 550
Figure 10. CiteSpace visualization of co-author network and cluster analysis for the search “sustainable cities” and its clusters in the period 1990–10 April 2023 Colours represent different clusters, nodes—different articles, links—co-citation relationships among articles.
Figure 10. CiteSpace visualization of co-author network and cluster analysis for the search “sustainable cities” and its clusters in the period 1990–10 April 2023 Colours represent different clusters, nodes—different articles, links—co-citation relationships among articles.
Buildings 13 01764 g010
Buildings 13 01764 g011 550
Figure 11. CiteSpace Timeline visualization of the co-citation network of scientific research on sustainable cities and its clusters. Colors represent different clusters, nodes—different articles, links—co-citation relationships among articles.
Figure 11. CiteSpace Timeline visualization of the co-citation network of scientific research on sustainable cities and its clusters. Colors represent different clusters, nodes—different articles, links—co-citation relationships among articles.
Buildings 13 01764 g011
Table
Table 1. Differences in various approaches to sustainable buildings and cities. Note: Approaches are not totally exclusive, there are overlaps in their goals, features and measures.
Table 1. Differences in various approaches to sustainable buildings and cities. Note: Approaches are not totally exclusive, there are overlaps in their goals, features and measures.
ApproachGoalConceptual FeaturesMeasures
Urban FormLand UseSocial RealmGovernanceTechnologies
Compact cityto reduce sprawl, minimize car dependency and promote walkability and public transportationCompact, high-densityMixed useSocial equality, self-sufficienceIngtegrating planinngIntelligent transportpopulation density, mixed land use ratios, walkability indices, public transportation usage, etc.
Eco-cityto achieve environmental sustainability, conserve resources and promote ecological balance.Compact, sustainableMixed use, green infrstructureCommunity-basedSustainable policiesEnvironmental technologiesgreen space coverage, energy consumption per capita, waste management practices, sustainable building certifications, etc.
Resilient cityto enhance adaptability and resilience to climate change, natural disasters and social challengesAdaptiveGreen infrastrutureSocial cohesionCollaborative-particiaptoryResilient infrastruc-tureclimate adaptation plans, disaster preparedness indicators, social cohesion indices, infrastructure robustness, etc.
Digital cityto improve connectivity, access to digital services and enhance efficiency in urban operationsDigitallyconnectedVariedOnline communitiesE-governanceDigital platformsdigital service accessibility, e-governance adoption and digital literacy rates
Smart Cityto enhance quality of life, optimize resource management and foster innovation and economic developmentTechnologically advancedEfficientData-drivenSmart governanceIoT, AI, sensorsIoT infrastructure deployment, data analytics usage, smart grid implementation and citizen engagement in smart initiatives
Healthy Cityto improve public health, promote well-being and create a supportive and inclusive environment.Health-orientedGreen infrastructureSocial wellbeingCollaborative-particiaptoryHealth monitoringpublic health indicators, access to healthcare services, air and water quality and community engagement in health initiatives
Table
Table 2. The type of records in the analyzed sample.
Table 2. The type of records in the analyzed sample.
Search “Healthy Buildings and Cities”Search “Digital Buildings and Cities”Search “Sustainable Buildings and Cities”
Article—628Article—1411Article—6185
Proceeding paper—392Proceeding paper—1289Proceeding paper—3408
Review article—34Review article—61Review article—465
Book chapter—30Book chapter—50Book chapter—236
Editorial material—18Early access—40Early access—114
Early access—12Editorial material—12Editorial material—52
Data paper—1Data paper—4Book review—7
Meeting abstract—1Book review—1Data paper—6
Reprint—1News item—1Correction—2
Meeting abstract—2
Book—1
Letter—1
Retracted publication—1
Table
Table 3. The yearly breakdown of the publications in the analyzed sample.
Table 3. The yearly breakdown of the publications in the analyzed sample.
Publication YearSearch “Healthy Buildings and Cities”Search “Digital Buildings and Cities”Search “Sustainable Buildings and Cities”
19883--
1989---
1990---
19911--
1992123
1993-1-
1994--2
1995116
1996-34
19971510
19981722
19992610
200081213
200111415
20025933
200361829
200441334
20051329222
2006122955
2007132884
2008152781
20091745144
20102357209
20111956287
20122360355
20132697416
20143192295
201539117440
201641117577
201751175791
2018265216990
2019893941144
2020863171114
20211303911254
20221253661237
20231330130
Table
Table 4. Top 10 most-cited articles from the ones selected for the research.
Table 4. Top 10 most-cited articles from the ones selected for the research.
No.CitationsAuthor (Year)Topics
11329 *Chiesura (2004) [48]role of urban parks in creating sustainable cities
2730 *Kennedy et al. (2007) [46]changing metabolism of cities
3647 *Bulkeley and Betsill (2005) [49]multilevel governance in sustainable cities
4563 *Sachs et al. (2019) [44]transformations to achieve the SDGs
5549 *Ahvenniemi et al. (2017) [50]differences between sustainable and smart cities.
6507 *De Jong et al. (2015) [51]various concepts promoting sustainable urbanization
7436 *Hasse et al. (2014) [52]ecosystem services in urban landscapes and their governance implications
8436 *Cocchia (2014) [53]systematic literature review on smart and digital cities
9375 *Nevens et al. (2013) [54]urban transition labs and their role in co-creating transformative actions for sustainable cities
10366 *Venter (2020) [55]increased use of urban green spaces during the COVID-19 outbreak in Oslo
*—number of citations on 30 June 2023.
Table
Table 5. Research on Sustainable cities categorized by the clusters and the main articles distinguished (compiled by authors, using WoS data and the CiteSpace software).
Table 5. Research on Sustainable cities categorized by the clusters and the main articles distinguished (compiled by authors, using WoS data and the CiteSpace software).
No.
ID		Cluster Label (LSI/LLR)SizeAverage YearThe Most Cited Articles in the ClusterThe Main Issues Analysed in Articles
1
#0		smart city/smart city1762017Lim et al. (2018) [27]smart cities, big data, value creation for different stakeholders
Ahvenniemi et al. (2017) [50]sustainable city vs. smart city, shift from sustainability assessment to smart city goals, concept of smart sustainable cities
Doan et al. (2017) [56]green building rating systems, sustainability of construction
Yigitcanlar et al. (2019) [28]smart vs sustainable, smart without sustainable, techno-centricity in smart development, systematic literature review (SLR)
2
#1		smart sustainable cities/smart city582015Bibri (2019) [57]smart sustainable cities, big data, limitations of compact and eco-cities
Bibri and Krogstie (2017) [58]smart sustainable cities, urban sustainability, sustainable city models, smart city approach, big data
Bibri (2018) [59]smart sustainable cities, internet of things, big data analitics, environmental sustainability
Höjer and Wangel (2015) [60]smart sustainable city concept, five influential developments, challenges
3
#2		sino-singapore/eco-city china552012Caprotti et al. (2015) [13]eco-city, urban environmental impacts, benefits for residents vs broader socio-environmental landscape
Caprotti (2014) [12]eco-city, future challenges, social resilience and emerging communities, new urban poor
Cugurullo (2013) [14]eco-city, sustainability ideology, case study, UAE, Masdar City
Shwayri (2013) [15]eco-city, global crisis, green infrastructure, South Korea, Songdo
4
#3		major discipline/ecological-infrastructural systems framework362009Ramaswami et al. (2012) [61]sustainable city systems, social–ecological–infrastructural systems, social actors, multidisciplinarity
Grimm et al. (2008) [62]global change, ecology of cities, land use and cover, environmental changes, urban socioecosystems
Pickett et al. (2011) [63]socioecology, humane metropolis, urban system, human ecosystem, eco system services
Ernstson et al. (2010) [18]urban resilience, human dominated ecosystems, case studies, urban governance, system of cities
5
#6		nature-based solution/nature-based solution282017Brokking et al. (2021) [64]green infrastructure, municipal practices, governance, urban development, case studies, Stockholm
Raymond et al. (2017) [65]shift from eco-based to nature-based solutions, 10 societal challenges, co-benefits and costs of sustainability
Haase et al. (2017) [66]city greening, social inclusivity, well-being, social effects of greening
Andersson (2019) [17]green and blue infrastructure, environmental justice, resilience
6
#8		smart sustainable cities/bridging stakeholder value creation202019Beck and Ferasso (2023) [67]urban stakeholders, stakeholder value creation (SVC), urban sustainability, significance of environmental dimension
Macke et al. (2019) [68]smart sustainable city, sense of community, Brazil, residents satisfaction, social capital, shared values
Camboim et al. (2019) [69]smart city dimensions: governance; environ-urban; techno-economic; socio-institutional, urban innovation ecosystems
Beck and Storopoli (2021) [70]stakeholder theory, urban governance, literature review, urban strategy (stakeholders expectations) and urban marketing (urban image attractiveness)
7
#10		hybrid approach/uk context202018Stevenson et al. (2021) [71]climate action (SDG 13) interaction with other SDGs—synergies and trade-offs, expert survey, UK
Nilsson et al. (2016) [72]interactions among SDGs, goals scoring
Pradhan et al. (2017) [73]SDGs interaction, SDG indicator data, sinergies (SDG 1—no poverty) and trade-offs (SDG 12—responsible consumption and production)
Klopp and Petretta (2017) [74]urban sustainable development goal (USDG), indicators, politics of measurement
8
#13		livability performance/learning approach192018Kutty et al. (2022) [19]city resilience, urban livability, machine learning, European smart cities
Sharifi and Khavarian-Garmsir (2020) [75]smart cities, pandemics, environmental factors, air quality, urban design
Brelsford et al. (2017) [76]heterogeneity, scale of sustainable development, sustainable development indices, Brazil, South Africa
Ugolini et al. (2020) [77]pandemics, urban green spaces, people perception, European countries
9
#19		circular economy/circular economy142018Rama et al. (2021) [78]key sustainability indicators, unemployment rates, waste collection, Spanish cities
Feleki et al. (2018) [79]systems of indicators, “traditional” dimensions of sustainability, European urban areas
Azunre et al.(2019) [80]urban agriculture, indicators of sustainability, economic, social and environmental benefits of urban agriculture
Meerow et al. (2016) [20]definition of urban resilience, climate change, review
10
#28		city sustainability index/city sustainability index102012Mori and Yamashita (2015) [81]city sustainability index, concept of constraint and maximization indicators, limitations and benefits
Haghshenas and Vaziri (2012) [82]9 sustainable transportation indicators, millennium cities database for sustainable mobility
McCormic et al. (2013) [83]urban initiatives on sustainability, 35 cases, Europe and some other locations, sustainable urban transformation, governance
Shen et al. (2011) [84]sustainability indicators, comparison of different practices
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

Seduikyte, L.; Gražulevičiūtė-Vileniškė, I.; Povilaitienė, I.; Fokaides, P.A.; Lingė, D. Trends and Interdisciplinarity Integration in the Development of the Research in the Fields of Sustainable, Healthy and Digital Buildings and Cities. Buildings 2023, 13, 1764. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071764

AMA Style

Seduikyte L, Gražulevičiūtė-Vileniškė I, Povilaitienė I, Fokaides PA, Lingė D. Trends and Interdisciplinarity Integration in the Development of the Research in the Fields of Sustainable, Healthy and Digital Buildings and Cities. Buildings. 2023; 13(7):1764. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071764

Chicago/Turabian Style

Seduikyte, Lina, Indrė Gražulevičiūtė-Vileniškė, Ingrida Povilaitienė, Paris A. Fokaides, and Domantas Lingė. 2023. "Trends and Interdisciplinarity Integration in the Development of the Research in the Fields of Sustainable, Healthy and Digital Buildings and Cities" Buildings 13, no. 7: 1764. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071764

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