Next Article in Journal
Transformation of Trolleybus Transport in Poland. Does In-Motion Charging (Technology) Matter?
Next Article in Special Issue
Simulation Method to Assess Thermal Comfort in Historical Buildings with High-Volume Interior Spaces—The Case of the Gothic Basilica of Sta. Maria del Mar in Barcelona
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Corruption, Economic Freedom and Urbanization on Economic Development: Western Balkans versus EU-27
Previous Article in Special Issue
Going beyond Good Intentions for the Sustainable Conservation of Built Heritage: A Systematic Literature Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 12
Issue 22
10.3390/su12229741
sustainability-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

Sustainable Design, Construction, Refurbishment and Restoration of Architecture: A Review

by
Oriol Pons-Valladares
1,* and
Jelena Nikolic
2
1
Department of Architectural Technology, Polytechnic University of Catalonia, 08028 Barcelona, Spain
2
Department of Physics, Polytechnic University of Catalonia, 08028 Barcelona, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(22), 9741; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229741
Submission received: 19 October 2020 / Revised: 18 November 2020 / Accepted: 20 November 2020 / Published: 22 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability Assessment of Architecture, Construction, Refurbishment and Restoration)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Considering the serious challenges our planet is facing, the building environment and construction sector must minimize their high negative impacts and maximize their contribution to sustainability. Many alternatives could promote this change, but to effectively optimize our architecture, we must take the step of quantifying and qualifying the sustainability of our constructions by choosing the best assessment alternative in each case. Many assessment methodologies and tools exist and there have been numerous reviews of them. The main objective and novelty of this review is to present an updated critical overview of all the sustainability evaluation alternatives developed in research studies in the fields of architectural design, construction, refurbishment and restoration. To achieve this, the analysis follows a specific methodology based on recent similar reviews. The result is a database with 1242 eligible documents analyzed in this review and attached as supplementary material available for future studies. As a main conclusion, rating tools and life cycle methods were found to be the most commonly applied methodologies, while the most recent tendencies use combined methods and probabilistic scenarios. This review could be useful to move towards a more sustainable building environment.

1. Introduction

In response to the serious current environmental problems at a global level [1], the building environment and its sector could contribute to mitigating their own high negative impacts [2] and move towards a less polluting model [3]. Architecture design and construction have a long history that contains numerous examples of low environmental impact buildings, from vernacular architecture [4] to more recent examples such as Gaudi’s waste-based architecture [5]. These past eco-friendly solutions have been both cost-effective and socially respectful. They would be sustainable according to the current holistic definition of sustainability, provided by the Brundtland Commission report [6] and following studies [7] that have included economic, social and environmental areas. Some later research projects have addressed technical [8], governance [9] or cultural factors, among others [10]. At present, there are numerous sustainable architectural designs that result from using building information modeling (BIM; Appendix A presents a complete list of abbreviations in Table A1) [11], incorporating intelligent façade layers [12], passive energy solutions [13], nearly zero-energy buildings [14], the use of recycled construction materials [15] and vertical farming [16], among others.
To choose the best design for each case from all these interesting options, decision makers need strategies to evaluate and rank the sustainability of potential solutions and measures [17]. There are numerous alternatives, from compulsory standards [18] to sophisticated methodologies developed for a particular case study [19]. In between are numerous recognized tools and methodologies [20]. These may be holistic if they assess all branches, for example most rating tools [21], or partial if they assess only one branch, for example energy simulations combined with a life cycle assessment (LCA) that focuses mainly on the environmental requirement [22].
Nevertheless, to decide which assessment tools should be applied in each case, it would be useful to have a critical review of academic studies on these assessment strategies. Most reviews have focused on a specific type of assessment alternative such as simulation optimizations to achieve green buildings [23], LCA for building rehabilitation [24,25], the carbon emissions of buildings [26], multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods for the construction sector [27] and rating tools [28,29,30,31,32]. Consequently, there is lack of reviews that compare all available sustainability assessment approaches. The most comprehensive reviews exclusively study holistic sustainability assessments [21] or focus on specific topics such as the resilience of off-site construction [33].
These studies have contributed significantly to advancing towards a more sustainable building environment. To continue to move forward, this review aims to present an updated analysis of all the alternatives that are available to assess sustainable architecture and its design, construction, refurbishment and restoration, including holistic and partial approaches. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first review that has this scope and perspective. The study is expected to be useful for decision makers to identify available assessment approaches, choose the best option for analyzing alternatives that improve the building environment’s sustainability, and therefore apply the best alternative and contribute to improving sustainability at global level. This report achieves this by means of two analytic levels. The first evaluates studies on sustainable architecture assessment in general, while the second focuses on sustainable design, construction, refurbishment and restoration. The next section explains in depth the methodology followed to carry out this review. Section 3 shows the results, Section 4 contains a discussion of outcomes and Section 5 describes the conclusions.

2. Methodology

The methodologies used in similar reviews were considered in this study [21,27]. Figure 1 presents the steps that were followed.
The first step (S1) was to organize the review into four subphases. In the first subphase, the review topic, subtopic, format and the boundaries of the studies that were to be included were defined. In the second phase, the databases were defined, and the main and complementary databases were selected. The main database was the first to be searched and its results were used as the basis of the review, while the complementary databases added to and confirmed the main database results. In searches of the complementary databases, duplicates were eliminated and, progressively, negative keywords were applied according to the previous results. Then, the researchers defined the searches to be carried out and the exact search keywords. They considered the possibility of using other specific search options available in the database. Finally, the fourth phase defined the search procedure for each database, which meant defining limits in the maximum number of studies analyzed in each database and, if applicable, the order of priority when reviewing them. Section 3.1 explains in detail the results of applying this phase in state-of-the-art studies. The possibility of searching more articles from references within each article was also considered in this subphase. In the second step (S2), the eligibility of studies obtained from the search was analyzed by identifying the outliers that were beyond the boundaries defined in the first step. Step S3 classified these studies depending on their general topic and detected studies that were most closely related to the specific topic of this review. Then, the fourth step (S4) focused on a general analysis of eligible studies, considering chronological and basic information. Consequently, the eligible studies were also classified depending on how each related to the main objective of this review. Finally, the most closely related studies were assessed in detail. The assessment was mainly based on the abstracts and basic information. The following five research features were considered: (a) general approach, (b) research location, (c) specific topic, (d) application and (e) assessment type, phase and alternative.

3. Results

This section presents the results of the review’s five steps while the following section presents the analysis carried out in the last two steps, which were presented in Figure 1.

3.1. Preparation

The research review’s main topic is based on the Section 1: sustainability assessment of architectural design, construction, refurbishment and restoration. The topic is divided into four subtopics: (St1) sustainability assessment (SA) in design; (St2) SA in construction; (St3) SA in refurbishment; and (St4) SA in restoration. The limits of the topic and subtopics are established by the design scale. Thus, studies at the scale of buildings are most closely related to the review topic. Articles that are less closely related to the search topic are focused on:
-
a larger scale, for example urban planning and landscape;
-
a smaller scale, for example materials.
Studies included in the search are in the format of academic studies including research articles, congress papers, books and book chapters. Other contributions, such as patents, citations and entire congresses or special issues, are not included.
The main database was the Web of Science Core Collection database [34] as the review was focused on academic studies, and the results of this search are more limited and could be more completely studied with the available resources. The complementary databases that were consulted were first Google Scholar [35] and second Scopus [36]. These databases were selected considering the existing reviews mentioned in the above sections.
Searches and their keywords in this review were defined considering the aforementioned topics and subtopics and the general results obtained using the main database. The objective was to obtain from the main database over 100 results per subtopic by using the aforementioned subtopic title as keywords or synonyms, and up to three trials. Table 1 presents the resulting keywords that were selected. The definition of these research words also took into account similar previous reviews and related technical literature in the general field of architecture [37,38] and in the specific fields of construction [26,39], refurbishment [40,41] and restoration [42]. Thus, St1 included architecture and its design, considering the holistic approach to architecture from the Vitruvian Triad approach [43] and its conception process. St2 considered the building sector, construction and technologies of architecture and buildings and, therefore, focused on the technical part of architecture, on the “firmitas” part of the aforementioned Triad [43]. Both St3 and St4 addressed the renovation of buildings, and focused on sustainable retrofitting, rehabilitation and refurbishment of existing buildings [44] in the case of St3, while St4 centered on the sustainability of historical and heritage architecture [45]. The authors decided not to use other search options, such as the root of the family word and the symbol asterisk, because the keywords were clear as a whole word from the outset, and the resulting academic studies were consistent with the research project. Furthermore, due to the number of results, references within the articles were not searched in depth to find more articles.
The search procedure was defined as follows. First, the search in the main database was carried out and all the results were considered. Then, the searches were carried out in the complementary databases, considering up to the first 100 most relevant studies only. When the secondary databases were searched, the results that were added dropped to below 10% in the first secondary database and 1% in the last database.

3.2. Identification

The searches were carried out from July to October 2020. The results are depicted in Table 2. The total results were 2859 studies, from which 53 were directly discarded because they did not meet the format of documents included in this research, as explained in Section 3.1. Then, after detecting duplicates, the sample of 1535 documents was defined.
From these 1535 results, 293 were discarded because they were outside the boundaries of the research review. Out of these discarded documents, 71% were about sustainability but not about architecture, as they focused on industrial products and civil works, among others. A further 14% were about architecture but not about sustainability, 8% did not meet important criteria such as having an abstract in the English language, and 7% had no connection with the topics in this review.

3.3. Classification

The 1242 eligible research documents about sustainable architecture were classified according to their general topic into the following 10 subgroups:
(1)
Buildings and its design: 381 documents
(2)
Refurbishment and restoration: 305 studies
(3)
Construction and technologies: 184 records
(4)
Urban planning: 180 studies
(5)
Materials: 58 documents
(6)
Education: 54 studies
(7)
Landscape: 28 records
(8)
Energy systems: 27 documents
(9)
Management: 17 records
(10)
Real estate: 7 documents
From these documents, the most closely related to this review are the 870 studies in the first three subgroups, as this review focuses on buildings and their construction and refurbishment processes, without going into detail on other larger scale issues such as urban planning, landscaping and cities, or smaller scale approaches focused on material properties. Similarly, this review focuses on architectural solutions that are more closely aligned with passive solutions than with active engineering solutions. All 1242 eligible studies are described in general in the following subsection, while the three first subgroups are examined in detail in Section 3.5.

3.4. General Results

The 1242 eligible documents are dated from 1994 to 2020 and distributed as shown in Figure 2.
The document types were as follows: 59% research papers, 37% congress contributions and 4% book chapters.

3.5. Detailed Results

Out of the 870 studies that were most closely related to this review topic, 436 mainly had a theoretical approach as they described a new theory or model; 382 analyzed case studies using existing or new building sustainability assessment systems; and 52 reviewed part of the sustainability assessment in architecture. The distribution of these three groups of documents had an irregular, increasing curve during the study period, starting from the 1990s in the case studies and theoretical documents, and the 2010s in the case of reviews. Most documents had an international approach to their topic, while 336 dealt with a specific location. The specific locations were in Europe in 169 cases, in Asia in 119, America in 24, Africa in 22 and Australia in 7. The six countries in which the highest number of specific case studies were analyzed were Italy, Malaysia, Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom and China. As expected, most studies were carried out in developed countries, but 25% centered on developing economies, starting from the 2000s. Most of these studies, 544, did not consider a specific building application. The most analyzed specific application was residential in 180 studies. Figure 3 presents the specific applications of these research projects.
Within the three general topics, 12 main specific topics were found, as depicted in Table 3.
The first general topic included five specific topics. The first, “(1.1) Sustainable solutions”, covered assessment, monitoring and case studies about green [46,47], smart and intelligent buildings [48] among others. The second, “(1.2) Design process”, was about the conception process of green architecture [49,50]. The third, “(1.3) Policies, legislations, strategies”, included these issues and competitions [51,52]. The fourth, “(1.4) Users’ perspective”, was about the inhabitants’ perspective of sustainable buildings [53,54]. Finally, “(1.5) affordable green buildings and economic issues” focused on economic issues and the affordability of sustainable architecture [55,56]. The second general topic had three sections. The first, “(2.1) Rehabilitation”, was on the renovation of buildings, with a focus on maintenance and refurbishment of components [57,58]. The second, “(2.2) Energy retrofitting”, addressed the energy-based renovation of buildings [59,60]. Finally, “(2.3) Heritage” included valuable historical buildings and their restoration [61,62]. The third general topic had four subtopics. The first, “(3.1) Technologies”, studied construction methods, systems and techniques [63,64]. The second, “(3.2) Construction processes”, included building procedures and their phases [8,39]. The third, “(3.3) Construction elements”, was about building components such as facades and structures [65,66]. Finally, “(3.4) Construction sector & industry” dealt with the building business, including new circular economic models [67,68].
Only 366 studies (42%) had a holistic approach to sustainability and studied its three branches of sustainability—according to its current holistic definition [6,7]—while the rest took a partial approach; 236 focused on environmental and economic issues such as energy efficiency studies [69,70] or studies incorporating LCA and life cycle costs (LCC) [71,72]; 182 focused on the environmental branch such as LCA [73,74] or low carbon studies [75,76]; 36 were on socio-environmental issues, for example [77,78]; 25 emphasized the social branch with social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) [79,80] and other methods; 13 centered on economic aspects with LCC [81,82]; and 12 on socio-economic aspects, for example [83,84]. Few studies focused on other sustainability branches or specific indicators [85]; for example, only 37 studies addressed cultural issues, from which 25 were about heritage [86], six about refurbishment [87] and six about architecture [38]. These cultural studies were published from 1994 to 2020, irregularly distributed over the years, with a slight increase in the last two years. Figure 4 shows the indicators that were considered in depth in the eligible studies over the years while Figure 5 presents these results in relation to the four main studied topics: design, construction, refurbishment and restoration.
Most studies focused on a specific phase: 362 on post-occupancy [88,89] and 256 on the design period [90,91]. Most of the eligible documents contained an analysis: 444 used quantitative methods [92,93], 80 studies mixed quantitative and qualitative methods [94,95] and 106 analyses were based on qualitative analyses [96,97]. As mentioned in the introduction, these studies were expected to address different sustainability assessment alternatives. There were five main groups of well-known methodologies and numerous other specific evaluation approaches. The first and largest group was rating tools, which was the topic of 185 studies and included numerous certification systems. Some of the systems were international, with the most commonly applied being Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) [98,99] with 41 studies and the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) [100,101] with 27. Other studies described specific systems for particular locations [102,103] or historical buildings since 2014 [86,104]. The second largest group was the 179 life cycle approaches, composed of 141 LCA, 35 LCC, but only three life cycle energy assessments (LCEA) [105], three life cycle sustainability assessments (LCSA) [106,107] and five S-LCA [108]. The third group comprised 82 MCDM studies, such as the integrated value model for the evaluation of sustainability method known as MIVES [109,110,111,112]. The fourth was a heterogeneous group of 63 studies that adopted transversal techniques such as questionnaires, surveys [113,114], guidelines and checklist definitions [115,116], strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats [117] or designing techniques [118]. Then, there was a set of 42 energy and thermal simulations [119] and monitoring [120]. Finally, there were 351 studies on other less commonly known or specific methodologies, including specific frameworks [121,122] and searches of key performance indicators [123,124], software developments [125], specific calculations [126] and methodologies for reviews, among others [40,127]. The aforementioned specific methodologies were combined and used together in 52 studies. A total of 28 studies combined life cycle methodologies [128,129]. A total of 16 studies combined BIM with other assessment methodologies [130], from which nine focused on design topic, four on construction, two on refurbishment and one on restoration [131]. Only four BIM-combined articles had a holistic approach to sustainability, eight focused on environmental issues and five on environmental and economic issues. The most recurrent combination was LC methodologies with BIM [132,133] in 14 studies. Apart from these, seven projects combined rating tools with life cycle methodologies [134], four combined LCA with MCDM [135,136], and two combined energy modeling with BIM [137,138]. Figure 6 presents the applications of the most common groups of methodologies (rating tools, life cycle and MCDM) and the combination of them over the years.
In terms of combined studies, the first methodologies that incorporated BIM emerged in 2013. In the last two years, 2019 and 2020, BIM was the most frequently combined alternative. Less than 2% of the articles incorporated probabilistic scenarios, and most were from the late 2010s.

4. Analysis

This section discusses the results presented in the previous section, which were obtained using the methodology explained in Section 2. This methodology enabled a review to be carried out with the limited available resources, without compromising the rigor of the results. At the same time, the methodology could be used for a more detailed review given greater resources. Although this version focused on the abstracts of papers and limited the number of papers from complementary databases, it did consider the most relevant information in the articles and included the most relevant articles according to database criteria.
As presented in Figure 2, the evolution of the number of eligible studies per year since the early 1990s has been irregular but has increased steadily, except for occasional drops in some years. The result was similar in the three general topics of buildings, refurbishment, construction, and others. As a set, these eligible studies had an irregular, increasing tendency from 1994 to 2013. After this date, the number of studies remained more constant until 2019. Nevertheless, the general trend was an increase that could be attributed to growing research interest that was detected in previous similar reviews [17,139].
Focusing on the 758 eligible documents, this review found that sustainability assessment in architecture and its design, construction, refurbishment and restoration has been relatively recent. This area started to be studied in research projects published at scientific level in the 1990s, while the reviews of this area started in the 2010s. As expected, the locations of the studied case studies were mainly in Europe, followed closely by Asia, and mainly in developed countries. The ranking of the specific applications of the documents presented in Figure 3 also coincides with previous similar reviews [21].
The most studied specific topics cover green sustainable solutions, rehabilitation and technologies. These studies were mainly partial instead of holistic, as indicated in previous research [33,140]. The most studied branches were environmental and economic issues, as depicted in Figure 4. Within the four main subtopics in this research, the study of these four branches had a similar common tendency as depicted in Figure 5. In all design, construction, refurbishment and restoration, the most analyzed branch was environmental, while the least studied was the social pillar. Construction was the subtopic with the most studies about the environmental branch, while refurbishment has more articles dealing with the economic pillar. Restoration has more studies on the social branch and differs from the other subtopics as there are less differences in the number of studies related to each branch. This coincides with the fact that this subtopic has far more studies focused on cultural issues and, therefore, could be labelled as the most social and cultural subtopic.
From the main groups of well-known methodologies, the most commonly used were the rating tools. These take a holistic approach to sustainability and are used for the certification of buildings. Versions of each rating tool for each country are available within the Green Building Council [141] and inspired by the pioneer BREEAM in the 1990s [142] and the GBTool [143]. These certification systems evaluate the design or post-occupancy of buildings using checklists that cover numerous indicators on economic, environmental and social issues and give a score that is normally used as an added value for buildings. In some cases, this is mandatory [100]. Some are internationally applicable and applied. The most widely used is LEED and BREEAM according to the number of certified projects, among other indicators [30]. This number of applications coincides with the trend in academic studies found in this review. The second most broadly applied assessment methods are the life cycle tools, such as LCA, LCC, LCSA, S-LCA and LCEA. Other environmental tools have been used less frequently, including material flow analysis [144], material and energy flow analysis [145] and other environmental indexes [146]. Both of these rating and life cycle methods are used at a professional level and are probably also the most used along with energy simulations and studies. In this present review, these energy studies were the fifth group of tools used, which the authors explain because this review focused on sustainability but not on energy. No search word covered this field because it was outside the scope of the study.
Finally, this study also discovered as new tendencies from the early 2010s the combination of sustainability tools [134], the combination of BIM and sustainability assessment tools [147], and the incorporation of probabilistic scenarios and uncertainty [148]. The first studies on the sustainability of artificial intelligence, digital fabrication and robotics are dated from the late 2010s onwards. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, these new tendencies have not focused on cultural issues, apart from one article integrating heritage BIM tools for the sustainability assessment [131]. Since 2013, sustainability assessment models combined with BIM have been applied to design [130], construction [149], refurbishment [132] and restoration [131]. These models have been developed in theoretical articles [138], applied to case studies [150] and studied in reviews [107]. Therefore, the authors foresee that this BIM combination will continue the previously mentioned current increasing tendency in the upcoming years.

5. Conclusions

This research project has produced a database containing basic information from the 1535 studied documents, general information from the 1242 eligible research papers, and a more detailed study of the 870 records that were closest to this review topic. The database is attached as supplementary material on state-of-the-art studies. From this database, the main findings of the review refer to the evolution of the most relevant studies on sustainability assessment alternatives for architecture and its construction, refurbishment and restoration. These findings are as follows:
  • The number of studies per year increased from 1994 to 2013, then remained more or less constant until 2019.
  • General theoretical and case studies emerged in the 1990s, while reviews started to appear in the 2010s.
  • The most commonly applied methodologies are rating tools, followed by life cycle methods.
  • The combination of assessment tools, the combination of BIM and sustainability assessment tools, and the incorporation of probabilistic scenarios and uncertainty started in the early 2010s. However, the first studies about the sustainability of artificial intelligence, digital production and robots in architecture are dated from the late 2010s onwards. Based on the analysis of the BIM-combined tools, the authors foresee an increase in the publication of related studies in the future.
  • The most analyzed sustainability branch was environmental, while the least studied was the social pillar. Construction was the subtopic with the most articles about environmental issues, while refurbishment has more studies dealing with economic aspects and restoration has more articles on the social pillar.
These findings may be useful to gain an overview of the alternatives applied over these years as well as examples of their applications. This review, like similar previous state-of-the-art studies, focused on searches using content keywords related to the topic. Nevertheless, there were results in which assessment tools were combined and integrated. The authors foresee future interesting reviews that focus on incorporating concepts such as integrated or integral approaches, which are considered crucial in some present and future research projects, studies, models or processes [151]. This study was limited to research studies and projects, as a basis to be extended through integrated and integral models and processes. The next research steps should include data from professional practice to determine to what extent these conclusions are related to the professional world. This could help active professionals to move towards more sustainable architecture.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9741/s1, Datasheet S1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.P.-V. and J.N.; methodology, O.P.-V.; formal analysis, O.P.-V.; investigation, O.P.-V.; writing—original draft preparation, O.P.-V.; writing—review and editing, O.P.-V. and J.N.; visualization, O.P.-V.; supervision, J.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, which awarded and funded the project BIA2016-78740-R “Sprayed lightweight material for the strengthening and restoration of urban patrimony”.

Acknowledgments

The co-author Oriol Pons Valladares is a Serra Húnter Fellow.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Abbreviations used in the text.
Table A1. Abbreviations used in the text.
AbbreviationsRelevant Values
BIMBuilding information modeling
NZEBNearly zero-energy building
LCALife cycle assessment
MCDMMulti-criteria decision making
MtMain topic
StSubtopic
SASustainability assessment
LCCLife cycle cost
S-LCASocial life cycle assessment
LEEDLeadership in energy and environmental design
BREEAMBuilding research establishment environmental assessment methodology
LCEALife cycle energy assessment
LCSALife cycle sustainability assessment

References

  1. United Nations Environment Programme. Programme Performance Report 2018; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  2. Martek, I.; Hosseini, M.R.; Shrestha, A. The Sustainability Narrative in Contemporary Architecture: Falling Short of Building a Sustainable Future. Sustainability 2018, 10, 981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Satu, H.; Inge, V. Building conservation and the circular economy: A theoretical consideration. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 10, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Tawayha, F.A.; Braganca, L.; Mateus, R. Contribution of the Vernacular Architecture to the Sustainability: A Comparative Study between the Contemporary Areas and the Old Quarter of a Mediterranean City. Sustainability 2019, 11, 896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Faulí, J. The Basilica of the Sagrada Familia; Editorial Palacios y Museos: Madrid, Spain, 2014; ISBN 8480036656. [Google Scholar]
  6. Brundtland, G.H. Our Common Future; Report of the World Commission on Environment and Develepoment; Oxford University Press: Oslo, Norway, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  7. ICLEI. Towards Sustainable Cities & Towns: Report of the First European Conference on Sustainable Cities & Towns; ICLEI: Freiburg, Germany, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  8. Pan, M.; Linner, T.; Pan, W.; Cheng, H.; Bock, T. A framework of indicators for assessing construction automation and robotics in the sustainability context. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 82–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Nadal, A.; Pons, O.; Cuerva, E.; Rieradevall, J.; Josa, A. Rooftop greenhouses in educational centers: A sustainability assessment of urban agriculture in compact cities. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. De Leão Dornelles, L.; Gandolfi, F.; Mercader-Moyano, P.; Mosquera-Adell, E. Place and memory indicator: Methodology for the formulation of a qualitative indicator, named place and memory, with the intent of contributing to previous works of intervention and restoration of heritage spaces and buildings, in the aspect of sustainabi. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 54, 101985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lu, Y.; Wu, Z.; Chang, R.; Li, Y. Building Information Modeling (BIM) for green buildings: A critical review and future directions. Autom. Constr. 2017, 83, 134–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Böke, J.; Knaack, U.; Hemmerling, M. State-of-the-art of intelligent building envelopes in the context of intelligent technical systems. Intell. Build. Int. 2019, 11, 27–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Semahi, S.; Zemmouri, N.; Singh, M.K.; Attia, S. Comparative bioclimatic approach for comfort and passive heating and cooling strategies in Algeria. Build. Environ. 2019, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Zavadskas, E.K.; Antucheviciene, J.; Kalibatas, D.; Kalibatiene, D. Achieving Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings by applying multi-attribute assessment. Energy Build. 2017, 143, 162–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ortiz, J.A.; de la Fuente, A.; Mena Sebastia, F.; Segura, I.; Aguado, A. Steel-fibre-reinforced self-compacting concrete with 100% recycled mixed aggregates suitable for structural applications. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 156, 230–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Toboso-Chavero, S.; Nadal, A.; Petit-Boix, A.; Pons, O.; Villalba, G.; Gabarrell, X.; Josa, A.; Rieradevall, J. Towards Productive Cities: Environmental Assessment of the Food-Energy-Water Nexus of the Urban Roof Mosaic. J. Ind. Ecol. 2019, 23, 767–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Zhao, X.; Zuo, J.; Wu, G.; Huang, C. A bibliometric review of green building research 2000–2016. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2019, 62, 74–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. ISO. ISO 14040:2006 Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  19. Chiang, T.-Y. Refurbishment criteria performance assessment methodologies based on a multiple-criteria approach. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pons, O.; de la Fuente, A.; Aguado, A. The Use of MIVES as a Sustainability Assessment MCDM Method for Architecture and Civil Engineering Applications. Sustainability 2016, 8, 460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Lazar, N.; Chithra, K. A comprehensive literature review on development of Building Sustainability Assessment Systems. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 32, 101450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Allacker, K.; Castellani, V.; Baldinelli, G.; Bianchi, F.; Baldassarri, C.; Sala, S. Energy simulation and LCA for macro-scale analysis of eco-innovations in the housing stock. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 989–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Gan, V.J.L.; Lo, I.M.C.; Ma, J.; Tse, K.T.; Cheng, J.C.P.; Chan, C.M. Simulation optimisation towards energy efficient green buildings: Current status and future trends. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Thibodeau, C.; Bataille, A.; Sié, M. Building rehabilitation life cycle assessment methodology-state of the art. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 103, 408–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Amini Toosi, H.; Lavagna, M.; Leonforte, F.; Del Pero, C.; Aste, N. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment in Building Energy Retrofitting; A Review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 60, 102248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lu, W.; Tam, V.W.; Chen, H.; Du, L. A holistic review of research on carbon emissions of green building construction industry. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 27, 1065–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zavadskas, E.; Antucheviciene, J.; Vilutiene, T.; Adeli, H. Sustainable Decision-Making in Civil Engineering, Construction and Building Technology. Sustainability 2017, 10, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Park, J.; Yoon, J.; Kim, K.-H. Critical Review of the Material Criteria of Building Sustainability Assessment Tools. Sustainability 2017, 9, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. 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]
  30. Bernardi, E.; Carlucci, S.; Cornaro, C.; Bohne, R.A. An Analysis of the Most Adopted Rating Systems for Assessing the Environmental Impact of Buildings. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Zarghami, E.; Fatourehchi, D. Comparative analysis of rating systems in developing and developed countries: A systematic review and a future agenda towards a region-based sustainability assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liu, T.-Y.; Chen, P.-H.; Chou, N.N.S. Comparison of Assessment Systems for Green Building and Green Civil Infrastructure. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Marjaba, G.E.; Chidiac, S.E. Sustainability and resiliency metrics for buildings—Critical review. Build. Environ. 2016, 101, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Clarivate Web of Science Core Collection. Available online: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/web-of-science-core-collection/ (accessed on 11 October 2020).
  35. Google Google Scholar. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/ (accessed on 11 October 2020).
  36. Elsevier, B.V. Scopus. Available online: https://www.scopus.com/home.uri (accessed on 11 October 2020).
  37. Thomé, A.M.T.; Ceryno, P.S.; Scavarda, A.; Remmen, A. Sustainable infrastructure: A review and a research agenda. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 184, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Qtaishat, Y.; Emmitt, S.; Adeyeye, K. Exploring the socio-cultural sustainability of old and new housing: Two cases from Jordan. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 61, 102250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Akmam Syed Zakaria, S.; Gajendran, T.; Rose, T.; Brewer, G. Contextual, structural and behavioural factors influencing the adoption of industrialised building systems: A review. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2018, 14, 3–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hong, Y.; Deng, W.; Ezeh, C.I.; Peng, Z. Attaining sustainability in built environment: Review of green retrofit measures for existing buildings. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 227, 42051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gonzalez-Caceres, A.; Rabani, M.; Wegertseder Martínez, P.A. A systematic review of retrofitting tools for residential buildings. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 294, 12035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Loli, A.; Bertolin, C. Towards Zero-Emission Refurbishment of Historic Buildings: A Literature Review. Buildings 2018, 8, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Shangina, E.I. The Triad of Vitruvius in the Modern World BT-ICGG 2018—Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Geometry and Graphics; Cocchiarella, L., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 2095–2107. [Google Scholar]
  44. Leung, B.C.-M. Greening existing buildings [GEB] strategies. Energy Rep. 2018, 4, 159–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Munarim, U.; Ghisi, E. Environmental feasibility of heritage buildings rehabilitation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 58, 235–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Liu, Y.; Lu, Y.; Hong, Z.; Nian, V.; Loi, T.S.A. The “START” framework to evaluate national progress in green buildings and its application in cases of Singapore and China. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2019, 75, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Qiu, Y.; Kahn, M.E. Better sustainability assessment of green buildings with high-frequency data. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 642–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gadakari, T.; Mushatat, S.; Newman, R. Intelligent buildings: Key to achieving total sustainability in the built environment. J. Eng. Proj. Prod. Manag. 2013, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Nasr Aly Tahoun, Z. Awareness assessment of biophilic design principles application. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 329, 12044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nguyen, T.N.; Toroghi, S.H.; Jacobs, F. Automated Green Building Rating System for Building Designs. J. Archit. Eng. 2016, 22, A4015001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mobiglia, M.; Cellina, F.; Castri, R. Sustainability Assessment in Architectural Competitions in Switzerland. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 323, 12115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Häkkinen, T.; Rekola, M.; Ala-Juusela, M.; Ruuska, A. Role of Municipal Steering in Sustainable Building and Refurbishment. Energy Procedia 2016, 96, 650–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Günçe, K.; Mısırlısoy, D. Assessment of Adaptive Reuse Practices through User Experiences: Traditional Houses in the Walled City of Nicosia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Xie, H.; Clements-Croome, D.; Wang, Q. Move beyond green building: A focus on healthy, comfortable, sustainable and aesthetical architecture. Intell. Build. Int. 2017, 9, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Qin, H.T.Y.; Im, L.P.; AbdulLateef, O. Sustainability of affordable housing: A review of assessment tools. Int. Trans. J. Eng. Manag. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2019, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Xiao, X.; Skitmore, M.; Li, H.; Xia, B. Mapping Knowledge in the Economic Areas of Green Building Using Scientometric Analysis. Energies 2019, 12, 3011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Tan, Y.; Liu, G.; Zhang, Y.; Shuai, C.; Shen, G.Q. Green retrofit of aged residential buildings in Hong Kong: A preliminary study. Build. Environ. 2018, 143, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hoai, L.A.T.; Sungho, P.K.; Niluka, D.; Eziaku, R.; Nalanie, M. Sustainable refurbishment for school buildings: A literature review. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Myhren, J.A.; Heier, J.; Hugosson, M.; Zhang, X. The perception of Swedish housing owner’s on the strategies to increase the rate of energy efficient refurbishment of multi-family buildings. Intell. Build. Int. 2020, 12, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kmeťková, J.; Krajčík, M. Energy Efficient Retrofit and Life Cycle Assessment of an Apartment Building. Energy Procedia 2015, 78, 3186–3191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Živa, K.; Alenka, T.S.; Athena, R. Sustainability and universal design aspects in heritage building refurbishment. Facilities 2019, 38, 599–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Karoglou, M.; Kyvelou, S.S.; Boukouvalas, C.; Theofani, C.; Bakolas, A.; Krokida, M.; Moropoulou, A. Towards a Preservation–Sustainability Nexus: Applying LCA to Reduce the Environmental Footprint of Modern Built Heritage. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Chan, A.P.C.; Darko, A.; Olanipekun, A.O.; Ameyaw, E.E. Critical barriers to green building technologies adoption in developing countries: The case of Ghana. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 1067–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Pons, O.; De La Fuente, A. Integrated sustainability assessment method applied to structural concrete columns. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 49, 882–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Afzal, M.; Liu, Y.; Cheng, J.C.P.; Gan, V.J.L. Reinforced concrete structural design optimization: A critical review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260, 120623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Julianna, C.; Cavassin, B.L.; Angonese, C.A.P.; da Mello Maron, M.D.R.; Sergio, S.; Ferreira, A.A.M.; Diogo, B. A BIM–LCA integration technique to embodied carbon estimation applied on wall systems in Brazil. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2018, 8, 491–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Roh, S.; Tae, S.; Kim, R. Developing a Green Building Index (GBI) Certification System to Effectively Reduce Carbon Emissions in South Korea’s Building Industry. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Akanbi, L.A.; Oyedele, L.O.; Omoteso, K.; Bilal, M.; Akinade, O.O.; Ajayi, A.O.; Davila Delgado, J.M.; Owolabi, H.A. Disassembly and deconstruction analytics system (D-DAS) for construction in a circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 223, 386–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Aste, N.; Leonforte, F.; Manfren, M.; Mazzon, M. Thermal inertia and energy efficiency—Parametric simulation assessment on a calibrated case study. Appl. Energy 2015, 145, 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Villacampa, A.; Brebbia, C.A. Energy Efficiency In Heritage Friendly Buildings: A Case Study In The New Forest (UK). WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2013, 176, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Bhochhibhoya, S.; Pizzol, M.; Achten, W.M.J.; Maskey, R.K.; Zanetti, M.; Cavalli, R. Comparative life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of lodging in the Himalaya. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 1851–1863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Fregonara, E.; Giordano, R.; Ferrando, D.G.; Pattono, S. Economic-Environmental Indicators to Support Investment Decisions: A Focus on the Buildings’ End-of-Life Stage. Buildings 2017, 7, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Monticelli, C.; Zanelli, A. Structural membranes in architecture: An eco-efficient solution for the future? TECHNE J. Technol. Archit. Environ. 2018, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Oquendo-Di Cosola, V.; Olivieri, F.; Ruiz-García, L.; Bacenetti, J. An environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Living Wall Systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 254, 109743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Lai, X.; Liu, J.; Georgiev, G. Low carbon technology integration innovation assessment index review based on rough set theory—An evidence from construction industry in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 126, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Abiola, B.; Lamine, M.; Paul, O.; Colin, B. Insights of architects’ knowledge of the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) in relation to low carbon housing design and delivery in the UK. Struct. Surv. 2012, 30, 443–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Murtagh, N.; Roberts, A.; Hind, R. The relationship between motivations of architectural designers and environmentally sustainable construction design. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2016, 34, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Hojem, T.S.M.; Sørensen, K.H.; Lagesen, V.A. Designing a ‘green’ building: Expanding ambitions through social learning. Build. Res. Inf. 2014, 42, 591–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Liu, S.; Qian, S. Evaluation of social life-cycle performance of buildings: Theoretical framework and impact assessment approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 213, 792–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wan, L.; Ng, E. Evaluation of the social dimension of sustainability in the built environment in poor rural areas of China. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2018, 61, 319–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Galle, W.; De Temmerman, N.; Allacker, K.; De Meyer, R. Geometric service life modelling and discounting, a practical method for parametrised life cycle assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 1191–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Fantozzi, F.; Gargari, C.; Rovai, M.; Salvadori, G. Energy Upgrading of Residential Building Stock: Use of Life Cycle Cost Analysis to Assess Interventions on Social Housing in Italy. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Mangold, M.; Österbring, M.; Wallbaum, H.; Thuvander, L.; Femenias, P. Socio-economic impact of renovation and energy retrofitting of the Gothenburg building stock. Energy Build. 2016, 123, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Švajlenka, J.; Kozlovská, M. Perception of User Criteria in the Context of Sustainability of Modern Methods of Construction Based on Wood. Sustainability 2018, 10, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Moioli, R. Architectural Cultural Heritage and Sustainability: How Many Pillars. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainability in Architectural Cultural Heritage, Limassol, Cyprus, 11–12 December 2015; p. 202. [Google Scholar]
  86. Mancik, S.; Růžička, J. Assessment Tool for Refurbishments ReSBToolCZ Emphasising Cultural-Historical Buildings. Adv. Mater. Res. 2014, 923, 149–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. An, D.W.; LEE, J.-Y. The 2001–2017 Façade Renovations of Jongno Roadside Commercial Buildings Built in the 1950s–60s: Sustainability of Ordinary Architecture within Regionality. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Stevenson, F. Post-occupancy evaluation and sustainability: A review. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Urban Des. Plan. 2009, 162, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Shika, S.A.; Sapri, M.; Jibril, J.D.; Sipan, I.; Abdullah, S. Developing Post Occupancy Evaluation Sustainability Assessment Framework for Retrofitting Commercial Office Buildings: A Proposal. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 65, 644–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Monticelli, C.; Zanelli, A. Life Cycle Design and Efficiency Principles for Membrane Architecture: Towards a New Set of Eco-design Strategies. Procedia Eng. 2016, 155, 416–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Hayhoe, J. Designing Super-Tall Buildings for Increased Resilience. Des. Econ. Built Environ. 2015, 284–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Tagliabue, L.C.; Di Giuda, G.M.; Villa, V.; De Angelis, E.; Ciribini, A.L.C. Techno-economical Analysis based on a Parametric Computational Evaluation for decision process on envelope technologies and configurations. Energy Build. 2018, 158, 736–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Phillips, R.; Troup, L.; Fannon, D.; Eckelman, M.J. Triple bottom line sustainability assessment of window-to-wall ratio in US office buildings. Build. Environ. 2020, 182, 107057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Alavi, H.S.; Verma, H.; Mlynar, J.; Lalanne, D. The Hide and Seek of Workspace: Towards Human-Centric Sustainable Architecture. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada, April 2018; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  95. Risholt, B.; Time, B.; Hestnes, A.G. Sustainability assessment of nearly zero energy renovation of dwellings based on energy, economy and home quality indicators. Energy Build. 2013, 60, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Armagan, D.H. Assessment of the perception of cultural heritage as an adaptive re-use and sustainable development strategy: Case study of Kaunas, Lithuania. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 9, 430–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kofi, A.; Emmanuel, A.; Godslove, A. Factors driving the adoption of green certification of buildings in Ghana. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Dobiáš, J.; Macek, D. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and its Impact on Building Operational Expenditures. Procedia Eng. 2014, 85, 132–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Shin, M.H.; Kim, H.Y.; Gu, D.; Kim, H. LEED, Its Efficacy and Fallacy in a Regional Context—An Urban Heat Island Case in California. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Serrano-Baena, M.M.; Triviño-Tarradas, P.; Ruiz-Díaz, C.; Hidalgo Fernández, R.E. Implications of BREEAM Sustainability Assessment on the Design of Hotels. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Schweber, L. The effect of BREEAM on clients and construction professionals. Build. Res. Inf. 2013, 41, 129–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Lee, J.; Shepley, M. The Green Standard For Energy and Environmental Design (g-seed) For Multi-family Housing Rating System in Korea: A Review of Evaluating Practices and Suggestions For Improvement. J. Green Build. 2019, 14, 155–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Zarghami, E.; Azemati, H.; Fatourehchi, D.; Karamloo, M. Customizing well-known sustainability assessment tools for Iranian residential buildings using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. Build. Environ. 2018, 128, 107–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Bertagni, S.; Boarin, P.; Zuppiroli, M. The Dialogue between Structural Interventions and Sustainability Criteria in Rating Systems for Cultural Heritage: The Experience of GBC Historic Building. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2020, 14, 139–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. 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]
  106. Llatas, C.; Angulo Fornos, R.; Bizcocho, N.; Cortés Albalá, I.; Falcón Ganfornina, R.; Galeana, I.; García-Martínez, A.; Gómez de Cózar, J.C.; López Alonso, S.; Meda, P.; et al. Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment method for the quantification and reduction of impacts of buildings life cycle. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 323, 12107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Llatas, C.; Soust-Verdaguer, B.; Passer, A. Implementing Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment during design stages in Building Information Modelling: From systematic literature review to a methodological approach. Build. Environ. 2020, 182, 107164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Pombo, O.; Rivela, B.; Neila, J. The challenge of sustainable building renovation: Assessment of current criteria and future outlook. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 123, 88–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Josa, I.; Pons, O.; de la Fuente, A.; Aguado, A. Multi-criteria decision-making model to assess the sustainability of girders and trusses: Case study for roofs of sports halls. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 249, 119312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Hosseini, S.M.A.; Pons, O.; de la Fuente, A. A sustainability-based model for dealing with the uncertainties of post-disaster temporary housing. Sustain. Resilient Infrastruct. 2019, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Zubizarreta, M.; Cuadrado, J.; Iradi, J.; García, H.; Orbe, A. Innovation evaluation model for macro-construction sector companies: A study in Spain. Eval. Program Plann. 2017, 61, 22–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Cuadrado, J.; Rojí, E.; José, J.T.S.; Reyes, J.P. Sustainability index for industrial buildings. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Struct. Build. 2012, 165, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Karakhan, A.A.; Gambatese, J.A. Integrating Worker Health and Safety into Sustainable Design and Construction: Designer and Constructor Perspectives. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 4017069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Chan, A.P.C.; Darko, A.; Ameyaw, E.E. Strategies for Promoting Green Building Technologies Adoption in the Construction Industry—An International Study. Sustainability 2017, 9, 969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Shen, L.; Li Hao, J.; Tam, V.W.; Yao, H. A checklist for assessing sustainability performance of construction projects. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2007, 13, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Niroumand, H.; Zain, M.F.M.; Jamil, M. A guideline for assessing of critical parameters on Earth architecture and Earth buildings as a sustainable architecture in various countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 28, 130–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Davies, P.; Osmani, M. Low carbon housing refurbishment challenges and incentives: Architects’ perspectives. Build. Environ. 2011, 46, 1691–1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Kırdök, O.; Altun, T.D.; Dokgöz, D.; Tokuç, A. Biodesign as an innovative tool to decrease construction induced carbon emissions in the environment. Int. J. Glob. Warm. 2019, 19, 127–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Lombardo, G.; Cicero, C. Simulation analysis of improved envelope measures for modern buildings in the Mediterranean climate. Int. J. Sustain. Build. Technol. Urban Dev. 2014, 5, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Akanden, O.K.; Odeleye, D.; Coday, A.; JimenezBescos, C. Performance evaluation of operational energy use in refurbishment, reuse, and conservation of heritage buildings for optimum sustainability. Front. Archit. Res. 2016, 5, 371–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Wong, P.F. A framework of sustainability refurbishment assessment for heritage buildings in Malaysia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 268, 12011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Sabbagh, M.J.; Mansour, O.E.; Banawi, A.A. Grease the Green Wheels: A Framework for Expediting the Green Building Movement in the Arab World. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Kylili, A.; Fokaides, P.A.; Lopez Jimenez, P.A. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) approach in buildings renovation for the sustainability of the built environment: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 56, 906–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. ALwaer, H.; Clements-Croome, D.J. Key performance indicators (KPIs) and priority setting in using the multi-attribute approach for assessing sustainable intelligent buildings. Build. Environ. 2010, 45, 799–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Yung, P.; Wang, X. A 6D CAD Model for the Automatic Assessment of Building Sustainability. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 2014, 11, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Sicignano, E.; Di Ruocco, G.; Melella, R. Mitigation Strategies for Reduction of Embodied Energy and Carbon, in the Construction Systems of Contemporary Quality Architecture. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Ju, C.; Ning, Y.; Pan, W. A review of interdependence of sustainable building. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2016, 56, 120–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Zamagni, A.; Pesonen, H.-L.; Swarr, T. From LCA to Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: Concept, practice and future directions. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 1637–1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  129. Ostermeyer, Y.; Wallbaum, H.; Reuter, F. Multidimensional Pareto optimization as an approach for site-specific building refurbishment solutions applicable for life cycle sustainability assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 1762–1779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Seyis, S. Mixed method review for integrating building information modeling and life-cycle assessments. Build. Environ. 2020, 173, 106703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Khodeir, L.M.; Aly, D.; Tarek, S. Integrating HBIM (Heritage Building Information Modeling) Tools in the Application of Sustainable Retrofitting of Heritage Buildings in Egypt. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2016, 34, 258–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  132. Edwards, R.E.; Lou, E.; Bataw, A.; Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Johnson, C. Sustainability-led design: Feasibility of incorporating whole-life cycle energy assessment into BIM for refurbishment projects. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 24, 100697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Raouf, A.M.I.; Al-Ghamdi, S.G. Building information modelling and green buildings: Challenges and opportunities. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2019, 15, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Raslanas, S.; Stasiukynas, A.; Jurgelaitytė, E. Sustainability Assessment Studies of Recreational Buildings. Procedia Eng. 2013, 57, 929–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. Pons, O.; Aguado, A. Integrated value model for sustainable assessment applied to technologies used to build schools in Catalonia, Spain. Build. Environ. 2012, 53, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Hosseini, S.M.A.; de la Fuente, A.; Pons, O. Multi-criteria decision-making method for assessing the sustainability of post-disaster temporary housing units technologies: A case study in Bam. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 20, 38–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Jiang, S.; Lei, W. The Application of BIM in Green Building Energy Saving: Take Helsinki Music Center as an Example. Adv. Mater. Res. 2014, 935, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Shoubi, M.V.; Shoubi, M.V.; Bagchi, A.; Barough, A.S. Reducing the operational energy demand in buildings using building information modeling tools and sustainability approaches. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2015, 6, 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  139. Stojčić, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Pamučar, D.; Stević, Ž.; Mardani, A. Application of MCDM Methods in Sustainability Engineering: A Literature Review 2008. Symmetry 2019, 11, 350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  140. Jensen, S.R.; Kamari, A.; Strange, A.; Kirkegaard, P.H. Towards a Holistic Approach to Retrofitting: A Critical Review of Stateof-the-art Evaluation Methodologies for Architectural Transformation. In Proceedings of the World Sustainable Built Conference 2017, Hong Kong, China, 5–7 June 2017; pp. 689–696. [Google Scholar]
  141. Herazo, B.; Lizarralde, G. The influence of green building certifications in collaboration and innovation processes. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2015, 33, 279–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Libby, S. The Cultural Role of Science in Policy Implementation: Voluntary Self-Regulation in the UK Building Sector. In Fields of Knowledge: Science, Politics and Publics in the Neoliberal Age; Political Power and Social Theory; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2014; Volume 27, pp. 157–191. ISBN 978-1-78350-668-2. [Google Scholar]
  143. Chang, K.-F.; Chiang, C.-M.; Chou, P.-C. Adapting aspects of GBTool 2005—Searching for suitability in Taiwan. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 310–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Guo, D.; Huang, L. The State of the Art of Material Flow Analysis Research Based on Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling and Disposal. Buildings 2019, 9, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  145. Albelwi, N.; Kwan, A.; Rezgui, Y. Using Material and Energy Flow Analysis to Estimate Future Energy Demand at the City Level. Energy Procedia 2017, 115, 440–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Giannetti, B.F.; Demétrio, J.C.C.; Agostinho, F.; Almeida, C.M.V.B.; Liu, G. Towards more sustainable social housing projects: Recognizing the importance of using local resources. Build. Environ. 2018, 127, 187–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Nguyen, T.H.; Shehab, T.; Gao, Z. Evaluating Sustainability of Architectural Designs Using Building Information Modeling. Open Constr. Build. Technol. J. 2010, 4, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Yu, J.Q.; Dang, B.; Clements-Croome, D.; Xu, S. Sustainability Assessment Indicators and Methodology for Intelligent Buildings. Adv. Mater. Res. 2012, 368–373, 3829–3832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Oti, A.H.; Tizani, W. BIM extension for the sustainability appraisal of conceptual steel design. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2015, 29, 28–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Yang, X.; Hu, M.; Wu, J.; Zhao, B. Building-information-modeling enabled life cycle assessment, a case study on carbon footprint accounting for a residential building in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 183, 729–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Seghier, T.E.; Ahmad, M.H.; Wah, L.Y.; Samuel, W.O. Integration Models of Building Information Modelling and Green Building Rating Systems: A Review. Adv. Sci. Lett. 2018, 24, 4121–4125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 12 09741 g001 550
Figure 1. Main steps followed in this review.
Figure 1. Main steps followed in this review.
Sustainability 12 09741 g001
Sustainability 12 09741 g002 550
Figure 2. Distribution over the years of the eligible research studies.
Figure 2. Distribution over the years of the eligible research studies.
Sustainability 12 09741 g002
Sustainability 12 09741 g003 550
Figure 3. Distribution of the eligible research studies over the years.
Figure 3. Distribution of the eligible research studies over the years.
Sustainability 12 09741 g003
Sustainability 12 09741 g004 550
Figure 4. Distribution of the studied branches of sustainability over the years.
Figure 4. Distribution of the studied branches of sustainability over the years.
Sustainability 12 09741 g004
Sustainability 12 09741 g005 550
Figure 5. Distribution of the branches of sustainability within the four main topics.
Figure 5. Distribution of the branches of sustainability within the four main topics.
Sustainability 12 09741 g005
Sustainability 12 09741 g006 550
Figure 6. Distribution of the sustainability assessment methodologies over the years.
Figure 6. Distribution of the sustainability assessment methodologies over the years.
Sustainability 12 09741 g006
Table
Table 1. Search and keywords definition.
Table 1. Search and keywords definition.
TopicSearchKeywordsNRMD 1
St1St1aSustainability + assessment + architecture332
St1bSustainability + assessment + architecture + review50
St1cSustainability + assessment + architecture + design201
St2St2aSustainability + assessment + architecture + building sector28
St2bSustainability + assessment + construction + buildings + architecture89
St2cSustainability + assessment + construction + buildings + technologies184
St3 St3aSustainability + assessment + refurbishment + buildings85
St3bSustainability + assessment + refurbishment + architecture5
St3cSustainability + assessment + retrofitting + architecture11
St4 St4aSustainability + assessment + restoration + buildings36
St4bSustainability + assessment + restoration + architecture8
St4cSustainability + assessment + renovation + architecture9
1 Number of results in the main database. Legend: St1: subtopic one, which is sustainability assessment (SA) in architecture; St2: subtopic two, which is SA in construction; St3: subtopic three, which is SA in refurbishment; and St4: subtopic four, which is SA in restoration.
Table
Table 2. Results from the searches.
Table 2. Results from the searches.
TopicSearchNo. of Results in DatabasesNo. of New Results in Databases
Main1st cmp.2nd cmp.Main1st cmp.2nd cmp.
St1St1a332100100948634
St1b5010037497312
St1c2011001001174329
St2St2a281003166712
St2b89100100703727
St2c1841001001615449
St3 St3a8510072845823
St3b510070501
St3c1110070712
St4St4a3610044226718
St4b8100100561
St4c9100130611
Totals10381200621603723209
28591535
Legend: St1: subtopic one, which is sustainability assessment (SA) in architecture; St2: subtopic two, which is SA in construction; St3: subtopic three, which is SA in refurbishment; and St4: subtopic four, which is SA in restoration. No.: number; cmp.: complementary.
Table
Table 3. Main specific 12 topics within the general topics studied in depth.
Table 3. Main specific 12 topics within the general topics studied in depth.
General TopicSpecific Main TopicsNumber of Studies
(1) Buildings and their design(1.1) Sustainable solutions244
(1.2) Design process66
(1.3) Policies, legislations and strategies31
(1.4) Users’ perspective24
(1.5) Affordable buildings and economic issues16
(2) Refurbishment and restoration(2.1) Rehabilitation155
(2.2) Energy retrofitting73
(2.3) Heritage77
(3) Construction and technologies(3.1) Technologies75
(3.2) Construction processes48
(3.3) Construction elements37
(3.4) Construction sector and industry24
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pons-Valladares, O.; Nikolic, J. Sustainable Design, Construction, Refurbishment and Restoration of Architecture: A Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9741. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229741

AMA Style

Pons-Valladares O, Nikolic J. Sustainable Design, Construction, Refurbishment and Restoration of Architecture: A Review. Sustainability. 2020; 12(22):9741. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229741

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pons-Valladares, Oriol, and Jelena Nikolic. 2020. "Sustainable Design, Construction, Refurbishment and Restoration of Architecture: A Review" Sustainability 12, no. 22: 9741. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229741

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