Next Article in Journal
Impact of Digital Economy on Dual Circulation: An Empirical Analysis in China
Next Article in Special Issue
Facilitating Circular Economy Strategies Using Digital Construction Tools: Framework Development
Previous Article in Journal
A Multi-Objective Model to Find the Sustainable Location for Citrus Hub
Previous Article in Special Issue
Decision-Making Framework for Sustainable Construction Products Selection in SMEs
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 21
10.3390/su142114464
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

Reviewing the Role of Key Performance Indicators in Architectural and Urban Design Practices

by
Francesca Mosca
* and
Katia Perini
Department of Architecture and Design, University of Genoa, 16123 Genoa, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(21), 14464; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114464
Submission received: 27 September 2022 / Revised: 28 October 2022 / Accepted: 29 October 2022 / Published: 3 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Towards Sustainable Built Environment: Trending Methods and Practices)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Energy use and relative CO2 emissions drive climate change that affects both the environment and human health. Extreme events caused by climate change, such as heat waves, flooding, and droughts are increasingly frequent and dangerous and the quality of life in cities is progressively decreasing. The building sector is among the most energy intensive sectors and mitigation and adaptation strategies are needed to reduce the emissions and impacts of climate change. This article presents a literature review created using the SCOPUS database on 515 articles setup to investigate the role of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in architectural and urban design processes and to understand how KPIs can be used to improve sustainability in the design of buildings and cities. Findings from the literature review highlights the potentiality of KPIs as a tool for managing complexity and for measure performances starting from the early design stages up to the lifetime of buildings and, in general, design. In parallel, the analysis of results showed that KPIs are commonly used to evaluate performance at a very different scale, but the building scale is the most considered. The use of KPIs in architecture, focusing on sustainability, should be implemented more in the future to allow for a better control of architectural performances.

1. Introduction

According to the International Energy Agency, the contribution of buildings toward the total energy use in 2021 reached 30% in developed countries and 27% of the total emissions of the energy sector [1]; CO2 emission is not only considered the primary effect of energy production but it is also more widely considered as the result of all anthropogenic activities. The 2022 IPCC Report highlights the main responsibility of human activities in causing climate change, stating that CO2 emissions are proved to be one of the primary causes of these changes [2,3].
Due to climatic changes, the urban environment is now characterized by extreme events such as heat waves, drought, and floods, which do not only affect environmental balances but also human health [4,5,6]. Because of these issues, a more performance-oriented approach in the design process would be an improvement in terms of risk reduction; urban areas can be exploited as “laboratories” for adaptation and mitigation to climate change initiatives [7]. Different methods could be taken into account to manage this challenge in the context of urban and building design: conventionally, several design strategies are demonstrated to be useful to reduce energy consumption (e.g., insulation strategies, more efficient cooling and heating plants) [8]. In the context of computational design, one of the most common tools could be the use of software that considers the building’s consumption already in the design process [9].
However, in order to effectively manage building performances and to support sustainable design approaches to reduce consumption and relative emissions, one of the most versatile tools are Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), [10]. KPIs are generally used to measure performances and to focus on specific aspects of outputs [11]; furthermore, they are also used as tools to represent project goals and help to measure and manage design progress in relation to those goals [12].
This performance-based approach is strictly related to the sustainability concept, which has been progressively more widely used in design practices in recent decades [13]. It focuses on the three pillars of sustainable development: economic growth, environmental protection, and social equality [14]. The idea that the concept of sustainability without a reference scale is meaningful has increasingly spread; therefore, for each scale, sustainability considers different aspects [15]. At the building scale, for example, one of the most common definitions for sustainable architecture is “smart building”, mainly related to energy consumption reduction and control [10]. In this context, current design approaches need also to face with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) defined by the United Nations for the Agenda 2030 [16]. In particular, SDGs 11 and 12, focused on sustainable cities and communities and responsible consumption and production, are the most related to buildings and cities and need to be considered during the design process.
Current design approaches only partially consider the challenges posed by the complexity of the urban environment: during the design process, solutions universally considered ‘sustainable’ are commonly identified, often without considering the specifics of the site and without predicting the performance of those particular solutions, lacking a systematic approach [17,18]. Because of this lack, a literature review of the current use of KPIs in the design process has been set up. The findings of the research would help in defining a more scientific approach to the design process and in improving the capacity of buildings and districts to be more environmentally sustainable and, in particular, to reduce energy use and relative CO2 emissions and for climate change adaptation.
The paper is organized as follows: in the introduction, the authors provide an overview of current issues of the urban environment and of the resulting central role of building construction. In the Section 2, research methods and the progressive article selection system are explained. The Section 3 shows the first output of the review and the results’ elaboration sets up the discussion in order to answer the research questions. Finally, in the conclusion, the ending remarks highlight the findings.

Aim of the Study

This review is set up in order to evaluate if and how KPIs are used in building and urban design, with a focus on a sustainable design approach. Starting from this general objective, the following more specific research objectives can be drafted:
  • Identify the main research fields related to building and urban design that consider KPIs.
  • Among the fields identified in Point 1, define and discuss the main purposes related to the use of KPIs.
  • Identify the most common methodologies used for KPIs evaluation in building and urban design.
  • Evaluate if and how KPIs are considered in terms of sustainability evaluation and the main aspect of sustainability considered in the literature.

2. Materials and Methods

The literature review is set up in order to define the relationship between architectural and urban design process and KPIs. The review is based on a first in-depth analysis of all the papers found with a first database search (515 articles), followed by the identification of a small group of articles that were considered relevant to the research objective.
The review was created using the SCOPUS database [19], with the following set of keywords: “KPI” OR “Key Performance Indicator*” AND “design” OR “urban planning” OR “architecture” for titles, abstracts, and keywords categories. This first search resulted in 2549 articles: starting from this result, specific filters were applied in order to select articles more coherent with the main aim of the review and accessible. In particular, filters were defined as follows:
For the “Language” filter, only English articles were selected. In relation to “Document type”, only articles or book chapters. Excluded fields include: computer science, physics and astronomy, mathematics, business, chemistry, economy, medicine, health, immunology, biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology, and chemical engineering. This specific layer of filtering has been setup in order to identify articles related to the building and urban design field, even though other research fields are naturally related to sustainability studies such as, for example, chemical engineering.
Finally, a selection of “Exact keywords” is defined: “KPI”, “Design”, “Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)”, “Architectural Design”, “Key Performance Indicators (KPI)”, “Design/methodology/approach”, and “Architecture”. After the application of this set of filters, the final set of articles extracted from SCOPUS was created using 515 articles written from 2004 to 2022.
Among the 515 articles identified through the application of the filters, the most relevant for the research aims were selected, i.e., the ones related to urban design, building design, and building component design.
Then, a deeper analysis was conducted on the previously selected articles to define:
  • Which KPIs were considered.
  • If the research was based on simulations or field measurements, or even in the case of a literature review.
  • Scale considered (urban, building, building element, the component of building element).
  • Aim of the use of KPIs.
Through deeper analysis of the selected articles, a further reduced group of articles directly related to the building design field was analyzed. All articles in the field of manufacturing not focused on products for building construction are not considered in the last part of the analysis, because the final list of KPIs aimed to be mainly related to the architecture and urban design field.
The sample size of the review after the second step of filtering is 76 articles, on which a critical analysis was conducted in order to be able to answer the research question set. For the selected articles, the followings characteristics are identified:
  • The aim of the research and the relative role of KPIs.
  • The specific field (urban, building, building materials, building component, a component of building component).
  • The tools, e.g., simulations or field measurements.
In parallel, an analysis of keywords used in the literature has been set up using VOSViewer software in order to visualize networks and cooccurrences of the keywords, as well as the frequency of keywords. For the analysis of the keywords, “association strength” has been selected as a method for normalization within the VOSViewer settings. This kind of analysis is useful to identify groups of keywords that are commonly used in this specific research field and the main focuses of analyzed papers.
To be able to evaluate the kind of KPIs considered in reviewed papers and their frequency, a clustering of KPIs has been performed. Eight clusters were defined after a review of all KPIs described in the 36 articles (Figure 1).

3. Results and Discussion

The articles selected in the first part of the review (2549), i.e., before the application of filters related to main fields of interest, were written between 1987 and 2022.
After the application of filters described in the Section 2, 515 articles were selected. Among them, a first analysis allowed for the identification of the ones relevant for the research (articles referring to the architecture of software, computer science, economy, and social sciences were excluded). Excluding articles that are not relevant helped in identifying 315 articles directly related to building and urban design. In parallel, for each of the 315 selected articles, the relative field of research was identified, i.e.,:
  • Manufacturing;
  • Building design;
  • Engineering and technology of building/infrastructure/materials (so, mainly related also to building construction and urban design);
  • Urban design. (Figure 2):
The other 200 articles were mainly focused on computer science and technology applied to other fields such as the automotive and information industries and logistics and other economic fields.
After the application of filters, the selected papers were published between 2005 and 2022: the review highlights that KPIs as tools for architects and planners to measure the performances of buildings (or their components) are increasingly used over time, with a peak in the number of articles written in 2019. The number of publications highlights the increasing interest in using KPIs as tools to improve design performances. Nevertheless, it is necessary to specify that since the review has been set up in March 2022, data related to the publication of this year are not exhaustive (Figure 3).
An in-depth analysis of the articles showed that some of them related to the manufacturing field referred to other domains than building construction. After the second step of the filtering, which consisted of considering only the articles related to building construction and urban design, a group of 76 articles was finally selected (Figure 4).
An analysis of the keywords used in the 76 selected articles firstly shows that Key Performance Indicators are very often coupled with benchmarking, which plays a central role in the KPIs approach. Secondly, the output of the analysis, shows a strong relationship with energy use reduction and cooling and heating plants (Figure 5).
In addition, focusing on the network of keywords related to “architectural design”, Figure 5 shows that there’s a connection with keywords such as “life-cycle” approach and “environmental sustainability”, but, again, this focus highlights the central role of energy utilization and efficiency. As described in Section 2—Materials and Methods—the keyword diagrams highlight the main research fields and highlights in the selected literature.
An in-depth analysis has been conducted in order to be able to define the methodology used, the scale considered, and the aim of the research for each of the 76 selected articles.
The first analysis was oriented to define which methodology is used in the selected literature. Three main categories have been defined: software simulations, field measurement, and others (mainly literature reviews). Table 1 shows the different approaches used:
Table 1 shows that simulations and in general informatics tools are widely used to validate research hypotheses. This result highlights the central role of software simulations in the design process and allows designers to have a prediction of the performance of the project before the construction, unlike field measurements that can provide data about the performances of an object only after the construction (Figure 5).
The second analysis was set up to define on which scale analyzed papers are focused. Table 2 shows if the selected publications focus on: urban scale, building scale, building material, building component, or component of building component.
Table 2 shows that the analyzed studies are concentrated at all scales of detail, albeit with different frequencies: starting from the urban scale up to the scale of a single component of an object. However, the analysis of results highlights that the main focus is more related to a building’s evaluation in its complexity than to a single component or material. The results coming from it highlight the central role of KPIs in the assessment of specific performances on a building scale (Figure 6).
The third part of the analysis is focused on the identification of the main aim of the research of analyzed papers, as shown in Table 3.
As already highlighted in Table 1, analyzed papers focus on very different research aims, since KPIs can be used very widely to evaluate performances. Table 3 shows that four main categories of aims can be drafted: improve manufacturability, improve sustainability, optimization of product or process, and recommendation provision. A wide range of other aims has been listed, demonstrating the adaptability of KPIs as tools and at the same time the level of complexity that characterizes architectural and urban design. Nevertheless, an analysis of the results defines sustainability improvement as the main aim of the selected articles (Figure 7).
Starting from the set of 76 articles relevant for this review, the analysis shows that 36 articles are set up to address a sustainable-based objective, which is different within papers; some of the most common objectives are related to materials’ qualities and performances or production process improvements. The first reading key of these 36 articles is related to the defined distribution of the three pillars of sustainability: economic, social, and environmental. An in-depth study of the selected papers imposed a more complex definition of KPIs (as shown in Table 4) (Figure 8).
Since the list of KPIs used in the 36 articles is very wide, systematization has been carried out by clustering KPIs in the eight categories listed below, in order to make the table more readable (complete KPIs groups and lists are available as Supplementary Materials).
The eighth cluster encloses all remaining KPIs which were not referable to the previous clusters and which were not characterized by a common scope. These are:
  • Indoor comfort KPIs: e.g., indoor thermal comfort/thermal comfort score, indoor air quality, daylight factor.
  • Energy-related KPIs: e.g., energy consumption/demand, daily energy use, renewable energy sources.
  • Economic KPIs: e.g., initial costs, investment costs, cost in use.
  • Social KPIs: e.g., degree of satisfaction, degree of privacy, accessibility.
  • Environmental KPIs: e.g., carbon absorption by trees, radiation: sum of shortwave radiation coming into project area; albedo: average albedo of the project area.
  • Architectural (compositional) KPIs: e.g., layout, floor area, architectural form.
  • Building technical KPIs: e.g., average thermal transmittance, ventilation heat losses, solar heat gains.
  • Other KPIs: e.g., security, location, changes to legislation.
Table 4 shows that the most used KPI category is the one related to energy use, followed by the indoor comfort one. The hierarchy of KPIs used is:
  • Energy-related;
  • Indoor comfort;
  • Building technical;
  • Environmental;
  • Economical;
  • Others (very case-specific KPIs mainly related to performances of single components);
  • Social—architectural (compositional aspects).
The analysis shows that the indicators belong to the following clusters: indoor comfort, energy-related, economic, environmental and building technical adopt standardized units for measurement (International System of units (SI), while others are more qualitative/site specific. These belong to, e.g., social and architectural clusters (Table 5).
For each cluster, one (or more) particularly relevant KPIs have been selected to describe which kind of parameters are most considered and which kind of relative tools are used to evaluate specific performances. In building construction and urban design areas the most common evaluation of sustainability is mainly related to their environmental impacts, but the concept of sustainability concerns different areas [14]. Therefore, it is interesting to understand if and how these other fields are considered in the sustainability evaluation.
The in-depth analysis conducted in order to define if and how economic and social sustainability are considered in the literature, in addition to environmental sustainability, shows that economical sustainability is only partially considered (as a component directly related to energy consumption), and specific economical KPIs are defined in eight articles [34,41,56,74,83,93]. In particular, these KPIs are mainly related to construction and maintenance costs (mainly related to life-cycle costs), investments, productivity improvement, and management of resources and buildings.
In parallel, KPIs useful to measure social sustainability are rarely considered, in particular, in only five articles [41,56,62,83,93], and are mainly related to well-being, psychological comfort, and satisfaction of people living in the analyzed buildings. Starting from the results showed in the previous paragraph, the study highlights that only 11 of the 36 articles analyzed consider each of the three components of sustainability in their assessment method.
The analysis of KPIs used in the reviewed articles highlights the possible role of them in managing sustainability in building construction. Except for clusters 6, 7, and 8, which are mainly related to architectural/compositional practices and relative characteristics, the other clusters of KPIs identified in this paper highlight the direct connection between the use of KPIs to measure sustainability and different SDGs from the Agenda 2030 of United Nations: in particular goals 3 (good health and wellbeing), 7 (affordable and clean energy), 11 (sustainable cities and communities), 12 (responsible consumption and production), and 13 (climate action) [16]. In parallel, specific KPIs defined in the literature can play a key role in planning adaptation and mitigation strategies to climate change.
For example, considering specifically indoor thermal comfort and energy consumption/demand related KPIs (adaptation KPI and mitigation KPI, respectively), which are the most commonly used KPIs described in the selected literature, the analogies and differences between the different studies can be outlined, not only in terms of methodology, i.e., with the use of simulations and field measurements, but also in terms of parameters, tools, and software considered (Table 6).
As highlighted in Table 6, indoor thermal comfort is mainly calculated through software simulations allowing the prediction of building performance in terms of, for example, thermal insulation and indoor ventilation. In order to evaluate simulation results, different kind of indicators are considered, mainly according to the current regulations of the countries where the analyses are carried out.
Differently, all the paper analyzed with a focus on energy consumption/demand rely on the use of simulations [22,41,89], with an exception made for the articles that consider energy consumption as a KPI that focus on its role in sustainability assessment but not on its evaluation [25,52,80,87,91].
From the previously cited articles, only few of them consider case studies and describe the process directly referring to the tools used to simulate energy consumption. In particular, refs. [25,41] propose the use of EnergyPlus, while ref. [22] describes the use of Revit and ref. [87] uses eQuest.
The detailed analysis of the indicators and methodologies used in the reviewed literature is useful to have as an overview of which variables are currently most considered in sustainability assessment. Furthermore, it provides a useful tool for researchers and designers to predict from the first design steps which standards architectural and urban design, respectively, must fulfill, both in terms of new construction and retrofitting [25,37], and [45] proposes interesting methodological approaches to manage environmental sustainability of design, in particular from a comfort and energy reduction perspective.

4. Conclusions

The review highlights the potentiality and the importance of KPIs in the design field and the growing interest in relation to them in the last 16 years. In relation to the sustainability assessment, the review shows the matters in defining a specific set of KPIs usable for different case studies: this is because evaluating environmental sustainability is a very complex task and it can be seen from different perspectives depending on specific cases and needs. The research shows that KPIs are not widely used to evaluate the overall environmental impact of building design, since the most common use of KPIs found in the literature is related to the reduction in energy consumption and waste.
The following main conclusions can be drafted:
  • The review highlights the adaptability of KPIs as tools for managing complexity and measuring specific performances. The main research that considers KPIs as a tool to measure building and urban design performance are engineering and technology, while in the field of architectural and urban design these are used much more rarely (243 articles for engineering and technology, 76 articles for architectural and urban design).
  • KPIs are widely used to evaluate the performances of products or elements, sometimes within their life span; therefore, KPIs are used to evaluate performances at different scales, starting from the element scale, up to the urban scale. In particular, the main aim of using KPIs in reviewed papers is to optimize performance (17 papers) or to improve sustainability (36 papers).
  • The most common methodology used to validate a research hypothesis is software simulations, while field measurements are rarely used (41 simulations/8 field measurement). Sometimes, these two methodological approaches are used combined in order to validate the results.
  • Of the selected articles, 36/76 focus on the role of KPIs for the sustainability improvement of buildings or one of its components (e.g., materials, production process of technical components of a building). Among the 36 sustainability-related articles, 8 are directly related to energy use reduction.
  • An in-depth study of the papers related to architectural and urban planning fields show that the focus of the research is mainly placed at the building scale (50/76 articles). KPIs are demonstrated to be a promising tool to manage the increasing complexity of the building construction sector at a time of great change due to climate change issues, which require a greater control over the construction process and the life cycle of buildings and cities, in order to afford satisfactory standards of sustainability.
  • Overall, the review of the papers shows that KPIs can be an effective tool for architectural design although they are not fully exploited in this field compared to other related areas of study such as engineering. This study also highlighted the importance of using KPIs to manage and assess the impacts of architectural and urban interventions.
  • In parallel, the identification of parameters used for evaluation can be a first step to deepen the methods used to assess performance and, if needed, to propose new and more accurate approaches. Further research should consider methodological approaches and tools used in order to improve the efficiency of the evaluation in relation to specific goals (starting from SDGs for sustainable development). In parallel, results from the review could be validated through the application on a real case study.
  • In addition, future research could be oriented toward the definition of composite indicators to propose a more accurate assessment of the environmental sustainability of a project not only in terms of reducing design impacts but also in terms of adaptation to and mitigation of climate change.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su142114464/s1, Table S1. List of KPIs used in each paper.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.M., methodology, F.M. and K.P., writing—original draft preparation, F.M.; review and editing, K.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Buildings–Topics. Available online: https://www.iea.org/topics/buildings (accessed on 14 October 2022).
  2. Sadatshojaie, A.; Rahimpour, M.R. CO2 Emission and Air Pollution (Volatile Organic Compounds, Etc.)—Related Problems Causing Climate Change. In Current Trends and Future Developments on (Bio-) Membranes; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 1–30. ISBN 978-0-12-816778-6. [Google Scholar]
  3. Andrić, I.; Al-Ghamdi, S.G. The Impact of Climate Change on Urban Environment in GCC Countries and Related Energy Systems: Mitigation Measures and Associated Challenges. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2019; American Society of Civil Engineers: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2019; pp. 100–109. [Google Scholar]
  4. Rosenzweig, C.; Urban Climate Change Research Network (Eds.) Climate Change and Cities: Second Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018; ISBN 978-1316603338. [Google Scholar]
  5. Masson, V.; Lemonsu, A.; Hidalgo, J.; Voogt, J. Urban Climates and Climate Change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2020, 45, 411–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Revi, A.; Satterthwaite, D.E.; Aragón-Durand, F.; Corfee-Morlot, J.; Kiunsi, R.B.R.; Pelling, M.; Roberts, D.C.; Solecki, W. Urban Areas. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects; Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  7. Nyka, L. Bridging the Gap between Architectural and Environmental Engineering Education in the Context of Climate Change. World Trans. Eng. Technol. Educ. 2019, 17, 204–209. [Google Scholar]
  8. Allouhi, A.; El Fouih, Y.; Kousksou, T.; Jamil, A.; Zeraouli, Y.; Mourad, Y. Energy consumption and efficiency in buildings: Current status and future trends. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 118–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Harish, V.; Kumar, A. A review on modeling and simulation of building energy systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 56, 1272–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Al Dakheel, J.; Del Pero, C.; Aste, N.; Leonforte, F. Smart buildings features and key performance indicators: A review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 61, 102328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chan, A.P.C.; Chan, D.W.M.; Chiang, Y.H.; Tang, B.S.; Chan, E.H.W.; Ho, K.S.K. Exploring Critical Success Factors for Partnering in Construction Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2004, 130, 188–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kylili, A.; Fokaides, P.A.; Jimenez, P.A.L. 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]
  13. United Nations. Our Common Future Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  14. Purvis, B.; Mao, Y.; Robinson, D. Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 14, 681–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Allen, T.F.H.; Hoekstra, T.W. Toward a Definition of Sustainability. In Sustainable Ecological Systems: Implementing an Ecological Approach to Land Management; Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 1993; pp. 98–107. [Google Scholar]
  16. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ceschin, F.; Gaziulusoy, I. Evolution of design for sustainability: From product design to design for system innovations and transitions. Des. Stud. 2016, 47, 118–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bhamra, T.; Lofthouse, V. Design for Sustainability; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; ISBN 978-1-317-15235-4. [Google Scholar]
  19. Burnham, J.F. Scopus database: A review. Biomed. Digit. Libr. 2006, 3, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Ahmad, A.M.; Trejo, S.R.; Hafeez, M.A.; Dawood, N.; Kassem, M.; Naji, K.K. Drivers for energy analysis towards a BIM-enabled information flow. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2022. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Correia, D.; Marques, J.L.; Teixeira, L. City@Path: A Collaborative Smart City Planning and Assessment Tool. Int. J. Transp. Dev. Integr. 2021, 6, 66–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kamari, A.; Schultz, C.P.L. A combined principal component analysis and clustering approach for exploring enormous renovation design spaces. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 48, 103971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Marotta, I.; Guarino, F.; Cellura, M.; Longo, S. Investigation of design strategies and quantification of energy flexibility in buildings: A case-study in southern Italy. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 41, 102392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mihaela, C.; Mircea, C. A novel concept for designing the energy efficiency program. In Proceedings of the 2021 9th International Conference on Modern Power Systems (MPS), Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 16–17 June 2021; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. D’Agostino, D.; D’Agostino, P.; Minelli, F.; Minichiello, F. Proposal of a new automated workflow for the computational performance-driven design optimization of building energy need and construction cost. Energy Build. 2021, 239, 110857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fratean, A.; Dobra, P. Key performance indicators for the evaluation of building indoor air temperature control in a context of demand side management: An extensive analysis for Romania. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 68, 102805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Doellken, M.; Lorin, A.; Thomas, N.; Sven, M. Identifying an opportunistic method in design for manufacturing: An experimental study on successful a on the manufacturability and manufacturing effort of design concepts. Procedia CIRP 2021, 100, 720–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Qian, M.; Yan, D.; Hong, T.; Liu, H. Operation and performance of VRF systems: Mining a large-scale dataset. Energy Build. 2020, 230, 110519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Formentin, S.M. Key Performance Indicators for the Upgrade of Existing Coastal Defense Structures. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chiesa, G.; Zajch, A. Contrasting Climate-Based Approaches and Building Simulations for the Investigation of Earth-to-Air Heat Exchanger (EAHE) Cooling Sensitivity to Building Dimensions and Future Climate Scenari-os in North America. Energy Build. 2020, 227, 110410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yoon, N.; Norford, L.; Malkawi, A.; Samuelson, H.; Piette, M.A. Dynamic metrics of natural ventilation cooling effectiveness for interactive modeling. Build. Environ. 2020, 180, 106994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. De Jaeger, I.; Reynders, G.; Callebaut, C.; Saelens, D. A building clustering approach for urban energy simulations. Energy Build. 2019, 208, 109671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jenkins, K.J.; Rudman, C.E.; Bierman, C.R. Delivering Sustainable Solutions through Improved Mix and Structural Design Functions for Bitumen Stabilised Materials. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 2020, 7460174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Huang, P.; Lovati, M.; Zhang, X.; Bales, C.; Hallbeck, S.; Becker, A.; Bergqvist, H.; Hedberg, J.; Maturi, L. Transforming a residential building cluster into electricity prosumers in Sweden: Optimal design of a coupled PV-heat pump-thermal storage-electric vehicle system. Appl. Energy 2019, 255, 113864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kusrini, E.; Ahmad, A.; Murniati, W. Design Key Performance Indicator for Sustainable Warehouse: A Case Study in a Leather Manufacturer. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 598, 012042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Scharf, B.; Kraus, F. Green Roofs and Greenpass. Buildings 2019, 9, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Kamari, A.; Schultz, C.P.L.; Kirkegaard, P.H. Constraint-based renovation design support through the renovation domain model. Autom. Constr. 2019, 104, 265–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Singh, K.; Sultan, I. A computer-aided unit process sustainable modelling for manufacturing processes: Case for extrusion process. Prod. Manuf. Res. 2019, 7, 143–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Chiesa, G. EAHX—Earth-to-air heat exchanger: Simplified method and KPI for early building design phases. Build. Environ. 2018, 144, 142–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. An, J.; Yan, D.; Hong, T. Clustering and statistical analyses of air-conditioning intensity and use patterns in residential buildings. Energy Build. 2018, 174, 214–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. De Tommasi, L.; Ridouane, H.; Giannakis, G.; Katsigarakis, K.; Lilis, G.N.; Rovas, D. Model-Based Comparative Evaluation of Building and District Control-Oriented Energy Retrofit Scenarios. Buildings 2018, 8, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Del Pero, C.; Aste, N.; Paksoy, H.O.; Haghighat, F.; Grillo, S.; Leonforte, F. Energy storage key performance indicators for building application. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 40, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hernández, J.L.; Sanz, R.; Corredera, Á.; Palomar, R.; Lacave, I. A Fuzzy-Based Building Energy Management System for Energy Efficiency. Buildings 2018, 8, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Chan, D.; Cameron, M.; Yoon, Y. Implementationof micro energy grid: A case study of a sustainable community in China. Energy Build. 2017, 139, 719–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Samuel, E.I.; Joseph-Akwara, E.; Richard, A. Assessment of energy utilization and leakages in buildings with building information model energy. Front. Arch. Res. 2017, 6, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Won, J.; Lee, G. How to tell if a BIM project is successful: A goal-driven approach. Autom. Constr. 2016, 69, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hempel, S.; Benner, J.; Geiger, A.; Häfele, K.-H. Streamer Early Design Configurator—A Tool for Automatic Layout Generation. In Proceedings of the Central Europe towards Sustainable Building 2016 (CESB16), Prague, Czech Republic, 22–24 June 2016; pp. 757–764. [Google Scholar]
  48. Foteinopoulos, P.; Stavropoulos, P.; Papacharalampopoulos, A.; Chryssolouris, G. Unified Approach in Design and Manufacturing Optimization of Hybrid Metal-composites Parts. Procedia CIRP 2016, 55, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Tamainot-Telto, Z. Novel method using Dubinin-Astakhov theory in sorption reactor design for refrigeration and heat pump applications. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2016, 107, 1123–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Bonino, D.; De Russis, L. Design recommendations for smart energy monitoring: A case study in Italy. Energy Build. 2015, 91, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Tronchin, L.; Manfren, M. Multi-scale Analysis and Optimization of Building Energy Performance—Lessons Learned from Case Studies. Procedia Eng. 2015, 118, 563–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Riexinger, G.; Holtewert, P.; Bruns, A.; Wahren, S.; Tran, K.; Bauernhansl, T. KPI-focused Simulation and Management System for Eco-Efficient Design of Energy-Intensive Production Systems. Procedia CIRP 2015, 29, 68–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lourenço, P.; Pinheiro, M.D.; Heitor, T. From indicators to strategies: Key Performance Strategies for sustainable energy use in Portuguese school buildings. Energy Build. 2014, 85, 212–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Farmani, R.; Butler, D. Implications of Urban Form on Water Distribution Systems Performance. Water Resour. Manag. 2013, 28, 83–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hanley, C.; Gilmour, D.; Pakrashi, V. Effects of Large Uncertainties in a Reliability Based Framework for Hu-manitarian Emergency Shelters. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability, New York, NY, USA, 16–20 June 2013; pp. 4873–4880. [Google Scholar]
  56. Hopfe, C.J.; Augenbroe, G.L.; Hensen, J.L. Multi-criteria decision making under uncertainty in building performance assessment. Build. Environ. 2013, 69, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Spiegelhalter, T.; Pala, N.; Kang, Y.; Zuh, Y. Transforming and Benchmarking a LEED Certified University Building into a Net-Zero-Energy Building in the Subtropics; Florida International University: Miami, FL, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  58. Drew, C.; Rehill, D.; Fanning, K.; Smith, A. A Sustainable Solution for Urbanization in China; 2012; pp. 471–478. Available online: https://global.ctbuh.org/resources/papers/download/958-a-sustainable-solution-for-urbanization-in-china.pdf (accessed on 28 October 2022).
  59. Alwaer, H.; Clements-Croome, D. 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]
  60. Da Solano, R.S.; De Oliveira, R. Economic Analysis of Housing Design; 2007; pp. 553–559. Available online: https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/31329/1/CME25-Whole_Procs.pdf#page=577 (accessed on 28 October 2022).
  61. Liu, A.; Miller, W.; Chiou, J.; Zedan, S.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Ding, Y. Aged Care Energy Use and Peak Demand Change in the COVID-19 Year: Empirical Evidence from Australia. Buildings 2021, 11, 570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Cooper, J.; Lee, A.; Jones, K. Sustainable built asset management performance indicators and attributes: A UK Social Housing Case Study Example. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2020, 38, 508–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Schaumann, D.; Pilosof, N.P.; Gath-Morad, M.; Kalay, Y.E. Simulating the impact of facility design on operations: A study in an internal medicine ward. Facilities 2020, 38, 501–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zanen, P.; Lambert, T. Lifecycle Quality Control of New Locks in a Public Private Partnership setup. In Proceedings of the IABSE Symposium: Towards a Resilient Built Environment Risk and Asset Management, Guimarães, Portugal, 27–29 March 2019; pp. 994–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Attia, S.; Bilir, S.; Safy, T.; Struck, C.; Loonen, R.; Goia, F. Current Trends and Future Challenges in the Perfor-mance Assessment of Adaptive Façade Systems. Energy Build 2018, 179, 165–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Chandanachulaka, N.; Khan-Ngern, W. Design of Zero Energy Consumption System for Small DC Residential Home Based on Off-Grid PV System. Int. Rev. Electr. Eng. 2018, 13, 246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wijegunarathna, E.; Wedawatta, G.; Prasanna, L.; Ingirige, B. Long-term satisfaction of resettled communities: An assessment of physical performance of post-disaster housing. Procedia Eng. 2018, 212, 1147–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Villarreal, K.L.; Pellicer, E.; Rodriguez, S.G. Performance indicators for developer and homebuilder Mexican companies: A Delphi study. Rev. Constr. J. Constr. 2017, 16, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Lai, J.H.; Hou, H.; Chiu, B.W.; Edwards, D.; Yuen, P.; Sing, M.; Wong, P. Importance of hospital facilities management performance indicators: Building practitioners’ perspectives. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 45, 103428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kaur, M.; Hewage, K.; Sadiq, R. Integrated level of service index for buried water infrastructure: Selection and development of performance indicators. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 68, 102799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Boorsma, N.; Balkenende, R.; Bakker, C.; Tsui, T.; Peck, D. Incorporating design for remanufacturing in the early design stage: A design management perspective. J. Remanufacturing 2020, 11, 25–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Alrashed, S. Key performance indicators for Smart Campus and Microgrid. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 60, 102264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ghazvini, K.; Zandieh, M.; Vafamehr, M. Exploring KPIS Utilization Effects on Decision Making for the Architectural Design Process in Industrial Buildings. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2020, 16, 198–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Utrilla, P.N.-C.; Górecki, J.; Maqueira, J.M. Simulation-Based Management of Construction Companies under the Circular Economy Concept—Case Study. Buildings 2020, 10, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lam, T.Y. Driving sustainable construction development through post-contract key performance indicators and drivers. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bitamba, B.F.; An, S.H. Study on Factors Affecting the Performance of Construction Projects in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 2020, 31, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Salvado, F.; de Almeida, N.M.; Azevedo, V. Historical analysis of the economic life-cycle performance of public school buildings. Build. Res. Inf. 2019, 47, 813–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Praharaj, S.; Han, H. Building a typology of the 100 smart cities in India. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2019, 8, 400–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Salis, L.C.R.; Abadie, M.; Wargocki, P.; Rode, C. Towards the definition of indicators for assessment of indoor air quality and energy performance in low-energy residential buildings. Energy Build. 2017, 152, 492–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sezer, A.A. Contractor use of productivity and sustainability indicators for building refurbishment. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2015, 5, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Budawara, N.; Alkass, S. Key Performance Indicators to Measure Design Performance in Construction; Concordia University: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2009; Volume 3, pp. 1364–1374. [Google Scholar]
  82. Lützkendorf, T.; Lorenz, D. Sustainable property investment: Valuing sustainable buildings through property performance assessment. Build. Res. Inf. 2005, 33, 212–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kamari, A.; Jensen, S.R.; Petersen, S.; Kirkegaard, P.H. Sustainability key performance indica-tors’ (kpis) assessment and visualization aimed at architects in (early) renovation design processes. Nord. J. Archit. Res. 2021, 33, 41–80. [Google Scholar]
  84. Ismail, S.; Mohamad, R.; Said, J.M. Performance indicators for lifecycle process of public private partnership (PPP) projects in Malaysia. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2021, 12, 704–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Enshassi, A.A.; El Shorafa, F. Key performance indicators for the maintenance of public hospitals buildings in the Gaza Strip. Facilities 2015, 33, 206–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Sibiya, M.; Aigbavboa, C.; Thwala, W. Construction Projects’ Key Performance Indicators: A Case of the South African Construction Industry. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Construction and Real Estate Management, Lulea, Sweden, 11–12 August 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Tiwari, R.; Jones, J.R. Mapping the Integrated Early Design Process of the Largest Net-Zero Energy Office Building. AEI 2015 2015, 594–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Okolie, K.C. Building Performance Evaluation in Educational Institutions: A Case-Study of Universities in South East Nigeria; Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University: Port Elizabeth, South Africa, 2009; pp. 1598–1625. [Google Scholar]
  89. Kamari, A.; Kirkegaard, P.H.; Schultz, C.P.L. Paradis—A process integrating tool for rapid generation and evaluation of holistic renovation scenarios. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 34, 101944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Rasca, S. Do International Urban Sustainability Monitoring Frameworks Respond to the Perceived Needs of Norwegian small and mediumsized cities?—Results of a Workshop. In Proceedings of the 2020 Forum on Integrated and Sustainable Transportation Systems (FISTS), Delft, The Netherlands, 3–5 November 2020; pp. 315–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Boulanger, S.O.M.; Marcatili, M. Site-Specific Circular Methodology for the Resilience of Existing Districts: The Green City Circle. TECHNE J. Technol. Archit. Environ. 2018, 15, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Fantini, P.; Palasciano, C.; Taisch, M. Back to Intuition: Proposal for a Performance Indicators Framework to Facilitate Eco-factories Management and Benchmarking. Procedia CIRP 2015, 26, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Berardi, U.; AlWaer, H.; Chang, S.; Halawa, E.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Clements-Croome, D. What is an intelligent building? Analysis of recent interpretations from an international perspective. Arch. Sci. Rev. 2015, 59, 338–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Nourbakhsh, M.; Mydin, S.H.; Zin, R.M.; Zolfagharian, S.; Irizarry, J.; Zahidi, M. Relative Importance of Key Performance Indicators of Construction Projects towards Buildability at Design Stage. Adv. Mater. Res. 2012, 446–449, 340–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Lam, E.W.; Chan, A.P.; Chan, D.W. Benchmarking success of building maintenance projects. Facilities 2010, 28, 290–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 14464 g001 550
Figure 1. Diagram showing the progressive selection of articles for the review, starting from the first output from SCOPUS to the selection of building/urban sustainability-related articles.
Figure 1. Diagram showing the progressive selection of articles for the review, starting from the first output from SCOPUS to the selection of building/urban sustainability-related articles.
Sustainability 14 14464 g001
Sustainability 14 14464 g002 550
Figure 2. Graph of partition of 315 articles in five fields of interest (building design, (building-related engineering, technology, manufacturing, and urban design).
Figure 2. Graph of partition of 315 articles in five fields of interest (building design, (building-related engineering, technology, manufacturing, and urban design).
Sustainability 14 14464 g002
Sustainability 14 14464 g003 550
Figure 3. Diagram showing the frequency of articles in the fields of architecture, urban design, and manufacturing starting from 2004 to 2022.
Figure 3. Diagram showing the frequency of articles in the fields of architecture, urban design, and manufacturing starting from 2004 to 2022.
Sustainability 14 14464 g003
Sustainability 14 14464 g004 550
Figure 4. Keywords network (co-occurrences) from the selected 76 articles (edited with VOSViewer software). The diagram highlights the central role of sustainability.
Figure 4. Keywords network (co-occurrences) from the selected 76 articles (edited with VOSViewer software). The diagram highlights the central role of sustainability.
Sustainability 14 14464 g004
Sustainability 14 14464 g005 550
Figure 5. Frequency of different methodological approaches in analyzed literature.
Figure 5. Frequency of different methodological approaches in analyzed literature.
Sustainability 14 14464 g005
Sustainability 14 14464 g006 550
Figure 6. Distribution in percentage (%) of scale considered in papers.
Figure 6. Distribution in percentage (%) of scale considered in papers.
Sustainability 14 14464 g006
Sustainability 14 14464 g007 550
Figure 7. Graph showing the distribution in percentage (%) of the aim of analyzed articles.
Figure 7. Graph showing the distribution in percentage (%) of the aim of analyzed articles.
Sustainability 14 14464 g007
Sustainability 14 14464 g008 550
Figure 8. Keywords of the 36 articles directly related to sustainability in urban and building design fields (edited with VOSViewer).
Figure 8. Keywords of the 36 articles directly related to sustainability in urban and building design fields (edited with VOSViewer).
Sustainability 14 14464 g008
Table
Table 1. Analysis of the methodology used in reviewed articles.
Table 1. Analysis of the methodology used in reviewed articles.
MethodologyPapers
Simulations[20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60]
Field measurement[61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68]
Literature review[69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82]
Other methodologies[83,84,85,86,87,88] survey
[89] coding
[90,91,92] analysis
[93] comparison
Table
Table 2. Analysis of the reference scale used in reviewed articles.
Table 2. Analysis of the reference scale used in reviewed articles.
ScalePapers
Urban[21,26,29,44,54,58,64,70,72,78,90,91]
Building[20,22,23,24,25,27,31,32,61,62,63,69,73,74,75,76,77,83,84,89]
[35,37,41,42,43,45,46,47,50,51,52,53,67,68,79,80,85,86,87,93]
[55,56,57,59,60,81,82,88,94,95]
Building materials[33,38,48]
Building component[30,34,36,40,65,66,71,92]
Component of building component[28,39,49]
Table
Table 3. Analysis of the main aim of the research in reviewed articles.
Table 3. Analysis of the main aim of the research in reviewed articles.
Main AimPapers
Clustering[32,42,65,78]
Improve/measure sustainability[22,24,25,26,34,35,36,38,40,41,43,45,46,51,52,53,56,57,58,59,61,62,66,70,71,74,75,80,83,87,89,90,91,92,93]
Optimization[19,21,24,33,38,39,43,46,47,49,54,57,65,66,71,73,87]
Provide recommendation[20,34,68,76]
Measurement[64,84,91,92,93,94]
Other[32] (investigate the perception of the importance of KPIs)
[35] (validate hypothesis)
[36] (pre-design evaluation)
[73] (explore role of KPIs in DM)
[37] (manage complexity)
[48] (define material peculiarities)
[85] (management)
[54] (define relationships)
[95] (evaluate success)
Table
Table 4. Number of KPIs for each cluster identified; total KPIs identified through the literature review: 325.
Table 4. Number of KPIs for each cluster identified; total KPIs identified through the literature review: 325.
Author(s)Main FocusKPI 1KPI 2KPI 3KPI 4KPI 5KPI 6KPI 7KPI 8
[22]Building restoration6113----
[61]Reduce building energy demand-2------
[24]Reduce building energy demand-4-1----
[25]Reduce building energy demand111-----
[26]Reduce building energy demand121-----
[70]Promote sustainable water use--------
[71]Remanufacturing--------
[89]Building restoration5212----
[83]Building restoration5212111-
[90]Urban and mobility sustainability-1232--17
[74]Circular economy-11--2-2
[62]Sustainable
maintenance and
refurbishment		4142-859
[75]Sustainable construction114221--
[34]Optimize PV panels performance-31-----
[35]Measure sustainability42--1-13
[36]Urban energy balance21--8---
[38]Accelerate the transition toward a sustainable future-2--2---
[40]Reduce energy use-7------
[41]Energy saving316518--1
[43]Improve building’s performance in terms of energy use5---2233
[66]Reduce energy consumption-41-1--2
[91]Circular approach in urban design 12--32-3
[45]Limit energy use and losses------4-
[93]Define common features of IB (intelligent buildings)-2661-42
[46]Sustainability in BIM--4----10
[49]Improve performances of plants--------
[80]Building refurbishment-1-11---
[51]Multiscale analysis of the building-1--1-10-
[52]Improve eco-efficiency-42-1---
[92]Optimize processes and reduce waste-1--1--3
[87]Optimize NZEB design21------
[53]Sustainable energy use-1------
[56]Improve building performance 6-11-1-1
[57]Improve energy efficiency-1------
[58]Improve urban and building performance--------
[59]Improve building performance11214313
Total amount of KPIs for each section4769382439202959
Table
Table 5. Most frequent KPIs found in the literature starting from Table 4.
Table 5. Most frequent KPIs found in the literature starting from Table 4.
IndicatorFrequency
Thermal comfort10 times
Energy consumption10 times
CO2/GHG emission6 times
Indoor air quality5 times
Renewable energy sources4 times
Daylight factor4 times
Discomfort hours (27–28 °C)3 times
Daylight requirement3 times
Investment costs3 times
Degree of satisfaction3 times
Wellbeing3 times
Solid waste2 times
Solar radiation2 times
Accessibility2 times
Initial costs2 times
Degree of privacy2 times
Eco-efficiency2 times
Table
Table 6. Different methodologies used to measure KPI 1.1—indoor thermal comfort.
Table 6. Different methodologies used to measure KPI 1.1—indoor thermal comfort.
KPI 1.1—Indoor Thermal Indoor
Author(s)MethodologyScaleIndicatorTool(s)Notes
[22]SimulationsBuilding Discomfort hours above 27 and 28 (°C)--
[26]SimulationsBuilding LPDHAMBase framework-
[36]SimulationsBuildingPhysiological equivalent temperature (PET) (°C)Envi-met-
[41]SimulationsBuilding--Thermal comfort is considered as a secondary indicator
[43]SimulationsBuildingTemperature (°C) according to ASHRAE standardsBRESAER (EU Horizon 2020 project) BEMSThe tool is the result of the project
[56]SimulationsBuilding--Simulations are not described in the paper
[62]Field measurementBuildingTemperature (°C)--
[83]-BuildingPMV, PPD,
Discomfort hours above 27 and 28
(°C)		Not defined-
[89]SimulationsBuilding PMV, PPDPARADIS-
[91]-BuildingPMV Not defined-
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mosca, F.; Perini, K. Reviewing the Role of Key Performance Indicators in Architectural and Urban Design Practices. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14464. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114464

AMA Style

Mosca F, Perini K. Reviewing the Role of Key Performance Indicators in Architectural and Urban Design Practices. Sustainability. 2022; 14(21):14464. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114464

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mosca, Francesca, and Katia Perini. 2022. "Reviewing the Role of Key Performance Indicators in Architectural and Urban Design Practices" Sustainability 14, no. 21: 14464. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114464

APA Style

Mosca, F., & Perini, K. (2022). Reviewing the Role of Key Performance Indicators in Architectural and Urban Design Practices. Sustainability, 14(21), 14464. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114464

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