Content uploaded by Wu Guangdong
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Wu Guangdong on Oct 10, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tasr20
Architectural Science Review
ISSN: 0003-8628 (Print) 1758-9622 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tasr20
A bibliometric review of green building research
2000–2016
Xianbo Zhao, Jian Zuo, Guangdong Wu & Can Huang
To cite this article: Xianbo Zhao, Jian Zuo, Guangdong Wu & Can Huang (2018): A bibliometric
review of green building research 2000–2016, Architectural Science Review
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2018.1485548
Published online: 18 Jun 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW
https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2018.1485548
A bibliometric review of green building research 2000–2016
Xianbo Zhao a,JianZuo b, Guangdong Wucand Can Huang d
aSchool of Engineering and Technology, Central Queensland University, Sydney, Australia; bSchool of Architecture and Built Environment,
Entrepreneurship, Commercialisation and Innovation Centre (ECIC), The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia; cSchool of Tourism and Urban
Management, Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nanchang, People’s Republic of China; dDepartment of Electrical Engineering & Computer
Science, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
ABSTRACT
This study presents a summary of green building research through a bibliometric approach. A total of
2980 articles published in 2000–2016 were reviewed and analyzed. The results indicated that green build-
ing research had been concentrated on the subject categories of engineering, environmental sciences &
ecology, and construction & building technology, and the keywords ‘building envelope’ and ‘living wall’
obtained citation bursts in the recent years. Additionally, based on the cluster analysis and content analy-
sis, the hot research topics were identified: green and cool roof, vertical greening systems, water efficiency,
occupants’ comfort and satisfaction, financial benefits of green building, life cycle assessment and rating
systems, green retrofit, green building project delivery, and information and communication technologies
in green building. Knowledge gaps were detected in the areas of corporate social responsibility, the valida-
tion of real performance of green building, the ICT application in green building, as well as the safety and
health risks in the construction process of green projects. Future research directions are recommended to
fill these gaps and extend the body of green building research.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 9 March 2018
Accepted 4 June 2018
KEYWORDS
Green building; energy;
sustainability; bibliometrics;
review
1. Introduction
The building and construction sector, including the relevant
policies and standards, has significant economic, social and
environmental impacts on the society (Zuo and Zhao 2014).
It contributes to national economy, directly or indirectly pro-
vides employment opportunities, and satisfies people’s require-
ments through its products, i.e. buildings and facilities. The
building and construction industry inevitably impacts envi-
ronment. Commercial and residential buildings globally con-
tributed 20–40% to the energy consumption (Pérez-Lombard,
Ortiz, and Pout 2008) and were responsible for one third of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the world (WorldGBC 2013),
thereby increasing global concerns about the climate change
mediated by GHG (Shanmugam et al. 2018; Wu, Xia, and Zhao
2014; Zhu et al. 2013). Green or sustainable building practices
have great potential of reducing the worldwide energy con-
sumption and GHG emissions, and attracted great attention
from both academics and industry practitioners (Darko and Chan
2016).
Green building is ‘designed and constructed with ecologi-
cal principles’ (Kibert 2012) and has minimal influence on nat-
ural environment and human health (Yudelson 2010). Green
building usually consumes considerably less resources than
non-green building, and provides occupants with better indoor
air quality and higher-level comfort (Darko, Zhang, and Chan
2017). With a broad view, the concept of green building is
consistent with the triple bottom line (i.e. environmental, eco-
nomic and social aspects) of sustainable development, while the
CONTACT Xianbo Zhao b.zhao@cqu.edu.au School of Engineering and Technology, Central Queensland University,400 Kent St., Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia
majority of green building research purely highlight the envi-
ronmental sustainability (Zuo and Zhao 2014). In the existing
literature, the terms green building, sustainable building, high-
performance building, sustainable construction, green construc-
tion, and high-performance construction have been used inter-
changeably. Similarly, zero energy building can be classified
as one type of green building developments (Brown and Ver-
gragt 2008;ZuoandZhao2014). The development of green
building has been facilitated by rating systems because these
systems provide practical guide in terms of the supply recogni-
tion and verification of commitment and measurements (Adler
et al. 2006;WuandLow2010). Examples of the well-recognized
rating systems include: Leadership in Energy and Environmen-
tal Design (LEED, USA), Green Mark Scheme (Singapore), Com-
prehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency
(CASBEE, Japan), Building Research Establishment Environmen-
tal Assessment Method (BREEAM, UK), Green Building Council of
Australia Green Star (GBCA, Australia), and Hong Kong Building
Environmental Assessment Method (HKBEAM, Hong Kong) (Gou
and Lau 2014;ZuoandZhao2014). All these rating systems are
supposed to evaluate whether a building is green or not (Shan
and Hwang 2018;Wuetal.2016).
Green building research has been diverse and active in
2000–2016. Because green building should be considered in
a life-cycle view, green building research has covered either
individual phases (design, construction and operation) of a life
cycle, or the whole life cycle (Zuo et al. 2017). For instance,
Danatzko, Sezen, and Chen (2013) analyzed the life-cycle energy
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 X. ZHAO ET AL.
consumption of structural components made up of different
materials for the purpose of sustainable design; Lam et al. (2010)
revealed that stakeholder involvement was the most important
to the implementation of green specification in construction;
Lee and Guerin (2009) examined the impact of indoor air quality
on the performance and satisfaction of the occupants working
in green office buildings; and Kosareo and Ries (2007)analyzed
the similarities and differences in the life cycle assessment (LCA)
of three green roof systems. LCA is the ‘compilation and evalua-
tion of the inputs, outputs and potential environmental impacts
of a product system throughout its life cycle’ (ISO 2006). In addi-
tion, green building research can concentrate on either tech-
nological issues (Azhar et al. 2011; Heiskanen, Nissilä, and Lovio
2015;Perinietal.2011), or management (Hwang and Ng 2013;
Mohammadi and Birgonul 2016), economic (Eichholtz, Kok, and
Quigley 2010;2013; Gliedt and Hoicka 2015), social (Hoffman and
Henn 2008; Qin, Mo, and Jing 2016), and policy issues (Pearce,
DuBose, and Bosch 2007).
There have been various reviews relating to green build-
ing research, which may focus on either a limited aspect of
green building, or the macro-scale research topics and trend.
For example, Ortiz, Castells, and Sonnemann (2009) reviewed
various LCA tools being adopted in the building industry; Wu
et al. (2015) reviewed the various benchmarking systems of
the carbon labelling for construction materials; Chen, Yang,
and Lu (2015) surveyed the passive design criteria applied in
the five green building rating systems; Zuo and Zhao (2014)
identified the common topics of green building research as
definition and scope, quantification of benefits in comparison
with conventional buildings, and approaches to achieving green
building; and Darko and Chan (2016) recognized green build-
ing project delivery and developments, green building certifica-
tions, energy performance, and advanced technologies as hot
topics in the field of construction management. However, few
studies have outlined the research trends and identified the col-
laborative network in the field of green building, whilst most
review articles held a subjective view to identify research topics.
Theobjectiveofthisstudyistoundertakeabibliometric
review of green building research in 2000–2016. Bibliometrics is
the statistical analysis of literature and covered by scientomet-
ric analysis. In recent years, the bibliometric review method has
been widely used in architecture and construction research (e.g.
Ganbat et al. 2018;Lietal.2017;Lietal.2018; Xue, Wang, and
Yang 2018). As a commonly used bibliometric method, citation
analysis is usually adopted to visualize the analysis results and
map knowledge domains. The findings of this study can pro-
vide a summary of the status quo of the global green building
research, identify the hot themes in the literature and knowledge
gaps, and recommend future research directions.
2. Method
The Web of Science (WOS) core collection database contains the
most reputable and influential journals, and is therefore recog-
nized as the most authoritative data source for studying publica-
tions of most subjects (Pouris and Pouris 2011; Song, Zhang, and
Dong 2016;Zhao2017). Although Scopus has a wider range of
coverage than WoS, there are significant overlaps between WoS
and Scopus. Archambault et al. (2009) compared the bibliomet-
ric statistics gathered from the WoS and Scopus and found that
the articles and citations collected from the two databases were
highly correlated. Thus, there will not be significant differences
in the bibliometric analysis results between these two databases.
In addition, the WoS has been employed as the data source in the
recent bibliometric reviews in the research filed of construction
management (e.g. Li et al. 2017; Song, Zhang, and Dong 2016;
Zhao 2017), and the provider of the WoS, i.e. Clarivate Analyt-
ics, has been selected as the citation provider for the Excellence
in Research for Australia (ERA) 2018 by the Australian Research
Council (ARC). Therefore, the WoS was selected as the source of
bibliometric data in this study.
Additionally, the WOS core collection database contains most
publications on green building. It covers publications not only
in engineering and science, but also in management, social sci-
ence and humanity. Hence, this database was used to collect
green building publications. Pre-analysis and comparison was
undertaken first, and then the following retrieval code was used:
TS =(green building*OR sustainab building*). Here, ‘*’ means a
fuzzy search and ‘TS’ denotes the topic of a publication. In this
review, only journal articles were used because journal articles
usually present higher-quality and more comprehensive infor-
mation than other types of publications. The time span of the
articles was set as 2000–2016 because this study focuses on
the development of green building research in the twenty-first
century. As the review was performed in mid-2017, the com-
plete years 2000–2016 were targeted. Hence, a preliminary list
of 4822 bibliographic records were gathered. Then, these 4822
records were checked, and the articles that were obviously irrel-
evant to green building research (e.g. biology, agriculture, phar-
macology, medicine, etc.) were removed. Hence, 2980 biblio-
graphic records were finally used for analysis. Each record con-
tains the authors and affiliations, country/region, publication
year, source journal, title, abstract, keywords, as well as the ref-
erences. Figure 1indicates how the 2980 records distribute in
2000–2016. The number of articles had greatly increased from
113 to 582, in 2009–2016.
A scientific knowledge domain captures the notion of a cohe-
sively and logically organized body of knowledge (Chen 2016).
Domain analysis is a bibliometric method of drawing unheeded
implications from information and seeking frontiers of develop-
ment (Hjørland and Albrechtsen 1995; Song, Zhang, and Dong
2016). CiteSpace has great performance in mapping knowledge
domains through visualizing the bibliographic records (Chen
2016), and thus was used to analyze the literature of green
building. It is worth noting that bibliometric reviews can sup-
plement manual review by detecting quantitative and unbiased
links between different studies, but will not replace it (Li et al.
2017).
In this study, co-word and co-citation analyses of biblio-
metric techniques were adopted. Specifically, co-word analysis
presents the co-occurrences of keywords and terms, and co-
citation analysis seeks co-cited authors, journals and documents,
respectively. These two analysis techniques have been seen suit-
able for bibliometric reviews on various topics (Cobo et al. 2011;
Song, Zhang, and Dong 2016). Additionally, cluster analysis was
undertaken together with document co-citation analysis, and
citation bursts, which is defined as an indicator of a most active
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 3
Figure 1. Publications of green building research in 2000–2016.
area of research in certain periods, were detected using the
algorithm proposed by Kleinberg (2002). Although co-citation
clusters demonstrate hot research topics, some important topics
may be missing because they did not receive high co-citations.
Hence, after the cluster analysis, content analysis was adopted
to identify more hot research topics of green building. Meth-
ods of content analysis include frequency, co-occurrence, prox-
imity, sequence matrix, ansimilarity dendrogram (Fellows and
Liu 2008). Indeed, keyword co-occurrence analysis calculates
both occurrence frequencies and co-occurrences of keywords.
Furthermore, knowledge gaps in green building research were
identified and future research agenda was proposed.
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Co-word analysis
In 2000–2016, there were diverse research themes and topics in
green building research. Co-word analysis was used to detect
frontiers and development trends of green building research.
3.1.1. Subject category co-occurrence network
One or more subject categories were allocated to each article in
the WOS database. A subject category co-occurrence network
in green building research was generated to show the research
trends (Figure 2). This network consisted of 113 nodes and
424 links, suggesting that green building research covered 113
subject categories, suggesting that it was a multi-disciplinary
research. The node size represents the number of articles in each
category. Engineering (1044), environmental sciences & ecology
(842), construction & building technology (710), civil engineer-
ing (590), and energy & fuels (530) were found to have the most
abundant articles. The links’ colours (i.e. blue, green, yellow,
orange and red) correspond to the years from 2000 to 2016, as
Figure 3indicates.
Since 2010, a growing number of researches have been pub-
lished in the subject categories of automation & control systems
and computer science, indicating that the potential of advanced
technologies, such as building information modelling (BIM) and
other information and communication technologies (ICTs), have
attratced attention from researchers. For example, Pan et al.
(2015) proposed a unique Internet of Things (IoTs) framework
for assessing the enegy efficiency of green office buildings; Peña
et al. (2016) developed a rule-based expert system through data
mining techniques to detect energy inefficiencies in smart green
buildings; Wong and Fan (2013) explored the factors influenc-
ing applying BIM for designing green buildings; and Wu and Issa
(2015) proposed a concept of green BIM for the practitioners that
embraced both BIM and green building, and developed a holistic
approach to planning for BIM implementation in green building.
In graph theory, betweenness centrality measures how many
times a particular node stays between other nodes within the
network (Freeman 1978). This indicator can be calculated as the
portion of the number of the shortest paths (between any two
nodes) that pass through the node, divided by the number of
the shortest path between any two nodes (Abbasi, Hossain, and
Leydesdorff 2012). The nodes with a high betweenness central-
ity value serve as a bridges between two or more large groups
of nodes, and thus tend to control information flows within the
network (Burt 1995).
The nodes that have high betweenness centrality scores are
denoted by purple rings, such as the categories of urban studies
(betweenness centrality =1.00), ecology (betweenness central-
ity =0.57), computer science (betweenness centrality =0.53),
and business & economics (betweenness centrality =0.43).
They were the turning points linking the research in different
years and greatly affected the development of green building
research. Additionally, citation bursts were detected in 14 sub-
ject categories, of which the three strongest bursts were in the
categories of architecture (burst strength =32.66, 2006–2010),
government and law (burst strength =9.01, 2008–2011), and
geology (burst strength =6.44, 2000–2011), implying that they
could be seen as the most active research fields in the develop-
ment of green building research.
3.1.2. Keyword co-occurrence network
There are two types of keywords in the WOS database, includ-
ing the ‘author keywords’ supplied by authors and the ‘keywords
plus’ provided by journals. Both two sets of keywords from the
2980 records were used to produce a keyword co-occurrence
network. Figure 4shows that this network contains 363 nodes
and 1495 links. Similar keywords, such as ‘green building’ and
‘sustainable building’ were merged into ‘green building’.
The node size denotes the occurrence frequency of keywords.
The top 15 high-frequency keywords were ‘green building’
4 X. ZHAO ET AL.
Figure 2. Subject category co-occurrence network.
Figure 3. Link colours corresponding to years 2000–2016.
(frequency =384), ‘performance’ (frequency =301), ‘building’
(frequency =246), ‘sustainability’ (frequency =219), ‘system’
(frequency =216), ‘green roof’ (frequency =193), ‘energy’
(frequency =168), ‘model’ (frequency =158), ‘environment’
(frequency =154), ‘impact’ (frequency =147), ‘design’ (fre-
quency =145), ‘management’ (frequency =119), ‘energy
efficiency’ (frequency =113), ‘green’ (frequency =107), and
‘city’ (frequency =105).
A citation burst indicates a most active area of research
and represents significant increases in citations over a short
period, thus attracting an extraordinary degree of attention
from the relevant scientific community. A total of 49 keywords
received citation bursts, of which the five strongest bursts were
‘green building’ (burst strength =8.44, 2000–2007), ‘building
envelope’ (burst strength =4.89, 2014–2016), ‘housing’ (burst
strength =4.86, 2005–2010), ‘natural ventilation’ (burst strength
=4.71, 2007–2013), ‘passive cooling’ (burst strength =4.70,
2008–2012), ‘land use’ (burst strength =4.53, 2006–2011), and
‘energy conservation’ (burst strength =4.49, 2012–2013), sug-
gesting that these keywords represented the hot topics in green
building research in the corresponding years. In a more recent
period 2014–2016, ‘green façades’ (burst strength =3.76) and
‘living wall’ (burst strength =3.76) were the citation bursts, sug-
gesting that researchers were interested in these areas in the
recent years.
3.2. Co-citation analysis
Co-citation analysis concentrates on how many times two doc-
uments are cited together by other documents (Small 1973)
and can thus be considered as a proximity measure of publi-
cations. In this bibliometric review, three types of co-citation
analyses, i.e. journal, author, and document co-citation analy-
ses, were performed. In addition, cluster analysis can analyze
the emergence of research trends and relevant changes over
a period of time and to detect the research focus at a time
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 5
Figure 4. Co-occurring keyword network.
point. Clusters demonstrate the intellectual turning points that
drive the trends of green building research and the interactions
between different trends.
3.2.1. Journal co-citation network
As Table 1presents, the top 10 sources of green building
research are identified, in accordance to the WOS database.
Energy and Buildings had published 191 articles on green
building research and was ranked top, followed by Jour-
nal of Green Building (185) and Building and Environment
(168). Out of the top 10 journals, seven are published in the
Netherlands.
Tab le 1. The top 10 source journals of green building research 2000–2016.
Source journal Host country Count Percent (%)
Energy and Buildings Netherlands 191 6.4
Journal of Green Building USA 185 6.2
Building and Environment Netherlands 168 5.6
Building Research and Information UK 75 2.5
Journal of Cleaner Production Netherlands 70 2.3
Landscape and Urban Planning Netherlands 55 1.8
Sustainability Switzerland 50 1.7
Applied Energy Netherlands 41 1.4
Sustainable Cities and Society Netherlands 39 1.3
Renewable Energy Netherlands 35 1.2
The references cited by the 2980 articles were analyzed
using CiteSpace. Then, a journal co-citation network was gener-
ated to identify the most significantly cited journals (Figure 5).
This network consisted of 518 nodes and 1742 links, where
the node size was each journal’s co-citation frequency. The
top five journals with most co-citation frequencies were: Build-
ing and Environment (frequency =937), Energy and Build-
ings (frequency =925), Landscape and Urban Planning (fre-
quency =395), Energy Policy (frequency =368), and Applied
Energy (frequency =343). It merits attention that these five
journals, except Energy Policy, were also the top source jour-
nals. Hence, the journals publishing more green building articles
received more co-citations as well.
Additionally, citation bursts were detected in 116 source
journals. The strongest bursts were found in Journal of Envi-
ronmental Quality (burst strength =9.75, 2008–2013), Annual
Review of Energy and the Environment (burst strength =8.88,
2006–2013), and Journal of the American Planning Association
(burst strength =8.77, 2008–2012). The articles in these source
journals attracted great citations in a short period of time and
thus merit more attention.
3.2.2. Author co-citation network
Author co-citation analysis examines whose publications are
cited together in the same articles, and how research communities
6 X. ZHAO ET AL.
Figure 5. Journal co-citation network.
evolve. Figure 6shows the author co-citation network with
609 nodes, whose size denotes the frequency of co-citations
of each author, as well as 1786 links reflecting indirect coop-
erative relationships formed by co-citations. Hence, the most
significantly cited authors were detected, including Nyuk Hien
Wong (frequency =206, Singapore), Mattheos Santamouris
(frequency =156, Australia), Hashem Akbari (frequency =134,
Canada), Raymond J. Cole (frequency =123, Canada), and David
J. Sailor (frequency =121, USA). The locations of the most cited
authors showed that green building research had been actively
undertaken in Singapore, North America and Australia.
Additionally, 128 authors received citation bursts, with a rapid
and abrupt increase in citations over short periods. The authors
with the strongest bursts were Issa Jaffal (burst strength =8.10,
2014–2016), Katia Perini (burst strength =8.10, 2014–2016),
Edward Ng (burst strength =7.21, 2014–2016), Edgar L. Villar-
real (burst strength =6.71, 2008–2013), and Susannah E. Gill
(burst strength =6.59, 2014–2016). It is worth noting that 28
out of the 128 authors achieved citation bursts in 2014–2016,
suggesting that their research can show the recent direction of
green building research and are worth following.
3.2.3. Document co-citation network
Document co-citation analysis detects the underlying intellec-
tual structure of a knowledge domain and demonstrates the
quantity and authority of the literature cited by articles. Co-
citation clusters were detected. In accordance with the citation
statistics from the WOS database, the top 30 cited publications
are shown in Table 2, whose citations range from 407 to 98.
Specifically, Sartori and Hestnes (2007), Oberndorfer et al. (2007),
and Ortiz, Castells, and Sonnemann (2009) received 407, 314,
and 295 citations, respectively, and were ranked within the top
three. Sartori and Hestnes (2007) surveyed the energy consump-
tion in the life cycles of 60 projects in nine countries, and found
that solar houses were more energy efficient than those using
green materials while energy consumption of passive houses
were more efficient than those with equivalent self-sufficient
solar systems. Oberndorfer et al. (2007) highlighted the potential
for improving the functions of green roofs through researching
how its ecosystem components (e.g. the relationships among
vegetation, growing media, and soil biota) interact with each
other. Ortiz, Castells, and Sonnemann (2009)summarizedthe
LCA concepts and methodologies and compared the LCA of the
combinations of building components and materials with the
LCA of the full building life cycle.
A document co-citation network and co-citation clusters is
shown in Figure 7, which consisted of 497 nodes and 1409
links. Each node denotes a document, showing the name of
the first author and the publication year, and the node size
denotes the number of co-citations of each document. Co-
citation relationships between two documents are represented
by the links between nodes. It merits attention the documents
represented by nodes are based on the 88,934 documents that
were cited in the 2980 bibliographic records, but may not be
included in the 2980 bibliographic records. Niachou et al. (2001),
Sailor (2008) and Castleton et al. (2010) were the top three
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 7
Figure 6. Author co-citation network.
Tab le 2. The top 30 cited articles on green building research 2000–2016.
No. Article Citation Topic No. Article Citation Topic
1 Sartori and Hestnes (2007) 407 F 16 Eichholtz, Kok, and Quigley (2010) 151 E
2 Oberndorfer et al. (2007) 314 A 17 Thormark (2006) 130 F
3 Ortiz, Castells, and Sonnemann (2009) 295 F 18 Santamouris et al. (2007) 124 A
4 Mentens, Raes, and Hermy (2006) 271 C 19 Kumar and Kaushik (2005) 123 A
5Ding(2008) 242 F 20 Ng et al. (2012) 121 A
6Niachouetal.(2001) 235 A 21 Jaffal, Ouldboukhitine, and Belarbi (2012) 116 A
7 Alexandria and Jones (2008) 226 A, B 22 Lazzarin, Castellotti, and Busato (2005) 116 A
8 Meyer (2009) 224 F 23 Susca, Gaffin, and Dell’Osso (2011) 115 C
9 Wang, Zmeureanu, and Rivard (2005) 209 F 24 Theodosiou (2003) 109 A
10 Wong et al. (2003) 201 A 25 Leaman and Bordass (2007) 108 D
11 Sailor (2008) 190 A 26 Saiz et al. (2006) 108 C
12 Santamouris (2014) 181 A 27 Fioretti et al. (2010) 107 A, C
13 Reddy and Jagadish (2003) 171 F 28 Kosareo and Ries (2007) 104 A, F
14 Newsham, Mancini, and Birt (2009) 156 E 29 Boons et al. (2013)98E
15 Flower and Sanjayan (2007) 159 F 30 Yu and Hien (2006)98A
Notes: Reserarch topics: A. green and cool roof; B. vertical greening systems; C. water efficiency; D. occupants’ comfort and satisfaction; E. financial benefits of green
building; F. LCA and rating systems; G. green retrofit; H. green building project delivery; and I. ICTs in green building.
and attracted 96, 82 and 81 co-citations, respectively. In addi-
tion, Alexandria and Jones (2008) (frequency =73), Wong et al.
(2003) (frequency =64), and Takebayashi and Moriyama (2007)
(frequency =64) also received high co-citations.
Additionally, citation bursts were detected in 52 docu-
ments, and the top five citation bursts ere: Kats (2003) (burst
strength =13.00, 2006–2013), Niachou et al. (2001) (burst
strength =12.05, 2006–2013), Kumar and Kaushik (2005) (burst
strength =11.60, 2008–2013), Takebayashi and Moriyama
(2007) (burst strength =10.48, 2010–2013), Lazzarin, Castel-
lotti, and Busato (2005) (burst strength =9.59, 2008–2012),
and Theodosiou (2003) (burst strength =9.10, 2008–2013).
In 2014–2016, Thormark (2002) (burst strength =2.90), and
Eumorfopoulou and Kontoleon (2009) (burst strength =3.88)
received citation bursts.
This study detected 152 co-citation clusters according to the
keywords of the reference documents in each cluster. The log-
likelihood ratio (LLR) algorithm was used for cluster analysis
8 X. ZHAO ET AL.
Figure 7. Document co-citation network and cluster analysis.
because this method is able to provide the best cluster labels
with respect to uniqueness and coverage (Chen 2014). The clus-
ter size equals to the number of member documents. The sizes
of the 152 clusters ranged from 36 to 1. In Figure 7, only the clus-
ters with sizes of no less than 15 are made visible. Cluster #0 has
the most members. As Table 3shows, alternative labels with high
LLR values are provided and the clusters are sorted by size. Clus-
ter #0 ‘living wall’ (36 members) was the largest one, followed
by ‘cool roof’ (32 members) and ‘runoff’ (26 members). In cluster
#0, red and orange links appeared, indicating that the co-citation
relationships were formed in 2014–2016.
The silhouette score represents the average homogeneity of
each cluster (Rousseeuw 1987). A higher silhouette score means
that the cluster members are more consistent with each other
if these clusters have similar sizes (Chen 2014). The silhouette
scores of the top co-cited clusters fell in the interval between
0.863 and 1, implying adequate consistency among the mem-
bers within each cluster. The mean year means the average
year of publication of a cluster and reveals whether it comprises
old documents or more recent documents. Hence, cluster #4
was formed by older documents than any other ones. Addition-
ally, the representative document of each cluster was the one
Tab le 3. Co-citation clusters of green building research 2000–2016.
Cluster ID Size Silhouette Cluster Label (LLR) Alternative label Mean year Representative document
#0 36 0.973 Living wall Green facade; green wall;
climbing plant
2009 Perez et al. (2011)
#1 32 0.921 Cool roof Spectral optical property; solar
reflectance; cool green roof
2007 Santamouris (2014)
#2 26 0.886 Runoff Green roof; vegetated roof 2006 Mentens, Raes, and Hermy (2006)
#3 23 0.945 Hong Kong Surface albedo; green roof heat
sink effect; substrate
2008 Tsang and Jim (2011)
#4 21 0.863 Land surface temperature Geometry; industrial 2002 Wong et al. (2003)
#5 21 1.000 Occupant satisfaction Air supply rate; LEED certified
building
2009 Leaman and Bordass (2007)
#6 20 1.000 Economics Public procurement; housing
market; local government
2009 Kats (2003)
#7 20 0.904 Vegetation Land use; island; convection 2007 Akbari, Pomerantz, and Taha (2001)
#8 20 0.931 Heat flux Plant and substrate selec tion;
green roof model; real
performance
2009 Sailor (2008)
#9 16 0.976 LCI (life cycle inventory) Building embodied carbon 2006 ISO (2006)
#10 15 0.892 Garden Vegetated roof; urban
biodiversity
2007 Kumar and Kaushik (2005)
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 9
that was most co-cited in the respective cluster. The representa-
tive documents can determine the labels of clusters and should
receive more attention.
Cluster #0 ‘living wall’ has 36 members. Vertical greening sys-
tems are usually classified into green façades and living walls in
accordance with their growing method (Ottelé et al. 2011; Perini
and Rosasco 2013). Living walls can support the vegetation that
is rooted on the walls or in the substrates attached to the walls
(Chen, Li, and Liu 2013) while green façades are made by the
climbing plants attached directly to the wall surface (Perini et al.
2011). Vertical greening systems can be used as passive systems
to save energy, with the consideration into the following mech-
anisms: blockage of solar radiation because of the shadow pro-
vided by vegetation, evaporative cooling produced by blocking
the wind and by evapotranspiration from substrate and plants,
and thermal insulation brought by the substrate and vegetation
(Perez et al. 2011). Additionally, Wong et al. (2010)foundthat
vertical greenery systems lowered down the surface tempera-
ture of building façades in the tropical area, thereby reducing
the cooling load and energy expense.
Cluster #1 with 34 members was labelled with ‘cool roof’.
Cool roofs are the roofing systems using the cool materials that
present a high albedo. In this cluster, Romeo and Zinzi (2013)
found that the cool roof application on a non-residential build-
ing decreased the roof surface temperature by 20 °C, and that it
was effective in reducing cooling and total net energy demand.
Green roofs, which are the roofs partially or completed covered
with vegetation, are also common in green buildings. Santa-
mouris (2014) reviewed the technologies to mitigate heat island
phenomenon and analyzed the effect of increasing the albedo
of cities by cool roofs and using vegetative green roofs on heat
island mitigation. Gill et al. (2007) indicated that greening roofs
in areas with a high proportion of buildings can significantly
lower down the surface temperature and reduce the rainwater
runoff.
Cluster #2 consisted of 26 members and was labelled with
‘runoff’. In this cluster, Mentens, Raes, and Hermy (2006)found
that the annual rainfall-runoff relationships for green roofs were
significantly influenced by the depth of the surface layer, and
indicated that the use of green roofs can significantly reduce
the rainfall runoff for a region and individual buildings. Berndts-
son (2010) discussed various factors influencing runoff dynamics
from green roofs and the influence of a green roof on runoff
water quality. Thus, this cluster concentrated on water efficiency
of green buildings.
Cluster #3 with 23 members was labelled with ‘Hong Kong’
because half of the members reported research findings in the
context of Hong Kong. The most representative document was
published by Tsang and Jim (2011). They used remote sensing
images to assess whether 1400 high-rise residential buildings in
Hong Kong were suitable for roof greening, which could pre-
vent solar energy in summer from entering the buildings for less
energy consumption. Also, Jim and He (2010) calculated sensi-
ble and latent heat fluxes of the green roofs in Hong Kong and
found that the passive indoor cooling effect under the green roof
resulted from the unbalanced energy closure. In addition to the
research in Hong Kong, Castleton et al. (2010) reviewed a case
for retrofitting existing buildings, and indicated a great potential
of green roof retrofit in the UK and that older buildings would
benefit more from green roofs.
Cluster #4 with 21 members was labelled with ‘land surface
temperature’. The representative research was undertaken by
Wong et al. (2003), who performed a field measurement of the
thermal impacts of roof gardens in Singapore and confirmed
that roof garden provided thermal benefits for both buildings
and surrounding environments. Additionally, Santamouris et al.
(2007) calculated both the cooling and heating load for a whole
building with a green roof and for its top floor, and found the
great reduction in the building’s cooling load in summer as well
as the insignificant effect on heating load in winter.
Cluster #5 ‘occupant satisfaction’ also had 21 members. In
this cluster, Leaman and Bordass (2007) examined the occu-
pants’ opinions on British green buildings, and found that green
buildings were difficult to manage and usually repeated past
mistakes in conventional buildings. Additionally, Paul and Tay-
lor (2008) compared occupants’ perceptions on the aesthetics,
serenity, lighting, acoustics, ventilation, temperature, humidity,
and satisfaction of a green building with those of two conven-
tional buildings, but did not find that green buildings were more
comfortable.
Cluster #6 ‘economics’ had 20 members. Kats (2003)inves-
tigated the financial and cost performance of green building
projects, revealing that the premiums for green buildings in
the USA were below 2% and that energy consumption was on
average 28% less than conventional buildings. However, more
upfront cost is usually needed for green office buildings than
non-green buildings (Davis Langdon 2007). In addition, New-
sham, Mancini, and Birt (2009) surveyed 100 institutional and
commercial buildings with LEED certification, and indicated that
28–35% of these buildings had higher energy consumption
than non-green buildings, despite an average energy saving of
18–39% per floor area. As for the residential developers, Deng
and Wu (2014) indicated that the Singaporean developers paid
for nearly all the extra expenses for higher energy efficiency
occurring the construction process but cannot receive signifi-
cant financial benefits from the development of green residen-
tial buildings. However, Zhang, Shen, and Wu (2011)arguedthat
green strategies can offer developers competitive advantages,
and Eichholtz, Kok, and Quigley (2010) revealed that invest-
ment in green building could provide developers with economic
benefits.
Cluster #7 ‘vegetation’ also had 20 members. Akbari, Pomer-
antz, and Taha (2001) indicated that urban trees, cool roofs and
cool pavements had significant influence on urban air temper-
ature, thereby reducing cooling energy consumption. Similarly,
Ng et al. (2012) investigated the cooling effect of urban greening
in Hong Kong, and revealed that roof greening was not effec-
tive for human thermal comfort near the ground and that grass
was less effective than trees in lowing temperature of pedestrian
areas.
Cluster #8 ‘heat flux’ also comprised 20 members. In this
cluster, Sailor (2008) developed a model that allows energy mod-
eller to vegetated green roof design options. Additionally, Take-
bayashi and Moriyama (2007) found that the sensible heat flux
was small on the surfaces of green roofs and the roofs with highly
reflective white paint.
10 X. ZHAO ET AL.
Cluster #9 had 16 members and was labelled with ‘LCI (life
cycle inventory)’. The representative document is ISO14040:
2006, which includes ‘the LCA principles and framework, the
LCI phase, the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) phase, the
life cycle interpretation phase, reporting and critical review of
the LCA, limitations of the LCA, and the relationship between
the LCA phases’ (ISO 2006). Also, Scheuer, Keoleian, and Reppe
(2003) undertook LCA on a university building, and prepared an
inventory of all installed materials and material replacements
(e.g. the building structure, envelope, the utility and sanitary sys-
tems, interior structure and finishes), as well as demolition and
other end-of-life burdens. LCA has been integrated into some
leading green building rating systems, such as the LEED (USA),
BREEAM (UK), and Green Star (Australia). Typical LCA outputs
include the consumption of resource, energy and water, CO2
emission, and toxic residues.
Cluster #10 ‘garden’ had 15 members, which had overlaps
with clusters #1, #3, #4, #7 and #8. Kumar and Kaushik (2005)
proposed a mathematical model that can accurately predict vari-
ations of indoor-air temperature and green canopy-air tempera-
ture and used the analysis results to study thermal performance
of the green roofs with solar shading. Oberndorfer et al. (2007)
reviewed the evidence for the benefits of green roofs, examined
the biotic and abiotic components contributing to the overall
ecosystem services offered by green roofs, and highlighted the
potential for enhancing the function of green roofs.
Green and cool roof has been a hot research topic as it
was covered by clusters #1, #3, #4, #7, #8 and #10. Therefore,
among the 11 co-citation clusters, the following six research top-
ics are identified: green and cool roof (clusters #1, #3, #4, #7,
#8 and #10), vertical greening systems (cluster #0), water effi-
ciency (cluster #2), occupants’ comfort and satisfaction (cluster
#5), financial benefits of green building (cluster #6), as well as
LCA and rating systems (cluster #9).
3.3. Other research topics
It should be noted that the above research topics are identified
based on the objective co-citation cluster analysis. Some impor-
tant topics may be missing because they did not receive high
co-citations. In this study, content analysis was used to identify
such research topics. The other three research topics were iden-
tified: green retrofit, green building project delivery, and the ICTs
in green building.
Green retrofit is ‘upgrade at an existing building that is wholly
or partially occupied to improve energy and environmental per-
formance, reduce water use, improve the comfort and quality,
and reduce the noise level’ (Lockwood 2009). This has been
recognized as one of main approaches to green building at rel-
atively low expenses. Green retrofit activities include but are
not limited to energy auditing, quantification of energy bene-
fits, building performance assessment, cost and benefit analysis,
and measurement and verification of energy savings (Ma et al.
2012). In addition to the energy savings, green retrofit can also
add value to the property, thus helping to shorten the payback
period of the retrofit investment (Popescu et al. 2012). There
has been great potential of retrofitting green roofs to existing
buildings worldwide (Castleton et al. 2010; Herman ; Wilkin-
son and Reed 2009), which can bring about potential energy
savings of 45% for non-insulated buildings and 13% in mod-
erately insulated buildings (Niachou et al. 2001). Additionally,
retrofitting lighting to exising building is an effective way to
achieve green building. Mahlia, Razak, and Nursahida (2011)
found that the lighting retrofitting decreaded electricity con-
sumption by 17–40% in a Malaysian university based on the
LCA. However, green retrofit is also faced with barriers. Zhang
et al. (2012) found that lack of promotion and incentives from
governments and high maintenance cost significantly hindered
retrofitting green roofs to the existing building in Hong Kong.
The researches relating to green building project delievery
concentrate on the management and implementation of green
buidling projects. Compared with the conventional building
project, green building projects involve hiring specialist consul-
tants, using green building rating systems, providing relevant
education and training opportunities to employees, and engag-
ing external stakeholders (Robichaud and Anantatmula 2011).
In addition, Hwang and Ng (2013) idnentifiend the challenges
faced by green building project managers and proposed the
knowledge areas and skills that were critical to overcome these
challenges. Inevitably, green building projects experience vari-
ous risks as well. Hence, Zhao, Hwang, and Gao (2016) developed
a fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach to assessing these risks.
Moreover, Häkkinen and Belloni (2011) investigated the barri-
ers to and drivers for green building, and suggested promoting
green building through enhancing the perception on the bene-
fits of green building, mobilizing green building tools, and devel-
oping designers’ competence and team working. Furthermore,
Zhang, Wu, and Shen (2015) developed a new mode of project-
based organizations by introducing an independent environ-
mental representative, which could facilitate the environmental
paradigm shift in the construction sector.
Advanced ICTs facilitate the development of green building.
BIM provides designers with opportunities to undertake vari-
ous sustainablity analyses accurately and efficiently, and can be
used for sustainble design and LEED certification (Azhar et al.
2011). Intergrated project delivery (IPD) and design optimiza-
tion have been seen as the two greatest benefits provided by
BIM for green building design (Wong and Fan 2013). A concept
of green BIM has been proposed (Krygiel and Nies 2008), which
is to employ BIM tools to assure sustainability and/or enhanced
building performance (McGraw-Hill Construction 2010). Wong
and Zhou (2015) reviewed the exisitng green BIM studies and
indicated that it was necessary to extend cloud computing appli-
cation and manage big data in green BIM. BIM can also be
applied in green retrofit. Hammond, Nawari, and Walters (2014)
developed a framework consisting of best practices for green
retrofit.
3.4. Knowledge gaps and future research
Reviewing the articles relating green building in 2000–2016,
this study identifies the areas that are lacking investigation and
requiring further research. These areas contribute to the knowl-
edge gaps of green building and set the references for future
research.
The first knowledge gap is the corporate social responsibil-
ity relating to green building. Construction activities are a social
process (Abowitz and Toole 2010), and thus social sustainability
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 11
in buildings has attracted increasing concerns (Valdes-Vasquez
and Klotz 2013). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an impor-
tant dimension of social sustainability (Zuo, Jin, and Flynn 2012).
According to an analysis of the 37 CSR definitions (Dahlsrud
2008), the most frequently cited definition of CSR is ‘companies’
integration of social and environmental concerns in their busi-
ness operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders
on a voluntary basis’ (European Commission 2001). Zhao et al.
(2012) proposed a framework that comprised various indica-
tors to assess the CSR performance of construction companies
through the stakeholder theory. Wang, Toppinen, and Juslin
(2014) found the potential of integrating green building and CSR
in the construction industry and argued that the best way for
construction companies to conduct CSR was to supply afford-
able, environmentally friendly and socially responsible houses.
However, the in-depth research on CSR’s role in green building
is still lacking. Hence, future research would investigate the inter-
action between CSR and green building as well as examine the
potential of including CSR in the criteria of green building rating
systems.
The second knowledge gap is related to the real performance
of green building and the factors influencing the real perfor-
mance. Although most studies advocated the benefits of green
buildings, several studies showed disagreement with the over-
whelming benefits of green buildings. Paul and Taylor (2008)
found no significant distinction in thermal comfort between
green and conventional buildings. Gou, Lau, and Chen (2012)
performed post-occupancy evaluation (POE) in a Chinese green
office building and found that 12% and 20% of the users were
dissatisfied with the summer and winter temperature, respec-
tively. However, based on the survey of nine green buildings,
Gou, Prasad, and Lau (2013) indicated that occupants’ dissatis-
faction with certain aspects of the indoor environment of green
building did not necessarily lead to overall dissatisfaction with
the environment. In the study of Newsham, Mancini, and Birt
(2009), 30% of the LEED-certified buildings had higher energy
consumption than non-green buildings. Similarly, Menassa et al.
(2012) indicated most of the US Navy buildings certified by LEED
had higher electricity consumption than the national average
level. In addition, improved energy efficiency may not result in
savings of energy expenses because this could be influenced
by lease agreements and characteristics of building occupants
(Sabapathy et al. 2010). Hence, future research would undertake
POE, with consideration into occupants’ work productivity and
health, to investigate the real performance of various types of
green buildings and identify the factors that influence the real
performance and the translation of energy efficiency into cost
savings. In addition to office buildings, green residential and
industrial buildings are also worth further research. The valida-
tion of the real performance will enable the benefits of green
building to be more convincing.
The third knowledge gap is related to ICT applications in
green building. Few articles have been publisehd to report
research on green BIM, and BIM application also involves techno-
logical problems (e.g. interoperability). Bynum, Issa, and Olbina
(2013) found that most BIM users did not recognize sustain-
able design and construction practices as a primary applica-
tion of BIM, and advocated that BIM should enhance its capa-
bility of integrating environmental analysis and address the
interoperability problems. Inyim, Rivera, and Zhu (2015)indi-
cated that the conventional BIM had limitations in supporting
sustainable design and construction, and developed the Sim-
ulation of Environmental Impact of Construction (SimulEICon),
which can optimize decision-making solutions for all the build-
ing components or just for specific components. Furthermore,
technologies of virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR)
can be used in sustainable design (Ayer, Messner, and Anumba
2016;Kim2008), and have changed the design process. VR
and AR programmes provide architects with greater contextual
awareness. For example, with these technologies, the architects
can experience the orientation of the building and adjust to
lower heating and cooling costs, or optimize the solar energy
system of the building. Ayer, Messner, and Anumba (2016) inves-
tigate the influence of an AR-based educational game tech-
nology on students’ design processes, and reported that the
students used this technology to assess their designs and pro-
duce additional concepts with better overall performance than
the students using the paper-based formats. Therefore, more
research is needed to explore the effective and efficient integra-
tion of BIM, VR and AR technologies into the various stages of the
green building life cycle.
The fourth knowledge gap is concerning the safety and
health risks of workers in the construction process of green
building projects. Many reseaeches have been concentrated on
the schedule, cost and quality performance of green building
projects, but few have investigated safety and health issues
in the construction of green projects. Rajendran and Gambat-
ese (2009) indicated that the green building projects certified
by LEED were plauged with higher injury rates than non-green
buildings in the USA. Similar findings were also reported in
a more recent research by Hwang, Shan, and Phuah (2017)
in Singapore. In terms of the specific risks, Fortunato et al.
(2011) found that risky tasks, e.g. installation of photovoltaic
panels and green roofs, and construction of atria, were usually
faced by the workers in the green projects certified by LEED.
Therefore, future research would identify the health and safety
risks in the construciton process of green building projects and
develop the mitigation strategies. In addition, the new risks
that are particular to green projects should also be noted and
addressed.
4. Concluding remarks
Green building is economically, socially, and environmentally
sustainable, and useful to lower down the GHG emissions from
buildings. This bibliometric review aims to detect the status quo
and trends of global green building research. Co-word and co-
citation analyses of the 2980 bibliographic records, which were
gathered from the WOS database, were undertaken to exam-
ine and visualize the current state and trends of green building
research.
In terms of the subject categories of green building research,
engineering, environmental sciences & ecology, and construc-
tion & building technology obtained the most bibliographic
records. However, a research focus on automation & control
systems and computer science has emerged in the past five
years. Regarding the keywords, ‘performance’, ‘sustainability’,
‘system’ and ‘green roof’ had the most frequency, while ‘building
12 X. ZHAO ET AL.
envelope’, ‘green façades’ and ‘living wall’ are the citation bursts
in more recent years.
Several influential journals have published significant green
building research findings, including Energy and Buildings,
Journal of Green Building, Building and Environment, Build-
ing Research and Information, and Journal of Cleaner Produc-
tion. All of them also attracted great co-citations, implying that
they exerted continuous and great impacts on green build-
ing research. Most of the top 30 frequently cited articles were
published by these journals, among which Sartori and Hestnes
(2007) got the highest citations, in accordance with the citation
statistics from the WOS database.
As indicated by the results of document co-citation anal-
ysis, Niachou et al. (2001), Sailor (2008) and Castleton et al.
(2010) attracted the most co-citations. In recent years, Thor-
mark (2002) and Eumorfopoulou and Kontoleon (2009) received
citation bursts, implying that embodied energy of buildings, as
well as plant-covered walls or vertical greenery systems were
the recent research hot topics. Additionally, 11 co-citation clus-
ters were detected on the basis of the keywords relating to the
reviewed documents. After analysis, a total of nine hot research
topics were identified: green and cool roof, vertical greening
systems, water efficiency, occupants’ comfort and satisfaction,
financial benefits of green building, LCA and rating systems,
green retrofit, green building project delivery, and the ICTs in
green building.
Knowledge gaps were detected in the areas of corporate
social responsibility, the validation of real performance of green
building, the ICT application in green building, as well as health
and safety risks in the construction of green projects. Given these
knowledge gaps, the future research agenda would include: (i)
investigating the interaction between CSR and green building
and the potential of including CSR in the green building rating
criteria; (ii) examining the real performance of various types of
green buildings and identifying the factors influencing the real
performance and the conversion of energy efficiency into cost
savings; (iii) exploring the integration of BIM, VR and AR tech-
nologies into the various life cycle phases of green buildings; and
(iv) identifying the health and safety risks in the construciton pro-
cess of green building projects and developing the mitigation
strategies.
This study presents an in-depth understanding of the status
quo, gaps and future agenda of green building research for both
researchers and practitioners. Researchers would follow the rec-
ommended directions and fill the existing knowledge gaps, thus
extending the body of green building knowledge.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Xianbo Zhao http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0153-5173
Jian Zuo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8279-9666
Can Huang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5159-4908
References
Abbasi, A., L. Hossain, and L. Leydesdorff. 2012. “Betweenness Centrality as a
Driver of Preferential Attachment in the Evolution of Research Collabora-
tion Networks.” Journal of Informetrics 6: 403–412.
Abowitz, D. A., and T. M. Toole. 2010. “Mixed Method Research: Fundamen-
tal Issues of Design, Validity, and Reliability in Construction Research.”
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 136: 108– 116.
Adler, A., J. Armstrong, S. Fuller, M. Kalin, A. Karolides, J. Macaluso, and H.
Walker. 2006.Green Building: Project Planning and Cost Estimating. 2nd ed.
Kingston, MA: R.S. Means.
Akbari, H., M. Pomerantz, and H. Taha. 2001. “Cool Surfaces and Shade Trees
to Reduce Energy Use and Improve Air Quality in Urban Areas.” Solar
Energy 70: 295–310.
Alexandria, E., and P. Jones. 2008. “Temperature Decreases in an Urban
Canyon Due to Green Walls and Green Roofs in Diverse Climates.” Building
and Environment 43: 480–493.
Archambault, É, D. Campbell, Y. Gingras, and V. Larivière. 2009.“Compar-
ing Bibliometric Statistics Obtained from the Web of Science and Sco-
pus.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 60:
1320–1326.
Ayer, S. K., J. I. Messner, and C. J. Anumba. 2016. “Augmented Reality Gaming
in Sustainable Design Education.” Journal of Architectural Engineering 22:
04015012.
Azhar,S.,W.A.Carlton,D.Olsen,andI.Ahmad.2011. “Building Information
Modeling for Sustainable Design and Leed®Rating Analysis.” Automation
in Construction 20: 217–224.
Berndtsson, J. C. 2010. “Green Roof Performance Towards Management of
Runoff Water Quantity and Quality: A Review.” Ecological Engineering 36:
351–360.
Boons, F., C. Montalvo, J. Quist, and M. Wagner. 2013. “Sustainable Innova-
tion, Business Models and Economic Performance: An Overview.” Journal
of Cleaner Production 45: 1–8.
Brown, H. S., and P. J. Vergragt. 2008. “Bounded Socio-technical Experiments
as Agents of Systemic Change: The Case of a Zero-energy Residential
Building.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75: 107–130.
Burt, R. S. 1995.Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition.Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bynum,P.,R.R.A.Issa,andS.Olbina.2013. “Building Information Modeling in
Support of Sustainable Design and Construction.” Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 139: 24–34.
Castleton, H. F., V. Stovin, S. B. Beck, and J. B. Davison. 2010. “Green Roofs;
Building Energy Savings and the Potential for Retrofit.” Energy and Build-
ings 42: 1582–1591.
Chen, C. 2014. “The Citespace Manual.” http://cluster.ischool.drexel.edu/
∼cchen/citespace/CiteSpaceManual.pdf.
Chen, C. 2016.Citespace: A Practical Guide for Mapping Scientific Literature.
Nova Science Publishers. http://cluster.cis.drexel.edu/ ∼cchen/citespace/.
Chen, Q., B. Li, and X. Liu. 2013. “An Experimental Evaluation of the Living Wall
System in Hot and Humid Climate.” Energy and Buildings 61: 298–307.
Chen, X., H. Yang, and L. Lu. 2015. “A Comprehensive Review on Passive
Design Approaches in Green Building Rating Tools.” Renewable and Sus-
tainable Energy Reviews 50: 1425–1436.
Cobo, M. J., A. G. López-Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, and F. Herrera. 2011. “Sci-
ence Mapping Software Tools: Review, Analysis, and Cooperative Study
among Tools.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology 62: 1382–1402.
Dahlsrud, A. 2008. “How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: An Anal-
ysis of 37 Definitions.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management 15: 1–13.
Danatzko, J. M., H. Sezen, and Q. Chen. 2013. “Sustainable Design and Energy
Consumption Analysis for Structural Components.” Journal of Green Build-
ing 8: 120–135.
Darko, A., and A. P. C. Chan. 2016. “Critical Analysis of Green Building Research
Trend in Construction Journals.” Habitat International 57: 53–63.
Darko, A., C. Zhang, and A. P. Chan. 2017.“Drivers for Green Building: A
Review of Empirical Studies.” Habitat International 60: 34–49.
Davis Langdon. 2007.The Cost & Benefit of Achieving Green Building. Sydney,
NSW: Davis Langdon.
Deng,Y.,andJ.Wu.2014. “Economic Returns to Residential Green Build-
ing Investment: The Developers’ Perspective.” Regional Science and Urban
Economics 47: 35–44.
Ding, G. K. C. 2008. “Sustainable Construction - the Role of Environmental
Assessment Tools.” Journal of Environmental Management 86: 451–464.
Eichholtz, P., N. Kok, and J. M. Quigley. 2010. “Doing Well by Doing Good?
Green Office Buildings.” American Economic Review 100: 2492–2509.
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 13
Eichholtz, P., N. Kok, and J. M. Quigley. 2013. “The Economics of Green
Building.” Review of Economics and Statistics 95: 50–63.
Eumorfopoulou, E. A., and K. J. Kontoleon. 2009. “Experimental Approach
to the Contribution of Plant-covered Walls to the Thermal Behaviour of
Building Envelopes.” Building and Environment 44: 1024–1038.
European Commission. 2001.Promoting a European Framework for Corporate
Social Responsibility. Bruxelles: European Commission.
Fellows,R.,andA.M.M.Liu.2008.Research Methods for Construction. 3rd ed.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Fioretti, R., A. Palla, L. G. Lanza, and P. Principi. 2010. “Green Roof Energy and
Water Related Performance in the Mediterranean Climate.” Building and
Environment 45: 1890–1904.
Flower,D.J.M.,andJ.G.Sanjayan.2007. “Green House Gas Emissions Due to
Concrete Manufacture.” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
12: 282–288.
FortunatoIII, B. R., M. R. Hallowell, M. Behm, and K. Dewlaney. 2012. “Iden-
tification of Safety Risks for High-performance Sustainable Construc-
tion Projects.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 138:
499–508.
Freeman, L. C. 1978. “Centrality in Social Networks Conceptual Clarification.”
Social Networks 1: 215–239.
Ganbat, T., H. Y. Chong, P. C. Liao, and Y. D. Wu. 2018. “A Bibliometric Review
on Risk Management and Building Information Modeling for International
Construction.” Advances in Civil Engineering 2018: 8351679.
Gill,S.E.,J.F.Handley,A.R.Ennos,andS.Pauleit.2007. “Adapting Cities for
Climate Change: The Role of the Green Infrastructure.” Built Environment
33: 115–133.
Gliedt, T., and C. E. Hoicka. 2015. “Energy Upgrades as Financial or Strate-
gic Investment? Energy Star Property Owners and Managers Improving
Building Energy Performance.” Applied Energy 147: 430– 443.
Gou, Z., and S. S.-Y. Lau. 2014. “Contextualizing Green Building Rating Sys-
tems: Case Study of Hong Kong.” Habitat International 44: 282–289.
Gou, Z., S. S.-Y. Lau, and F. Chen. 2012. “Subjective and Objective Evalua-
tion of the Thermal Environment in a Three-star Green Office Building in
China.” Indoor and Built Environment 21: 412–422.
Gou,Z.,D.Prasad,andS.S.-Y.Lau.2013. “Are Green Buildings More Satisfac-
tory and Comfortable?” Habitat International 39: 156–161.
Häkkinen, T., and K. Belloni. 2011. “Barriers and Drivers for Sustainable Build-
ing.” Building Research & Information 39: 239–255.
Hammond, R., N. Nawari, and B. Walters. 2014. “BIM in Sustainable Design:
Strategies for Retrofitting/renovation.” 2014 International Conference
on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, 1969–77. Orlando, FL:
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Heiskanen, E., H. Nissilä, and R. Lovio. 2015. “Demonstration Buildings as Pro-
tected Spaces for Clean Energy Solutions – the Case of Solar Building
Integration in Finland.” Journal of Cleaner Production 109: 347–356.
Herman, R. 2003.“Green Roofs in Germany: Yesterday, Today and Tomor-
row.” In Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, 41–45. Chigago,
IL.
Hjørland, B., and H. Albrechtsen. 1995. “Toward a New Horizon in Informa-
tion Science: Domain-analysis.” Journal of the Association for Information
Science and Technology 46: 400–425.
Hoffman, A. J., and R. Henn. 2008. “Overcoming the Social and Psychological
Barriers to Green Building.” Organization & Environment 21: 390–419.
Hwang, B. G., and W. J. Ng. 2013. “Project Management Knowledge and Skills
for Green Construction: Overcoming Challenges.” International Journal of
Project Management 31: 272–284.
Hwang, B.-G., M. Shan, and S. L. Phuah. 2017. “Safety in Green Building
Construction Projects in Singapore: Performance, Critical Issues, and
Improvement Solutions.” Ksce Journal of Civil Engineering.doi:10.1007/
s12205-017-1961-3.
Inyim, P., J. Rivera, and Y. Zhu. 2015. “Integration of Building Information
Modeling and Economic and Environmental Impact Analysis to Support
Sustainable Building Design.” Journal of Management in Engineering 31:
A4014002.
ISO. 2006.ISO14040:2006 Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment
– Principles and Framework. Geneva: International Organization for Stan-
dardization.
Jaffal, I., S. E. Ouldboukhitine, and R. Belarbi. 2012. “A Comprehensive Study
of the Impact of Green Roofs on Building Energy Performance.” Renewable
Energy 43: 157–164.
Jim, C. Y., and H. He. 2010. “Coupling Heat Flux Dynamics with Meteorolog-
ical Conditions in the Green Roof Ecosystem.” Ecological Engineering 36:
1052–1063.
Kats, G. H. 2003.Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits. Westborough,
MA: Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.
Kibert, C. J. 2012.Sustaination: Green Building Design and Delivery. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Kim, H. 2008. “Sustainable Design Through Virtual Reality.” International
Journal of the Arts in Society 3: 107–111.
Kleinberg, J. 2002. Bursty and Hierarchical Structure in Streams.” Proceed-
ings of the 8th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge
Discovery and Data Mining, 91–101. Edmonton: ACM.
Kosareo, L., and R. Ries. 2007. “Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assess-
ment of Green Roofs.” Building and Environment 42: 2606–2613.
Krygiel, E., and B. Nies. 2008.Green BIM: Successful Sustainable Design with
Building Information Modeling. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons.
Kumar, R., and S. C. Kaushik. 2005. “Performance Evaluation of Green Roof
and Shading for Thermal Protection of Buildings.” Building and Environ-
ment 40: 1505–1511.
Lam,P.T.,E.H.W.Chan,C.S.Poon,C.K.Chau,andK.P.Chun.2010. “Factors
Affecting the Implementation of Green Specifications in Construction.”
Journal of Environmental Management 91: 654–661.
Lazzarin, R. A., F. Castellotti, and F. Busato. 2005. “Experimental Measure-
ments and Numerical Modelling of a Green Roof.” Energy and Buildings
37: 1260–1267.
Leaman, A., and B. Bordass. 2007. “Are Users More Tolerant of ‘Green’ Build-
ings?” Building Research and Information 35: 662–673.
Lee, Y. S., and D. A. Guerin. 2009. “Indoor Environmental Quality Related
to Occupant Satisfaction and Performance in Leed-certified Buildings.”
Indoor and Built Environment 18: 293–300.
Li,Y.,Y.Lu,J.E.Taylor,andY.Han.2018. “Bibliographic and Comparative
Analyses to Explore Emerging Classic Texts in Megaproject Management.”
International Journal of Project Management 36: 342–361.
Li, X., P. Wu, G. Q. Shen, X. Wang, and Y. Teng. 2017. “Mapping the Knowl-
edge Domains of Building Information Modeling (BIM): A Bibliometric
Approach.” Automation in Construction 84: 195–206.
Lockwood, C. 2009. “Building Retrofits.” Urban Land: 46–57.
Ma,Z.,P.Cooper,D.Daly,andL.Ledo.2012. “Existing Building Retrofits:
Methodology and State-of-the-art.” Energy and Buildings 55:
889–902.
Mahlia, T., H. A. Razak, and M. Nursahida. 2011. “Life Cycle Cost Analysis
and Payback Period of Lighting Retrofit at the University of Malaya.”
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15: 1125–
1132.
McGraw-Hill Construction. 2010.Green bim: How Building Information Mod-
eling is Contributing to Green Design and Construction. Bedford, MA:
McGraw-Hill Construction.
Menassa, C., S. Mangasarian, M. El Asmar, and C. Kirar. 2012. “Energy Con-
sumption Evaluation of U.S. Navy LEED-certified Buildings.” Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities 26: 46–53.
Mentens, J., D. Raes, and M. Hermy. 2006. “Green Roofs as a Tool for Solving
the Rainwater Runoff Problem in the Urbanized 21st Century?” Landscape
and Urban Planning 77: 217–226.
Meyer, C. 2009. “The Greening of the Concrete Industry.” Cement & Concrete
Composites 31: 601–605.
Mohammadi, S., and M. T. Birgonul. 2016. “Preventing Claims in Green Con-
struction Projects Through Investigating the Components of Contractual
and Legal Risks.” Journal of Cleaner Production 139: 1078–1084.
Newsham, G. R., S. Mancini, and B. J. Birt. 2009. “Do LEED-certified Buildings
Save Energy? Yes, but ... .” Energy and Buildings 41: 897–905.
Ng, E., L. Chen, Y. Wang, and C. Yuan. 2012. “A Study on the Cooling Effects of
Greening in a High-density City: An Experience from Hong Kong.” Building
and Environment 47: 256–271.
Niachou, A., K. Papakonstantinou, M. Santamouris, A. Tsangrassoulis, and
G. Mihalakakou. 2001. “Analysis of the Green Roof Thermal Properties
and Investigation of its Energy Performance.” Energy and Buildings 33:
719–729.
Oberndorfer, E., J. Lundholm, B. Bass, R. R. Coffman, H. Doshi, N. Dunnett,
S. Gaffin, M. Köhler, K. K. Liu, and B. Rowe. 2007.“GreenRoofsasUrban
Ecosystems: Ecological Structures, Functions, and Services.” BioScience 57:
823–833.
14 X. ZHAO ET AL.
Ortiz, O., F. Castells, and G. Sonnemann. 2009. “Sustainability in the Con-
struction Industry: A Review of Recent Developments Based on LCA.”
Construction and Building Materials 23: 28–39.
Ottelé, M., K. Perini, A. Fraaij, E. Haas, and R. Raiteri. 2011. “Comparative Life
Cycle Analysis for Green Façades and Living Wall Systems.” Energy and
Buildings 43: 3419–3429.
Pan, J., R. Jain, S. Paul, T. Vu, A. Saifullah, and M. Sha. 2015. “An Internet of
Things Framework for Smart Energy in Buildings: Designs, Prototype, and
Experiments.” IEEE Internet of Things Journal 2: 527–537.
Paul, W. L., and P. A. Taylor. 2008. “A Comparison of Occupant Comfort
and Satisfaction between a Green Building and a Conventional Building.”
Building and Environment 43: 1858–1870.
Pearce, A. R., J. R. DuBose, and S. J. Bosch. 2007. “Green Building Policy
Options for the Public Sector.” Journal of Green Building 2: 156–174.
Peña, M., F. Biscarri, J. I. Guerrero, I. Monedero, and C. León. 2016. “Rule-based
System to Detect Energy Efficiency Anomalies in Smart Buildings, a Data
Mining Approach.” Expert Systems with Applications 56: 242–255.
Perez, G., L. Rincon, A. Vila, J. M. Gonzalez, and L. F. Cabeza. 2011. “Green Ver-
tical Systems for Buildings as Passive Systems for Energy Savings.” Applied
Energy 88: 4854–4859.
Pérez-Lombard, L., J. Ortiz, and C. Pout. 2008. “A Review on Buildings Energy
Consumption Information.” Energy and Buildings 40: 394–398.
Perini, K., M. Ottelé, A. Fraaij, E. Haas, and R. Raiteri. 2011. “Vertical Green-
ing Systems and the Effect on air Flow and Temperature on the Building
Envelope.” Building and Environment 46: 2287–2294.
Perini, K., and P. Rosasco. 2013. “Cost–Benefit Analysis for Green Façades and
Living Wall Systems.” Building and Environment 70: 110–121.
Popescu, D., S. Bienert, C. Schützenhofer, and R. Boazu. 2012.“Impactof
Energy Efficiency Measures on the Economic Value of Buildings.” Applied
Energy 89: 454–463.
Pouris, A., and A. Pouris. 2011. “Scientometrics of a Pandemic: HIV/aids
Research in South Africa and the World.” Scientometrics 86: 541–552.
Qin, X., Y. Mo, and L. Jing. 2016. “Risk Perceptions of the Life-cycle of Green
Buildings in China.” Journal of Cleaner Production 126: 148–158.
Rajendran, S., and J. A. Gambatese. 2009. “Development and Initial Validation
of Sustainable Construction Safety and Health Rating System.” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 135: 1067–1075.
Reddy, B. V. V., and K. S. Jagadish. 2003. “Embodied Energy of Common and
Alternative Building Materials and Technologies.” Energy and Buildings 35:
129–137.
Robichaud, L. B., and V. S. Anantatmula. 2011. “Greening Project Manage-
ment Practices for Sustainable Construction.” Journal of Management in
Engineering 27: 48–57.
Romeo, C., and M. Zinzi. 2013.“Impact of a Cool Roof Application on the
Energy and Comfort Performance in an Existing non-residential Building.
A Sicilian Case Study.” Energy and Buildings 67: 647–657.
Rousseeuw, P. J. 1987. “Silhouettes: A Graphical aid to the Interpretation
and Validation of Cluster Analysis.” Journal of Computational and Applied
Mathematics 20: 53–65.
Sabapathy, A., S. K. Ragavan, M. Vijendra, and A. G. Nataraja. 2010. “Energy
Efficiency Benchmarks and the Performance of Leed Rated Buildings for
Information Technology Facilities in Bangalore, India.” Energy and Build-
ings 42: 2206–2212.
Sailor, D. J. 2008. “A Green Roof Model for Building Energy Simulation Pro-
grams.” Energy and Buildings 40: 1466–1478.
Saiz, S., C. Kennedy, B. Bass, and K. Pressnail. 2006. “Comparative Life Cycle
Assessment of Standard and Green Roofs.” Environmental Science & Tech-
nology 40: 4312–4316.
Santamouris, M. 2014. “Cooling the Cities - a Review of Reflective and Green
Roof Mitigation Technologies to Fight Heat Island and Improve Comfort
in Urban Environments.” Solar Energy 103: 682– 703.
Santamouris, M., C. Pavlou, P. Doukas, G. Mihalakakou, A. Synnefa, A. Hatz-
ibiros, and P. Patargias. 2007. “Investigating and Analysing the Energy
and Environmental Performance of an Experimental Green Roof System
Installed in a Nursery School Building in Athens, Greece.” Energy 32:
1781–1788.
Sartori, I., and A. G. Hestnes. 2007. “Energy use in the Life Cycle of Conven-
tional and Low-energy Buildings: A Review Article.” Energy and Buildings
39: 249–257.
Scheuer, C., G. A. Keoleian, and P. Reppe. 2003. “Life Cycle Energy and
Environmental Performance of a new University Building: Modeling
Challenges and Design Implications.” Energy and Buildings 35: 1049–
1064.
Shan, M., and B.-G. Hwang. 2018. “Green Building Rating Systems: Global
Reviews of Practices and Research Efforts.” Sustainable Cities and Society
39: 172–180.
Shanmugam, S., C. Sun, X. Zeng, and Y.-R. Wu. 2018. “High-efficient Pro-
duction of Biobutanol by a Novel Clostridium sp. Strain wst with Uncon-
trolled ph Strategy.” Bioresource Technology.doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2018.
02.077.
Small, H. 1973. “Co-Citation in the Scientific Literature: A new Measure of
the Relationship between Two Documents.” Journal of the Association for
Information Science and Technology 24: 265–269.
Song, J., H. Zhang, and W. Dong. 2016. “A Review of Emerging Trends
in Global ppp Research: Analysis and Visualization.” Scientometrics 107:
1111–1147.
Susca, T., S. R. Gaffin, and G. R. Dell’Osso. 2011. “Positive Effects of Vegeta-
tion: Urban Heat Island and Green Roofs.” Environmental Pollution 159:
2119–2126.
Takebayashi, H., and M. Moriyama. 2007. “Surface Heat Budget on Green Roof
and High Reflection Roof for Mitigation of Urban Heat Island.” Building and
Environment 42: 2971–2979.
Theodosiou, T. G. 2003. “Summer Period Analysis of the Performance of a
Planted Roof as a Passive Cooling Technique.” Energy and Buildings 35:
909–917.
Thormark, C. 2002. “A Low Energy Building in a Life Cycle—Its Embodied
Energy, Energy Need for Operation and Recycling Potential.” Building and
Environment 37: 429–435.
Thormark, C. 2006. “The Effect of Material Choice on the Total Energy Need
and Recycling Potential of a Building.” Building and Environment 41:
1019–1026.
Tsang, S., and C. Jim. 2011. “Theoretical Evaluation of Thermal and Energy
Performance of Tropical Green Roofs.” Energy 36: 3590–3598.
Valdes-Vasquez, R., and L. E. Klotz. 2013. “Social Sustainability Considera-
tions During Planning and Design: Framework of Processes for Construc-
tion Projects.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 139:
80–89.
Wang, L., A. Toppinen, and H. Juslin. 2014. “Use of Wood in Green Building:
A Study of Expert Perspectives from the UK.” Journal of Cleaner Production
65: 350–361.
Wang, W. M., R. Zmeureanu, and H. Rivard. 2005. “Applying Multi-objective
Genetic Algorithms in Green Building Design Optimization.” Building and
Environment 40: 1512–1525.
Wilkinson, S. J., and R. Reed. 2009. “Green Roof Retrofit Potential in the
Central Business District.” Property Management 27: 284–301.
Wong, N. H., Y. Chen, C. L. Ong, and A. Sia. 2003. “Investigation of Thermal
Benefits of Rooftop Garden in the Tropical Environment.” Building and
Environment 38: 261–270.
Wong, K.-D., and Q. Fan. 2013. “Building Information Modelling (BIM) for
Sustainable Building Design.” Facilities 31: 138–157.
Wong, N. H., A. Y. K. Tan, Y. Chen, K. Sekar, P. Y. Tan, D. Chan, K. Chiang, and
N. C. Wong. 2010. “Thermal Evaluation of Vertical Greenery Systems for
Building Walls.” Building and Environment 45: 663–672.
Wong, J. K. W., and J. Zhou. 2015. “Enhancing Environmental Sustainability
Over Building Life Cycles Through Green bim: A Review.” Automation in
Construction 57: 156–165.
WorldGBC. 2013.The Business Case for Green Building: A Review of the Costs
and Benefits for Developers, Investors and Occupants. London: World Green
Building Council.
Wu, P., Y. Feng, J. Pienaar, and B. Xia. 2015. “A Review of Benchmarking
in Carbon Labelling Schemes for Building Materials.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 109: 108–117.
Wu, W., and R. R. Issa. 2015. “BIM Execution Planning in Green Building
Projects: Leed as a use Case.” Journal of Management in Engineering 31:
A4014007.
Wu, P., and S. P. Low. 2010. “Project Management and Green Buildings:
Lessons from the Rating Systems.” Journal of Professional Issues in Engi-
neering Education and Practice 136: 64–70.
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 15
Wu, Z., L. Shen, T. Ann, and X. Zhang. 2016. “A Comparative Analysis of
Waste Management Requirements between Five Green Building Rating
Systems for New Residential Buildings.” Journal of Cleaner Production 112:
895–902.
Wu, P., B. Xia, and X. Zhao. 2014. “The Importance of Use and End-of-life
Phases to the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions of Concrete -
a Review.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 37: 360–369.
Xue,X.,L.Wang,andR.J.Yang.2018. “Exploring the Science of Resilience:
Critical Review and Bibliometric Analysis.” Natural Hazards 90: 477–510.
Yu,C.,andW.N.Hien.2006. “Thermal Benefits of City Parks.” Energy and
Buildings 38: 105–120.
Yudelson, J. 2010.The Green Building Revolution. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
Zhang, X., L. Shen, V. W. Tam, and W. W. Y. Lee. 2012. “Barriers to Imple-
ment Extensive Green Roof Systems: A Hong Kong Study.” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 16: 314–319.
Zhang, X., L. Shen, and Y. Wu. 2011. “Green Strategy for Gaining Competitive
Advantage in Housing Development: A China Study.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 19: 157–167.
Zhang, X., Y. Wu, and L. Shen. 2015. “Embedding ‘Green’ in Project-based
Organizations: The Way Ahead in the Construction Industry?” Journal of
Cleaner Production 107: 420–427.
Zhao, X. 2017. “A Scientometric Review of Global BIM Research: Analysis and
Visualization.” Automation in Construction 80: 37–47.
Zhao, X., B. G. Hwang, and Y. Gao. 2016. “A Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation
Approach for Risk Assessment: A Case of Singapore’s Green Projects.”
Journal of Cleaner Production 115: 203–213.
Zhao, Z. Y., X. J. Zhao, K. Davidson, and J. Zuo. 2012. “A Corporate Social
Responsibility Indicator System for Construction Enterprises.” Journal of
Cleaner Production 29–30: 277– 289.
Zhu,J.,D.A.Chew,S.Lv,andW.Wu.2013. “Optimization Method for Building
Envelope Design to Minimize Carbon Emissions of Building Operational
Energy Consumption Using Orthogonal Experimental Design (OED).”
Habitat International 37: 148–154.
Zuo, J., X.-H. Jin, and L. Flynn. 2012. “Social Sustainability in Construction –
An Explorative Study.” International Journal of Construction Management
12: 51–63.
Zuo, J., S. Pullen, R. Rameezdeen, H. Bennetts, Y. Wang, G. Mao, Z. Zhou, H.
Du, and H. Duan. 2017. “Green Building Evaluation from a Life-cycle Per-
spective in Australia: A Critical Review.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 70: 358–368.
Zuo, J., and Z. Y. Zhao. 2014. “Green Building Research–current Status and
Future Agenda: A Review.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30:
271–281.
