Sustainability Transitions in the Construction Sector: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Luis Felipe Cândido
,
Jose Carlos Lazaro
,
Adriano Olivier de Freitas e Silva
,
José de Paula Barros Neto

Sustainability transition constitutes an important topic in innovation studies that have been providing insights into contemporary sustainability issues. These insights can help us to rethink how the construction industry can become more sustainable.

  • construction projects
  • innovation
  • sociotechnical transition

1. Introduction

The Construction Industry (CI) significantly contributes to the aggregate economic activity in both developed and emerging economies [1]. Despite its relevance, the sector is globally recognized for its conservative attitude to the adoption of innovative sustainable technologies [2], its operational methods that are labor intensive at the construction site [3], and its low-tech intensity [4]. These main characteristics are manifested in high rates of waste [5][6], high rates of consumption of raw materials, and environmental pollution [6][7]. It is estimated that approximately 30% of global energy consumption and CO2 emissions originate from the construction sector [8].
Against this background, the sector can be seen as strategic to sustainability transition due to its extensive interrelation with societal activities [9][10]. The built-up environment is where societal life materializes, thus its design and materials can influence the actions and practices that are inherent to an individual’s daily life and the functioning of society [11]. This view enables us to perceive a building as the fundamental unit generating sustainability. Moreover, the construction sector represents one of the three key sectors to address the challenges of climate change for the European Union [12].
Thus, awareness of the importance of more sustainable construction projects has been increasing [13], leading to a rising amount of research in various fields of study, including those focused on innovation and technology for sustainability, particularly in the field of sustainability transitions. The transition to sustainability is one of the most prominent themes within studies on sociotechnical transitions [14] and consists of a set of approaches to understand and support moving society towards sustainability [15]. One of the main focuses is to investigate how innovations can be incorporated or even become dominant in a given context, sometimes systemically modifying the current sociotechnical system and other times merely reconfiguring it [16].

2. Fundaments of Sociotechnical Transitions to Sustainability in the Construction Sector.

2.1. Sociotechnical Transitions to Sustainability

“Sustainability transitions are long-term, multi-dimensional, and fundamental transformation processes through which established socio-technical systems shift to more sustainable modes of production and consumption” ([17]: p. 956). According to these authors, this transition involves far-reaching changes along different dimensions, including technological, material, organizational, institutional, political, economic, and socio-cultural. In this way, the sociotechnical transitions perspective allows understanding of this process of changes at different levels and domains that interact and align [18], recognizing that companies and technologies are embedded in broader social and economic systems [19]. Then, institutionalized sociotechnical structures, whose fundamental long-term changes lead to their transformation, can ultimately be defined as processes of institutional change with a particular orientation towards technologies [20].
The shift of established sociotechnical systems involves various actors who can adopt a proactive or incumbent position, such as the government, the scientific community, actors from the financial system, the supply network, social groups, and users [21], either supporting or opposing the transition [21][22]. The interaction among these actors occurs based on alignment (cooperation) or confrontation (competition), depending on whether the innovations reinforce or confront the established interests, accepted patterns, and shared beliefs. In response, social groups mobilize to pressure public sector agents into establishing laws and regulations that favor their interests, either hindering—or even preventing—the emergence of innovations or promoting their adoption and diffusion.
By understanding this transition as a co-evolutionary process between artifacts (technologies), people (agents), and institutions (or rules), transition studies help to understand the reasons why some cleaner technologies are not spreading rapidly [23]. This is particularly important for new technologies that are fundamentally different from established technological structures and needs the development of supportive structures that legitimize and stabilize the emerging technology [24].
According to [17], in the ST research field four strands of investigation stand out: Multi-Level Perspective (MLP); Strategic Niche Management (SNM); Transition Management (TM); Technological Innovation Systems (TIS). They can be seen as models to interpret the transition or policy tool in order to govern it, each covering particular aspects of the whole process and complementing each other. Despite their complementarity, each one of them was developed separately and can be applied individually.
Strategic Niche Management (SNM) was first introduced in the late 1990s in the Netherlands by Arie Rip, initially as a research model and later as a policy tool for managing technological innovations [25]. Building on technology and innovation studies and the history of technology and social construction of technology, SNM suggests that sustainable innovation journeys can be facilitated by creating technological niches [26][27]. Niches can be defined as protected spaces for certain applications of a new technology [27]. These protected spaces allow experimentation with the co-evolution of technology, user practices, and regulatory structures [26]. They function as “incubation rooms” for radical novelties and provide spaces for learning processes, for example those about technical specifications, user preferences, public policies, and symbolic meanings, among others [28]. For [26][27], SNM focuses on the role of internal niche processes, such as learning, networks, vision, and the relationship between local projects and global sets of rules that guide the behavior of actors. However, empirical findings have shown that the analysis of these internal niche dimensions needs to be complemented with attention to external processes [26], which can be achieved using a MLP.
The MLP originates from a group of Dutch researchers from the University of Twente and encompasses institutional, sociological, legal, and technical variables [25]. The multi-level perspective is grounded in the works of Rip, Schot, and Kemp [19][29] but gained more popularity with Geels. According to [30], the theoretical roots of MLP are the social construction of technology, evolutionary economics, and neoinstitutional theory. The MLP explains transitions through the interaction of three different levels: niches, regimes, and landscapes [31]. This accommodates a multi-level analysis where niche represents a micro-level, regime a meso-level, and landscape a macro-level.
The concept of a niche is incorporated from SMN. Regime refers to the set of social functions and widely accepted rules by different actors or groups and was built on the concept of “technological regimes” by Nelson and Winter, according to [31]. In other words, the most institutionalized way of performing a social function [32]. This set of rules provides guidance and coordination for the activities of different groups that interact and promote regime stability [30]. The landscape can be defined as an external structure or context comprising macroeconomic, macropolitical, and cultural factors that shape activities, such as oil prices, economic growth, major crises (e.g., wars, emigration), and issues related to environmental preservation [31]. These factors are beyond the direct influence of actors and cannot be changed at will [28]. In this way, landscapes do not determine actions but provide deep structural “force gradients” that make some actions easier than others [30]. In other words, whereas the landscape can reinforce the incumbent regime by contributing to its stability and permanence, it can also be a source of pressure for its transformation, creating windows of opportunity for niche innovations to emerge [32].
According to [30], in the MLP, interactions between these levels can give rise to emerging ideas, artifacts, and innovations that can be incorporated or even become dominant in a particular context, sometimes systematically modifying the regime and other times merely reconfiguring it. Thus, the MLP aims to understand the nature, characteristics, and operating models of sociotechnical regimes, the sources of stability, and the conditions under which systems change, particularly the processes through which transitions to different sociotechnological systems occur [33]. In other words, it allows us to understand the processes of technological transition and systemic innovation and their contribution to sustainability.
Transition Management (TM) originated in the Netherlands through the work of Rotmans and Kemp in the 2000s, according to [25]. It was initially applied to understand and explain the impact of governance processes on transition [18] and later operationalized as a model to guide policy practice [25]. TM is theoretically rooted in policy, political sciences, sociology, and complexity sciences [34]. Based on complexity theory, TM proposes a new form of governance in a multi-level model that, unlike previous models that take technology as a starting point, primarily focuses on social systems [35]. It is structured into four levels: strategic—which seeks to structure the problem, forecast, and establish the transition arena; tactical—which seeks to develop coalitions, visions, and transition agendas; operational—which seeks to mobilize actors and execute projects and experiments; and reflexive—which seeks to evaluate, monitor, and learn [36]. Analogue to the notion of niche in SNM, this model takes the concept of the transition arena as the starting point of analysis. “The transition arena as a new institution for interaction can be considered a meta instrument for transition management and facilitates interaction, knowledge exchange and learning between the actors” [34]. TM emphasizes the policy mix, governance arrangements, and the government’s effectiveness in fostering transitions.
Finally, the Technological Innovation Systems (TIS) approach was developed in Sweden as part of a research program led by Bo Carlsson and Stankiewicz in the early 1990s, according to [25]. With theoretical roots in systems of innovation and technology, according to [37], “A technological system is defined as a dynamic network of agents interacting in a specific economic/industrial area under a particular institutional infrastructure and involved in the generation, diffusion, and utilization of technology”. The initial focus of TIS was to understand the contribution of technological innovation to the economic growth of countries; however, more recent research has started to consider new technologies as the key cores of sociotechnical transitions [17]. To ST studies, a technological innovation system can be seen as an application context, in which radical innovations emerge and mature. This is similar to the niche conception (in SNM and MLP), but broader, and might encompass niches [38]. In other words, TIS can be seen as actors and organizations forming arrangements for technological innovation cooperation. This arrangement functions under a particular institutional infrastructure as the essential driver behind the generation, diffusion, and utilization of technological innovation [38].
Table 1 summarizes the main characteristics of SNM, MLP, TIS, and TM.
Table 1. Main characteristics of SNM, MLP, TIS, and TM.
SNM MLP TIS TM
Theoretical Background      
Technology and innovation studies, history of technology and social construction of technology. Social construction of technology, evolutionary economics, and neoinstitutional theory. Systems of innovation and technology. Policy, political sciences, sociology, and complexity sciences.
Transitions dynamics      
Technological innovation must be nurtured in sociotechnical niches to then spread and reach the regime; the diffusion occurs through institutional dynamics that favor interaction. Interaction of three different levels: niches, regimes, and landscape. The overall performance of the innovation system is a function of the degree of alignment of policies and expectations among the different actors in the cooperation arrangement. Free-market incentives do not lead to sustainability; thus, transitions need governance. Transition to sustainability is a centrally coordinated process, with the government as a key actor in promoting the transition through policy mix and appropriate intervention.
Emphasis of analysis      
Interactions between niche (micro) and regime (meso) for the creation of new technologies. The role of actors (agency) and institutional dynamics (drivers and barriers) within and between different sociotechnical levels (niche, regime, and landscape) in the processes and trajectories of sustainability transition. Actors and organizations forming arrangements for technological innovation cooperation. Policy mix, governance arrangements, and the government’s effectiveness in fostering transitions.
Main drivers of transition      
Niche formation, sociotechnical alignment, the development of expectationsand social desirability, and the availability of complementary resources. Include the SNM drivers and regime instability, regime selection, niche breakthrough, and niche full development. Knowledge development and diffusion; market formation; entrepreneurial experimentation; influence on the direction of search; resource mobilization; legitimation and development of positive externalities. Government enforcement and proper policy mix towards transitions.
After presenting the fundaments of ST research, in the following we intend to conceptualize the construction sector through these lenses.

2.2. The Construction Sector through the Lenses of Sociotechnical Transitions to Sustainability

The construction sector is part of a widespread economic activity that relies on and stimulates numerous production and service activities [39]. It involves a dispersed chain of participants, such as owners, contractors, architects, engineers, suppliers, regulatory bodies, financing, and administration, each following different business processes and pursuing distinct and often conflicting objectives [40]. The construction sector is responsible for the built-up environment (infrastructure and buildings), including its conception, design, construction, operation and maintenance, and demolition/renovation [41].
The process of transforming the natural environment into the built-up environment entails various impacts throughout the life cycle of a project [42]. Buildings, in this sense, materially represent the entropic processes of society and technology on the environment and the effects of transitions (social and technological) to be overcome, here expressed in the condition of environmental degradation and social inequalities [43].
However, the main studies on sustainability construction do not cover these major dilemmas. The literature emphasizes the construction stage in mitigating the impact of intervention through resource rationalization [44][45]. Some studies propose sustainability indicators and reveal low or unbalanced performance among sustainable dimensions [46][47][48]. Others address environmental certifications [49][50] or apply life cycle assessment to account for different consumptions such as energy [46] or other impacts in economic, social, and environmental dimensions [6].
They emphasize the efficiency of technologies and their financial benefits [51], sustainability performance analysis, design assessment, material and products, rating systems and certifications, optimization, and advanced technologies [52]. Moreover, they highlight green building energy technologies, including building structures, materials, and energy systems [53], alternative materials, sustainable construction management, and recycling and waste reduction [54]. Topics such as codes, regulations, and policies [52], as well as social sustainability in construction management [54], are less frequent.
Against this background, it is evident that these studies lack a comprehensive approach that addresses institutional, sociological, legal, and technical factors [25] and is capable of inducing a transition from conventional construction to green and sustainable construction by integrating the product, design, user, and organizational, social, and environmental dimensions [9]. This is needed to understand the adoption of new materials, methods, processes, and innovative technologies that will transform the sector [55] and lead to sustainability, which is emphasized in ST studies.
Therefore, to elucidate the use of ST concepts in the CI, we take the study of [3] as an example. This study examined the “coevolution through interaction” of Innovative Building Technologies (IBTs) though a case study of modular integrated construction and robotics in Hong Kong. The authors identified that previous studies on IBTs were mostly concerned with elaborating on the technology itself regarding the technical specifications or managerial requirements, whereas an understanding of how IBTs evolve together was absent. Then, the study used the MLP to capture the broader picture of how niche innovations emerge and cause changes in the construction industry. To delve further into the detail of the interactions among niche innovations, the study used a typology model of interaction that categorized them as competition, symbiosis, or neutralism.
The importance of that study lies in the identification of the interactions between technologies, enabling a better understanding of the transition pathway to shape the transformation of the construction regime. The authors identify the three types of interaction modes conceptualized (competition, symbiosis, and neutralism) and describe their co-evolution.
For example, modular integrated construction and automated/robotic on-site factories significantly differ in construction solutions. Whereas the first minimizes on-site activities (off-site construction), the second focuses on automating more construction activities on-site. At the same time, both target industrializing the traditional fragmented construction processes and alleviating the demand for on-site labor. Therefore, an increased share for one of them in the market could form a direct threat to the other, i.e., a bounded competition interaction.
The use of robotic excavators/exoskeletons/drones in modular integrated construction could evolve in an adaptive and neutral manner. They can boost productivity by changing the operational methods in construction, whereas their target markets and corresponding resources do not significantly overlap. Finally, the authors identity three scenarios of reinforced symbiosis interaction between the technologies. First, modular integrated construction could unilaterally benefit from applying robots during off-site manufacturing. Robotics could enhance the productivity, cost efficiency, quality, and safety of the module production performance in factories. Second, the robots are integrated into the modular integrated construction site for module installation based on cyber-physical systems. Third, robots can be embedded into the building lifecycle stages from design to demolition, and modular integrated construction leverages robotics networking to realize full automation and information synchronization.
In sum, the use of the sociotechnical transition approach in the study provides complementary insights into how niche innovations in the construction industry emerge and evolve from the aspects of application scale, diffusion speed, and potential to enable systems changes. This complements the studies that focus on technical specifications or managerial requirements. The authors use the concept of niche innovations to encapsulate the innovative building technologies (modular integrated construction, automated/robotic, robotic excavators/exoskeletons/drones), the core idea of SNM, and an important level of analysis to MLP used in that study. The authors describe the potential transition dynamics. Finally, based on the potential drivers of transition conceptualized in SNM and MLP, the authors propose implications for policy and organization strategies.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su151712814

References

  1. Azeem, S.; Naeem, M.A.; Waheed, A.; Thaheem, M.J. Examining Barriers and Measures to Promote the Adoption of Green Building Practices in Pakistan. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2017, 6, 86–100.
  2. Hofman, B.; de Vries, G.; van de Kaa, G. Keeping Things as They Are: How Status Quo Biases and Traditions along with a Lack of Information Transparency in the Building Industry Slow Down the Adoption of Innovative Sustainable Technologies. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8188.
  3. Yang, Y.; Pan, M.; Pan, W. ‘Co-Evolution through Interaction’ of Innovative Building Technologies: The Case of Modular Integrated Construction and Robotics. Autom. Constr. 2019, 107, 102932.
  4. Nykamp, H. A Transition to Green Buildings in Norway. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 24, 83–93.
  5. Osobajo, O.A.; Oke, A.; Omotayo, T.; Obi, L.I. A Systematic Review of Circular Economy Research in the Construction Industry. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2020, 11, 39–64.
  6. Backes, J.G.; Traverso, M. Application of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment in the Construction Sector: A Systematic Literature Review. Processes 2021, 9, 1248.
  7. Liu, H.; Lin, B. Ecological Indicators for Green Building Construction. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 67, 68–77.
  8. Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C.; Gyamfi, S.; Olanipekun, A.O.; He, B.J.; Yu, Y. Driving Forces for Green Building Technologies Adoption in the Construction Industry: Ghanaian Perspective. Build. Environ. 2017, 125, 206–215.
  9. Rohracher, H. Managing the Technological Transition to Sustainable Construction of Buildings: A Socio-Technical Perspective. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2001, 13, 137–150.
  10. Construction 2050 Alliance. 2050 Building Tomorrow’ s Europe Today; Construction 2050 Alliance: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
  11. Gabriel, M.; Watson, P. From Modern Housing to Sustainable Suburbia: How Occupants and Their Dwellings Are Adapting to Reduce Home Energy Consumption. Hous. Theory Soc. 2013, 30, 219–236.
  12. European Commission. Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
  13. Ayman, R.; Alwan, Z.; McIntyre, L. BIM for Sustainable Project Delivery: Review Paper and Future Development Areas. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2020, 63, 15–33.
  14. Nesari, M.; Naghizadeh, M.; Ghazinoori, S.; Manteghi, M. The Evolution of Socio-Technical Transition Studies: A Scientometric Analysis. Technol. Soc. 2022, 68, 101834.
  15. Köhler, J.; Geels, F.W.; Kern, F.; Markard, J.; Onsongo, E.; Wieczorek, A.; Alkemade, F.; Avelino, F.; Bergek, A.; Boons, F.; et al. An Agenda for Sustainability Transitions Research: State of the Art and Future Directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2019, 31, 1–32.
  16. Geels, F.W.; Turnheim, B. The Great Reconfiguration: A Socio-Technical Analysis of Low-Carbon Transitions in UK Electricity, Heat, and Mobility Systems; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022; ISBN 9781009198233.
  17. Markard, J.; Raven, R.; Truffer, B. Sustainability Transitions: An Emerging Field of Research and Its Prospects. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 955–967.
  18. Loorbach, D.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Avelino, F. Sustainability Transitions Research: Transforming Science and Practice for Societal Change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2017, 42, 599–626.
  19. Rip, A.; Kemp, R. Technological Change. In Human Choice and Climate Change—Resources and Technology; Rayner, S., Malone, E.L., Eds.; Battelle Press: Columbus, OH, USA, 1998; pp. 327–399. ISBN 9781119721307.
  20. Fuenfschilling, L.; Truffer, B. The Interplay of Institutions, Actors and Technologies in Socio-Technical Systems—An Analysis of Transformations in the Australian Urban Water Sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 103, 298–312.
  21. Turnheim, B.; Sovacool, B.K. Forever Stuck in Old Ways? Pluralising Incumbencies in Sustainability Transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2020, 35, 180–184.
  22. Bakker, S. Actor Rationales in Sustainability Transitions—Interests and Expectations Regarding Electric Vehicle Recharging. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2014, 13, 60–74.
  23. Smith, A.; Stirling, A.; Berkhout, F. The Governance of Sustainable Socio-Technical Transitions. Res. Policy 2005, 34, 1491–1510.
  24. Musiolik, J.; Markard, J.; Hekkert, M. Networks and Network Resources in Technological Innovation Systems: Towards a Conceptual Framework for System Building. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2012, 79, 1032–1048.
  25. Panetti, E.; Parmentola, A.; Wallis, S.E.; Ferretti, M. What Drives Technology Transitions? An Integration of Different Approaches within Transition Studies. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2018, 30, 993–1014.
  26. Schot, J.; Geels, F.W. Strategic Niche Management and Sustainable Innovation Journeys: Theory, Findings, Research Agenda, and Policy. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2008, 20, 537–554.
  27. Kemp, R.; Schot, J.; Hoogma, R. Regime Shifts to Sustainability through Processes of Niche Formation: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 1998, 10, 175–198.
  28. Geels, F.W. From Sectoral Systems of Innovation to Socio-Technical Systems: Insights about Dynamics and Change from Sociology and Institutional Theory. Res. Policy 2004, 33, 897–920.
  29. Kemp, R.; Rip, A.; Schot, J.W. Constructing Transition Paths Through the Management of Niches. In Path Dependence and Creation; Lawrence Erlbaum Asociates Inc.: Mahwah, NJ, USA; London, UK, 2001; pp. 269–299.
  30. Geels, F.W.; Schot, J. Typology of Sociotechnical Transition Pathways. Res. Policy 2007, 36, 399–417.
  31. Geels, F.W. Technological Transitions as Evolutionary Reconfiguration Processes: A Multi-Level Perspective and a Case-Study. Res. Policy 2002, 31, 1257–1274.
  32. Smith, A.; Voß, J.P.; Grin, J. Innovation Studies and Sustainability Transitions: The Allure of the Multi-Level Perspective and Its Challenges. Res. Policy 2010, 39, 435–448.
  33. Sorrell, S. Explaining Sociotechnical Transitions: A Critical Realist Perspective. Res. Policy 2018, 47, 1267–1282.
  34. Kemp, R.; Loorbach, D.A. Transition Management: A Reflexive Governance Approach. In Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2006.
  35. Hoogma, R.; Weber, M.; Elzen, B. Integrated Long-Term Strategies to Induce Regime Shifts towards Sustainability: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management. In Towards Environmental Innovation Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; pp. 209–236.
  36. Loorbach, D. Transition Management for Sustainable Development: A Prescriptive, Complexity-Based Governance Framework. Governance 2010, 23, 161–183.
  37. Carlsson, B.; Stankiewicz, R. On the Nature, Function and Composition of Technologial Systems. Evol. Econ. 1991, 1, 93–118.
  38. Markard, J.; Truffer, B. Technological Innovation Systems and the Multi-Level Perspective: Towards an Integrated Framework. Res. Policy 2008, 37, 596–615.
  39. De Brito Mello, L.C.B.; de Amorim, S.R.L. O Substor de Edificaçoes Da Construção Civil No Brasil: Uma Análise Comparativa Em Relaçao à União Europeia e Aos Estados Univos. Produção 2009, 19, 388–399.
  40. Wegelius-Lehtonen, T. Performance Measurement in Construction Logistics. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2001, 69, 107–116.
  41. Hentges, T.I.; Machado da Motta, E.A.; Valentin de Lima Fantin, T.; Moraes, D.; Fretta, M.A.; Pinto, M.F.; Spiering Böes, J. Circular Economy in Brazilian Construction Industry: Current Scenario, Challenges and Opportunities. Waste Manag. Res. 2022, 40, 642–653.
  42. Passuello, A.C.B.; de Oliveira, A.F.; da Costa, E.B.; Kirchheim, A.P. Aplicação da Avaliação do Ciclo de Vida na Análise de Impactos Ambientais de Materiais de Construção Inovadores: Estudo de Caso da Pegada de Carbono de Clínqueres Alternativos. Ambient. Construído 2014, 14, 7–20.
  43. Kanger, L.; Schot, J. Deep Transitions: Theorizing the Long-Term Patterns of Socio-Technical Change. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2019, 32, 7–21.
  44. De Almeida, E.L.G.; Picchi, F.A. Relação Entre Construção Enxuta e Sustentabilidade. Ambient. Construído 2018, 18, 91–109.
  45. De Vasconcelos, I.A.; Cãndido, L.F.; Heineck, L.F.M. Evaluation of Sustainable Construction Sites: A Lean, Green and Well-Being Integrated Approach. Gest. Prod. 2020, 27, e4552.
  46. Tavana, M.; Izadikhah, M.; Farzipoor Saen, R.; Zare, R. An Integrated Data Envelopment Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment Method for Performance Measurement in Green Construction Management. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 664–682.
  47. Cagno, E.; Neri, A.; Howard, M.; Brenna, G.; Trianni, A. Industrial Sustainability Performance Measurement Systems: A Novel Framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 230, 1354–1375.
  48. Hassan, O.A.B. An Integrated Approach to Assessing the Sustainability of Buildings. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2016, 14, 835–850.
  49. Suzer, O. Analyzing the Compliance and Correlation of LEED and BREEAM by Conducting a Criteria-Based Comparative Analysis and Evaluating Dual-Certified Projects. Build. Environ. 2019, 147, 158–170.
  50. Tleuken, A.; Tokazhanov, G.; Guney, M.; Turkyilmaz, A.; Karaca, F. Readiness Assessment of Green Building Certification Systems for Residential Buildings during Pandemics. Sustainability 2021, 13, 460.
  51. Zhao, X.; Zuo, J.; Wu, G.; Huang, C. A Bibliometric Review of Green Building Research 2000–2016. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2019, 62, 74–88.
  52. Wuni, I.Y.; Shen, G.Q.P.; Osei-Kyei, R. Scientometric Review of Global Research Trends on Green Buildings in Construction Journals from 1992 to 2018. Energy Build. 2019, 190, 69–85.
  53. Li, Y.; Rong, Y.; Ahmad, U.M.; Wang, X.; Zuo, J.; Mao, G. A Comprehensive Review on Green Buildings Research: Bibliometric Analysis during 1998–2018. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 46196–46214.
  54. Det Udomsap, A.; Hallinger, P. A Bibliometric Review of Research on Sustainable Construction, 1994–2018. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120073.
  55. Zaini, A.A.; Endut, I.R. The Drivers towards Green Construction—An Empirical Study in Malaysia. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2017, 12, 814–818.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback