Energy & Buildings 266 (2022) 112119

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy & Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enb

Shedding light on the efforts into the rehabilitation of a major culprit of

carbon emissions: A scientometric analysis of net-zero in the built
environment sector
Eduardo Navarro Bringas ⇑, Godawatte Arachchige Gimhan Rathnagee Godawatte
Institute for Sustainable Building Design, The School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Recent global commitments towards net-zero 2050 have resulted in an increased interest within a num-
Received 7 December 2021 ber of industries. The built environment has been identified as a major culprit contributing to the ongoing
Revised 6 March 2022 complex problem of carbon emissions. In an attempt to reveal the efforts, put into alleviating this chal-
Accepted 15 April 2022
lenge, this paper aims to provide a comprehensive, quantitative analysis of the literature on net-zero (en-
Available online 21 April 2022
ergy and GHG emissions) in the built environment over the last two decades. In this study, well-
established bibliometric and scientometric techniques are deployed to map the scientific domains by
Keywords:
developing and analysing the resulting co-citation and keyword co-occurrence network developed from
GHG emissions
Net-zero
the bibliometric data from 1934 peer-reviewed articles retrieved from the SCOPUS database.
Built environment The most significant contributions in net-zero research have originated primarily from UK, USA, and
Bibliometric analysis China. The results of the network analysis identified seven foundational themes of research - greenhouse
Network analysis gas emission, deep decarbonisation, earth material, residential building, high-rise building, displacement,
Decarbonisation ventilation, and walling element. The burst analysis revealed how a number of emerging digital technolo-
LCA gies in the sector present opportunities to optimise future developments towards the attainment of a net-
Embodied emissions zero emission-built environment. To address the complexity associated with emissions caused by the
Operational emissions
built environment, the findings suggest that there is a need to expand the current LCA assessments to
a broader, industry-wide scale, beyond the predominant ‘single building case study’ as the unit of refer-
ence. Moreover, the national net-zero pathway studies should aim to extend beyond the operational
emission scenarios, and into assessing the impacts on materials and embedded emissions, which has
grown exponentially.
Crown Copyright Ó 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The potential damage that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can
cause on Earth’s climate and ecosystems have been widely dis-
cussed. After the Paris climate conference [1] representatives from
196 countries pledged to limit global warming to 1.5 °C, which
requires commitment towards net-zero carbon by 2050. Moreover,
the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
report [2] highlights the importance of limiting the global temper-
ature increase to 1.5 °C from pre-industrial levels to prevent irre-
versible changes to the Earth’s climate and ecosystems. However,
achieving 1.5 °C requires a substantial reduction of 45% on GHG
emissions from 2010 levels by 2030. The ongoing climate emer-
gency has thus imposed a global target, the 1.5–2.0 limits and sub-
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: e.navarro_bringas@hw.ac.uk (E. Navarro Bringas).
sequent net-zero 2050 targets are planetary boundaries [3] and are
imposed in a top-down manner. This contrasts with previous
bottom-up efforts that have focused on available technology and
financial feasibility over recent decades set by governments to
limit the environmental impact [4]. While this is a global challenge
that pertains to several economic sectors, according to the recently
published report [5], emissions associated with building and con-
struction account for 38% of the total worldwide emissions
(slightly over 13.5 Gigatons CO2eq.). Of which, 10 GTs are associ-
ated with operational energy (73%) while 3.5 Gts (27%) are associ-
ated with the embodied carbon related to construction processes
and materials. Therefore, significant attention on the built environ-
ment and construction-related emissions is of prime importance if
the aforementioned global targets are to be achieved.
The original concept of ‘net-Zero Energy Buildings (nZEB)’
emerged in the late 2000 s to refer to an energy generation-use bal-
ance over the life cycle of a building [6]. Considering the net-zero

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112119
0378-7788/Crown Copyright Ó 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
E. Navarro Bringas and Godawatte Arachchige Gimhan Rathnagee Godawatte
emissions, the definition also refers to achieving a balance in emis-
sions originated by the material production, construction activities,
usage and decommission of a facility. The EN 15978:2011 standard
[7] provides a well-accepted scope of what activities are consid-
ered as part of the life cycle of a building (Fig. 1). While a common
scope might have been agreed upon, several challenges remain
concerning the assessment of emissions related to the built envi-
ronment. The first issue is determining the system boundaries of
zero emissions, which are dynamic and interactive over time. As
a result of the number of boundaries to be considered, which
included amidst its boundaries: the building life cycle, policy time-
frames, stakeholders, or institutional boundaries [8], net-zero car-
bon buildings should be considered complex sociotechnical
systems [9]. Moreover, a review of country regulations by Satola
et al. [4] indicates how the lack of transparency and the different
approaches to define net-zero and climate neutrality have con-
tributed to the aforementioned complexity. Net-zero emissions,
however, does not indicate that GHGs are not being emitted, but
rather that these are offset throughout the life cycle [10]. Lützk-
endorf & Frischknecht [10] identify 4 approaches in which net-
zero GHG emissions can be achieved; 1) a net-balance approach
by generating a higher share of clean energy than used, 2) through
economic compensation or offsetting by purchasing CO2eq. certifi-
cates for GHG, 3) through technical reduction and use of carbon
storage solutions that can offset GHG, and 4) the absolute zero
approach where all operations associated with the building life
cycle are climate neutral. While research efforts around the assess-
ment of the energy and emissions linked to the built environment
have been extensive, a systematic review of the development of
the scientific field has the potential to reveal gaps and emerging
opportunities that can be levered to achieve the pledges set by
the net-zero 2050 agenda.
According to Donthu et al. [11], three review methodologies are
common: 1) systematic reviews, 2) meta-analysis and 3) biblio-
metric reviews. Within the’zero emissions built environment’ sci-
entific domain, several seminal papers can be found that can be
characterised by the former two approaches. On one hand, meta-
analysis studies enable the evaluation and interpretation of empir-
ical evidence within a field of research quantitatively. Meta-
analysis reviews have been a major contributor to the develop-
ments within the field [12,13,14,15]. However, a major limitation
of meta-analyses is that they are only feasible when the empirical
evidence reviewed shares a homogeneous and comparable
methodology, such is the case with the LCA case study which has
been the prevalent methodology within these studies. As a result,
Fig. 1. Life cycle systems boundary. Adapted from EN 15,978 (2011).
2
Energy & Buildings 266 (2022) 112119
the selection of reviewed studies is limited in scope as it excludes
those with alternative research designs. On the other hand, sys-
tematic reviews feature the review of findings and results from
several articles around a common topic. Examples of this type of
review include those published by Dixit et al. [8] - study determin-
ing key factors determining LCA impact, or the review of existing
assessment approaches [16,17] or government standards [4]. These
types of studies, often feature a focused theme and a qualitative
evaluation of the given sample. As a result, these studies can be
impacted by a subjective bias, limited reliability, and a lack of
reproducibility [18,19]. Instead, the bibliometric review toolkit
provides means for the quantitative analysis of large samples of
papers, where replicability can be ensured given a clear process
for the retrieval of the articles included in the analysis. The scien-
tific domain of the net-zero buildings and construction only fea-
tured the bibliometric study conducted by Zeng and Chini [20]
featuring research around embodied energy in buildings until
2015. However, the study is limited in capturing the full scientific
domain, with a sample size of only 398 articles and limited in cov-
ering articles related to GHG emissions associated with the con-
struction sector.
Therefore, the aim of this paper is to investigate the published
peer-reviewed literature on net-zero carbon and energy in the
built environment during the period of 2000 to 2022 through a
scientometric study. For this, first, the bibliometric data of peer-
reviewed papers published over the last decades are retrieved.
Utilising the bibliometric data retrieved, co-citation and keyword
co-occurrence networks are developed, which are subsequently
analysed using a range of scientometric analysis techniques and
metrics. Lastly, the resulting clusters are discussed in relation to
the seminal areas and emerging trends that have shaped the
domain over the last two decades, and further recommendations
for research and practice in the field are provided.
2. Research methodology
The present study utilises a science mapping method to analyse
literature related to net-zero emissions in the construction sector.
A scientometric study offers the opportunity to visualise and anal-
yse a scientific domain using established graph/network represen-
tations and metrics. The method aids deploy traditional
bibliometric tools, metrics, and data to recognise potential scien-
tific trends and patterns in the literature [11]. The research
methodology has been structured to comprise the following
E. Navarro Bringas and Godawatte Arachchige Gimhan Rathnagee Godawatte
stages: data retrieval, scientometric analysis (i.e., modelling, visu-
alisation, and computation of metrics) and discussion of findings.
2.1. Data retrieval
The first step pertained to the identification of keywords and
search terms to be used for the bibliometric data retrieval. The key-
words used in the paper were selected following the system
boundaries commonly agreed upon in recent net-zero energy and
carbon initiatives in the built environment. As shown in Fig. 1,
the life cycle emissions associated with buildings are commonly
linked to three primary stages, embodied, operational and end of
life [7], hence, the terms were included as keywords in the study.
Moreover, recent guidelines developed by the International Energy
Agency (IAE) [4], which aim to expand guidance such as that of the
EN 15978:2011 standard, have also introduced terms and strate-
gies related to the attainment of a climate-neutral built environ-
ment, such as’decarbonisation’ and’offsetting’. These search terms
are also consistent with recent national initiatives around net-
zero carbon-built environment [5,21,22], therefore, resulting in
the final selection of the terms for the search undertaken as shown
in Fig. 2.
For this study, SCOPUS was selected as the database for the data
collection. SCOPUS and Web of Science (WoS) are the two primary
databases considered when conducting bibliometric studies [19].
They both provide a comprehensive curated database of peer-
reviewed articles and papers, which includes coverage of the most
relevant academic journals. While past coverage is often touted as
a strength of WoS, in comparison, SCOPUS provides a wider sample
of recent sources [23]. Due to the recency of the topic and search
parameters featured in this study, which focused on papers pub-
lished after 1999, SCOPUS was selected to collect the bibliometric
data. The search timespan has also included recently peer-
reviewed and accepted articles, including those pending publica-
tion in 2022. Fig. 2 displays the terms and iterations followed to fil-
ter the journal articles included in the final analysis. The
bibliometric data of the 1934 articles were retrieved on the 18th
of October 2021. [11 24].
Finally, following Donthu et al.’s [11] recommended procedure
for bibliometric studies, the dataset was cleaned of duplicates and
erroneous entries utilising the data processing feature available on
CiteSpace [22]. As a result, the final analysis included bibliometric
data of 1810 articles.
2.2. Scientometric analysis: Constructing the networks
After an initial performance analysis showcasing basic descrip-
tive statistics related to the data retrieved, the main bibliometric
Fig. 2. Data retrieval process and search terms used.
3
Energy & Buildings 266 (2022) 112119
analysis was undertaken. First, the two networks used for the anal-
ysis were constructed: a co-citation network and a keyword co-
occurrence network. Co-citation networks are used to identify
seminal research contributions within a field of study as well as
to determine foundational themes that have shaped the scientific
domain [11]. In co-citation networks, references included in the
bibliographies of retrieved papers are represented as nodes in the
network, while the coupling (i.e., links) between these nodes
occurs when two references are shared across two papers in the
sample (Fig. 3). Meanwhile, co-occurrence networks centre around
the themes in the articles, as exemplified by the author keywords.
Co-occurrence networks are common in previous scientometric
studies [20,19] as they focus on the written content and offer the
basis for mapping trends and themes across a timespan within a
scientific field [11]. Keyword co-occurrence networks are formed
by initially identifying the author keywords within the sampled
papers. Keywords are represented as nodes in the network, while
the links are formed based on the keyword co-occurrences across
papers. If these co-occurrences occur across multiple papers, the
links will reflect these events through a higher weight (Fig. 3). In
this analysis, a thesaurus was developed and applied to merge
duplicated terms within the analysis [24]. For example, these
duplicates include terms written with British or American spelling
(e.g., Decarbonization-Decarbonisation) or plural/singular wording
(e.g., Building-Buildings).
The networks were developed using CiteSpace, a well-
established bibliometric analysis software [24]. Once both net-
works have been created, enrichment techniques are available to
further analyse these networks [11]. VOSViewer was used for the
visualisation of the final networks [25]. CiteSpace was deployed
to compute the enrichment metrics and analysis. These include a
keyword burst analysis, clustering analysis, and the computing of
network’s centrality metrics.
2.3. Scientometric analysis: Enrichment metrics
2.3.1. Network centrality metrics
Network centrality metrics serve to determine the most influ-
ential nodes within a network, which in bibliometric studies might
represent publications, authors, or keywords. Several centrality
metrics have been developed, each determining centrality and
importance of a node differently [26,27,11]. Within this study, nor-
malised degree centrality, betweenness centrality and the Pager-
ank scores for the nodes are computed. Degree centrality refers
to the number of links that a node has, this means how connected
it is to other nodes in the network. The normalised degree central-
ity will result from dividing the degree centrality results for each
node by the maximum links possible within the network (i.e., total
E. Navarro Bringas and Godawatte Arachchige Gimhan Rathnagee Godawatte
Fig. 3. Process of developing the networks from the bibliometric information.
nodes – 1). Meanwhile, betweenness centrality computes the num-
ber of shortest paths that go through a given node. This refers to
the nodes with a higher betweenness centrality are part of the
greatest number of shortest paths across other nodes in a network.
As a result, a high betweenness indicates that a node (articles/au-
thor) has the role of ‘‘brokers” of information within a network.
This is high betweenness nodes are central actors in connecting
other nodes, thus highlighting their significance within the net-
work. Finally, PageRank scores identify the prestige of a publication
based on how it connects to other relevant publications [28]. A
publication with a high PageRank score is deemed as a ‘‘must cite”
among other influential publications on the field. Within this
study, the centrality measures are used to identify seminal papers
within the scientific domain analysed.
2.3.2. Clustering
The approach to clustering in CiteSpace is based on the hard-
clustering approach [29]. This is, the nodes included in each cluster
are not shared across clusters (i.e., each node is unique to a clus-
ter). Clusters are determined through the application of the spec-
tral clustering algorithm [30], increasingly common within graph
theory for its flexibility and efficiency in comparison with tradi-
tional clustering algorithms. Once the clusters are determined
the silhouette (S) is computed, which serves to estimate the uncer-
tainty involved in identifying the nature of each of the clusters.
Once defined, the Latent Semantic Index (LSI), a traditional co-
occurrence-based document indexing method and the Log-
likelihood ratio (LLR) algorithm are used to identify the key con-
cepts/sentences that are used as labels for the clusters [29]. The
LLR approach is preferred in bibliometric studies as it offers the
best results in coverage and uniqueness of labels by assessing the
best fit between two competing clusters based on the ratio of their
likelihoods [24].
4
Energy & Buildings 266 (2022) 112119
2.3.3. Burst analysis
Finally, a burst analysis on the keyword co-occurrence network
is computed to determine the trends and key themes over time.
Burst detection accounts for the frequency of words over time,
highlighting statistically significant fluctuations across the time
span of the analysis (between 2000 and 2022) detecting sudden
and significant surges on keywords over shorter year multi-year
periods [29]. Burst analysis has previously been used to identify
trends and emerging themes over time, aiding in the interpretation
and mapping of scientific trends in the domain being analysed
[31,19].
3. Results
3.1. Bibliometric results
The bibliometric performance analysis of the final sample of
articles (n = 1934) retrieved from SCOPUS revealed how the scien-
tific domain of net-zero carbon in the construction sector has
grown gradually over the past 20 years. As seen in Fig. 4, this
growth has been rather exponential from 2017 onwards. This
might reflect global pledges agreed upon in the Paris Climate Con-
ference (COP 21).
When observing the outlets in which the sampled articles are
featured (Fig. 5), unsurprisingly, Energy and Buildings and Building
and Environment, 1st and 3rd respectively, published a large pro-
portion of the research undertaken in the domain. This is followed
by more generalist outlets (i.e. non-built environment specific)
such as the Journal of Cleaner Production, Sustainability or Applied
Energy. Being featured in these journals might be linked to the
impact that the built environment has on global climate change,
which accounts for a 38% of the global GHG emissions [5]. Finally,
when looking at the origins by country (Fig. 6), the majority of the
E. Navarro Bringas and Godawatte Arachchige Gimhan Rathnagee Godawatte
Fig. 4. NZC and NZE built environment-related publications retrieved by year.
Fig. 5. NZC & NZE built environment publications retrieved per outlet (greater than15 publications).
research is undertaken within ‘‘Global North” countries and China.
The dominance of articles in the UK, the USA, Australia and other
European countries might also be linked with the limitation of only
including research published in English. Meanwhile, research pub-
lished on Global South countries has primarily centred on India,
the South-East Asia region, and the Middle East. Limited exposure
of Latin America and the African region might be linked partially to
the language limitation previously mentioned.
3.2. Bibliometric network development
The characteristics of the resulting networks are summarised in
Table 1. In terms of network size, both networks have a compara-
ble number of nodes, however, the co-occurrence network appears
denser, this is, a greater number of links connect the nodes within
the network. In terms of modularity, where values can range from
0 to 1, the co-citation network score indicates a network with
clearly defined clusters. Meanwhile, the keyword co-occurrence
5
Energy & Buildings 266 (2022) 112119
network’s modularity, lower in comparison, suggests a compact
morphology, with closely interrelated themes and clusters. More-
over, the mean silhouette (S) score (values can range from 1 to
1), which accounts for the mean of the individual cluster’s silhou-
ettes, is within recommended scores. The silhouette value indi-
cates the quality of the clusters, with values ranging between 0.6
and 0.9 indicating well defined and consistent clusters [29].
3.3. Co-citation network analysis
The resulting co-citation network formed using the co-citation
‘‘references” function in CiteSpace is presented in Fig. 7. As
explained in the methodology (Fig. 3), in co-citation networks
two referenced articles are coupled together when they are cited
within two of the papers in the sample. As to limit the size of
the graph, the network was developed using the publication’s g-
index, used to measure the impact of publications, and applying
a scale factor of k = 25 [32]. The resulting network’s configuration
E. Navarro Bringas and Godawatte Arachchige Gimhan Rathnagee Godawatte Energy & Buildings 266 (2022) 112119

Fig. 6. NZC & NZC built environment-related publications retrieved by country of origin (i.e. corresponding author’s affiliation).

Table 1 A low modularity would indicate that a network is compact, where

Summary of the characteristics of the resulting networks. all the nodes are strongly linked and relatively close to each other.
Type of Network (based on Co-citation Keyword co-occurrence Meanwhile, a higher modularity indicates that the network can be
source bibliometric data) Network network broken down into clear grouping, within these, nodes are intri-
Network Size Nodes = 927 Nodes = 742 cately connected, however, the relations between nodes across
Nodes and Links Links/Edges = 3135 Links/Edges = 6355 different groupings are weaker. Given the modularity score (Q =
Density = 0.0073 Density = 0.0231 0.7522) the clusters on the co-citation network are well defined,
Modularity (Q) Q = 0.7522 Q = 0.3689
as it can be seen within Fig. 7, where the clusters can be identified
Weighted Mean Silhouette S = 0.8706 S = 0.6888
Harmonic Mean 0.8071 0.4805 visually. The silhouette value indicates the consistency of the clus-
ters, with values of approximately 0.7 and 0.9 often indicating con-
sistent clusters in terms of the nodes included within them [29].
The weighted mean silhouette (S = 0.8706) indicates that the nodes
is formed by the most relevant 927 nodes, each representing a included in the different clusters are closely linked to each other.
references article, and 3135 links, coupling the articles as previ- Within the developed network, the largest 8 clusters are shown
ously explained. In terms of modularity, ranging from 0 to 1 (Fig. 7). The labelling presented is determined automatically by
provides insights into the structure/morphology of a network. CiteSpace through the computation of the log-likelihood ratio

Fig. 7. Co-citation network visualised by node relationship and clustering.

6
E. Navarro Bringas and Godawatte Arachchige Gimhan Rathnagee Godawatte Energy & Buildings 266 (2022) 112119

(LLR) algorithm [29]. Moreover, these clusters are visualised during
the timeline of the sample (i.e. 2000–2022) (Fig. 8), which reveals 3
primary themes, that pertain to the top 3 clusters which also
include the most influential nodes/publications within. These top
three seminal themes refer to LCA, Zero Energy Building (ZEB),
and building material, which will be further discussed in the fol-
lowing sections.
Finally, centrality metrics for the nodes included in the network
are computed. Moreover, using the bibliometric data available in
SCOPUS, the citation counts of the analysed articles are also
included. Compounding the different metrics provides a more bal-
anced rank that can overcome the limitations of each of the net-
work metrics [11]. For example, citation counts, as each citation
is counted equally might ignore the potential influence of a paper
on other key papers, while the Pagerank algorithm will account for
those influences [27]. The resulting compounded rank of a central-
ity, prestige and citation count are used as the basis to determine
the 25 most important articles within the field of net-zero emis-
sion construction/buildings (Table 2).
Keywords.
3.4. co-occurrence network analysis
The keyword co-occurrence network was developed in CiteS-
pace using similar parameters (i.e., using the g index as the refer-
ence with a scale factor of k = 25). The resulting network is

Fig. 8. Co-citation network organised by clusters and year of publication of references.

Table 2
References ranked by centrality and reputation metric resulting from the co-citation network.

Journal Paper (Reference) Page Rank PR Rank Normalised Degree Rank Scopus citation count Citation Rank Mean Rank
Degree Centrality
Sartori and Hestnes (2007) [13] 0.00107 1 0.0918 1 839 1 1
Ramesh et al. (2010) [33] 0.000888 2 0.0769 2 758 3 2.33
Cabeza et al. (2014) [16] 0.000615 4 0.0579 3 666 4 3.67
Hammond and Jones (2008) [34] 0.000709 3 0.0534 5 510 6 4.67
Dixit et al. (2010) [35] 0.000615 5 0.0552 4 435 10 6.33
Cole and Kernan (1996) [36] 0.000591 6 0.0492 6 361 12 8
Scheuer et al. (2003) [37] 0.000442 10 0.0384 10 520 5 8.33
Blengini and Di Carlo (2010) [38] 0.00046 9 0.0415 8 365 11 9.33
Monahan and Powell (2011) [39] 0.000545 7 0.0479 7 304 17 10.33
Fay et al. (2010) [40] 0.000468 8 0.0402 9 272 21 12.67
Ortiz et al. (2009) [41] 0.000388 18 0.0336 18 760 2 12.67
Thormark (2002) [42] 0.0004 15 0.0351 16 466 7 12.67
Chau et al. (2015) [43] 0.000402 14 0.0369 13 350 13 13.33
Gustavsson and Joelsson (2010) [44] 0.00042 11 0.0376 12 291 18 13.67
Venkatarama Reddy and Jagadish (2003) [45] 0.000404 13 0.0313 22 460 8 14.33
Dixit et al. (2012) [8] 0.000392 16 0.0365 14 289 20 16.67
Chastas et al. (2016) [46] 0.000405 12 0.0383 11 173 36 19.67
Basbagill et al. (2013) [47] 0.000363 22 0.0336 19 320 15 18.67
Thormark (2006) [48] 0.000389 17 0.0311 23 265 22 20.67
Huberman and Pearlmutter (2008) [49] 0.000383 19 0.0318 21 233 24 21.33
Crawford (2008) [50] 0.000366 21 0.0344 17 215 29 22.33
Chen et al. (2001) [51] 0.000368 20 0.0307 24 252 23 22.33
Asif et al. (2007) [52] 0.000338 27 0.0278 28 291 19 24.67
Blengini (2009) [53] 0.000315 28 0.0258 31 307 16 25
Adalberth (1997) [54] 0.000355 24 0.0298 25 223 26 25

7
E. Navarro Bringas and Godawatte Arachchige Gimhan Rathnagee Godawatte Energy & Buildings 266 (2022) 112119

comprised of 742 nodes representing keywords and 6355 links 4. Discussion

coupling these keywords as explained in Fig. 3. The network is
dense, with 8.5 average links between each node. In terms of mod-
ularity, a score of 0.3689 indicates that the network’s nodes are in
close proximity, where the identified clusters are intertwined
amidst each other. The compactness of the clusters and the overall
network can be observed in Fig. 9. This is the analysis that reveals
quite uniform and closely interconnected themes in the ‘‘zero-
carbon built environment” field. The average weighted silhouette
is moderately high, as shown by the Silhouette scores for the top
7 clusters identified in terms of size (Table 3). This indicates that
there is consistency across the nodes that form each of the identi-
fied clusters. Moreover, the timeline of the network provides a
visual representation, where the top 5 clusters (i.e. IDs 0 to 4)
appear to include the majority of the relevant keywords in the net-
works (Table 3).
4.1. Cluster analysis and discussion
From the clustering analysis, 7 primary clusters were identified
(Table 3). The labelling of the resulting clusters is determined by
computing the Latent Semantic Index (LSI) and Log Likelihood
Ratio (LLR). The labels obtained through the LLR, prioritised by pre-
vious research for achieving unique values, will be used as the
basis for the discussion [24]. In terms of size, five of the identified
clusters are comprised of more than 100 nodes, therefore, repre-
senting foundational themes within the scientific field. Meanwhile,
clusters 5 and 6 are comparatively smaller, indicating that these
are niche themes within the field. When observing the silhouette
score the identified clusters possess a moderately high score, rang-
ing optimal values between 0.564 and 0.896. According to Chen

Fig. 9. Keyword co-occurrence network visualised by node relationship and clustering.

Table 3
Summary of the top 7 clusters in the co-occurrence network by size.

ID Size Mean Year Silhouette Score Cluster dominant terms (Based on LLR) Cluster dominant terms (Based on LSI)
0 143 2010 0.689 greenhouse gas emission carbon emission
1 143 2015 0.564 deep decarbonisation residential building
2 129 2015 0.687 earth material life cycle assessment
3 126 2008 0.723 residential building case-study
4 108 2010 0.654 high-rise building environmental performance
5 56 2010 0.886 displacement ventilation energy analysis
6 21 2010 0.896 walling element energy efficiency

8
E. Navarro Bringas and Godawatte Arachchige Gimhan Rathnagee Godawatte
et al. [29], scores that range from 0.6 to 1 often lead towards con-
sistent clusters. Thus, indicating that the nodes included within
each cluster are generally consistent.
Another information resulting from the clustering pertains to
the mean year, which indicates the average year of the publications
from which the keywords that are included in each cluster. In this
regard, the ‘‘residential building” cluster appears to be the one with
keywords found in articles primarily published earlier in the time-
line (average publication year 2008), while the topics of ‘‘deep
decarbonisation” and ‘‘earth materials” seem to be the most recent
within the given sample with 2015 being the average year. This
information can provide insights into how the field has evolved
over the past two decades.
4.1.1. Greenhouse gas emission cluster
Cluster 0 is amidst the largest in size and includes a wide range
of papers within. The labelling associated with it refers to ‘‘green-
house gas and carbon emissions”. Accordingly, one of the common
topics covered in these papers refers to the definition and scoping
of these emissions. While as reviewed in recent papers the scope of
emissions associated with buildings has been defined and agreed
within European Standards (EN 15978, 2012) the establishment
of benchmarks (methodology, metrics, scope) encompass a signif-
icant proportion of papers in the cluster [55,4]. In this grouping,
studies have also focused on defining the relevance of different
building elements or phases in terms of emissions and environ-
mental impact, an example of this type of research is Heeren
et al.’s study [56]. Within this cluster, several seminal reviews
which have analysed previously published cases are also featured
[57,12,14].
Other articles influencing the keywords in this cluster have cen-
tred on defining and scoping the concept of ‘‘net-zero”, such as the
case of Lützkendorf and Frischknecht [10], particularly scoping
how the emissions balance can be achieved. On a similar note, is
not surprising to find research reviewing the perceptions around
carbon emissions associated with buildings in different contexts.
Examples of this include Abeydeera et al.’s [58] study on the per-
ceptions of the Sri Lankan industry and Bui et al.’s study of the case
of New Zealand [59]. Furthermore, it is still clear that benchmarks
and national standards for measuring and assessing carbon are still
evolving and being defined, as recent standard reviews such as that
of Satola et al. [4] demonstrate.
4.1.2. Deep decarbonisation cluster
The deep decarbonisation of the electric grid, as well as the res-
idential and commercial sectors, required to meet the 1.5–2.0 °C
targets set by the Paris Agreement, have sparked interest in recent
years. For example, Shimoda et al. [60] suggest that current energy
efficiency measures, together with efficient HVAC technologies can
lead towards a net-zero energy scenario by 2050. Furthermore, the
investment in solar PV in Japan and reduction on demand of heat-
ing, through low carbon technologies such as heat pumps or bat-
tery storage, can yield scenarios that achieve net-zero energy. In
other countries such as the UK, pathways and scenario models
indicate major challenges due to the magnitude of fossil fuel-
based heating [61]. Often countries with such gas-based infrastruc-
ture might benefit from a combination of electrification and bio-
mass (or other low carbon emitter fuel) strategies. The case of
decarbonisation in China [62] indicates challenging paths that
require an uptake and spread of heat pump heating and solar water
heating need to be widespread in the commercial and residential
sectors. Moreover, electrification of the grid also requires large
investments in geothermal and solar energies, 11 and 4.5 respec-
tively from 2020 levels. Therefore, it is not surprising that studies
on low carbon heating technologies are also included within the
cluster, examples of these low carbon technologies refer primarily
9
Energy & Buildings 266 (2022) 112119
to ground and air sourced heat pumps [63]. Moreover, within this
cluster, there are also a set of papers that refer to the analysis of
recent policies. Such is the case of Bauermann’s review [64] of Ger-
many’s ‘‘Energiewende”. This review explores scenarios under the
shortcomings of the policy in achieving emission targets set for
2050, resembling the challenges and limitations of other fossil-
fuel based heating markets, such as that of the UK [61].
4.1.3. Earth material cluster
While LCA as a term is widespread across multiple clusters, it
relates closely with construction material focused research, which
is primarily featured in this cluster. The earth material LLR naming
of this cluster emphasises the importance of low carbon concrete
alternative materials, in particular, rammed earth [65,66], which
is a major theme in the cluster. The studies also include other con-
struction materials and cement alternatives such as natural
hydraulic lime-based mortars [67], lime-hemp concrete [68 69].
Emerging research in this cluster is the investigation of the glo-
bal warming potential of different structural frames. These analy-
ses include comparisons and discussions around steel frame
structures’ global warming potential [70], comparisons between
steel and reinforced concrete [71] and with other materials such
as timber [72]. In a few cases, the research explores scenarios to
reduce embodied carbon associated with these through construc-
tion innovation and construction stakeholder choices [73]. The lim-
ited research undertaken on the impacts of material choices on
achieving net-zero 2050 scenarios presents a stark contrast with
the previously discussed pathways and decarbonisation scenarios
centred around operational emissions.
4.1.4. Residential building cluster
The keywords contained in this cluster are derived from the ear-
liest publications in the sample. Within the first decade (2000–
2010), the LCA case study approach featuring a building, and in
some cases several buildings emerge as prevalent within the clus-
tered articles. Early on the sample, the research context has been
dominated by cases and studies undertaken on the ‘‘Global North”,
including seminal LCA case studies based in the US [74], Australia
[75], New Zealand [76], and several European countries
[52,39,77,78]. While this might result in an overrepresentation in
the early years of life cycle energy and carbon analysis studies,
the sample of studies has broadened over the later decade into
‘‘Global South” countries that feature warmer and tropical climates
[79,80,81,82,83].
One of the benefits of having a well-established/gold-standard
methodology, such as the case with the case study LCA with the
building as the unit of analysis, is that it enables the undertaking
of meta-studies and systematic reviews that yield key findings.
As a result, a number of articles have been published in recent
years focusing on the multitude of building typologies, such as
the comparison between conventional and highly efficient build-
ings [14,12], or by filtering studies based on specific climates
[15]. These studies have served to highlight trends and challenges
for future years, such as highlighting the increasing impact, both
proportionally and in absolute terms, of embodied GHG emissions
in highly efficient or near zero energy buildings.
4.1.5. High-rise building cluster
The challenge of how tall configurations affect the overall per-
formance of the building, as well as the surrounding environment,
have attracted the attention of the scientific domain over the last
decade [84,85]. Residential buildings, commonly, single-family
detached homes and mid-rise buildings are the primary types of
building featured in the articles sampled. However, commercial
buildings, which are largely featured in this cluster have also been
featured in relation to net-zero energy and carbon research
E. Navarro Bringas and Godawatte Arachchige Gimhan Rathnagee Godawatte
[86,79,87]. Within this cluster, the most common type of building
refers to office facilities, but other commercial facilities such as
hotels [88], educational buildings [37,89,90] and other large public
buildings [91] can be encountered within the sample. In terms of
material performance, while steel and reinforced concrete frame
buildings are the most common building elements featured in
the high-rise buildings within the sample [92,93,94,95], there are
some emerging studies and cases featuring timber high-rise build-
ings [96]. Moreover, due to the potential benefits of sustainably
grown timber in offsetting carbon emissions [72], studies that
address the feasibility of timber frame tall buildings are also
emerging within this cluster [97].
4.1.6. Niche cluster review
The remaining clusters, while well defined in terms of consis-
tency (with Silhouette scores over 0.8), are comparatively smaller
in size (Table 3). Therefore, these clusters are representing more
niche research themes than those previously discussed.
Cluster 5, labelled ‘‘displacement ventilation”, includes research
related to operational energy and performance of buildings in rela-
tion to HVAC and heating systems, primarily through the investiga-
tion of a range of benefits of low carbon technologies versus
conventional heating technologies. These studies feature available
heating technologies such as earth sourced heat pumps [98], ther-
mal storage or air sourced pumps [99]. To a lesser extent, cooling
strategies which include displacement ventilation strategies are
also part of the cluster [100]. Renewables and electric energy gen-
eration are also amidst the themes explored within the cluster,
with solar PV being the primary technology researched
[101,102,103]. Some of these studies have also featured a strong
focus on the cost viability of these technologies, frequently featur-
ing return on investment metrics or cost-saving calculations
[99,100]. An emerging area of research in this cluster appears to
focus on larger-scale technologies as highlighted by recent studies
undertaken on district heating and cooling systems [104,105].
Cluster 6, labelled ‘‘walling element”, is comprised of themes
centred around material studies. However, unlike the strong focus
on embodied energy and performance of frame elements that char-
acterised cluster 2, studies in this cluster centre primarily on insu-
lation and building envelope material alternatives. They are also
characterised by studies that focus on assessing the thermal prop-
erties of these alternatives [106,107]. Beyond this broad walling
element parameter, several masonry materials are also included
amidst the research featured in this cluster. For instance, research
assessing the life cycle impact of adobe bricks [108] or the perfor-
mance of sustainable bricks produced through sawdust and coal
[109]. One commonality of these studies is the feature of a broader
range of analysis that encompasses performance beyond emissions
and energy assessment, including parameters such as compressive
strength [66,67], durability [110] or hygrothermal performance
[68].
4.2. Burst analysis and discussion
Using a burst detection algorithm, the keyword frequency burst
over time was analysed and identified based on the keyword co-
occurrence network. The analysis was limited to keywords that
experienced a burst over a period of at least three years. Figure 11
showcases the top 25 keyword bursts based on the burst strength
over the timespan of the sampled papers (i.e., 2000 – 2022). The
duration (years of the burst) is represented through the thicker
red line. The resulting keyword burst analysis provides a solid
overview of developments in the net-zero built environment
domain over the past two decades, as well as revealing emerging
areas for research.
10
Energy & Buildings 266 (2022) 112119
Early keyword bursts in the sample featured topics related to
energy, such as embodied energy, conservation, and consumption.
This aligns with findings from recent critiques, whereas energy
efficiency has been the primary focus of research [14]. The focus
of energy might also be explained by its prevalence on policy for-
mulation due to the relatively straightforward process for measur-
ing it, in comparison to GHG emissions, as well as in setting up
targets [4]. In relation to the scope, it is important to highlight that
‘embodied energy’ appears as the most relevant keyword in the
sample, with the highest strength burst strength score at 22.04.
From the 2010 s, the focus has started to switch from energy
assessment, both embodied and operational, towards assessing
greenhouse gas emissions and global warming potential. These
terms can be mapped to the global environmental agenda, match-
ing key recent commitments such as those defined under the Paris
Climate Agreement [1]. This has had a more apparent impact in
recent years (i.e., 2018–2022), where burst terms, such as decar-
bonisation (2020–2022) that emerges with a high strength score
(10.13), which seem to move the research agenda towards net-
zero carbon and climate neutrality in the construction sector. Par-
kin et al.’s [55] analysis of the potential for the design space for
net-zero carbon vs net-zero energy, also seems to indicate that
the use of GHG emissions as outcomes offers 1.8 times larger
design space than simply focusing on energy. Thus, they suggest
that greenhouse gas emission focused codes and standards offer
objectively more opportunities for design developments in the
future. Moreover, research shows how the strong emphasis and
gains achieved through the focus on operational energy have
resulted in important advances in the reduction of operational
GHG emissions relatively and absolutely over the life cycle of
buildings. However, as Röck et al. [14] highlight embodied carbon
has emerged as an escalating challenge, including in highly effi-
cient buildings where it can account for up to 45–90% of the total
GHG emissions. When looking at the life cycle energy of buildings,
the increase of the relative proportion of embodied energy against
operational is a trend that has also been reported in previous
research ([12,16,46,15].
Within the context of embodied energy and carbon, construc-
tion material related studies have also been noticeable during
the period covered by the sample. As shown in Fig. 10, the spotlight
of material research has been placed on concrete, where aggregates
and concrete buildings are all featured in the analysis. This area
includes a variety of seminal studies determining the impact of tra-
ditional reinforced concrete structures [111], as well as identifying
impacts of different building systems such as walls or structural
slabs [112,113]. Moreover, as highlighted in the clustering discus-
sion, research on the performance and deployment of low-carbon
alternatives to reinforced concrete - e.g., rammed earth
([114,115,116] has also been an important theme over this period.
The emphasis on structural frame related elements and systems,
such as exterior walls, core frame, foundations, and roof, might
appear justified as the impact of these in GHG emissions is com-
paratively larger than that of inner and surface materials (e.g., clad-
ding, insulations) [72]. Finally, in later years (2019–2022) timber-
related research and timber-framed buildings have risen to promi-
nence within the low carbon/emission construction domain. The
promise of sustainably grown timber on carbon sequestration over
its lifetime and as a possible alternative for obtaining a net-zero
balance on emissions might explain this raise [72,10]. While the
use of timber for building frames (including tall buildings) is the
primary area of research, other low and net-zero carbon construc-
tion applications, such as the use of timber-related materials in
walling insulation can also be identified [117].
Finally, the links with the domain and the digital built environ-
ment are also can also be observed within the burst analysis
(Fig. 10). Early within the timeline, ‘‘computer simulation”
E. Navarro Bringas and Godawatte Arachchige Gimhan Rathnagee Godawatte
Fig. 10. Overview of the top 25 keywords resulting from the burst analysis.
appeared as a key term (2003–2009). This reflects on the different
software and tools used in simulation to estimate energy and car-
bon [118]. Within this theme, critical reviews [17,16] have also fea-
tured overviews of available simulation software, as well as
available material databases, including industry favourites such
as’Ecoinvent’ which is used for life cycle inventory processes
[119]. While not appearing in the top 25 terms, the data manage-
ment and integration within building information modelling (BIM)
has also been an important focal point in the mid/late 2010 s
[120,94,91]. The use of BIM has facilitated the optimisation and
integration of LCA data with other important parameters of build-
ing design, in particular cost [121,122,123]. The evolution of BIM in
recent years have led to the application of modern concepts such as
digital twins. BIM digital twins benefit from parametric design
models and previous developments on simulation software, to
explore different design and construction options and their
impacts over the life cycle [124,125,126]. This in combination with
other automated technologies (e.g. scan to/vs BIM) has promising
applications for net-zero building retrofits [127,128]. In more
recent years, ‘‘artificial neural networks”, a common machine learn-
ing approach, has risen to prominence as shown by the analysis. In
this context, a few examples of artificial intelligence methods and
applications have emerged, primarily as a way of optimising LCA
related outputs with other design parameters [129]. In this area,
generative design approaches seem prevalent, providing design
recommendations and alternatives early in the process which opti-
mise and minimise emissions associated with buildings [130,131].
11
Energy & Buildings 266 (2022) 112119
5. Conclusions
Current CO2 eq. levels have surpassed a planetary boundary due
to the anthropocentric emissions with potentially catastrophic
consequences for Earth ecosystems and climate that has safely
supported human development [3]. As a result, to mitigate further
impacts global commitments to the target of ‘‘Net-zero emissions
2050” have been agreed upon [2]. With over a third of the global
GHG emission, the built environment, in its construction, operation
and decommissioning, is a primary culprit of this problem. Conse-
quently, over the past few decades, scholars have conducted
research in assessing carbon and energy implications associated
with the built environment. This paper presented the first compre-
hensive scientometric study appraising the state-of-the-art net-
zero carbon and energy research on the built environment using
1934 bibliometric records published over two decades. The analy-
sis of the research publication trend revealed that the scientific
domain of net-zero carbon in the construction sector has grown
gradually over the past 20 years with the UK, USA, and China being
the major contributors to the field showcasing the efforts put into
the rehabilitation of a major culprit of carbon emissions by schol-
ars in the past. When observing the outlets in which the sampled
articles were featured, Energy and Buildings, Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction, and Building and Environment published a large proportion
of the research undertaken in the past 20 years.
Rather than focusing on individual case studies and applica-
tions, the main analysis undertaken within this paper focused on
E. Navarro Bringas and Godawatte Arachchige Gimhan Rathnagee Godawatte
generating a co-citation network, a keyword co-occurrence net-
work, and a cluster analysis identifying the key articles/authors
and the dominant terms/topics within the dataset. Seven major
clusters - greenhouse gas emission, deep decarbonisation, earth
material, residential building, high-rise building, displacement,
ventilation, and walling element were identified from the cluster
analysis representing foundational themes within the scientific
field of net-zero carbon and energy and discussed in detail in the
paper. Further to this, the burst analysis revealed how a number
of emerging digital technologies in the sector present opportuni-
ties to optimise future developments towards the attainment of a
net-zero emission-built environment.
The scientometric analysis and visualization of the findings pre-
sented in this paper reflect research on net-zero carbon and energy
within the built environment and the emerging trends in the
domain on a global scale. The findings of the study, therefore, pro-
vide a comprehensive agenda for leveraging and advancing net-
zero research by shedding light on the existing body of literature,
spotting trends and themes, and offering the following directions
for further research.
5.1. Recommendation 1: Expanding the methodological toolkit to
address the complexity associated with built environment related
emissions
The scientometric analysis makes apparent the prevalence of
LCA case studies as the dominant approach in the field. While this
has led towards key contributions and findings, as recent research
calls suggest [4] future studies should widen the scale of the unit of
analysis of emission assessments to the neighbourhood or even
city scale, a most appropriate unit to address the impact of the sec-
tor on global and national emissions. Similarly, national decarbon-
isation modelling should expand beyond operational emissions
and incorporate scenarios centred on the embodied GHG emis-
sions, which aim to influence and inform stakeholder decision-
making. Given the complexity associated with achieving net-zero
emissions [9,4] the addition of research methods developed to
address complexity could be valuable. For instance, systems
approaches and simulation modelling techniques such as systems
thinking and systems dynamics might provide future directions
for research in the field. In contrast to more linear approaches, such
as single building case studies, that focus on the individual attri-
butes of a problem, systems thinking focuses on the ‘‘whole”,
hence, could be used as a potential framework for examining the
‘‘journey towards net-zero” and system dynamics could be utilised
to simulate the policy implications on the net-zero initiatives.
5.2. Recommendation 2: Leveraging digital technologies to optimise
embodied/operational emissions and support design stakeholders
Recent reviews have highlighted the increasing significance of
embodied carbon emissions on highly efficient buildings. In this
area, recent emerging themes highlighted by the burst analysis
appear to offer promising directions for further research. First,
embodied carbon research of materials and construction processes
has focused on structural frames, in particular, concrete-based
structures. However, research around the use of timber and other
low carbon alternatives to concrete (e.g., rammed earth) have
emerged in recent years. Further research on emerging materials,
especially timber-based, which has potential links to carbon is to
be expected due to the potential for carbon offsetting through car-
bon fixation/assimilation processes. Additionally, trends related to
BIM and artificial intelligence, and in particular its applications to
design activities will be key. In this context, the evolution of BIM
towards data centred digital twins might yield promising results
for the management and optimisation of the performance of built
12
Energy & Buildings 266 (2022) 112119
assets. Moreover, trends and applications on generative design
have the potential to influence design processes, by optimising
material and construction embodied carbon with performance
data resulting from simulations and developed digital twins.
5.3. Recommendation 3: Moving beyond the ‘energy-centred’
towards ‘GHG emission-centred’ standards for building/infrastructure
developments
While improvements on energy efficiency have been substan-
tial over the last two decades, led by stringent national guidance
regulating energy efficiency of buildings, with current efforts
placed on the decarbonisation of national electric grids, current
standards, regulations, and guidelines should expand in scope by
becoming centred on the whole life cycle emissions associated
with infrastructure and building projects. As a result, it would
serve to address the increasing relative and absolute embodied
emissions highlighted in this review. These types of regulations
are further aligned with the top-down net-zero 2050 targets
pledged in the later decade [1]. Furthermore, emission related
guidelines, when compared to energy efficiency related guidelines,
appear to provide further opportunities and a broader design
space, which might favour further innovations [55]. In addition,
governmental action might also explore alternative measures such
as the implementation of whole life cycle GHG reduction targets
and requirements for procurement and delivery of public infras-
tructure projects.
5.4. Limitations of the study
Despite the contributions and concluding thoughts, the study
has several limitations. The primary limitation refers to the initial
keyword selection which is an inherent limitation of any biblio-
metric or review methods, as the scope of the analysis is defined
at these stages. To minimise potential bias towards the inclusion/
exclusion of search terms, commonly agreed keywords (with refer-
ence to standards and guidelines) were included as search terms.
Second, the data retrieval has been undertaken through the SCO-
PUS database, which might have limitations in terms of coverage.
Furthermore, the dataset was limited only to peer-reviewed jour-
nal articles that were written in English, which resulted in the
exclusion of contributions in other formats (e.g., books or confer-
ence proceedings). The analysis has been based on graph theory
(network analysis) methods, which provides a unique theoretical
framework to analyse a scientific field. The use of bibliometric data
(e.g., references, citations, and keywords) to identify themes and
relevance is open for criticism. A degree of judgement might have
influenced the interpretation of results. For this, the data retrieval
and parameters used in the analysis are disclosed in the paper, to
provide a way forward to replicate the study here and gradually
remove possible subjective biases. Moreover, future studies may
address these limitations by utilising other data sources (such as
WoS), other metrics and indicators, and expanding the analysis
to multiple formats.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] UNFCCC, ‘‘Paris agreement,” FCCCC, Bonn, 2015.
[2] Ipcc, ‘‘Global warming of 1.5 °C.”, IPCC, In Press (2018).
E. Navarro Bringas and Godawatte Arachchige Gimhan Rathnagee Godawatte
[3] J. Rockström, W. Steffen, K. Noone, A safe operating space for humanity,
Nature 461 (2009) 472–475.
[4] D. Satola, M. Balouktsi, T. Lutzkendorf, A.H. Wiberg, A. Gustavsen, How to
define (net) zero greenhouse gas emissions buildings: The results of an
international survey as part of IEA EBC annex 72, Building and Environment
192 (2021).
[5] UNEP, ‘‘2020 Global status report for buildings and construction: Towards a
zero-emissions, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector,”
UNEP, Nairobi, 2020.
[6] A.J. Marszal, P. Heiselberg, J. Bourrelle, E. Musall, K. Voss, I. Sartori, A.
Napolitano, Zero Energy Building – A review of definitions and calculation
methodologies, Energy and Buildings 43 (4) (2011) 971–979.
[7] BSI, ‘‘BS EN 15978 Sustainability of Construction Works– Assessment of
Environmental Performance of Buildings – Calculation Method,” British
Standards Institution, London, 2011.
[8] M. K. Dixit, J. L. Fernández-Solís, S. Lavy and C. H. Culp, ‘‘Need for an embodied
energy measurement protocol for buildings: A review,” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 16, p. 3730–3743, 2012.
[9] W. Pan, ‘‘System boundaries of zero carbon buildings,” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 37, pp. 424-234, 2014.
[10] T. Lützkendorf, R. Frischknecht, (Net-) zero-emission buildings: a typology of
terms and definitions, Buildings and Cities 1 (1) (2020) 662–675.
[11] N. Donthu, S. Kumar, D. Mukherjee, N. Pandey, W.M. Lim, How to conduct a
bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines, Journal of Business
Research 133 (2021) 285–296.
[12] T. Ibn-Mohammed, R. Greenough, S. Taylor, L. Ozawa-Meida, A. Acquaye,
Operational vs. embodied emissions in buildings — A review of current
trends, Energy and Buildings 66 (2013) 232–245.
[13] I. Sartori, A. Hestnes, Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-
energy buildings: A review article, Energy and Buildings 39 (3) (2007) 249–
257.
[14] M. Röck, M.R.M. Saade, M. Balouktsi, F. Nygaard, H. Birgisdottir, R.
Frischknecht, G. Habert, T. Lützkendorf, A. Passer, Embodied GHG emissions
of buildings – The hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation,
Applied Energy 15 (2020).
[15] D. Satola, M. Rock, A. Houlihan-Wiberg and A. Gustavsen, ‘‘Life Cycle GHG
Emissions of Residential Buildings in Humid Subtropical and Tropical
Climates: Systematic Review and Analysis,” Buildings, vol. 11, no. 1, 2021.
[16] L.F. Cabeza, L. Rincón, V. Vilariño, G. Pérez, A. Castell, Life cycle assessment
(LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building
sector: A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 29 (2014) 394–
416.
[17] A. Haapio, P. Viitaniemi, A critical review of building environmental
assessment tools, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (7) (2008)
469–482.
[18] D. Yu, H. Liao, Visualization and quantitative research on intuitionistic fuzzy
studies, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 30 (6) (2016) 3653–3663.
[19] A. Darko, A.P. Chan, M.A. Adabre, D.J. Edwards, M.R. Hosseini, E.E. Ameyaw,
Artificial intelligence in the AEC industry: Scientometric analysis and
visualization of research activities, Automation in Construction 112 (2020).
[20] R. Zeng, A. Chini, A review of research on embodied energy of buildings using
bibliometric analysis, Energy and Buildings 155 (15) (2017) 172–184.
[21] UK Green Building Council, Net Zero Carbon Buildings: A framework
definition, UKGBC, London, 2019.
[22] Scottish Futures Trust, Net Zero Public Sector Buildings Standard, Scottish
Futures Trust, Edinburgh, 2021.
[23] J. Zhu, W. Liu, A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus
in academic papers, Scientometrics 123 (2020) 321–335.
[24] C. Chen, The CiteSpace Manual, Dexel University, 2014.
[25] N.J. Van Eck, L. Waltman, Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer
programfor bibliometric mapping, Scientometrics 84 (2010) 523–538.
[26] L.C. Freeman, Centrality in Social Networks: Conceptual Clarification, Social
Networks 1 (1979) 215–239.
[27] F.A. Massucci, D. Docampo, Measuring the academic reputation through
citation networks via PageRank, Journal of Informetrics 13 (1) (2019) 185–
201.
[28] Y. Ding, E. Yan, A. Frazho, J. Caverlee, PageRank for ranking authors in co-
citation networks, Journal of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology 60 (11) (2009) 2229–2243.
[29] C. Chen, F. Ibekwe-SanJuan, J. Hou, The Structure and Dynamics of Cocitation
Clusters: A Multiple-Perspective Cocitation Analysis, Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology 61 (7) (2010) 1386–1409.
[30] U. von Luxburg, ‘‘A Tutorial on Spectral Clustering,” Statistics and Computing,
vol. 17, no. 4, 2006.
[31] X. Wang, Z. Xu, M. Škare, A bibliometric analysis of Economic Research -
Ekonomska Istraživanja (2007–2019), Economic Research - Ekonomska
Istraživanja 33 (1) (2019) 865–886.
[32] V. Koltun, D. Hafner, The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of
scientific reputation, Plos One (2021).
[33] T. Ramesh, R. Prakash, K. Shukla, Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An
overview, Energy and Buldings 42 (10) (2010) 1592–1600.
[34] G. Hammond, C. Jones, Embodied energy and carbon in construction
materials, Energy 161 (2) (2008) 87–98.
[35] M.K. Dixit, J.L. Fernandez-Solis, S. Lavy, C.H. Culp, Identification of parameters
for embodied energy measurement: A literature review, Energy and Buildings
42 (8) (2010) 1238–1247.
13
Energy & Buildings 266 (2022) 112119
[36] R.J. Cole, P.C. Kernan, Life-cycle energy use in office buildings, Building and
Environment 31 (4) (1996) 307–317.
[37] C. Scheuer, G.A. Keoleian, P. Reppe, Life cycle energy and environmental
performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design
implications, Energy and Buildings 35 (10) (2003) 1049–1064.
[38] G.A. Blengini, T. Di Carlo, The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems
and materials in the LCA of low energy buildings, Energy and Buildings 42 (6)
(2010) 869–880.
[39] J. Monahan, J. Powell, An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern
methods of construction in housing: A case study using a lifecycle assessment
framework, Energy and Buildings 43 (1) (2011) 179–188.
[40] R. Fay, G. Treloar, U. Iyer-Raniga, Life-cycle energy analysis of buildings: a
case study, Building Research & Information 28 (1) (2010) 31–41.
[41] O. Ortiz, F. Castells, G. Sonnemann, Sustainability in the construction
industry: A review of recent developments based on LCA, Construction and
Building Materials 23 (1) (2009) 28–39.
[42] C. Thormark, A low energy building in a life cycle—its embodied energy,
energy need for operation and recycling potential, Building and Environment
37 (4) (2002) 429–435.
[43] C. Chau, T. Leung, W. Ng, A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy
Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings,
Applied Energy 143 (2015) 395–413.
[44] L. Gustavsson, A. Joelsson, Life cycle primary energy analysis of residential
buildings, Energy and Buildings 42 (2) (2010) 210–220.
[45] B. Venkatarama Reddy, K. Jagadish, Embodied energy of common and
alternative building materials and technologies, Energy and Buildings 35
(2) (2003) 129–137.
[46] P. Chastas, T. Theodosiou, D. Bikas, Embodied energy in residential buildings-
towards the nearly zero energy building: A literature review, Building and
Environment 105 (2016) 267–282.
[47] J. Basbagill, F. Flager, M. Lepech, M. Fischer, Application of life-cycle
assessment to early stage building design for reduced embodied
environmental impacts, Building and Environment 60 (2013) 81–92.
[48] C. Thormark, The effect of material choice on the total energy need and
recycling potential of a building, Building and Environment 41 (8) (2006)
1019–1026.
[49] N. Huberman, D. Pearlmutter, A life-cycle energy analysis of building
materials in the Negev desert, Energy and Buildings 40 (5) (2008) 837–848.
[50] R.H. Crawford, Validation of a hybrid life-cycle inventory analysis method,
Journal of Environmental Management 88 (3) (2008) 496–506.
[51] T. Chen, J. Burnett, C. Chau, Analysis of embodied energy use in the residential
building of Hong Kong, Energy 26 (4) (2001) 323–340.
[52] M. Asif, T. Muneer, R. Kelley, Life cycle assessment: A case study of a dwelling
home in Scotland, Building and Environment 42 (3) (2007) 1391–1394.
[53] G.A. Blengini, Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: A
case study in Turin, Italy, Building and Evironment 44 (2) (2009) 319–330.
[54] k. Adalberth, ‘‘Energy use during the life cycle of buildings: a method,”
Building and Environment, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 317-320, 1997.
[55] A. Parkin, M. Herrera, D.A. Coley, Energy or carbon? Exploring the relative size
of universal zero carbon and zero energy design spaces, Building Services
Engineering Research and Technology 40 (3) (2019) 319–339.
[56] N. Heeren, C.L. Mutel, B. Steubing, Y. Ostermeyer, H. Wallbaum, S. Hellweg,
Environmental Impact of Buildings—What Matters?, Environmental Scuence
& Technology 49 (16) (2015) 9832–9841
[57] I. Zabalza, A. Valero, A. Aranda, Life cycle assessment of building materials:
Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of
the eco-efficiency improvement potential, Building and Environment 46 (5)
(2011) 1133–1140.
[58] L. Abeydeera, J. Mesthrige and T. Samarasinghalage, ‘‘Perception of Embodied
Carbon Mitigation Strategies: The Case of Sri Lankan Construction Industry,”
Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 11, 2019.
[59] T. Bui, S. Wilkinson, N. Domingo and C. MacGregor, ‘‘Zero Carbon Building
Practices in Aotearoa New Zealand,” Energies, vol. 14, no. 15, 2021.
[60] Y. Shimoda, M. Sugiyama, R. Nishimoto, T. Momonoki, Evaluating
decarbonization scenarios and energy management requirement for the
residential sector in Japan through bottom-up simulations of energy end-use
demand in 2050, Applied Energy 303 (2021).
[61] N. Eyre, P. Baruah, Uncertainties in future energy demand in UK residential
heating, Energy Policy 87 (2015) 641–653.
[62] B.-J. Tang, Y.-Y. Guo, B. Yu, L.D.D. Harvey, Pathways for decarbonizing China’s
building sector under global warming thresholds, Applied Energy 298 (2021).
[63] J. Deng, W. Qinqpeng, L. Mei, H. Shi, Z. Hui, Field test on energy performance
of medium-depth geothermal heat pump systems (MD-GHPs), Energy and
Buildings 184 (2019) 289–299.
[64] K. Bauermann, German Energiewende and the heating market – Impact and
limits of policy, Energy Policy 94 (2016) 235–246.
[65] A. Arrigoni, R. Pelosato, P. Melia, G. Ruggieri, S. Sabbadini, G. Dotelli, Life cycle
assessment of natural building materials: the role of carbonation, mixture
components and transport in the environmental impacts of hempcrete
blocks, Journal of Cleaner Production 149 (2017) 1051–1061.
[66] A.H. Meek, M. Elchalakani, C.T. Beckett, M. Dong, Alternative stabilised
rammed earth materials incorporating recycled waste and industrial by-
products: A study of mechanical properties, flexure and bond strength,
Construction and Building Materials 277 (2021).
[67] P. Pineda, A. Garcia-Martinez, D. Castizo-Morales, Environmental and
structural analysis of cement-based vs. natural material-based grouting
E. Navarro Bringas and Godawatte Arachchige Gimhan Rathnagee Godawatte
mortars. Results from the assessment of strengthening works, Construction
and Building Materials 138 (2017) 528–547.
[68] R. Walker, S. Pavia, Moisture transfer and thermal properties of hemp–lime
concretes, Construction and Building Materials 64 (2014) 270–276.
[69] R. Haik, A. Peled, I. Meir, Thermal performance of alternative binders lime
hemp concrete (LHC) building: comparison with conventional building
materials, Building Research & Information 49 (7) (2021) 763–776.
[70] X. Su, X. Zhang, A detailed analysis of the embodied energy and carbon
emissions of steel-construction residential buildings in China, Energy and
Buildings 119 (2016) 323–330.
[71] H.W. Kua, M. Maghimai, Steel-versus-Concrete Debate Revisited: Global
Warming Potential and Embodied Energy Analyses based on Attributional
and Consequential Life Cycle Perspectives, Journal of Industrial Ecology 21 (1)
(2016) 82–100.
[72] A. Takano, S. Winter, M. Hughes, L. Linkosalmi, Comparison of life cycle
assessment databases: A case study on building assessment, Building and
Environment 79 (2014) 20–30.
[73] F. Belizario-Silva, A. Galimshina, D. C. Reis, M. Quattrone, B. Gomes, M.
Cuadrado-Marin, M. Moustapha, V. John and G. Habert, ‘‘Stakeholder
influence on global warming potential of reinforced concrete structure,”
Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 44, 2021.
[74] R. Kahhat, J. Crittenden, F. Sharif, E. Fonseca, Environmental Impacts over the
Life Cycle of Residential Buildings Using Different Exterior Wall Systems,
Journal of Infrastructure Systems 15 (3) (2009) 211–221.
[75] R. Fay, G. Treloar, U. Iyer-Raniga, Life-cycle energy analysis of buildings: a
case study, Building Research and Information 28 (1) (2000) 31–41.
[76] N. Mithraratne, B. Vale, Life cycle analysis model for New Zealand houses,
Building and Environment 39 (4) (2004) 483–492.
[77] A. Marszal, P. Heiselberg, Life cycle cost analysis of a multi-storey residential
Net Zero Energy Building in Denmark, Energy 36 (9) (2011) 5600–5609.
[78] B. Rossi, A.-F. Marique, M. Glaumann, S. Reiter, Life-cycle assessment of
residential buildings in three different European locations, basic tool,
Building and Environment 51 (2012) 395–401.
[79] O.F. Kofoworola, S.H. Gheewala, Environmental life cycle assessment of a
commercial office building in Thailand, The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 13 (2008) 498–511.
[80] P.L. Devi, S. Palaniappan, A case study on life cycle energy use of residential
building in Southern India, Energy and Buildings 80 (2014) 247–259.
[81] A.A.M.M. Ali, A.M. Negm, M.F. Bady, M.G. Ibrahim, Environmental Life Cycle
Assessment of a Residential Building in Egypt: A Case Study, Procedia
Technology 19 (2015) 349–356.
[82] M. Asif, A. H. A. Dehwah, F. Ashraf, H. S. Khan, M. M. Shaukat and M. T. Hassan,
‘‘Life Cycle Assessment of a Three-Bedroom House in Saudi Arabia,”
Environments, vol. 4, no. 3, 2017.
[83] A. F. A. Rashid, J. Idris and S. Yusoff, ‘‘Environmental Impact Analysis on
Residential Building in Malaysia Using Life Cycle Assessment,” Sustainability,
vol. 9, no. 3, 2017.
[84] M. Ali, P. Armstrong, Overview of sustainable design factors of high-rise
buildings, in: Proceedings of the 8th CTBUH World Congress, 2008, pp. 282–
291.
[85] K. Al-Kodmany, ‘‘The Vertical Farm: A Review of Developments and
Implications for the Vertical City,” Buildings, vol. 8, no. 2, 2018.
[86] A. Dimoudi, C. Tompa, Energy and environmental indicators related to
construction of office buildings, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53 (1–
2) (2008) 86–95.
[87] H. Yan, Q. Shen, L.C. Fan, Y. Wang, L. Zhang, Greenhouse gas emissions in
building construction: A case study of One Peking in Hong Kong, Building and
Environment 45 (4) (2010) 949–955.
[88] B. Rossello-Batle, A. Moia, A. Cladera, V. Martinez, Energy use, CO2 emissions
and waste throughout the life cycle of a sample of hotels in the Balearic
Islands, Energy and Buildings 42 (4) (2010) 547–558.
[89] C.L. Thiel, N. Campion, A.E. Landis, A.K. Jones, L.A. Schaefer, M.M. Bilec, A
Materials Life Cycle Assessment of a Net-Zero Energy Building, Energies 6 (2)
(2013) 1125–1141.
[90] M. Hu, Life-cycle environmental assessment of energy-retrofit strategies on a
campus scale, Building Research & Information 48 (6) (2020) 659–680.
[91] B. Cheng, J. Li, V. W. Tam, M. Yang and D. Chen, ‘‘A BIM-LCA Approach for
Estimating the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Large-Scale Public Buildings: A
Case Study,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 2, 2020.
[92] J. Xiao, C. Wang, T. Ding, A. Akbarnezhad, A recycled aggregate concrete high-
rise building: Structural performance and embodied carbon footprint, Journal
of Cleaner Production 199 (2018) 868–881.
[93] H.S. Park, B. Kwon, Y. Shin, Y. Kim, T. Hong, S.W. Choi, Cost and CO2 Emission
Optimization of Steel Reinforced Concrete Columns in High-Rise Buildings,
Energies 6 (11) (2013) 5609–5624.
[94] V.J. Gan, M. Deng, K. Tse, C. Chan, I.M. Lo, J.C. Cheng, Holistic BIM framework
for sustainable low carbon design of high-rise buildings, Journal of Cleaner
Production 195 (2018) 1091–1104.
[95] S. Y. Yim, S. T. Ng, M. Hossain and J. M. Wong, ‘‘Comprehensive Evaluation of
Carbon Emissions for the Development of High-Rise Residential Building,”
Buildings, vol. 8, no. 11, 2018.
[96] M. Wells, Tall timber buildings: Applications of solid timber construction in
multistory buildings, CTBUH Journal 1 (2011) 24–27.
[97] J. Li, B. Rismanchi, T. Ngo, Feasibility study to estimate the environmental
benefits of utilising timber to construct high-rise buildings in Australia,
Building and Environment 147 (2019) 108–120.
14
Energy & Buildings 266 (2022) 112119
[98] B. Yassine, K. Ghali, N. Ghaddar, G. Chehab, I. Srour, Effectiveness of the earth
tube heat exchanger system coupled to a space model in achieving thermal
comfort in rural areas, International Journal of Sustainable Energy 33 (3)
(2014) 567–586.
[99] E.J.S. Escriva, M. Hart, S. Acha, V.S. Frances, N. Shah, C.N. Markides, Techno-
economic evaluation of integrated energy systems for heat recovery
applications in food retail buildings, Applied Energy 305 (2022).
[100] N. Ghaddar, K. Ghali, R. Saadeh, Optimized selection and operation of the
combined chilled ceiling system and displacement ventilation, International
Journal of Energy Research 34 (15) (2010) 1328–1340.
[101] A. Bizzarri, G. Morini, A Life Cycle Analysis of roof integrated photovoltaic
systems, International Journal of Environmental Technology and
Management 7 (1–2) (2007) 134–146.
[102] S.A. Halasah, D. Pearlmutter, D. Feuermann, Field installation versus local
integration of photovoltaic systems and their effect on energy evaluation
metrics, Energy Policy 52 (2013) 462–471.
[103] B.R. Burg, P. Ruch, S. Paredes, B. Michel, Effects of radiative forcing of building
integrated photovoltaic systems in different urban climates, Solar Energy 147
(2017) 399–405.
[104] T. Novosel, T. Puksec, N. Duic, J. Domac, Heat demand mapping and district
heating assessment in data-pour areas, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 131 (2020).
[105] D. Meha, J. Thakur, T. Novosel, T. Puksec, N. Duic, A novel spatial–temporal
space heating and hot water demand method for expansion analysis of
district heating systems, Energy Conversion and Management 234 (2021).
[106] P. Chani, S. Kaushik and Najamuddin, ‘‘Comparative Analysis of Embodied
Energy Rates for Walling Elements in India,” IE (I) Jounral of Architectural
Engineering, vol. 84, pp. 47-50, 2003.
[107] T. Mukhamet, S. Kobeyev, A. Nadeem and S. A. Memon, ‘‘Ranking PCMs for
building façade applications using multi-criteria decision-making tools
combined with energy simulations,” Energy, vol. 215, no. B, 2021.
[108] E. Christoforou, A. Kylili, P.A. Fokaides, I. Ioannou, Cradle to site Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) of adobe bricks, Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (1)
(2016) 443–452.
[109] K. Pradhan, S. Ram, R. Relegaonkar, Development of sustainable bricks using
ash from co-fired sawdust and coal, Construction Materials 173 (3) (2020)
132–140.
[110] S. Ghasemalizadeh and V. Toufigh, ‘‘Durability of Rammed Earth Materials,”
International Journal of Geomechanics, vol. 20, no. 11, 2020.
[111] J. Goggins, T. Keane, A. Kelly, The assessment of embodied energy in typical
reinforced concrete building structures in Ireland, Energy and Buildings 42
(5) (2010) 735–744.
[112] T. Inui, C. Chau, K. Soga, D. Nicolson, N. O’Riordan, Embodied Energy and Gas
Emissions of Retaining Wall Structures, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 137 (10) (2011) 958–967.
[113] G. Brambilla, M. Lavagna, G. Vasdravellis, C.A. Castiglioni, Environmental
benefits arising from demountable steel-concrete composite floor systems in
buildings, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 141 (2019) 133–142.
[114] B. Venkatarama Reddy, P. Prasanna Kumar, Embodied energy in cement
stabilised rammed earth walls, Energy and Buildings 42 (3) (2010) 380–385.
[115] K. Kariyawasam, C. Jayasinghe, Cement stabilized rammed earth as a
sustainable construction material, Construction and Building Materials 105
(2016) 519–527.
[116] J. Fernandes, M. Peixoto, R. Mateus, H. Gervasio, Life cycle analysis of
environmental impacts of earthen materials in the Portuguese context:
Rammed earth and compressed earth blocks, Journal of Cleaner Production
241 (2019).
[117] I. Cetiner, A.D. Shea, Wood waste as an alternative thermal insulation for
buildings, Energy and Buildings 168 (2018) 374–384.
[118] S. Attia, Towards regenerative and positive impact architecture: A
comparison of two net zero energy buildings, Sustainable Cities and Society
26 (2016) 393–406.
[119] A. Martinez-Rocamora, J. Solis-Guzman, M. Marrero, LCA databases focused
on construction materials: A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 58 (2016) 565–573.
[120] L.A. Anton, J. Diaz, Integration of Life Cycle Assessment in a BIM Environment,
Procedia Engineering 85 (2014) 26–32.
[121] M. Nwodo, C. Anumba, S. Asadi, ‘‘BIM-Based Life Cycle Assessment and
Costing of Buildings: Current Trends and Opportunities”, Computing, Civil
Engineering (2017).
[122] G. Lobaccaro, A.H. Wiberg, G. Ceci, M. Manni, N. Lolli, U. Berardi, Parametric
design to minimize the embodied GHG emissions in a ZEB, Energy and
Buildings 167 (2018) 106–123.
[123] R. Santos, A. Aguilar-Costa, J. D. Silvestre and L. Pyl, ‘‘Development of a BIM-
based Environmental and Economic Life Cycle Assessment tool,” Journal of
Clearner Production, vol. 265, 2020.
[124] L. C. Tagliabue, F. R. Cecconi, S. Maltese, S. Rinaldi, A. L. C. Ciribini and A.
Flammini, ‘‘Leveraging Digital Twin for Sustainability Assessment of an
Educational Building,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 2, 2021.
[125] V. Kourgiozou, A. Commin, M. Dowson, D. Rovas, D. Mumovic, Scalable
pathways to net zero carbon in the UK higher education sector: A systematic
review of smart energy systems in university campuses, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 147 (2021).
[126] X. Zhang, J. Shen, P.K. Saini, M. Lovati, M. Han, P. Huang, Z. Huang, ‘‘Digital
Twin for Accelerating Sustainability in Positive Energy District: A Review of
Simulation Tools and Applications”, Frontiers in Sustainable, Cities (2021).
E. Navarro Bringas and Godawatte Arachchige Gimhan Rathnagee Godawatte
[127] S. Kaewunruen, P. Rungskunroch and J. Welsh, ‘‘A Digital-Twin Evaluation of
Net Zero Energy Building for Existing Buildings,” Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 1,
2019.
[128] L. Zhao, H. Zhang, Q. Wang, H. Wang, Digital-Twin-Based Evaluation of Nearly
Zero-Energy Building for Existing Buildings Based on Scan-to-BIM, Advances
in Civil Engineering (2021).
[129] S. Eleftheriadis, P. Duffour, P. Greening, J. James, B. Stephenson, D. Mumovic,
Investigating relationships between cost and CO2 emissions in reinforced
15
Energy & Buildings 266 (2022) 112119
concrete structures using a BIM-based design optimisation approach, Energy
and Buildings 166 (2018) 330–346.
[130] X. Marsault, Eco-generative design for early stages of architecture, 1st ed.,
John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2018.
[131] Y. Schwartz, R. Raslan, I. Korolija, D. Mumovic, A decision support tool for
building design: An integrated generative design, optimisation and life cycle
performance approach, International Journal of Architectural Computing 19
(3) (2021) 401–430.