Critical analysis of green building research trend in construction journals

Habitat International 57 (2016) 53e63

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

Review article

Critical analysis of green building research trend in construction journals Amos Darko*, Albert P.C. Chan Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 11 Yuk Choi Rd, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 3 January 2016 Received in revised form 18 June 2016 Accepted 1 July 2016

In recent years, green building (GB) has become the flagship of sustainable development, leading to a number of published works on the topic. This paper examines GB research trend in construction management (CM) through analyzing selected GB research papers published in 10 selected CM journals from 1990 to 2015 (as of end of August). The analysis is conducted in terms of the number of annual GB research publications, contributions made by various countries, institutions and authors, and research topics covered. The analysis reveals an increasing GB research interest in recent times, implying that the importance attached to GB by the construction industry is accelerating. The findings also indicate that during the studied period, researchers from developed economies such as the US, Hong Kong, the UK, Singapore, Italy, and Australia contributed most to promoting GB research. Developing countries such as China, Egypt, and Colombia also made good efforts to promote GB research. Research topics covered tend to focus on GB project delivery and developments, GB certifications, energy performance, and advanced technologies. Research gaps are discussed with directions for future research proposed. This study may serve as a valuable platform for both industry practitioners and researchers to appreciate GB research trends and developments. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Green building Sustainable development Construction management Construction industry Research trends Review

Contents 1. 2. 3.

4.

5.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Green building definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Research methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 3.1. Selection of construction journals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 3.2. Selection of relevant papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 3.3. Contributions assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Analysis and discussion of results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 4.1. Annual publication trend of GB-related papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 4.2. Contributions of countries, institutions, and researchers to GB research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 4.3. Research topics covered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4.3.1. Current status of GB research interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 4.3.2. Knowledge gaps and future studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

1. Introduction * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ852 55477127. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Darko). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.07.001 0197-3975/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Since the early nineties (Kibert, 2012; Yudelson, 2007), green or sustainable building has attracted a worldwide attention from both

54

A. Darko, A.P.C. Chan / Habitat International 57 (2016) 53e63

researchers and practitioners (Li, Yang, & Lam, 2013). In turn, several green building (GB) studies, from both developed and developing countries, have been conducted and published (Cassidy, 2003; Zuo & Zhao, 2014). Academic GB research publications are important to industry experts and researchers. However, the existing literature consists of highly diversified topics that when integrated and classified for better understanding of the GB concept, would pave way for future researchers to undertake more efficient and intensive research. Also, research reports and papers are among the key channels through which scholars and universities influence industrial practice (Cohen, Nelson, & Walsh, 2002). Although a country may benefit from research outputs from other countries, it is believed that the number of published research outputs on a topic in a particular country might have an influence on the level of industrial developments on the topic in that country (Hong, Chan, Chan, & Yeung, 2012). That is, it is likely that the more research works conducted and published on a particular topic in a country, the greater the extent of industrial innovations and developments on the topic will be in the country, and vice versa. It is therefore necessary to keep a track record of research outputs on a particular topic in different locations in order to derive strategies for improvement where necessary. In 2014, Zuo and Zhao conducted a critical review of GB research; they classified and discussed common GB research themes, and highlighted future research opportunities. However, Zuo and Zhao failed to provide insights into GB research outputs from various countries and institutions, which could trigger efforts for improvements in different regions on the topic. This paper aims to fill this research gap by answering the following research questions: 1. What was the annual publication trend of GB-related studies from 1990 to 2015? 2. What was the contributions of authors from different countries (regions) and institutions to GB research from 1990 to 2015? 3. What are the key research areas? This kind of literature review, in which active contributors to research on a certain topic are identified, has been conducted by many researchers (Li, Shen, & Xue, 2014a; Yi & Chan, 2014; Yuan & Shen, 2011) to present research trends in different construction management (CM) disciplines. This study, however, is the first to replicate this review methodology in the context of GB research. For academics, especially firsthand researchers, to gain an understanding of the trend of research in a particular research area (Hong et al., 2012), and to investigate the research developments on a chosen topic, papers published in academic journals are vital (Tsai & Wen, 2005). For this reason, this study is restricted to GB research papers that have been published in selected CM journals from 1990 to 2015 (as of end of August). It is hoped that this paper will allow researchers and practitioners to appreciate GB research trends and developments, and expand the knowledge in the field. 2. Green building definitions Public concerns about the impacts of the construction industry on human health and energy use, and global climate change have made GB a popular field of research (US Green Building Council (USGBC) Research Committee, 2008). In the literature, the terms green buildings (GBs), sustainable buildings, high-performance buildings, sustainable construction, green construction, and high-performance construction are interchangeably used (Kats, Alevantis, Berman, Mills, & Perlman, 2003; Kibert, 2012; USGBC Research Committee., 2008; Woolley, Kimmins, Harrison, &

Harrison, 2002), and with numerous definitions (Comstock, Garrigan, & Pouffary, 2012; Kibert, 2007). According to Kibert (2012, p. 1), “the outcome of applying sustainable construction approaches to creating a responsible built environment is most commonly referred to as high-performance green buildings, or simply, green buildings”. Kibert (2012) again defined a GB as a facility that is healthy, designed and constructed with ecological principles and efficiently used resources. In the view of Yudelson (2008), a GB is a high-performance building that has minimal impacts on human health and the environment. He further noted that a GB is not only designed to consider and reduce its lifecycle environmental impacts, but its water and energy consumption also. Similarly, Laustsen (2008) mentioned that major characteristics of GBs include improved environment and human health, natural and material resources efficiency, and water and energyefficiency. The GB approach, unlike the conventional (non-green) building approach, aims at designing, constructing, and operating a building with minimal use of resources (Kubba, 2010; Wedding, 2008; Zigenfus, 2008). Hong Kong Green Building Council (HKGBC) (2015) wrote that the main idea behind GB is to minimize unfavorable impacts of buildings on the environment through three underlying processes: lifecycle planning of a building, efficient use of resources, and environmental waste and pollution reduction. Additionally, Sangster (2006) emphasized that the main objectives of GB are to: (1) minimize environmental disturbances and waste generation; (2) minimize energy and other resources utilization; (3) boost renewable energy usage; and (4) improve human health and comfort. Usually, principles such as sustainable site development, water-efficiency, energy-efficiency, reduced material resources consumption and indoor environmental quality are used to judge GBs (Gou, Lau, & Prasad, 2013). The USGBC (2003), in its paper entitled “Building Momentum”, defined GBs as “buildings that are designed, constructed, and operated to boost environmental, economic, health, and productivity performance over non-green buildings”. Hoffman and Henn (2008, p. 392) stated that “GB is a term encompassing strategies, techniques, and construction products that are less resource-intensive or pollution-producing than regular construction”. From the above definitions, it is clear that “GBs are examples of applied ecology, where designers understand the constitution, organization, and structure of ecosystems, and the impacts of architecture are considered from an environmental perspective” (Zhai, Wang, Dai, Wu, & Ma, 2008, p. 1904). As Ahmad, Thaheem, and Anwar (2016) suggested, energy-efficiency, reduced maintenance and operation costs, and extended lifespan of GBs are the main factors driving their adoption. These definitions suggest that GB presents a promising contractual approach for the construction industry to contribute to sustainable development. 3. Research methodology For researchers and practitioners to gain insights into the current status and future trend of research on a particular topic, Tsai and Wen (2005) stated that a methodical analysis of papers published in academic journals is vital for a research community. Hence, adopting the review method utilized by previous researchers (Hong et al., 2012; Osei-Kyei & Chan, 2015; Yi & Chan, 2014), GB research papers published in selected CM journals from 1990 to 2015 were retrieved and systematically analyzed to provide insights into GB research trend, and to identify key research areas. The review method comprises of three steps: (1) selection of construction journals; (2) selection of relevant papers; and (3) assessment of contributions.

A. Darko, A.P.C. Chan / Habitat International 57 (2016) 53e63

3.1. Selection of construction journals To identify academic journals that published GB-related papers from 1990 to 2015, a powerful search engine, Scopus, was used. Aside from being widely used in similar studies, Scopus was adopted based on two reasons. First, most research publications in the field of management, accounting, engineering, business, and construction have been archived in Scopus (Hong & Chan, 2014). Second, in terms of accuracy and coverage, Scopus performs better than other search engines such as PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar (Falagas, Pitsouni, Malietzis, & Pappas, 2008). With the help of Scopus, a systematic desktop search was conducted to identify and select relevant construction journals for this study. Several authors (Deng & Smyth, 2013; Xue, Shen, & Ren, 2010) utilized keywords search to select papers and journals for their review studies. Likewise, this study adopted keywords search to identify and select construction journals as well as GB-related papers. We acknowledge the fact that GB is, in fact, a broad topic with numerous keywords in the literature. Depending on the adopted keywords, the size of searched GB literature might be very bulky. However, since no one study by itself can address all of the complexities surrounding the selection of all possible GB research keywords, a challenge presented in obtaining a workable number of GB-related papers was reduced by the assumption that common keywords in GB research include green building, sustainable building, construction sustainability, green technology, green technologies, and sustainable construction. These six keywords were, therefore, used in this study as the search keywords. After choosing the search keywords, a pilot desktop search was performed under the “article title/abstract/keywords” field of Scopus, and with document type of “article or review”. Note that in line with the scope of this study, the search was limited to “construction industry or building construction or construction management or construction engineering and management”. The initial search resulted in 395 documents from over 70 different journals (both construction and non-construction journals showed up). The full search code is as follows: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“Green Building” OR “Sustainable Building” OR “Construction Sustainability” OR “Green Technology” OR “Green Technologies” OR “Sustainable Construction”) AND (LIMIT-TO (“Construction Industry” OR “Building Construction” OR “Construction Management” OR “Construction Engineering and Management”) AND DOCTYPE (ar OR re) AND SUBJAREA (engi OR manag OR envi OR soci OR deci OR busi) AND PUBYEAR > 1989 AND PUBYEAR < 2016 AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, “(j)”)) Search results: 395 documents (searched on August 30, 2015). Despite the search restrictions, non-construction journals still appeared. It is therefore important to emphasize that this study was strictly limited to GB research coverage in construction journals so, as a general rule, journals (such as ‘forestry chronicle’ and ‘Wood and Fibre Science’) that are not construction journals were excluded. On the other hand, construction journals considered in this study met either one of the following criteria: 1. The journal showed at least four papers (according to the search results); and 2. The journal ranks within the top six of Chau (1997) ranking of CM journals. Reference was made to Chau’s ranking because it is one of the widely accepted journal rankings in the field of CM. Based on these criteria, a total of eight journals: Building and Environment (BE); Journal of Construction Engineering and Management (JCEM); Construction Management and Economics (CME); Journal of Green Building (JGB); Habitat International (HI);

55

Sustainable Development (SD); Journal of Management in Engineering (JME); and Building Research and Information (BRI) that met the first criterion, and two journals: Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management (ECAM); and Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Civil Engineering (PICE-CE) that met the second criterion were selected. That is, finally, 10 construction journals were selected for this study. 3.2. Selection of relevant papers Of the initial search results of 395 documents, the 10 selected construction journals captured 105. The 105 documents, since the search keywords appeared in either their titles or abstracts or keywords, were considered to have met the initial requirement for further analysis. However, due to widespread use of the search keywords in general CM research, there was the possibility that irrelevant papers still showed. We therefore scanned by reading the abstract of each of the 105 papers to filter out irrelevant papers. Note that at this stage, since the aim of the study was to review GB research papers, papers that just mentioned any of the keywords in their titles or abstracts or keywords, but do not really focus on GB issues were excluded. Based on this selection criterion, a total of 61 papers were found valid for further analysis. Table 1 summarizes the initial search results together with the number of relevant papers from each of the 10 selected journals. 3.3. Contributions assessment As mentioned earlier, research publications are among the major means through which researchers and academic institutions affect industrial practice (Cohen et al., 2002), and the relevance of geographical distribution of research publications is based on the belief that the number of published research works on a particular subject in a country might indicate the extent to which industrial practice and innovations progress on the subject in that country (Hong et al., 2012). Hence, to understand the main stream of research in a particular discipline in different regions, the identification of active contributors is imperative (Yuan & Shen, 2011). Through this identification, researchers are able to track the contributions of previous researchers and continue their works. Therefore, to provide some level of insights into the current state of industrial developments on GB in different countries, research contributions of each country and institution, based on the contributions of researchers from the respective countries and institutions, are presented and discussed in the next section of this paper. To calculate the contributions of authors, countries or origins, and institutions or universities or research centers to GB research, we adopted a formula proposed by Howard, Cole, and Scot (1987) and used by earlier researchers to conduct similar review studies; to ascertain research trend in construction labor productivity (Yi & Chan, 2014), research trend in management of prefabricated construction (Li et al., 2014a), and research trend in construction and demolishing waste management (Yuan & Shen, 2011). The widespread adoption of the formula guaranteed its reliability and suitability for this study. The proposed formula by Howard et al. (1987) is shown in Eq. (1) below:

1:5ni Score ¼ Pn ni i¼1 1:5

(1)

where n represents the number of authors and i represents a specific author’s order. Applying the formula, the credits of authors in a multi-authored paper are proportionately divided. Howard et al.

56

A. Darko, A.P.C. Chan / Habitat International 57 (2016) 53e63

Table 1 Summary of search results and number of selected papers. Selected journals

No. of papers from search

No. of relevant papers for this study

Building and Environment (BE) Journal of Construction Engineering and Management (JCEM) Construction Management and Economics (CME) Journal of Green Building (JGB) Habitat International (HI) Sustainable Development (SD) Journal of Management in Engineering (JME) Building Research and Information (BRI) Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Civil Engineering (PICE-CE) Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management (ECAM) Total

27 21 13 11 8 7 7 6 4 1 105

13 11 7 7 6 5 5 4 2 1 61

(1987) assumed that in determining the contributions of authors in a multi-authored paper, authors do not make equal contributions and thus a first author contributes more than a second author, a second author more than a third author and so on. Assigning a score of one point to each paper, Table 2 presents a detailed score matrix for authors. Utilizing the score matrix, authors, countries, and institutions’ contributions to GB research during the studied period were accumulatively computed, ranked, and discussed. 4. Analysis and discussion of results This study aimed at providing insights into GB research trend in CM by reviewing selected GB research papers, but not to review the complete population of GB-related studies conducted during the studied period. Therefore, it has to be noted that the results presented herein are exclusively based on the analysis of the GB research papers obtained from the specific sampling approach discussed in section 3. This warrants caution when interpreting the findings of this study. For instance, care must be taken not to draw conclusions that the identified contributors are the most important contributors to GB research. The results are presented in terms of annual publication trend, research contributions by various countries, institutions, and authors, and research topics covered over the years. 4.1. Annual publication trend of GB-related papers Fig. 1 highlights the annual distribution of the analyzed GBrelated papers. It is observed that out of the 61 analyzed papers, only one was published in the 1990s (see Fig. 1). This could easily be explained by the fact that the GB concept was emerging in the 1990s (Kibert, 2012; Yudelson, 2007) and, therefore, few publications were made during that period. On the other hand, the remaining 60 papers were published during the period between 2000 and 2015, demonstrating that GB has attracted an increasing amount of attention from researchers in the last few years. This is not surprising as GB has, in present times, become one of the hottest topics in CM research. Many academic institutions have injected GB

Table 2 Score matrix for multi-authored papers. Number of authors

1 2 3 4 5

Order of specific author 1

2

3

4

5

1.00 0.60 0.47 0.42 0.38

0.40 0.32 0.28 0.26

0.21 0.18 0.17

0.12 0.11

0.08

elements into curriculums, increasing the awareness of researchers on the subject. Also, due to environmental and global climate change concerns, global and national sustainability agendas have brought attention to GB. However, there has not been a stable output of GB research publications; there are several increases and declines at certain times (see Fig. 1). Nonetheless, there is an increasing trend from one paper in 1998 to 12 papers in 2013 (the peak within the studied period), 8 papers in 2014, and 5 papers in 2015 (as of end of August e expected to increase at the end of the year). To sum up, these findings obviously show that GB research has experienced an increasing trend of interest in the 21st century compared with the 20th century, signifying that GB is becoming more important to the global construction community. This is explained by the numerous present-day GB initiatives, from both governmental and non-governmental groups, for catalyzing the adoption of GBs across the world. For example, most governments are currently governing or planning to govern market activities through the promulgation of legislations and national public GB policies (such as mandatory minimum energy-efficiency standards). 4.2. Contributions of countries, institutions, and researchers to GB research Assessing the contributions of authors from different countries and institutions has been in the interest of many researchers in different fields (Little, 1997; Roberts, Davis, Zanger, Gerrard-Morris, & Robinson, 2006). For this study, in calculating the contribution of each country and institution to GB research, the score matrix presented in Table 2 was applied. The final contribution score of a particular country and institution was determined by summing up the individual scores of all authors from the same country and institution. For example, if author ‘X’, from a particular country, has the first and second authorship, respectively, in two different papers, in which there are just two authors, according to the score matrix, author ‘X’ is scored one point (0.6 þ 0.4) each for his or her country and institution. After detailed computation, the countries of origin of the selected papers are summarized in Table 3 together with the total number of researchers and institutions involved, and the contribution score of each country. From Table 3, it is seen that during the studied period, GB studies were conducted in both developed and developing countries, indicating that GB is of a global interest. However, majority of the studies were conducted by researchers from developed countries; they published about 90% of the identified papers. In turn, among the countries that contributed to the reviewed papers, the following developed countries: the US, Hong Kong, the UK, Singapore, and Italy are the leading countries with contribution scores of 25.97, 4.26, 3.60, and 3.17 respectively. This implies that

Number of papers

A. Darko, A.P.C. Chan / Habitat International 57 (2016) 53e63

13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

57

12

8 6

6

6 5

5 3 2 1

1

1998

2000

3 2

1 2001

2005

2006

2007 2008 2009 2010 Year of publication

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Fig. 1. Annual GB research publication trend from 1990 to 2015 (as of end of August).

Table 3 Origins of selected GB research papers. Country

Institutions/universities

Researchers

Papers

Score

US Hong Kong UK Singapore Italy Australia Canada Spain China New Zealand Egypt Sweden Portugal Ireland Chile Colombia Taiwan UAE

29 2 5 3 2 5 4 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

55 10 9 6 4 6 5 6 6 3 3 2 2 1 2 3 1 1

28 5 4 5 3 4 3 2 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

25.97 4.26 3.60 3.17 3.00 2.84 2.17 2.00 1.72 1.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.58 0.54 0.11

authors to GB research. Although several authors were identified, only authors who obtained contribution scores of at least one point are listed in Table 5. It is important to stress here that some key authors (i.e., authors with a number of publications) in the GB field may be missing because of the formula used in this study for calculating the contribution scores. As mentioned previously, the formula takes into account the specific order of authors as well as the number of authors. According to Table 5, authors with the highest contributions to GB research include Korkmaz, S. from Michigan State University (US), Dewlaney, K. from University of Colorado, Boulder (US), and Hwang, B.G. from National University of Singapore (Singapore). This is reasonable because the countries that contributed to most of the analyzed papers include the US and Singapore (see Table 3). This information may serve as valuable references for individuals who are interested in GB research and developments. Again, identifying active authors in GB research is relevant for GB researchers and practitioners to form useful collaborations for future research opportunities (Hong et al., 2012). 4.3. Research topics covered

these countries have made more contributions to GB research compared with other countries. When examining the extent of focus on sustainable construction in these countries, these facts may be perceived to be meaningful and logical. Great emphasis of industrial practices on sustainable construction advanced GB research in those locations. Furthermore, it is worth noting that developing nations such as China, Egypt, and Colombia also made good attempts in advancing GB research, with contribution scores of 1.72, 1.00, and 0.58 respectively. Multiple factors such as immature publication culture, GB yet to be seen as a priority in construction activities, and lack of awareness on the potentials of GB may have contributed the low manifestation of GB research in developing countries. The results show that many researchers from different parts of the world and institutions dedicated time and efforts to conduct GB studies during the studied period (this assertion is corroborated by evidences in Tables 3e5). In terms of institutions, the top 10 research centers publishing GB-related papers in the field of construction are shown in Table 4. The country of origin, number of researchers and papers, and the contribution score of each research center are also presented. Research centers that contributed most to GB research include University of Colorado, Boulder (US), the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Hong Kong), Michigan State University (US), National University of Singapore (Singapore), and Stanford University (US), with contribution scores of 3.33, 3.00, 2.05, 2.00, and 2.00 respectively (see Table 4). We also analyzed the contributions of various

Zuo and Zhao (2014) classified common GB research topics into three main categories: definition and scope of GB, quantification of benefits of GBs compared to non-green buildings, and various approaches to achieve GBs. In this study, research interests/topics in GB-related papers published within the studied period have been identified and classified into four distinct groups for summarizing and differentiating them. Interestingly, some identified sub-topics, such as GB rating systems and benefits of GB, happen to be in line with those discussed by Zuo and Zhao. The four main categories of GB research interests identified are: (1) GB project delivery and developments; (2) GB certifications; (3) energy performance; and (4) advanced technologies. Though deciding on the research interest of a particular paper seems subjective and uncertain (Themistocleous & Wearne, 2000), this classification was done by the same group of researchers, which means that any differences in opinions could be minimalized or even eradicated (Hong et al., 2012). However, this classification was done purely for the purpose of comparisons. Thus, the classification of GB papers, provided herein, based on their research interests is considered to be valuable and apt for reference only to some extent. Each paper was assigned to only one of the four main research interests. Thus, if a paper seems to cover multiple research interest, it is grouped under the best-fit category. A critical analysis of the selected GB papers showed that GB studies, conducted during the studied period, mainly delved into (1) GB project delivery and development issues (e.g. Li, Chen, Chew, & Teo, 2014b; Mollaoglu-Korkmaz, Swarup, & Riley, 2013; Swarup,

58

A. Darko, A.P.C. Chan / Habitat International 57 (2016) 53e63

Table 4 Top 10 research centers publishing GB-related papers in construction (using the score matrix). Rank

Institution/university

Country

Researchers

Papers

Score

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

University of Colorado, Boulder The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Michigan State University National University of Singapore Stanford University Politecnico di Bari Pennsylvania State University Oxford Brookes University Georgia Institute of Technology University of Hong Kong

US Hong Kong US Singapore US Italy US UK US Hong Kong

4 6 5 3 5 2 3 5 4 4

4 3 4 3 2 2 4 2 2 2

3.33 3.00 2.05 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.95 1.88 1.42 1.26

Table 5 Contributions of authors to GB research (authors who scored at least one point). Researcher

Papers

Affiliation

Country

Score

Korkmaz, S. Dewlaney, K. Hwang, B. Hallowell, M. R. Ofori, G. Costantino, N. Berardi, U Wiston, N. Levitt, R.E. Perry, K. T.

4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Michigan State University University of Colorado, Boulder National University of Singapore University of Colorado, Boulder National University of Singapore Politecnico di Bari Politecnico di Bari University College Dublin Stanford University Murray State University

US US Singapore US Singapore Italy Italy Ireland US US

1.54 1.19 1.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Korkmaz, & Riley, 2011; Li, Chen, Chew, Teo, & Ding, 2011; Korkmaz, Riley, & Horman, 2010; and; Horman et al., 2006; Theaker & Cole, 2001; Hwang, Zhao, & Tan, 2015); (2) issues relating to GB certifications (e.g. Gou & Lau, 2014; Bendewald & Zhai, 2013; Berardi,  rez, & Medaglia, 2009; Bray & 2012; Castro-Lacouture, Sefair, Flo McCurry, 2006; and; Kosheleva & Elliott, 2006); (3) energy performance of buildings (e.g. Sesana & Salvalai, 2013; Ding & Forsythe, 2013; Danatzko, Sezen, & Chen, 2013; and; Xu & Chan, 2013); and (4) integration of advanced technologies into GB projects (e.g. Inyim, Rivera, & Zhu, 2015; Wu & Issa, 2015; and; Bynum, Issa, & Olbina, 2013). Table 6 summarizes the four major research topics together with their sub-topics and the percentage of papers falling under each research topic. It shows that more attention has been paid to GB project delivery and developments with 44% of the papers falling under this area, followed by GB certifications” (31%), energy performance (18%), and advanced technologies (7%). To provide detailed insights into the current status of GB research, the following sections will examine the previous studies based on the identified research interests. This allows easier identification of what remains to be done from what has been done, based on which future research directions can be derived. 4.3.1. Current status of GB research interests Due to the negative environmental impacts of traditional

construction activities and an increased awareness of the world on global climate change, GB has become more popular in recent years, and majority of the existing studies have concentrated on “GB project delivery and developments” (see Table 6). The literature in relation to this topic covers a great variety of sub-topics that basically focus on issues relating to the implementation and development of GB projects. In other words, most of the previous studies have mainly focused on the exploration of factors or aspects that have the potential of facilitating or hindering GB implementation, such as project management or project delivery attributes that can affect or improve the final outcomes of GB projects, barriers to GB adoption, and benefits of GB. As long as stakeholders keep realizing that GB can positively impact and thus address several environmental issues, it is predicted that more future projects will be seeking green certification, thus the demand for green construction will keep increasing. Hence, the sub-topics under “GB project delivery and developments” will continue to be in the interest of future researchers. The second popular topic is “GB certifications”. This topic deals with issues such as the customization of GB certification systems, assessment of environmental benefits of GB certification systems, and review of GB certification systems. The results in Table 6 show that a number of research efforts have been devoted to these issues and it is not surprising to discover this because “a key catalyst for moving green buildings into the mainstream is the development of reliable standards and evaluation criteria around the world” (Lockwood, 2006, p. 3). These research efforts have contributed to the development of worldwide GB certification systems, of which the most popular and internationally recognized ones include Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) (US) and BRE Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) (UK). GB certification systems provide methods, targets, and recognition for efforts that are made toward the development of GBs (Lee & Burnett, 2006). In turn, it only suffices to say that a building is ‘green’ after it has received a GB certification system’s recognition. This study has found that good efforts have been made toward a worldwide diffusion of GB certification systems and it is necessary to keep promoting such efforts at different national levels. That is, in a given

Table 6 Percentage of papers falling within the four main research topics/interests. Research topics

Sub-topics

Percentage of papers (%)

Green building project delivery and developments

GB project management issues; Schedule performance and influential factors; Resources and capabilities for delivering GB projects; GB project delivery metrics; Health and safety management in GB; Safety risk quantification; Project delivery attributes and features; Role of stakeholders; GB cost; GB design; GB barriers; GB Project delivery methods; Benefits of GB; Occupant satisfaction; Definitions/Emergence/Evolution of GB Customization of GB certification systems; Assessing environmental benefits of GB rating systems; Overview of GB rating systems; GB assessment methods; environmental analysis; sustainability assessment Energy consumption and efficiency issues; Lifecycle energy analysis BIM execution in GB projects, Simulation of Environmental Impact of Construction (SimulEICon)

44

Green building certifications Energy performance Advanced technologies

31 18 7

A. Darko, A.P.C. Chan / Habitat International 57 (2016) 53e63

country, there is the need to develop GB standards that suit the local conditions. It is therefore considered that, in future, GB certification will continue to be a hot topic in GB research. Regarding the third topic, “energy performance”, two sub-topics were identified: energy consumption or energy-efficiency of buildings and lifecycle energy analysis. Buildings account for 40% of the world’s total energy use. Hence, the need to reduce energy use and introduce renewable energy sources in buildings have been important and long-standing issues in the building industry. In the European Union, for instance, it is stipulated in a recast directive on the energy performance of buildings (EPBD) that by 2020, all newly constructed buildings should reach nearly zero-energy levels (Sesana & Salvalai, 2013), meaning that all new buildings are expected to be highly energy-efficient in less than a decade. Also, energy-efficiency is an essential requirement of GB certification systems, that buildings that are not energy-efficient cannot be certified as GBs (Howe, 2010). These issues have placed demand on researchers to study into ways of improving energy performance of buildings. Sesana and Salvalai (2013), for example, studied life cycle methodologies (including Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Energy Analyses (LCEA)) and their implications for Nearly Zero Energy Building (nZEB) design. Although there was a relatively less research attention paid to issues that are specifically focused on improving the energy performance of buildings during the studied period, it is projected that the interest on this topic will increase and remain an important focus. In fact, given the popularity gained by “advanced technologies” such as building information modeling (BIM) in architectural design and construction nowadays, it was unexpected to find that research attention on BIM is by far the lowest in the GB arena. This may imply that the adoption of BIM in sustainable building design is currently low. A careful review of the literature has shown that this may be because it is difficult for the traditional BIM to handle the complexities involved in GB projects (Inyim et al., 2015), but more comprehensive studies on how to successfully introduce BIM to support sustainable design decisions, which involve several conflicting project objectives, have yet to be conducted. This clearly indicates that there is the need to address this problem, by making advanced information communication technologies (ICTs) an important focus of much GB research, in order to benefit from their abilities in fostering decision-making effectiveness at the design stage of a project. 4.3.2. Knowledge gaps and future studies In an effort to highlight research directions that are worth to be further explored, this section is focused on pointing out gaps in the existing body of knowledge. To conserve space, this study chose to focus on three important gaps, with the first two identified from the first research topic “GB project delivery and developments” and the last one identified from the fourth research topic “advanced technologies”: (1) Barriers to GB adoption and strategies for overcoming the barriers, especially in developing countries. GB has seen a significant growth during the past 15 years. Public awareness on the benefits of GB has increased as a result of prominent documentarians, politicians, journalists, and celebrities highlighting the impacts of the built environment on natural resource consumption and greenhouse gas emissions (Robichaud & Anantatmula, 2011). Despite the benefits of GB, barriers to its widespread adoption still exist. In a particular country, it is necessary to understand the barriers affecting GB adoption in order to devise appropriate strategies to overcome those barriers. Past studies have investigated factors hindering the adoption of GBs (Hwang & Tan, 2012;

59

Mulligan, Mollaoglu-Korkmaz, Cotner, & Goldsberry, 2014; Williams & Dair, 2007; Winston, 2010). They have identified factors such as high cost, lack of GB codes and regulations, and lack of information as important barriers to GB adoption, and have recommended measures to overcome the barriers. However, it appears that all of these studies focused more on GB barriers from the perspective of developed countries such as the US, England, and Singapore. Given the acceleration of infrastructural development and rapid urbanization experienced by most developing countries (Du Plessis, 2007), the need for GBs in the developing world has been spurred. Construction companies in developing countries are striving to integrate green measures into their construction plans to mitigate the impacts of future large-scale development in the built environment on the natural environment and human health. Therefore, examining the barriers to successful adoption of GB in developing countries, and devising strategies to break down the barriers for rapid and wider adoption of the green concept in those countries should be a promising research direction. (2) Exploration of critical success factors (CSFs) for GB projects, and their influences on GB project outcomes. For a long time, the topics “project success” and “critical success factors” have been in the interest of many researchers. There are several definitions of project success in the literature. One of the earliest definitions was put forward by Ashley, Lurie, and Jaselskis (1987 cited in Sanvido, Grobler, Parfitt, Guvenis, & Coyle, 1992, pp. 95), who defined project success as “having results much better than expected or normally observed in terms of cost, schedule, quality, safety, and participant satisfaction”. The term CSFs has also been introduced over the last several decades. In a business context, Rockart (1979, pp. 85) defined CSFs as “those few key areas of activity in which favorable results are absolutely necessary for a particular manager to reach his or her goals”. Boynton and Zmud (1984, pp. 17) also defined CSFs as “those few things that must go well to ensure success for a manager and an organization, and therefore, they represent those managerial or enterprise areas that must be given special and continual attention to bring about high performance”. In the context of project/project management, the term CSFs was first used by Rockart (1982 cited in Sanvido et al., 1992), and it is defined as “those factors predicting success on projects” (Sanvido et al., 1992, pp. 97). CSFs cannot only be used to develop a set of strategies, to identify critical issues that are associated with the implementation of a plan (Boynton & Zmud, 1984), but they can also be used to direct the efforts of an organization towards the development of a strategic plan (Munro & Wheeler, 1980). In essence, CSFs can enable management and all project participants/ stakeholders to identify key or important areas of or issues on a project that require special attention in order to meet project goals or to achieve success/high performance. The study and application of CSFs has, therefore, been postulated as a promising approach for the construction industry to improve project efficiency. However, as remarked by Li et al. (2011), most of the previous studies (Ashley et al., 1987; Florence, 2005; Iyer & Jha, 2006; Sanvido et al., 1992) have focused on the traditional “iron triangle” criteria of measuring project success (i.e. quality, cost, and schedule/time) to develop CSFs for general and conventional projects rather than GB projects. Factors such as energy-efficiency, improved occupants’ health, and environmental protection make GB projects unique, therefore there has been an urgent need for the building sector to include an extra dimension (i.e. the environment) to its success paradigm (Ofori, 1992).

60

A. Darko, A.P.C. Chan / Habitat International 57 (2016) 53e63

A critical review of the literature has shown that few studies have started to investigate factors or project delivery attributes that potentially affect the success of GB projects in the construction industry. For example, Lapinski, Horman, and Riley (2006) discovered that five key value-added processes contribute to the successful delivery of GB projects: (1) deciding to evaluate and adopt sustainable objectives at the very early stage of the project, even as early as capital budgeting; (2) identifying and pursuing building features that naturally align with sustainability; (3) aligning sustainable objectives to the business case of the project; (4) devoting time to align individual team member goals with project goals; and (5) selecting an experienced design and construction team at the early phase of the project. With cost, quality, sustainable highperformance, and schedule as dependent variables and “project delivery system”, “owner commitment”, “project team procurement”, “design integration”, “contract conditions”, “construction process”, and “project team characteristics” as independent variables, Korkmaz et al. (2010) investigated the factors that can lead to the successful delivery of GB projects. They found that “the timing of project participants’ involvement in the delivery process” and “owner type” are important factors for GB project outcomes. Swarup et al. (2011) adopted and investigated the influences of the project delivery attributes developed by Korkmaz et al. (2010) on project outcomes and identified that “strong owner commitment towards sustainability”, “the integration in the delivery process by an early involvement of the constructor”, and “the early inclusion of green strategies” are attributes that can have important effects on sustainability goals. Li et al. (2014b) explored the critical recourses and capabilities for design firms to successfully deliver GB projects. The impact of main delivery methods (including construction management at risk (CMR), design-bid-build (DBB), and designbuild (DB)) for GB projects on the level of team integration, which is known to have an influence on better project outcomes, were also investigated by Mallaoglu-Korkmaz et al. (2013). However, Li et al. (2011) argued that most of the above studies only emphasized on factors that are unique to GB projects (such as early adoption of sustainable objectives), which are not even reorganized as CSFs for better project performance in terms of quality, time, and cost by most previous researchers. Acknowledging this, Li et al. (2011) attempted to address the problem by also exploring few critical project management factors for delivering GB projects. Hwang and Ng (2013) also studied critical project management knowledge and skills of project managers for executing GB projects. There are several inadequacies associated with the existing studies on factors affecting the success of GB projects, which should lay a solid foundation for future researchers to probe into the issue and develop the knowledge base in this area. First, studies on factors predicting success on GB projects are limited. Second, the existing literature on this topic is mainly project or project management-based. That is, previous researchers have placed more emphasis on project-related and project managementrelated factors. It should be noted that factors for a successful project go beyond just project-related factors and project management actions; thus, other important project success factors such as human-related factors (e.g., project team leaders’ working relationship with others), the external environment (e.g., political influences), and project procedures (e.g., tendering methods) (see, for example, Chan et al., 2004) are yet to be tested on GB projects. Third, rigorous studies to verify the extent of influence of different factors on GB project outcomes would be valuable in future. Lastly, as indicated earlier, the application of CSFs in CM research has over the years concentrated on cost, time, and quality (the traditional project success criteria) for benchmarking project performance. In future, expanding the definition of CSFs to take account of environmental and sustainability issues should be of some practical use

to industry practitioners to further understand factors or key areas to consider to successfully deliver projects that are effective in terms of cost, time, quality as well as meeting sustainability (i.e., environmental, social, and economic) goals. (3) Studies on the implementation of advanced information communication technologies (ICTs) e BIM e in GB design and construction. ICTs, such as BIM, have, today, seen a widespread use in the architecture-engineering-construction (AEC) industry for enhancing decisions during the design and construction of a project. The design and construction of a project is a complex task full of uncertainties and to facilitate communication among the multiple parities and teams involved in this operation, ICT is the key (Verbeeck & Hens, 2010). Rather than making decisions that consider individual components, ICT allows for decision-making that takes the whole project into account, thereby eliminating any unexpected consequences (Verbeeck & Hens, 2010). In general, the AEC industry utilizes ICT for three main purposes: (1) communications; (2) computing and processing; and (3) information management and service (Inyim et al., 2015). Because BIM allows multiple personnel to work in a collaborative manner and serves several objectives at the same time, it is regarded as an example of advanced ICT approach in information management and services. According to Bynum et al. (2013), BIM is capable of accelerating the extraction of knowledge that have been accrued in multiple simulations that can be used in defining product development standards and suggestions. Thus, the BIM model itself is useful for generating a number of effective solutions throughout the modeling of a project. A building information model comprises of the building’s actual assemblies and not just a mere twodimensional (2D) representation of the building that is easily produced by computer-aided design (CAD) drawings (Krygiel & Nies, 2008). There are a number of books and papers on BIM. For detailed description of the BIM concept, it benefits, etc., the reader is referred to Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks, & Liston, 2011; Azhar, 2011. One of the important benefits of BIM is its ability to be used to virtually construct a building prior to the actual construction of the building. This does not only provide an effective means for checking the constructability of the building in the real world and for resolving any uncertainties during the process, but it also allows for efficiently designed buildings that reduce materials wastage, promote the use of passive design strategies, and ensure energyefficiency (Bynum et al., 2013). In view of these benefits of BIM, a considerable amount of research has been carried out to further improve its capabilities in general or conventional building design and construction (Azhar, Nadeem, Mok, & Leung, 2008; Eastman et al., 2011). The design and construction of green or sustainable buildings is a more complicated and an arduous task than that of conventional buildings because of the need to consider environmental friendly objectives. In order to achieve better GB project outcomes or sustainability goals, the making of appropriate decisions regarding the selection of the building’s materials and components at the design phase is a critical step (Flager, Welle, Bansal, Soremekun, & Haymaker, 2009). It is commonly acknowledged that BIM is a crucial tool for addressing the challenges, especially the ‘design decision-making challenge’ that is as a result of the consideration of multiple and usually competing sustainability (economic, social, and environmental) criteria, associated with green construction. For example, it has been reported that BIM provide rich information and parametric models that provide immediate insights into how various design decisions will impact the sustainability performance of a

A. Darko, A.P.C. Chan / Habitat International 57 (2016) 53e63

building (Wu & Issa, 2015). This helps the designer to select the best combination of components and materials for achieving the desired sustainability goals. McGraw-Hill Construction (2010) also emphasized that the adoption of BIM necessitates design integration, which normally engages all project participants to effectively collaborate, share information, communicate, and make decisions on how to achieve common GB project goals. Recognizing the potentials of BIM, few companies that are developing GB projects have started embracing and implementing BIM in their projects. This has given birth to the term “green BIM”; that is, the use of BIM tools to help achieve sustainability objectives (McGraw-Hill Construction, 2013). This study has found that, so far, very little research has been conducted on the subject of green BIM. The few papers identified have been very recently published. For example, Wu and Issa (2015) conducted a study on the business case of green BIM to identify the general execution planning of BIM application in GB/LEED projects. They proposed an integrated green BIM process map to help address unique business processes of implementing BIM in LEED projects, in order to promote and facilitate green BIM practices. Through an internet survey for contractors and designers, Bynum et al. (2013) investigated the existing trends of BIM application in general and in enhancing sustainability in the construction industry, and concluded that problems with interoperability continue to persist in BIM applications. Inyim et al. (2015) also argued that due to multi-criteria decision-making, the traditional BIM has limited capability in supporting GB design and construction processes. Based on this, they presented “Simulation of Environmental Impact of Construction (SimulEICon)” as an extension/modification of the traditional BIM, which integrates a multi-objective tool, genetic algorithm (GA), with BIM. They claimed that SimulEICon has the capability of finding GB solutions in a more optimal way. In summary, as in the case of CSFs, the immaturity of research in the area of green BIM, which could be attributed to the fact that green BIM is an emerging practice in the AEC industry, presents another potential direction for future researchers to add to the knowledge base. Based on the literature review, specific issues that could be addressed by future research comprise: (1) what other possible modifications/extensions can be made to BIM to further enhance its ability to support GB decisions (would it be beneficial to integrate it with more objective tools such as data envelopment analysis (DEA) and fuzzy sets theory/fuzzy logic)?; (2) how best can the interoperability problems associated with BIM applications be resolved to improve its capabilities in GB design and construction?; (3) factors for enabling BIM diffusion and actual implementation in GB projects; and (4) assessment of the actual impacts of BIM on GB project outcomes. 5. Concluding remarks The mounting global concerns on sustainability and climate change have made GB one of the major issues in the construction industry. There have consequently been proliferations of research on GB in recent years. As a result, the objective of this study was to provide insights into GB research trends and developments in the construction industry by systematically analyzing GB research papers published in 10 selected CM journals, namely BE, JCEM, CME, JGB, HI, SD, JME, BRI, ECAM, and PICE-CE from 1990 to 2015. A total of 61 GB-related papers were analyzed in this study. Analysis of the annual number of published papers revealed an increasing trend of GB research publication in recent years. Developed countries such as the US, Hong Kong, the UK, Singapore, and Italy have made the most contributions to GB research by publishing majority of the GB-related papers. Albeit developing countries such as China, Egypt, and Colombia made good efforts to promote GB research, they are expected to increase their efforts,

61

given the rapid rate of urbanization experienced in the developing world. Regarding institutions, it was identified that researchers from University of Colorado, Boulder (US), the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Hong Kong), Michigan State University (US), National University of Singapore (Singapore), and Stanford University (US) published most of the GB research papers. Four categories: (1) GB project delivery and developments; (2) GB certifications; (3) energy performance; and (4) advanced technologies were identified as the main research interests of GB publications. Among them, “GB project delivery and developments” has been the dominant topic and will continue to be a hot issue in future research. Furthermore, based on the analysis of current status of GB research interests, future research directions are proposed. First, despite barriers to successful adoption of GB have gained attention from researchers, studies on GB barriers in developing countries are rarely reported in the literature. For future studies, it would be of interest to explore and examine barriers affecting the GB market from the perspective of developing countries, and propose solutions to overcome these barriers in specific developing countries for rapid and wider adoption of GBs. This may be a promising approach to alleviate the negative impacts that future developmental activities may bring upon human health and the environment. It was also identified that the application of CSFs in CM research has not yet broadly considered sustainability and environmental issues in measuring project success. The major implication of this finding is that future studies should focus on CSFs for GB projects. The future studies could specifically develop a conceptual framework on CSFs for GB projects and provide a practical definition of what CSFs mean in the GB arena. By so doing, industry practitioners may better understand the pivotal attributes to successfully deliver projects that meet cost, time, quality as well as sustainability objectives. Lastly, as an emerging practice in the AEC industry, green BIM has been found to have received very little research attention. Hence, it is recommended to conduct further studies on how to successfully apply BIM tools to improve GB design and construction decisions. Though the objectives of this study were achieved, conclusions from the results should be drawn in the light of some limitations. The first limitation comes from the relatively small sample size of 61 papers (which is attributed to the limited number of search keywords used) analyzed in this study. This is justified by the impracticality of considering all possible GB research keywords in a single review study. Therefore, it is acknowledged that although the selected papers can reflect the overall GB research trend, not all relevant studies have been reviewed. It is also appreciated that this review is not exhaustive as it was restricted to only the construction industry, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other industries. Future review may be required to increase the sample size and probably focus on GB in other industries as well, to provide findings that would be useful for future proofing of what have been reported in this paper. The information presented in this paper may be valuable for both industry practitioners and researchers to gain an understanding of the current status and future direction of GB research. Researchers in particular may benefit from research directions to nourish the existing body of GB knowledge. Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University for funding this research. We also acknowledge the anonymous reviewers and editors who provided constructive comments for improving this paper.

62

A. Darko, A.P.C. Chan / Habitat International 57 (2016) 53e63

References Ahmad, T., Thaheem, M. J., & Anwar, A. (2016). Developing a green-building design approach by selective use of systems and techniques. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 12(1), 29e50. Ashley, D. B., Lurie, C. S., & Jaselskis, E. J. (1987). Determinants of construction project success. Project Management Journal, 18(2), 69e79. Azhar, S. (2011). Building information modeling (BIM): Trends, benefits, risks, and challenges for the AEC industry. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 11(3), 241e252. Azhar, S., Nadeem, A., Mok, J. Y. N., & Leung, B. H. Y. (2008). Building information modeling (BIM): A new paradigm for visual interactive modeling and simulation for construction projects. In Proc., ICCIDC-I, Karachi, Pakistan (pp. 435e446). Bendewald, M., & Zhai, Z. J. (2013). Using carrying capacity as a baseline for building sustainability assessment. Habitat International, 37, 22e32. Berardi, U. (2012). Sustainability assessment in the construction sector: Rating systems and rated buildings. Sustainable Dev, 20(6), 411e424. Boynton, A. C., & Zmud, R. W. (1984). An assessment of critical success factors. Sloan management review, 25(4), 17. Bray, J., & McCurry, N. (2006). Unintended consequences: How the use of LEED can inadvertently fail to benefit the environment. Journal of Green Building, 1(4), 152e165. Bynum, P., Issa, R. R., & Olbina, S. (2013). Building information modeling in support of sustainable design and construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(1), 24e34. Cassidy, R. (2003). White paper on sustainability: A report on the green building movement. Supplement to building design and construction. rez, L., & Medaglia, A. L. (2009). Optimization Castro-Lacouture, D., Sefair, J. A., Flo model for the selection of materials using a LEED-based green building rating system in Colombia. Building and Environment, 44(6), 1162e1170. Chan, A. P., Chan, D. W., Chiang, Y. H., Tang, B. S., Chan, E. H., & Ho, K. S. (2004). Exploring critical success factors for partnering in construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130(2), 188e198. Chau, K. W. (1997). The ranking of construction management journals. Construction Management & Economics, 15(4), 387e398. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial RandD. Management science, 48(1), 1e23. Comstock, M., Garrigan, C., & Pouffary, S. (2012). Building design and construction: Forging resource efficiency and sustainable development, a report produced under the coordination and supervision UNEP-DTIE. Available at: http://www.unep.org/ sbci/pdfs/UNEP_SBCI_PositionPaperJune2012.pdf Accessed 27.12.15. Danatzko, J. M., Sezen, H., & Chen, Q. (2013). Sustainable design and energy consumption analysis for structural components. Journal of Green Building, 8(1), 120e135. Deng, F., & Smyth, H. (2013). Contingency-based approach to firm performance in construction: Critical review of empirical research. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(10), 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000738, 04013004. Ding, G., & Forsythe, P. J. (2013). Sustainable construction: Life cycle energy analysis of construction on sloping sites for residential buildings. Construction Management and Economics, 31(3), 254e265. Du Plessis, C. (2007). A strategic framework for sustainable construction in developing countries. Construction Management and Economics, 25(1), 67e76. Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., & Liston, K. (2011). Bim handbook: A guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers, and contractors. New York: Wiley. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB Journal, 22, 338e342. Flager, F., Welle, B., Bansal, P., Soremekun, G., & Haymaker, J. (2009). Multidisciplinary process integration and design optimization of a classroom building. CIFE Technical Rep. TR175. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.. Florence, Y. Y. L. (2005). Models for predicting quality of building projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 12(1), 6e20. Gou, Z., & Lau, S. S. Y. (2014). Contextualizing green building rating systems: Case study of Hong Kong. Habitat International, 44, 282e289. Gou, Z., Lau, S. S. Y., & Prasad, D. (2013). Market readiness and policy implications for green buildings: Case study from Hong Kong. Journal of Green Building, 8(2), 162e173. HKGBC. (2015). Homepage. Available at: https://www.hkgbc.org.hk/eng/ Abouthkgbc.aspx Accessed 27.12.15. Hoffman, A. J., & Henn, R. (2008). Overcoming the social and psychological barriers to green building. Organization & Environment, 21(4), 390e419. Hong, Y., & Chan, D. W. (2014). Research trend of joint ventures in construction: A two-decade taxonomic review. Journal of facilities management, 12(2), 118e141. Hong, Y., Chan, D. W. M., Chan, A. P. C., & Yeung, J. F. Y. (2012). Critical analysis of partnering research trend in construction journals. Journal of management in engineering, 28(2), 82e95. Horman, M. J., Riley, D. R., Lapinski, A. R., Korkmaz, S., Pulaski, M. H., Magent, C. S., et al. (2006). Delivering green buildings: Process improvements for sustainable construction. Journal of Green Building, 1(1), 123e140. Howard, G. S., Cole, D. A., & Scot, M. E. (1987). Research productivity in psychology based on publication in the journals of the American Psychological Association. American Psychologist, 42, 975e986.

Howe, J. C. (2010). Overview of green buildings. National Wetlands Newsletter, 33(1), 3e14. Hwang, B. G., & Ng, W. J. (2013). Project management knowledge and skills for green construction: Overcoming challenges. International Journal of Project Management, 31(2), 272e284. Hwang, B. G., & Tan, J. S. (2012). Green building project management: Obstacles and solutions for sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 20(5), 335e349. Hwang, B. G., Zhao, X., & Tan, L. L. G. (2015). Green building projects: Schedule performance, influential factors and solutions. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 22(3), 327e346. Inyim, P., Rivera, J., & Zhu, Y. (2015). Integration of building information modeling and economic and environmental impact analysis to support sustainable building design. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(1), A4014002. Iyer, K. C., & Jha, K. N. (2006). Critical factors affecting schedule performance: Evidence from Indian construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(8), 871e881. Kats, G., Alevantis, L., Berman, A., Mills, E., & Perlman, J. (2003). The costs and financial benefits of green buildings. A Report to California’s Sustainable Building Task Force. USA. Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/News/News477.pdf Accessed 27.12.15. Kibert, C. J. (2007). The next generation of sustainable construction. Building Research & Information, 35(6), 595e601. Kibert, C. J. (2012). Sustaination: Green building design and delivery (3rd ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Korkmaz, S., Riley, D., & Horman, M. (2010). Piloting evaluation metrics for sustainable, high performance building project delivery. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(8), 877e885. Kosheleva, E., & Elliott, J. (2006). Green building in the russian Context: An investigation into the establishment of a LEED®-based green building rating system in the Russian Federation. Journal of Green Building, 1(3), 105e123. Krygiel, E., & Nies, B. (2008). Green BIM: Successful sustainable design with building information modeling (1st ed.). New York: Wiley. Kubba, S. (2010). “Green” and “sustainability” defined. Green construction project management and cost oversight (pp. 1e27). Boston, MA: Architectural Press. Lapinski, A. R., Horman, M. J., & Riley, D. R. (2006). Lean processes for sustainable project delivery. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(10), 1083e1091. Laustsen, J. (2008). Energy efficiency requirements in building codes, energy efficiency policies for new buildings (pp. 477e488). International Energy Agency (IEA). Lee, W. L., & Burnett, J. (2006). Customization of GBTool in Hong Kong. Building and Environment, 41(12), 1831e1846. Li, Z., Shen, G. Q., & Xue, X. (2014a). Critical review of the research on the management of prefabricated construction. Habitat International, 43, 240e249. Li, Y. Y., Chen, P. H., Chew, D. A. S., & Teo, C. C. (2014b). Exploration of critical resources and capabilities of design firms for delivering green building projects: Empirical studies in Singapore. Habitat International, 41, 229e235. Li, Y. Y., Chen, P., Chew, D. A. S., Teo, C. C., & Ding, R. G. (2011). Critical project management factors of AEC firms for delivering green building projects in Singapore. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(12), 1153e1163. Little, S. G. (1997). Graduate education of the top contributors to the school psychology literature: 1987-1995. School Psychology International, 18(1), 15e27. Li, D. H., Yang, L., & Lam, J. C. (2013). Zero energy buildings and sustainable development Implications-a review. Energy, 554, 1e10. Lockwood, C. (2006). Building the green way. Harvard Business Review, 84(6), 129e137. McGraw-Hill Construction. (2010). Green BIM: How building information modeling is contributing to green design and construction, Bedford, MA. McGraw-Hill Construction. (2013). World green building trends: Business benefits driving new and retrofit market opportunities in over 60 countries, Bedford, MA. Mollaoglu-Korkmaz, S., Swarup, L., & Riley, D. (2013). Delivering sustainable, highperformance Buildings: Influence of project delivery methods on integration and project outcomes. Journal of Management in Engineering, 29(1), 71e78. Mulligan, T. D., Mollaoglu-Korkmaz, S., Cotner, R., & Goldsberry, A. D. (2014). Public policy and impacts on adoption of sustainable built environments: Learning from the constuction industry playmakers. Journal of Green Building, 9(2), 182e202. Munro, M. C., & Wheeler, B. R. (1980). An opinion … comment on critical success factors work (pp. 67e68). MIS Quarterly. Ofori, G. (1992). The environment: The fourth construction project objective? Construction Management and Economics, 10(5), 369e395. Osei-Kyei, R., & Chan, A. P. (2015). Review of studies on the critical success factors for publiceprivate partnership (PPP) projects from 1990 to 2013. International Journal of Project Management, 33(6), 1335e1346. Roberts, G. A., Davis, K. S., Zanger, D., Gerrard-Morris, A., & Robinson, D. H. (2006). Top contributors to the school psychology literature: 1996e2005. Psychology in the Schools, 43(6), 737e743. Robichaud, L. B., & Anantatmula, V. S. (2011). Greening project management practices for sustainable construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 27(1), 48e57. Rockart, J. F. (1979). Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard business review, 57(2), 81e93. Rockart, J. F. (1982). The changing role of the information systems executive: A critical success factors perspective. MIT Sloan Management Review, 23(3), 3e13.

A. Darko, A.P.C. Chan / Habitat International 57 (2016) 53e63 Sangster, W. (2006). Benchmark study on green buildings: Current policies and practices in leading green building nations. Retrieved December, 13, 2015. Sanvido, V., Grobler, F., Parfitt, K., Guvenis, M., & Coyle, M. (1992). Critical success factors for construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118(1), 94e111. Sesana, M. M., & Salvalai, G. (2013). Overview on life cycle methodologies and economic feasibility for nZEBs. Building and Environment, 67, 211e216. Swarup, L., Korkmaz, S., & Riley, D. (2011). Project delivery metrics for sustainable, high-performance buildings. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(12), 1043e1051. Theaker, I. G., & Cole, R. J. (2001). The role of local governments in fostering ‘green’ buildings: A case study. Building Research & Information, 29(5), 394e408. Themistocleous, G., & Wearne, S. H. (2000). Project management topic coverage in journals. International Journal of Project Management, 18(1), 7e11. Tsai, C. C., & Wen, M. C. L. (2005). Research and trends in science education from 1998 to 2002: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 3e14. USGBC. (2003). Building momentum: National trends and prospects for high performance green buildings. Washington, DC: Author. USGBC Research Committee. (2008). A national green building research agenda. Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs3402.pdf Accessed 27.12.15. Verbeeck, G., & Hens, H. (2010). Life cycle inventory of buildings: A calculation method. Building and Environment, 45(4), 1037e1041. Wedding, G. C. (2008). Understanding sustainability in real estate: A focus on measuring and communicating success in green building. North Carolina: University of North Carolina. Williams, K., & Dair, C. (2007). What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable developments. Sustainable Developement, 15(3), 135e147.

63

Winston, N. (2010). Regeneration for sustainable communities? Barriers to implementing sustainable housing in urban areas. Sustainable Developement, 18(6), 319e330. Woolley, T., Kimmins, S., Harrison, R., & Harrison, P. (2002). Green building Handbook: Volume 1: A guide to building products and their impact on the environment. Routledge. Wu, W., & Issa, R. R. (2015). Bim execution planning in green building projects: Leed as a use case. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(1), A4014007. Xu, P., & Chan, E. H. (2013). Anp model for sustainable building energy efficiency retrofit (BEER) using energy performance contracting (EPC) for hotel buildings in China. Habitat International, 37, 104e112. Xue, X., Shen, Q., & Ren, Z. (2010). Critical review of collaborative working in construction projects: Business environment and human behaviors. Journal of Management in Engineering, 26(4), 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479 .0000025, 196e208. Yi, W., & Chan, A. P. (2014). Critical review of labor productivity research in construction journals. Journal of Management in Engineering, 30(2), 214e225. Yuan, H., & Shen, L. (2011). Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste management. Waste Management, 31, 670e679. Yudelson, J. (2007). Green building A to Z: Understanding the language of green building. Gabriola Islands, Canada: New Society Publishers. Yudelson, J. (2008). The green building revolution. Washington, DC: Island Press. Zhai, X. Q., Wang, R. Z., Dai, Y. J., Wu, J. Y., & Ma, Q. (2008). Experience on integration of solar thermal technologies with green buildings. Renewable Energy, 33(8), 1904e1910. Zigenfus, R. E. (2008). Element analysis of the green building process. New York, NY: Rochester Institute of Technology. Zuo, J., & Zhao, Z. Y. (2014). Green building researchecurrent status and future agenda: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 30, 271e281.