Visualized analysis of global green buildings: Development, barriers and future directions

Journal Pre-proof Visualized analysis of global green buildings: Development, barriers and future directions

Qianwen Li, Ruyin Long, Hong Chen, Feiyu Chen, Jiaqi Wang PII:

S0959-6526(19)33645-5

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118775

Reference:

JCLP 118775

To appear in:

Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date:

16 April 2019

Accepted Date:

06 October 2019

Please cite this article as: Qianwen Li, Ruyin Long, Hong Chen, Feiyu Chen, Jiaqi Wang, Visualized analysis of global green buildings: Development, barriers and future directions, Journal of Cleaner Production (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118775

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier.

Journal Pre-proof Word count: 10404 Visualized analysis of global green buildings: Development, barriers and future directions Qianwen Lia, Ruyin Longa,b,, Hong Chena,, Feiyu Chena, Jiaqi Wanga a

School of Management, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, Jiangsu Province, 221116, China

b

Research Center for Energy Economics, School of Business Administration, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo, Henan Province, 454000, China

Abstract: Green building is an important measure to deal with energy and environment problems in the construction sector of the world. In this study, knowledge mapping analysis is used, and 3,060 articles are selected for further study (1900–2019). Based on CiteSpace (5.3.R4 SE 64-bit), the knowledge base, hot topics and research trends of green-building-related research are presented. The key highlights of the overall analysis results are: (1) Research on green buildings has received more extensive attention in the 21st century. During 2000–2010, research on green buildings showed a steady growth trend. Since 2011, the amount of literature has increased rapidly, and green building research is in a period of rapid growth. (2) In the macro-disciplinary analysis, the trends and focus of applied green building research is highlighted. In addition to the environmental, political, economic, and computing fields that green building research has traditionally belonged to, in recent years, some journals have published green-building-related research in the fields of psychology, education, health, medicine, and animal science. (3) In the carrier analysis of meso-research findings, in terms of citation frequency, “Building & Environment,” “Energy & Buildings” and the “Journal of Cleaner Production” were the top three journals. In terms of influence, “Building & Environment,” “Building Research & Information” and “Solar Energy” were the top three journals. (4) In the microcosmic research topic analysis, a timeline visualization of a keyword co-occurrence network containing 14 clusters was generated. “Performance,” “Green Building,” “Sustainability,” “System” and “Construction” were the five most frequently used keywords in this field. Next, the key analysis results were: (5) According to the literature clustering results, 12 research hotspots of early research, intermediate research and recent research on green building were ascertained. (6) The indicators of the research frontier were divided into burst terms and burst articles, wherein the former was divided into four stages according to the burst order. Taking the latest frontier research as an example (i.e., barriers), the “CAPITAL” framework was constructed to overcome the barriers that inhibited the promotion of green buildings from five levels. Finally, the shortcomings of this research are summarized, and some suggestions for future research are put forward. Keywords: Green building, Subject analysis, Knowledge base, Visualization research, Literature review



Corresponding author 1. Tel.: +86-13952298058 E-mail address: [email protected]  Corresponding author 2. Tel.: +86-18605161568 E-mail address: [email protected]

1. Introduction

Journal Pre-proof

Global warming and the energy crisis have always been major problems faced by countries in the process of development. The construction industry accounts for about 40% of the total energy consumption and 30% of total greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries (Geng et al., 2018). Therefore, the reduction of greenhouse gas emission in the construction sector is crucial to combat climate change. Under the consideration that the environmental costs of the traditional construction industry development model is too high, green buildings (GBs) have become an inevitable choice for the transformation and upgrading of the construction industry. A green building (GB) is a new concept of architectural development, also known as sustainable building, high performance building, green construction and sustainable construction (Darko and Chan, 2016). The concept of the GB was proposed as a consequence of the “green revolution” that emerged in the 1980s. It is a positive effort made by human beings to explore the self-survival and the harmonious improvement of the living environment. The purpose of a GB is to handle the relationship among humans, architecture and nature. A GB is defined as a building that can save resources to the maximum extent during its life cycle, including energy, land, water, materials, etc., hence protecting the environment, reducing pollution, and providing people with healthy and comfortable habitation spaces (Li et al., 2019). GBs have attracted widespread attention since the early 1990s. A GB is a concentrated expression of sustainable development in the field of architecture, and it is an integral part of the sustainable development of human society. GBs are not only focused on environmental sustainability, but also on economic and social sustainability issues. As of now, GBs have made tremendous progress, and thousands of buildings around the world have been marked as “green” (Khoshbakht et al., 2018). To help scholars and relevant practitioners develop a deeper understanding of the current situation and future trends of GB research, it is necessary to make a systematic analysis of the existing research results. Up to now, research on GBs has been conducted in many different disciplines, so it has the property of being interdisciplinary. Different scholars start from their own professional background to carry out the research, making it a hot topic in academia. Therefore, it is the starting point of this paper to grasp and sort out existing research on GBs, especially to explore new research topics and fields from the perspective of time series, identify key literature, and summarize the evolution trend of related research to form a panoramic knowledge network structure. This article was designed to answer the following questions: (1) What is the annual publishing trend of GBs from 1990 to 2019? (2) What are the most influential journals and articles in the related research on GBs? (3) What are the knowledge bases, development and research hotspots at different stages of GB research? (4) From different research perspectives (macro, meso and micro), what are the frontiers of GB research in different stages? Scholars have conducted extensive research on various aspects of green buildings in different contexts, but some improvements are still required. (1) The samples in some studies were mainly based on subjective screening, and the sample size was small (Dwaikat and Ali, 2016) ; (2) The research objects were single factors (such as only a review of empirical research) or were concentrated on a specific and limited aspects (Zuo et al., 2017); (3) The retrieval time span of GB related literature was short or included only a certain period of time (e.g., only for 2000-2016), and did not cover the many more recent studies on the subject (Zhao et al.,

Journal Pre-proof 2018). Therefore, the innovation of this research is reflected in two aspects: (1) First, to systematically identify the knowledge basis, development and research hotspots of GBs in different stages through bibliometric and visual analyses (1990-2019), and highlight future research trends by critically reviewing related research. (2) Second, a comprehensive analysis of the subject development, knowledge flow and research topics of GB from macroscopic, mesoscopic and microscopic perspectives. Based on our proposed “CAPITAL” framework (Section 4), a detailed overview of the latest GB frontier issues was extracted and recommendations for improvement were given. This paper will provide a preliminary guide for practitioners and scholars interested in GBs, and provide a useful reference for future GB development. 2. Data sources and research methods 2.1 Data sources The data used in this study comes from the Web of Science (WoS) core collection database. The database contains more than 10,000 multi-disciplinary, high impact, international, authoritative and comprehensive academic journals, and is the most academically authoritative source of citation information in the world (Zhao, 2017). Although Scopus is broader than WoS in terms of coverage, Scopus has high data overlap. Archambault et al. used WoS and Scopus in their bibliometric analysis, and they found that there were no significant differences in their results (Archambault et al., 2009). Therefore, in recent years in the field of architectural research, WoS has often been used as a data source for bibliometric analyses (Li et al., 2017). In addition, the WoS core collection database contains most of the internationally renowned GB publications covering engineering, technology, management, social sciences, and humanities. Therefore, it is reasonable and effective to use WoS as a data source in this study. Drawing on previous research, the following search code was used in our analysis: TS=(“Green Building” OR “Green Housing” OR “Sustainable Building” OR “Construction Sustainability” OR “Green technology” OR “Sustainable Construction” OR “Green Construction” OR “High-performance Building” OR “Highperformance Construction”). The language was "English," the literature type was "Article," and the time span of articles was set as "1990–2019." “TS” stands for the subject of the publication, and in this research, only journal articles were used as valid data, because through peer review, the quality of the articles is higher, and covers more extensive and authoritative information. The data was last updated on March 24, 2019, and the WoS Document Information Management Online System was used to output the literature information data (full records and cited references). At the initial stage of the study, the downloaded data were first not duplicated using CiteSpace, and the final sample size was 3,060 articles. We set the maximum look back years to “-1” in the analysis so that all the documents in the sample data would be included. When analyzing the data, the years per slice was set to “1 year.” 2.2 Research methods CiteSpace is a multivariate, time-sharing and dynamic citation visualization analysis software that focuses on analyzing the potential knowledge contained in scientific literature in the context of scientometrics, data and information visualization. CiteSpace is one of the most widely used knowledge mapping tools at present (Chen, 2006). It uses a time-series dynamic map to describe the macro-structure of the considered knowledge

field and its subsequent development. TheJournal academicPre-proof community often regards the data results based on a CiteSpace analysis as a scientific knowledge map, which is widely used as a feasible research method. The network structure displayed by a scientific knowledge map can effectively represent the information landscape of a certain research topic, realize the analysis of the potential evolution mechanism of the research field and the detection of the frontier, and present the key literature, research hotspots and development trends in the considered field. In this paper we used CiteSpace (5.3.R4 SE 64-bit) to analyze the evolution process, knowledge structure, hot topics and development trends of the GB field from 1990 to the present, develop a dynamic and multi-dimensional network analysis and draw the corresponding knowledge map. 3. Analysis and discussion of results The writing path of this research was from macro to micro, from intuitive to complex, from the whole to individual parts. The specific analysis included: Publishing trends–subject analysis (macro)→Keyword analysis (micro & intuitive)→Co-citation analysis (complex & whole)→Typical cluster analysis (parts). 3.1 Annual publishing trends The concept of the GB was first defined in the 1990s. At this time, the field of GB research was in its infancy, so there were few related studies published during this decade. Except for two papers published in 1998, the rest of the papers were published in 2000–2019 (Fig. 1), indicating that GBs have received increased attention over the past 20 years. In October 1998, 14 major Western industrial countries held an international conference on “Green Building Challenge ‘98” in Canada (Todd et al., 2001). Subsequently, in October 2000, the “International Conference on Sustainable Building 2000” was held in the Netherlands, marking the full development of the international GB movement (Jones, 2000). Therefore, from 2000 to 2010, there was a steady increase in research on GB, where the number of peer-reviewed papers increased from 10 to 100. Since 2011, the amount of literature has increased rapidly, and GB research is in a period of rapid growth. Compared with the 20th century, the study of GBs has received more attention in the 21st century, which may be due to increased focus on climate change and the new commitment to constructing GB environments. It also means that GBs are becoming increasingly important to the global architectural community. At present, governments around the world generally manage GB market activities through policies and GB legislation.

As of the end of March 2019

Fig. 1. Publication of GB related papers from 1998 to 2019 (as of the end of March 2019).

Journal Pre-proof 3.2 Overall analysis of GB-related research: Macro, meso and micro 3.2.1 Analysis of macro knowledge flow CiteSpace has a dual-map analysis module, which can display the distribution of papers in the field of GB research, citation trajectory, knowledge flow and other information through a dual-map overlay analysis of journals, which uses the Blondel algorithm to form journal clusters (Chen and Leydesdorff, 2014). A dualmap overlay analysis of a journal consists of left and right sides. The left side shows the distribution of journals in which the cited articles are located, representing the main disciplines of GB research. The right side provides the journal distribution of the cited literature, representing which disciplines are mainly cited in GB research. The former can be regarded as the application fields of GBs, and the latter can be regarded as the research bases of GBs. The center of the ellipse in the figure represents the subject area of a particular journal. The horizontal axis of the ellipse on the left represents the number of authors, and the vertical axis represents the number of publications. Meanwhile, the horizontal axis of the ellipse on the right represents the number of cited authors, and the vertical axis represents the number of times a journal has been cited. The journal links on the left and right sides reflect the citation relationship of the left journal to the right journal. In Fig. 2, we use the Z-Score algorithm to standardize the citation links, so as to present the citation relationship between the journals on the left and the right more concisely, and finally get five obvious citation tracks: ① Physics, Materials, Chemistry→Chemistry, Materials, Physics; ② Physics, Materials, Chemistry→Environmental, Toxicology, Nutrition; ③Veterinary, Animal, Science→Chemistry, Materials, Physics; ④Veterinary, Animal, Science→Environmental, Toxicology, Nutrition; ⑤Economics, Economic, Political→Economics, Economic, Political. For example, the publications of the economics and political sciences (blue curve) are based on at least four disciplines on the right side of Fig. 2, which indicates that the applied research of GB shows a trend of interdisciplinary. In the field of GBs, studies mainly cited four disciplines as the research foundation (right side of Fig. 2): “Environmental, Toxicology, Nutrition,” “Mathematical, Mathematics, Mechanics,” “Economics, Economic, Political” and “Systems, Computing, Computer.” The most frequently published journals in these four disciplines were “Building & Environment,” “Construction & Building Materials,” “Energy Policy” and the “European Journal of Operational Research.” Their related research results have been applied to “Veterinary, Animal, Science,” “Mathematical, Mathematics, Mechanics,” “Economics, Economic, Political” and “Psychology, Education, Health” (left side of Fig. 2). The “Journal of Cleaner Production.” “Construction & Building Materials,” and “Energy Policy” were the most published journals in these four disciplines. This finding indicated that, beyond the environmental, political, economic and computer fields related to GBs, some journals had been cited in the fields of psychology, education, health, medicine, and animal science in recent years, thus indicating that GB research was not only closely related to the environment and economy, but also was becoming increasingly inseparable from human survival, psychological willingness and social development.

Journal Pre-proof

Fig. 2. Dual-map overlay of GB literature.

3.2.2 Carrier analysis of meso-research findings Fig. 3 shows the results from a co-citation analysis of journals of GB-related literature. The co-citation analysis shows the research results of related journals cited in GB research, which demonstrates that the results of these journals are absorbed by GB research, and the knowledge contained in these journals flows into GBrelated research. At the same time, through the co-citation frequency analysis of the core journals, the quality level of publications from a given journal can be effectively revealed. In Citespace, we selected the node type as "Cited Journal," extracted the “Top20” with the highest frequency in each time slice, selected “cosine” for the connection strength and used “Pathfinder+Pruning the merged network+Pruning the sliced network” for cluster analysis. Finally, a co-citation network consisting of 147 nodes and 264 connections was obtained (Fig. 3). In general, the value range of Modularity Q is 0-1, and the closer the value is to 1, the better the clustering effect will be. The value range of Mean Silhouette is -1-1, and the closer the value is to 1, the clearer the clustering theme will be (Chen, 2017). The network density was 0.0246, and the Modularity Q value was 0.8285, thus indicating that the clustering effect of the network was better. The mean silhouette scored 0.6974, thus indicating that the clustering results were highly reliable. Betweenness centrality was used to show the importance of a node. It is often displayed as a purple ring in the figure. The thickness of the ring reflects the importance of the betweenness centrality. The greater the thickness, the higher the betweenness centrality of the node, and the higher the importance of the node. In Fig. 3, the purple ring corresponding to Building & Environment is the thickest and is followed by Building Research & Information and Solar Energy, with betweenness centrality values of 0.76, 0.7 and 0.52, respectively.

Journal Pre-proof

Fig. 3. Co-cited analysis of journals related to GB literature.

Table 1 shows that “Building & Environment,” “Energy & Buildings” and the “Journal of Cleaner Production” are the top three cited journals. In addition to “Building & Environment,” it can be found that the cited frequency was not positively proportional to the betweenness centrality. Even if the cited frequency was more, it did not necessarily imply a journal’s greater influence. The results of this study will hopefully guide researchers to quickly find suitable journals for publications related to GBs. Table 1 Top 10 journals in co-citation frequency and betweenness centrality Number

Cited journals (frequency)

Cited journals (centrality)

1

BUILD ENVIRON (920)

BUILD ENVIRON (0.76)

2

ENERG BUILDINGS (799)

BUILD RES INF (0.70)

3

J CLEAN PROD (615)

SOL ENERGY (0.52)

4

RENEW SUST ENERG REV (502)

5

CONSTR BUILD MATER (469)

CEMENT CONCRETE COMP (0.38)

6

BUILD RES INF (438)

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEM (0.35)

7

ENERG POLICY (405)

INT J HEAT MASS TRAN (0.34)

8

APPL ENERG (347)

ECOL ECON (0.31)

9

J ENVIRON MANAGE (299)

ENERG POLICY (0.30)

10

ENERGY (281)

SCIENCE (0.29); APPL ENERG (0.29)

CONSTR BUILD MATER (0.49); IND ENG CHEM RES (0.49)

3.2.3 Microcosmic research topic analysis The keywords of a paper represent the focus of this paper, which in turn reflects the disciplinary structure of the paper to some extent. Word frequency analysis was carried out on the literature in a certain field, and the research hotspots and development trends in the research field were expressed by extracting the distribution of the frequency of the keywords that expressed the core content of the literature. By constructing the co-word network, the discipline structure in the data set was clearly displayed: each node represents a paper. The larger the node, the greater the word frequency of the keyword, and the greater the relevance to the topic of the paper. In Citespace, we selected the node type as "Keyword", extracted the "Top50" with the highest frequency

Pre-proof in each time slice, selected "cosine" for Journal the connection strength, and used "MST+Pruning the merged network+Pruning the sliced network" for cluster analysis. Finally, a co-citation network consisting of 282 nodes and 509 connections was obtained (Fig. 4). The network density was 0.0128 and the Modularity Q value was 0.7882, thus indicating that the clustering effect of the network was better. The mean silhouette scored 0.5522, thus indicating that the clustering results were highly reliable.

Fig. 4. Clustering of keyword co-occurrence network related to GB literature.

In Fig. 4, “Performance,” “Green Building,” “Sustainability,” “System” and “Construction” are the five most frequently used keywords in this field. Because these five keywords are used throughout the development of GB, we will provide further discussion in “3.3.2 Development and research hotspots.” To avoid repetition, we will not repeat the discussion here. After generating Fig. 4, we took the cluster number as the Y-axis and the publication year as the X-axis, and finally obtained a timeline visualization of the keyword co-occurrence network (Fig. 5). Fig. 5 shows the time span and research progress of the evolution of each cluster. For example, in the field represented by cluster #3, the time span is from 2005 to 2019, and there is a series of important research results in 2005, 2007-2010, 2013 and 2017-2018. 2000 2001

2004

2007

2010

2013

2016

2019

2013-2018 #3 barriers

2005-2010

Fig. 5. Timeline visualization of the keyword co-citation network of the largest clusters.

The red “+” in Fig. 5 represents the burst term, i.e., the keyword with the highest frequency change rate in a certain period of time, which reflects the research trend. We have combined the burst terms with burst articles for explanation in section “4. Research frontiers and challenges.”

Pre-proof 3.3 Key analysis of GB related research: Journal Knowledge basis and hotspot research 3.3.1 Knowledge bases In 1973, the American intelligence scientist Henry first proposed the concept of co-cited analysis (Small, 1973). Co-citation analysis refers to identifying whether two pieces of literature appear together in the references of a third citing piece of literature, in which the two pieces of literature have a co-citation relationship. For any research topic, there will be a relatively comprehensive knowledge system as a support. The more mature the research topic, the more abundant and comprehensive the knowledge system will be. The knowledge composition of papers on a topic is largely derived from the flow of knowledge in their references. Thus, the co-citation network consisting of references reveals the prior knowledge regarding a research topic; i.e., the knowledge base of a research topic can be obtained by analyzing the co-citation network of references. In Citespace, we selected the node type as "cited reference", extracted the "Top50" with the highest frequency in each time slice, selected "cosine" for the connection strength and used "Pathfinder+Pruning the merged network+Pruning the sliced network" for cluster analysis. Finally, a co-citation network consisting of 555 nodes and 1012 connections was obtained (Fig. 6). The network density was 0.0066 and the Modularity Q value was 0.8188, thus indicating that the clustering effect of the network was better. The mean silhouette scored 0.5365, thus indicating that the clustering results were highly reliable. The color change of the co-citation network represents the distance of time. The warmer the color, the closer the time; the colder the color, the farther the time. Cluster analysis of the network can reveal the changes in the theme of the knowledge base at each stage, and was therefore a convenient focus in this study.

Fig. 6. Clustering of the literature co-citation network related to GB literature.

After analysis of the knowledge base and development of GBs, the next step was to locate the key literature. We mainly focused on two aspects: (1) high-frequency nodes representing highly cited studies, which provide important knowledge bases in a certain field and (2) high similarity centrality nodes, which refer to the literature forming a co-cited relationship with many studies and having a relationship with many studies; these nodes serve as “transportation hubs” and, to a certain extent, represent the research hotspot in the examined

Journal Pre-proof period. The output results are shown in Table 2. Table 2 Top 3 co-cited references on citation frequency and betweenness centrality Number

Count

Yea

Cited references

r

（High-frequency nodes）

Centrality

Yea r

Cited references （High betweenness centrality node）

ZUO J, 2014, RENEW SUST 1

2

61

2014

45

2009

KIBERT CJ, 2015,

ENERG REV, V30, P271, DOI

0.18

2015

10.1016/J.RSER.2013.10.021

V0, P0

NEWSHAM GR, 2009, ENERG

GANN DM, 2003, BUILD RES

BUILDINGS, V41, P897, DOI

0.16

2003

10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2009.03.014

43

2011

INF, V31, P318, DOI 10.1080/0961321032000107564

ROBICHAUD LB, 2011, J 3

SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUC,

ZHANG XL, 2011, J CLEAN

MANAGE ENG, V27, P48, DOI

0.15

10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-

2011

PROD, V19, P157, DOI 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2010.08.005

5479.0000030

3.3.2 Development and research hotspots Figure 7 is a timeline map of the co-citation network. It can be seen from the figure that the literature was first concentrated in the three major clusters, #8, #9 and #10, and then developed to #0, #1, #2 and #3, and finally deduced to #4, #6, #7 and #12. In addition, the graph showed the time nodes in which important results appeared in each cluster, such as the domain represented by cluster #0 at the top, which spanned from 2006 to 2018. Among them, there were a series of important milestones between 2009 and 2011. 1993

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

2010

2013

2016

2018

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Cluster 1

Fig. 7. Timeline visualization of the co-citation network of the largest clusters.

(1) In its infancy (#8, #9 and #10), GB research mainly cited three types of literature: “industrial building,” “building assessment system” and “life-cycle inventory.” Establishing a sound GB assessment system is an important foundation for a country to promote GBs. The GB assessment system is a comprehensive evaluation method. In terms of evaluation content, the GB assessment includes economic, social, environmental, and health aspects. In order to timely, scientifically and

Journal effectively evaluate and certify GBs, a large numberPre-proof of GB assessment systems have been introduced in various countries around the world. Such systems include some clear indicators and thresholds that buildings can only be certified as GBs if they meet or exceed these thresholds (Mattoni et al., 2018). As a yardstick for GB evaluation, the GB assessment system should accurately reflect the development degree of the country's GB. Some major developed countries in the world have formed a complete GB assessment system. Currently, there are about 15 mainstream GB assessment system in the world (Shan and Hwang, 2018). The first assessment system was BREEAM in the UK (Lee and Burnett, 2008), which was referenced by Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, etc. (Yik et al., 1998), followed by CASBEE in Japan, Green Star in Australia, BEPAC in Canada, GB/T 50378-2014 in China (Ye et al., 2015), the GB index in Malaysia (Illankoon et al., 2017), Qatar's Global Sustainability Assessment System (the first system for rating and certification of GBs and infrastructure in the Middle East and North Africa) (Awadh, 2017), and the most widely used LEED in the United States (Castro-Lacouture et al., 2009). These representative assessment systems have played an active role in the certification and promotion of GBs. Moreover, different assessment systems can be divided into different levels for building assessment results, such as level 3 (one-star, two-star and three-star), level 4 (certified, silver, gold and platinum) and level 5 (pass, good, very good, excellent and outstanding), and so on. In addition, some researchers have developed a targeted GB assessment system for specific purposes. For example, based on China's GB/T 50378-2014, Yu et al. developed a specific rating method for evaluating Chinese green store buildings (Yu et al., 2015). Based on the international mainstream assessment system, Ali developed a rating method dedicated to evaluating Jordanian homes (Ali, 2009). The economic assessment of GBs often uses a full life cycle cost analysis for different stages of the construction. The life cycle of a GB refers to the whole process of the project from planning and design, feasibility study, construction, operation, post-occupancy evaluation to demolition and recycling. The full life cycle assessment (LCA) method can be applied to an entire building, individual components or materials to assess the impact of the building on the environment, thereby improving the architectural design. Mahlia et al. (2011) conducted a full life cycle cost estimate for the University of Malaysia's lighting renovation project, and found that lighting retrofit projects helped reduce energy consumption by 17–40%. From the perspective of the entire LCA of a building, high quality GB materials can effectively reduce CO2 emissions, while GBs can save about 20% of water resources compared to traditional buildings (González and Navarro, 2006). (2) In the mid-term phase (#0, #1, #2 and #3), GB research mainly cited four types of literature: energy performance, green vegetation, green construction project and GB design. For energy performance, which is a basic requirement for GB certification, research was generally conducted on building energy consumption, energy efficiency, and life cycle energy analyses. Baylon and Storm (2008) have shown that LEED buildings have 10% lower consumption than average non-LEED buildings in the same area in terms of the average energy consumption per unit of floor area. Turner and Frankel (2008) pointed out that LEED buildings have an average energy savings of 25–30% over commercial buildings, and with an improvement of certification levels, energy-saving effects also increased. Balaban and de Oliveira (2017) conducted a survey of seven green office buildings in Yokohama and Tokyo, and found that the buildings’ energy-saving abilities were better, where the two best-performing buildings had energysaving of 33% and 26%, which directly reduced energy costs by 1–1.5 million dollars per year. However, with the deepening of research, more and more scholars have found that the actual performance of many GBs was not as good as expected, where some were even worse than the performance of non-GBs; in other terms, they found that there is a large performance gap between the operational phase and the design

Journalactual Pre-proof phase of GBs. Turner and Frankel (2008) collected energy consumption data from 121 LEED-certified buildings and found that 25% of GBs did not achieve the expected results of the initial designs, where some consumed even more energy than ordinary buildings. Scofield’s research also confirmed that the LEEDcertified buildings did not really achieve the desired effect of energy saving and emission reduction. Newsham et al. (2009) showed that although the average energy consumption per floor area of LEED buildings was 18– 39% lower than that of traditional buildings, 28–35% of the LEED buildings performed poorly in terms of actual energy performance. Kern et al. (2016) conducted a 4 year continuous study on the energy consumption of a commercial building approved by LEED Gold in Brazil. The results showed that the measured energy consumption of the building was higher than the designed energy consumption, but the energy consumption showed a decreasing trend over time. Due to such performance gaps, more and more researchers have turned to research related to the actual performance of GBs. A method called post-occupancy evaluation (POE) has been widely used. POE can systematically evaluate the performance of GBs after they have been used for a period of time, helping to diagnose operational problems by identifying the real performance of the building, ultimately enabling buildings to achieve higher performance levels (Birt and Newsham, 2009). In recent decades, related research on POEs has grown rapidly. However, there is no comprehensive conclusion on whether GBs have better running performance. Some studies have shown that residents have higher POE satisfaction with GBs (Newsham et al., 2009), while others have reached the opposite conclusion (Altomonte et al., 2019). In addition, research on GB energy performance focuses on the energy efficiency and LCA of GBs. As shown in Fig. 7, there is still an intersection between the #10 life cycle and the mid-term research phase. Regarding the energy efficiency of GBs, how to introduce renewable energy or improve energy efficiency in GBs will be a key issue. Researchers have developed tools for automated fault detection and real-time energy performance optimization, including control algorithms and data mining (Du et al., 2014; Capozzoli et al., 2015). For example, Mavromatidis et al. (2013) have used artificial neural network algorithms as an energy performance diagnostic tool. With the development of big data and internet of things technologies, traditional GB performance data collection methods are becoming intelligent, integrated, convenient and cost-free. Finally, successful GB projects are often based on excellent GB design. Through scientific designs, GBs integrate natural ventilation, natural lighting, low energy enclosures, renewable energy utilization, GB materials and intelligent control, which can effectively reduce their energy and resource consumption. In order to improve the comfort of the building environment, ensure indoor air quality and save energy, it is necessary to design and develop an intelligent GB environment control system. In addition, the greening of the interior and exterior of the house should be increased, such as wall greening, roof green plants, green land landscape, etc., to regulate the indoor and outdoor microclimates. However, although green vegetation has many benefits, some consumers are not willing to pay for it. Chau et al. (2010) surveyed consumers' preferences and willingness to pay for GB elements. Their results showed that consumers are willing to pay more energysaving costs for GBs and conventional buildings, but are less willing to pay for the cost of expanding the landscape area. (3) In recent times (#4, #6, #7 and #12), “green construction project” and “GB design” are still the focus of research, but through an analysis of clustering labels #4 and #12, it is found that the research topic has gradually shifted to analyses of user satisfaction and driving factors of GB. This is different to the mid-term studies, which highlights an important transfer of GB research from “developer participation” to “occupant participation.” The key factors affecting GBs are economic and environmental (economic development level and living

Journal Pre-proof standards of residents), real estate market environmental factors, policy factors (guidance policies, mandatory regulations and economic incentives), technical environmental factors and other environmental factors (climate conditions, consumer psychology, GB publicity and education). Indeed, the key factors related to successful GB projects are a hot topic that scholars are currently studying. Sanvido et al. (1992) defined project success as “a better-than-expected outcome in terms of cost, schedule, quality, safety, and participant satisfaction.” Li et al. (2011) pointed out that previous studies have focused on traditional standards such as cost, schedule and quality, but GB projects include unique features such as energy efficiency, environmental protection and improved occupant health compared to traditional building projects. Therefore, the environment and health dimensions should also be considered in studies of GB key factors. However, it should be noted that there are still some shortcomings in the research of the key factors of GB projects. This is reflected in the fact that important aspects such as human factors (e.g. working relationships) and external influences (such as political and economic impacts) have not been fully promoted in GB projects. On the other hand, the extent to which different factors influence the outcome of GB projects is worth exploring. As mentioned earlier, environmental and sustainable-development indicators should be included in the discussion of the key success factors for GB projects and compared to indicators such as cost, schedule, quality and safety. Occupant satisfaction is an important category in GB assessment, which is a direct response to their operational effectiveness. A large number of studies have shown that better quality indoor environments can improve the satisfaction and happiness of residents (Fisk, 2000; Al Horr et al., 2016). Factors affecting indoor environmental quality and occupant satisfaction can be divided into physical factors and non-physical factors. Physical factors consist of thermal comfort, indoor air quality, lighting and the acoustic environment. Nonphysical factors include spatial layout, privacy, furniture, cleanliness, etc. (Choi and Moon, 2017). In subjective surveys, occupant feedback is usually collected through a paper questionnaire or via an online website, such as Building Use Studies Occupant Survey, Health Optimization Protocol for Energy-efficient Buildings and so on. Devine compared the difference in the average level of tenant satisfaction between green and non-GBs and found that overall tenant satisfaction in GBs was 4% higher than those living in non-GBs (Devine and Kok, 2015). In China, residents in GBs are more satisfied with indoor environmental quality (IEQ) than traditional buildings (Geng et al., 2018). However, some studies have reached different conclusions. In the United States, GBs are not significantly superior to traditional buildings in terms of IEQ. 4. Research frontiers and challenges Explosive keywords (i.e. “Burst Terms”) are words with a high rate of frequency that may change over a certain period of time, which can reflect the research trends in the considered period. By using a burst detection algorithm (Chen, 2017), the literature that causes a common interest in the academic community and the frequency of the citations during a certain period can be detected and presented using CiteSpace. The higher the suddenness of a keyword, the more attention is being paid to it during the considered time interval, and to some extent, it represents the research frontier and hotspot of a subject area. In addition, “Burst Articles” test are indicators of the research frontier. Here we combined the “Burst Terms” with “Burst Articles.” The red part in Fig. 8 is the time range in which the “Burst Terms” or “Burst Articles” appear.

Journal Pre-proof A(2000-2010)

B (2011-2013)

C (2014-2016)

D (2017-2019)

Fig. 8. Burst terms and burst articles of GB-related research.

A (2000-2010): At this stage, the frontiers of research focus on top-level policy design, which means that these studies focus on what technologies should be used in the design phase of GBs, and what measures should be taken during the operation of GBs, and which policy incentives should be designed. Designoriented research can guide the design of GBs and help people understand the expected performance of future GBs. For example, Newsham et al. (2009) conducted research on 100 LEED-certified buildings, arguing that GBs saved 18-39% of energy consumption. However, Scofield's research suggests that GBs do not reduce energy consumption. Despite this, most researchers still believe that the energy efficiency of GBs can be greatly improved if they are designed, built and operated sustainably. Wang et al. (2005) developed a multi-objective genetic algorithm to determine the optimal solution for GB design. In terms of policy incentives, they are often divided into financial incentive and non-financial incentive. The essence of financial incentive is monetary incentives, such as financial subsidies, tax incentives, and discounts on related expenses. Studies by Tinker et al. (2006) show that positive financial incentives can help owners adopt environmentally friendly measures at home. Hendricks and Calkins (2006)' research also shows that once the government subsidizes, the owners of Chicago and Indianapolis are more willing to install green roofs. Non-financial incentives include technical assistance, marketing strategies, expedited permits, and building area incentives. In Singapore, owners with a higher level of GB can receive an additional 2% of the building area award (Choi, 2009). Non-financial incentives are flexible and can be implemented in different ways depending on local conditions. B (2011-2013): The construction and evaluation criteria for GBs are at the forefront of this phase. The key to transforming GBs into mainstream buildings is to develop reliable GB assessment standards on a global scale (Lockwood, 2006). The GB certification system provides certification for the promotion of GBs. Currently, the most recognized and popular certification systems are LEED in the United States and BREEAM in the United Kingdom. However, in addition to the mainstream certification system, in some specific countries, it is also necessary to formulate GB standards that suit local conditions in light of actual national conditions. Therefore, we believe that the future GB certification (especially in developing countries) will continue to be a hotspot in GB research.

Journal systems, Pre-proof In addition, among the 15 mainstream evaluation the most important indicators include “energy” (whether the energy usage is reduced), “site” (focusing on the sustainability of GB project implementation, such as site location, site design, etc.), “indoor environment” (lighting, ventilation, indoor air quality, etc.), “outdoor environment” (land reuse, community facilities, public transportation, etc.), “material” (purchasing and efficient use of recycled materials, environmental impact of materials, etc.), “water” (water saving measures, water saving appliances, water recycling, etc.), and “innovation” (innovative technologies and design to promote building sustainability), which account for 25%, 20%, 14.78%, 13.25%, 10.98%, 10.71% and 7%, respectively. Sustainable indicators for GBs include environmental, economic and social sustainability. Environmental sustainability means that GBs are more environmentally friendly and reduce carbon emissions while improving energy efficiency in buildings (Burnett, 2007). Social sustainability emphasizes improving the comfort of the occupants and reducing the health problems caused by the indoor environment (MacNaughton et al., 2016). Economic sustainability requires the benefits of GB stakeholders (Lu et al., 2013). Normally, these three aspects should be evaluated at the same time instead of being separated. Berardi pointed out that GBs need to meet social and economic sustainability standards, including education, affordability, economic value, indoor health, and cultural perception (Berardi, 2013). Research by Illankoon et al. (2016) shows that GB evaluation indicators are more focused on environmental and social sustainability rather than on economic sustainability. The study by Awadh (2017) draws different conclusions that the mainstream GB evaluation system is the least concerned with social sustainability. It is worth noting that the existing research mostly focuses on the investigation and comparison of GB evaluation systems in countries around the world. In contrast, few studies focus on the implementation of the GB evaluation system. For example, research on the number of certified GBs and building performance in different countries. In addition, what are the obstacles in the current promotion evaluation system, what are the feasible solutions, and the views of stakeholders are worthy of further study. C (2014-2016): Advanced technologies such as building information modeling (BIM) are more popular in today's architectural design and construction, but less frequently used in GB, probably because traditional BIM is difficult to adapt to the complexity of GBs (Inyim et al., 2014). In future research, more attention should be paid to the development and implementation of advanced information communication technologies (ICT) in GB projects. The project is full of complex uncertainties from design to construction, and ICT is the key to strengthen communication among different teams in the project. The information and communication technology represented by BIM brings new vitality to the construction industry and has been widely used (Verbeeck and Hens, 2010). BIM provides a wealth of information and parametric models that directly capture how various design decisions will impact the building's sustainable performance (Wu and Issa, 2014), which helps designers select the best combination of components and materials to achieve the desired sustainable development goals. This led to the "green BIM", which used BIM tools to help achieve the sustainability goals of GB projects (McGraw-Hill Construction, 2013). However, Inyim et al. (2014) argue that traditional BIMs have limited capabilities to support GB design and construction processes due to multi-standard decisions. On this basis, they combined the multi-objective genetic algorithm with BIM and proposed a simulation method for building environmental impact to find a better solution. After an in-depth study of the design performance of GBs, the importance of operational performance has become increasingly prominent. Macnaughton et al. (2017) studied the effects of IEQ on human cognitive function. Residents in GBs perform better in terms of cognitive function than traditional buildings.

Pre-proof Balaban et al. (2017) conducted a survey ofJournal 7 office buildings in Yokohama and Tokyo (4 with CASBEE certification and 3 for green renovation but not certified) and found that these buildings are beneficial to the health of users. In China, through objective measurement and subjective investigation, Pei et al. (2015) found that GBs are more satisfactory than traditional buildings in IEQ. However, some studies have reached the opposite conclusion. Schiavon and Altomonte (2013) analyzed occupant satisfaction based on the IEQ survey database, and the results show that there is no significant difference in IEQ satisfaction between LEED buildings and non-LEED certified buildings. Abbaszadeh et al. (2006) selected 21 LEED-certified GBs and 160 traditional buildings as samples to compare the user satisfaction of IEQ. The results show that the GB user satisfaction is not higher than the traditional one in terms of light environment and acoustic environment. Gou et al. (2012) conducted a survey of the renovation office building (LEED Platinum Certification) in Hong Kong and found that its indoor air quality and user satisfaction are not higher than those of traditional buildings. In terms of the correlation between IEQ and occupant satisfaction, there is no evidence that a better IEQ leads to higher occupant satisfaction. Therefore, the deep quantitative relationship between energy use and IEQ is still an unknown. In addition, research frontiers also focus on the cost of GBs, including construction and operating costs. At present, the research on the incremental cost of GBs at home and abroad mainly focuses on the incremental cost structure, benefit analysis and cost control countermeasures. The incremental cost is divided into the incremental cost in the previous period, the construction period, the operation and maintenance period, and the demolition and recovery period. Studies have shown that if the economic returns from GBs are enough to offset their incremental costs, the enthusiasm of developers and owners to develop and purchase GBs will be greatly enhanced (Zhang et al., 2017). When it comes to the cost premium of GBs, Kats (2010) conducted an economic analysis of 33 green houses in California. The results showed that the incremental ratio of GBs was about 1.84%. In a subsequent study, Kats interviewed more than 100 architects to obtain information on the green cost premium of more than 170 GBs. The results show that most GBs cost slightly more than traditional buildings, with incremental ratios ranging from 0% to 18%, but more than 75% of GBs have a cost premium ranging from 0% to 4%. Institute P M (2010) analyzed the 600 construction projects in 19 states in the United States, indicating that the high input cost of GBs is not inevitable, and the incremental cost can range from 0 to 8%. Subsequently, they used Green Star to evaluate GBs in Australia, indicating that the incremental cost of a five-star GB is about 3-5%. Dwaikat and Ali (2016) analyzed the data of 17 empirical studies, indicating that the incremental cost of more than 90% of GBs is in the range of -0.4% to 21%, and even studies have found that the cost of GBs is lower than that of traditional buildings. The above literature review shows that the incremental cost of GBs is quite low compared to its higher selling price, and its incremental ratio is mostly between -0.4% and 5% (Cai et al., 2013). But the premium of GBs in the existing market is much higher than its incremental cost, which embeds a lot of profits (Hu et al., 2014). D (2017-2019): GBs have been greatly developed in the past 20 years. Although it has many advantages, there are still many obstacles in the process of promotion. Existing research indicates that high initial costs, lack of expertise, lack of incentives and GB-related policies and regulations, and asymmetric market information are major obstacles (Mulligan et al., 2014; Darko and Chan, 2017). The research by Zhang et al. (2016) found that the source of information for Chinese consumers mainly comes from the promotion of developers and the official information of the government, but about 90% of the respondents know very little about the GB certification system. Zheng et al. (2012) found that the premiums received by Beijing's green

Journal Pre-proof real estate projects during the pre-sale period were greatly reduced during resale or sublease due to market information asymmetry. Therefore, in different countries or regions, it is necessary to recognize the obstacles affecting the promotion of GBs and take appropriate measures to solve them. However, the existing research mainly focuses on the promotion barriers in developed countries. As more and more developers in developing countries actively choose to implement GB projects, the study of barriers to GB promotion in developing countries and regions will be a frontier research. Barriers related to the promotion of GBs are a current frontier research issue. Taking the promotion barrier of GB as an example, in this study we have constructed the “CAPITAL” framework, which helps overcome promotion barriers from five levels, namely “C: Corporate level,” “A: Attribute level,” “P: Project level,” “I: Individual level,” and “TAL: Governmental interference” (Fig.9). Factors

“CAPITAL” framework

Promotion measures 1. Establish a good social image and reputation

 Corporate image and reputation  Corporate social responsibility

    

Increase the green awareness of consumers Create positive energy-saving image Actively strive for demonstration projects Establish a good word-of-mouth effect Select qualified property management personnel

2. Promote the application of renewable technologies

C: Corporate level

3. Strengthen cooperation with universities and research institutes 4. Implement knowledge marketing strategies (What, Why, How, Who)

 Cost  Utilization of resources  Outdoor environment Indoor environmental quality  Energy utilization  Surrounding supporting facilities

A: Attribute level

1. Use financial subsidies and credit preferential benefit to reduce the pre-purchase cost

    

Subsidies based on the incremental cost Subsidies based on the intensity of GB energy savings Reduce transaction costs and bank loan conditions Increase the bank loan quota Shorten the bank loan approval time and extend the loan term

2. Incremental cost control with technology innovation as the core

BARR  Information technology  Urban planning

IERS 1. Refined project management and intensive enterprise operation

P: Project level

 Cloud computing  Internet of Things  BIM

2. Combine the development concept of urban science to achieve synergy and intelligent architecture

    

Moral requirements Environmental beliefs Perceived value Perceived behavioral control ……

1. The cooperation between architects and environmental psychology professionals should be strengthened

I: Individual level

2. Increase the evaluation of the owner's cognition for the design of green technology facilities 3. Encourage the owner to participate in the post-occupancy evaluation

1. Scientific and feasible GB development directions and goals should be proposed

 Regulations and policies  Incentives  The lack of GB-related information

TAL: Governmental interference

    

Administrative means+Economic means Encourage reliable GB research Set up a professional GB promotion plan Increasing publicity regarding GBs Mandatory laws and regulations

2. Address the information barriers to GBs 3. Multi-channel financing 4. The government should lead by example and make good use of third-party mechanisms

Fig. 9. Green building promotion measures based on the "CAPITAL" framework.

(1) Governmental interference. GBs have external economics and usually require government intervention to formulate relevant incentive policies. In recent years, many countries and governments have adopted a series of policy measures aimed at stimulating or promoting GBs. In the United States, for example, there is a mandatory LEED certification for new construction or major renovation projects (Chen et al., 2015).

Pre-proof Regulations and policies have provenJournal to be effective and influential in changing and improving environmental awareness in the construction industry, but laws and regulations vary by country or region. Singapore's real estate developers, architects and project managers have also shown that government policies have an irreplaceable role in promoting GB (Low et al, 2014). According to a survey conducted by Khoshnava et al. (2014) in Malaysia, 58.3% of respondents indicated that legislation and policy have far more influence than other factors. Conversely, for companies or designers, Andelin et al. (2015) have shown that if a building company responds positively to GB regulations, it is possible to gain a competitive advantage. Murtagh et al. (2016) have studied the motivation of British architects to design GBs. The results showed that legislation effectively encouraged architects to carry out green design and also enabled residents to take the initiative to buy GBs. Beyond legislation, relevant government agencies also provide incentives. Incentives compensate for the additional costs that stakeholders pay for greening, to some extent. Among them, the incentives considered ideal are preferential interest rates and fiscal incentives (Wong and Abe, 2014). Zou et al. have found that in China, the government's financial subsidies can significantly stimulate the development of GBs (2017). However, some land-related policies are more helpful in driving developers to implement GB projects than financial subsidies. However, if the government subsidizes the demand side of GBs (such as residents), the positive effect of financial subsidies will be obvious (Zhang et al., 2018). Beyond policies, the lack of GB-related information, education and awareness also significantly hinders the promotion of GBs, because individuals may lack the knowledge and the right source of information to guide them to buy GBs. For example, a study conducted by Bin Esa et al. (2011) in Malaysia has shown that the lack of GB-related information and education is a major obstacle preventing residents, architects and developers from implementing GB projects. Persson and Grönkvist (2015) believe that the lack of advanced energy-saving technical knowledge among Swedish architects is the greatest challenge in building GBs. Therefore, at the government level, some measures can be taken to improve. ① The top-level design should be improved, and scientific and feasible GB development directions and goals should be proposed. GBs bring long-term benefits, as compared with traditional buildings. Therefore, for government incentives, flexible top-level design should also be carried out in the long term. A: First, the government should adopt a two-pronged approach of administrative means and economic means. Administrative means include improving relevant laws and regulations, adopting mandatory administrative measures and introducing incentive policies to encourage GB development. Regarding economic aspects, direct economic subsidies and indirect reduction of loan interest rates should be adopted. Enterprises and individuals who use renewable technologies, energy-saving technologies and new energy technologies to manufacture GBs can receive multiple rewards such as lower loan interest rates. B: Second, the government should increase funding for GB research and encourage reliable GB research, such as GB materials and green technologies. For developers, the government should set up a professional GB promotion plan to further explain the competitive advantages and market benefits of GB projects to developers. The government can gradually convert the subsidies on the basis of the construction area of GBs to support GB research and development from the enterprise level, or cultivate more professional GB pre-sales consulting talents. In addition, developers can be encouraged to build GBs by being given extra building space and technical assistance. For homebuyers, in addition to simple home purchase subsidies, the government can further explore other ways to increase the GB purchase rate, such as increasing publicity regarding GBs and forming a good social atmosphere, both of which are considered to be durable and feasible. C: Finally, mandatory laws and regulations can put pressure on stakeholders to improve relevant energy-saving technical standards and reduce energy consumption. The provisions of the principle of

reward and punishment should be clear; inJournal particular,Pre-proof the provisions of punishment must ensure feasibility, and if the developer violates the punishment clause, the situation must be strictly handled. ② To ensure that GBs are widely accepted in the market, the government must address the "information barriers to GBs" in advance. Through paper and electronic media, the government can vigorously promote the contribution of GBs in improving employment and economic development, and enhance the awareness of stakeholders regarding GBs. The more comprehensive the green residential information, the greater the awareness and acceptance of the product attributes of the GB during the decision-making process. By increasing the satisfaction of consumers in the purchase process and purchase results, old customers can actively lead new customers to purchase, thus further increasing purchase stickiness. The government also must act as a strict regulator of the marketing behavior of developers, combine government supervision mechanisms with industry supervision mechanisms, improve the advertising system in the construction market and combat false advertising. ③ The government should lead by example and make good use of third-party mechanisms. Many countries and regions, such as the United States, Japan and Singapore, have implemented social supervision through perfect third-party mechanisms. They have developed a series of certification systems for GBs, GB materials and green appliances. The government and relevant departments should take advantage of the opportunities in the early stage of GB development to establish a strict administrative supervision system and form a strict review, acceptance and supervision system for the GB market. At the same time, the public's right to know should be ensured, and the general public should be included in the supervision process of GBs, to not only assist in the operation of the supervision system but also expand the spread and influence of GB knowledge among the public. ④ Multi-channel financing should be used to help GB development. With the continuous increase in construction of the nation's carbon market, the derivatives trading market will gradually be liberalized, and carbon financial products and services will be further improved. The continuous improvement of the carbon financial system will be more closely integrated with the construction sector, and there will be diversified financial instruments such as carbon credits, carbon repurchase, carbon bonds and GB points, thus providing more financing channels for the construction and operation of GBs and aiding in the low carbon development of the construction industry. (2) Corporate level. Building a good image and reputation is a long-term goal of a company. In the construction industry, the desire for a good image may drive companies to accelerate the implementation of GB projects. By promoting the green image of the company, the company's intangible competitiveness can be increased, thus resulting in more sales and higher profits. Andelin et al. (2015) have shown that in the Nordic countries, the most significant driver of residential developers’ and residents’ participation in GB projects is corporate image. The results of a study in South Africa in the same year confirmed this view (Windapo and Goulding, 2015). In addition, for enterprises, implementing GB projects is also a commitment to social responsibility. Developers are increasingly beginning to focus on corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSR has gained strong customer trust and good publicity for real estate companies (Newell, 2008). Because the younger generation seems to be more enthusiastic about CSR and environmental issues, companies that offer greener work environments are more likely to attract high quality employees, and a company's green values will be key to retaining a strong workforce (Nelson et al., 2010). Finally, GB projects often have higher occupancy rates and better rental returns, which are believed to result in higher returns on investment (Abidin and Powmya, 2014). However, it should be noted that there is a need to balance the market demand and return on

investment needs of GBs.

Journal Pre-proof

Therefore, at the corporate level, some measures can be taken to improve. ① Corporations should establish a good social image and reputation. A: Developers should change the method of attracting consumers solely by price discounts. They can increase the green awareness of consumers through public advertisements, promotional films, landmarks and other advertising methods, and improve the local attachment to GBs. B: Developers should not only focus on promoting the advantages of GB projects but also actively create their own positive energy-saving and environmental protection image, so that consumers understand and agree on the value of GB. Developers should actively strive for demonstration projects, become benchmark enterprises, take the initiative to assume social responsibility, form a good brand image and increase consumer trust. At the same time, companies should pay attention to the word-of-mouth marketing of GB products. In the era of increasingly rapid and widespread dissemination of Internet information, how to establish a good word-ofmouth effect on the Internet will become an important issue for enterprises. C: To ensure the smooth operation of GBs, companies should carefully select property management personnel with ISO certification and more experience in GB. Qualified property management personnel will help GB users design operational specifications that meet the GB operating standards and properly control the maintenance points of each operating equipment, as well as enhance the social image and reputation of the construction company. ② It is necessary to strengthen cooperation with universities and research institutes to promote the development and application of renewable technologies. Developers must strictly follow the relevant standards of China's real estate industry building development to design, construct, sell and operate the building, actively carry out star certification and improve the perception of GB functions. Improving the energy conservation and environmental protection capacity, comfort and economic cost of the GB project itself would additionally make GB function more practical and economical. The use of new GB design concepts and energy-saving emission reduction technologies would expand the energy efficiency of GBs, thus ensuring that there are significant differences in product attributes between green and ordinary buildings. By adopting new construction techniques and new ideas for residences, or expanding the corresponding product range of GBs, developers will form their own distinctive residential brands to meet the demands of different consumers. ③ Developers should implement knowledge marketing strategies. First, consumers should be educated in what GB is, including product features, architectural features, location features and neighborhood features that are directly related to GB. Second, consumers should understand why it is necessary to promote GB, and the benefits that GB can bring to consumers and society, thus strengthening the pro-environmental behavior of consumers with respect to GB. Third, consumers should understand the process of building GBs in real estate enterprises, and how to achieve energy conservation and environmental protection, and how to maintain harmony between people and nature and maintain a healthy living environment in this process. Fourth, consumers should understand who built the GB, and whether the developer has the technology, capital and capabilities to build a GB. Enterprises must promote GB knowledge exchange and social responsibility. Only in this way can enterprises continuously improve people's awareness of GBs and enhance consumers' purchasing power. (3) Attribute level. Generally speaking, the obstacles at the attribute level mainly include cost (purchase cost, maintenance cost, transaction cost, etc.), outdoor environment, energy utilization, utilization of water resources and material resources, indoor environmental quality, and surrounding supporting facilities. The advantage of GBs is that they not only improve environmental problems but also bring value-added and higher rental income to the owners. Compared with non-GBs, GBs greatly reduce the life cycle cost of buildings.

Pre-proof Devine and Kok (2015) have analyzed GBJournal rental renewal rates, tenant satisfaction and energy consumption data, confirming that LEED and ENERGY STAR-certified GBs have rental yields higher than those of traditional buildings by 3.7% and 2.7%, respectively. In addition, GBs are superior to non-GBs in terms of the possibility of renewal, thus indirectly indicating that GBs can reduce the investment risk of real estate. In terms of indoor environmental quality, based on research in Australia, Paul and Taylor (2008) show that GBs are no better than traditional buildings in terms of aesthetics, lighting, ventilation, acoustics or humidity. Therefore, at the attribute level, some measures can be taken to improve. ① The government can use financial subsidies and credit preferential benefit to reduce the pre-purchase cost of GBs and reduce the pressure on consumers to buy GBs. Financial subsidies based on the incremental cost of GB and subsidies based on the intensity of GB energy savings can be used. In terms of credit preferential benefit, the bank loan interest rate can be set according to the star rating of the GB; when the consumer applies for the provident fund loan, preferential treatment can be given in the appropriate scope, such as reducing transaction costs and bank loan conditions, increasing the bank loan quota, reducing the bank loan interest rate within the allowable range, shortening the bank loan approval time and extending the loan term. ② Incremental cost control with technology innovation as the core is the long-term and only sustainable development path for GBs. Innovations in technical indicators can, to a certain extent, address the issue of consumers being unwilling to pay incremental costs, as discussed above. Through technological innovation, the incremental cost of high-tech technical indicators can be reduced, and the use of high-tech can reach the acceptable range for consumers, which would not only promote sustainable development of the GB market, but also enable GBs to reform and develop with the trends of high technology, high environmental protection and high quality. (4) Project level. ① GB development should be supported by information technology. Information technology has extensive connotation and support points, such as cloud computing, Internet of Things, BIM and so forth. Refined project management and intensive enterprise operation are key, with an emphasis on the basic concepts of low emissions, high efficiency and low carbonization of the building process. ② Combine the development concept of urban science to achieve synergy, internet, and intelligent architecture. In short, we should comprehensively introduce greenness into all aspects to control energy consumption. (5) Individual level. Compared with hard promotion strategies such as technology and incentive policies, soft strategies to promote behavior changes of the owners or tenants may have a longer-lasting impact on the sustainability of the environment. The driving factors for GBs at the individual level include many psychological factors including moral requirements, environmental beliefs, perceived value and perceived behavioral control (Pilkington et al., 2011). Research by Li et al. (2018) has shown that individual attitudes, perceived behavioral control and values can significantly influence residents' willingness to pay for GBs. Zhao et al. (2015) have studied the acceptance and support of the public for GBs through questionnaires and have proposed that GBs not only should be guided by energy efficiency but also should be people-oriented, so that human care needs are considered to improve user happiness and productivity. Aliagha et al. (2013) have noted that the owners of GBs buy GBs not only because they can save in energy costs but also because they want to take action to mitigate climate change. Therefore, at the individual level, some measures can be taken to improve accordingly. ① The cooperation between architects and environmental psychology professionals should be strengthened; from the perspective of the owner's psychology and behavior, the design of green technology facilities should be combined with the owner's cognition and emotions, and owners should be encouraged to establish positive

Pre-proof that the relevant departments increase the emotions of environmental responsibility. Journal ② It is recommended evaluation of the owner's cognition for the design of green technology facilities, so that the technical facilities that are easy to read and use for the owners can be put into actual operation. ③ Finally, the owner is encouraged to participate in the post-occupancy evaluation of GBs that have been put into operation, and feedback from the owner on GB should be collected. The results will be beneficial to continuously improve the design, management and operation experience of GB. 5. Conclusions and deficiencies This study used the knowledge mapping analysis to conduct a dual-map overlay analysis of journals, cocitation analysis of journals, co-word analysis, burst detection, keyword cluster analysis, and research topic cluster analysis, etc. on the "green building" related literature in WoS from 1990 to 2019. We used CiteSpace (5.3.R4 SE 64-bit) visual analysis software to present the knowledge base, research trends and hot topics of GB research, and drew the following conclusions: (1) Annual publishing trends: Compared with the 20th century, research on GBs has received more extensive attention in the 21st century. During 2000–2010, research on GBs showed a steady growth trend. Since 2011, the amount of literature has increased rapidly, and GB research is in a period of rapid growth. (2) Analysis of macro knowledge flow: The trends and focus of applied GB research was highlighted, which showed a multidisciplinary cross trend. In addition to the environmental, political, economic, and computing fields that GB research has traditionally belonged to, in recent years, some journals have published green-building-related research in the fields of psychology, education, health, medicine, and animal science. This indicated that the increase in GB research has become inseparable from human survival and health, psychological acceptance willingness and social development. (3) Carrier analysis of meso-research findings: In terms of citation frequency, “Building & Environment,” “Energy & Buildings” and the “Journal of Cleaner Production” were the top three journals. In terms of influence, “Building & Environment,” “Building Research & Information” and “Solar Energy” were the top three journals. In addition to “Building & Environment”, the cited frequency was not positively proportional to the betweenness centrality. Even if the cited frequency was more, it did not necessarily imply a journal’s greater influence. (4) The microcosmic research topic analysis: A timeline visualization of a keyword co-occurrence network containing 14 clusters was generated. “Performance,” “Green Building,” “Sustainability,” “System” and “Construction” were the five most frequently used keywords in this field. Based on a co-citation network map of the literature, key publications, in terms of highly cited and highly co-cited literature, in the research field of GB were determined. According to the literature clustering results, 12 research hotspots of early research, intermediate research and recent research on GB were ascertained. (5) Research frontiers: The indicators of the research frontier were divided into burst terms and burst articles, where the former was divided into four stages according to the burst order. Taking the latest frontier research as an example (i.e., barriers), the “CAPITAL” framework was constructed to overcome the barriers that inhibited the promotion of GBs from five levels. The current study also has the following limitations and caveats. The research data is based on the WoS core collection database, which may be affected by the coverage of the WoS. In addition, this study is limited to certain keywords and journal articles. As a result, the results of the study may not fully cover all available literature related to GBs. Future research can address these limitations by extending the considered data

Journal sources, and using multiple databases and article typesPre-proof to collect and review GB-related research results. In the future, ① GB certification in developing countries will continue to be a hotspot. ② More attention should be paid to the development and implementation of advanced technologies in GB projects, and removing barriers that inhibit the promotion of GBs in developing countries and regions will undoubtedly be a frontier research direction. ③ The application and promotion of carbon finance in GB is worth exploring. ④ Data collection methods related to GB performance require further innovation.

Acknowledgements This work was supported by “the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities” (2019BSCX15).

References Abbaszadeh, S., Zagreus, L., Lehrer, D., & Huizenga, C. (2006). Occupant satisfaction with indoor environmental quality in green buildings. Abidin, N. Z., & Powmya, A. (2014). Perceptions on motivating factors and future prospects of green construction in Oman. Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(5), 231. Al Horr, Y., Arif, M., Kaushik, A., Mazroei, A., Katafygiotou, M., & Elsarrag, E. (2016). Occupant productivity and office indoor environment quality: A review of the literature. Building and Environment, 105, 369-389. Ali, H. H., & Al Nsairat, S. F. (2009). Developing a green building assessment tool for developing countries–Case of Jordan. Building and Environment, 44(5), 1053-1064. Aliagha, G. U., Hashim, M., Sanni, A. O., & Ali, K. N. (2013). Review of green building demand factors for Malaysia. Journal of Energy Technologies and Policy, 3(11), 471-478. Altomonte, S., & Schiavon, S. (2013). Occupant satisfaction in LEED and non-LEED certified buildings. Building and Environment, 68, 66-76. Altomonte, S., Schiavon, S., Kent, M. G., & Brager, G. (2019). Indoor environmental quality and occupant satisfaction in green-certified buildings. Building Research & Information, 47(3), 255-274. Andelin, M., Sarasoja, A. L., Ventovuori, T., & Junnila, S. (2015). Breaking the circle of blame for sustainable buildings–evidence from Nordic countries. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 17(1), 26-45. Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2009). Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the American society for information science and technology, 60(7), 1320-1326. Awadh, O. (2017). Sustainability and green building rating systems: LEED, BREEAM, GSAS and Estidama critical analysis. Journal of Building Engineering, 11, 25-29. Balaban, O., & de Oliveira, J. A. P. (2017). Sustainable buildings for healthier cities: assessing the cobenefits of green buildings in Japan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 163, S68-S78. Baylon, D., & Storm, P. (2008). Comparison of commercial LEED buildings and non-LEED buildings within the 2002-2004 Pacific Northwest commercial building stock. ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency of Buildings, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (Washington DC, USA), 4-1.

Journal Pre-proof Berardi, U. (2013). Clarifying the new interpretations of the concept of sustainable building. Sustainable Cities and Society, 8, 72-78. Bin Esa, M. R., Marhani, M. A., Yaman, R., Noor, A. A. H. N. H., & Rashid, H. A. (2011). Obstacles in implementing green building projects in Malaysia. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(12), 1806-1812. Birt, B., & Newsham, G. R. (2009). Post-occupancy evaluation of energy and indoor environment quality in green buildings: a review. Burnett, J. (2007). City buildings-Eco-labels and shades of green!. Landscape and Urban planning, 83(1), 29-38. Cai, Z., Yin, Y., & Wennerstern, R. (2013). From energy efficiency to integrated sustainability in housing development in China: a case study in a hot-summer/cold-winter zone in China. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 28(2), 329-344. Capozzoli, A., Lauro, F., & Khan, I. (2015). Fault detection analysis using data mining techniques for a cluster of smart office buildings. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(9), 4324-4338. Castro-Lacouture, D., Sefair, J. A., Flórez, L., & Medaglia, A. L. (2009). Optimization model for the selection of materials using a LEED-based green building rating system in Colombia. Building and Environment, 44(6), 1162-1170. Chau, C. K., Tse, M. S., & Chung, K. Y. (2010). A choice experiment to estimate the effect of green experience on preferences and willingness-to-pay for green building attributes. Building and Environment, 45(11), 2553-2561. Chen, C. (2006) CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 57, 359-377. Chen, C. (2017). Science mapping: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2(2), 1-40. Chen, C., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). Patterns of connections and movements in dual‐map overlays: A new method of publication portfolio analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(2), 334-351. Chen, Q., Kleinman, L., & Dial, A. (2015). Energy performance of campus LEED® buildings: Implications for green building and energy policy. Journal of Green Building, 10(3), 137-160. Choi, C. (2009). Removing market barriers to green development: principles and action projects to promote widespread adoption of green development practices. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 1(1), 107-138. Choi, J. H., & Moon, J. (2017). Impacts of human and spatial factors on user satisfaction in office environments. Building and Environment, 114, 23-35. Construction, M. H. (2013). World green building trends: Business benefits driving new and retrofit market opportunities in over 60 countries. Bedford Massachusetts: Smart Market Report. Darko A., Chan A. P. C. (2016). Critical analysis of green building research trend in construction journals. Habitat International, 57, 53-63. Darko, A., & Chan, A. P. (2017). Review of barriers to green building adoption. Sustainable Development, 25(3), 167-179. Devine, A., & Kok, N. (2015). Green certification and building performance: Implications for tangibles and intangibles. Journal of Portfolio Management, 41(6), 151-163. Du, Z., Fan, B., Jin, X., & Chi, J. (2014). Fault detection and diagnosis for buildings and HVAC systems

Journal Pre-proof using combined neural networks and subtractive clustering analysis. Building and Environment, 73, 111. Dwaikat, L. N., & Ali, K. N. (2016). Green buildings cost premium: A review of empirical evidence. Energy and Buildings, 110, 396-403. Fisk, W. J. (2000). Health and productivity gains from better indoor environments and their relationship with building energy efficiency. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 25(1), 537-566. Geng, Y., Ji, W., Wang, Z., Lin, B., & Zhu, Y. (2018). A review of operating performance in green buildings: Energy use, indoor environmental quality and occupant satisfaction. Energy and Buildings. González, M. J., & Navarro, J. G. (2006). Assessment of the decrease of CO2 emissions in the construction field through the selection of materials: Practical case study of three houses of low environmental impact. Building and Environment, 41(7), 902-909. Gou, Z., Lau, S. S. Y., & Shen, J. (2012). Indoor environmental satisfaction in two LEED offices and its implications in green interior design. Indoor and Built Environment, 21(4), 503-514. Hendricks, J. S., & Calkins, M. (2006). The adoption of an innovation: barriers to use of green roofs experienced by Midwest architects and building owners. Journal of Green Building, 1(3), 148-168. Hu, H., Geertman, S., & Hooimeijer, P. (2014). The willingness to pay for green apartments: The case of Nanjing, China. Urban Studies, 51(16), 3459-3478. Illankoon, I. C. S., Tam, V. W., & Le, K. N. (2016). Environmental, economic, and social parameters in international green building rating tools. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 143(2), 05016010. Illankoon, I. C. S., Tam, V. W., Le, K. N., & Shen, L. (2017). Key credit criteria among international green building rating tools. Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 209-220. Institute P M. (2010). A guide to the project management body of knowledge: PMBOK(R) guide. Project Management Journal, 40(2):104-104. Inyim, P., Rivera, J., & Zhu, Y. (2014). Integration of building information modeling and economic and environmental impact analysis to support sustainable building design. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(1), A4014002. Jones, P. (2000). International Conference on Sustainable Building 2000. Indoor and Built Environment, 9(5), 291-292. Kats, G. (2013). Greening our built world: costs, benefits, and strategies. Island Press. Kern, A. P., Antoniolli, C. B., Wander, P. R., Mancio, M., & González, M. A. S. (2016). Energy and water consumption during the post-occupancy phase and the users' perception of a commercial building certified by Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). Journal of Cleaner Production, 133, 826-834. Khoshbakht, M., Gou, Z., Lu, Y., Xie, X., & Zhang, J. (2018). Are green buildings more satisfactory? A review of global evidence. Habitat International, 74, 57-65. Khoshnava, S. M., Rostami, R., Ismail, M., & Lamit, H. (2014). Obstacles and drivers in steering IBS towards green and sustainability. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 8(14), 1639-1647. Lee, W. L., & Burnett, J. (2008). Benchmarking energy use assessment of HK-BEAM, BREEAM and LEED. Building and Environment, 43(11), 1882-1891. Li, Q., Long, R., & Chen, H. (2018). Differences and influencing factors for Chinese urban resident willingness to pay for green housings: Evidence from five first-tier cities in China. Applied Energy,

Journal Pre-proof 229, 299-313. Li, Q., Long, R., Chen, H., Chen, F., & Cheng, X. (2019). Chinese urban resident willingness to pay for green housing based on double-entry mental accounting theory. Natural Hazards, 95(1-2), 129-153. Li, X., Wu, P., Shen, G. Q., Wang, X., & Teng, Y. (2017). Mapping the knowledge domains of Building Information Modeling (BIM): A bibliometric approach. Automation in Construction, 84, 195-206. Li, Y. Y., Chen, P. H., 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), 1153-1163. Lockwood, C. (2006). Building the green way. Harvard Business Review, 84(6), 129-137. Low, S. P., Gao, S., & See, Y. L. (2014). Strategies and measures for implementing eco-labelling schemes in Singapore's construction industry. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 89, 31-40. Lu, Y., Cui, Q., & Le, Y. (2013). Turning green to gold in the construction industry: Fable or fact? Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(8), 1026-1036. MacNaughton, P., Satish, U., Laurent, J. G. C., Flanigan, S., Vallarino, J., Coull, B., ... & Allen, J. G. (2017). The impact of working in a green certified building on cognitive function and health. Building and Environment, 114, 178-186. MacNaughton, P., Spengler, J., Vallarino, J., Santanam, S., Satish, U., & Allen, J. (2016). Environmental perceptions and health before and after relocation to a green building. Building and Environment, 104, 138-144. Mahlia, T. M. I., Razak, H. A., & Nursahida, M. A. (2011). Life cycle cost analysis and payback period of lighting retrofit at the University of Malaya. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(2), 11251132. Mattoni, B., Guattari, C., Evangelisti, L., Bisegna, F., Gori, P., & Asdrubali, F. (2018). Critical review and methodological approach to evaluate the differences among international green building rating tools. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 950-960. Mavromatidis, G., Acha, S., & Shah, N. (2013). Diagnostic tools of energy performance for supermarkets using Artificial Neural Network algorithms. Energy and Buildings, 62, 304-314. Mulligan, T. D., Mollaoğlu-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), 182-202. Murtagh, N., Roberts, A., & Hind, R. (2016). The relationship between motivations of architectural designers and environmentally sustainable construction design. Construction Management and Economics, 34(1), 61-75. Nelson, A. J., Rakau, O., & Dörrenberg, P. (2010). Green buildings: A niche becomes mainstream. Deutsche Bank Research, 3-22. Newell, G. (2008). The strategic significance of environmental sustainability by Australian-listed property trusts. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 26(6), 522-540. Newsham, G. R., Mancini, S., & Birt, B. J. (2009). Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Yes, but…. Energy and Buildings, 41(8), 897-905. Paul, W. L., & Taylor, P. A. (2008). A comparison of occupant comfort and satisfaction between a green building and a conventional building. Building and Environment, 43(11), 1858-1870. Pei, Z., Lin, B., Liu, Y., & Zhu, Y. (2015). Comparative study on the indoor environment quality of green office buildings in China with a long-term field measurement and investigation. Building and

Journal Pre-proof Environment, 84, 80-88. Persson, J., & Grönkvist, S. (2015). Drivers for and barriers to low-energy buildings in Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production, 109, 296-304. Pilkington, B., Roach, R., & Perkins, J. (2011). Relative benefits of technology and occupant behaviour in moving towards a more energy efficient, sustainable housing paradigm. Energy Policy, 39(9), 49624970. 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), 94-111. Scofield, J. H. (2009). Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Not really…. Energy and Buildings, 41(12), 1386-1390. Scofield, J. H. (2013). Efficacy of LEED-certification in reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission for large New York City office buildings. Energy and Buildings, 67, 517-524. Shan, M., & Hwang, B. G. (2018). Green building rating systems: Global reviews of practices and research efforts. Sustainable Cities and Society, 39, 172-180. Small, H. (1973). Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265-269. Tinker, A., Kreuter, U., Burt, R., & Bame, S. (2006). Green construction: contractor motivation and trends in Austin, Texas. Journal of Green Building, 1(2), 118-134. Todd, J. A., Crawley, D., Geissler, S., & Lindsey, G. (2001). Comparative assessment of environmental performance tools and the role of the Green Building Challenge. Building Research & Information, 29(5), 324-335. Turner, C., & Frankel, M. (2008). Energy performance of LEED for new construction buildings. New Buildings Institute, 4, 1-42. Verbeeck, G., & Hens, H. (2010). Life cycle inventory of buildings: A calculation method. Building and Environment, 45(4), 1037-1041. Wang, W., Zmeureanu, R., & Rivard, H. (2005). Applying multi-objective genetic algorithms in green building design optimization. Building and Environment, 40(11), 1512-1525. Windapo, A. O., & Goulding, J. S. (2015). Understanding the gap between green building practice and legislation requirements in South Africa. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 4(1), 67-96. Wong, S. C., & Abe, N. (2014). Stakeholders' perspectives of a building environmental assessment method: The case of CASBEE. Building and Environment, 82, 502-516. Wu, W., & Issa, R. R. (2014). BIM execution planning in green building projects: LEED as a use case. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(1), A4014007. Xianbo Z, Jian Z, Guangdong W, et al. (2018). A bibliometric review of green building research 2000–2016. Architectural Science Review, 1-15. Ye, L., Cheng, Z., Wang, Q., Lin, H., Lin, C., & Liu, B. (2015). Developments of green building standards in China. Renewable Energy, 73, 115-122. Yik, F. W. H., Burnett, J., Jones, P., & Lee, W. L. (1998). Energy performance criteria in the Hong Kong building environmental assessment method. Energy and Buildings, 27(2), 207-219. Yu, W., Li, B., Yang, X., & Wang, Q. (2015). A development of a rating method and weighting system for green store buildings in China. Renewable Energy, 73, 123-129. Zhang, L., Liu, H., & Wu, J. (2017). The price premium for green-labelled housing: Evidence from China.

Urban Studies, 54(15), 3524-3541. Journal Pre-proof Zhang, L., Sun, C., Liu, H., & Zheng, S. (2016). The role of public information in increasing homebuyers' willingness-to-pay for green housing: Evidence from Beijing. Ecological Economics, 129, 40-49. Zhang, L., Wu, J., & Liu, H. (2018). Policies to enhance the drivers of green housing development in China. Energy Policy, 121, 225-235. Zhao, D. X., He, B. J., Johnson, C., & Mou, B. (2015). Social problems of green buildings: From the humanistic needs to social acceptance. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 51, 1594-1609. Zhao, X. (2017). A scientometric review of global BIM research: Analysis and visualization. Automation in Construction, 80, 37-47. Zheng, S., Wu, J., Kahn, M. E., & Deng, Y. (2012). The nascent market for “green” real estate in Beijing. European Economic Review, 56(5), 974-984. Zou, Y., Zhao, W., & Zhong, R. (2017). The spatial distribution of green buildings in China: Regional imbalance, economic fundamentals, and policy incentives. Applied Geography, 88, 38-47. Zuo J, Pullen S, Rameezdeen R, et al. (2017). Green building evaluation from a life-cycle perspective in Australia: A critical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 358-368.

Journal Pre-proof Graphical abstract