Sustainability 14 13121

sustainability
Review
Green Buildings as a Necessity for Sustainable Environment
Development: Dilemmas and Challenges
Constantin C. Bungau 1,2 , Tudor Bungau 3, * , Ioana Francesca Prada 2, * and Marcela Florina Prada 1
1 Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Faculty of Constructions, Cadaster and Architecture,
University of Oradea, 410058 Oradea, Romania
2 Doctoral School, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, 400114 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
3 Civil, Industrial and Agricultural Constructions Program of Study, Faculty of Constructions,
Cadaster and Architecture, University of Oradea, 410058 Oradea, Romania
* Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected] (T.B.);
[email protected] (I.F.P.)
Abstract: Sustainable development encompasses numerous development goals and strategies, with
green buildings (GBs) being among the implementations of this concept. The development of GBs is
a topic of increasing interest due to the massive development of conventional infrastructure that has
the major limitation of environmental degradation, a fact also proven by the research of the scientific
literature, with publications in the field enhancing in recent times. Even if strategies applying the
GBs concept have many advantages, the public acceptance is not so high due to technologies that
still need to be optimized, the relatively low return on investment, and the limited dissemination of
information about this concept. Therefore, the manuscript provides a comprehensive assessment in a
distinctive way of GBs in the context of sustainable development, clarifying notions and principles
of application while integrating green materials and circular economy into the general scientific
Citation: Bungau, C.C.; Bungau, T.; framework provided. Moreover, a score has been proposed which is assigned to the different types of
Prada, I.F.; Prada, M.F. Green buildings described, based on the assessment of several specific parameters. This paper provides
Buildings as a Necessity for stakeholders, from designers to occupiers, with a coherent overview of the GB concept and its
Sustainable Environment beneficial role for future generations in order to develop this field by increasing the dissemination of
Development: Dilemmas and scientific information based on a technical-engineering perspective.
Challenges. Sustainability 2022, 14,
13121. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Keywords: green building (GB); sustainable building (SB); zero energy building (ZEB); passive house
su142013121 (PH); sustainable development; energy consumption; building materials; circular economy
Academic Editors: Marc A. Rosen
and Ali Bahadori-Jahromi
Received: 31 August 2022

1. Introduction
Accepted: 7 October 2022
Published: 13 October 2022
Within the accelerated evolution of the society, and implicitly of economy, the en-
ergy shortage and deteriorating environment represent two major concerns of the global
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
population today. Currently, the building industry has become the leading consumer of
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
world energy supplies and of various energy resources such as wood, ores, and so on,
published maps and institutional affil-
and represents the main source of environmental pollution across the globe [1]. In the
iations.
agreement with the United Nations Environment Program, the total energy use in the
construction industry is responsible for approximately 30–40% of the globe’s entire energy
consumption [2].
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Globally, China has the highest energy consumption, while the consumption attributed
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. to the building industry respond for 38% of the total energy use. These data highlight a grim
This article is an open access article situation, which clearly points to the fact that transforming and upgrading the construction
distributed under the terms and field is a mandatory next step. The construction sector’s carbon emissions in 2020 reached
conditions of the Creative Commons 11.79 gigatons of carbon dioxide, representing 37% of all carbon emissions worldwide.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// A total of 17% of them were attributable to residential buildings’ operational carbon
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ emissions [3]. Therefore, it is essential to accelerate the implementation of sustainable
4.0/). development strategies towards carbon neutrality as promptly as possible since the world’s
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13121. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013121 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 13121 2 of 34
climate continues to worsen. The foundation for examining past emissions and forecasting
future pollutants is the development of an emission characterization model based on urban
population and urbanization rate, industrial structure, carbon emission factor, energy
intensity, economic deficiency, and the gross domestic product per capita [4]. Additionally,
the industry is challenged to pinpoint a greener, sustainable, and environmentally friendly
solution for future development. Thus, there are pressing needs to explore and establish a
sustainable development approach within the construction industry, with the purpose of
reshaping the current situation characterized by high environmental pollution and high
resource consumption [5].
In 1987, the sustainable development concept was introduced for the first time by
Brundtland Commission (WCED, 1987); since then, this term has evolved in accordance
with social and economic changes [6]. The emergence of this concept is based on the neces-
sity to correlate human development with the obligation to manage resources as effectively
as feasible. It was a crucial moment when the scientific world realized the limited nature of
all resources. It evolved into a tool based on the concepts of advancement (socio-economic
growth within ecological boundaries), requirements (redistributing resources to provide
a high standard of living for all the population), and subsequent generations (potential
for long-term resource management to assure the essential level of quality of existence
for future generations). The Triple Bottom Line theory, which aims to balance the three
components of sustainability (environmental, social, and economic) forms the basis of the
concept of sustainable development. Environmental sustainability aims at maintaining the
environment’s overall quality. Economic sustainability focuses on preserving the human
and natural capital for an improvement in the quality of life. Furthermore, social sustain-
ability intends to highlight the importance of equality and human rights [7]. At present, it
has expanded its meaning and it is being used for diversified goals, issues, and by various
professions. Throughout this term’s evolution, different meanings were attributed to the
concept of sustainable development. Generally, there is an encompassing consensus on the
fact that the appropriate environment, economy, and society are the main factors that con-
tribute to sustainable development. However, the sustainable development term remains
ambiguous and challenging to comprehend, several features being correlated/attributed to
it, as well as to the sustainable building (SB) design (Lombardi, 1999, Ding, 2005) [8,9].
Sustainable development concept was debated in 1992, at the United Nation Con-
ference on Environment and Development, which have taken place at Rio de Janeiro,
Brasil [10,11], which was considered as being the very first conference on environmental
issues of international impact, and where many world leaders participated, and cooper-
ation for international partnerships and agreements on environmental protection were
promoted [12]. The conference led to a series of important conclusions and culminated
with the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, highlighting 27 strategies for
achieving sustainable development. Although there have been extensive discussions and
deliberations on an international level, the concept of sustainable development remains
multi-dimensional, complex, ambiguous, and difficult to comprehend within the exclusive
context of environmental issues [8,9].
Numerous economic and social presumptions have changed as a result of the effects
of the global economic crisis of 2007. Due to the complexity of sustainable development
concepts, the world economy, and the variety of objectives, it became explicit that the
typical approach of thinking and operating was not only unsustainable but also harmful to
the environment, population, and economy. Thus, their representation was converted into
a new, more sustainable form [7]. It is still in research how to define what really constitutes
the sustainable development concept, to underline the criteria applicable in the sustainable
design, and to accurately achieve sustainable level of performance regarding the building
envelope. Thus, it is essential to evaluate the function of a sustainable development
approach in sustainable envelope design. This assessment can be performed by examining
the effects of sustainable envelope design on general building sustainability.
The green building (GB) concept has grown exponentially as a research topic in
recent years as a result of the increasing contradictions between the massive expansion
of construction and the degradation of the natural environment [13]. GBs involve the
comprehensive management of developing structures and utilizing technologies that are
environmentally aware and asset effective over a building’s life cycle, including locations,
concept planning, assembly, development, maintenance, restoration, and disassembly [14].
Prior research has shown that GBs can provide significant results, such as promoting
the recycling and reutilization of materials, enhancing energy efficiency, enriching the
ecological system, implementing sustainable land management, preserving the biosphere,
and lowering CO2 emissions and waste products. The continuous cooperation between
the government, researchers, technology providers, and consumers, is important for the
achievement of a sustainable building infrastructure [15]. Due to insufficient GB highly
accurate technology, prolonged investment recovery periods, and poor information dissem-
ination, which are core issues in the sustainable development of GB, GB is not widely and
immediately adopted by the general public as a novel form of architecture. Therefore, there
is currently potential for additional investigation due to these open gaps [16].
The vast majority of recent analyses provided by the scientific literature are scattered
and confined. They frequently merely address a few components of GBs in the context
of sustainable development instead of thoroughly and methodically analyzing the issue.
Because a significant proportion of relevant research focuses on aspects related to a specific
area or nation, the findings lack representation on a multinational scale. In order to gain an
in-depth knowledge of the current situation and potential future approaches, the present
manuscript comprehensively assesses, from an engineering point of view, the state of GBs
as an indispensable tool for the future of sustainable development.
The aim of the present paper was to create a coherent, clear, well-systematized and
useful scientific framework, that would serve as a starting point in the field of construction
(and all related aspects, such as design, energy, installations, materials, etc.) for researchers,
administrative-territorial units, architects, designers, as well as beneficiaries and investors.
The idea of this paper took shape in the context of drastic climate change and a growing
concern for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and CO2 emissions, with real improvement
only made possible through sustainable design. Moreover, starting from the fact that in
most publications, GBs are often confused with sustainable buildings (SBs), this paper
clearly differentiates GB from other concepts associated with buildings (smart buildings
(SBs), passive houses (PHs), nearly zero-emission buildings (NZEB)), in the context of
sustainable design. Furthermore, the presented material clarifies and provides an extremely
useful database to those in the field of construction, entrepreneurs, property owners,
residents of buildings of various types, site managers, manufacturers of building materials,
specialists in renewable energy sources, etc. Finally, the design and methodology of this
study are based on an assessment of the concepts of sustainable development, GB design,
renewable energy sources, GB certification systems, and green materials, by providing a
scientific background on these key terms, the legislative framework, and their applicability
in a comprehensive and distinctive way.
2. Methodological Approaches
The present manuscript filters and evaluates scientific publications on GBs in the
context of sustainable development between 1987 and 2022, based on a comprehensive
search and selection of literature on applied engineering concepts and optimal exploitation
of renewable resources, with the aim of enhancing the advancement and implementation of
sustainable development, green design concepts, and circular economy features. To achieve
these goals, large and scientifically validated databases were searched (i.e., ScienceDirect,
Google Scholar, Web of Science, SpringerLink, ProQuest, Wiley Online Library, and Nature),
applying pre-defined algorithms correlated with the Boolean AND operator. Furthermore,
the selected manuscripts were of the article type and written exclusively in English. Figure 1
depicts the PRISMA workflow diagram including sets of items related to the literature
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 37
Library, and Nature), applying pre-defined algorithms correlated with the Boolean AND
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13121 operator. Furthermore, the selected manuscripts were of the article type and written 4 ofex-
34
clusively in English. Figure 1 depicts the PRISMA workflow diagram including sets of
items related to the literature selection and evaluation process, in full compliance with the
recommendations
selection provided
and evaluation by Page
process, et al.
in full [17]. Afterwith
compliance evaluation, selection, and provided
the recommendations revisions
of this
by Pagepaper, 149 bibliographic
et al. [17]. resources
After evaluation, validated
selection, the scientific
and revisions of thisinformation in this man-
paper, 149 bibliographic
uscript. validated the scientific information in this manuscript.
resources
Figure 1. Literature selection depicted in a PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.

Figure 1. Literature selection depicted in a PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.
Trends in
3. Trends in Building
Building Design—Conceptualizations
Design—Conceptualizations and
and Applicability
Applicability
The buildings of the future will be focused on people and and on
on the
the planet,
planet, respectively,
respectively,
on the
the concerns
concerns regarding
regarding thethe next
next generations.
generations. Thus, the materials from which they
are/will be built
are/will be built must
must be environmentally
environmentally friendly. The The way
way that they are heated and and
cooled, to ensure
ensure their
their use/operation,
use/operation, must also be environmentally
environmentally friendly.
friendly. Buildings
Buildings
have the role of making people’s lives easier,easier, as
as they evolve in sync with the technological
developments and then become intelligent buildings, capable of providing providing people
people with
with
the healthy environment and comfort that are needed for carrying out daily activities. activities.
Constructions will thus meet the performance requirements requirements of the functions
functions they
they serve.
serve.
Moreover,
Moreover, they are not permitted to alter the environment through consumption and and
they are not permitted to alter the environment through consumption pol-
pollutants,
lutants, butbut they
they must
must be integrated
be integrated in ainclean,
a clean, unaltered
unaltered environment.
environment.
The
The concerns
concerns of of humankind
humankind regarding
regarding thethe constructions
constructions ofof the
the present
present and
and of
of the
the
future
future (even
(even the
the near
near future)
future) are
are closely
closely linked
linked to
to climate
climate change,
change, and
and thus
thus to
to aa sustainable
sustainable
approach.
approach. This
This implies
implies that
that no
no matter
matter thethe type
type of
of building
building (green
(green building
building or
or GB,
GB, passive
passive
building or NZEB, etc.) the focus is on durability/sustainability/cost.
building or NZEB, etc.) the focus is on durability/sustainability/cost.
3.1. Sustainable Building Design
It is challenging to define GBs, considering the continued evolution of this concept,
developing and generating an extended range of opinions. The World Green Building
Council (having representation in approximately 70 countries and being a large network of

GB councils) acknowledges the fact that countries/geographical regions possess different
specific features such as historical context, cultural identity and traditions, specific climate
conditions, distinct building types and ages, as well as economic, social, and environmental
opportunities and priorities that contour GB practices [18].
The concept of GB is not universal and constant across the globe, the definitions are
provided in accordance with the specifications of national and regional construction indus-
try developments. World GBC defines a GB as a building which aims to reduce or to fully
eliminate the negative impact on the environment throughout its entire lifecycle, while also
generating positive impacts on the local environment and the climate [18,19]. Additionally,
this concept has been described by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) as “the practice of creating structures and using processes that are environmentally re-
sponsible and resource-efficient throughout a building’s life cycle from siting to design, construction,
operation, maintenance, renovation, and deconstruction” [20].
A widely accepted description in the European Union, as well as in the United King-
dom, states that a GB contributes to conserving the environment, within the parameters of
well-being of the building occupants, concerning the use of space and the quality of indoor
air. This term is similar to the definitions of SBs and sustainable construction. The concept
implies not only energy efficiency, but also other aspects, including the decrease in CO2
emissions, although this seems to somewhat differ in the EU compared to the US. BREEAM,
which is the first GB certification system, can be a representation of the concept of GBs in
the UK, focusing on energy efficiency, and also on the well-being of inhabitants and users
of the building. According to this concept, GBs and SBs can be interchangeable [21,22].
Designing the SB meeting, all requirements of sustainability can sometimes become a
real challenge to the construction designers, as well as the building professionals [23]. In
order to integrate the concept of sustainable development into building envelope design, it
becomes essential to implicate the stakeholders taking part in the process of SB envelope
design. All competing sustainable development elements must be considered throughout
the design of a sustainable envelope so as to successfully attain building/construction sus-
tainability, an issue which is faced by the construction industry but can be possibly resolved
by applying the sustainable development concept and principles during the initial stages
of building design [24]. Additionally, the challenge of sustainable development regarding
the building envelope has been extensively detailed regarding four interconnected fields,
including: environment, participation, equity, and futurity. This statement was discussed
at the 1992 Earth Summit, in Brazil. A total of 27 principles were established in relation to
sustainable development practices, on the basis of the four interrelated areas of sustainable
development above-mentioned, and contained in Figure 2 [25].
The theoretical concept presented in Figure 1 highlights the link between sustain-
able development values which in turn generate sustainable development principles and
strategies, sustainable envelope design, and, lastly, building sustainability. Observing
the relationship between the aforementioned items, it can be assessed that it is necessary
to balance the sustainability factors (e.g., the environment, the economic situation, the
surrounding environment, energy resources, and social context) for making sustainable
design decisions in regard to the building envelope. Thus, there is a challenge to check
the sustainable strategies and practices, in order for achieving sustainable building design
within the construction industry [26].
Designing a SB/GB is about the practice of realizing structures and utilizing tech-
niques/methods/processes characterized by environmental responsibility, that exist and
function throughout a building’s life cycle. Chronologically, the life cycle includes stages
such as “site selection”, “design”, “construction”, “operation and maintenance”, “ren-
ovation”, finalizing with the “demolition”, the practice not only expanding, but also
complementing the classical design in construction, in areas such as durability, utility, econ-
omy, and comfort [27]. A SB is also considered a GB or alternatively, a high-performance
building. The feature elements of the SBs are as follows:
• The ability to accumulate and meet all the water and energy requirements on site;
• The capacity to adapt specifically to site climate and evolve in accordance to changing conditions;
• Pollution-free operation and zero waste generation in regard to waste that is not useful
for another process in the building or for the surrounding environment;
• The ability to promote the health/well-being of building inhabitants, representative of
a healthy ecosystem;
• The integration of energy efficient systems, that maximize both efficiency as well
as comfort;
• The tendency to improve the health and to expand the diversity of the local ecosystem
instead of damaging it;
• To be aesthetically pleasing and visually inspiring [28].
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Sustainable
Sustainable development’s
development’s four
four connected
connected fields.
fields.
3.2. Scientific Framework

The theoretical of Passive
concept Buildings
presented and a Nearly
in Figure Zero-Emission
1 highlights Buildingssustainable
the link between
The passive
development house
values (PH)in
which ensures a comfortable
turn generate indoor
sustainable climate, bothprinciples
development in winter/summer
and strat-
seasons, needing for
egies, sustainable a conventional
envelope design, and, heating
lastly,source. Thesustainability.
building minimum requirement
Observing can be
the re-
ensured through heating the ventilated air, by respecting the following criteria:
lationship between the aforementioned items, it can be assessed that it is necessary to bal-
•ancemaximum
the sustainability 2 required
10 W / mfactors (e.g.,constant
the environment,
heat; the economic situation, the sur-
•rounding environment, energy
2 resources, and
maximum 15 kWh / m required annually with space heating;social context) for making sustainable de-
•sign decisions in regard to the
2 building envelope.
maximum 42 kWh / m required annually total energy consumed. Thus, there is a challenge to check the
sustainable strategies and practices, in order for achieving sustainable building design
The term PH considered the concept of lowering the heat losses to a minimum, thus
within the construction industry [26].
rendering large heating systems irrelevant. Under 10 W/m2 of living area (with the peak
Designing a SB/GB is about the practice of realizing structures and utilizing tech-
heating loads stagnating), the low residual demand for heat can be delivered through the
niques/methods/processes characterized by environmental responsibility, that exist and
air supply by a post-heating coil. A PH can be defined as a building that does needing
function
no throughout
heating a building’s
system besides post airlife cycle. Chronologically,
heaters. In a standard PH, thenolife cycle includes
traditional stages
heating (or
such as “site selection”, “design”, “construction”, “operation and maintenance”,
cooling) systems are required. The PH concept and the physics behind it remain constant “renova-
tion”, finalizing
throughout with theclimates
the different “demolition”, the practice
of the world. not only
However, whileexpanding,
PH principlesbut also comple-
are the same
menting the classical design in construction, in areas such as durability,
across the world, details undergo adaptations depending on the specific climate of a certain utility, economy,
and comfort [27].
geographical area.AASB is also considered
building a GB
that fulfills the PH orstandard
alternatively, a high-performance
will look build-
different in Zimbabwe
ing. The feature elements
compared to one in Alaska. [29].of the SBs are as follows:
• The
The PH concept
ability imposes and
to accumulate a building
meet allstandard
the waterwhich bringsrequirements
and energy together affordability,
on site;
comfort, and energy efficiency. PHs permit a degree of heating/cooling space which allow
• The capacity to adapt specifically to site climate and evolve in accordance to changing
conditions;
• Pollution-free operation and zero waste generation in regard to waste that is not
useful for another process in the building or for the surrounding environment;
up to 90% energy savings, comparatively with standard constructions, and of over 75%
in comparison with new constructions, using 1.5 m3 of gas or <1.5 L of oil in heating
1 m2 living space/year—this consumption being significantly lower than in the case of
“low-energy” buildings. Major energy savings were registered in warmer climate zones,
with standard buildings also requiring systems with active cooling. PHs efficiently utilize
the sun warmth, as well as both internal sources of heating and techniques/tools/methods
of heat recovery, eliminating the need for conventional heating systems even in the coldest
winters. In the warmer season, PHs utilize passive cooling techniques, including strategic
shading, in order to maintain a comfortably cool temperature. PHs are known to generally
offer a high level of comfort. Temperatures of internal surfaces remain comparable to
indoor temperatures of the air, even when in the case of extreme outdoor temperatures.
Keeping the desired heat within the house, as well as the undesirable heat outside of the
house, is made possible by incorporating special windows, highly insulated exterior walls,
and an envelope of the building made of a strong insulated floor slab and roof. Constant
fresh air is supplied through a subtle ventilation system, which ensures superior air quality
while avoiding unpleasant draughts. An efficient heat recovery system allows the re-use of
the heat contained in the exhaust air [29].
3.3. Green Building Design and Principles

Environmental issues and sustainable architecture have become components of the
business agendas for both local as well as international communities. They are topics
that are addressed almost to an excess. The term of “sustainability” and the concept of
“sustainable architecture” are currently trending in the architecture’s frame and design for
at least two specific purposes: formal and functional. A sustainable considered item must
demonstrate its ecological awareness and therefore, the item’s functionality needing being
linked to its correlation with the environment by way of its appearance.
Additionally, sustainable architecture designs help in realizing constructions with
the goal of limiting their environmental impact. This goal is attained by achieving energy
efficiency and improved livability for inhabitants, and by having a positive impact on health,
well-being, and comfort, and the way to achieve all of this is through the incorporation of
suitable technologies within the building. The concept of sustainable architecture includes
specific characteristics requested in order to satisfy the consumers’ most demanding needs
and requests. Meanwhile, they are evaluating both the necessary time for raising a building
and the natural resources needed from the very beginning phases of the project, stepping
into the context through a natural-centered approach, and in consequence, planning and
designing to solve the space and employed materials as reusable. Designing sustainable
architecture entails taking several essential elements in account, as follows:
• building orientation on the land surface and natural light dependence;
• natural ventilation;
• shading vs. sunlight provided by all the pre-existing elements in the site;
• the use of biomass;
• domotics/home automation/Ambient Assisted Living.
The renewable energy systems, all of the above mentioned parameters/characteristics
designed, produced, and incorporated with materials that interact in a specifical manner
with the environment, its issues and particularities [30]. Figure 3 outlines the defining
elements in the design of energy efficient buildings. The degree of efficiency is the result of
design (envelope, equipment, materials), execution, and operation.
Designers have the possibility to conceive specific characteristics in the buildings that
assure the imitation of the functions of other already existing specific eco-systems. Species
living and thriving in these natural ecosystems are allowed to turn to habitats designed
within man-made structures. Conceiving and realizing a new habitat within structures
located in urban places plays a particularly relevant role in supporting the biodiversity,
and implicitly maintaining a healthy ecosystem [31,32].
of design (envelope, equipment, materials), execution, and operation.
Designers have the possibility to conceive specific characteristics in the buildings that
assure the imitation of the functions of other already existing specific eco-systems. Species
living and thriving in these natural ecosystems are allowed to turn to habitats designed
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13121 within man-made structures. Conceiving and realizing a new habitat within structures 8 of 34
located in urban places plays a particularly relevant role in supporting the biodiversity,
and implicitly maintaining a healthy ecosystem [31,32].
• Water Conservation/preservation and Quality.

This
Figure consideration comes energy
to supporting and justifying the integration of the USGBC
Figure 3.3. Designing—conceiving
Designing—conceiving efficientbuildings.
energy efficient buildings.
LEED Green Building Rating System, emphasizing in the same time strategies and prin-
ciples,
Therather
The than technologies
following
following data brings
data or clear-cut
brings together
together thesolutions,
the strategies,which
strategies, are typically
key principles,
key principles, andspecific
and to the
technologies
technologies
building site and varywith
correlated/associated
correlated/associated with the
each project
main (USGBC).
5 core elements The
of principles
GB design:adopted in GB practices
•dictate the application of “Green” characteristics and features in both building construc-
• Sustainable
SustainableSite/Location
Site/Location Design;
•tion, as
IEQ; well as redevelopment. In 2016, the first five important above-mentioned compo-
• IEQ;
•nentsEnergy
of GB design were published. Figure 4 shows the authors’ assessment [33] of the GB
and Environment;
• Conservation
•principles,
Energy inand
a schematized
Environment; way.
of Materials and Resources; and
According
•• Water to the evaluation
Conservation/preservation
Conservation of Materials andof Resources;
this study,
and it has been repeatedly discussed and as-
Quality.
and
sessed that, in developed countries, buildings have a rate of energy consumption between
This consideration comes to supporting and justifying the integration of the USGBC
30–40% of the total energy consumption. Thus, the performance that can be achieved by
LEED Green Building Rating System, emphasizing in the same time strategies and prin-
the sustainable energy of GBs (including zero energy buildings (ZEB), ultra-low energy
ciples, rather than technologies or clear-cut solutions, which are typically specific to the
buildings (ULEB), and low energy buildings (LEB)) is justifiably the main focus area of
building site and vary with each project (USGBC). The principles adopted in GB practices
current efforts. The reviewed theories and implementation accounts, and also the next
dictate the application of “Green” characteristics and features in both building construction,
perspectives clearly accentuate the critical need to evolve together with the GBs develop-
as well as redevelopment. In 2016, the first five important above-mentioned components of
ment, and designate them the standard basis for local/international constructions stand-
GB design were published. Figure 4 shows the authors’ assessment [33] of the GB principles,
ards,
in regulations,way.
a schematized and policies [34].
Figure 4. Principles governing the application of “Green” characteristics in building construction.

Figure 4. Principles governing the application of “Green” characteristics in building construction.
Although most of the findings are extracted from the already published academic
research related to innovative sustainable design practices in order to enhance building
energy performances, the associated literature also includes studies related to additional
correlated issues on the energy conservation. A 2010 published research evaluated and
According to the evaluation of this study, it has been repeatedly discussed and as-
sessed that, in developed countries, buildings have a rate of energy consumption between
30–40% of the total energy consumption. Thus, the performance that can be achieved by
the sustainable energy of GBs (including zero energy buildings (ZEB), ultra-low energy
buildings (ULEB), and low energy buildings (LEB)) is justifiably the main focus area of
current efforts. The reviewed theories and implementation accounts, and also the next per-
spectives clearly accentuate the critical need to evolve together with the GBs development,
and designate them the standard basis for local/international constructions standards,
regulations, and policies [34].
Although most of the findings are extracted from the already published academic
research related to innovative sustainable design practices in order to enhance building
energy performances, the associated literature also includes studies related to additional
correlated issues on the energy conservation. A 2010 published research evaluated and
analyzed specific commercial buildings for confirming the existence of high levels of en-
ergy wastage, highlighting the necessity to consider also the issues associated with user
behavior and user-generated energy wastage [35]. On the other hand, it was suggested
that the energy performance simulations analyze the constructions currently in operation;
whereas, the analysis/simulation of the performances should be incorporated in the pro-
cess of building designing for the purpose of assessing the material, form, and integrated
systems during the same designing phase of the building [36]. Considering the study and
research of sustainable energy performance indicators, the analysis addresses the actual
results and attempts at developing environmental system models for the assessment of
building performances. In this context, the obtained results delve into examining energy
performances, thus identifying the principal sustainable energy performance indicators
as socio-cultural, economic, and environmental characteristics parameters [37]. The study
conducted by Mwasha et al. comes in support of these findings and concludes that in
regard to SB performance indicators, it is crucial to take into account the economic/energy
efficiency of buildings, in addition to the socio-cultural advantages they are offering [38].
The 2010 studies carried out by Lombera, completely focus on the sustainable environ-
mental index of buildings, as well as the function of building materials, construction
process, building site, energy consumption, and waste management, as essential parame-
ters/characteristics of sustainable energy performance indicators, in the case of industrial
buildings [39,40].
3.4. Smart Building Features

A Smart Building is capable of retrieving information from a variety of input channels
(sensors), processing it according to its default settings, and providing actions in response.
Smart Buildings, also referred to as intelligent buildings, utilize technology in the service
of people, in order to provide a safer, more comfortable, and productive environment. The
concept is flexible, so that it can be adapted to commercial, residential, and even industrial
buildings. The specific abilities of IoT devices of collecting, processing, and analyzing data
from various areas and elements, allow us to obtain automated control and oversight of the
operation of a building in real-time. Moreover, this offers the possibility of increasing the
usability, safety, accessibility, and energy efficiency of the building space [41]. Considering
the novel automation techniques and control systems, it is now feasible to develop buildings
that are capable of reducing energy consumption, improving the surrounding environment,
maximizing the safety of building inhabitants and users, and limiting the environmental
impact through a responsible consumption of resources [41].
Nowadays, in the context of an increasing emphasis on digitization, there is a constant
challenge to transform existing buildings into smart and energy efficient buildings, as well
as design and build new smart buildings. A building that is designed today must be both
green and sustainable, but also energy efficient, in order to meet the needs for responsible
design of the future generations.
3.5. Principles of Green Neighborhoods and Green Cities

In this context, it all originates form the idea of creating a pleasant environment for
residents, such as that of a quiet neighborhood with recreational facilities, while also ensur-
ing recycling practices and environmental protection. Realistically, a “green” house cannot
be built in a polluted city, but only in areas where all inhabitants share the same approach,
such as in the scenario of a neighborhood built from scratch, through the application of
environmental protection principles from the conception phase. Thus, the emphasis is
not only placed on financial comfort during use, but also on the comfort of living, while
preserving the environment. The three elements mentioned above complement and aid
each other: a house that brings together all these elements has a significantly lower initial
cost than a passive house, but also manages to incur low costs during use. Moreover, the
simple fact that its inhabitants remain healthy and are not exposed to the aggressions of
pollution present in a typical city, [5] is a huge benefit, both in terms of quality of life, as
well as in terms of financial advantage [10].
As opposed to the commuter-centered cities, which were a by-product of the Industrial
Revolution and the accelerated trade and production developments of the 20th century, the
novel trends in urban planning have introduced the construction of eco-neighborhoods.
These
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
urban projects are developed with the intent of decreasing the influence on the
11 of 37
environment, and altering the living places, activities, and inhabitants, as well as making
them more aware of their influence on the surroundings and more responsible for their
immediate environment. The key to successfully implementing this type of initiative is the
is the
use use of sustainable
of sustainable technologies
technologies and materials
and materials in the construction
in the construction of buildings
of buildings and
and other
other infrastructures
infrastructures [42]. [42].
Accordingto
According toinformation
informationprovided
providedby bythe
theUnited
UnitedNations,
Nations,bybythe
theyear
year2050,
2050,approxi-
approx-
imately 68% of the global population will live in cities which despite the fact
mately 68% of the global population will live in cities which despite the fact they account they account
for just 3% of the earth’ s surface, they produce approximately 60%
for just 3% of the earth’ s surface, they produce approximately 60% of greenhouse gas of greenhouse gas
emissions and
emissions and consume
consume 78% 78% ofof the
thetotal
totalenergy.
energy.In Inthis
thisdirection,
direction,inin2016,
2016,the
theimproved
improved
New Urban
New Urban Agenda
Agenda was was adopted,
adopted, which
which had
had the
thepurpose
purpose of ofadvising
advisingcountries
countries about
about
correcturbanization
correct urbanizationprocesses
processesin inorder
orderto
toassure
assuremore
morehabitable
habitable cities,
cities, resilient,
resilient, inclusive,
inclusive,
healthier,and
healthier, andsustainable
sustainable[42].[42].The
Thebasic
basicprinciples
principlesofofaaSmart
SmartCity
Cityare
areshown
shownininFigure
Figure5.5.
Figure5.5.The
Figure Theprinciples
principlesof
ofaaSmart
SmartCity.
City.
The
The cities inhabited by
cities inhabited bymost
mostEuropeans
Europeanswillwill play
play anan important
important rolerole in achieving
in achieving sus-
sustainability goals. The European Environment Agency has recently brought
tainability goals. The European Environment Agency has recently brought together stake- together
stakeholders
holders in theinprocess
the process of building
of building sustainable
sustainable cities cities in Europe,
in Europe, with
with the the purpose
purpose of
of devel-
developing
oping a commona common conceptual
conceptual framework,
framework, which
which serves
serves the basis
the basis for the
for the report
report andand
the
the briefing
briefing notenote that
that wewe have
have recentlypublished,
recently published,asaswell
wellasas for
for our
our future assessments
assessments on on
this
thistopic
topic[43–45].
[43–45].The
Theframework
framework isisintended
intendedtotohelp
helpcity
cityauthorities
authoritiesand
andpolicy
policymakers
makers
to
to design
design aa strategy
strategyforfortransition
transitiontotosustainability,
sustainability,
byby analyzing
analyzing thethe concept
concept of urban
of urban sus-
tainability from six different perspectives: the circular city; the resilient city; the city with
low carbon emissions; the green city; the inclusive city; the healthy city [46–48]. From cre-
ating green and blue zones in the city center, to integrating public transport into active
mobility systems (such as cycling and walking), or creating more efficient recycling sys-
tems, the solutions that cities can adopt in the process of transition to urban sustainability
sustainability from six different perspectives: the circular city; the resilient city; the city
with low carbon emissions; the green city; the inclusive city; the healthy city [46–48].
From creating green and blue zones in the city center, to integrating public transport
into active mobility systems (such as cycling and walking), or creating more efficient
recycling systems, the solutions that cities can adopt in the process of transition to urban
sustainability are countless [48,49]. Wider adoption of technological innovations (electric
vehicles, teleworking, etc.) can speed up the process. European green capitals also clearly
show a coherent long-term vision, supported by relevant governance structures, as well as
practical knowledge and real data. This long-term strategic approach truly has the potential
to transform a city in a few decades [50].
4. Certification of Green Buildings

There are several types of GB certifications in the world [19,23], of which Table 1
summarizes the most important ones, in chronological order.
Table 1. Certification of GBs.
Year, Country/Certification Type Certification Criteria Observations, Comments

- Energy
- Health and Wellbeing
This is extensively utilized in the world. Each
- Innovation
building type has its individual scheme.
- Land use and Ecology
1990, UK/ A BREEAM implies two steps of evaluation and
- Management
Building Research Establishment Environmental certification (design stage assessment and a
- Materials
Assessment Method (BREEAM) post-construction assessment), resulting in a final
- Pollution
certificate and a rating depending on how close they
- Transport
are to the concept of sustainable development.
- Waste
- Water
The objectives balance the protection of the
environment and human well-being: HQE is a certification that is issued in France both in
1995, France/Haute Qualité
- energy efficiency the case of construction and building management
Environnementale (HQE)
- respecting the environment schemes, and in planning urban projects.
- the occupiers’ comfort and health
The LEED certification targets the social and
In alphabetical order, eight criteria are considered in environmental dimensions and characteristics of
evaluating the projects: sustainability, with an emphasis on CO2 emission
1. Efficiency of water use reduction, water and energy efficiency, renewable
2. Energy and Atmosphere construction materials, as well as providing a
1998 USA/Leadership in Energy and Environmental 3. Innovation and Processes comfortable and healthy indoor climate.
Design (LEED) 4. Internal Environmental Quality The certification has several levels, which are
5. Location and Transport determined by the points acquired (number). The
6. Materials and Resources score can range at specific point intervals,
7. Regional Priority Credits 40–49 (certified), 50–59 (silver), 60–79 (gold), 80
8. Sustainable Space points and above (platinum), depending on how the
criteria are met
- Energy use and GB gas emissions
- Indoor air quality
- Landscape diversity
- Occupant’s satisfaction
The NABERS certification measures the energy
- Permeable area
1999, Australia/ efficiency of a building, as well as its water
- Rainwater pollution control
National Australian Built Environment Rating consumption, carbon emissions, and waste
- Toxic materials
System (NABERS) production. It also compares the building with other
- Transport
similar buildings.
- Use of refrigerators (Global Warming Potential)
- Volume of sewage expelled
- Waste
- Water use
CASBEE was elaborated by a research committee,
2001, Japan/Comprehensive Assessment System for which brought together academics, industry
The Built Environment Efficiency—BEE
Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) representatives, national/local governments (the
Japan Sustainable Building Consortium).
Building owners and/or managers can choose the
most suitable sustainability characteristics which An online available self-assessment tool was
best fit their projects, occupants, programs, and developed. Its simplistic design allows any
2004, USA/Green Globes
necessities. Therefore, a seal is given to projects that conscientious agent to evaluate their building by
are awarded at least 35% out of completing internet-based questionnaires.
1000 available points.
Table 1. Cont.
Year, Country/Certification Type Certification Criteria Observations, Comments

Throughout the life cycle of a building, it is
mandatory to reduce to a minimum the toxicity of It certifies not only buildings, but also other types of
the materials. products. Its central is the reduction in resource
2005, Nordic countries/Nordic Swan
It assesses both resource and energy use during consumption and the restriction of toxic materials
construction, and through the building’s life, and compounds.
addressing recycling as well.
Seven principles: Obtaining this certification imposes several
-beauty requirements on buildings, including generating
- energy more energy than the energy that is used,
- health capturing/providing, and treating the specific
2006, USA / Living Building Challenge (LBC)
- heritage quantity of water on site, construction with
- location eco-friendly materials. This certification system
- materials mainly focuses on the social dimension
- water of sustainability.
- commercial viability The DGNB certification system was elaborated by
- concept of holistic sustainability the German Sustainability Council. This system is
2007, Germany/
- environment mostly used in Germany and in Germany’s
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges
- good technical quality bordering countries. It is very flexible and thus
Bauen (DGNB)
- people allows for easy implementation in different types
- the involved architectural processes of buildings.
It represents a marker of quality that designates
- reducing the use of resources during construction
comfortable and sustainable buildings.
- decreasing the resources consumption during the
It is a system that can currently be applied to
building’ s life
2017, Denmark/Active House buildings of up to approximately 2000 m2 . It is,
- thermal comfort
however, expected that the assessment will be
- acoustic comfort
expanded to also apply to larger constructions in
- visual comfort
the future.
Communities: certify a district-wide
development plan.
The Green Star seal evaluates the sustainable
Design and As Built: certifies the design and
characteristics of a project through a series of impact
construction, or the wide-scale renovation of
2003, Australia; 2007, New Zeeland/Green Star categories: management, indoor environment
a building.
2008, South Africa/Green Star SA quality, site, water, construction materials, energy
Interiors: certify the adaptation of the interior of
usage, and emissions.
the building.
Performance: certifies the operational performance
of an existing building.
This system presents an evaluation framework,
which allows the incorporation of a variety of
2014, USA/WELL Users (of the building)’ health/well-being strategies focused on placing human health and
well-being at the core of building construction
and operation.
5. Energy of Green Buildings

5.1. Energy Used in Green Buildings
For minimizing the energy consumption of a building, and ultimately mitigating CO2
emissions through energy conservation, there are core approaches:
• Design focused on comfort and optimal orientation for harnessing solar energy;
• Low embodied energy materials used for building’s construction;
• Energy efficient domestic appliances for conserving the building’s operational energy;
• Renewable energy technologies integrated within the building [43].
The most sustainable energy practice is maximum energy conservation within the
building. Passive solar building design can provide immense support for energy conser-
vation efforts because the energy consumption is directly linked to and influenced by the
building design. Constructions having passive solar designs naturally use solar light for
no-cost heating/cooling, as well as lighting during daytime. This significantly decreases
the energy needs, coming from other sources and maintaining a comfortable indoor living
environment. Passive solar design characteristics in line with a wide array of architectural
styles, and can be part of the renovation plan of an existing building, so that the building
becomes a net zero energy construction [44].
Humanity’s expanding energy demand, together with a constantly increasing number
of the population, led to continued use of the well-known, classic energy sources/resources,
such as fossil fuels (gas, coal, oil). This situation has turned into a challenge, as it has
caused many problems, including increasing greenhouse gas emissions and growing
concerns related to the environment, depletion (at an alarming rate) of fossil fuel tanks,
military/geopolitical conflicts, and, of course, the continuing fluctuations in fuel prices.
These issues are bound to lead to an unsustainable global setting, which in turn, will
eventually result in the creation of irreversible threats to the global human society (UNFCC,
2015). Definitively, renewable energy sources represent a superior alternative and the only
feasible solution to the aforementioned challenges. In 2012, according to the information
provided by the US Energy Information Administration, the renewable energy sources
generated 22% of the whole world supply with energy. Such a high percentage would
not have been possible a decade ago [45–48]. In 2014, The International Energy Agency
stated that a reliable energy supply can be considered as being essential for all worldwide
economies, for ensuring lighting, heating, industrial equipment functionality, transport,
etc. Renewable energy sourcing significantly and obviously reduces the greenhouse gases
emissions, when evaluated in comparison with the fossil fuels. Evaluating the fact that
renewable energy is naturally obtained from the continuous contributions of different
types of energy existing in the environment, it can be characterized by sustainability.
Furthermore, it should be emphasized that in order for renewable energy to be considered
as being sustainable, it is mandatory to be both unlimited but also to ensure the optimal
delivery of services and goods in relation to the environment (i.e., sustainable biofuel for
not increasing net CO2 emissions, respectively, or negatively impact food security, or pose
a threat to biodiversity) [49].
Despite the obvious advantages presented by renewable energy sources, there are also
certain shortcomings, such as the irregular and inconsistent generation of energy, as an
effect of seasonal variations, considering the fact that climate and its changes are in strict
correlation with the main renewable energy resource. Due to this challenge, renewable en-
ergy exploitation needs detailed design, planning optimization methods, control and follow.
Therefore, recent and future technological advances in computer software/hardware sys-
tems allow scientists to address these optimizations by using specific computing resources
that are appropriate for the direction of sustainable, renewable energy [50]. Renewable
energy sources (as the name implies) are naturally renewed, but they are also not sub-
ject to depletion in time. Renewable energy sources are about geothermal, wind, solar,
hydropower, ocean (tide and wave) energies, and bioenergy [51,52]
5.1.1. Renewable Energy Sources

This energy manages to gather under its umbrella those energy sources related to a
persistent, natural flow of energy that takes place in the proximal environment, includ-
ing the following energies: geothermal, direct solar, wind, ocean (tides and waves) and
hydropower, as well as bioenergy.
Hydropower
This is a highly important energy source, which is harnessed from the water that
moves from higher to lower elevation levels, in order to move the turbines and, as a
result, generate electricity. Hydropower designs and projects, which cover a wide range in
project scale, come in different shapes, including dam projects with reservoirs, in-stream
projects, run-of-river projects. Hydropower technologies are considered as technically
mature technologies, with projects that exploit a resource that demonstrates temporary
variability. The operational processes of hydropower reservoirs highlight their multiple
uses (drought), as well as flood control [53–55].
Gravity is what provides the primary source of energy, using the height from which
water falls on the turbine. The potential energy of the stored water is given by the gravity
factor (g = 9.81 m /s2 ), the mass of the water, and the height (known as difference between
the dam / tail levels of the water). Somewhat, the reservoir’s water level goes down with
the release of water, and thus influences the production of electricity. Turbines are designed
and built for an optimal flow of water. Hydropower offers many advantages because, from
a practical point of view, it does not generate particle-based pollution, and can be upgraded
just in time, and it has the capacity of storing energy for an extended amount of time in
hours [56,57].
The technical yearly potential for hydropower production is 14,576 TWh, having an
approximative total potential capacity of 3721 GW. However, at present, the world-wide
installed hydropower capacity can be considered significantly below its potential. Taking in
account the 2013 World Energy Council Report, four countries (namely Brazil, China, USA,
and Canada), share approximately 50% of the entire installed hydropower capacity. It is,
however, known that climate change alters the potential resource of hydropower. Globally,
the existing changes in the actual hydropower system of production, that are attributed
to climate changes, are estimated as being <0.1%, although supplemental research will be
needed to decrease the uncertainties of the estimations provided [58].
Since hydropower production does not generate greenhouse gases, it is viewed as
a green energy source. Nevertheless, it poses both advantages, as well as disadvantages.
Hydropower generation improves the socio-economic evolution of a country, but, from
a social impact perspective, when a hydropower system is installed and operated, an
effect is that many people end up being displaced from their homes and are compensated
insufficiently for this aspect. The hydropower production site is often exploited with
detrimental effects. For example, many times, with the reservoirs being artificially made,
this has the consequence of flooding the previous natural environment. Moreover, the water
is drained from the original sources (such as lakes) and then transported by means of canals
and pipes over considerable distances to the turbines often positioned visibly. Hydroelectric
structures, due to the construction of dams/dikes/weirs, affect the ecology of natural water
flow, mainly inducing changes in its hydrological characteristics, disrupting seasonal,
periodic migrations of certain fish varieties, and interrupting the ecological continuity
of sediment transport/movement. In places where many plants/trees are flooded due
to water damage constructions, rotting plants in the water can lead to the formation of
methane gas, which is either released directly or while the water is being processed in
turbines [57,58].
Bioenergy
This type of energy is listed as a renewable energy source which is generated by the
biological resources. An essential energy source, bioenergy is usable for heating or cooking,
biodiesel-fueled transport, and generation of electricity. A wide range of sources can be
considered when producing electricity from bioenergy, including agricultural residues—
forest by-products (such as the wood residues), animal husbandry residue (such as the cow
dung), and sugar cane waste. Fuel often resulting as a by-product, waste product, or a
residue, from the afore-mentioned sources, is one of the main advantages of the biomass
energy-based electricity. The impact and relevance of this specific aspect lies in that there
is no competition between the ground for fuel vs. land for food [59]. At global level,
the biofuels production is somewhat reduced, but it is on a rise tendency [60]. In the
United States, 15 billion liters was the annual biodiesel consumption, reported for 2006,
and it has been increasing with 30–50% yearly, having an expected target (at that time) of
30 billion L/year until the end of 2012 [61].
In the future, biomass has an immense potential for ensuring fuel supply, meanwhile
being considered for decreasing greenhouse gases. Extensive studies have been conducted
in this field for quantifying the global biomass technology. As the published data states,
approximately 3500 EJ/year represents the theoretical entire bioenergy potential, relative to
the earth’s surface, the locations with the best potential being in the Caribbean and South
America (between 47–221 EJ yearly), sub-Saharan Africa (between 31–317 EJ yearly), the
Baltic States and the Commonwealth of Independent States (between 45–199 EJ yearly).
Both the resulting biomass yield and its potential obviously vary between the many coun-
tries, with average yields being reported in areas with temperate climates and high levels
in zones with tropical/subtropical climates. Regarding the identification and implicit use
of these sustainable and ecologically acceptable sources of biomass, much of the research fo-
cuses on identifying and capitalizing on the optimal information to mitigate the increasing
changes in climate [62,63].
Historically, finding, identifying, and using biological-based components (i.e., animal,
plant, mineral, etc.) capable of generating energy has always been a necessity for mankind.
The public is sensitive to the idea of using food produce to provide fuel in a situation where
generalized population hunger and insufficient food is a reality in deprived countries.
It is reported that 99.7% of human food is the result from land and about 0.3% comes
from the Earth’s waters (seas, lakes, rivers) (underlining here, once more, that already, the
most suitable land implied in the biomass provided is used) [60]. The negative/positive
effects on the socio-economic aspects of the production and use of bioenergy, but also on
the environment, have been highlighted in published studies. Considering the general
forestry and agriculture systems [64], the production of bioenergy accentuates vegeta-
tion and solid destruction, in a strict correlation with the water and forests overuse and
overexploitation, excessive removal of forest/crop residue [65]. Conversion of land or
specific crops into bioenergy generation sites induces commodity food prices, thus affecting
the food security [66]. Optimizing soil and crops management would result in positive
effects, including enhancing biodiversity [67,68], soil carbon increasing, and a better quality,
improved soil [58,67,69].
Solar Energy
“Direct solar energy” expression considers the renewable energy technologies that use
direct solar energy. Other technologies (from renewable sources) (such as wind, thermal,
and ocean) are based in part on energy (which has already been absorbed/transformed
into other forms) from the sun. Solar-based energy is the result of irradiation, generating
electricity through photovoltaic cells [70] and focusing this huge solar energy, in order
to generate thermal energy, meeting the needs of direct lighting and, collateral, for the
production of fuels usable for transport, heating, etc. [58]. Since 2013, as it was stated by
the World Energy Council [71], the energy from solar radiation that fell to Earth’s surface
resulted in >7500 times the total yearly consumption of the primary energy in the world,
namely 450 EJ [59].
Geothermal Energy
Sourced naturally, coming from the inner earth, geothermal energy is considered
as representing a heat energy source. The internal structure of the earth/the physical
phenomena tacking place in that environment relates to the origin of the heat. It is well
known that heat is present in the earth’s crust in immense and excessive quantities, and
even more so in its deep inner layers of the earth, often located at unavailable depths to
allow mechanical exploitation. The geothermal gradient is considered to have an average
value of approximately 30 ◦ C/km. Areas further inland can be accessed by drilling, each
gradient being more significant than the average gradient. [72]. Heat can be extracted from
geothermal deposits by using different means (such as wells). Existing deposits, sufficiently
hot and naturally permeable, are known as hydrothermal tanks; another option is the still
adequately hot tanks, which by hydraulic stimulation are optimized/improved, and are
known as improved geothermal systems (ESG). From the moment they reach the surface,
these fluids with varying temperatures are potentially used to produce electricity, or for
other purposes that require the use of thermal energy [58].
Wind Energy
Wind has not only emerged as a considerable essential source, but it has also taken
a leading place among renewable energy sources. Winds (air currents) are present in all
geographical areas of the world, with different intensities, in some locations/areas with
energy density worthy of consideration [73]. The kinetic energy of continuously moving air
at different speeds is harnessed by wind energy. Given the worrying prospects of climate
change, it can be said that the most appropriate and sustainable application of wind energy
is precisely the generation of electricity. This is done through large turbines—installations

for transforming wind energy into electricity, which can be placed both offshore (in salted
water of the seas and in freshwater) and onshore (on the land surface) [74]. Already on a
large scale, these onshore, wind-based energy technologies are currently manufactured and
deployed [58].
Ocean Energy (Wave and Tide)

The passage of wind over water leads to the formation of surface waves. The energy
production of the waves is even higher and is necessarily and directly dependent on the
increase/intensity of the following factors: wind speed, time/duration in which the wind
is sustained, the distance traveled by the wind, and obviously the height of the resulting
waves. [75]. The ocean stores sufficient energy to meet ever-increasing energy requirements
through waves, currents, tide, and heat. The first generation of commercial devices for
harnessing the energy of the oceans were launched in 2008, with the first units installed in
the Portugal-Pelamis and the UK-SeaGen. Currently, four ways of generating energy using
marine space are recognized, as follows: thermal differences between different depth levels
of seawater (deep vs. shallow), wind, tide, and waves [76]. The methodology approach for
green cost/benefits is schematized in Figure 6.
Figure 6. The flow chart describing the methodology approach for the ratio green cost/benefit.
Figure 6. The flow chart describing the methodology approach for the ratio green cost/benefit.
5.2. Green Building Energy Consumption
5.2. Green Building Energy Consumption
One of the most relevant performance indicators of a building is energy consump-
One
tion,of the most
whereas in therelevant performance
case of developing a GB, itindicators of a building
is about reducing the energy is energy consumption,
consumption
of that
whereas building.
in the caseMost GB rating standards
of developing a GB, assign the most
it is about “points” for
reducing thetheenergy
design of en-
consumption of
ergy saving. In this context, studies conducted on the evaluation of the energy perfor-
that building. Most GB rating standards assign the most “points” for the design of energy
mance of constructions are essential. Recently, due to the presence and observation of a
saving. In this context,
performance studies conducted
gap, investigations on the evaluation
have been intensified to determineofwhether
the energy performance of
GBs, when
constructions are essential. Recently, due to the presence
occupied by residents/users, achieve the designed energy-saving standard. and observation of a performance
A 2010 study conducted over a period of more than one year
gap, investigations have been intensified to determine whether GBs, when occupied by summarized the infor-
mation provided
residents/users, in the the
achieve utility bills regarding
designed energy use, resulting
energy-saving standard. in data on the general
sustainability of 12 GB belonging to the General Services Administration [77]. The oper-
Aating
2010 study conducted over a period of more than one year summarized the infor-
energy consumption of the GBs was measured against the values registered by the
mation provided in the utility
Commercial Buildings Energy bills regarding
Consumption energy
Survey. use, resulting
The conclusions of thisinevaluation
data on the general
sustainability
were that theof 12meanGBenergy
belonging to theof General
performance the GBs from Services
the studyAdministration
was 29% better than [77]. The oper-
the average
ating energy value of CBECS,
consumption and GBs
of the that the
wasaverage GB energy
measured performance
against the valuesin the registered
study by the
was approximately 29% more optimized than the mean value mentioned in the survey.
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. The conclusions of this evaluation
Another study comparatively evaluated the features of LEED vs. non-LEED con-
were that the mean
structions locatedenergy performance
in the United of the
States, in the GBs from
northwestern the
part study
of the was
Pacific 29%[78].
Ocean better than the
average
Forvalue of CBECS,
41 buildings with the andsame that the average
characteristics andGBbuiltenergy performance
in the same area, resultsin the study was
were
obtained which
approximately 29%prove
more that the averagethan
optimized value the
recorded
mean forvalue
energymentioned
consumption/floorin thearea,
survey.
was 10% lower
Another studyforcomparatively
the 12 constructions LEED vs. the
evaluated the39features
non-LEED ofconstructions. In North
LEED vs. non-LEED construc-
America, other authors evaluated 121 buildings classified as LEED, by measuring the en-
tions located in the United States, in the northwestern part
ergy performance. On average, it was observed that LEED constructions achieved an en-
of the Pacific Ocean [78]. For
41 buildings with the same characteristics and built in the same
ergy saving of between 25 and 30% compared to the average value recorded / calculated area, results were obtained
whichatprove that
national levelthe
of average value
all commercial recorded
buildings. for energy
Compared to the consumption/floor
energy consumption men- area, was 10%
tioned in the design phase, the measured energy use index (EUI)
lower for the 12 constructions LEED vs. the 39 non-LEED constructions. In North America, showed a significant
scatter. Compared to the projected value of “real EUI”, the deviation was very high, rang-
other authors evaluated 121 buildings classified as LEED, by measuring the energy perfor-
ing from 25% worse and 30% better to more than 50% of the buildings. In addition, the
average energy savings went up simultaneously with the mentioned level of certification,
however, registering scattered values for IUE of constructions with identical level of cer-
tification (i.e., gold-rated buildings EUIs ranged approximately between less than 63 to
more than 442 kWh/m2) [79,80].
Published research re-analyzed the results obtained previously by Turner et al., and
mance. On average, it was observed that LEED constructions achieved an energy saving of
between 25 and 30% compared to the average value recorded / calculated at national level
of all commercial buildings. Compared to the energy consumption mentioned in the design
phase, the measured energy use index (EUI) showed a significant scatter. Compared to the
projected value of “real EUI”, the deviation was very high, ranging from 25% worse and
30% better to more than 50% of the buildings. In addition, the average energy savings went
up simultaneously with the mentioned level of certification, however, registering scattered
values for IUE of constructions with identical level of certification (i.e., gold-rated buildings
EUIs ranged approximately between less than 63 to more than 442 kWh/m2 ) [79,80].
Published research re-analyzed the results obtained previously by Turner et al., and it
was observed that in the case of 28–35% of LEED buildings, the construction of a poorer
actual/real energy performance vs. conventional counterparts, even at LEED buildings,
the average value of energy consumption/floor area <18–39% compared to the energy
consumption of conventional counterparts. Furthermore, there was no noticeable difference
between the different levels of energy certification provided in the project and the measured,
real, energy consumption values of GBs [81]. Diamond et al. used utility bills to compile
the energy consumption values registered for 21 LEED certified buildings. Compared to
the simulated prediction, the total energy consumption billed was 1% lower; the same
simulated prediction exceeded the reference value by 27%. The real situation revealed
that the energy performance achieved by the studied constructions showed significant
imbalances (standard deviation of 46%). Moreover, the LEED energy efficiency score was
not correlated at all with actual energy consumption [82].
The Center for Neighborhood Technology conducted a study of 25 GBs located in
Illinois, using energy data collected across an entire year. The results concluded an obvious
trend for reduced consumption of energy, which was correlated with more energy credits
attained during the stage of design developing, with no correlation between the LEED
certification level and the degree of energy consumption. In addition, only 10 of the
17 buildings evaluated had a lower consumption than the average recorded in that region,
with most buildings having poorer results than expected. [83]. Summarizing the above-
mentioned information, data investigating the GB energy consumption are comparatively
presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Published data investigating the GB energy consumption.
Country, no. of
Observation/Conclusion
Evaluated Buildings, Year, Reference
In LEED buildings, the average energy consumption/floor area ranged from 18–39% < than the energy
Canada + US, 100, 2010 consumption of their conventional counterparts. However, considering the actual/real energy performance,
[77] conventional counterparts performed better than 28–35% of LEED buildings. The distinctions between the
different certification levels and the registered energy consumption of the GBs are not clear.
For A-type buildings (considered mix-mode), just in COLD (Winter) and HOT (Summer) seasons, the energy
China, 31, 2016 consumption requirement of GBs is considerably reduced than common buildings’ consumption.
[84] For B-type buildings (which were mechanically conditioned), it resulted in no statistically significant difference
between common buildings and GBs. This applies to all climate zones.
China, 195, 2018 For Beijing, considering the analysis using Lorentz curves, inequalities of the energy consumption in the case of
[85] offices, hotels, malls, etc., in Beijing were found as having an acceptable value ranging between 0.2–0.3.
For Hong Kong, the HVAC system resulted in having the highest level of consumption of energy, in
Hong Kong, China, 30, 2017 [86] comparison to other countries. Mean deviation of 16% was noted between the design value and the measured
chiller COP (which almost failed to meet the local standard).
During unoccupied periods of the building, significant waste of energy were registered in weekends.
UK, 300, 2010 [87] There was an annual increase of about 8% in nighttime electricity, although wide variations were recorded
between buildings.
The average energy performance of the studied GBs was superior by 29 % compared to the mean CBECS value.
In the same region, the average energy consumption/floor area of 39 non-LEED buildings was 10% higher than
US, 12/51/121, 2008 that of the 12 LEED-buildings.
[77,80,88]
The value of the national average consumption of all commercial buildings was exceeded by LEED buildings,
which saved on average 25–50% more energy. Compared to the projected value of “real EUI”, the deviation was
very high, ranging from 25% worse and 30% better to more than 50% of the buildings.
Table 2. Cont.
Country, no. of
Observation/Conclusion
Evaluated Buildings, Year, Reference
The simulated prediction was 1 % higher than the actual energy consumption, LEED energy efficiency credits
(score) not being correlated with the real energy consumption.
US, 21/25, 2011
[81,83] No correlation was identified between LEED-buildings certification level and energy consumption. Just 10 out
of 17 buildings had a lower energy consumption than the regional mean, while most buildings performed
below expectations.
Comparing non-LEED buildings vs. LEED- buildings, no energy savings resulted.
US, 953, 2013
LEED Gold buildings performed better by 20% than other New York buildings
[89]
LEED Silver and LEED office buildings had lower performances that other NYC office buildings.
Almost 50% of the constructions failed to be in consent with the ASHRAE Standard of a 90.1–2004 energy
US + Europe + China, 51, 2014 target, the countries included in the document being scattered in all areas, each with different climatic types. A
[90,91] tendency for reduced energy consumption was observed in smaller buildings, however this connection could
not be considered absolute
GB, green building; CBECS, Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey; COP, coefficient of performance;
LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; EUI, energy used index; HVAC, heating, ventilation,
air conditioning.
6. The Indoor Environment Quality of Green Buildings in Ensuring the

Inhabitants’ Satisfaction
Occupants’ satisfaction and IEQ are two relevant performing areas in assessing GBs,
and they can generally be considered major markers of GBs’ operating benefits. Occupant
satisfaction and IEQ are inextricably linked, since research shows that an improved indoor
environment contributes to greater occupant’s satisfaction, as well as improvements in
productivity and well-being [92–95].
Recent scientific studies on the post-occupancy investigation of GBs combined per-
sonal occupant satisfaction assessments with objective IEQ evaluations. As a result, IEQ
and occupant’s satisfaction was consolidated into an all-encompassing notion called overall
IEQ performance, which contained both subjective and objective aspects. It is critical to
define which elements target before analyzing the overall IEQ performance of GBs. There
are two types of components that influence IEQ and occupant satisfaction: non-physical
factors and physical factors. Indoor air quality, thermal comfort, acoustic environment,
and lighting are four features of physical factors that can be assessed using quantitative
measures. Non-physical factors include indoor features that are difficult to evaluate with
instruments, such as cleanliness, facilities privacy, furnishing, view, and space layout. The
existing literature had a propensity to focus on physical factors, rather than non-physical
factors, due to their measurable nature [96].
McNaughton et al. studied IEQ factors in five non-certified and five certified LEED
buildings in the United States. The researchers then examined the impact of IEQ on human
cognitive performance. People who lived in GBs had improved performance and fewer
disease symptoms than those who lived in conventional facilities, according to scientific
findings [97].
A 2015 study compared the IEQ of a Green Mark Platinum building to a non-Green
Mark-certified building, both situated in Singapore. In comparison to the GB, the con-
ventional facility provided was approximately 1 degree Celsius colder, had a reduced
luminosity, and had a 2.5–3 times greater air changing rate [98].
Pei et al. used objective measures and subjective assessments to investigate the IEQ
performance of GBs in two different Chinese climatic regions. It has been reported that GBs’
objective IEQ performance fulfilled the planned metrics, and that GBs are more promising
than conventional buildings [99].
POE studies were performed on the IEQ of 12 non-GB and 12 GBs in the northern
United States and Canada. Furthermore, numerous environmental factors linked to better
occupant satisfaction, such as a larger level of indoor luminosity, diminished background
noise levels, attributes associated with thermal comfort, and lowered airborne particulates,
were identified through on-site physical measurements and surveys applied to building
residents. When compared to similar non-green buildings, GBs demonstrated greater
performance in terms of both human and physical variables [81]. Additionally, POE survey
data from two academic office facilities were analyzed in Sydney, Australia, highlighting
that tenant IEQ satisfaction was associated with one’s own perceptions of the environment.
As a result, in comparison with their non-green counterparts, GB residents had an increased
IEQ satisfaction [100].
Another research study evaluated interactions between facility maintenance and
support services for occupant’ s satisfaction and IEQ in seven office facilities in Seoul,
before selecting two constructions for closer examination. The analysis revealed that
both offices’ occupants were satisfied related to their IEQ [101]. The interaction between
energy utilization, occupant satisfaction, and IEQ was further assessed after analyzing each
measure of operating performance in GBs. The essential information from past studies on
the relationship between these parameters are presented below.
Firstly, objective IEQ performance is strongly linked to human factors, particularly
occupant satisfaction. Humans are the indoor environment’s direct service object, and
they have the ability to intuitively sense if the IEQ parameters can be considered as being
comfortable. As a result, the occupant’s contentment with the indoor environment can be
applied as one of the criteria for assessing the IEQ. If an individual’s IEQ performance is
insignificant, the associated IEQ factor can be set, checked, and controlled using personal
feedback. Consequently, the occupant satisfaction level and the objective IEQ converge,
forming the two parts of the extensive IEQ. Secondly, a significant IEQ performance is
achieved at the expense of energy consumption. Functioning of energy-based infrastructure,
such as HVAC systems and lighting, can have a direct impact on objective IEQ settings
and, as a result, on occupant satisfaction. In consequence, the overall IEQ performance
might influence the mode of operation or schedule of facilities, ultimately affecting energy
consumption. High-level GBs face a major issue in balancing energy use and IEQ, which
indicates that efficient GBs should use reduced energy to produce improved IEQ.
In the context of practical infrastructure projects, however, the link between the
components above-mentioned can be considered as being considerably more complex.
Already published research (targeting the combined analysis of consumption of energy,
occupant’ s satisfaction, and IEQ) has been limited, its findings being inconsistent. As
regarding the association between occupant satisfaction and objective IEQ, no consistent
pattern exists to show that higher IEQ leads to an enhanced satisfaction of the occupant.
Despite the fact that a single Chinese study indicated that GBs had better occupant’s
satisfaction and objective IEQ performance than conventional constructions, a further
assessment from South Korea found that the occupant satisfaction in two distinct offices was
similar regardless of the fact that their objective IEQ performances were different [99,101].
This discrepancy emerges from the intricate nature of human perceptions, which are
regularly impacted by a variety of minor conditions. Additionally, the personal control
component, as well as individual differences in comfort preferences, may have a major
influence in this direction [102].
The IEQ status [103] and occupant satisfaction [104] of American GBs, on the other
hand, were less varied, and the discrepancies were minor when compared to energy usage
disparities. As a result of the numerous parameters related with energy consumption
and IEQ performance, the magnitude of the quantitative relationship between IEQ and
energy use remains uncertain. Different types of facilities or systems, operational modes
or schedules, and energy efficiency can all have a significant impact. It has been an
attempt to comprehensively combine energy usage, occupant satisfaction, and IEQ, focusing
on the qualitative correlation between them. The aim is to underline the importance
of a combined examination of energy use, occupant satisfaction, and IEQ in GBs’ post-
occupancy evaluation. Nevertheless, there is no accurate conclusion on the association
between these components, due to the limitations of prior studies in this area. As a result,
it can be assumed that these topics should be given greater priority in the future [103].
combined examination of energy use, occupant satisfaction, and IEQ in GBs’ post-occu-
pancy evaluation. Nevertheless, there is no accurate conclusion on the association be-
tween these components, due to the limitations of prior studies in this area. As a result, it
can be assumed that these topics should be given greater priority in the future [103].
7. The Circular Economy and Green Buildings
7. The Circular Economy and Green Buildings
Circular economy emerged as a measure of climate change and a sustainable approach,
Circular
and it includes several economy
essential emergedincluding
principles, as a measure of climate
the quality change and
of building a sustainable ap-
sustainability
proach, and it includes several
and the building design/construction/operation. essential principles, including the quality of building sus-
tainability and the building design/construction/operation.
Environmental protection and waste management are two concepts that complement
Environmental protection and waste management are two concepts that complement
and complete each other. It is essential to comprehend the nature of our actions and,
and complete each other. It is essential to comprehend the nature of our actions and, most
most importantly, to fullytograsp
importantly, the consequences
fully grasp the consequences that derive
that derivefrom
fromthese actions.Recycling
these actions. Recy- has
cling has recently become a very popular theme, and we can even claim that
recently become a very popular theme, and we can even claim that being an environmen-being an
environmentalist isisnowadays
talist nowadays considered trendy[105].
considered trendy [105].
Within designingWithinbuildings
designinginbuildings
the frame of circular
in the frame ofeconomy, The European
circular economy, Com-Com-
The European
mission’s Directorate-General for Internalfor
mission’s Directorate-General Market,
InternalIndustry, Entrepreneurship
Market, Industry, and SMEs
Entrepreneurship and SMEs
introduces theintroduces
constructionthe construction sector together
sector together with a recommended
with a recommended approach
approach to circular de-
to circular
design, whichsign,
serveswhich serves
as the as the
basis for basis for the overall
the overall principles
principles [105].[105].
AreasAreas of application
of application of of the
the principles,principles,
targeted at targeted
definedat defined objective,
objective, as wellasaswell
theasseven
the seven target
target groups
groups [105],
[105], areare de-
scribed
described in the diagramin thepresented
diagram presented
as Figureas7.Figure 7.
Figure 7. Aim of the principles considering the target group and specific objective (dark green color
Figure 7. Aim of the principles considering the target group and specific objective (dark green color
marks the measure of inclusion of the objectives in the target groups).
marks the measure of inclusion of the objectives in the target groups).
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW High-level perspective of the traditional construction sector [106],
23 ofadapted
37 from BPIE
High-level perspective isofpresented
© VERHAERT, the traditional
in Figureconstruction
8. sector [106], adapted from
BPIE © VERHAERT, is presented in Figure 8.
Figure 8.
Figure 8. High-level
High-leveloverview
overviewof the traditional
of the construction
traditional sector.sector.
construction
8. Green Materials
Significant research was performed in recent decades to decrease the existing energy
requirements in the operation phase of a building, mentioning here the energy required
to maintain the temperature (cooling/heating), optimal ventilation, and hot water produc-
tion (for operating appliances and lighting, etc.). In this way, an optimized, increased en-
ergy performance of several constructions was obtained, throughout their lifetime/service
life, by the fair and adequate implementation of more suitable, much more efficient mate-
8. Green Materials
Significant research was performed in recent decades to decrease the existing energy
requirements in the operation phase of a building, mentioning here the energy required to
maintain the temperature (cooling/heating), optimal ventilation, and hot water production
(for operating appliances and lighting, etc.). In this way, an optimized, increased energy
performance of several constructions was obtained, throughout their lifetime/service life,
by the fair and adequate implementation of more suitable, much more efficient materials
and technical solutions [107]. The current direction of exploiting the renewable energy
sources resulted in a faster advancement of the ZEB term, which implies an annual balance
of zero between the energy utilized for the operation processes of the construction and
the energy obtained from as many as possible renewable sources (e.g., the case of “solar
houses”) [108,109].
Directive 2010/31/EU issued by the European Parliament and the European Council
on 19 May 2010, regarding the buildings’ energy performance, established the target of
NZEB for public constructions by 2018 and, even more so, for all the new buildings (by
2020) [108].
More and more focus has been paid as well to the pre-use phase of a construction
(as is the case of the impact/influence on the environment by the materials used for the
construction, taking into account the extraction of raw materials, processes, and lines
of obtaining/production of them, as well as the disposal of the necessary materials at
the building site). The impact in question, on the environment, but also on construction
materials, is quantifiable by several parameters established in the life cycle assessment
(LCA) procedures (mentioned and described in ISO 14040). This includes energy needs,
water depletion, increased greenhouse gas emissions, etc. It should be added that the
environmental parameters mentioned, which are also essential for the environmental reg-
ulations regarding the impact of buildings, are both difficult to quantify and difficult to
bring to the attention of the public. However, this energy of building materials, the so-
called “embodied energy” (EE), has managed to prove its relevance, gaining increased
importance [110,111]. EE generally consider the energy that is used during the process of
materials’ extraction/production/delivery line to the building-site. It is however worth
noting that, considering published data, it must include as well the “recurrent” EE em-
ployed in both refurbishing/maintenance processes of components and materials of that
building, as well as the energy associated with the building demolition, which is necessary
for the building’s deconstruction and disposing of resulting debris and materials [112–114].
Even by overlooking the other forms of environmental influence generated by con-
structions materials, for >50-year building lifetime in common constructions, EE presently
evidences for 2–38% of the total consumed energy, respectively, for approximately 9–46%
in low energy consumption buildings [9]. In the design process, these estimations highlight
the significance of appropriate choices of SB materials. Certain published data claim that
constructions with low energy consumption have an improved performance than ZEBs
(from the life cycle of a building perspective), considering the latter are constructed with
high energy high EE [112,114]. For this reason, needs for “life cycle ZEBs/net-ZEBs” has
recently been addressed, so as to consider both the operational energy, as well as the energy
consumed throughout the entire life cycle, in accordance to an applicable ‘cradle to grave’
approach [109].
A standardized and universally applicable definition of GB materials has still not
been provided; however, GB materials are largely considered environmentally responsi-
ble/friendly materials [115,116]. Because of this ambiguity, some materials have reached
the market in the field of constructions with a generic label of “greenness”, but with no
objective evidence to support the “greenness”, if not with misleading claims [115]. In some
papers, the green attribute offered to materials has been simply related to the materials’
‘natural’ origins. This reasoning was also applied to materials such as asbestos (considered
as building material in the past, but currently banned because of its proven carcinogenic
effect), turpentine (solvent resulted from the tree resins distillation, as well being harmful
for health), or radon (probably emitted by certain stones used in construction, in the form of
radioactive gas, and considered a cause of lung cancer) [117]. According to a more sensitive
and common conception, these GB materials would be defined as:
• sustainable throughout their life cycle, with the possibility to quantify their sustain-
ability through the LCA methodology, in reference to a ‘cradle to grave’ approach;
• not hazardous for human health (i.e., not generating harmful effects in the context of
and related to the IAQ). Specifically, these GB materials must not generate indoor pol-
lution (biological pollutant proliferation, volatile organic compounds, radon emissions,
hazardous fiber dispersion) or unpleasant indoor climate conditions (e.g., dampness
on surfaces or in certain parts of the building). Both aspects must be mutually treated.
In terms of definition, one of the main problems identifiable is the lack of a “perfect
GB material” vs. green materials. This is due to processes included in a GB life cycle (such
as manufacturing/transportation/placing/disposing/recycling of GB materials) invariably
implying a net zero impact. In the current situation, it is practically impossible to compile a
comprehensive register of green materials, since each designing process entails selecting the
“greenest” materials from what the market has to offer, because of the required materials,
their characteristics/performance, and the best existing technologies. This places great
responsibility in the hands of decisionmakers and furthermore, emphasized the importance
4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 37
of proper material selection [117,118]. The Sustainable Green Materials component is
depicted in Figure 9 and the principles for architectural concepts regarding sustainable
design and pollution prevention are summarized in Figure 10.
Figure 9. The Sustainable Green

Figure 9. The Materials
Sustainable Green component.
Materials component.
Figure 9. The Sustainable Green Materials component.
Figure 10. Principles for

Figure 10. architectural
Principles conceptsconcepts
for architectural regarding sustainable
regarding design/pollution
sustainable prevention.
design/pollution prevention.
A preliminary assessment was necessary when addressing the problem of material

A preliminary assessment was necessary when addressing the problem of material
selection. Besides the “greenness” necessity, materials must comply a plethora of require-
selection. Besides
ments the “greenness”
stated and describednecessity, materials
by standards must comply a plethora
of national/international of require-
level, national laws,
ments statedcodes
andofdescribed by construction
practice, local standards practices,
of national/international
at least in regard to: level, national laws,
codes of practice,
• local construction
acoustic practices,
performance, which at least
is connected to in regard to:
satisfactory indoor comfort;
• aesthetic outcome, coordinated with local construction traditions;
• acoustic•performance, which
cost, within limits is connected
of the to satisfactory indoor comfort;
available budget;
• aesthetic• outcome,
dimension and weight limits,
coordinated with according to the particularities
local construction of the construction;
traditions;
• durability within the particular environmental and geographical context of the build-
• cost, withining
limits
(the of the available
durability budget;
issue is in close relation to sustainability, as it determines the life
• spanweight
dimension and of materials);
limits, according to the particularities of the construction;
• mechanical properties of the structural materials, including stiffness, strength, behav-
• durability within the particular
ior in under environmental
seismic activity, etc.; and geographical context of the build-
ing (the•durability
safety, both in case of fire and during the positioning / handling of materials;
issue is in close relation to sustainability, as it determines the life
• particular performances related to buildings usage (i.e., safety requirements for schools,
span of materials);
hygiene requirements for hospitals, particular color and/or transparency requirements
for libraries, etc.);
• thermal performance, which is necessary for achieving a satisfactory energetic behavior
while in operation.
This multitude of criteria makes the selection of materials quite challenging. Based on
the condition of fulfilling all other requirements, choosing the materials being based and
related to the actions or effects on the environmental space, and therefore on human health,
taking place during the design process, in two different stages, as follows:
• the initial stage (considered the phase of evaluation of the project and during which
various technological solutions and their feasibility are evaluated); and
• the second stage, regarding the specific environmental concerns that become part of
the decision-making process [119,120].
Many comparative reviews and studies have been carried out, highlighting the asso-
ciated tools, and revealing few critical aspects. Several weak points were described and
noted, regarding the used materials:
• methods related to collecting information on materials lifecycle. The input values are
generally collected from voluminous databases of building materials [113], which ac-
tually provide data regarding the categories of materials, instead of single commercial
materials. Unfortunately, this is a cause for errors in the analysis, due to the following
parameters: variation and rapid evolution [113] of the manufacturing/production
processes of the materials for constructions, material formulas differences, the changes
(and sometimes lack of knowledge) regarding the locations of material sourcing and
supply, etc. It is worth noting that the manufacturing processes for building materials
are not as standardized as the processes associated with other goods. This is because
of the specific type and characteristics of each building, and the variations occurring
at national or regional level. An exemplificative case regarding the uncertainty of
working and considering the most simplified classes of building materials, which
is mentioned in specialty literature and databases, describes very large differences
(e.g., in the case of steel: from 0.84 to 312 MJ/kg; in the case of brass: from 17 to
239 MJ/kg; in the case of paints: from 3 to 98 MJ/kg) [113,121].
• the functional unit utilized in the calculus. The way of choosing the functional unit
hugely impacts all the results because the materials should be considered compara-
tively with their primary role in the construction; a possible improper unit may lead
to erroneous data (i.e., comparing structural materials, such as aluminum vs. steel,
must be done in reference to varying cross sections characterized by similar strength
performance, regardless of their unit mass). In parallel, the comparison between
flooring tiles must be conducted about unit area (rather than unit mass). The impact
of the building’s environment/floor area is a critical unit when it is about building
certification [121].
• the phases of the life cycle. Although some assessment tools omit building mainte-
nance, demolition, and disposal, there is still a general agreement on the impact of
materials (in the context of the supply of raw materials, the manufacturing process,
transport, and delivery to the site, as well as and the operational activity after the
commissioning of the building)
• the duration of service life. Depending on accessibility and durability, the building
materials might have different service life lengths, a general lifespan of 50 years is
generally considered [121].
• the energy of materials quality. The quantification of the embodied energy of materials
can be performed considering either the primary energy, or the end use/delivered
energy. In regard to EE determination, there is no clear agreement on this energy. [114].
• differences caused by different parameter quantification systems [119], representing
the key items of environmental assessments.
• the lack of parameters that can be used to evaluate the materials’ impact on IAQ. This
aspect is vaguely considered and appropriate parameters must still be established [122],
although minimal study was performed to create procedures for the evaluations of
the effects of materials on indoor pollution [123].
LEED-based rating system takes into account no less than four credits/points to IEQ
and, for each of the following items, being given one point:
• coatings and paints limiting VOC emission;
• low VOC emitting carpets;
• adhesive and sealants limiting VOC emission;
• composite wood and agrifibre products without urea-formaldehyde resins [124].
Introducing these parameters is obviously of great importance; however, they are
offering just a limited picture of the potentially hazardous effects of materials within the
building environment. These effects are compiled and summarized under the umbrella
terms of Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) and Building Related Illness (BRI).
Issues such as fiber dispersion, radon emissions, and biological pollutants are not
considered, nor are potential VOC emissions generated by other components of the building
(thermal insulating materials, resilient flooring, biocide application on organic materials,
etc.). Currently, LEED credits include only a very small portion of the requirements issued
by the European and other international authorities in the field of pollution and IAQ [117].
8.1. Examples of Green Materials

8.1.1. Quarry Dust
It is a waste by-product that results from the extraction and treatment of rocks to create
soft particles with sizes of about 4.75 mm or less. Quarry dust is produced during crushing,
screening, and blasting coarse aggregate. In this situation, it will take the form of angular,
sharp, and rough particles, with increased interlocking between them, which provides
the quarry with increased strength. Thus, when rock quarry dust is used in concrete, it
improves the resistance against acid and sulphate and provides low permeability, when
compared to concrete made from conventional Portland cement. However, in certain
situations, the use of quarry dust increases the amount of cement that is needed to maintain
workability within permitted rates. The use of quarry sand is typically limited, because a
high cement paste volume would be required to achieve the appropriate workability of
concrete [125]. Obviously, using waste materials, such as quarry dust, in the production of
concrete, will reduce the production cost of concrete.
8.1.2. Fly Ash

Fly ash is a very soft powder generated as a by-product of coal combustion. In
general, fly ash is collected from the chimneys of the coal-fired electrical power plants.
There are generally two kinds of ash, namely coal ash which is utilized as part of the
concrete mixture, and bottom ash, which is collected from the bottom of coal furnaces.
The composition of fly ash varies in accordance with the origin and texture of the burned
coal. Nevertheless, all types of fly ash are made of silicon dioxide (SiO2) and calcium
oxide (CaO) [126]. In theory, it is possible to use fly ash as opposed to mixing in the entire
amount of Portland cement; however, when the percentage of replacement is at 80% or
above, it is recommended to use a chemical activator. There use of fly ash includes several
advantages. Firstly, it can by generating the minimal hydration heat, it can improve the
durability of concrete. Secondly, fly ash enhances the strength and durability of hardened
concrete and significantly improves concrete workability. Moreover, it can reduce the water
that is required in the mixture, and thus it can better the flow behavior [125].
8.1.3. Masonry and Concrete Waste

Recycled coarse masonry or concrete are gradated aggregates that result from useable
concrete or masonry waste and are traditionally used in road construction. The substance
may consist of small amounts of crushed bricks, rock gravel, or other forms of stone-
based materials, which are included in the mixture. Recycled fine aggregates may be
recommended for use as smashed concrete fines; however, the excessive quantity and
grading form of fines may determine the finishing capacity, rate of bleeding, and concrete
workability [125].
8.1.4. Silica Fume

Silica fume results as a by-product of several industrial processes, but, unfortunately,
silica may be a cause for air pollution. Thus, in order to reduce the silica-induced air
pollution, micro silica is combined with cement. The resulting concrete will be more
sustainable, and its strength will increase when replacing 5–15% percent of the mixture
with silica. However, it is not advised to surpass this percentage and increase the rate
of replacement by 20%, because it can lead to reduced concrete strength. Silica fume is
finer than cement and it can easily react with the other ingredients of the concrete mix. As
such, silica fume will increase the consistency of cement, at a very fast rate, compared to
conventional concrete [127].
8.1.5. Marble Waste

Since antiquity, marble waste has been a traditional and widely used construction
material. However, one of the most pressing environmental problems is the disposal of
marble industry waste, which consists of very fine marble powder. Yet, this powder waste
can successfully be used to develop certain characteristics of traditional concrete, such as
hardness. [125].
8.1.6. Crushed Glass

Glass is a colorless, fragile, hard-textured, and transparent material. ASTM Interna-
tional, which defines glass industry standards, defines glass as an inorganic substance with
a 6.5 hardness. When its state turns from molten into a colder case, glass becomes solid
and without any crystallization. The core glass component is the silica; however, glass can
contain Al2 O3 (aluminum oxide), CaO (calcium oxide), MgO (magnesium oxide), and Na2 O
(natrium oxide). Research has concluded that it is possible to use glass in concrete mixtures
in one of three shapes: rough glass aggregate, soft glass aggregate, and also, soft glass
powder. When glass and cement are combined, the glass is subjected to a chemical action.
The result is a hydrated calcium silicate and then the reaction of hydrated cement, resulting
in pozzolan [128]. Studies have demonstrated that the rise in the glass waste magnitude
would reduce the concrete specific weight and the concrete compressive strength because
of the decreased adhesion with glass [129]. The reduction in particle size will enhance
workability, while at the same time, the compressive strength of cement at 28 days will
reduce it. The mixing of fine and rough glass will enhance water absorption, which in turn
will minimize concrete shrinkage [130].
8.1.7. Polyethylene Terephthalate

Polyethylene terephthalate can be considered a long chain polymer with a polyester
structure. It is composed of ethylene glycol and pure terephthalic acid, both being
petroleum-based products. Polyester processing involves chemicals which result from the
polymerization of alkali and acid. Polyethylene terephthalate is an amorphous glass sub-
stance and its waste utilized in concrete can aid in reducing the environmental impact. A
microstructure of lightweight PET (Polyethylene terephthalate) aggregates was analyzed in
2005, by testing the influence of the grainy slag for molten metal on the microstructure [131].
The study concluded that the density of concrete consisting of PET aggregates increased
from 1940 to 2260 kg/m3. In parallel, the transition region between cement paste and PET
particles was noted to expand, in comparison with normal aggregates. It was predictable
that the slag grain of molten metal could increase the limit and level of the PET transition
zone, which would lead to calcium hydroxide reactions. Experiments have demonstrated
that the use of PET in the concrete increase ductility and minimize cracks caused by shrink-
age [132,133]. On the other hand, a high-quality, lightweight concrete can be produced via
PET, as its particular density is somewhat lower compared to normal aggregates [18]. The
increase in the PET component amount to 15% will reduce the compressive strength of the
concrete by 15.9% to 18%, the elastic modulus by 20% to 23%, and the specific weight by
3.1% to 3.3% [134].
8.1.8. Ceramic and Tile

Ceramic can be described as a non-organic and non-metallic material, of which there
are two kinds. On the other hand, tile can be defined as a slice of artificial stone with
the thickness of a few millimeters, a smooth surface, and a soft top side. Ceramic and
tile waste can be generated during the transfer operation, during post burning, due to
manufacturing or human error, from the contact with an unsuitable substance, or it may
occur as a byproduct of building destruction [135]. Several studies have attempted to

evaluate the use of a specific type of tile and ceramic waste in concrete. The results of
the experiments show that it could be practical to use tiles in concrete as an aggregate or
pozzolan [136,137]. In the case of white ceramic being used as a soft aggregate, at rates of
10–50%, the concrete quality will be improved [138]. Furthermore, when porcelain sanitary
waste is utilized as coarse aggregate in concrete at a rate of 3–9%, its resistance is higher
than that of concrete without additives, at a rate of 2–8% [139]. Another study, conducted
by Medina et al. (2012), showed that when the curing takes around 28 days, and a sanitary
porcelain waste is used at a percentage of 5–20% of the aggregates, the concrete resistance
will be increased [140].
9. EU Regulations on GBs
The construction industry, especially the commercial and residential building sector,
is the EU’s largest energy consumer and CO2 emitter. This activity sector represents ap-
proximately 40% of the EU’s overall CO2 emissions and energy usage [141,142]. Building
codes are adopted by governments worldwide to protect populations from harm caused
by possible structural collapses and other building-related concerns. The codes should
accomplish their objective by outlining at the very least the minimal standards for con-
struction techniques and materials. Catastrophic phenomena, such as meteorological
threats or earthquakes, highlight the significance of enforcing construction codes on a
constant and effective basis. The methodologies for GB design are often not compulsory
and are presented as design choices or concepts to consider. The approaches are not always
complementary or supportive of one another and using one may exclude using others.
Architects, developers, designers, proprietors, and other stakeholders or collaborators in
the GB maintenance operation will have to consider the benefits of using a certain ap-
proach. To accomplish a project’s various design objectives, a step-by-step approach and a
comprehensive examination may be required.
The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD—Directive 2002/91/EC), which
established minimum energy efficiency standards and Energy Performance Certificates
(EPCs), improved the EU’s legislative basis for sustainable buildings in 2002 [143]. Selection
of a calculating procedure, mandatory energy performance certifications, and minimum
energy performance criteria were all mentioned in the original EPBD 2002/91/EC. The
EPBD was updated in 2010 with Directive 2010/31/EU on energy performance of buildings,
which enhanced the requirements and expanded the scope of the EPBD. Furthermore, it
has introduced the NZEB concept and set a debut date of 2018/2020. It also pioneered the
concept of “cost-optimal levels” of building energy efficiency, which corresponds to “energy
efficiency that results in the lowest cost over the predicted economic life cycle.” Furthermore, via
intermediate targets for increasing the energy performance of new facilities by 2015, the
Directive supported the establishment of national strategies to implement the concept
of NZEBs. The European Commission released a package of recommendations titled
“Clean Energy for All Europeans” in November 2016, with the aim of implementing a solid
regulatory system to aid in the transition to sustainable energy. This was a significant step
upwards to the founding of the Energy Union. The recommendations in “Clean Energy for
All Europeans” are aimed at assisting the EU energy sector in becoming more competitive,
stable, and sustainable. These aims, which are relevant for the 21st century, are supported by
the EU’s capability to perform its commitments under the Paris Agreement. The European
Parliament and the European Council published Directive 2009/125/EC on 21 October
2009, which establishes an approach to setting eco-design standards for energy-related
items. This is significant, particularly in the context of construction materials [144,145].
The Passive House Standard is a sustainable building standard that should be applied
in all EU member states by 2021, according to a resolution passed by the European Parlia-
ment on 31 January 2008. Moreover, the European Council and The European Parliament
established on 17 November 2009 a deadline of 2020 for all newly built facilities to be
NZEBs [146].
As of 1 January 2030, the ZEB standards will be implemented to all new facilities, and
as of 1 January 2027, it will be applicable to all new constructions occupied or administered
by public institutions.
Even though the proposal’s major aim is to lower operational greenhouse gases, the
ZEB definition also targets the computation of life-cycle Global Warming Potential (GWP)
and its dissemination through the energy performance certificate of the facility. This
regulation will come into operation on 1 January 2027, for all new structures having a
functional floor area greater than 2000 square meters, and on 1 January 2030, for all new
constructions [147].
The EU Parliament adopted a decision on the new resource efficiency implementation
plan in February 2021, demanding specific initiatives to develop a completely circular
economy by 2050 that is ecologically sustainable, non-toxic, and carbon neutral. The
resolution contains rigorous recycling requirements as well as more restrictive material
use and consumption limits. As part of the circular economy implementation plan, the EU
Commission released the first set of measures in March 2022 with the aim of accelerating
the transition to a circular economy. The recommendations are aimed to assist consumers
for the green transition, promoting sustainable products, managing building product
regulation, and implementing a strategy for sustainable textiles [105].
In the context of climate change, the international community must implement policies
to include achievable objectives on its agenda, such as biodiversity in the framework of
a circular economy, CO2 emission neutrality, and economic and social prospects for the
population. At the end of March 2022, the European Commission implemented a set
of regulations regarding the circular economy action plan. Furthermore, the European
Council and the European Parliament have requested initiatives to promote the circularity
of building products, address barriers in the building product single market, and support
the Circular Economy action plan and the European Green Deal’s targets [148].
Since the EPBD does not explicitly state practical numeric intervals or thresholds, these
specifications allow for considerable individual perception, enabling EU Member States to
describe their NZEB in a flexible manner, considering country-specific weather patterns,
major energy indicators, building traditions, calculation approaches, and ambition degree.
Furthermore, this is also the guiding factor behind different NZEB definitions in various
nations. According to the EPBD report from the Concerted Action (CA), around 40% of
EU states have yet to establish an accurate description of NZEB. The research also stated
that approximately 60% of member states have specified their precise definition of NZEB
in a legal document, while part of them are keeping the definition in draft condition or
indicating the potential for future modifications to the term [149].
10. Conclusions and Future Directions

1. The present research paper introduces and describes a coherent approach for the sus-
tainable design of the future, namely the GB solution, characterized by sustainability
and energy efficiency.
2. Also, it provides a comprehensive assessment to explore the progress and the current
scientific framework of GBs, including design, certification systems, circular econ-
omy, renewable energy sources, and green materials, all in the context of sustainable
development. However, no other publication has evaluated all these concepts simul-
taneously in a similar manner. The main shortcoming of the present study is that
the ongoing advancement of GB design technology and concepts, as well as related
scientific literature, is largely approached from a strictly engineering perspective and
not sufficiently from an occupant/beneficiary-oriented perspective.
3. Future research directions have been established based on the quantitative evaluation
of all GB-related factors, the investigation of dynamic strategy models for sustainable
GB development, and the approach of GB design from an occupant perspective.
4. The information and the manner in which it is presented open the door to a similar
analysis of the concept of green neighborhoods or even that of green cities, with
existing publication that can be used to analyze and synthesize, as well as provide
real examples.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.C.B. and M.F.P.; methodology, C.C.B. and T.B.; software,
C.C.B. and T.B.; validation, I.F.P. and M.F.P.; formal analysis, C.C.B.; investigation, C.C.B., T.B.,
I.F.P. and M.F.P.; resources, T.B.; data curation, C.C.B. and T.B.; writing—original draft preparation,
C.C.B. and T.B.; writing—review and editing, T.B.; visualization, M.F.P.; supervision, M.F.P.; funding
acquisition, C.C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The APC was funded by the University of Oradea through and internal project.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Information provided in this paper are supported by published data
in the mentioned references.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank to the University of Oradea, Oradea, Romania,
for supporting the APC.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Bhutta, F.M. Application of smart energy technologies in building sector—Future prospects. In Proceedings of the 2017 Interna-
tional Conference on Energy Conservation and Efficiency (ICECE), Lahore, Pakistan, 22–23 November 2017; pp. 7–10.
2. Abdallah, M.; El-Rayes, K.; Liu, L.Y. Optimizing the selection of sustainability measures to minimize life-cycle cost of existing
buildings. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2016, 43, 151–163. [CrossRef]
3. Yan, R.; Xiang, X.; Cai, W.; Ma, M. Decarbonizing residential buildings in the developing world: Historical cases from China. Sci.
Total Environ. 2022, 847, 157679. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Zhang, S.; Ma, M.; Xiang, X.; Cai, W.; Feng, W.; Ma, Z. Potential to decarbonize the commercial building operation of the top two
emitters by 2060. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 185, 106481. [CrossRef]
5. Lu, Y.; Cui, P.; Li, D. Which activities contribute most to building energy consumption in China? A hybrid LMDI decomposition
analysis from year 2007 to 2015. Energy Build. 2017, 165, 259–269. [CrossRef]
6. Imperatives, S. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future; Oxford University Press:
Oxford, UK, 1987; 300p.
7. Klarin, T. The Concept of Sustainable Development: From its Beginning to the Contemporary Issues. Zagreb Int. Rev. Econ. Bus.
2018, 21, 67–94. [CrossRef]
8. Lombardi, P. Understanding Sustainability in the Built Environment: A Framework for Evaluation in Urban Planning and Design;
University of Salford: Salford, UK, 1999.
9. Ding, G.K.C. Developing a multicriteria approach for the measurement of sustainable performance. Build. Res. Inf. 2005, 33,
3–16. [CrossRef]
10. Weiss, E.B. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Int. Leg. Mater. 1992, 31, 814–817. [CrossRef]
11. Hughes, P. Local Agenda 21 in the United Kingdom: A Review of Progress and Issues for New Zealand; Office of the Parliamentary
Commissioner for the Environment: Wellington, New Zealand, 2000; 38p.
12. Harding, R. Environmental Decision-Making; The Federation Press: Wales, Australia, 1998; 366p.
13. Teng, J.; Mu, X.; Wang, W.; Xu, C.; Liu, W. Strategies for sustainable development of green buildings. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 44,
215–226. [CrossRef]
14. Li, Y.; Li, M.; Sang, P.; Chen, P.-H.; Li, C. Stakeholder studies of green buildings: A literature review. J. Build. Eng. 2022,
54, 104667. [CrossRef]
15. Zuo, J.; Zhao, Z.-Y. Green building research–current status and future agenda: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 30,
16. Frontczak, M.; Schiavon, S.; Goins, J.; Arens, E.; Zhang, H.; Wargocki, P. Quantitative relationships between occupant satisfaction
and satisfaction aspects of indoor environmental quality and building design. Indoor Air 2012, 22, 119–131. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.;
Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Rev. Esp. Cardiol. 2021,
74, 790–799. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. World Green Building Trends 2018 SmartMarket Report. Available online: https://www.worldgbc.org/news-media/world-
green-building-trends-2018-smartmarket-report-publication (accessed on 20 March 2022).
19. Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C.; Yang, Y.; Shan, M.; He, B.-J.; Gou, Z. Influences of barriers, drivers, and promotion strategies on green
building technologies adoption in developing countries: The Ghanaian case. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 200, 687–703. [CrossRef]
20. EPA. Buildings and their Impact on the Environment: A Statistical Summary. Available online: https://archive.epa.gov/
greenbuilding/web/pdf/gbstats.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2022).
21. Strohmer, S. Green Buildings in Europe—Regulations, Programs, and Trends: An Interview with Robert Donkers. Bridges 2006,
11, 1–5.
22. What is BREEAM? Available online: https://web.archive.org/web/20150923194348/http://www.breeam.org/ (accessed on
21 March 2022).
23. WBDG Whole Building Design Guide. Available online: https://www.wbdg.org/design-objectives/sustainable (accessed on
22 March 2022).
24. Iwaro, J.; Mwasha, A. The impact of sustainable building envelope design on building sustainability using Integrated Performance
Model. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2013, 2, 153–171. [CrossRef]
25. Duran-Encalada, J.A.; Paucar-Caceres, A. Sustainability model for the valsequillo lake in Puebla, Mexico: Combining system
dynamics and sustainable urban development. In Proceedings of the the 2007 International Conference of the System Dynamics
Society and 50th Anniversay Celebration, Boston, MA, USA, 29 July–2 August 2007.
26. Department of Trade and Industry. Sustainable construction strategy report. Available online: www.dti.gov.uk (accessed on
29 September 2010).
27. Yun, W. Modular construction and evaluation of green building technology system based on LEED. J. Chem. Pharm. Res. 2014,
6, 2904–2913.
28. Environmental Protection Agency. USEPA Green Building Basic Information. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/
greenbuilding/pubs/about.htm (accessed on 11 January 2022).
29. 25 Years Passive House—Interview with Dr. Wolfgang Feist. Available online: https://passivehouse.com/02_informations/01
_whatisapassivehouse/01_whatisapassivehouse.htm (accessed on 15 May 2022).
30. What is sustainable architecture: Definition, concept and famous examples. Available online: https://www.lifegate.com/
sustainable-architecture-definition-concept-projects-examples (accessed on 30 April 2022).
31. Rettenwender, T.; Spitz, N. The Principles of Green Building Design. MA, Mag. Arch, MA, Mag. Arch., LEED AP, Architect and Niklas
Spitz Monterey Peninsula College INTD62, Monterey Peninsula; Academia: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2009; 36p.
32. Bungău, C.C.; Prada, I.F.; Prada, M.; Bungău, C. Design and Operation of Constructions: A Healthy Living Environment-
Parametric Studies and New Solutions. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6824. [CrossRef]
33. Alam, S.; Haque, Z. Fundamental principles of green building and sustainable site design. Int. J. Manag. Appl. Sci. 2016, 2, 1–5.
34. Kapsalaki, M.; Leal, V.; Santamouris, M. A methodology for economic efficient design of Net Zero Energy Buildings. Energy Build.
2012, 55, 765–778. [CrossRef]
35. Masoso, O.T.; Grobler, L.J. The dark side of occupants’ behaviour on building energy use. Energy Build. 2010, 42,
36. Schlueter, A.; Thesseling, F. Building information model based energy/exergy performance assessment in early design stages.
Autom. Constr. 2009, 18, 153–163. [CrossRef]
37. Popescu, D.; Bungau, C.; Prada, M.; Domuta, C.; Bungau, S.; Tit, D.M. Waste management strategy at a public university in smart
city context. Journal of environmental protection and ecology 2016, 17, 1011–1020.
38. Mwasha, A.; Williams, R.G.; Iwaro, J. Modeling the performance of residential building envelope: The role of sustainable energy
performance indicators. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 2108–2117. [CrossRef]
39. Lombera, J.-T.S.-J.; Aprea, I.G. A system approach to the environmental analysis of industrial buildings. Build. Environ. 2010, 45,
40. Lombera, J.-T.S.-J.; Rojo, J.C. Industrial building design stage based on a system approach to their environmental sustainability.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2010, 24, 438–447. [CrossRef]
41. The 6 features of smart buildings. Available online: https://nexusintegra.io/features-smart-buildings/ (accessed on 23 June 2022).
42. Green or Sustainable Buildings. The ‘Green’ Buildings are Leading the Way to more Sustainable and Efficient Urban Planning.
Available online: https://www.iberdrola.com/sustainability/sustainable-green-buildings (accessed on 30 April 2022).
43. Chel, A.; Kaushik, G. Renewable energy technologies for sustainable development of energy efficient building. Alex. Eng. J. 2018,
57, 655–669. [CrossRef]
44. Aksamija, A. Regenerative design of existing buildings for net-zero energy use. Procedia Eng. 2015, 118, 72–80. [CrossRef]
45. UNFCCC, V. Adoption of the Paris agreement. Propos. Pres. 2015, 282.
46. Administration, E.I. Annual Energy Outlook 2012: With Projections to 2035; Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
47. Guruswamy, L. International Energy and Poverty; Routledge Publishing: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015.
48. Tiwari, G.N.; Mishra, R.K. Advanced Renewable Energy Sources; Royal Society of Chemistry: Zhongguancun, China, 2012.
49. Twidell, J.; Weir, T. Renewable Energy Resources, 3rd ed.; Routledge: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015.
50. Baños, R.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F.; Montoya, F.G.; Gil, C.; Alcayde, A.; Gómez, J. Optimization methods applied to renewable and
sustainable energy: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 1753–1766. [CrossRef]
51. Panwar, N.; Kaushik, S.; Kothari, S. Solar greenhouse an option for renewable and sustainable farming. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2011, 15, 3934–3945. [CrossRef]
52. Owusu, P.; Asumadu-Sarkodie, S. A review of renewable energy sources, sustainability issues and climate change mitigation.
Cogent. Eng. 2016, 3, 1167990. [CrossRef]
53. Asumadu-Sarkodie, S.; Owusu, P.A.; Jayaweera, M. Flood risk management in Ghana: A case study in Accra. Adv. Appl. Sci. Res.
2015, 6, 196–201.
54. Asumadu-Sarkodie, S.; Owusu, P.; Rufangura, P. Impact analysis of flood in Accra, Ghana. Adv. Appl. Sci. Research. 2015, 6, 53–78.
55. Edenhofer, O.; Pichs-Madruga, R.; Sokona, Y.; Seyboth, K.; Matschoss, P.; Kadner, S.; Zwickel, T.; Eickemeier, P.; Hansen, G.;
Schlömer, S. IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation; Prepared by Working Group III of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011.
56. Hamann, A. Coordinated Predictive Control of a Hydropower Cascade; Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2015.
57. Førsund, F. Hydropower Economics; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2005; Volume 112, p. 36.
58. Edenhofer, O.; Pichs-Madruga, R.; Sokona, Y.; Seyboth, K.; Kadner, S.; Zwickel, T.; Eickemeier, P.; Hansen, G.; Schlömer, S.; von
Stechow, C. Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011.
59. Urban, F.; Mitchell, T. Climate Change, disasters and Electricity Generation. 2011. Available online: https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/
opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/2504 (accessed on 24 July 2022.).
60. Ajanovic, A. Biofuels versus food production: Does biofuels production increase food prices? Energy 2011, 36, 2070–2076. [CrossRef]
61. Ayoub, M.; Abdullah, A.Z. Critical review on the current scenario and significance of crude glycerol resulting from biodiesel
industry towards more sustainable renewable energy industry. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 2671–2686. [CrossRef]
62. Hoogwijk, M.; Faaij, A.; Eickhout, B.; De Vries, B.; Turkenburg, W. Potential of biomass energy out to 2100, for four IPCC SRES
land-use scenarios. Biomass Bioenergy 2005, 29, 225–257. [CrossRef]
63. Demirbas, M.F.; Balat, M.; Balat, H. Potential contribution of biomass to the sustainable energy development. Energy Convers.
Manag. 2009, 50, 1746–1760. [CrossRef]
64. Behl, T.; Kaur, I.; Sehgal, A.; Singh, S.; Sharma, N.; Bhatia, S.; Al-Harrasi, A.; Bungau, S. The dichotomy of nanotechnology as the
cutting edge of agriculture: Nano-farming as an asset versus nanotoxicity. Chemosphere 2022, 288, 132533. [CrossRef]
65. Koh, L.P.; Ghazoul, J. Biofuels, biodiversity, and people: Understanding the conflicts and finding opportunities. Biol. Conserv.
2008, 141, 2450–2460. [CrossRef]
66. Headey, D.; Fan, S. Anatomy of a crisis: The causes and consequences of surging food prices. Agric. Econ. 2008, 39,
67. Baum, S.; Weih, M.; Busch, G.; Kroiher, F.; Bolte, A. The impact of short rotation coppice plantations on phytodiversity.
Landbauforsch. Volkenrode 2009, 59, 163–170.
68. Schulz, U.; Brauner, O.; Gruß, H. Animal diversity on short-rotation coppices–a review. Landbauforsch. Volkenrode 2009, 59, 171–181.
69. Tilman, D.; Hill, J.; Lehman, C. Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass. Science 2006, 314,
1598–1600. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70. Asumadu-Sarkodie, S.; Owusu, P.A. The potential and economic viability of solar photovoltaic power in Ghana. Energy Sources
Part A Recovery Util. Environ. Eff. 2016, 38, 709–716. [CrossRef]
71. World Energy Council. World Energy Resources: Hydro. Available online: https://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/
2013/10/WER_2013_5_Hydro.pdf (accessed on 16 January 2022).
72. Barbier, E. Geothermal energy technology and current status: An overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2002, 6, 3–65. [CrossRef]
73. Manwell, J.F.; McGowan, J.G.; Rogers, A.L. Wind energy Explained: Theory, Design and Application; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken,
NJ, USA, 2010.
74. Asumadu-Sarkodie, S.; Owusu, P.A. The potential and economic viability of wind farms in Ghana. Energy Sources Part A Recovery
Util. Environ. Eff. 2016, 38, 695–701. [CrossRef]
75. Jacobson, M.Z.; Delucchi, M.A. Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy
resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 1154–1169. [CrossRef]
76. Esteban, M.; Leary, D. Current developments and future prospects of offshore wind and ocean energy. Appl. Energy 2012, 90,
77. Fowler, K.M.; Rauch, E.M.; Henderson, J.W.; Kora, A.R. Re-Assessing Green Building Performance: A Post Occupancy Evaluation of 22
GSA Buildings; Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL): Richland, WA, USA, 2010; 275p.
78. Baylon, D.; Kennedy, M. For Seattle City Light; Ecotope: Seattle, WA, USA, 2008.
79. Turner, C.; Frankel, M.; Council, U. Energy performance of LEED for new construction buildings. New Build. Inst. 2008, 4, 1–42.
80. Turner, C. LEED Building Performance in the Cascadia Region: A Post Occupancy Evaluation Report; The Council: Portland, OR,
Canada, 2006; 16p.
81. Newsham, G.R.; Mancini, S.; Birt, B.J. Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Yes, but . . . . Energy Build. 2009, 41,
82. Diamond, R. Evaluating the Energy Performance of the First Generation of LEED-Certified Commercial Buildings; Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2006.
83. Council, U.G.B. Regional Green Building Case Study Project: A Post-Occupancy Study of LEED Projects in Illinois. Center for
Neighborhood Technology. 2009. Available online: https://www.cnt.org/sites/default/files/publications/CNT_Exec-Summary-
Regional-Green-Building-Case-Study-Project-Year-1-Report.pdf (accessed on 25 August 2022).
84. Lin, B.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Z.; Pei, Z.; Davies, M. Measured energy use and indoor environment quality in green office buildings in
China. Energy Build. 2016, 129, 9–18. [CrossRef]
85. Chen, Y.; Tan, H.; Berardi, U. A data-driven approach for building energy benchmarking using the Lorenz curve. Energy Build.
2018, 169, 319–331. [CrossRef]
86. Jing, R.; Wang, M.; Zhang, R.; Li, N.; Zhao, Y. A study on energy performance of 30 commercial office buildings in Hong Kong.
Energy Build. 2017, 144, 117–128. [CrossRef]
87. Brown, N.; Wright, A.; Shukla, A.; Stuart, G. Longitudinal analysis of energy metering data from non-domestic buildings. Build.
Res. Inf. 2010, 38, 80–91. [CrossRef]
88. Baylon, D.; Storm, P. 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, 2008.
89. Scofield, J.H. Efficacy of LEED-certification in reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission for large New York
City office buildings. Energy Build. 2013, 67, 517–524. [CrossRef]
90. Li, C.; Hong, T.; Yan, D. An insight into actual energy use and its drivers in high-performance buildings. Appl. Energy 2014, 131,
91. ASHRAE. Standard 90.1. Available online: https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/standards-and-guidelines/standards-
addenda/addenda-to-standard-90-1-2004 (accessed on 20 April 2022).
92. Newsham, G.; Veitch, J.; Charles, K. Risk factors for dissatisfaction with the indoor environment in open-plan offices: An analysis
of COPE field study data. Indoor Air 2008, 18, 271–282. [CrossRef]
93. Thayer, J.F.; Verkuil, B.; Brosschotj, J.F.; Kevin, K.; West, A.; Sterling, C.; Christie, I.C.; Abernethy, D.R.; Sollers, J.J.; Cizza, G.
Effects of the physical work environment on physiological measures of stress. Eur. J. Prev. Cardiol. 2010, 17, 431–439. [CrossRef]
94. Al Horr, Y.; Arif, M.; Kaushik, A.; Mazroei, A.; Katafygiotou, M.; Elsarrag, E. Occupant productivity and office indoor environment
quality: A review of the literature. Build. Environ. 2016, 105, 369–389. [CrossRef]
95. Fisk, W.J. Health and productivity gains from better indoor environments and their relationship with building energy efficiency.
Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 2000, 25, 537–566. [CrossRef]
96. Choi, J.-H.; Moon, J. Impacts of human and spatial factors on user satisfaction in office environments. Build. Environ. 2017, 114,
23–35. [CrossRef]
97. MacNaughton, P.; Satish, U.; Laurent, J.G.C.; Flanigan, S.; Vallarino, J.; Coull, B.; Spengler, J.D.; Allen, J.G. The impact of working
in a green certified building on cognitive function and health. Build. Environ. 2017, 114, 178–186. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
98. Tham, K.W.; Wargocki, P.; Tan, Y.F. Indoor environmental quality, occupant perception, prevalence of sick building syndrome
symptoms, and sick leave in a Green Mark Platinum-rated versus a non-Green Mark-rated building: A case study. Sci. Technol.
Built Environ. 2015, 21, 35–44. [CrossRef]
99. Pei, Z.; Lin, B.; Liu, Y.; Zhu, Y. Comparative study on the indoor environment quality of green office buildings in China with a
long-term field measurement and investigation. Build. Environ. 2015, 84, 80–88. [CrossRef]
100. Deuble, M.P.; de Dear, R.J. Green occupants for green buildings: The missing link? Build. Environ. 2012, 56, 21–27. [CrossRef]
101. Kwon, S.-H.; Chun, C.; Kwak, R.-Y. Relationship between quality of building maintenance management services for indoor
environmental quality and occupant satisfaction. Build. Environ. 2011, 46, 2179–2185. [CrossRef]
102. Wang, Z.; de Dear, R.; Luo, M.; Lin, B.; He, Y.; Ghahramani, A.; Zhu, Y. Individual difference in thermal comfort: A literature
review. Build. Environ. 2018, 138, 181–193. [CrossRef]
103. Choi, J.-H.; Loftness, V.; Aziz, A. Post-occupancy evaluation of 20 office buildings as basis for future IEQ standards and guidelines.
Energy Build. 2012, 46, 167–175. [CrossRef]
104. Geng, Y.; Ji, W.; Lin, B.; Zhu, Y. The impact of thermal environment on occupant IEQ perception and productivity. Build. Environ.
2017, 121, 158–167. [CrossRef]
105. Circular Economy: Definition, Importance and Benefits. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/
economy/20151201STO05603/circular-economy-definition-importance-and-benefits (accessed on 22 August 2022).
106. Circular Economy in the Building Industry. Available online: https://verhaert.com/circular-economy-building-industry/
(accessed on 30 April 2022).
107. Thormark, C. The effect of material choice on the total energy need and recycling potential of a building. Build. Environ. 2006, 41,
1019–1026. [CrossRef]
108. Marszal, A.J.; Heiselberg, P.; Bourrelle, J.S.; Musall, E.; Voss, K.; Sartori, I.; Napolitano, A. Zero Energy Building–A review of
definitions and calculation methodologies. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 971–979. [CrossRef]
109. Hernandez, P.; Kenny, P. From net energy to zero energy buildings: Defining life cycle zero energy buildings (LC-ZEB). Energy
Build. 2010, 42, 815–821. [CrossRef]
110. Sandrolini, F.; Franzoni, E. Characterization procedure for ancient mortars’ restoration: The plasters of the Cavallerizza courtyard
in the Ducal Palace in Mantua (Italy). Mater. Charact. 2010, 61, 97–104. [CrossRef]
111. Huberman, N.; Pearlmutter, D. A life-cycle energy analysis of building materials in the Negev desert. Energy Build. 2008, 40,
112. Dixit, M.K.; Fernández-Solís, J.L.; Lavy, S.; Culp, C.H. Identification of parameters for embodied energy measurement: A literature
review. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 1238–1247. [CrossRef]
113. Sandrolini, F.; Franzoni, E. Embodied energy of building materials: A new parameter for sustainable architectural design. Heat
Tech 2010, 27, 163–167.
114. Ramesh, T.; Prakash, R.; Shukla, K. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview. Energy Build. 2010, 42,
1592–1600. [CrossRef]
115. Kubba, S. Green Construction Project Management and Cost Oversight; Butterworth-Heinemann: Woburn, MA, USA, 2010; 560p.
116. Spiegel, R.; Meadows, D. Green Building Materials: A guide to Produce Selection and Specification; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2006; 368p.
117. Sandrolini, F.; Franzoni, E. Materiali e costruzione ecosostenibile. In Il progetto ecosostenibile; CLUEB: Bologna, Italy, 2008;
pp. 79–84.
118. Directive, C. Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative
provisions of the Member States relating to construction products. J. Eur. Union 1988, 32, 1–16.
119. Ding, G.K. Sustainable construction—The role of environmental assessment tools. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 86, 451–464. [CrossRef]
120. Lee, B.; Trcka, M.; Hensen, J.L. Embodied energy of building materials and green building rating systems—A case study for
industrial halls. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2011, 1, 67–71. [CrossRef]
121. Haapio, A.; Viitaniemi, P. A critical review of building environmental assessment tools. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2008, 28,
122. Forsberg, A.; Von Malmborg, F. Tools for environmental assessment of the built environment. Build. Environ. 2004, 39,
123. Sandrolini, F.; Franzoni, E.; Biolcati Rinaldi, M. Proposte per una metodologia di valutazione dell’ecosostenibilità dei materiali e
componenti edilizi in sede progettuale. Inarcos 2002, 634, 637–640.
124. Castro-Lacouture, D.; Sefair, J.A.; Flórez, L.; Medaglia, A.L. Optimization model for the selection of materials using a LEED-based
green building rating system in Colombia. Build. Environ. 2009, 44, 1162–1170. [CrossRef]
125. Shadab, M.; Abdullah, M.; Amir, M.; Arham, M.; Khan, M.A. Green Concrete or Eco-Friendly Concrete. Int. J. Adv. Res. Dev. 2017,
2, 78–83.
126. Bhatia, A. Paper Code: P-37 Fly Ash a Better Worthwhile [Supportable] Material for Green Concrete. In Proceedings of the
International Webinar on “Recent Advances in Science and Technology During the Corona Virus Pandemic-2020, Jharkhand,
India, 18–20 July 2020.
127. Admute, A.; Nagarkar, V.; Padalkar, S.; Bhamre, S.; Tupe, A. Experimental study on green concrete. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2017,
4, 2395-0056.
128. Islam, G.M.S.; Rahman, M.H.; Kazi, N. Waste glass powder as partial replacement of cement for sustainable concrete practice. Int.
J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2017, 6, 37–44. [CrossRef]
129. Topçu, İ.B.; Canbaz, M. Properties of concrete containing waste glass. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 267–274. [CrossRef]
130. de Castro, S.; de Brito, J. Evaluation of the durability of concrete made with crushed glass aggregates. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 41,
7–14. [CrossRef]
131. Choi, Y.-W.; Moon, D.J.; Chung, J.-S.; Cho, S.-K. Effects of Waste PET Bottles Aggregate on the Properties of Concrete. Cem. Concr.
Res. 2005, 35, 776–781. [CrossRef]
132. Singh, S.; Shukla, A.; Brown, R. Pullout behavior of polypropylene fibers from cementitious matrix. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34,
1919–1925. [CrossRef]
133. Won, J.-P.; Jang, C.-I.; Lee, S.-W.; Lee, S.-J.; Kim, H.-Y. Long-term performance of recycled PET fibre-reinforced cement composites.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2010, 24, 660–665. [CrossRef]
134. Rahmani, E.; Dehestani, M.; Beygi, M.H.A.; Allahyari, H.; Nikbin, I.M. On the mechanical properties of concrete containing waste
PET particles. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 47, 1302–1308. [CrossRef]
135. Tavakoli, D.; Hashempour, M.; Heidari, A. Use of waste materials in concrete: A review. Pertanika J. Sci. Technol. 2018, 26, 499–522.
136. Ay, N.; Ünal, M. The use of waste ceramic tile in cement production. Cem. Concr. Res. 2000, 30, 497–499. [CrossRef]
137. Portella, K.F.; Joukoski, A.; Franck, R.; Derksen, R. Reciclagem secundária de rejeitos de porcelanas elétricas em estruturas de
concreto: Determinação do desempenho sob envelhecimento acelerado. Cerâmica 2006, 52, 155–167. [CrossRef]
138. López, V.; Llamas, B.; Juan-Valdes, A.; Moran, J.; Guerra-Romero, M. Eco-efficient Concretes: Impact of the Use of White Ceramic
Powder on the Mechanical Properties of Concrete. Biosyst. Eng. 2007, 96, 559–564. [CrossRef]
139. Guerra, I.; Vivar, I.; Llamas, B.; Juan, A.; Moran, J. Eco-efficient concretes: The effects of using recycled ceramic material from
sanitary installations on the mechanical properties of concrete. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 643–646. [CrossRef]
140. Medina, C.; Frías, M.; Sánchez de Rojas, M.I. Microstructure and properties of recycled concretes using ceramic sanitary ware
industry waste as coarse aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 31, 112–118. [CrossRef]
141. Prada, M.; Brata, S.; Tudor, D.; Popescu, D. Reducing of gas emissions according to the EU energy policy targets. J. Environ. Prot.
Ecol. 2013, 14, 209–215.
142. Prada, M.F.; Brata, S.; Tudor, D.F.; Popescu, D.E. Energy saving in Europe and in the world–a desideratum at the beginning of
the millenium case study for existing buildings in Romania. In Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS International Conference on
Sustainability in Science Engineering, Timisoara, Romania, 27–29 May 2009; pp. 246–251.
143. Isopescu, D. The impact of green building principles in the sustainable development of the built environment. In Proceedings of
the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Brasov, Romania, 24–27 April 2018; p. 012026.
144. Prada, M.; Popescu, D.E.; Bungau, C.; Pancu, R. Parametric studies on European 20-20-20 energy policy targets in university
environment. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 2017, 18, 1146–1157.
145. Ecodesign and Energy Labelling. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/energy-climate-change-environment/standards-
tools-and-labels/products-labelling-rules-and-requirements/energy-label-and-ecodesign_en (accessed on 16 January 2022).
146. What is a Passive House? Available online: https://passipedia.org/basics/what_is_a_passive_house (accessed on 30 April 2022).
147. Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings. Available online: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficient-
buildings/nearly-zero-energy-buildings_en (accessed on 30 April 2022).
148. Circular Economy Action Plan. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/strategy/circular-economy-action-plan_en
(accessed on 30 April 2022).
149. Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings and Their Energy Performance. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/eu-buildings-
factsheets-topics-tree/nearly-zero-energy-buildings-and-their-energy-performance_en (accessed on 30 April 2022).

Sustainability 14 13121

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 14 13121

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 14 13121

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Received: 31 August 2022

Sustainability 2022, 14, 13121. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013121 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Figure 1. Literature selection depicted in a PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.

Council (having representation in approximately 70 countries and being a large network of

3.2. Scientific Framework

3.3. Green Building Design and Principles

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 37

• Water Conservation/preservation and Quality.

Figure 4. Principles governing the application of “Green” characteristics in building construction.

3.4. Smart Building Features

3.5. Principles of Green Neighborhoods and Green Cities

4. Certification of Green Buildings

Year, Country/Certification Type Certification Criteria Observations, Comments

Year, Country/Certification Type Certification Criteria Observations, Comments

5. Energy of Green Buildings

5.1.1. Renewable Energy Sources

is precisely the generation of electricity. This is done through large turbines—installations

Ocean Energy (Wave and Tide)

6. The Indoor Environment Quality of Green Buildings in Ensuring the

Figure 9. The Sustainable Green

Figure 9. The Sustainable Green Materials component.

Figure 10. Principles for

A preliminary assessment was necessary when addressing the problem of material

8.1. Examples of Green Materials

8.1.2. Fly Ash

8.1.3. Masonry and Concrete Waste

8.1.4. Silica Fume

8.1.5. Marble Waste

8.1.6. Crushed Glass

8.1.7. Polyethylene Terephthalate

8.1.8. Ceramic and Tile

occur as a byproduct of building destruction [135]. Several studies have attempted to

10. Conclusions and Future Directions

You might also like