research papers on sustainable architecture

REVIEW article

Sustainable high-rise buildings: toward resilient built environment.

• Department of Urban Planning and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States

This article examines outstanding “sustainable” skyscrapers that received international recognition, including LEED certification. It identifies vital green features in each building and summarizes the prominent elements for informing future projects. Overall, this research is significant because, given the mega-scale of skyscrapers, any improvement in their design, engineering, and construction will have mega impacts and major savings (e.g., structural materials, potable water, energy, etc.). Therefore, the extracted design elements, principles, and recommendations from the reviewed case studies are substantial. Further, the article debates controversial design elements such as wind turbines, photovoltaic panels, glass skin, green roofs, aerodynamic forms, and mixed-use schemes. Finally, it discusses greenwashing and the impact of COVID-19 on sustainable design.

Introduction

As cities cope with rapid urban population growth and attempt to curb urban sprawl, policymakers, and decision-makers are increasingly interested in vertical urbanism. The United Nations estimates that by 2050 the urban population will increase by about 2.5 billion people, which translates to 80 million dwellers a year, 1.5 million new a week, or 220 thousand a day (The United Nations). Furthermore, it estimates that by 2100 the urban population will reach about 9 billion inhabitants, doubling today's urban population of 4.5 billion. Consequently, to accommodate the influx of urban population while reducing urban sprawl, we must engage the vertical dimension of cities ( Beedle et al., 2007 ; Al-Kodmany and Ali, 2013 ; Wood and Henry, 2015 ).

Indeed, employing high-rise buildings is not the only way to increase urban density. However, cities are embracing the tall building typology for additional reasons, including land prices, demographic change, globalization, urban regeneration, agglomeration, land preservation, infrastructure, transportation, international finance, and air right, among others ( Short, 2013 ; Binder, 2015 ; Kim and Lee, 2018 ; Abbood et al., 2021 ). Notably, we have seen in the last 20 years, or so an unprecedented, accelerated pace in constructing significant high-rises. In the previous two decades, the world added 12,979 tall buildings (100+ m) to the 7,804 buildings they previously built. Further, “cities have erected over 1,361 towers with heights that exceed 200 m, while they built only 284 before. Cities also constructed 150 supertalls (300+ m), while they constructed merely 24 supertalls previously. Further, cities recently completed three megatalls (600+ m); and obviously built none before” ( Al-Kodmany, 2018a , p. 31).

Climate change demands a new sustainable design that addresses serious challenges such as massive storms, earthquakes, and flooding. Urban planners have recently developed new models, for example, a “sponge city,” which advocates designing buildings and infrastructure that safely accommodate anticipated massive flooding. The “sponge city” model builds on the Green Infrastructure (GI) model that aims to improve water management systems and enhance the ecological wellbeing of urban habitats. Integrating green elements in buildings and their surrounding will surely help to absorb rainwater. Similarly, incorporating innovative engineering and architectural solutions helps capture and recycle rainwater, further reducing the likelihood of flooding ( Yeang, 2008 ; Wang et al., 2018 ).

Goals and Objectives

The prime goal of this research is to map out “green” design ideas that contribute to the sustainability of tall buildings. This research is significant because, given the mega scale of skyscrapers, any improvement in their design, engineering, and construction will have mega impacts and significant savings. Therefore, the extracted design elements, principles, and recommendations from the case studies examined in this article are substantial. For example, tall buildings require extensive structural materials ( Krummeck and MacLeod, 2016 ). Therefore, we can significantly reduce costs and carbon emissions by employing appropriate technologies and efficient structural systems. Likewise, tall buildings accommodate many tenants who consume enormous quantities of water. We can save valuable potable water by utilizing efficient water systems and gray and black water recycling systems through the full height of tall buildings. Collectively, this article informs the readers of innovative ideas and promising projects that support sustainable architecture, engineering, and urban planning ( Yeang, 1995 , 1996 , 2020 ).

Sustainability as a Comprehensive Conceptual Framework

Sustainability is a buzzword and a current policy, planning, and grant writing trend. Undoubtedly, the concept of urban sustainability continues to help guide and support architecture and urban developments ( Kim and Lee, 2018 ; Abbood et al., 2021 ). In 2015, the United Nations adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which details 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG's) and 169 Actionable Targets to be realized by 2030. In particular, Goal #11 refers to creating sustainable cities and communities. Further, the United Nations World Urban Forum (WUF), the world's premier conference on urban development, has embraced “sustainability” as an overarching theme for its agendas. The commitment to SDG's has been apparent since WUF's first meeting in 2002, titled “Sustainable Urbanization,” in Nairobi, Kenya, through the latest in 2020, in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. In the same vein, in 2016, the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III) adopted the New Urban Agenda (translated to 33 languages), stressing sustainability. Like the United Nations focus on and interest in sustainability, other important organizations, such as the World Bank, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), Local Government for Sustainability (ICLEI), and Global Platform for Sustainable Cities (GPSC), have worked on and supported local and global sustainability projects, initiatives, and programs (United Nations) ( Short, 2013 ; Kim and Lee, 2018 ).

Likewise, the term “sustainability” frequently appears in academic literature and is discussed in professional conferences. In the United States, the American Planning Association (APA), the prime professional planning organization, continues to use the term “sustainability” in its National Planning Conference (NPC) and publications. In 2010, at the United Nations 5th WUF, the APA announced the creation of the Sustaining Places Initiative, which focuses on sustainability as a key to all urban planning activities. In recent years, the program has published several key reports, articles, and books that highlight this planning approach; see Sustaining Places: Best Practices for Comprehensive Plans by Short (2013) ; Binder (2015) ; Godschalk and Rouse (2015) .

This research views “sustainability” as an overarching theme that links ideas of “ecological,” “green,” “resilient,” and “smart,” where each feeds into the three pillars of sustainability: social, economic, and environmental. That is, “sustainability” can be viewed as a central concept due to its comprehensive framework represented in its three pillars (social, economic, and environmental) or the 3Ps (people, profit, and planet), where “people” refers to community wellbeing and equity; “profit” refers to economic vitality; and “planet” refers to the environment and resource conservation. These pillars or dimensions are also expressed by the 3Es (equality, economic, and ecology) or what is known as the triple bottom line TBL or 3BL. Sustainability seeks to balance these three dimensions according to short- and long-term goals and across geographic scales—from individual habitats to neighborhood, community, city, region, country, continent, and the planet ( Binder, 2015 ; Al-Kodmany, 2018a ).

Sustainability has emphasized the concept of endurance and long-term survival. As such, it augmented the idea of resilience. In turn, global warming and climate change have produced abnormal rates of flooding, droughts, storms, tidal surges, soil erosion, and sea-level rise, which collectively prompted resilience as paramount. As such, sustainable and resilient designs have merged and promoted emergency preparedness to reduce the harmful impacts on people, infrastructure, and institutions caused by unanticipated future natural disasters ( Krummeck and MacLeod, 2016 ).

Similarly, sustainability has always supported embracing technology to improve the performance of buildings, infrastructures, and overall quality of life. For example, it has advocated using technology to generate “green” energy and advanced rail mass systems over the private automobile. Integrating technology into the urban environment is meant to improve the three pillars of sustainability, including economic, social, and environmental.

As such, a plethora of innovative “smart” technologies (e.g., smart elevators, smart appliances, smart payment, smart infrastructure, smart grid, smart traffic management systems, and smart parking) intend to achieve greener, more sustainable, and resilient cities. For example, smart grids can enable the efficient handling, distribution, and delivery of electricity throughout the city. Smart meters can warn homeowners or businesses when they have leaks in their water systems. Smart buildings employ intelligent features that use energy efficiently while increasing user comfort by collecting and interpreting data related to power, security, occupancy, water, temperature, and humidity ( Yeang, 2020 ).

Overall, the sustainability concept has been developed to become comprehensive and inclusive over the past three decades. It helps us adapt our activities to the constraints and opportunities of the natural systems needed to support our lives. It also helps planning for balanced developments that make urban centers prosper and natural landscapes flourish as an integral component of a diverse economy and cultural heritage. Worldwide, sustainability efforts are growing because people—including city officials, planners, architects, and community members—can more easily see the links between environmental, economic, and social objectives and higher quality of life ( Yeang, 1995 , 1996 ).

Case Studies

Over the past decade or so, a wealth of creative green solutions have been developed through the design and construction of skyscrapers, providing valuable knowledge that will benefit the development of future towers ( Du et al., 2015 ; Oldfield, 2019 ). An in-depth evaluation would require building performance and operation data currently unavailable. In some cases, the data is simply not collected, and in others, the data is collected but not shared for liability reasons. Therefore, instead of focusing on evaluation, this paper elaborates on the sustainable design features employed in some of the world's most notable contemporary skyscrapers ( Wood, 2013 ; Al-Kodmany, 2015a , 2018b ). The following 12 case studies highlight vital green features of modern skyscrapers. They come mainly from three continents, including North America, China, and the Middle East.

Bank of America Tower

Bank of America is one of the world's major financial institutions. Bank of America Tower (also known as One Bryant Park) was designed by Cook + Fox Architects ( Abbood et al., 2021 ). The 336 m (1,200 ft) tall, 55-story BoA tower is proclaimed to be among the greenest skyscrapers in the U.S. It is the first commercial high-rise to earn LEED Platinum certification, the highest designation from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). Table 1 highlights the building's green features.

Table 1 . Bank of America Tower: Key green features.

The Visionaire Tower

The Visionaire Tower is a 35-story building located in Battery Park City, NYC. Completed in 2008, the tower contains 251 condominium units. Notably, it was the first to receive the LEED Platinum from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) in New York City and is considered one of the greenest residential condominiums in the U.S. Pelli Clarke Pelli served as the architect ( Al-Kodmany, 2018b ). Table 2 highlights the building's green features.

Table 2 . Key green features.

One World Trade Center

On September 11, 2001, the twin towers of the World Trade Center and several other buildings in Lower Manhattan were damaged or destroyed. Soon after the devastation, the ambitious reconstruction to replace and honor the World Trade Center began. The massive One World Trade Center on the northwest corner of the 6.5-ha (16-ac) site was completed in 2015. The radio antenna that tops the 123 m (400 ft) spire reaches a symbolic height of precisely 541 m (1,776 ft) high to honor the year of America's independence. The 105-floor 1 WTC is the tallest in North America ( Binder, 2015 ). The building was designed by Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill (SOM). Table 3 highlights the building's green features.

Table 3 . One World Trade Center: Key green features.

The Tower at PNC Plaza

The 33-story, 167 m (554 ft) Tower at PNC Plaza is the new corporate headquarters for the PNC Financial Services Group, one of America's oldest financial institutions. Gensler led the tower's architectural design, and Buro Happold led the building's engineering in collaboration with the consulting firm Paladino & Co. The tower was completed in 2015 and received LEED Platinum certification ( Barkham et al., 2017 ). Table 4 highlights the building's green features.

Table 4 . The Tower at PNC Plaza: Key green features.

Salesforce Tower

The 326 m (1,070 ft) tall, iconic Transbay Tower is the tallest building in San Francisco, CA. Designed by Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects, the 80-story office tower is located adjacent to the San Francisco Transbay Transit Center (SFTTC), a multi-modal transportation hub. The building received LEED Gold certification ( Al-Kodmany, 2020 ). Table 5 highlights the building's green features.

Table 5 . Salesforce Tower: Key green features.

Devon Energy Center

The Devon Energy Center is the new headquarters of the independent oil and natural gas producer Devon Energy Corporation, located in the heart of Oklahoma City. The 50-story building was completed in 2012. Designed by New Haven-based architects Pickard Chilton, the Devon Energy building is among the largest LEED-NC Gold-certified buildings in the world ( Al-Kodmany, 2018b ). Table 6 highlights the building's green features.

Table 6 . Devon Energy Center: Key green features.

Manitoba Hydro Place

Manitoba Hydro is a major government-owned energy utility (electric and natural gas) in Manitoba, Canada. The complex consists of two 18-story twin office towers that sit on a stepped, three-story podium. Completed in 2009, it is the first in Canada to achieve LEED Platinum Certification from the Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC), the highest certification available under the LEED program. The challenge was to design an energy-efficient building in a place that experiences extreme climates—temperatures fluctuating from −35°C to +34°C (−31°F to +95°F) over the year ( Oldfield, 2019 ). Table 7 highlights the building's green features.

Table 7 . Manitoba Hydro Place (MHP): Key green features.

EnCana Energy Company needed a significant building to consolidate its scattered staff and help revitalize Calgary's downtown, Alberta, Canada. The tower was named after the Bow River and forms the first phase of a master plan covering two city blocks on the east side of Centre Street, a central axis through downtown Calgary. The 58-story Bow office building rises to 238 m (779 ft) and is the tallest office tower in Calgary. The skyscraper is the headquarters for energy giants EnCana (TSX:ECA) and Cenovus (TSX:CVE), among other companies. The 238 m (781 ft) tower was designed by Foster and Partners and completed in 2012. The Bow has achieved LEED Gold certification ( Al-Kodmany and Ali, 2016 ). Table 8 highlights the building's green features.

Table 8 . The Bow: Key green features.

Shanghai Tower

The Shanghai Tower is the third tower in the trio of supertall buildings, including Jin Mao Tower and the Shanghai World Financial Center, located in the heart of Shanghai's new Lujiazui Finance and Trade Zone. Rising to a height of 632 m (2,073 ft), it is the tallest building in China. The 121-story tower offers a mix of functions, including offices, hotels, shops, restaurants, and the world's highest open-air observation deck at 562 m (1,844 ft). The tower has achieved LEED Platinum certification ( Al-Kodmany, 2015a ). Table 9 highlights the building's green features.

Table 9 . Shanghai Tower: Key green features.

Greenland Group Suzhou Center

At 358 m (1,175 ft), Greenland Group Suzhou Center (also known as Wujiang Greenland Tower) visually anchors the Wujiang waterfront of Suzhou City, China. The tower is part of a larger multi-block development, and Suzhou Center aims to function as the catalyst. The 78-floor tower accommodates a mixed-use program of hotels, serviced apartments, offices, and retail space. The building was completed in 2021 and aimed to achieve LEED-CS Silver status ( Kim and Lee, 2018 ). Table 10 highlights the building's green features.

Table 10 . Greenland Group Suzhou Center: Key green features.

Parkview Green FangCaoDi

Parkview Green FangCaoDi complex is located in the heart of Beijing's Central Business District (CBD). It is an iconic landmark and a potent symbol of creative design thinking that promotes attractive forms, efficient utilities, functionality, and enjoyable experiences. The project was designed by Integrated Design Projects, engineered by ARUP, developed by Hong Kong Parkview Group, and is owned by Beijing Chyau Fwu Properties Ltd. Parkview Green FangCaoDi has achieved LEED Platinum certification. The project was opened to the public in 2012 ( Wood and Salib, 2013 ; Al-Kodmany, 2015a ). Table 11 highlights the building's green features.

Table 11 . Parkview Green FangCaoDi: Key green features.

Al Bahar Towers

Al Bahar Towers, the new headquarters for the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, occupy a prominent site on the North Shore of Abu Dhabi Island in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Completed in 2012, the project comprises two 25-story, 150 m (490 ft) tall office towers. They are among the first buildings in the Gulf to receive the U.S. Green Building Council LEED Silver rating ( Al-Kodmany, 2014 ). Table 12 highlights the building's green features.

Table 12 . Al Bahar Towers: Key green features.

Vital Green Features

The reviewed case studies offer a wealth of green features. These are inspirational and form a foundation for architects interested in sustainable skyscrapers. Table 13 summarizes the prime green features based on LEED key topics and links them to sustainability. It gives the reader a quick overview and comparison among the different buildings.

Table 13 . Crucial green features based on LEED key topics and link to sustainability.

Who Pays and Who Gains?

It is often unclear who benefits from employing green features. Table 14 attempts to illustrate the complexity of the issue by differentiating among the various stakeholders.

Table 14 . Who pays and who gains by employing green features?

Making a Choice

The tables provided in this article help navigate “green” options. The decision will rely on multiple factors, including cost and benefit analysis. All the green features that suggest employing technology, the final decision will depend on the availability and affordability of technology. When technology needs to be shipped thousands of miles, environmental, and monetary costs could be high. As a result, some of the claimed green features may not be green and may render to be controversial. Here are some examples:

Wind Turbines

Due to the higher velocity of wind at higher altitudes, it would make sense to take advantage of greater heights of tall buildings by integrating wind turbines into them. Further, turbines produce power on-site, saving power transmission costs. As such, tall buildings have the potential to harness wind energy. However, only a handful of tall buildings employed wind turbines worldwide due to practical challenges (e.g., turbulence, small blade size, specialized maintenance, little return on investment, and accidents). For example, Bahrain World Trade Centre, which innovatively integrated wind turbines, reports that management has stopped the turbines as tenants complained about the noise generated by the turbines. Similarly, the power generated by wind turbines installed on the top of the Strata SE1 in London was too little—it can barely light the hallways of the building. Eventually, the turbines were turned off. Likewise, Pearl River Tower reports little benefits from the employed turbines. In the case of Hess (Discovery) Tower in Houston, turbines were never operated because one of the blades fell off the roof onto a pickup truck.

Photovoltaic Panels

Similar renewable energy means, such as photovoltaic panels, continue to be largely impractical. First, the roof area in a skyscraper is relatively small and is often preoccupied by mechanical and digital equipment and antenna. Second, other buildings could block facades of tall buildings. In places that feature long overcast days, solar harnessing is minimal. Further, the technology continues to be inefficient. Therefore, the return on investment is low, discouraging developers from pursuing this type of renewable energy.

Glass skin continues to be controversial. Glass allows in natural light, resulting in a significant saving on artificial lighting. However, Glass increases the demand for cooling and heating. Low-emission coating mitigates the problem. In any case, climatic conditions may influence the decision on the glass percentage. Some architects argue that overall Glass should not exceed 50% of the building. However, real estate experts argue that location to desirable views such as lakes and parks makes the Glass desirable.

Green Roofs

Again, the roof of a skyscraper is relatively tiny, and it is often preoccupied with mechanical and digital equipment. Further, wind's high velocity at higher altitudes may render the place uncomfortable. However, there have been some cases that feature “successful” rooftop parks. For example, the rooftop park in Marina Bay Sands bridges three tall buildings, creating a spacious entertaining space in the sky—it became the signature feature of the entire complex.

Aerodynamic Forms

Aerodynamic forms are meant to mitigate the impact of wind by deflecting its forces. By so doing, the required structural elements will be reduced, entailing significant cost savings. However, manipulating form should not result in unfunctional interior spaces. Further, we may need to overcome “vanity height” (i.e., reducing rather than boosting height for showing off). “A 1,500-foot (457-m) skyscraper must be fifty times stronger against the wind than a 200-foot (61-m) one ( Al-Kodmany, 2018b , p.71).” Tall buildings are tested in a tunnel wind laboratory to optimize their forms at the design stage. A famous example is Burj Khalifa; the architects optimized its final form in a wind tunnel.

Mixed-Use Towers

Recently, mixed-use tall buildings have been proliferating all around the world. As the name indicates, mixed-use towers offer spaces for multiple functions, including residential, office, hotel, retail, educational, restaurant, café, sky-park, and sky-garden functions. The CTBUH defines a mixed-use tower as a tall building that contains two or more functions, where each of the functions occupies at least 15% of the tower's total space. Car parks and mechanical plant space do not count as mixed-use functions—though incorporating them could be essential. A mixed-use tower could be more sustainable than a single-use tower for multiple reasons, namely economic uncertainty and fluctuating markets, commercial synergy that results from diverse functions, adaptive reuse, convenience, and smaller plates on upper floors. Indeed, in an unstable economy, a mixed-use building offers greater opportunities to secure investment in real estate development because the rental income comes from multiple sources. Second, various uses guarantee the presence of people and economic activities for longer hours—potentially around the clock—thereby providing convenience to local tenants and improving the perceived safety and security. Third, mixed-use towers have the potential to use resources and waste efficiently. For example, the water system can capture graywater from residential spaces (which generate a larger amount of graywater) and transfer the recovered water to the cooling system of office spaces where water consumption is high and potable water use is low. This type of system can drastically reduce the use of potable water (which is generally used in the cooling system) in office spaces, resulting in significant savings.

The above examples illustrate that choosing a green feature is not always straightforward. Likewise, assessing “greenness” could be controversial. For example, the Bank of America Tower in NYC employed green features, and upon completion, developers and owners claimed to be among the world's greenest skyscrapers. It explicitly uses the most efficient energy technologies, such as a 4.6-megawatt combined heat and power plant that runs on natural gas. The wasted heat created for electricity is recycled to heat and cool the building in winter and summer, respectively, thus reducing overall natural gas usage. However, the skyscraper is one of the city's highest energy users because it hosts large stock and bond traders who require intensive computing. Similarly, abusive behavior of tenants (e.g., keeping lights on when not needed, overusing water in the shower, etc.) could alter the expected results. As such, trade-off analysis will help decide on selecting green features.

Greenwashing

While sustainability is an important concept, we need to stress that greenwashing is prevalent. Cities' “green” agendas have been “hijacked” by industries that wish to take advantage of the new trend by converting sustainable missions into money-grubbing businesses. Industries propagate the notion that new technologies offer superior benefits. Mouzon reflects on this issue by stating: “Today, most discussions on sustainability focus on ‘gizmo green,' which is the proposition that we can achieve sustainability simply by using better equipment and better materials” ( Mouzon, 2010 , p. 42). Indeed, integrating “smart” technology and “green” machines into our daily life is essential; nevertheless, “this is only a small part of the whole equation. Focusing on gizmo green misses the big picture entirely,” according to Du et al. (2015 , p. 43). We need to question where the technology comes from. In the context of the United States, he argues that using Low-E Glass imported from China and selling organic produce from Chile do not necessarily contribute to making our cities more sustainable when we consider transportation and environmental implications. We need to pay attention to both the broader issues of sustainability and the smaller measures such as banning plastic bags, restricting lawn watering, and using renewable energy.

COVID-19 and Sustainable Skyscraper Design

Most of the examined buildings were conceived and constructed before COVID-19. However, the recent pandemic has stressed the sustainability mission of making our buildings healthier. For example, COVID-19 has reminded us of the importance of natural ventilation that helps reduce the spread of the virus. In the post-pandemic era, it will be easier to make the case to invest in intelligent systems that ensure a high-quality air supply. Likewise, it is likely to be easier to make a case for water filtering systems to fight situations where a virus can contaminate the water supply.

The pandemic also has reminded us of the importance of green and communal spaces within and around tall buildings, on and beyond the ground level, such as sky gardens, sky parks, green roofs, Phyto walls (modular wall system comprising containers of hydroponic plants), public parks, indoor gardens, plants, and open spaces to offer occupants accessibility to nature within tall buildings and combat adverse effects of high density. Architects and tenants will value outdoor elements such as terraces, courtyards, gardens, and balconies to ease access to natural ventilation, daylight, and fresh air.

Further, because of the pandemic, many people will likely favor natural elements such as green landscaping and community gardens to improve air quality and reduce carbon emissions resulting from transporting food. Similarly, the pandemic has taught us the importance of bringing natural light and sun rays into our buildings and public spaces to kill germs and improve our bodies' immune systems. Extra hygiene could be further emphasized in dense places (such as high-rise buildings) in every aspect and scale, such as elevators, stairways, hallways, corridors, door handles, and the like. For reinforcing indoor hygiene, many other innovations will take place. Spaces for exercise and meditation are likely to be emphasized in future offices. Therefore, we predict that a “value” shift is underway. As public health becomes a priority, the sustainability mission will become a priority ( Al-Kodmany, 2018d , e ).

Given the massive densification of the 21 st -century city, architects, engineers, and urban planners increasingly face the challenge of constructing taller buildings. This review paper examines prominent examples of “sustainable” skyscrapers of varying geographic locations, climates, and socio-cultural contexts. It summarizes the prime green features based on LEED key topics and links them to sustainability. The findings are inspirational and form a design foundation for building sustainable skyscrapers. They would help navigate “green” options while considering who pays and benefits from them. The discussions also elaborate on controversial issues.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Abbood, I. S., Jasim, M. A., and Sardasht, S. W. (2021). High rise buildings: design, analysis, and safety – an overview. Int. J. Arch. Eng. Technol. 8, 1–13. doi: 10.15377/2409-9821.2021.08.1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ali, M. M., and Moon, K. S. (2007). Structural developments in tall buildings: current trends and future prospects. Arch. Sci. Rev. 50, 205–223. doi: 10.3763/asre.2007.5027

Al-Kodmany, K. (2014). Green towers and iconic design: cases from three continents. Int. J. Arch. Plan. Res. 1, 11–28. doi: 10.26687/archnet-ijar.v8i1.336

Al-Kodmany, K. (2015a). Eco-Towers: Sustainable Cities in the Sky . Southampton: WIT Press.

Google Scholar

Al-Kodmany, K. (2015b). Tall buildings and elevators: a review of recent technological advances. Buildings 5, 1070–1104. doi: 10.3390/buildings5031070

Al-Kodmany, K. (2017). Understanding Tall Buildings: A Theory of Placemaking . New York, NY: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315749297

Al-Kodmany, K. (2018a). The sustainable city: practical planning and design approaches. J. Urban Technol . 25, 95–100. doi: 10.1080/10630732.2018.1521584

Al-Kodmany, K. (2018b). The Vertical City: A Sustainable Development Model . Southampton: WIT Press.

Al-Kodmany, K. (2018c). Sustainability and the 21st century vertical city: a review of design approaches of tall buildings. Buildings 8:102. doi: 10.3390/buildings8080102

Al-Kodmany, K. (2018d). The sustainability of tall building developments: conceptual framework. Buildings 8:7. doi: 10.3390/buildings8010007

Al-Kodmany, K. (2018e). Skyscrapers in the twenty-first century city: a global snapshot. Buildings 8:175. doi: 10.3390/buildings8120175

Al-Kodmany, K. (2020). Tall Buildings and the City: Improving the Understanding of Placemaking, Imageability, and Tourism . Singapore: Springer; NYC. doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-6029-3

Al-Kodmany, K., and Ali, M. M. (2013). The Future of the City: Tall Buildings and Urban Design . Southampton: WIT Press.

Al-Kodmany, K., and Ali, M. M. (2016). An overview of structural and aesthetic developments in tall buildings using exterior bracing and diagrid systems. Int. J. High Rise Build. 5, 271–291. doi: 10.21022/IJHRB.2016.5.4.271

Barkham, R., Schoenmaker, D., and Daams, M. (2017). Reaching for the sky: the determinants of tall office development in global gateway cities. CTBUH J. 20–25.

Beatley, T. (2016). Vertical city in a garden, Planning, the Magazine of the American Planning Association , Chicago, 64–69.

Beedle, L., Ali, M. M., and Armstrong, P. J. (2007). The Skyscraper and the City: Design, Technology, and Innovation . Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.

Binder, G. (2015). Tall Buildings of China . Mulgrave, VIC: Images Publishing.

Bunster-Ossa, I. F. (2014). Reconsidering Ian McHarg: The Future of Urban Ecology. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Du, P., Wood, A., Stephens, B., and Song, X. (2015). Life-cycle energy implications of downtown high-rise vs. suburban low-rise living: an overview and quantitative case study for Chicago. Buildings 5, 1003–1024. doi: 10.3390/buildings5031003

Gan, V. J., Cheng, J. C., Lo, I. M., and Chan, C. (2017). Developing a CO 2 -e accounting method for quantification and analysis of embodied carbon in high-rise buildings. J. Clean. Product. 141, 825–836. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.126

Godschalk, D. R., and Rouse, D. C. (2015). Sustaining Places: Best Practices for Comprehensive Plans, PAS Report 578 . Available online at: https://www.planning.org/publications/report/9026901/ (retrieved April 01, 2022).

Goncalves, J. C. S. (2010). The Environmental Performance of Tall Buildings. London: Earth Scan. doi: 10.4324/9781849776554

Ilgin, H. E. (2018). Potentials and limitations of supertall building structural systems: guiding for architects (Ph.D. dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.

Kim, T. Y., and Lee, K. H. (2018). Suggestions for developing integrated risk assessment method for high-rise buildings in Korea: based on analysis of FEMA's IRVS. J. Arch. Eng. Technol. 5, 1–9. doi: 10.15377/2409-9821.2018.05.1

Krummeck, S., and MacLeod, B. (2016). “Density our strength,” The Linear City in Practice (CTBUH Research Paper) (Chicago), 272–280.

Lavery, M. (2016). Sustainable Integration of Tall Buildings and the Urban Habitat for the Megacities of the Future . Chicago: CTBUH Research Paper, 92–100.

Moon, K. S. (2018). Comparative evaluation of structural systems for tapered tall buildings. Buildings 8:108. doi: 10.3390/buildings8080108

Mouzon, S. (2010). The Original Green: Unlocking the Mystery of True Sustainability . Los Angeles, CA: Guild Foundation Press.

Oldfield, P. (2019). The Sustainable Tall Building: A Design Primer . Oxford: Routledge.

Robinson, J., and Safarik, D. (2014). Learning from 50 years of Hong Kong skybridges. CTBUH J. 21–24.

Short, M. (2013). Planning for Tall Buildings . New York, NY: Routledge.

The United Nations. (2022). World Population Prospects: The 2021 Revision . New York, NY: United Nations. Available online at: https://population.un.org/wpp/ (accessed April 04, 2022).

Tsang, T. (2014). The development and construction of megatall. CTBUH J. 23–24.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Wang, J., Yu, C., and Pan, W. (2018). Life cycle energy of high-rise office buildings in Hong Kong, Energy Build. 167, 152–164. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.02.038

Wood, A. (2013). Best Tall Buildings 2013, CTBUH International Award Winning Projects, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH). New York, NY; London: Routledge; Taylor & Francis Group.

Wood, A., and Henry, S. (2015). 100 of the World's Tallest Buildings . Mulgrave, VIC: Images Publishing.

Wood, A., and Salib, R. (2013). Natural Ventilation in High-Rise Office Buildings. New York, NY; London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

Yeang, K. (1995). Designing with Nature: The Ecological Basis for Architectural Design . New York: NY: McGraw-Hill.

Yeang, K. (1996). The Skyscraper Bioclimatically Considered: A Design Primer . NYC: Wiley-Academy Group Ltd.

Yeang, K. (2007). Designing the eco skyscraper: premises for tall building design. J. Struct. Des. Tall Special Build. 16, 411–427. doi: 10.1002/tal.414

Yeang, K. (2008). “Ecoskyscrapers and ecomimesis: new tall building typologies,” in Proceedings of the 8th CTBUH World Congress on Tall & Green: Typology for a Sustainable Urban Future , ed A. Wood (CD-ROM), 84–94.

Yeang, K. (2020). Saving the Planet by Design: Reinventing Our World Through Ecomimesis . London: W. F. Howes.

Keywords: power consumption, renewable energy, aerodynamic forms, recycling systems, structural materials, greenwashing, COVID-19

Citation: Al-Kodmany K (2022) Sustainable High-Rise Buildings: Toward Resilient Built Environment. Front. Sustain. Cities 4:782007. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2022.782007

Received: 23 September 2021; Accepted: 23 March 2022; Published: 18 April 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Al-Kodmany. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Kheir Al-Kodmany, kheir@uic.edu

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Journal Menu

• Sustainability Home
• Aims & Scope
• Editorial Board
• Reviewer Board
• Topical Advisory Panel
• Instructions for Authors
• Special Issues
• Sections & Collections
• Article Processing Charge
• Indexing & Archiving
• Editor’s Choice Articles
• Most Cited & Viewed
• Journal Statistics
• Journal History
• Journal Awards
• Society Collaborations
• Conferences
• Editorial Office

Journal Browser

• arrow_forward_ios Forthcoming issue arrow_forward_ios Current issue
• Vol. 16 (2024)
• Vol. 15 (2023)
• Vol. 14 (2022)
• Vol. 13 (2021)
• Vol. 12 (2020)
• Vol. 11 (2019)
• Vol. 10 (2018)
• Vol. 9 (2017)
• Vol. 8 (2016)
• Vol. 7 (2015)
• Vol. 6 (2014)
• Vol. 5 (2013)
• Vol. 4 (2012)
• Vol. 3 (2011)
• Vol. 2 (2010)
• Vol. 1 (2009)

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

Sustainable Architecture and Design

Special issue editors, special issue information, benefits of publishing in a special issue.

• Published Papers

A special issue of Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050). This special issue belongs to the section " Sustainable Engineering and Science ".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (30 April 2017) | Viewed by 76923

Share This Special Issue

Dear Colleagues,

This Special Issue deals with the three great challenges for the future of the built environment: Climate change, depletion of fossil fuels and scarcity of resources. The next generation of stakeholders, for instance, planners, urban designers, developers, architects and engineers, has to work with different boundary conditions than previous generations. Therefore, they have a heavy task at hand and can make a big difference in sustainable development of the world. In line with the three challenges, the built environment needs to become climate adaptive, fossil free (energy neutral) and circular. Our growing cities need to become resilient. This demands for new or renewed methods for planning and design, new technology, new governance and new business models. More than just scientific theory and methodology, thoroughly evaluated examples from practice are needed, as well as well-founded action agendas, based on local interventions with positive global impacts. With this in mind we invite scholars around the world to contribute to this Special Issue of Sustainability .

Prof. Dr. ir. Andy van den Dobbelsteen Prof. Dr. Greg Keeffe Guest Editors

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website . Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form . Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Sustainability is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

• Climate adaptation
• energy neutrality
• circularity
• sustainable development
• built environment
• urban planning
• architectural design
• engineering
• business models
• Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
• Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
• Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
• External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
• e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here .

Published Papers (10 papers)

Jump to: Review

Jump to: Research

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Advertisement

Prioritizing sustainable building design indicators through global SLR and comparative analysis of AHP and SWARA for holistic assessment: a case study of Kabul, Afghanistan

• Research Article
• Published: 11 September 2024
• Volume 9 , article number  139 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Ahmad Walid Ayoobi 1 , 2 ,
• Gonca Inceoğlu 3 &
• Mehmet Inceoğlu 4  

The growing emphasis on sustainable architecture, addressing environmental, social, and economic concerns, has spurred the development of numerous design strategies and assessment methods. This has resulted in many sustainable building design indicators, posing challenges in their selection and application, particularly in developing countries with limited resources. This study aims to address these gaps by employing a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) to identify all commonly used sustainable building design indicators globally. Subsequently, a comparative analysis of the SWARA and AHP methods was conducted to characterize weighting scores, prioritize and adapt evaluated indicators, and identify suitable methods for their selection and analysis. Furthermore, the study proposed a comprehensive and holistic set of indicators for sustainable building design, targeting architects and policymakers. Within this set of indicators, the study identified five as the most globally applicable and critical for achieving building sustainability. Weighting scores and prioritization of these indicators for Kabul City, largely aligned with common rating system indicators, were as follows: Energy Efficiency (27.92% weighting), Material & Resources (19.57% weighting), Site & Ecology (13.92% weighting), Indoor Environment Quality (7.69% weighting), and Water Efficiency (13.87% weighting). The overall results indicated that both methods AHP and SWARA are highly effective for analyzing and adapting indicators for sustainable design. These findings offer valuable insights and guidance for the analysis of sustainable indicators, fostering the development of holistic design approaches and a rating system. Ultimately, this research contributes to a more sustainable built environment, particularly within the context of Kabul city.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

BIOCENOSIS: a novel framework for sustainability assessment of built environment in the Indian context

Assessment of GRIHA and LEED on the Parameters of Sustainable Design and Development of Buildings

Life cycle assessment and multi-criteria decision-making for sustainable building parts: criteria, methods, and application

Data availability.

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Shen J, Krietemeyer B, Bartosh A et al (2021) Green Design Studio: a modular-based approach for high-performance building design. Build Simul 14:241–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-020-0728-9

Article   Google Scholar  

Khakian R, Karimimoshaver M, Aram F et al (2020) Modeling nearly zero energy buildings for sustainable development in rural areas. Energies 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13102593

Sameer H, Bringezu S (2019) Life cycle input indicators of material resource use for enhancing sustainability assessment schemes of buildings. J Build Eng 21:230–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.10.010

Invidiata A, Lavagna M, Ghisi E (2018) Selecting design strategies using multi-criteria decision making to improve the sustainability of buildings. Build Environ 139:58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.041

Saadatian O, Haw LC, Sopian K, Sulaiman MY (2012) Review of windcatcher technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16:1477–1495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.11.037

Harish VSKV, Kumar A (2016) A review on modeling and simulation of building energy systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 56:1272–1292

Mousavi L, Mahdavinejhad M (2013) Search for sustainability in Contemporary Architecture of Iran. Am J Civ Eng Archit 1:129–142. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajcea-1-6-3

Williams DE (2007) Sustainable urban and community design

Damirchi Loo L, Mahdavinejad M (2018) Analysis of design indicators of sustainable buildings with an emphasis on efficiency of Energy Consumption (Energy Efficiency). Civ Eng J 4:897. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-0309142

Abdelrazek H, Yılmaz Y (2020) Methodology toward cost-optimal and energy-efficient retrofitting of historic buildings. J Archit Eng 26:05020009. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ae.1943-5568.0000433

Clarke JA, Hensen JLM (2015) Integrated building performance simulation: Progress, prospects and requirements. Build Environ 91:294–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.04.002

Li J, Yu Z (Jerry), Haghighat F, Zhang G (eds) (2019) Development and improvement of occupant behavior models towards realistic building performance simulation: A review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 50

Moran P, O’Connell J, Goggins J (2020) Sustainable energy efficiency retrofits as residenial buildings move towards nearly zero energy building (NZEB) standards. Energy Build 211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.109816

Kamali M, Hewage K (2017) Development of performance criteria for sustainability evaluation of modular versus conventional construction methods. J Clean Prod 142:3592–3606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.108

Gou Z, Xie X (2017) Evolving green building: triple bottom line or regenerative design? J Clean Prod 153:600–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.077

Bauer M, Mösle P, Schwarz M (2009) Green building: guidebook for sustainable architecture, second. Springer, Stuttgart

Google Scholar  

Akhanova G, Nadeem A, Kim JR, Azhar S (2020) A multi-criteria decision-making framework for building sustainability assessment in Kazakhstan. Sustain Cities Soc 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101842

Bonyad R, Hamzenejad M, Khanmohammadi M (2018) Ranking the regenerative architecture indicators for assessment of research-educational building projects in Tehran, Iran. Smart Sustain Built Environ 9:27–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-10-2018-0054

Ayoobi AW, Inceoğlu M, Çolak O (2022) Assessment of the Effect of Architecture morphology on Building Energy demands using BIM, Example of Kabul City residential buildings. Lect Notes Civ Eng 226 LNCE:369–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94514-5_37

Ayoobi AW, Ahmadi H, Inceoglu M, Pekkan E (2022) Seasonal impacts of buildings’ energy consumption on the variation and spatial distribution of air pollutant over Kabul City: application of Sentinel—5P TROPOMI products. Air Qual Atmos Heal 15:73–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-021-01085-9

Qutbudin I, Shiru MS, Sharafati A et al (2019) Seasonal drought pattern changes due to climate variability: case study in Afghanistan. Water (Switzerland) 11:1096. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11051096

Wafa W, Hairan MH, Waizy H (2020) The impacts of urbanization on Kabul City ’ s Groundwater Quality. Int J Adv Sci Technol 29:10796–10809

Sabory NR, Senjyu T, Momand AH et al (2021) Leed scores of residential buildings in poor cities: Kabul city case. Sustain 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126959

Yadegaridehkordi E, Hourmand M, Nilashi M et al (2020) Assessment of sustainability indicators for green building manufacturing using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach. J Clean Prod 277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122905

Liu S, Qian S (2019) Evaluation of social life-cycle performance of buildings: theoretical framework and impact assessment approach. J Clean Prod 213:792–807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.200

Zarghami E, Azemati H, Fatourehchi D, Karamloo M (2018) Customizing well-known sustainability assessment tools for Iranian residential buildings using fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy process. Build Environ 128:107–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.11.032

Bhatt R, Macwan JEM (2016) Fuzzy logic and Analytic Hierarchy process–based conceptual model for sustainable Commercial Building Assessment for India. J Archit Eng 22:04015009. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ae.1943-5568.0000184

Švajlenka J, Kozlovská M (2018) Quality parameters perception of modern methods of construction based on wood in the context of sustainability. Period Polytech Civ Eng 62. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.11224

Kamali M, Hewage K, Milani AS (2018) Life cycle sustainability performance assessment framework for residential modular buildings: aggregated sustainability indices. Build Environ 138:21–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.019

Okoli C, Schabram K (2010) Working Papers on Information systems A Guide to conducting a Systematic Literature Review of Information Systems Research. Work Pap Inf Syst. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1954824

Grant MJ, Booth A (2009) A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J 26:91–108

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8:336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007

Carvalho JP, Bragança L, Mateus R (2021) Sustainable building design: analysing the feasibility of BIM platforms to support practical building sustainability assessment. Comput Ind 127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2021.103400

Moolavi Sanzighi S, Soflaei F, Shokouhian M (2021) A comparative study of thermal performance in three generations of Iranian residential buildings: case studies in Csa Gorgan. J Build Phys 44:326–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744259120906241

Aldeek ZAO (2020) Green architecture and sustainability in the complex transformation of the built urban environment in Jordan. Int J Des Nat Ecodyn 15:113–120. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijdne.150115

Balaras CA, Droutsa KG, Dascalaki EG et al (2019) Urban sustainability audits and ratings of the built environment. Energies 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12224243

Rahmouni S, Smail R (2019) A design approach towards sustainable buildings in Algeria. Smart Sustain Built Environ 9:229–245. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-04-2019-0057

Battisti A, Persiani SGL, Crespi M (2019) Review and mapping of parameters for the early stage design of adaptive building technologies through life cycle assessment tools. Energies 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12091729

Olakitan Atanda J (2019) Developing a social sustainability assessment framework. Sustain Cities Soc 44:237–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.09.023

Landgren M, Jensen LB (2018) How does sustainability certification affect the design process? Mapping final design projects at an architectural office. Archit Eng Des Manag 14:292–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2017.1397496

Ahmad T, Thaheem MJ (2018) Economic sustainability assessment of residential buildings: a dedicated assessment framework and implications for BIM. Sustain Cities Soc 38:476–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.01.035

Rodriguez-Trejo S, Ahmad AM, Hafeez MA et al (2017) Hierarchy based information requirements for sustainable operations of buildings in Qatar. Sustain Cities Soc 32:435–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.03.005

Al-Jebouri MFA, Shaaban AK, Raman SN, Bin OK, Rahmat RAA (2017) Framework of Environmental Rating System for Home buildings in Oman. J Archit Eng 23:04017003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ae.1943-5568.0000241

Al-Jebouri MFA, Saleh MS, Raman SN et al (2017) Toward a national sustainable building assessment system in Oman: Assessment categories and their performance indicators. Sustain Cities Soc 31:122–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.02.014

Castro M, de Mateus F, Bragança R L (2017) Development of a healthcare building sustainability assessment method – proposed structure and system of weights for the Portuguese context. J Clean Prod 148:555–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.005

Ahmad T, Thaheem MJ (2017) Developing a residential building-related social sustainability assessment framework and its implications for BIM. Sustain Cities Soc 28:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.08.002

Sallam I, Abdelaal MRM (2016) Relative weight of water efficiency credits: as an indicator to enhance buildings’ environmental assessment tools performance. Archit Sci Rev 59:423–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2015.1107526

Castellano J, Ribera A, Ciurana J (2016) Integrated system approach to evaluate social, environmental and economics impacts of buildings for users of housings. Energy Build 123:106–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.04.046

Andrade J, Bragança L (2016) Sustainability assessment of dwellings – a comparison of methodologies. Civ Eng Environ Syst 33:125–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2016.1145676

Ahmad T, Thaheem MJ, Anwar A (2016) Developing a green-building design approach by selective use of systems and techniques. Archit Eng Des Manag 12:29–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2015.1095709

Heravi G, Fathi M, Faeghi S (2015) Evaluation of sustainability indicators of industrial buildings focused on petrochemical projects. J Clean Prod 109:92–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.133

Asdrubali F, Baldinelli G, Bianchi F, Sambuco S (2015) A comparison between environmental sustainability rating systems LEED and ITACA for residential buildings. Build Environ 86:98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.01.001

Chandratilake SR, Dias WPS (2015) Ratio based indicators and continuous score functions for better assessment of building sustainability. Energy 83:137–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.02.007

Seinre E, Kurnitski J, Voll H (2014) Building sustainability objective assessment in Estonian context and a comparative evaluation with LEED and BREEAM. Build Environ 82:110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.08.005

Lourenço P, Pinheiro MD, Heitor T (2014) From indicators to strategies: key performance strategies for sustainable energy use in Portuguese school buildings. Energy Build 85:212–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.09.025

Vučićević B, Stojiljković M, Afgan N et al (2013) Sustainability assessment of residential buildings by non-linear normalization procedure. Energy Build 58:348–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.10.012

Zabalza I, Scarpellini S, Aranda A et al (2013) Use of LCA as a tool for building ecodesign. A case study of a low energy building in Spain. Energies 6:3901–3921. https://doi.org/10.3390/en6083901

Ruano MA, Cruzado MG (2012) Use of education as social indicator in the assessment of sustainability throughout the life cycle of a building. Eur J Eng Educ 37:416–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2012.708719

Ortiz-Rodríguez Ó, Castells F, Sonnemann G (2012) Environmental impact of the construction and use of a house: Assessment of building materials and electricity end-uses in a residential area of the province of Norte De Santander, Colombia. Ing Y Univ 16:147–161

Bhatt R, Macwan JEM (2012) Global weights of parameters for sustainable buildings from Consultants’ perspectives in Indian Context. J Archit Eng 18:233–241. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000069

Mateus R, Bragança L (2011) Sustainability assessment and rating of buildings: developing the methodology SBToolPT-H. Build Environ 46:1962–1971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.04.023

ALwaer H, Clements-Croome DJ (2010) Key performance indicators (KPIs) and priority setting in using the multi-attribute approach for assessing sustainable intelligent buildings. Build Environ 45:799–807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.08.019

Ortiz O, Bonnet C, Bruno JC, Castells F (2009) Sustainability based on LCM of residential dwellings: a case study in Catalonia, Spain. Build Environ 44:584–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.05.004

Langston C, Wong FKW, Hui ECM, Shen LY (2008) Strategic assessment of building adaptive reuse opportunities in Hong Kong. Build Environ 43:1709–1718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2007.10.017

San-José JT, Losada R, Cuadrado J, Garrucho I (2007) Approach to the quantification of the sustainable value in industrial buildings. Build Environ 42:3916–3923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.11.013

Vakili-Ardebili A, Boussabaine AH (2007) Application of fuzzy techniques to develop an assessment framework for building design eco-drivers. Build Environ 42:3785–3800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.11.017

San José JT, Garrucho I, Cuadrado J (2006) The first sustainable industrial building projects. Proc Inst Civ Eng Munic Eng 159:147–153. https://doi.org/10.1680/muen.2006.159.3.147

Lützkendorf T, Lorenz D (2005) Sustainable property investment: valuing sustainable buildings through property performance assessment. Build Res Inf 33:212–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210500070359

Zolfani SH, Saparauskas J (2013) New Application of SWARA Method in prioritizing sustainability Assessment indicators of Energy System. Eng Econ 24:408–414. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.24.5.4526

Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Yazdani M, Zavadskas EK (2018) An extended stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) method for improving criteria prioritization process. Soft Comput 22:7399–7405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3092-2

Stanujkic D, Kazimieras Zavadskas E, Karabasevic D et al (2017) New group decision-making ARCAS approach based on the integration of the SWARA and the ARAS methods adapted for negotiations. J Bus Econ Manag 18:599–618. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2017.1327455

Stanujkic D, Karabasevic D, Zavadskas EK (2015) A framework for the selection of a packaging design based on the SWARA method. Eng Econ 26:181–187. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.26.2.8820

Siksnelyte-Butkiene I, Streimikiene D, Balezentis T, Skulskis V (2021) A systematic literature review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for sustainable selection of insulation materials in buildings. Sustain 13:1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020737

Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M (2004) Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning - A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 8:365–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2003.12.007

Saaty TL, Vargas LG (1980) Hierarchical analysis of behavior in competition: prediction in chess. Behav Sci 25:180–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830250303

Ciardiello F, Genovese A (2023) A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods. Ann Oper Res 325:967–994. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10479-023-05339-W/TABLES/3

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Macharis C, Springael J, De Brucker K, Verbeke A (2004) PROMETHEE and AHP: the design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis - strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP. Eur J Oper Res 153:307–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00153-X

Llamazares B (2018) An analysis of the generalized TODIM method. Eur J Oper Res 269:1041–1049. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJOR.2018.02.054

Alinezhad A, Khalili J (2019) COPRAS Method. Int Ser Oper Res Manag Sci 277:87–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15009-9_12

Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2007) Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. Eur J Oper Res 178:514–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJOR.2006.01.020

Taherdoost H, Madanchian M (2023) Analytic Network process (ANP) method: a comprehensive review of applications, advantages, and limitations. J Data Sci Intell Syst 1:12–18. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewjdsis3202885

Keršuliene V, Kazimieras Zavadskas E, Turskis Z, Keršulienė V (2010) Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). Taylor Fr 11:243–258. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.12

Torkayesh AE, Deveci M, Karagoz S, Antucheviciene J (2023) A state-of-the-art survey of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS): developments and applications. Expert Syst Appl 221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.119724

Balali A, Yunusa-Kaltungo A (2024) Investigating the potential of evaluation based on Distance from average solution (EDAS) method in Crisp and fuzzy environments for solving Building Energy Consumption Optimisation multiple attribute decision-making (MADM) problems. Key themes in Energy Management. Lecture Notes in Energy, pp 273–296

Velasquez M, Hester PT (2013) An analysis of Multi-criteria decision making methods. Int J Oper Res 10:56–66

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Kumar A, Sah B, Singh AR et al (2017) A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 69:596–609

Alinezhad A, Khalili J (2019) PROMETHEE I-II-III methods. International Series in Operations Research and Management Science. Springer, Cham, pp 29–39

Podvezko V (2011) The comparative analysis of MCDA methods SAW and COPRAS. Eng Econ 22:134–146. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.22.2.310

Alinezhad A, Khalili J (2019) VIKOR Method. International Series in Operations Research and Management Science. Springer, Cham, pp 23–27

Vlachokostas C, Michailidou AV, Achillas C (2021) Multi-criteria decision analysis towards promoting Waste-to-Energy Management Strategies: a critical review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 138

Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Pourhossein M, Yazdani M, Zavadskas EK (2018) Evaluating construction projects of hotels based on environmental sustainability with MCDM framework. Alexandria Eng J 57:357–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.11.002

Baumann M, Weil M, Peters JF et al (2019) A review of multi-criteria decision making approaches for evaluating energy storage systems for grid applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 107:516–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.016

Ghenai C, Albawab M, Bettayeb M (2020) Sustainability indicators for renewable energy systems using multi-criteria decision-making model and extended SWARA/ARAS hybrid method. Renew Energy 146:580–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.157

Shad R, Khorrami M, Ghaemi M (2017) Developing an Iranian green building assessment tool using decision making methods and geographical information system: case study in Mashhad city. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 67:324–340

Mardani A, Zavadskas EK, Streimikiene D et al (2016) Using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making approaches for evaluating energy saving technologies and solutions in five star hotels: a new hierarchical framework. Energy 117:131–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.076

Haider H, Hewage K, Umer A et al (2018) Sustainability assessment framework for small-sized urban neighbourhoods: an application of fuzzy synthetic evaluation. Sustain Cities Soc 36:21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.09.031

Mukhamet T, Kobeyev S, Nadeem A, Memon SA (2021) Ranking PCMs for building façade applications using multi-criteria decision-making tools combined with energy simulations. Energy 215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119102

Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48:9–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I

Malczewski J, Rinner C (2015) Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Geographic Information Science. Anal Methods 331. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74757-4

Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15:234–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5

Nasery S, Kalkan K (2021) Snow avalanche risk mapping using GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis: the case of Van, Turkey. Arab J Geosci 14:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-07112-4

Kubba S (2017) Handbook of green building design and construction: LEED, BREEAM, and Green Globes, Second. Elsevier, Waltham

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was conducted as part of the doctoral dissertation research of the first author, Ahmad Walid Ayoobi.

No funding was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Construction, Department of Architecture, Kabul Polytechnic University, Kabul, Afghanistan

Ahmad Walid Ayoobi

Graduate School of Sciences, Department of Architecture, Eskisehir Technical University, Eskisehir, Turkey

Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey

Gonca Inceoğlu

Faculty of Architecture & Design, Department of Architecture, Eskisehir Technical University, Eskisehir, Turkey

Mehmet Inceoğlu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

A.W.A. conceived the overall research design. A.W.A. was responsible for defining the scope and methodology of the systematic literature review used to identify and evaluate sustainable building design indicators on a global scale. A.W.A. collaborated on data collection for the study. A.W.A. and G.I. jointly conducted the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) analysis to determine the relative importance and ranking of sustainable building indicators. A.W.A. and M.I. collaboratively interpreted the data obtained from the literature review and MCDM analysis. A.W.A. drafted the initial manuscript. All authors (A.W.A., M.I., and G.I.) reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmad Walid Ayoobi .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

The authors declare that the research was performed in accordance with ethical principles.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ayoobi, A.W., Inceoğlu, G. & Inceoğlu, M. Prioritizing sustainable building design indicators through global SLR and comparative analysis of AHP and SWARA for holistic assessment: a case study of Kabul, Afghanistan. J Build Rehabil 9 , 139 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41024-024-00494-4

Download citation

Received : 09 June 2024

Revised : 20 August 2024

Accepted : 03 September 2024

Published : 11 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41024-024-00494-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Sustainable building design
• Sustainable building indicators
• Systematic literature review (SLR)
• MCDM (Multi-criteria decision making)
• SWARA (stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis)
• AHP (analytic hierarchy process)
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Sustainable Architecture

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Last »
• Architecture Follow Following
• Green architecture Follow Following
• Urban Design Follow Following
• Urban Planning Follow Following
• Sustainable Building Design Follow Following
• Architecture and Public Spaces Follow Following
• Sustainable Urban Environments Follow Following
• Landscape Architecture Follow Following
• Urban Studies Follow Following
• Environmental Sustainability Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Journals
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024