1. Introduction
As urbanization accelerates [1], energy consumption has skyrocketed, resulting in significant carbon emissions, severe air pollution, and a sharp rise in extreme weather, exacerbating urban heat island effects [2] and related issues. Globally, the construction sector consumes 40% [3] of total energy and contributes 30–50% [4] of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. By 2050, the power demand of the construction sector is expected to surge to 55% [5] due to increased heating and cooling needs. On one hand, the construction sector must reduce energy use and enhance energy efficiency. On the other, transitioning to green, clean practices necessitates a stable supply of renewable energy. The concept and application of biophilic architecture are grounded in natural and sustainable approaches that effectively reduce energy consumption, mitigate urban heat island effects, and generate positive environmental impacts. This passive architectural design strategy serves as a proactive solution to these pressing issues [6].
Biophilia is the innate human tendency to seek a connection with nature [7]. Psychologists Kellert [8] and Wilson [9] define biophilic design as “a deliberate effort to integrate an understanding of humanity’s natural affinity into built environments that connect with natural systems and processes”. Kellert [10,11] further elaborated, noting that “the positive experience of natural systems and processes in our buildings and built environments remains vital to human performance and well-being”. Biophilic architecture integrates natural materials, light, water, and plants into buildings, aiming to harmonize modern urban life with elements of the natural world. With their aesthetic, economic, and sustainable benefits, plants are a key feature of biophilic architecture [9]. The most common areas for vegetation in buildings include green roofs, vertical green systems, terrace planting, and indoor plants in atriums [12]. Currently, biophilic architecture is widely applied across various countries and regions around the world, with its use being particularly prominent in tropical climates, such as Singapore and Hong Kong [13,14]. As illustrated in Figure 1, numerous studies have highlighted the multifaceted benefits of biophilic architecture, which is rooted in principles of natural, health, and sustainable design. These designs foster a deeper connection between people and nature, promoting health, well-being, and productivity [15,16]. The benefits include enhanced air quality, improved soundscapes, energy efficiency, and aesthetic enhancements through decor and scent. Furthermore, biophilic architecture supports food production and boosts overall resilience [17,18,19,20,21]. This holistic approach finds practical applications across various building types, including hospitals, residential areas, schools, and office spaces. In recent years, with the rise of sustainable building and ecological design, the concept of biophilic architecture has gained broader recognition and application [22,23]. It not only focuses on the aesthetic form of buildings [24] but emphasizes the interaction between buildings and their environment [25] to achieve higher energy efficiency [17], improved indoor comfort [7], and reduced environmental impact [26]. At the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26, 2021) held in Glasgow, Scotland, biophilic architecture was discussed as one of the contributing agendas to limit global warming to between 2 °C and 1.5 °C [15,16,17,18,19,20,21].
At present, many countries have established evaluation standards for biophilic architecture [27]. The BREEAM system [28], which originated in the UK in 1990, is the world’s first and most widely used environmental assessment method. In 1998, the US Green Building Council (USGBC) launched the LEED system [29], which was developed based on BREEAM. Together, these systems form a comprehensive framework of sustainable measures applicable to almost all building types throughout the entire lifecycle—from site selection, design, construction, operation, and maintenance, to demolition [29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. Other prominent certification programs include, among others, the following: Singapore’s Green Mark [36], tailored for tropical climates; Germany’s DGNB [37]; France’s HQE [38]; Japan’s CASBEE [39]; Australia’s Green Star [40]; and Italy’s Protocollo ITACA [41]. (See Table 1). Over the past two decades, China has introduced and progressively enhanced its GBRS, covering new construction, expansions, and renovations across diverse building types. This system addresses multiple dimensions, including energy efficiency, water conservation, land use optimization, material conservation, and environmental protection. However, these standards place limited emphasis on the later stages of the building lifecycle, such as deconstruction, material recycling, and repurposing [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53] (see Table 2). These certification standards initially focused on energy-related aspects and indoor environmental quality, including air quality, thermal comfort, lighting, acoustics, interior layout, and ergonomics [28,29,30]; however, they have increasingly shifted towards addressing health and well-being concerns [36,37,54]. In particular, the release of the WELL Building Standard in 2014 marked a significant milestone as the first global building certification system focused solely on human health and well-being, sparking increased interest in the sustainable and healthy building industry worldwide [55,56,57]. Nevertheless, sustainable development education methods have been criticized for lacking emphasis on human-nature connection (HNC) [58,59]. In response, the construction industry is making efforts to incorporate biophilic design (BD) into environmentally sustainable design (ESD) certification standards [60,61], and additional recognition is being awarded for considering BD principles [62].
This research focuses on the energy benefits derived from integrating biophilic architecture, which combines vegetation with buildings. Integrating green spaces within architectural structures offers substantial ecological advantages, as these green spaces not only enhance urban biodiversity [63] but contribute to improved air quality by absorbing carbon [64] dioxide through vegetation. This environmental contribution has an indirect impact on reducing energy consumption. Several researchers have explored these benefits. For instance, Wijesooriya et al. [65] summarized the multiple environmental sustainability advantages provided by biophilic design and employed a SWOT framework to highlight its strengths, opportunities, weaknesses, and threats. Li et al. [66] conducted a visual analysis of green roof research from 2000 to 2023 using CiteSpace and VOSviewer tools, performing citation analysis, co-authorship network mapping, co-citation analysis, and keyword analysis. Additionally, Farkas et al. [67] used CiteSpace and VOSviewer, in combination with geographic information systems (GISs), to review nearly 30 years of research on urban green space topics in the Web of Science (WoS) database. Fiorentin et al. [68] evaluated and reviewed the economic, environmental, and social benefits of green roofs from a life cycle perspective. Mihalakakou et al. [69] summarized the potential of green roofs for energy savings, concluding that they can reduce cooling energy consumption by up to 70%. Despite the large number of articles published over the past decades, most focus on descriptive summaries, lacking visually intuitive representations and in-depth analysis. Additionally, few studies have specifically classified and compared the energy-saving potential of biophilic architecture or identified the key factors influencing energy efficiency. Through the analysis of annual trends, international collaboration networks, author relationships, and keyword hotspots, this study aims to help scholars understand development trends and emerging topics in this field. CiteSpace and VOSviewer serve as reliable visualization tools that enhance readers’ understanding, while the SWOT framework offers a comprehensive summary of the characteristics of biophilic architecture.
This study reviews current research on the energy-saving potential of biophilic architecture through a bibliometric visual analysis of relevant articles in the WoS database, using CiteSpace and VOSviewer software. An initial dataset of 2309 articles was visually mapped, followed by a focused selection of over 70 studies closely aligned with the theme. These studies were systematically categorized, deeply analyzed, and summarized using a SWOT framework. The specific objectives of this research are as follows:
(1). To summarize the publication trends in the field;
(2). To identify leading countries and authors in biophilic architecture energy efficiency research;
(3). To determine the primary contributions, key topics, and trends through keyword and cluster analysis;
(4). To focus on the energy benefits of green roofs, vertical green systems, and green photovoltaic systems, examining plant types, factors influencing energy efficiency, and research methodologies;
(5). The SWOT framework is further applied to compare the strengths and limitations of various types of biophilic architecture.
These objectives aim to facilitate researchers in quickly identifying research trends and potential areas of interest, establishing future research directions for green roofs, and offering valuable insights for advancing theoretical and practical studies on the energy efficiency of biophilic architecture. Moreover, this study advocates for future policy development to place greater emphasis on human health, well-being, and sustainability.
2. Research Methods and Data Sources
The paper presents a review of the literature on the energy-saving potential of biophilic architecture, focusing on energy consumption-related topics. The methodology relies on a systematic review approach to the literature [70] to evaluate, summarize, and communicate the findings and impact of a large body of research on a specific topic, ensuring transparency [71] and reproducibility [72]. This study primarily utilizes bibliometric tools, CiteSpace 6.1.R3 and VOSviewer 1.6.19, for data processing and analysis. Through visual analysis of publication trends, international collaboration networks, author relationships, and keyword hotspots, this research aims to identify key trends, collaborative networks, and key areas in the field [73,74].
The versions used in this study are CiteSpace 6.1.R3 and VOSviewer 1.6.19, both of which are effective bibliometric analysis tools for performing general bibliometric, performance, and scientific mapping analyses. CiteSpace, developed by Dr. Chaomei Chen at Drexel University, is a software tool for visualizing and analyzing scientific knowledge maps. It is based on principles of information visualization, bibliometrics, and data mining to visually represent specific research fields. Co-occurrence analysis of countries or authors by CiteSpace helps construct knowledge maps in relevant fields, highlighting the impact and structural relationships within the research area [75]. Keyword clustering analysis determines the direction of research, while burst keyword analysis highlights key areas and emerging trends [76,77]. VOSviewer, developed by van Eck and Waltman, can directly analyze data imported from the WoS database and extract information on journals, authors, countries, organizations, and co-citation patterns based on user objectives. The strength of VOSviewer lies in its advanced network visualization capabilities, which allow for the construction and visualization of bibliometric networks, including journals, researchers, and articles based on co-citation, bibliographic coupling, or co-authorship [78,79]. It provides a graphical representation of the scientific landscape, facilitating visual exploration of interrelations and collective impact [80]. In VOSviewer-generated maps, larger nodes and labels indicate greater significance. Node colors denote cluster affiliations, and lines between nodes represent connections between elements, with thicker lines indicating stronger relationships. This study integrates the visualization capabilities of VOSviewer with the analytical depth of CiteSpace, using VOSviewer for initial exploration and display, while CiteSpace is applied for deeper analysis of specific trends or clusters, yielding a holistic and comprehensive view of the research field.
Web of Science (WoS) is a leading research information platform and an independent global citation database trusted by the world’s most reputable publishers [81], selecting publications from the WoS Core Collection can enhance the representativeness, generalizability, and credibility of the research findings. In this review, various search, screening, and selection methods were employed [82]. The specific workflow is as follows:
Step 1: Initial Literature Search. An initial search was conducted in the Web of Science Core Collection using the topic terms (TS) “biophilic design” or “biophilic architecture”. Given the limited number of relevant articles retrieved, additional terms, including “vertical green system”, “green roof”, and “green facade”, were added, all of which relate to “energy”, to expand the scope of the initial search.
Step 2: Literature Screening. As this study focuses on recent research trends from the past decade, articles published before 2014 were excluded, reducing the dataset to 2396 articles. The selection was further refined by including only English-language publications, resulting in a total of 2387 articles. To ensure academic rigor and high quality, only research and review articles were included, excluding books, news articles, and other non-research materials, ultimately yielding a final set of 2309 articles.
Step 3: Inclusion for Analysis. The full records and citation information for the 2309 selected references were exported, and a visual analysis was conducted using CiteSpace and VOSviewer to explore the developmental trajectory of energy efficiency in biophilic design. According to the above criteria, this study analyzed publications from 2014 to 2024, resulting in 2309 valid English-language publications, comprising 2127 research articles and 182 review articles. Table 3 highlights the initial search and screening process described above.
Following the preliminary analysis, a more targeted selection process refined the dataset to approximately 70 articles, which were then categorized and summarized, with a SWOT framework established for further analysis. This selection process involved a close review of each article’s title and abstract to determine the main research questions and specific contributions. The inclusion criteria for relevant publications were as follows: (1) the study fell within the field of architecture, related to energy efficiency, and explicitly addressed the concept, benefits, and impacts of biophilic architecture; (2) this study clearly included forms of plant–building integration and specified plant types in biophilic architecture; and (3) the research examined the impact of biophilic design on energy efficiency through simulation, empirical, or experimental results. Ultimately, over 70 articles meeting these criteria were identified and broadly categorized into three types: green roofs, vertical green systems, and green photovoltaic systems.
Finally, a SWOT framework was employed for an in-depth analysis and synthesis of the literature, categorizing the concepts, conclusions, and findings of this study into four SWOT dimensions. The SWOT analysis, a tool widely used in strategic management [83], was developed in the 1960s to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in a given context [84]. Strengths and weaknesses are internal factors, controllable within the organization, that support or hinder goal achievement, while opportunities and threats are external factors [85]. However, SWOT has also been adopted as a cross-disciplinary tool to examine the influence of internal and external factors on specific scenarios [86]. For example, Lee et al. [87] used SWOT analysis to examine the advantages and challenges of applying biophilic design in urban residential projects. Cheng et al. [88] applied the SWOT framework to analyze the contributions of green roofs to urban sustainability; while Kopnina [89] utilized SWOT analysis to evaluate the potential of biophilic design in school buildings in terms of educational and environmental impacts. To conclude, this framework can provide industry professionals with a deeper understanding of biophilic design, thereby enabling more effective follow-up research in the field.
3. Data Analysis
Using CiteSpace and VOSviewer tools provides a comprehensive view of the research field, effectively reflecting the research progress, current status, and key areas of interest, thus offering valuable support and reference for future studies. In CiteSpace’s visual analysis, country co-occurrence analysis, author co-occurrence analysis, and keyword burst analysis reveal international collaborations, key authors and their networks, as well as research hotspots and trends. Country co-occurrence analysis highlights collaboration dynamics among major countries, author co-occurrence analysis identifies important research teams and core scholars in the field, and keyword burst analysis captures the evolving research focus over different time periods. Nodes represent analyzed entities, such as countries or authors, with node size proportional to frequency or influence; links indicate relationships between nodes, with link thickness representing the strength of these relationships. Colors generally indicate time, with warmer colors showing recent hotspots or trends and cooler colors indicating earlier occurrences. VOSviewer provides intuitive knowledge maps and analyzes collaboration between countries and authors. Nodes represent entities, with node size proportional to importance, while the distance between nodes indicates the strength of their association; closer nodes signify stronger connections. Colors represent different clusters, with the same color indicating similar themes or time periods.
3.1. Annual Trends in Overall Publication Volume
The trend in the number of published papers each year objectively reflects the level of attention from academia and professionals. It serves as an important indicator of the current research status and may help to understand the development of a field [90,91]. Based on the bar chart (Figure 2) illustrating the number of papers published from 2014 to 2024, the trend over the past decade can be divided into three phases: from 2014 to 2016, the publication volume grew steadily but gradually; from 2017 to 2020, the number of publications increased significantly compared to the previous phase, exceeding 100 papers per year with slight fluctuations; from 2020 to 2023, the publication volume reached its peak, surpassing 300 papers per year before stabilizing, and reaching 365 papers in 2023. It is important to note that the data for 2024 is incomplete, as collection ended in August 2024. To predict future publication numbers and trends, data from the past 10 years was input into SPSS for regression analysis, yielding the predictive model: y = −62,926.133 + 31.279x, where y represents the annual publication volume and x represents the year. In this equation, the trend in publication volume is positive, with an R2 value of 0.921, indicating a strong fit to the data (the closer R2 is to 1, the better the fit). According to the formula, the publication volume in 2024 is expected to be around 383 papers, and this number is projected to increase annually. The data indicates a growing focus on energy efficiency in biophilic architecture and related fields. This area is becoming a key focus of research, with the academic community increasingly recognizing the potential of biophilic architecture for energy efficiency.
3.2. Analysis of the Cooperation Network of Countries
To evaluate the research contributions of various countries in the field of biophilic energy efficiency and their collaborative relationships, VOSviewer and Scimago 1.0.46 software were used for visual analysis of national publication volume and cooperation. This is illustrated in Figure 3 with the country cooperation map and Figure 4 with the country cooperation chord diagram. Figure 3 shows the countries that have contributed to this field, where the size of the nodes represents the number of publications, with larger nodes indicating a higher publication volume. The links between countries represent collaboration, and thicker links indicate closer cooperation. In Figure 4, the node size is proportional to the publication volume of each country, and the closer the node color is to red, the more international collaborations the country has. Next, CiteSpace software was used to analyze the international collaboration network, as shown in Figure 5. The larger the diameter of the node, the higher the publication frequency in that region, which also indirectly indicates the research quality. The node colors indicate the time period of research on biophilic energy-saving architecture by each country, and the lines represent collaboration between countries. The core nodes are China, the United States, and Italy. The data shows that a total of 108 different countries or regions have published research in the field of energy-saving biophilic architecture, with 10 countries or regions having published more than 100 papers. Figure 6 summarizes the top 10 countries by publication volume. The majority of publications on energy-saving biophilic architecture come from five countries, with China leading the way, contributing 959 papers (approximately 41.1%), followed by the United States (245 papers, about 10.5%) and Italy (187 papers, about 8%), with India (124 papers, 5.3%) and the United Kingdom (117 papers, 5%) close behind. It is evident that these studies come from both developed and developing countries, indicating that the energy-saving benefits of biophilic design are a global concern.
3.3. Author Collaboration Analysis
CiteSpace and VOSviewer were used to analyze the key contributing authors, identifying the most active core authors in this field and their collaborative networks. As shown in Figure 7, the larger the characters, the more active the author, indicated by a higher number of publications. Since 2014, over 7000 scholars have participated in research in this field. Zhang Y is the most active author in the biophilic design field, contributing 22 papers, followed by Wang Y and Li Y, who contributed 19 and 18 related articles, respectively. A total of 22 authors have published more than 10 papers. Figure 8 uses VOSviewer to show the collaborative relationships between authors, the colors represent the years of collaboration. The majority of collaborations over the past 10 years occurred between 2018 and 2023, with yellow nodes indicating more recent collaborations.
3.4. Hotspot Keywords and Trend Analysis
Keywords serve as a concise summary of the article’s core content, and the visualization analysis highlights the key focus areas within the field. As shown in Figure 9, from 2014 to 2024, research on the energy-saving aspects of biophilic design has been diverse, with a high degree of interconnectedness between topics. Strong co-occurrence relationships exist, and several nodes act as bridges between different subgroups, linking various key topics, such as performance, energy, energy saving, consumption, and optimization. This indicates widespread interest in the energy-saving potential of biophilic buildings, with researchers increasingly focusing on improving energy efficiency, reducing emissions, and enhancing thermal comfort in surrounding environments.
The timing of keyword bursts reveals the research hotspots and developmental directions in this field. As shown in Figure 10, “energy efficiency” exhibited the strongest burst strength at 14.91, and was a prominent research focus in the biophilic design energy-saving domain from 2014 to 2017. Over the past decade, the rapid emergence and iteration of keywords have largely reflected topics derived from new technologies and challenges. Over the last three years, research hotspots have shifted toward areas such as storage, hydrogen, machine learning, innovation, and models, which have emerged as the new frontiers in energy-saving biophilic architecture.
4. Literature Overview and Comparative Discussion
Current research on the energy efficiency of biophilic buildings can be categorized into several key areas. First, there is a focus on the integration of green systems, such as green roofs and vertical greening systems, with buildings. These systems provide both benefits and challenges, combining vegetation with building surfaces to absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, contributing to sustainable development. Second, green systems are being combined with photovoltaic technologies to not only reduce carbon emissions but generate energy required for building operations, achieving a net-negative carbon footprint. Additionally, the latest research explores the carbon recovery cycle and energy costs from a life-cycle perspective of biophilic buildings, predicting and assessing their energy-saving efficiency under future climate scenarios. These studies also use statistical methods and machine learning to optimize the design parameters of biophilic buildings.
4.1. Green Roofs
With the rapid pace of urbanization, building density has significantly increased, and data shows that rooftops account for approximately 20–25% of the total urban surface area [92]. In recent years, green roofs have been widely adopted in architectural design [93] due to their numerous environmental benefits [94] and aesthetic value [95].
Green roofs (Figure 11), also known as vegetated roofs [96], eco-roofs, roof gardens, cool roofs [97], or living roofs [98], typically consist of vegetation, fabric filters, drainage elements, root barriers, insulation, and waterproofing layers. They can be defined as roofs covered with greenery and growing media [99]. Green roofs align with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations, 2015). They contribute to SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), by mitigating the urban heat island effect, improving air quality, and enhancing urban aesthetics, as well as to SDG 13 (Climate Action), by sequestering carbon, aiding in climate change mitigation, and improving building energy efficiency. Furthermore, green roofs support SDG 15 (Life on Land), by promoting plant and animal biodiversity, and contribute to SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), by managing stormwater runoff. Green roofs are generally classified into three types [100]: extensive, intensive, and semi-intensive, with the main difference being the soil depth used in the system (Figure 12). Extensive roofs typically have soil depths of less than 200 mm and cover large surface areas, while intensive roofs may exceed 1 m in depth, but are limited to smaller surface areas. The plants used for green roofs are often shallow-rooted species such as Sedum [101] and grass vegetation [102], which place a lighter load on roof structures compared to other plant types.
Green roofs can contribute to passive energy savings by reducing energy consumption [103], effectively mitigating the urban heat island effect [104,105,106], improving indoor temperatures in naturally ventilated buildings [107], enhancing air quality [107], reducing noise [108], and extending the lifespan of buildings [69]. These benefits significantly lower overall building energy use [109] and strongly support the Sustainable Development Goals [110]. As a result, green roofs have great potential to improve the energy efficiency of buildings [12], especially in urban environments.
Research on the energy efficiency of green roofs covers a wide range of topics, including the energy retrofitting of older buildings, comparisons of different types of green roofs, and the development of predictive models to optimize design parameters. Energy-saving effects can be measured through data on building surface temperatures [111], indoor thermal comfort [112], thermal transmittance [113], and annual heating and cooling energy consumption [114]. Castleton et al. [115] conducted a review of green roofs in building retrofitting, summarizing the potential energy benefits and associated costs. Green roofs reduce heating in winter and cooling in summer, with older buildings benefiting the most. In well-insulated buildings, annual energy savings of 2% were observed, while buildings without insulation showed more significant savings, ranging from 31% to 44%. Li et al. [116] proposed a deep learning-based approach to predict the performance of green roofs, identifying key parameters affecting their thermal performance. Santamouris et al. [117] used the TRNSTIM thermal simulation program to create a thermal model to investigate the energy-saving potential of a green roof installed on a kindergarten in Greece. The cooling load of buildings with green roofs was reduced by 6% to 49%, and buildings with insulated roofs achieved a higher proportion of comfortable indoor temperatures. Andric et al. [118] used global climate models (GCMs) and regional climate models (RCMs) to generate climate data, along with the CCWorldWeatherGen tool for weather data projections. They examined the impact of future climate predictions on building energy demand in Qatar and, using BIM modeling and building energy modeling, demonstrated that green roofs and green walls can significantly reduce energy consumption in residential buildings in response to climate change.
Field measurements are one of the primary methods for studying the energy-saving benefits of green roofs. Lee et al. [119] conducted controlled experiments comparing the roof surface temperature of a traditional roof and the subsurface soil temperature of a green roof, calculating annual energy savings of 17.4 kW/m2 for heating and 21.2 kW/m2 for cooling. The installation of green roofs provided effective insulation, significantly reducing both summer cooling and winter heating energy consumption. Karachaliou et al. [120] measured outdoor and indoor temperatures and relative humidity on the roof of a fully insulated low-energy office building in Athens, Greece, finding that the green roof reduced the building’s annual cooling and heating loads by 19% and 11%, respectively. In addition, simulation software such as DesignBuilder v7, EnergyPlus 24.2.0, and ENVI-met V4 is commonly used to quantify energy consumption. Foustalieraki et al. [121] simulated the energy performance of a green roof system on a commercial building in Athens using EnergyPlus, showing an overall annual energy savings of 15.1% after the installation of the green roof. Balvedi et al. [107] used EnergyPlus to simulate the effects of different types of green roofs in various Brazilian climate zones, analyzing their impact on building energy performance and outdoor environmental benefits. The results indicated that green roof systems play a critical role in improving energy efficiency and outdoor air quality, though improper system design could lead to negative effects under different climatic conditions. Jamei et al. [122] used ENVI-met to conduct a quantitative analysis of the thermal effects of a green roof on a government building in Melbourne, optimizing design parameters, such as leaf area index, soil moisture, plant height, and green coverage, to determine the optimal design settings. Fang et al. [123] simulated the cooling efficiency of green roofs in a Beijing community using ENVI-met, finding that green roofs reduced the area of high temperature zones by 52.55% and medium–high temperature zones by 29.17%.
Many factors influence the energy efficiency of green roofs. Key factors include the depth of the growing medium, irrigation rate [124,125], soil thermal conductivity [107], leaf area index (LAI), leaf reflectivity, leaf emissivity, stomatal resistance [126], plant height [114], specific environmental conditions [120], and the local climate and building type. Balvedi et al. [107] demonstrated that, in temperate climates, a low LAI combined with high substrate thickness and low thermal conductivity can achieve a 5.6% energy savings compared to cool roofs. In humid subtropical climates, a high LAI, medium substrate thickness, and high thermal conductivity resulted in a 4.9% energy savings. Berardi’s [127] research showed that, as the LAI increases, the cooling effect of green roofs on the urban microclimate improves, with peak temperatures on green roofs with an LAI of 1 or 2 reduced by 0.4 °C and 0.7 °C, respectively. When the LAI is 2 and soil depth is 30 cm, the energy-saving effect is maximized, with total energy savings ranging from 1.8% to 2.9%. Niachou et al. [128] found that, in cold climates, green roofs save more energy due to heating demands, with energy savings significantly influenced by soil depth. Permpituck’s [113] study in Thailand also confirmed that energy efficiency is greatly affected by the depth of the growing medium, with green roofs having soil depths of 10 cm and 20 cm achieving energy savings of 31% and 37%, respectively, compared to bare roofs. Silva et al. [129] found that, in Mediterranean climates, semi-intensive green roofs reduced energy consumption by 10–60%, while intensive green roofs reduced it by 25–70% compared to black and white roofs.
4.2. Vertical Green Systems
A VGS (vertical green system) is a type of exterior wall system that has become a popular method for vertical plant growth. Through vegetation, VGSs offer benefits such as improving environmental quality, enhancing thermal comfort, and reducing energy consumption.
The types of plants used in vertical greening systems can be broadly classified into near-wall planting, green facade, and living wall (Figure 13). Green facades can be further classified into climbing and hanging systems. Climbing plants are subdivided into direct and indirect types. Direct climbing plants use natural mechanisms, such as tendrils, twining stems, or adhesive pads, to ascend walls. This approach is straightforward, requiring no additional support structures, and is characterized by lower maintenance costs and broader coverage. Common examples include Boston ivy and English ivy. By contrast, indirect climbing plants rely on external support structures installed in front of walls to guide their growth, creating a green curtain wall distinct from the building facade. Hanging plants grow in pots placed on rooftops or balconies and need additional care, such as fertilizer, water, and frost protection. Living walls, by comparison, consist of plants grown in containers and cultivated in a growing medium, such as hydroponics or other substrate-based methods. These plants can be designed as modular systems that are independent of ground soil, growing upward from pots attached to the facade or from a substrate affixed to the facade, and are equipped with integrated irrigation systems. Due to the intensive care and maintenance required, including regular watering and fertilization, these are often costly and fragile solutions [130,131]. Pérez et al. [132] have confirmed that vertical green systems can achieve passive energy savings through shading provided by vegetation, thermal insulation from the plants and substrate, evaporative cooling from plant and substrate transpiration, and wind blockage by the vegetation. Additionally, green walls can alter the environmental conditions (temperature and humidity) in the space between the green screen and the building wall. This air layer can create a beneficial insulation effect. Air renewal within this space, leaf density, and facade opening design should all be considered. For living walls, insulation capacity may depend on substrate thickness. If a layer of vegetation is applied to the exterior of a concrete wall, heat transfer through the wall can be significantly reduced. Hoyano [133] reported in 1988 that living walls can reduce energy transfer to building walls by 0.24 kWh/m2.
The primary research methods for VGSs (vertical green systems) are similar to those used for green roofs and can be divided into two categories: field measurements and simulations. By measuring or evaluating mean radiant temperature (MRT), shortwave and longwave radiation flux, building surface temperature, and transpiration rates, the cooling effects of vertical greening systems on outdoor thermal comfort, as well as their energy transfer and reflection performance, can be assessed to reflect the cooling efficiency of the system [134]. The main instruments used for field measurements include sensors (for monitoring temperature, humidity, etc.), acoustic devices (for evaluating sound insulation performance), and thermal imaging cameras (for monitoring surface temperatures) [135]. Yungstein et al. [136] installed a 15-square-meter vertical green wall system at a real workplace in Rehovot, Israel. Tools such as temperature and humidity sensors, along with CO2 gas analyzers, were used for continuous indoor environmental monitoring. Simulations based on ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2019 [28] were conducted to analyze temperature and humidity data and assess the impact of the green wall on the indoor environment. The results indicated that the green wall significantly improved indoor air quality and reduced energy consumption, with particularly notable effects on the regulation of temperature and humidity within the wall. Furthermore, the study revealed that while most plants, except for Philodendron, were effective at reducing CO2 levels, Tradescantia species demonstrated the strongest cooling effect through transpiration.
The factors affecting the energy efficiency of vertical green systems (VGSs) include vegetation type and coverage, lighting conditions and duration of sunlight exposure, local climate and meteorological conditions, and the interaction of the VGS with surrounding buildings and the environment. Sendra-Arranz et al. [137] found that the temperature difference between a green wall and a control wall could reach up to 20 °C in summer and 8 °C in winter, with temperature variations influenced by the wall’s orientation. Gamal et al. [138] developed a conceptual framework for a VGS in hot and humid climates, confirming its substantial benefits in improving thermal comfort, energy savings, and air quality. Factors such as climate, surrounding environment (e.g., street canyon criteria), VGS type (structure, facade orientation, air gap), vegetation characteristics (plant species, density, green coverage percentage, LAI, and leaf thickness), among others, all affect VGS efficiency. Furthermore, Hedera helix has been proven to be more effective than other plants, making it a suitable choice for widespread use and able to thrive in any climate. Pérez et al. [139] demonstrated that vertical green systems are effective energy-saving tools for cooling in warm temperate and arid climates. Their passive energy-saving potential varies depending on climate and plant species, ranging from 5% to 50%, with the most common savings between 20% and 30%, especially considering the impact of west-facing facades. At the University of Brighton (UK), a “Bioshader” control experiment [132,140] compared an office with a double-layer green facade placed over its windows to one without plants. The study measured a reduction in indoor temperature by 3.5–5.6 °C. Leaf solar transmittance was also measured, ranging from 0.43 for one leaf layer to 0.14 for five leaf layers. This corresponds to a 37% reduction in solar radiation passing through one layer of leaves and an 86% reduction through five layers. Holm (1989) developed a dynamic computer model to simulate the thermal effects of deciduous and evergreen vegetation on exterior walls. The study found that thermal improvements in indoor environments were most noticeable in low-quality buildings located in hot, arid climates. The best results were observed when the equatorial-facing wall, which absorbs the most radiation in winter, was covered by vegetation during the summer, while all other walls were covered with evergreen plants. This design, which can be retrofitted onto existing or poorly oriented buildings, can eliminate the need for artificial heating or cooling in specific climates [141].
4.3. Biophilic Architecture Integrated with Photovoltaic Systems
Biophilic architecture is often not a standalone design, but is integrated with other systems, such as air conditioning and solar photovoltaic systems, to more effectively enhance energy efficiency and occupant comfort. Ling [142] explained that vertical greening systems need to be combined with ventilation and cooling systems, which can significantly reduce energy consumption in extreme climates. Seyam [143], in her review, summarized that greening systems have a positive impact on energy savings. Greening systems can act as insulating materials, blocking solar radiation and reducing wall and roof surface temperatures, thereby decreasing heat transfer through the building envelope. Their heat transfer reduction can reach up to 80–90%, but they cannot replace air conditioning systems for maintaining thermal comfort for occupants.
Globally, there is an urgent need to promote renewable energy systems to replace traditional fossil fuel-based energy systems. Solar photovoltaics (PV) are now the main supplier in the renewable energy market and are expected to maintain their dominant position in the future [144]. Combining vegetation with solar photovoltaics is one of the most promising solutions for on-site clean energy generation and supporting the urban transition to net-zero carbon. In addition to ecological and social benefits, building greening has the potential to provide a cooling effect in microclimates, which can enhance the efficiency of building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) [12,145]. The integration of photovoltaics into buildings can be achieved in two ways: through facades (BIPV) or rooftops (PV-GR). A PV-GR is more efficient than a BIPV because rooftop panels, unlike facade panels, can be positioned at the optimal tilt angle [146]. The integration of photovoltaics (PV) with green roofs (GR) is an appropriate approach to achieving sustainability, as GRs are a good solution for addressing climate change and the urban heat island (UHI) effect [127], helping to reduce the building footprint or increase green space in urban areas, while PV provides clean, renewable energy for power generation [147].
Green roof photovoltaic (PV) systems, compared to bare roof PV systems, can lower ambient and PV panel temperatures, thereby increasing photovoltaic efficiency. In Zurich, green roofs, compared to traditional roofs, can boost PV generation by an average of 1.8% annually. Factors such as roof surface temperature, reflectivity, thermal conductivity, vegetation type, and density all influence the energy output of PV panels [147]. Abdalazeem et al. [148] conducted an experimental study and found that, in hot and arid climates, the cooling effect of green roofs (GR) can increase photovoltaic (PV) power generation by 2.27% and reduce cooling energy consumption by 19.12% during the summer season. Lamnatou et al. [149] concluded that PV-green roofs, compared to PV-gravel roofs, can increase PV output by approximately 0.08% to 8.3%. This improvement is mainly attributed to the cooling effects of the “green” layer, including evapotranspiration (ET) and the interaction between vegetation and PV panels.
Typically, photovoltaic (PV) panels are oriented southward, with their tilt angle determined by geographic location and climatic variations. Overall, the efficiency improvement of BIPV-green roof systems depends on a range of factors, including climate, PV panel height, plant species, and vegetation density. Compared to other regions, BIPV-green roof systems show greater advantages in tropical areas. Osma-Pinto et al. [150] found that, in warm tropical climates, PV panels installed at a height of 50–75 cm above the green roof surface, with wind speeds exceeding 1 m/s, can increase daily energy generation by 1 ± 0.4%. Arenandan et al. [151] conducted field experiments on the roof of an administrative building in Malaysia and determined that PV panels installed 0.3 m above the roof floor provided optimal energy generation performance.
4.4. Evaluating Biophilic Architecture: SWOT Analysis and Case Examples
Over the past decade, with the advancement of technology and a deeper understanding of the natural environment, integrating vegetation into buildings has become a thriving trend and a key direction in modern urban architecture [152]. This approach not only enhances the quality of human life but helps protect the ecological environment, fostering a harmonious coexistence between humans and nature. Integrating plants into buildings can expand urban green spaces by 10% or more, which helps to minimize future local temperature increases, thereby indirectly reducing energy consumption. In the future, we will see more biophilic designs implemented in hospitals, schools, hotels, and workplaces. The California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, designed by Renzo Piano Building Workshop [153], features a green roof covered with local vegetation, significantly cooling the interior temperature of the museum without the need for air conditioning. Additionally, photovoltaic panels installed on the roof provide more than 5% of the museum’s electricity needs. This project has received LEED Platinum certification. The Sydney Central Park Tower, designed by Ateliers Jean Nouvel [154], cleverly uses green facades as thermal regulators, transforming the skyscraper into a vertical urban forest park. The plants effectively filter sunlight reaching the building, thereby reducing cooling energy consumption during the summer. Furthermore, to reduce structural load and cost, plants that require minimal soil dependence were used, and flower boxes replaced full planting beds to lighten the overall weight.
However, the research and application of biophilic architecture still face many challenges. This paper adopts the SWOT matrix (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) to fully evaluate the potential of biophilic architecture (Figure 14). (1) The strengths of biophilic architecture: This review confirms the benefits of biophilic architecture in terms of energy efficiency, improving environmental quality, reducing the urban heat island effect, and enhancing both quality of life and aesthetics. Biophilic architecture improves the surrounding environment through natural processes such as photosynthesis and transpiration, playing a critical role in sustainability by increasing resource and energy efficiency while minimizing negative impacts on the environment and human health. (2) The weaknesses of biophilic architecture: It is undeniable that biophilic architecture requires a substantial upfront investment. Moreover, its operation involves high maintenance costs, such as regular watering and replacing plants. Additionally, the weight of green roofs or green rooftops increases the structural load of buildings, posing challenges to the building structure and increasing construction costs. (3) The opportunities of biophilic architecture: Biophilic architecture can effectively enhance the energy efficiency of photovoltaic panels by influencing the microclimate. The combination of plants with photovoltaics can greatly improve energy efficiency and achieve zero carbon emissions. Additionally, the aesthetic enhancement provided by biophilic architecture can increase property values. Moreover, numerous studies show that incorporating plants in spaces such as hospitals, schools, and residences provides significant benefits to both mental and physical health. (4) The following section discusses the threats of biophilic architecture: The performance of plants is highly influenced by climatic and environmental factors and, with the global climate being complex and unpredictable, the return on investment for such buildings may be uncertain, with potentially long payback periods.
5. Conclusions, Future Prospects, and Limitations
The results of this study indicate that biophilic architecture has a positive impact on energy efficiency, effectively reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions, while also promoting psychological and physical health for humans and supporting sustainable development. Based on a bibliometric analysis using CiteSpace and VOSviewer, the research covers publications from the WoS database between 2014 and 2024 and has the following advantages: (1) a clear understanding of the key contributing countries, institutions, and authors in the research field; (2) a co-occurrence analysis to explore the collaborative relationships among countries and authors; and, (3) high-frequency keywords and keyword emergence that better reveal research hotspots and trends. The SWOT framework succinctly summarizes the intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics of biophilic architecture, facilitating further in-depth research by scholars.
5.1. Conclusions
Firstly, based on the annual publication volume, the overall number of publications shows an upward trend year-by-year. Secondly, through the analysis of countries and authors, it is evident that biophilic research is distributed globally, with the majority of publications coming from China, followed by the United States. However, a large-scale collaborative network has yet to form among authors. Keyword analysis reveals that “performance”, “energy”, “energy saving”, “consumption”, and “optimization” are among the most frequently occurring keywords, highlighting several topics worth further investigation. Biophilic research involves interdisciplinary integration across fields, such as architecture, botany, computer science, engineering, economics, and sociology. Recent research directions include studies on the carbon recovery cycle and energy costs from the perspective of biophilic architecture’s entire life cycle, as well as the prediction and evaluation of energy efficiency in biophilic buildings under future climate conditions. The integration of statistics and machine learning for optimizing the design of biophilic architecture parameters is also a hot research topic. Biophilic architecture can be classified into three categories based on the integration of plants and buildings: green roofs, vertical green systems, and green photovoltaic systems. This paper discusses the plant types, factors affecting energy-saving rates, research methods, and benefits of each category. Research on the energy-saving potential of biophilic design has been extensive in the fields of green roofs, roof gardens, vertical greening systems, and green facades, with earlier studies in these areas. The integration of plants with photovoltaic systems is a more recent research field. Biophilic design in buildings combined with building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) achieves an efficient collaboration between energy saving and energy production, transforming buildings from consumers to energy producers. The plant types selected for biophilic buildings are typically low-maintenance, low-cost plants, such as grasses, shrubs, and herbs. Energy consumption simulations using DesignBuilder software and on-site measurements are the primary research methods in this field. The main factors influencing the energy efficiency of biophilic buildings include plant characteristics, climate, and geographical factors. Studies have shown that, compared to traditional buildings, biophilic design can significantly reduce heating and cooling loads, with the most noticeable energy-saving effects observed during the summer months.
5.2. Prospects, Challenges, and Future Research Directions
Therefore, challenges such as improving building performance and longevity while reducing costs, achieving efficient energy utilization, and responding to the complexities of the natural environment require further exploration and research. It is recommended that future studies focus on optimizing the energy efficiency of biophilic buildings in specific environments or analyzing the best design solutions for integrating plants with photovoltaic systems. From a policy perspective, there is a call to incorporate health and well-being into green building rating tools (GBRT), rather than focusing solely on energy efficiency. Through innovative technologies and design concepts, we are optimistic that these challenges can be addressed, leading to the further development of biophilic architecture and creating a better and greener living environment for humanity.
Conceptualization, X.D.; methodology, X.D.; software, X.D.; validation, X.D.; formal analysis, X.D.; investigation, X.D.; resources, X.D.; data curation, X.D.; writing—original draft preparation, X.D.; writing—review and editing, X.D. and H.Z.; visualization, X.D.; supervision, Y.C., H.Z., and Z.C.; project administration, Y.C.; funding acquisition, Y.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
| BD | Biophilic design | WoS | Web of Science |
| COP | Climate Change Conference | USGBC | US Green Building |
| HNC | Human-nature connection | ESD | Environmentally sustainable design |
| VGS | Vertical Green Systems | SDG | Sustainable Development Goals |
| PV-GR | Photovoltaic-Green Roof | BIPV | Building Integrated Photovoltaics |
| MRT | Mean Radiant Temperature | SWOT | Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats |
| UHI | Urban Heat Island | LAI | Leaf Area Index |
| RCMs | Regional climate models | GCMs | Global climate models |
| GBRS | Green Building Rating System | ET | Evapotranspiration |
| PV | Photovoltaic |
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Composition of Global Evaluation Standards for Biophilic Architecture.
| Country | Standard | Year of | |
|---|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | BREEAM-Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method [ | 1990 | |
| United States | LEED-Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design | LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC) [ | 1998 |
| LEED for Core and Shell (LEED-CS) [ | 2006 | ||
| LEED for Commercial Interior (LEED-CI) [ | 2004 | ||
| LEED for Existing Building (LEED-EB) [ | 2004 | ||
| LEED for Home (LEED-H) [ | 2008 | ||
| LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) [ | 2009 | ||
| WELL | WELL Building Standard v1 [ | 2014 | |
| WELL Building Standard v2 [ | 2020 | ||
| France | HQE—Haute Qualité Environnementale [ | 1996 | |
| Japan | CASBEE—Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency [ | 2001 | |
| Australia | Green Star [ | 2003 | |
| Italy | Protocollo Itaca [ | 2004 | |
| Germany | DGNB—German Sustainable Building Council [ | 2009 | |
| Singapore | Green Mark [ | 2021 | |
Composition of China Evaluation Standards for Biophilic Architecture.
| Standard | Standard Number | Year of |
|---|---|---|
| GB/T 50378 | Assessment standard for green building [ | 2006 |
| 2014 | ||
| 2019 | ||
| GB/T 50878 | Assessment Standard for Green Industrial Buildings [ | 2013 |
| GB/T 50908 | Assessment Standard for Green Office Buildings [ | 2013 |
| GB/T 51,100 | Assessment Standard for Green Store Construction [ | 2015 |
| GB/T 51,141 | Assessment Standard for Green Renovation of Existing Buildings [ | 2015 |
| GB/T 51,153 | Assessment Standard for Green Hospital Buildings [ | 2015 |
| GB/T 51148 | Assessment Standard for Green Museums and Exhibition Halls [ | 2016 |
| GB/T 51165 | Assessment Standard for Green Hotel Buildings [ | 2016 |
| GB/T 51,255 | Assessment Standard for Green Eco-Districts [ | 2017 |
| GB/T 51,356 | Assessment Standard for Green Campuses [ | 2019 |
TS search queries and refinement procedure (“TS” = subject, “AND” “OR” were Boolean operator).
| Set | Results | Refinement |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2396 | Results for ((((((TS = (Biophilic design)) OR TS = (vertical green system)) OR TS = (greening system)) OR TS = (green roof)) OR TS = (roof garden)) OR TS = (green facade)) AND TS = (energy saving) |
| 2 | 2387 | Refined by language: English |
| 3 | 2309 | Refined by Document type: Article, review article. |
References
1. Zhang, X.Q. The Trends, Promises and Challenges of Urbanisation in the World. Habitat Int.; 2015; 54, pp. 240-257. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.11.018]
2. Zhu, R.; Sing, M.; Kwan, M.-P.; Chen, M.; Santi, P.; Ratti, C. An Economically Feasible Optimization of Photovoltaic Provision Using Real Electricity Demand: A Case Study in New York City. Sustain. Cities Soc.; 2022; 78, 103614. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103614]
3. Stamenković, M.G.; Miletić, M.J.; Kosanović, S.M.; Vučković, G.D.; Glišović, S.M. Impact of a Building Shape Factor on Space Cooling Energy Performance in the Green Roof Concept Implementation. Therm. Sci.; 2018; 22, pp. 687-698. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2298/TSCI170425205S]
4. Movahed, Y.; Bakhtiari, A.; Eslami, S.; Noorollahi, Y. Investigation of Single-Storey Residential Green Roof Contribution to Buildings Energy Demand Reduction in Different Climate Zones of Iran. Int. J. Green Energy; 2021; 18, pp. 100-110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2020.1831509]
5. International Energy Agency (IEA). Net Zero by 2050; IEA: Paris, France, 2023.
6. Goda, Z.M.A.; Foda, M.A.M.; Elsayyad, N.A.E. Using Green Roofs for Social Housing to Improve Energy Consumption in New Cities: An Applied Study of Social Housing in Egypt’s New Cairo City. Future Cities Environ.; 2023; 9, 2. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5334/fce.165]
7. Browning, W.D.; Ryan, C.O. What Is Biophilia and What Does It Mean for Buildings and Spaces. Nature Inside: A Biophilic Design Guide; RIBA Publishing: London, UK, 2020; pp. 1-5.
8. Kellert, S.R. The Biological Basis for Human Values of Nature. Biophilias Hypothesis; 1993; 42, 69.
9. Ulrich, R.S. Natural Landscapes. The Biophilia Hypothesis; Kellert, S.E.; Wilson, E.O. Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1993; pp. 73-137.
10. Kellert, S.R.; Heerwagen, J.; Mador, M. Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011.
11. Kellert, S.R. Dimensions, Elements, and Attributes of Biophilic Design. Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life; Kellert, S.R.; Heerwagen, J.; Mador, M. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008; pp. 3-19.
12. Raji, B.; Tenpierik, M.J.; Van Den Dobbelsteen, A. The Impact of Greening Systems on Building Energy Performance: A Literature Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2015; 45, pp. 610-623. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.011]
13. Huang, Z.; Tan, C.L.; Lu, Y.; Wong, N.H. Holistic Analysis and Prediction of Life Cycle Cost for Vertical Greenery Systems in Singapore. Build. Environ.; 2021; 196, 107735. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107735]
14. Tablada, A.; Kosorić, V.; Huang, H.; Lau, S.S.; Shabunko, V. Architectural Quality of the Productive Facades Integrating Photovoltaic and Vertical Farming Systems: Survey among Experts in Singapore. Front. Archit. Res.; 2020; 9, pp. 301-318. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.12.005]
15. Africa, J.; Heerwagen, J.; Loftness, V.; Ryan Balagtas, C. Biophilic Design and Climate Change: Performance Parameters for Health. Front. Built Environ.; 2019; 5, 28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2019.00028]
16. Gillis, K.; Gatersleben, B. A Review of Psychological Literature on the Health and Wellbeing Benefits of Biophilic Design. Buildings; 2015; 5, pp. 948-963. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings5030948]
17. Beatley, T.; Newman, P. Biophilic Cities Are Sustainable, Resilient Cities. Sustainability; 2013; 5, pp. 3328-3345. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su5083328]
18. El-Baghdadi, O.; Desha, C. Conceptualising a Biophilic Services Model for Urban Areas. Urban For. Urban Green.; 2017; 27, pp. 399-408. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.10.016]
19. Kellert, S. Biophilic Urbanism: The Potential to Transform. Smart Sustain. Built Environ.; 2016; 5, pp. 4-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-10-2015-0035]
20. Littke, H. Becoming Biophilic: Challenges and Opportunities for Biophilic Urbanism in Urban Planning Policy. Smart Sustain. Built Environ.; 2016; 5, pp. 36-51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-10-2015-0036]
21. Reeve, A.C.; Desha, C.; Hargreaves, D.; Hargroves, K. Biophilic Urbanism: Contributions to Holistic Urban Greening for Urban Renewal. Smart Sustain. Built Environ.; 2015; 4, pp. 215-233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-11-2014-0057]
22. Schröpfer, T.; Menz, S. Dense and Green Building Typologies: Design Perspectives. SpringerBriefs in Architectural Design and Technology; Springer: Singapore, 2019; ISBN 978-981-13-3034-6
23. Strobl, H.; Schmal, P.C.; Scheuermann, R. Einfach Grün: Greening the City: Handbuch Für Gebäudegrün; Deutsches Architekturmuseum (DAM): Frankfurt, Germany, 2021; ISBN 978-3-8030-2379-0
24. Vijayaraghavan, K. Green Roofs: A Critical Review on the Role of Components, Benefits, Limitations and Trends. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2016; 57, pp. 740-752. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.119]
25. Wilson, E.O. Biophilia and the Conservation Ethic. Evolutionary Perspectives on Environmental Problems; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 250-258.
26. Wilkinson, P.; Smith, K.R.; Beevers, S.; Tonne, C.; Oreszczyn, T. Energy, Energy Efficiency, and the Built Environment. Lancet; 2007; 370, pp. 1175-1187. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61255-0]
27. Gou, Z.; Xie, X. Evolving Green Building: Triple Bottom Line or Regenerative Design?. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 153, pp. 600-607. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.077]
28.
29. Building Research Establishment. BREEAM—Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method; Building Research Establishment: Watford, UK, 1990.
30. U.S. Green Building Council. LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC); U.S. Green Building Council: Washington, DC, USA, 1998.
31. U.S. Green Building Council. LEED for Core & Shell (LEED-CS); U.S. Green Building Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
32. U.S. Green Building Council. LEED for Commercial Interiors (LEED-CI); U.S. Green Building Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
33. U.S. Green Building Council. LEED for Existing Buildings (LEED-EB); U.S. Green Building Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
34. U.S. Green Building Council. LEED for Homes (LEED-H); U.S. Green Building Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
35. U.S. Green Building Council. LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND); U.S. Green Building Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
36. Building and Construction Authority. Green Mark 2021; Building and Construction Authority: Singapore, 2021.
37. German Sustainable Building Council. DGNB Certification System; German Sustainable Building Council: Stuttgart, Germany, 2009.
38. CERTIVEA. HQE-Haute Qualité Environnementale; CERTIVEA: Paris, France, 1996.
39. Japan Sustainable Building Consortium. CASBEE—Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency; Japan Sustainable Building Consortium: Tokyo, Japan, 2001.
40. Green Building Council of Australia. Green Star; Green Building Council of Australia: Barangaroo, NSW, Australia, 2003.
41. Regione Lombardia. Protocollo Itaca; Regione Lombardia: MIlan, Italy, 2004.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54. Italian Ministry of Environment and Protection of Land and Sea. Protocollo Itaca; Italian Ministry of Environment and Protection of Land and Sea: Roma, Italy, 2004.
55. International WELL Building Institute. WELL Building Standard v1; International WELL Building Institute: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
56. International WELL Building Institute. WELL Building Standard v2; International WELL Building Institute: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
57. Latini, A.; Torresin, S.; Oberman, T.; Di Giuseppe, E.; Aletta, F.; Kang, J.; D’Orazio, M. Effects of Biophilic Design Interventions on University Students’ Cognitive Performance: An Audio-Visual Experimental Study in an Immersive Virtual Office Environment. Build. Environ.; 2024; 250, 111196. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111196]
58. Kayihan, K.S.; Özçelik Güney, S.; Ünal, F.C. Biophilia as the Main Design Question in Architectural Design Studio Teaching. Megaron; 2018; 13, pp. 410-421. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5505/megaron.2017.59265]
59. Kellert, S. Biophilia and Biomimicry: Evolutionary Adaptation of Human versus Nonhuman Nature. Intell. Build. Int.; 2016; 8, pp. 51-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2014.902802]
60. BRE Group. BREEAM International New Construction Technical Manual 2013; BRE Group Training: Watford, UK, 2013.
61. U.S. Green Building Council. LEED Reference Guide for Building Design and Construction; U.S. Green Building Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
62. Wijesooriya, N.; Brambilla, A.; Markauskaite, L. Biophilic Water Criteria: Exploring a Technique to Develop an Environmentally Sustainable Biophilic Design Framework. Advanced Studies in Efficient Environmental Design and City Planning; Trapani, F.; Mohareb, N.; Rosso, F.; Kolokotsa, D.; Maruthaveeran, S.; Ghoneem, M. Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 437-447. ISBN 978-3-030-65180-0
63. Sijakovic, M.; Peric, A. Sustainable Architectural Design: Towards Climate Change Mitigation. Archnet-IJAR Int. J. Archit. Res.; 2021; 15, pp. 385-400. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-05-2020-0097]
64. Khotbehsara, E.M.; Daemei, A.B.; Malekjahan, F.A. Simulation Study of the Eco Green Roof in Order to Reduce Heat Transfer in Four Different Climatic Zones. Results Eng.; 2019; 2, 100010. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2019.100010]
65. Wijesooriya, N.; Cheng, K.Y.; Ng, S.T. Bridging Biophilic Design and Environmentally Sustainable Design: A Critical Review. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 291, 125911. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124591]
66. Li, H.; Xiang, Y.; Yang, W.; Lin, T.; Xiao, Q.; Zhang, G. Green Roof Development Knowledge Map: A Review of Visual Analysis Using CiteSpace and VOSviewer. Heliyon; 2024; 10, e24958. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24958] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38356566]
67. Farkas, J.Z.; Hoyk, E.; de Morais, M.B.; Csomós, G. A Systematic Review of Urban Green Space Research over the Last 30 Years: A Bibliometric Analysis. Heliyon; 2023; 9, e13406. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13406]
68. Fiorentin, D.P.; Martín-Gamboa, M.; Rafael, S.; Quinteiro, P. Life Cycle Assessment of Green Roofs: A Comprehensive Review of Methodological Approaches and Climate Change Impacts. Sustain. Prod. Consum.; 2024; 45, pp. 598-611. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.02.004]
69. Mihalakakou, G.; Souliotis, M.; Papadaki, M.; Menounou, P.; Dimopoulos, P.; Kolokotsa, D.; Paravantis, J.A.; Tsangrassoulis, A.; Panaras, G.; Giannakopoulos, E. et al. Green Roofs as a Nature-Based Solution for Improving Urban Sustainability: Progress and Perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2023; 180, 113306. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113306]
70. Babalola, O.; Ibem, E.O.; Ezema, I.C. Implementation of Lean Practices in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Review. Build. Environ.; 2019; 148, pp. 34-43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.10.051]
71. Klewitz, J.; Hansen, E.G. Sustainability-Oriented Innovation of SMEs: A Systematic Review. J. Clean. Prod.; 2014; 65, pp. 57-75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.017]
72. Peiró, M.N.; Sánchez, C.S.G.; González, F.N. Source Area Definition for Local Climate Zones Studies: A Systematic Review. Build. Environ.; 2019; 148, pp. 258-285. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.10.050]
73. Chen, C. Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J. Data Inf. Sci.; 2017; 2, pp. 1-40. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jdis-2017-0006]
74. Du, Q.; Zhao, R.; Wan, Q.; Li, S.; Li, H.; Wang, D.; Ho, C.W.; Dai, Z.; Chen, Y.; Shan, D. Protocol for Conducting Bibliometric Analysis in Biomedicine and Related Research Using CiteSpace and VOSviewer Software. STAR Protoc.; 2024; 5, 103269. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xpro.2024.103269] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39240711]
75. Chen, C.; Song, M. Visualizing a Field of Research: A Methodology of Systematic Scientometric Reviews. PLoS ONE; 2019; 14, e0223994. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223994]
76. Zhang, G.; Qin, Y.; Liu, S.; Chen, X.; Zhang, W. Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends and Topic Areas in Traditional Chinese Medicine Therapy for Lymphoma. Pharm. Biol.; 2024; 62, pp. 13-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13880209.2023.2288697]
77. Tang, F.; Dai, W.-B.; Li, X.-L.; Turghun, D.; Huang, H.; Fan, Y.-Q. Publication Trends and Hot Spots in Femoroacetabular Impingement Research: A 20-Year Bibliometric Analysis. J. Arthroplasty; 2021; 36, pp. 2698-2707. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.03.019]
78. Zhang, L.; Zheng, H.; Jiang, S.-T.; Liu, Y.-G.; Zhang, T.; Zhang, J.-W.; Lu, X.; Zhao, H.-T.; Sang, X.-T.; Xu, Y.-Y. Worldwide Research Trends on Tumor Burden and Immunotherapy: A Bibliometric Analysis. J. Surg. Res.; 2023; 305, e1022. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000001022]
79. Wang, Q.; Chen, G.; Qi, Z.; Zeng, Y.; Tan, L.; Tang, H. Global Research Status Analysis of the Association Between Aortic Aneurysm and Inflammation: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1999 to 2023. Front. Cardiovasc. Med.; 2023; 10, 1260935. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1260935]
80. Jiang, N.; Li, P.-Y.; Liang, J.-M.; Liu, X. A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Organizational Resilience. Heliyon; 2024; 10, e30275. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30275]
81. Zuo, Z.; Cheng, J.; Guo, H.; Li, Y. Knowledge Mapping of Research on Strategic Mineral Resource Security: A Visual Analysis Using CiteSpace. Resour. Policy; 2021; 74, 102372. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102372]
82. Ding, X.; Yang, Z. Knowledge Mapping of Platform Research: A Visual Analysis Using VOSviewer and CiteSpace. Electron. Commer. Res.; 2022; 22, pp. 787-809. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10660-020-09410-7]
83. Phadermrod, B.; Crowder, R.M.; Wills, G.B. Importance-Performance Analysis Based SWOT Analysis. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 215, pp. 509-516. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.03.009]
84. Learned, E.P.; Christensen, C.R.; Andrews, K.R.; Guth, W.D. Business Policy: Text and Cases; Irwin: Homewood, IL, USA, 1965.
85. Wenping, W.; Xuelan, L. SWOT Analysis for Application of Prefabrication in Residential Buildings. Procedia Eng.; 2012; 23, pp. 295-299.
86. Bayhan, H.G.; Karaca, F. Integrating Biomimicry with Sustainable Construction in ESD: A SWOT Analysis. Sustain. Cities Soc.; 2019; 48, 101566.
87. Lee, Y.; Lee, J. Evaluating Biophilic Design in Urban Residential Projects Using SWOT Analysis. J. Environ. Manag.; 2020; 261, 110235.
88. Cheng, C.; Cheung, K.; Cheng, C. SWOT Analysis of Green Roofs for Urban Sustainability: Case Studies from Hong Kong. Sustain. Cities Soc.; 2021; 65, 102560.
89. Kopnina, H. Teaching Sustainable Development Goals in the Netherlands: A Critical Approach. Environ. Educ. Res.; 2017; 23, pp. 678-692. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1303819]
90. Zou, X.; Yue, W.L.; Vu, H.L. Visualization and Analysis of Mapping Knowledge Domain of Road Safety Studies. Accid. Anal. Prev.; 2018; 118, pp. 131-145. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.06.010]
91. Tsolakis, N.; Anthopoulos, L. Eco-Cities: An Integrated System Dynamics Framework and a Concise Research Taxonomy. Sustain. Cities Soc.; 2015; 17, pp. 1-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2015.03.002]
92. Zhao, S.; Zhang, X. Energy Consumption and Heat Island Effect Mitigation Analysis of Different Roofs Considering Superposition Coupling. Front. Energy Res.; 2023; 10, 1047614. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.1047614]
93. Chen, C.-F. Performance Evaluation and Development Strategies for Green Roofs in Taiwan: A Review. Ecol. Eng.; 2013; 52, pp. 51-58. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.12.083]
94. Li, W.C.; Yeung, K.K.A. A Comprehensive Study of Green Roof Performance from Environmental Perspective. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ.; 2014; 3, pp. 127-134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2014.05.001]
95. Wong, J.K.W.; Lau, L.S.-K. From the ‘Urban Heat Island’ to the ‘Green Island’? A Preliminary Investigation into the Potential of Retrofitting Green Roofs in Mongkok District of Hong Kong. Habitat Int.; 2013; 39, pp. 25-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.10.005]
96. Voyde, E.; Fassman, E.; Simcock, R. Hydrology of an Extensive Living Roof under Sub-Tropical Climate Conditions in Auckland, New Zealand. J. Hydrol.; 2010; 394, pp. 384-395. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.09.013]
97. Badescu, V.; Sicre, B. Renewable Energy for Passive House Heating: II. Model. Energy Build.; 2003; 35, pp. 1085-1096. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2003.09.004]
98. Francis, R.A.; Lorimer, J. Urban Reconciliation Ecology: The Potential of Living Roofs and Walls. J. Environ. Manag.; 2011; 92, pp. 1429-1437. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.01.012]
99. Pisello, A.L.; Piselli, C.; Cotana, F. Thermal-Physics and Energy Performance of an Innovative Green Roof System: The Cool-Green Roof. Sol. Energy; 2015; 116, pp. 337-356. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2015.03.049]
100. Lamnatou, C.; Chemisana, D. Evaluation of Photovoltaic-Green and Other Roofing Systems by Means of ReCiPe and Multiple Life Cycle–Based Environmental Indicators. Build. Environ.; 2015; 93, pp. 376-384. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.06.031]
101. Shi, D.; Gao, Y.; Guo, R.; Levinson, R.; Sun, Z.; Li, B. Life Cycle Assessment of White Roof and Sedum-Tray Garden Roof for Office Buildings in China. Sustain. Cities Soc.; 2019; 46, 101390. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.12.018]
102. Algarni, S.; Almutairi, K.; Alqahtani, T. Investigating the Performance of Energy Management in Office Buildings by Using a Suitable Green Roof Design to Reduce the Building’s Energy Consumption. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess.; 2022; 54, 102825. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102825]
103. Bevilacqua, P. The Effectiveness of Green Roofs in Reducing Building Energy Consumptions across Different Climates: A Summary of Literature Results. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2021; 151, 111523. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111523]
104. Carter, T.; Keeler, A. Life-Cycle Cost–Benefit Analysis of Extensive Vegetated Roof Systems. J. Environ. Manag.; 2008; 87, pp. 350-363. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.024]
105. Bevilacqua, P.; Mazzeo, D.; Bruno, R.; Arcuri, N. Surface Temperature Analysis of an Extensive Green Roof for the Mitigation of Urban Heat Island in Southern Mediterranean Climate. Energy Build.; 2017; 150, pp. 318-327. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.05.081]
106. Zeng, C.; Bai, X.; Sun, L.; Zhang, Y.; Yuan, Y. Optimal Parameters of Green Roofs in Representative Cities of Four Climate Zones in China: A Simulation Study. Energy Build.; 2017; 150, pp. 118-131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.05.079]
107. Balvedi, N.; Giglio, T. Influence of Green Roof Systems on the Energy Performance of Buildings and Their Surroundings. J. Build. Eng.; 2023; 70, 106430. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106430]
108. Van Renterghem, T.; Botteldooren, D. Reducing the Acoustical Facade Load from Road Traffic with Green Roofs. Build. Environ.; 2009; 44, pp. 1081-1087. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.07.013]
109. Shafique, M.; Kim, R.; Rafiq, M. Green Roof Benefits, Opportunities and Challenges: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2018; 90, pp. 757-773. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.006]
110. Brachet, A.; Schiopu, N.; Clergeau, P. Biodiversity Impact Assessment of Building’s Roofs Based on Life Cycle Assessment Methods. Build. Environ.; 2019; 158, pp. 133-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.04.014]
111. Borràs, J.G.; Lerma, C.; Mas, Á.; Vercher, J.; Gil, E. Irrigation Proposals for Improving the Energy Performance of Green Roofs in Mediterranean Climate. J. Build. Eng.; 2023; 75, 107064. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107064]
112. Gargari, C.; Bibbiani, C.; Fantozzi, F.; Campiotti, C.A. Simulation of the Thermal Behaviour of a Building Retrofitted with a Green Roof: Optimization of Energy Efficiency with Reference to Italian Climatic Zones. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia; 2016; 8, pp. 628-636. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.02.085]
113. Permpituck, S.; Namprakai, P. The Energy Consumption Performance of Roof Lawn Gardens in Thailand. Renew. Energy; 2012; 40, pp. 98-103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.09.023]
114. He, Y.; Yu, H.; Ozaki, A.; Dong, N. Thermal and energy performance of green roof and cool roof: A comparison study in Shanghai area. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 267, 122205. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122205]
115. Castleton, H.F.; Stovin, V.; Beck, S.B.; Davison, J.B. Green Roofs: Building Energy Savings and the Potential for Retrofit. Energy Build.; 2010; 42, pp. 1582-1591. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.05.004]
116. Li, Y.; Dai, Z.; Fu, H. A Graph-Based Hybrid Deep Learning Approach for the Thermal Performance Potential Prediction of Green Roofs. J. Build. Eng.; 2024; 84, 108554. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.108554]
117. Santamouris, M.; Pavlou, C.; Doukas, P.; Mihalakakou, G.; Synnefa, A.; Hatzibiros, A.; Patargias, P. Investigating and Analyzing the Energy and Environmental Performance of an Experimental Green Roof System Installed in a Nursery School Building in Athens, Greece. Energy; 2007; 32, pp. 1781-1788. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2006.11.011]
118. Andric, I.; Kamal, A.; Al-Ghamdi, S.G. Efficiency of Green Roofs and Green Walls as Climate Change Mitigation Measures in Extremely Hot and Dry Climate: Case Study of Qatar. Energy Rep.; 2020; 6, pp. 2476-2489. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.09.006]
119. Lee, E.; Seo, Y.; Woo, D.K. Enhanced Environmental and Economic Benefits of Green Roofs in a Humid Subtropical Region under Future Climate. Ecol. Eng.; 2024; 201, 107221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2024.107221]
120. Karachaliou, P.; Santamouris, M.; Pangalou, H. Experimental and Numerical Analysis of the Energy Performance of a Large Scale Intensive Green Roof System Installed on an Office Building in Athens. Energy Build.; 2016; 114, pp. 256-264. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.04.055]
121. Foustalieraki, M.; Assimakopoulos, M.N.; Santamouris, M.; Pangalou, H. Energy Performance of a Medium Scale Green Roof System Installed on a Commercial Building Using Numerical and Experimental Data Recorded during the Cold Period of the Year. Energy Build.; 2017; 135, pp. 33-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.10.056]
122. Jamei, E.; Thirunavukkarasu, G.; Chau, H.W.; Seyedmahmoudian, M.; Stojcevski, A.; Mekhilef, S. Investigating the Cooling Effect of a Green Roof in Melbourne. Build. Environ.; 2023; 246, 110965. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110965]
123. Fang, Y.; Du, X.; Zhao, H.; Hu, M.; Xu, X. Assessment of Green Roofs’ Potential to Improve the Urban Thermal Environment: The Case of Beijing. Environ. Res.; 2023; 237, 116857. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.116857] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37579963]
124. Sailor, D.J. A Green Roof Model for Building Energy Simulation Programs. Energy Build.; 2008; 40, pp. 1466-1478. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2008.02.001]
125. Schindler, B.Y.; Blaustein, L.; Lotan, R.; Shalom, H.; Kadas, G.J.; Seifan, M. Green Roof and Photovoltaic Panel Integration: Effects on Plant and Arthropod Diversity and Electricity Production. J. Environ. Manag.; 2018; 225, pp. 288-299. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.017] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30098495]
126. Mousavi, S.; Gheibi, M.; Wacławek, S.; Behzadian, K. A Novel Smart Framework for Optimal Design of Green Roofs in Buildings Conforming with Energy Conservation and Thermal Comfort. Energy Build.; 2023; 291, 113111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113111]
127. Berardi, U. The Outdoor Microclimate Benefits and Energy Saving Resulting from Green Roofs Retrofits. Energy Build.; 2016; 121, pp. 217-229. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.03.021]
128. Niachou, A.; Papakonstantinou, K.; Santamouris, M.; Tsangrassoulis, A.; Mihalakakou, G. Analysis of the Green Roof Thermal Properties and Investigation of Its Energy Performance. Energy Build.; 2001; 33, pp. 719-729. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(01)00062-7]
129. Silva, C.M.; Gomes, M.G.; Silva, M. Green Roofs Energy Performance in Mediterranean Climate. Energy Build.; 2016; 116, pp. 318-325. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.01.012]
130. Wang, W.; Yang, H.; Xiang, C. Green Roofs and Facades with Integrated Photovoltaic System for Zero Energy Eco-Friendly Building: A Review. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess.; 2023; 60, 103426. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2023.103426]
131. Hermy, M. Wild Urban Woodlands. New Perspectives for Urban Forestry; Kowarik, I.; Körner, S. Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2006; pp. 1-299. ISBN 3-540-23912-X
132. Perez, G.; Rincon, L.; Vila, A.; Gonzalez, J.M.; Cabeza, L.F. Green Vertical Systems for Buildings as Passive Systems for Energy Savings. Appl. Energy; 2011; 88, pp. 4854-4859. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.06.032]
133. Hoyano, A. Climatological Uses of Plants for Solar Control and the Effects on the Thermal Environment of a Building. Energy Build.; 1988; 11, pp. 181-199. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-7788(88)90035-7]
134. Kim, E.S.; Yun, S.H.; Lee, D.K.; Kim, N.Y.; Piao, Z.G.; Kim, S.H.; Park, S. Quantifying Outdoor Cooling Effects of Vertical Greening System on Mean Radiant Temperature. Develop. Built Environ.; 2023; 15, 100211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2023.100211]
135. Carlucci, S.; Charalambous, M.; Tzortzi, J.N. Monitoring and Performance Evaluation of a Green Wall in a Semi-Arid Mediterranean Climate. J. Build. Eng.; 2023; 77, 107421. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107421]
136. Yungstein, Y.; Helman, D. Cooling, CO2 Reduction, and Energy-Saving Benefits of a Green-Living Wall in an Actual Workplace. Build. Environ.; 2023; 236, 110220. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110220]
137. Sendra-Arranz, R.; Oquendo, V.; Olivieri, L.; Olivieri, F.; Bedoya, C.; Gutiérrez, A. Monitorization and Statistical Analysis of South and West Green Walls in a Retrofitted Building in Madrid. Build. Environ.; 2020; 183, 107049. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107049]
138. Gamal, A.; Eleinen, O.A.; Eltarabily, S.; Elgheznawy, D. Enhancing Urban Resilience in Hot Humid Climates: A Conceptual Framework for Exploring the Environmental Performance of Vertical Greening Systems (VGS). Front. Archit. Res.; 2023; 12, pp. 1260-1284. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2023.09.003]
139. Pérez, G.; Coma, J.; Martorell, I.; Cabeza, L.F. Vertical Greenery Systems (VGS) for Energy Saving in Buildings: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2014; 39, pp. 139-165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.055]
140. Ip, K.; Lam, M.; Miller, A. Shading Performance of a Vertical Deciduous Climbing Plant Canopy. Build. Environ.; 2010; 45, pp. 81-88. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.05.003]
141. Holm, D. Thermal Improvement by Means of Leaf Cover on External Walls—A Simulation Model. Energy Build.; 1989; 14, pp. 19-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-7788(89)90025-X]
142. Ling, T.-Y. Rethinking Greening the Building Facade under Extreme Climate: Attributes Consideration for Typo-Morphological Green Envelope Retrofit. Clean. Circul. Bioeconomy; 2022; 3, 100024. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clcb.2022.100024]
143. Seyam, S. The Impact of Greenery Systems on Building Energy: Systematic Review. J. Build. Eng.; 2019; 26, 100887. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100887]
144. IEA. Renewable Energy Market Update—May 2022; IEA: Paris, France, 2022.
145. Antonyová, A.; Antony, P.; Korjenic, A. Evaluation of the Hygrothermal Effects of Integrating Vegetation into the Building Envelope. Energy Build.; 2017; 136, pp. 121-138. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.12.021]
146. Abderrezek, M.; Fathi, M.; Zerade, T.; Ayad, M. Impact of Installation Substrates on Photovoltaic Modules Energy Yield. Proceedings of the 2019 7th International Renewable and Sustainable Energy Conference (IRSEC); Agadir, Morocco, 27–30 November 2019; 1.
147. Cavadini, G.B.; Cook, L.M. Green and Cool Roof Choices Integrated into Rooftop Solar Energy Modelling. Appl. Energy; 2021; 296, 117082. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117082]
148. Abdalazeem, M.E.; Hassan, H.; Asawa, T.; Mahmoud, H. Enhancing Energy Efficiency in Hot Climate Buildings through Integrated Photovoltaic Panels and Green Roofs: An Experimental Study. Sol. Energy; 2024; 270, 112419. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2024.112419]
149. Lamnatou, C.; Chemisana, D. Photovoltaic-Green Roofs: A Life Cycle Assessment Approach with Emphasis on Warm Months of Mediterranean Climate. J. Clean. Prod.; 2014; 72, pp. 57-75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.006]
150. Osma-Pinto, G.; Ordóñez-Plata, G. Measuring Factors Influencing Performance of Rooftop PV Panels in Warm Tropical Climates. Sol. Energy; 2019; 185, pp. 112-123. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.04.053]
151. Arenandan, V.; Wong, J.K.; Ahmed, A.N.; Chow, M.F. Efficiency Enhancement in Energy Production of Photovoltaic Modules through Green Roof Installation under Tropical Climates. Ain Shams Eng. J.; 2022; 13, 101741. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2022.101741]
152. VanderGoot, J. Architecture and the Forest Aesthetic: A New Look at Design and Resilient Urbanism; Routledge: London, UK, 2017.
153. Renzo Piano Building Workshop. California Academy of Sciences; Renzo Piano Building Workshop: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2008.
154. Ateliers Jean Nouvel. Sydney Central Park Tower; Ateliers Jean Nouvel: Sydney, Australia, 2014.
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Cui, Yanqiu; Chen, Zhengshu
; Zhang, Hangyue