A bibliometric review of research on sustainable construction, 1994–2018

Amornrut Det Udomsap, Philip Hallinger

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

131 Citations (Scopus)


This bibliometric review of research aimed to document and synthesize research trends in the domain of ‘sustainable construction’ (SCON) over the past 25 years. Through bibliographical analysis of 2,877 Scopus-indexed documents, the review found that this is very recent literature with over 80% of the relevant documents published since 2010. It is a global literature with significant contributions from both economically developed and developing societies. Citation analysis identified key authors and documents that have shaped the evolution of this literature. Author co-citation analysis, used to identify the intellectual structure of the SCON knowledge base, surfaced four ‘schools of thought’ or dominant lines of inquiry. In order of size and significance these were Alternative Materials for Sustainable Construction, Sustainable Construction Management, Recycling and Waste Reduction, and Social Sustainability in Construction Management. Results of keyword co-occurrence analysis reaffirmed these findings concerning the conceptual structure of the SCON knowledge base, including the conclusions that ‘social sustainability’ represents the ‘weakest’ dimension and ’alternative materials’ the leading edge of this sustainability literature.

Original languageEnglish
Article number120073
JournalJournal of Cleaner Production
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2020


  • Construction management
  • Green building
  • Green construction
  • Science mapping
  • Sustainability
  • Sustainable construction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
  • General Environmental Science
  • Strategy and Management
  • Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering


Dive into the research topics of 'A bibliometric review of research on sustainable construction, 1994–2018'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this