Humanity exhibits increasing consciousness about the global natural environment (Edwards et al., 1996; Adabre et al., 2022) and, more specifically, how people and the artificial built environment must maintain a balanced equilibrium by limiting anthropogenic emissions (Roberts and Edwards, 2022), consuming fewer natural resources (Guo et al., 2024) and engendering an abundance of green energy (Owusu-Manu et al., 2021). Such awareness has in part been amplified by the unbridled, growing global population (Helms, 2004) and, concomitantly, the human thirst for consumption in the prevailing neoliberal economic system that per se is premised upon growth (Roberts and Edwards, 2026). The inherent tension between the global financial market and protection of the natural environment is quickly reaching the elastic limit and verging on the plastic limit point of no return. Rising sea levels (Roy et al., 2023), thawing polar caps (Zwoliński and Mercier, 2025) and rapid meteorological climate change (Wang et al., 2023) are amongst some of the most obvious changes witnessed in a phenomenally short temporal period of earth's history (Forzieri et al., 2022). Moreover, the dominance of humanity over our natural environment has caused further issues, such as a decline in biodiversity. For example, humans and domesticated animals now represent over 96% of global mammal biomass (Bar-On et al., 2018), and huge swathes of rich wilderness have been replaced by monoculture plantations that are void of biodiversity (e.g. pine trees for structural grade timber or cocoa plantations for foodstuffs) (Wang et al., 2019). To further exacerbate matters, the perceived value of fiscal wealth, in a time of rare earth resources (most notably oil and gas), has plunged the world into conflict once more, and with it, the tectonic plates of geopolitics have rapidly changed and been reordered. New alliances are being created and existing ones are forever changed. Small incremental changes are eroding civil liberties, particularly in the Western world. The new world order is currently being forged in the crucible of war and socio-economic conflict.Dystopian challenges delineated demonstrate that every action humanity takes has a corresponding impact upon the planet and, consequently, the environment in which we inhabit. Indeed, there is a growing theory that saving the planet is inextricably tied to controlling birth rates (amongst other control measures) (Dodson et al., 2020), but such a theory is diametrically opposed to existing economic market systems implemented that are founded on growth. Other options are to engineer out human environmental impact using advanced digital technologies (Rahimian et al., 2020, 2021; Edwards et al., 2025) or continue to expand growth in space to exploit astronomical objects (Marshall, 2023). This has brought about a new age space race to populate the moon using advanced Industry 4.0 technologies (Newman et al., 2021) such as concrete printing (Yang et al., 2023) to create a foothold for human inhabitation. Rather than reduce consumption, the ambition is to exploit our celestial neighbour to probe deeper into space (Marshall, 2023). Not only is the moon being targeted for mining, but it will also act as a launchpad to exploit other moons and planets within humanity's gluttonous reach and, with it, engender new geopolitical power struggles amongst those countries that populate (perhaps better framed as land grab) the moon first.However, an alternative path and future exist, one of collaboration through “science,” where indelible facts and scientific discoveries temper human desire for financial wealth and where “philosophy” continues to positively shape people's awareness of themselves, this world and how we co-exist upon it. Indeed, in doing so, true wealth is accomplished – perhaps defined as “social justice” and its pathways to equal opportunities, education and resources (amongst others). As a sector, the built environment accounts for around 40% of global energy use, about 36% of CO2 emissions and more than 30% of natural resource consumption (Rahimian et al., 2021). The sector also generates approximately 25% of global waste, which makes it central to the transition toward circular and low-carbon economies. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), notably SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 13 (Climate Action), set clear expectations for the sector to transform how buildings and infrastructure are designed, built, used and dismantled. Yet, despite these grim aforementioned statistics, the sector resides in a strong position to make positive change through key scientific initiatives such as enhancing the environmental performance of buildings (Dixon et al., 2020); applying advanced digital technologies to augment efficiency of building design (Fisher et al., 2018); embedding resilience into building design (Phillips et al., 2017) and adopting circular economy strategies to reduce waste management within the global economy (Yadav et al., 2023; Najafi et al., 2024; Eze et al., 2025). Coalescence of these advancements at some stage will create holistic and sustainable built environment systems that have minimum impact upon the natural environment or, indeed, reverse it. Ironically, given earlier comments made within this Editorial, finance (and specifically, the proven financial efficiency of these systems) will provide compelling evidence to convince society that sustainable solutions are the natural and only choice. Projects such as Knepp (Schulte to Bühne et al., 2022) illustrate that humanity can reverse our past exploitation of the planet and strive to co-exist with the environment in a sustainable manner. People depend upon each other; pollution knows no geopolitical boundaries, and our neighbour's social injustice is a shared human experience. Working collaboratively is the only way forward.Given this contextual backdrop, this issue of Smart and Sustainable Built Environment brings together 17 papers that collectively advance these interconnected agendas. The contributions span circular economy design strategies, emerging construction technologies, climate-responsive performance, green building certification, infrastructure resilience, urban agriculture and the governance and policy dimensions of sustainable construction. They draw on diverse methodological approaches – systematic reviews, Delphi studies, agent-based modelling, qualitative fieldwork, decision support tools and hybrid quantitative frameworks. Moreover, the research takes a global perspective and engages with contexts from Sub-Saharan Africa, South-East Asia, the Middle East, Australia and Europe. Together, they advance understanding of how sustainable construction can be pursued across different technological, economic and institutional settings.Bera et al. (2026) synthesise over 2 decades of research on bioclimatic design strategies for improving building environmental performance. Analysing more than 1,000 studies published between 2000 and 2023 through bibliometric methods, the authors find that simulation tools, smart materials and integrated passive and active technologies have advanced considerably, reducing energy demand for heating, cooling and lighting. The effectiveness of bioclimatic strategies varies across climates and cultural contexts, and global differences in building practices affect the transferability of approaches. The study serves as a comprehensive resource for architects, engineers and policymakers designing more climate-responsive buildings. Ormeno Blanco and Arranz (2026) examine how urban lighting design (specifically the illumination of building facades) affects citizens' emotions in outdoor spaces. The authors develop a methodology grounded in Kansei engineering, linking users' emotional responses to the physical characteristics of the luminous environment. Drawing on survey data from participants in Peru, Spain and Germany, the study demonstrates that Kansei engineering captures both technical and emotional dimensions of lighting design, providing a practical tool for designers seeking to improve user well-being in urban night-time spaces. Vijayenthiran et al. (2026) explore how 3D printing and circular economy principles can work together to improve construction sustainability. Using the Delphi technique, the authors identify 12 positive and 6 negative sustainability impacts of 3D printing in construction and map 10 CE strategies that can address those impacts. Key strategies (e.g. designing out waste, BIM-based construction management and waste-free production) are identified as highly influential. This study is among the first to integrate 3D printing, CE and construction sustainability within a single analytical framework. Lim et al. (2026) evaluate green building certification criteria for smaller community-level healthcare facilities in the greater Jakarta area. Applying the SIPA Eisenhower technique to the GREENSHIP certification framework and comparing the Tebet Health Care Centre against both EDGE and GREENSHIP standards, the authors develop a simplified framework (i.e. Puske-GREENSHIP) that removes criteria less relevant or feasible for small-scale facilities. The outcome makes green building certification more attainable for local healthcare contexts aligned with SDG objectives. Simpeh et al. (2026) assess the compliance and perceived usefulness of heating and cooling systems in on-campus student housing in Ghana. Using a mixed-methods approach benchmarked against Ghana Building Standards 2018, ASHRAE 55 and ISO guidelines, the study finds strong compliance for mechanical cooling but lower compliance for smart hot and cold-water systems. Cost, user demand and maintenance are identified as barriers. The research contributes to understanding smart building readiness in Sub-Saharan Africa from a user-centred perspective. Alhaddad and Ahmed (2026) investigate informal household-level urban agriculture in Emirati neighbourhoods as a contributor to urban sustainability and resilience. Through map analysis, field observation and in-depth interviews, the research finds that informal urban farming has generated significant environmental, social and economic sustainability outcomes. Residents expressed enthusiasm for collective community farming activities in underused public spaces, leading the authors to propose policy actions to formalise and scale these practices. Khan et al. (2026) identify and categorise the constraints hindering the adoption of volumetric modular construction (VMC) in Australia. Semi-structured interviews with construction professionals and Pareto and mean index score analyses yield 77 validated constraints across eight categories: cultural, economic, knowledge, market, regulatory, stakeholder, supply chain and technological. Stakeholder constraints emerge as the most significant, followed by cultural and regulatory barriers. The study provides a structured basis for policy and industry decisions on whether to incentivise or mandate VMC adoption. Muslimin and Brasier (2026) analyse how outdoor climate, building configuration and public amenity locations influence pedestrian walking behaviour in Darling Square, Sydney. The study integrates agent-based modelling with micro-climate analysis at sub-hour timescales, capturing the rapid fluctuations in outdoor thermal comfort that affect pedestrian movement. The findings reveal emergent walking patterns that offer actionable insights for urban designers and planners improving outdoor space quality and livability. Abad et al. (2026) present a systematic review of circular economy design strategies in mass timber construction, drawing on 52 peer-reviewed articles published between 2016 and 2023. Seven CE design strategies applicable to construction are identified, and their adoption in the mass timber sector is assessed. The review reveals limited current research in this intersection and identifies challenges around connector design, durability, knowledge gaps and regulatory underdevelopment. A conceptual framework linking current gaps to future research directions is proposed across technical, social, economic and regulatory categories. Ampratwum et al. (2026) develop a risk assessment model for adopting public-private partnerships (PPPs) to build critical infrastructure resilience in Ghana. Fuzzy synthetic evaluation applied to survey data identifies seven critical risk categories (namely, political, financial, ethical, bureaucratic, legal, coordination and institutional) and produces a risk index equation. The findings confirm the risk level is high, offering a practical tool for structuring and improving PPP arrangements in comparable contexts. Valizadeh et al. (2026) examine the barriers to adopting reverse logistics in the Iranian construction industry, addressing a significant gap in the literature. Through 19 in-depth interviews and a structured survey analysed using partial least squares structural equation modelling and Fuzzy TOPSIS, 30 barriers are identified and prioritised. The most critical relate to inadequate technology and infrastructure, inefficient procurement processes and the limited uptake of secondary materials in traditional markets. The study offers recommendations applicable both within Iran and in similar emerging economy contexts. Mahammedi et al. (2026) design and validate a decision support system (i.e. PRABS) for the preliminary risk assessment of brownfield sites. A five-stage mixed-methods process, expert validation surveys and real-world case studies confirm PRABS as user-friendly and effective, with around 80% of participants willing to recommend it. The tool accurately identifies potential hazards at the preliminary stage even with limited input data, providing a shared communication platform for diverse stakeholders in brownfield redevelopment. Moghayedi et al. (2026) investigate the drivers and barriers influencing AI adoption by facilities management organisations in South Africa for addressing climate change challenges. A systematic literature review combined with a questionnaire survey of 85 FM organisations reveals that regulatory compliance and responsible supply chains are the primary drivers of adoption, while policy constraints and the national energy crisis are the major barriers. The findings offer practical guidance for policymakers seeking to foster AI-enabled climate resilience in developing nations' built assets. Hamida et al. (2026) develop a co-created framework for circular building adaptability in adaptive reuse projects. Through archival research, case studies and two co-creation workshops triangulated with structured interviews, the authors produce a framework of 33 strategies, 10 enablers and 7 inhibitors. The framework serves as a guiding and reporting instrument for designers and property developers transforming vacant or obsolete buildings and contributes to both circular practice and adaptive reuse policy. Prasittisopin (2026) explores the contributions of power plant by-products (e.g. fly ash, bottom ash and biomass ash) to circular economy practice in construction in an emerging economy context. Structured interviews with 41 stakeholders in Thailand find that the cement and concrete industries can absorb nearly all fly ash produced, though logistical optimisation is needed. Bottom ash adoption remains limited, while biomass ash shows growing potential as a soil amendment. The study highlights the importance of policy support and stakeholder collaboration to maximise the sustainable potential of these by-products. De Silva et al. (2026) develop a strategic framework for maximising the end-of-life value of modular buildings through CE integration. Using two Delphi rounds with expert participants, the study identifies six parameters influencing end-of-life value and aligns them with CE 9 R principles, generating 41 integration strategies. The framework offers a systematic and parameter-specific approach to end-of-life planning, advancing practical CE implementation in modular construction. Finally, Bello (2026) examines the perspectives of Nigerian policymakers on achieving a circular economy in the construction industry. Thematic analysis of data from 34 participants identifies significant challenges: financial constraints, inadequate regulatory frameworks, skills gaps and weak enforcement mechanisms. Recommendations include financial incentives, updated building codes, enhanced enforcement, mandatory training and closer collaboration between government, industry and academia. A conceptual framework for CE implementation is developed, marking the first study to examine this topic from a policymaker perspective in Nigeria.Collectively, these 17 papers demonstrate the breadth of current research in sustainable construction. They reveal that progress toward circular, climate-responsive and technologically advanced built environments depends on the alignment of design strategies, governance frameworks, policy instruments and technological capacity – across scales, sectors and contexts. No single solution is universal. Context shapes what is feasible, what is adopted and what delivers results. The contributions offered here advance both the theoretical foundations and the practical tools available to researchers, practitioners and policymakers working to build a more sustainable and resilient built environment.
Edwards et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: