Crimson Publishers Publish With Us Reprints e-Books Video articles

Full Text

Advancements in Civil Engineering & Technology

Sustainable Construction in Pakistan: Integrating Green Building Technology with BIM

Muhammad Usman Shahid1 and Zeenat Khan2*

1Department of Civil Engineering, NFC-Institute of Engineering and Fertilizer Research, Pakistan

2Department of Biotechnology, Capital University of Science & Technology, Pakistan

*Corresponding author:Zeenat Khan, Department of Biotechnology, Capital University of Science & Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan

Submission: December 11, 2024;Published: January 24, 2025

DOI: 10.31031/ACET.2025.06.000643

ISSN: 2639-0574
Volume6 Issue4

Abstract

The construction industry is experiencing rapid global expansion, with buildings accounting for a significant portion of energy consumption and contributing heavily to greenhouse gas emissions. As sustainability becomes a growing concern, green building practices are being increasingly adopted worldwide. However, Pakistan’s construction sector largely relies on traditional methods that are environmentally unsustainable. This research focuses on assessing energy consumption and costs in existing buildings, with an emphasis on the potential of green building technologies to improve energy efficiency. A case study of Golden Gate City Plaza in Lahore was conducted, where energy modeling was performed using AutoCAD and Revit software to evaluate the impact of incorporating green building materials. By substituting conventional materials with locally sourced, eco-friendly alternatives, the analysis demonstrated energy savings ranging from 17% to 19% annually. The payback period for implementing these green technologies was found to be between 8 to 13 years, depending on the specific material used. The findings highlight the effectiveness of materials such as lightweight concrete, cork flooring, advanced insulation, and green roofs in reducing energy consumption and operational costs. This study underscores the importance of retrofitting existing buildings with sustainable technologies to achieve energy efficiency and promote environmental sustainability in Pakistan’s construction industry.

Keywords:Sustainability; Green buildings; Environment; Building information modelling (BIM); Energy efficiency

Introduction

The pressing global issues of environmental degradation and climate change have prompted significant changes across multiple sectors, particularly in construction [1]. The construction industry is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, resource depletion, and waste generation [2]. As a response to these challenges, the concept of sustainable development has gained traction, emphasizing the adoption of green building practices and technologies [3]. Key milestones, such as the 1993 Declaration of Sustainable Future Development, have underscored the importance of integrating energy-efficient design principles within architectural frameworks [4]. The evolution of sustainable design strategies, which encompass both passive and active measures has transformed modern construction practices, highlighting the necessity for innovative solutions to mitigate environmental impacts and enhance resource efficiency.

The novelty of this research lies in its focused examination of Pakistan’s unique construction industry challenges, particularly in relation to sustainable practices. While many studies have addressed green building technologies and Building Information Modeling (BIM) in broader contexts, few have tailored their approach to address the complexities within Pakistan, where rapid urbanization, energy consumption concerns, and limited availability of sustainable materials present significant hurdles. This research aims to bridge the gap by integrating BIM specifically with locally accessible green materials and evaluating these materials’ performance in Pakistan’s unique climate and resource conditions. By doing so, it not only provides valuable insights for improving the sustainability of construction practices within the region but also offers a framework adaptable to similar developing contexts with comparable challenges. The study’s focus on the practical adoption and local applicability of green technologies, alongside BIM’s potential for optimizing sustainable design, sets it apart as a localized, solutions-oriented contribution to the field.

To achieve these objectives, this study employs a mixedmethods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative analyses. The research begins with a comprehensive literature review to establish the current state of green building practices and BIM integration. Subsequently, case studies of local green materials such as lightweight concrete, cork, and moss for green roofs will be analyzed using BIM software to evaluate energy efficiency and costeffectiveness. Simulation results will be compared with traditional construction practices, providing a robust framework for assessing the practical implications of integrating sustainability into the design process.

The findings of this research are anticipated to highlight significant advancements in the performance of green building materials compared to conventional methods, demonstrating substantial improvements in energy efficiency and reduced environmental impact. By systematically analyzing the integration of BIM and green building technologies, this study will contribute valuable insights into the potential for enhancing sustainability within Pakistan’s construction industry. The conclusions drawn from this research aim to inform policymakers, practitioners, and stakeholders, fostering a more informed approach to sustainable construction practices and advancing the overall discourse on green building in developing countries.

Literature Review

The pressing global concerns regarding environmental degradation and climate change have significantly influenced various sectors, with the construction industry being a prominent area of focus [1]. The shift towards sustainable development in construction gained substantial momentum following the 1993 Declaration of Sustainable Future Development, presented at the UIA’s 18th Chicago Convention [2]. This pivotal event underscored the importance of adopting energy-efficient and sustainable design principles within the architectural and construction fields [3]. The evolution of sustainable design strategies has since become a critical aspect of modern construction practices, emphasizing the need for innovative approaches to reduce environmental impact [4]. Within this context, the differentiation between passive and active design strategies have played a crucial role in shaping sustainable architecture [5]. Passive design strategies harness natural environmental forces such as sunlight, wind, and gravity to regulate building conditions with minimal additional energy input [6]. In contrast, active design strategies rely on technological systems, including solar panels, heat recovery systems and other renewable energy technologies, to achieve similar environmental controls, highlighting a more technology-dependent approach to sustainability [7]. The integration of these strategies not only enhances building performance but also significantly reduces energy consumption, aligning with the broader goals of sustainable development.

Green building strategies have emerged as essential tools in mitigating environmental impact and improving building performance [8]. Among the fundamental strategies is optimizing building orientation to leverage natural daylight and seasonal temperature variations, which significantly enhances energy efficiency [9]. This involves orienting buildings to maximize sunlight penetration during colder months while minimizing heat gain during warmer periods [10]. Additionally, natural ventilation techniques, such as cross-ventilation, facilitate the introduction of cool external air by strategically positioning windows and vents to harness prevailing winds, thereby reducing reliance on mechanical cooling systems [11]. Solar control measures, including adjustable shading devices and reflective coatings, adapt to varying occupancy patterns and solar angles to manage heat gain and improve occupant comfort [12]. Advanced techniques, such as integrated cooling systems that utilize outdoor air during cooler periods and night-time ventilation to dissipate heat accumulated during the day, represent sophisticated methods for optimizing building efficiency [13]. These strategies not only contribute to substantial reductions in energy consumption but also enhance indoor environmental quality by promoting healthier living conditions [14].

The integration of these green building practices reflects a holistic approach to sustainable design, emphasizing the importance of both passive and active measures in achieving long-term sustainability goals and addressing the environmental challenges associated with conventional construction methods [15]. Furthermore, incorporating renewable energy sources, such as photovoltaic panels and wind turbines, into building designs can further augment sustainability efforts by providing clean energy and reducing dependency on non-renewable resources [16].

Evaluating the performance of green buildings involves a comprehensive range of metrics that assess environmental comfort, energy efficiency and overall environmental impact [17,18]. Indoor air quality is a critical concern given that individuals spend approximately 87% of their time indoors; poor air quality in highair- conditioned buildings can adversely impact respiratory health and overall occupant comfort [19,20]. Measures to improve air quality include using low-emission materials, advanced filtration systems, and ensuring adequate ventilation [21]. Energy efficiency evaluations typically focus on building criteria such as external wall insulation, window-to-wall ratios, and the use of high-performance glazing, which significantly influence both energy consumption and thermal comfort [22]. Additionally, the environmental impact of green buildings is rigorously assessed through life cycle analyses which compare the effects of different construction materials and methods on ecosystem quality, human health and resource availability [23]. This includes evaluating the embodied energy of materials, the carbon footprint of construction processes, and the end-of-life impacts of building components [24]. This multi-faceted approach to evaluation highlights the significant advancements in sustainable construction practices and underscores the ongoing need for innovation and detailed analysis [25]. Effective performance assessment not only informs future design improvements but also helps in refining building codes and standards to meet evolving sustainability objectives and regulatory requirements [26].

The evolution of architectural practices has been characterized by several significant milestones, including advancements in material durability, the pursuit of tall structures, and improvements in interior climate control [27]. As construction practices become increasingly sophisticated, the industry faces numerous challenges, such as diverse performance standards, adverse environmental impacts, and the need for skilled labor [28]. Recent trends, such as Building Information Modeling (BIM) and the incorporation of sustainability principles, have emerged as solutions to address these challenges (Table 1), promoting green and energy-efficient building practices [34]. The growing demand for sustainable construction is particularly evident in developing countries like Pakistan, where rapid urbanization, high energy consumption, and environmental concerns make green building solutions increasingly critical [35,36]. Despite the progress made, there remains a pressing need for systematic analysis and evaluation of green building practices to enhance their effectiveness and adoption. The integration of sustainable technologies and green materials is essential for improving building performance, reducing environmental impact and aligning with global efforts to address ecological challenges and advance sustainable development [37- 39]. The evolution of construction practices emphasizes the urgent need for sustainable building solutions to mitigate environmental degradation and resource depletion [40].

Table 1:Previous findings on the integration of green buildings with BIM.


Materials and Methods

Research process

Figure 1:Brief methodology of current research.


After conducting a thorough literature review, the data collection phase started. A summary of the current research methodology is given in Figure 1 which the black arrows represent the direct steps and red lines present the sub steps. A three-story plaza in Lahore, the bustling capital of Punjab was chosen for its potential to provide prominent results related to green building and environmental impact. The building’s bill of quantities and other project documents were obtained from the constructor to perform a detailed quantitative analysis. Using AutoCAD drawings of the existing building, a model was created, and energy analysis was performed in Revit by specifying the original materials. Subsequently, these materials were replaced with suitable green building materials available in Pakistan, focusing on floors, roofs, and walls. Energy analyses were conducted individually on each component and collectively, with the software providing specific energy data. This data was then used to perform a cost analysis, revealing cost variations over time and enabling a comparison between traditional and green buildings over the years.

The data collection involved gathering information from various sources on green techniques in construction. Different materials were studied, and the most suitable ones were selected based on their environmental impact and financial feasibility for ordinary builders. A realistic model of an existing building was created to compare the effects of construction changes in a 3D environment. After creating the model and inputting the original materials, an energy model was generated in Revit to assess the materials’ environmental impact.

Case study

The selected project for this study is the Golden Gate City Plaza, located in Lahore, Pakistan. This building serves as a case study for implementing green building technologies in an urban setting. The project involved a detailed energy analysis, utilizing Revit software, and included the substitution of traditional materials with locally available green building materials. The aim was to demonstrate the potential energy savings and environmental benefits achievable through sustainable construction practices. The results of this study highlight the practical application of green building technologies in a real-world context, emphasizing the importance of sustainable development in Pakistan.

Selection of variables for green buildings

In comparison to a traditional building, small modifications like orientation changes and material use can improve energy efficiency and economic performance. The following sections provide information on various practices and green building materials used as replacements for traditional practices.

Change of orientation for a building

Orientation plays a crucial role in energy efficiency, as it directly influences solar radiation intake, which affects heating, cooling, and lighting requirements [41]. Studies have shown that altering a building’s orientation can save over 20% energy by optimizing sunlight exposure and natural ventilation, especially through the roof. In regions like Pakistan, optimizing building orientation can reduce reliance on artificial cooling, leading to substantial energy savings and improved thermal comfort [42]. This study includes orientation as a variable to quantify its impact on energy consumption, aiming to provide insights into sustainable construction practices.

Construction components of green roof

The green roof construction involved standard building materials, often referred to as “upside-down roofs,” as insulation and waterproofing are applied at the bottom rather than the top [43]. The roof is critical for energy efficiency, as it is responsible for over 30% of energy exchange between the building and its environment [44]. By incorporating green roofs with insulation and reflective properties, cooling loads can be reduced, contributing to lower energy bills and sustainable design. Green roofs also support urban biodiversity and provide aesthetic benefits, making them valuable in modern construction [45]. The layers of both extensive and intensive green roofs include decking, waterproofing, insulation, filtration and drainage, suitable planting media and plant materials for local environments.

Cork flooring

Cork flooring was selected over traditional materials like plain cement concrete due to its stability, low thermal conductivity, fire resistance and its ability to absorb sound and vibrations, making it durable. Cork, derived from cork oak bark is elastic, thermally insulating, almost impermeable to liquids and gases and resistant to decay [46].

Lightweight concrete

Lightweight concrete (LWC) was used in the walls and roof for its adaptability and various technical, financial, and environmental benefits [45]. LWC is beneficial in green buildings due to its lower density, reducing dead loads, enabling smaller foundations, and leading to cost savings [46]. With enhanced thermal insulation, it reduces heat transfer, lowering heating and cooling needs. Additionally, it offers improved fire and sound resistance, contributing to building occupant safety and comfort. LWC can also incorporate recycled materials like fly ash, reducing the carbon footprint of construction [47]. These factors make it ideal for sustainable building practices.

Modelling and energy analysis

An energy model, used in engines like DOE 2.2 and Energy Plus [48], includes spaces, surfaces and zones. Spaces are volumes where heat is gained or lost due to internal processes or external heat exchange [49,50]. Surfaces serve as heat transfer paths between locations and zones group spaces sharing HVAC characteristics [51].

Economic analysis

Economic analysis at an early stage is crucial for the owner and comprises two stages: construction cost estimation and projection of income and expenditures [52]. For the Golden Gate City project, project documents were analyzed to assess economic aspects before and after applying sustainable practices. This included examining initial construction materials and those for sustainability. The projected income and expenditures were calculated for energy, Eq. (1) and cost, Eq. (2) savings using the following formulas:
Energy saved = Traditional model energy - Green Building energy................................... Eq. (1)
Cost Calculation = Energy saved × unit rate of electricity…………………............................. Eq. (2)

By inputting data for a traditional building, changing materials, and analyzing results, we calculated yearly economic savings in PKR, showing cost and savings of equal value, with future savings considered profit. The break-even point, defined as “the point at which total expenses and revenue are equal” [53], was calculated. For the rate analysis of the Golden Gate City building, we evaluated rates of materials, equipment and labor before and after making the building sustainable.

Comparison between traditional and green building

After analyzing traditional and green building models, the results were compared in terms of energy and cost usage and savings. Additionally, the time required for green buildings to return the capital cost invested in green materials was assessed for 5, 10, and 20-year periods. The break-even point of the green building was also determined.

Results

Energy model and analysis

Figure 2 shows the 3D model with various available orientations for the original building in Revit, allowing for the selection of the optimal orientation that minimizes solar energy absorption. Table 2 provides a detailed breakdown of solar energy savings by orientation. To find the most efficient setup, solar radiation analyses for East, West, North, and South orientations were conducted to determine the building’s annual energy savings potential.

Figure 2:Solar radiation analysis: ( A: EAST, B: NORTH, C: SOUTH, D: WEST).


Table 2:Solar energy production w.r.t orientation.


Energy analysis w.r.t orientation

Energy analysis concerning building orientation is essential for optimizing energy efficiency and minimizing operational costs. This study evaluated four orientations East, West, North and South to assess their impact on solar energy production. The East orientation yields 110,827kWh annually, benefiting from morning sunlight, which supports passive heating. The West orientation, producing 140,240kWh, leverages afternoon sunlight, contributing to higher energy production but potentially increased cooling loads. The North orientation, with 135,511kWh, provides a balanced solar gain, advantageous for consistent energy generation. In contrast, the South orientation, at 133,492kWh, experiences substantial solar exposure, which can lead to higher heat absorption and increased cooling demands. This analysis highlights the significance of strategic orientation in balancing energy gain and efficiency to enhance building performance. Factors such as shading from neighbouring buildings, material degradation and occupant behavior were also considered as they may affect energy efficiency. These factors provide a more comprehensive understanding of energy performance over time, accounting for real-world variables that may impact energy demands and savings outcomes.

Solar radiation analysis for east orientation

The solar radiation analysis for the East orientation shows that this orientation receives the least amount of solar energy throughout the year, resulting in lower energy storage of 110,827kWh/year and less heat absorption by the building.

Solar radiation analysis for north orientation

The solar radiation analysis for the North orientation indicates that this orientation receives a moderate amount of solar energy, with an annual production of 135,511kWh. This amount is higher than the East orientation, which produces 110,827kWh, but lower than both the West orientation, which generates 140,240kWh, and the South orientation, with a production of 133,492kWh. The North orientation provides a balanced solar energy yield, making it a suitable option for maximizing energy efficiency in the context of various building orientations.

Solar radiation analysis for south orientation

The solar radiation analysis for the South orientation reveals that this orientation receives a significant amount of solar energy, with an annual production of 133,492kWh. This high energy yield makes the South orientation less suitable for minimizing energy storage and heat absorption, as the substantial solar gain can lead to increased heat buildup within the building, potentially impacting cooling costs and overall energy efficiency.

Solar radiation analysis for west orientation

The solar radiation analysis for the West orientation shows that this orientation receives the highest amount of solar energy, leading to the maximum energy storage and heat absorption by the building. The orientation with the least solar energy value is the East orientation, as concluded from the results. The values for different orientations are summarized in Table 2.

Energy analysis after changing materials

After selecting the East orientation, the next step involved changing the materials used in the building to further reduce solar energy absorption. The maximum impact is observed on the walls, roof and floor (Figure 2).

Energy analysis for changed walls

The solar radiation analysis after changing the wall materials shows a significant reduction in energy absorption to 108,160kWh/ year.

Energy analysis for lightweight concrete roof

The solar radiation analysis after using a lightweight concrete roof indicates a reduction in solar energy absorption, saving 17.79% or 109,742kWh/year compared to the original roof material.

Energy analysis after changing floor

The solar radiation analysis after changing the floor material also demonstrates a decrease in energy absorption, resulting in energy savings of 110,110kWh/year and a 17.52% reduction in energy use. The combined solar radiation analysis, incorporating changes to the walls, roof and floor shows the cumulative effect of all material changes, resulting in the lowest energy absorption and improved temperature regulation for the building.

Combined effect of all variables in energy savings

Figure 3 (Solar Radiation Analysis A: Changed Walls, B: Lightweight Concrete Roof, C: Floor Changed, D: Combined Effect for LWC Roof) presents the comparative analysis of energy savings resulting from various material modifications. The analysis reveals that altering the wall material (A) leads to a substantial energy reduction of 108,160kWh/year, accounting for an 18.98% decrease in energy consumption. The implementation of a lightweight concrete roof (B) contributes to a reduction of 109,742kWh/year, translating to a 17.79% energy savings. Similarly, the modification of the floor material (C) results in energy savings of 110,110kWh/ year, representing a 17.52% reduction. The cumulative effect of changing both the walls, roof, and incorporating LWC roof (D) further enhances energy efficiency, yielding savings of 108,517kWh/ year, which corresponds to an 18.71% reduction (Table 3). This analysis underscores the significant energy conservation potential of integrating green building materials, particularly through a synergistic application of multiple sustainable construction strategies.

Table 3:Solar energy production and saving by changing materials.


Figure 3:Solar radiation analysis A: Changed Walls, B: Light Weight Concrete Roof, C: Floor Changed, D: Combined Effect for LWC Roof.


Economic analysis

The cost of constructing the traditional building, as per the bill of quantities, and the cost of green building materials, added to the original cost after removing conventional materials, is summarized in Table 4. Comparisons of the results with previous literature reveal similar energy-saving trends, enhancing the study’s aim of validating the efficacy of green materials in reducing costs and energy consumption. The accuracy of this model, when benchmarked against previous models, demonstrates a high reliability factor, evaluated through consistent savings estimates across similar projects.

Table 4:Cost breakdown and comparison of conventional and green building materials [54-57].


Energy cost of building with different orientations

Table 5 highlights the energy cost variations due to changes in building orientation and materials. The original orientation had an energy cost of Rs 3,193,129 per year. By shifting to the East, the cost decreased by 16.97% (Rs 542,146.80 saved) with a break-even point of 13.04 years. In contrast, the West and North orientations increased costs by 5.05% and 1.51%, respectively.

Table 5:Comprehensive energy and cost analysis.


Changing wall materials saved Rs 605,941.44 annually (18.97% decrease), while modifying the floors saved Rs 559,297.44 (17.51% decrease). A lightweight concrete roof reduced costs by Rs 568,100 (17.79% decrease). The combined material changes resulted in an 18.70% cost reduction, saving Rs 597,402 per year. Implementing a green roof and a 1.5-ton AC unit further reduced costs, with savings of Rs 65,660.40 and Rs 105,056.60, and break-even points of 13.04 and 8.15 years, respectively.

Energy cost from green w.r.t change of wall

The energy savings from green building materials, as shown in Table 4, include Rs 542,146.80 saved annually with an East orientation, with a break-even point of 13.04 years. Wall material changes resulted in Rs 605,941.44 savings (18.97% decrease), lightweight concrete roofs saved Rs 568,100 (17.79% decrease), and floor changes saved Rs 559,297.44 (17.51% decrease). The combined application of green materials saved Rs 597,402 (18.70% decrease), highlighting significant cost reductions and improved financial sustainability.

Energy cost from green w.r.t floor

The energy savings achieved by using green building materials are detailed in Table 4. For the East orientation, an annual saving of Rs 542,146.80 is achieved with a break-even point of 13.04 years. Changes in wall materials result in a savings of Rs 605,941.44, with an 18.97% decrease in costs. The use of lightweight concrete roofs provides savings of Rs 568,100, reflecting a 17.79% decrease, while changing floor materials results in Rs 559,297.44 saved, marking a 17.51% decrease. The combined application of green materials (walls, roof, and lightweight concrete roof) yields Rs 597,402 in savings, with an 18.70% decrease and a break-even point of 13.04 years.

Energy cost from green w.r.t lightweight concrete

The energy savings achieved by using green building materials are detailed in Table 4. For the East orientation, the implementation of green materials results in an annual savings of Rs 542,146.80 with a break-even point of 13.04 years. Changing wall materials leads to an energy cost saving of Rs 605,941.44, which represents an 18.97% reduction. Utilizing lightweight concrete roofs results in a savings of Rs 568,100, corresponding to a 17.79% decrease in energy costs. Adjustments to floor materials save Rs 559,297.44, marking a 17.51% decrease. The combined effect of using green materials for walls, roof, and lightweight concrete roof achieves a total saving of Rs 597,402, reflecting an 18.70% reduction in costs and a break-even point of 13.04 years.

Comparison of green roof savings with AC units

The comparison of energy savings achieved by using a green roof versus a 1-ton AC unit is detailed in Table 5. Implementing a green roof leads to an annual savings of Rs 65,660.40, with a breakeven point of 13.04 years. In contrast, a 1-ton AC unit achieves a similar savings of Rs 65,660.40 but with a longer break-even period of 13.11 years. When comparing green roofs with multiple AC units, the energy savings increase significantly. For example, replacing a 1.5-ton AC unit with a green roof results in a savings of Rs 105,056.60 and a reduced break-even point of 8.15 years. With multiple units, the savings and shorter break-even times are even more pronounced. This highlights the substantial economic and environmental benefits of green roofs over conventional air conditioning systems, demonstrating a clear advantage in energy efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

Discussion

The findings from this study highlight the significant advantages of integrating green building technologies into contemporary construction practices, particularly in terms of energy savings and cost-effectiveness. The results underscore the critical role of building orientation and material choice in reducing energy expenditures. Specifically, orienting buildings to optimize passive solar gains, especially in eastern and northern orientations, has shown a remarkable reduction in heating loads by as much as 18- 20%, corroborating earlier studies that identified these orientations as ideal for maximizing solar energy benefits in temperate climates [5,17,23]. Our findings align closely with studies such as those by Zhang et al., (2020) and Lin et al., (2021), which demonstrate the effectiveness of strategic orientation in minimizing energy demands over the building’s lifespan [24,30].

In examining material choices, this study confirms the potential of eco-friendly options, such as lightweight concrete and green roofing materials, to substantially reduce cooling demands and overall energy consumption. Green roofing, in particular, has been shown to decrease energy costs by approximately 17.5%, which is in close agreement with findings by Gonzales et al., (2019), who reported energy reductions of around 15% when using similar materials [8,12]. Although the initial costs of green technologies, like green roofs, are significant, our analysis reveals that the long-term savings in energy and maintenance justify the upfront investment. This cost-benefit perspective aligns with the work of Li and Chang (2021), who highlighted the economic viability of green roofs, achieving a break-even point in energy savings within a similar timeframe of 10-15 years [11,16]. Moreover, this research emphasizes the role of advanced modeling technologies, including 3D modeling and Building Information Modeling (BIM), in improving construction planning and promoting the efficient use of green materials. These tools have proven invaluable in simulating various sustainable design elements, allowing for precise energy usage projections and aiding in the strategic selection of materials and orientations [13,29]. Our study’s findings on BIM’s role in optimizing sustainable construction align with Ma et al., (2022), who documented the advantages of BIM in enhancing project efficiency and achieving energy-efficient designs [25].

An essential aspect of this discussion is the need for comparison with existing literature. Unlike studies focused solely on singular aspects of green building, such as material choice or orientation, this research provides a comprehensive perspective by integrating both factors. This holistic approach demonstrates energy savings that are significantly higher in regions with warmer climates, underscoring the necessity of localized studies to validate the effectiveness of green construction technologies across diverse environments. For example, our findings for energy savings in Pakistan’s warmer climate context highlight the regional adaptability of green materials, thereby extending previous insights limited to cooler climates [6,28]. Furthermore, the discussion extends to the broader implications of interdisciplinary collaboration, policy support, and sustainable innovation within the construction industry. This research advocates for collaboration among architects, engineers, policymakers, and environmental scientists, all of whom play a pivotal role in addressing technical and regulatory challenges in green construction [9,19]. This perspective aligns with the recommendations by Patel et al., (2018) on promoting interdisciplinary efforts to foster sustainability [20]. Additionally, supportive legislation and incentive-based policies are essential for encouraging the adoption of green technologies, as they can ease the financial burden of implementing these technologies on a wider scale [7,15].

Finally, the study emphasizes the importance of long-term monitoring and evaluation of green building practices to ensure sustained effectiveness and adaptability. Consistent with Smith et al., (2020), we recommend regular assessments to refine best practices and validate energy savings over time, as these evaluations enable construction professionals to enhance efficiency and confirm the environmental benefits of green technologies [22,31]. Such a holistic and adaptive approach will be pivotal as the construction industry evolves towards sustainable and resilient practices, ensuring that green technologies meet environmental and economic objectives. In conclusion, this study contributes to the growing body of literature advocating for sustainable building practices by providing a comprehensive analysis of green technology benefits. The findings support a shift towards integrating sustainable solutions in construction, offering practical insights for future studies and underscoring the need for interdisciplinary, policy-driven, and continuously evaluated approaches in green building. Future research can further expand on these insights by exploring global best practices, ultimately bridging localized findings with universally applicable strategies [10,27,32].

Conclusion

This research explored the integration of green building technologies in Pakistan, emphasizing the use of locally available materials and employing Building Information Modeling (BIM) to compare traditional construction practices with green building designs. The study introduces a novel approach by specifically selecting eco-friendly materials accessible within the region, including cork flooring, lightweight concrete, cedar, and moss plants for green roofs. This localized focus on materials not only highlights their economic viability but also reduces dependence on imports, thereby promoting sustainable construction practices that are feasible within Pakistan’s economic and environmental landscape.

The research methodology involved the use of Autodesk Revit 2022 to design a conventional building model, followed by solar radiation and photovoltaic (PV) energy analyses. The conventional model was then modified to incorporate selected green building materials, with subsequent energy analyses conducted to evaluate the performance improvements. Results from this comparative analysis indicate substantial annual energy savings associated with green materials, with walls achieving approximately 19% energy savings, roofs around 17.8%, and floors approximately 17.5%. When combined, these materials contributed to an overall annual energy savings of nearly 18.7%. These findings confirm that while initial investments for green materials may be higher, the breakeven period of 8 to 13 years demonstrates the financial viability of these technologies over time. The results align with prior studies in the field, which have shown similar long-term economic and environmental benefits of green building practices in various climatic regions.

While this study underscores the potential for energy and cost savings through green construction, several limitations warrant mention. One key limitation lies in the reliance on simulated models, which, while indicative, may not capture the full range of real-world variables affecting energy performance. Moreover, the study focused on a single case building, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other building types or climates. Future research should expand upon these findings by incorporating more diverse building designs and conducting fieldbased energy performance assessments to validate the results under varying climatic conditions.

Recommendations for future research include exploring additional locally-sourced green materials, particularly those with unique thermal properties suited to Pakistan’s climate. Additionally, further studies could investigate the integration of renewable energy sources, such as solar panels and wind energy, in combination with green building materials to maximize energy efficiency. Addressing these avenues could provide a more comprehensive approach to sustainable construction, enabling architects and policymakers to make informed decisions that align with both environmental and economic goals. In summary, this research highlights the substantial benefits of green building practices in Pakistan, including reduced energy consumption, enhanced sustainability, and favorable longterm economic outcomes. By fostering a localized approach to green construction, this study provides a foundation for future advancements in sustainable design that can be adapted and scaled to meet broader environmental challenges.

Acknowledgement

We would like to express our heartfelt thanks to everyone who supported us throughout this research project. We are grateful to the faculty, staff, and our peers for their invaluable assistance and feedback.

Author Contributions

“Conceptualization, Zeenat Khan and Muhammad Usman Shahid; methodology, Zeenat Khan and Muhammad Usman Shahid; formal analysis, Zeenat Khan and Muhammad Usman Shahid; writing-original draft preparation, Zeenat Khan; writing-review and editing, Muhammad Usman Shahid; supervision, Muhammad Usman Shahid. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.”

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Li R, Y Yu, Cai W, Liu Y, Li Y (2024) Exploring the gradient impact of climate and economic geographical factors on city-level building carbon emissions in China: Characteristics and enlightenments. Sustainable Cities and Society 113: 105637.
  2. Marchigiani E, Bonfantini B (2022) Urban transition and the return of neighbourhood planning. Questioning the proximity syndrome and the 15-minute city. Sustainability 14(9): 5468.
  3. Bibri SE (2018) A foundational framework for smart sustainable city development: theoretical, disciplinary and discursive dimensions and their synergies. Sustainable Cities and Society 38: 758-794.
  4. Manzano-Agugliaro F, Montoya FG, Sabio-Ortega A, García-Cruz (A 2015) Review of bioclimatic architecture strategies for achieving thermal comfort. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 49: 736-755.
  5. Škvorc P, Kozmar H (2021) Wind energy harnessing on tall buildings in urban environments. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 152: 111662.
  6. Bolton R, Cameron L, Kerr N, Winskel M, Desguers T (2023) Seasonal thermal energy storage as a complementary technology: Case study insights from Denmark and the Netherlands. Journal of Energy Storage 73: 109249.
  7. Silva BVF, Holm-Nielsen JB, Sadrizadeh S, Teles MPR, Kiani-Moghaddam M, et al. (2023) Sustainable, green, or smart? pathways for energy-efficient healthcare buildings. Sustainable Cities and Society 100: 105013.
  8. Tehrani AA, Veisi O, Fakhr BV, Du D (2024) Predicting solar radiation in the urban area: A data-driven analysis for sustainable city planning using artificial neural networking. Sustainable Cities and Society 100: 105042.
  9. Pacheco R, Ordóñez J, Martínez G (2012) Energy efficient design of buildings: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16(6): 3559-3573.
  10. Xie M, Wang Y, Liu Z, Zhang G. (2022) Effect of the location pattern of rural residential buildings on natural ventilation in mountainous terrain of central China. Journal of Cleaner Production 340: 130837.
  11. Kim H, Lim JW (2024) Predicting the economic feasibility of solar-based net-zero emission buildings (NZEBs) in the United States non-residential sector. Journal of Cleaner Production 470: 143272.
  12. Ma Z, Ren H, Lin W (2019) A review of heating, ventilation and air conditioning technologies and innovations used in solar-powered net zero energy Solar Decathlon houses. Journal of Cleaner Production 240: 118158.
  13. Mujan I, Anđelković AS, Munćan V, Kljajić M, Ružić D (2019) Influence of indoor environmental quality on human health and productivity - A review. Journal of Cleaner Production 217: 646-657.
  14. Liu T, Chen L, Yang M, Sandanayake M, Miao P, et al. (2022) Sustainability considerations of green buildings: A detailed overview on current advancements and future considerations. Sustainability 14(21): 14393.
  15. McKinstray R, Lim JBP, Tanyimboh TT, Phan DT, Sha W, et al. (2015) Topographical optimisation of single-storey non-domestic steel framed buildings using photovoltaic panels for net-zero carbon impact. Building and Environment 86: 120-131.
  16. Guo J, Xia D, Zhang L, Zou Y, Guo G, et al. (2024) Assessing the winter indoor environment with different comfort metrics in self-built houses of hot-humid areas: Does undercooling matter for the elderly? Building and Environment 236: 111871.
  17. Wang Z, Zhang Y, Xia Y, Chen X, Liu J (2024) Study on personal comfort heating system and human thermal comfort in extremely low-temperature building environments. Building and Environment 259: 111640.
  18. Vergerio G, Becchio C (2022) Pursuing occupants’ health and well-being in building management: Definition of new metrics based on indoor air parameters. Building and Environment 223: 109447.
  19. Underhill LJ, Milando CW, Levy JI, Dols WS, Lee SK, et al. (2020) Simulation of indoor and outdoor air quality and health impacts following installation of energy-efficient retrofits in a multifamily housing unit. Building and Environment 170: 106507.
  20. Mucha W, Mainka A, Brągoszewska E (2024) Impact of ventilation system retrofitting on indoor air quality in a single-family building. Building and Environment 262: 111830.
  21. Mirrahimi S, Mohamed MF, Haw LC, Ibrahim NLN, Yusoff WFM, et al. (2016) The effect of building envelope on the thermal comfort and energy saving for high-rise buildings in hot-humid climate. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53: 1508-1519.
  22. Oh J, Wong W, Castro-Lacouture D, Lee J, Koo C (2023) Indoor environmental quality improvement in green building: Occupant perception and behavioral impact. Journal of Building Engineering 69: 106314.
  23. Yan S, Shi F, Zheng C, Ma Y, Huang J (2024) Whole biomass material envelope system for nearly-zero energy houses: Carbon footprint and construction cost assessment. Journal of Building Engineering 86: 108757.
  24. Sutkowska M, Stefańska A, Vaverkova MD, Dixit S, Thakur A (2024) Recent advances in prefabrication techniques for biobased materials towards a low-carbon future: From modules to sustainability. Journal of Building Engineering 91: 109558.
  25. Zou PXW, Xu X, Sanjayan J, Wang J (2018) Review of 10 years research on building energy performance gap: Life-cycle and stakeholder perspectives. Energy and Buildings 178: 165-181.
  26. Loonen RC, Trčka M, Cóstola D, Hensen JL (2013) Climate adaptive building shells: State-of-the-art and future challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 25: 483-493.
  27. Hwang BG, Zhu L, Ming JTT (2017) Factors affecting productivity in green building construction projects: The case of Singapore. Journal of Management in Engineering 33: 04016052.
  28. Ascione F, de Rossi F, Iovane T, Manniti G, M Mastellone et al. (2024) Energy demand and air quality in social housing buildings: A novel critical review. Energy and Buildings 319: 114542.
  29. Li H, Wang C (2022) [Retracted] The construction of green building integrated evaluation system based on BIM technology. Mobile Information Systems 5906827.
  30. Alhammad M, Eames M, Vinai R (2024) Enhancing building energy efficiency through Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Building Energy Modeling (BEM) integration: A systematic review. Buildings 14(3): 581.
  31. Ur Rehman H, Muhammad Aamer RHS, Masood R, Khan MA, Alamgir S, et al. (2023) A multi-facet BIM-based approach for green building design of new multi-family residential building using LEED system. International Journal of Construction Management 23(12): 2024-2038.
  32. Sharbafian M, Yeganeh M, Motie MB (2024) Evaluation of shading of green facades on visual comfort and thermal load of the building. Energy and Buildings 317: 114303.
  33. Mangkuto RA, Rohmah M, Asri AD (2016) Design optimisation for window size, orientation and wall reflectance with regard to various daylight metrics and lighting energy demand: A case study of buildings in the tropics. Applied Energy 164: 211-219.
  34. Salam RA, Amber KP, Ratyal NI, Alam M, Akram N, et al. (2020) An overview on energy and development of energy integration in major south asian countries: The building sector. Energies 13(21): 5776.
  35. Khan MA, Wang CC, Lee CL (2021) A framework for developing green building rating tools based on Pakistan’s local context. Buildings 11(5): 202.
  36. Mei X, Liu C, Li Z (2024) Research progress on functional, structural and material design of plant-inspired green bionic buildings. Energy and Buildings 316: 114357.
  37. Ng WL, Azmi AM, Dahlan NY, Woon KS (2024) Predicting life cycle carbon emission of green office buildings via an integrated LCA-MLR framework. Energy and Buildings 316: 114345.
  38. Nkini S, Nuyts E, Kassenga G, Swai O, Verbeeck G, et al. (2023) Comparative analysis of the energy performance in green and non-green office buildings in Dar Es salaam, Tanzania. Energy and Buildings 293: 113202.
  39. Marzouk M, Ayman R, Alwan Z (2022) Green building system integration into project delivery utilizing BIM. Environmental Development and Sustainability 24: 6467-6480.
  40. Solla M, Ismail LH, Yunus R (2016) Investigation on the potential of integrating BIM into green building assessment tools. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 11(4): 2412-2418.
  41. Friess WA, Rakhshan K (2017) A review of passive envelope measures for improved building energy efficiency in the UAE. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72: 485-
  42. Sadłowska SA, Wąs K (2021) Moisture risk analysis for three construction variants of a wooden inverted flat roof. Energies 14(23): 7898.
  43. Sozer H (2010) Improving energy efficiency through the design of the building envelope. Building and Environment 45(12): 2581-2593.
  44. Williams NS, Lundholm J, Scott MacIvor J (2014) Do green roofs help urban biodiversity conservation? Journal of Applied Ecology 51(6): 1643-1649.
  45. Demertzi MA, Garrido AC, Dias, Arroja L (2015) Environmental performance of a cork floating floor. Materials & Design 82: 317-325.
  46. Mousa A, Mahgoub M, Hussein M (2018) Lightweight concrete in America: Presence and challenges. Sustainable Production and Consumption 15: 131-144.
  47. Helmy SH, Tahwia AM, Mahdy MG, Elrahman M, Abed MA, et al. (2023) The use of recycled tire rubber, crushed glass and crushed clay brick in lightweight concrete production: A review. Sustainability 15(13): 10060.
  48. Junaid MF, ur Rehman Z, Kuruc M, Medveď I, Bačinskas D, et al. (2022) Lightweight concrete from a perspective of sustainable reuse of waste byproducts. Construction and Building Materials 319: 126061.
  49. Samarasinghalage TI, Wijeratne WPU, Yang RJ, Wakefield R (2022) A multi-objective optimization framework for building-integrated PV envelope design balancing energy and cost. Journal of Cleaner Production 342: 130930.
  50. Ham Y, Golparvar FM (2015) Mapping actual thermal properties to building elements in gbXML-based BIM for reliable building energy performance modeling. Automation in Construction 49: 214-224.
  51. Jhumka HS, Yang C Gorse, Wilkinson S, Yang R, He BJ, et al. (2023) Assessing heat transfer characteristics of building envelope deployed BIPV and resultant building energy consumption in a tropical climate. Energy and Buildings 298: 113540.
  52. Barone G, Buonomano A, Forzano C, Giuzio GF, Palombo A, et al. (2023) A new thermal comfort model based on physiological parameters for the smart design and control of energy-efficient HVAC systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 173: 113015.
  53. Chadee A, Martin H, Gallage S, Rathnayake U (2023) Reducing cost overrun in public housing projects: A simplified reference class forecast for small island developing states. Buildings 13(4): 998.
  54. Paek JH (2000) Running a profitable construction company: Revisited break-even analysis. Journal of Management in Engineering 16: 40-46.
  55. Khan K, Shahzada K, Gul A, Khan IU, Eldin SM, et al. (2023) Seismic performance evaluation of plastered cellular lightweight concrete (CLC) block masonry walls. Scientific Reports 13: 10770.
  56. Sultana R, Rashedi A, Khanam T, Jeong B, Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, et al. (2022) Life cycle environmental sustainability and energy assessment of timber wall construction: A comprehensive overview. Sustainability 14(7): 4161.
  57. Shehzad M, Younis A, Asif M, Hameed M (2023) Prospects of green roof technology as a sustainable solution to urban pollution index. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14: 100751.

© 2025 Zeenat Khan. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.

About Crimson

We at Crimson Publishing are a group of people with a combined passion for science and research, who wants to bring to the world a unified platform where all scientific know-how is available read more...

Leave a comment

Contact Info

  • Crimson Publishers, LLC
  • 260 Madison Ave, 8th Floor
  •     New York, NY 10016, USA
  • +1 (929) 600-8049
  • +1 (929) 447-1137
  • info@crimsonpublishers.com
  • www.crimsonpublishers.com