sustainability

Article
From Technological Sustainability to Social Sustainability: An
Analysis of Hotspots and Trends in Residential Design Evaluation
Meijiao Song *, Jun Cai * and Yisi Xue

School of Art and Design, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510075, China
* Correspondence: [email protected] (M.S.); [email protected] (J.C.);
Tel.: +86-1884-0920-902 (M.S.); +86-1390-1388-924 (J.C.)

Abstract: Residential design should not only meet the growing demand for habitation but also reduce
the negative impact on the natural environment. Therefore, the sustainability of residential buildings
has become increasingly important in residential design evaluation. Taking the core database of
the Web of Science platform as its source of information, this paper uses bibliometrics to visually
analyze the current research status of residential design evaluation and its development trends, as
well as hotspots of research from the perspectives of the annual distribution of publications, research
fields and institutions, keywords, and highly cited articles. The results demonstrate the following:
the number of publications on residential design evaluation has shown an overall upward trend
and has grown rapidly over the past five years. Furthermore, due to the emergence of social issues,
such as the aging population, social polarization, and rising urban poverty levels, scholars in the
field have attached importance to the comprehensive evaluation of residential senior-friendliness,
fairness, health, and quality, thereby expanding the connotation of residential sustainability from the
technological dimension toward the social dimension. This paper can help researchers to identify
future research directions in this field.

Keywords: residential buildings; design evaluation; bibliometrics; technological sustainability;

social sustainability

Citation: Song, M.; Cai, J.; Xue, Y.

From Technological Sustainability to
Social Sustainability: An Analysis of 1. Introduction
Hotspots and Trends in Residential
The residential design evaluation system is a tool used to assess the quality and
Design Evaluation. Sustainability
functionality of residential designs [1]. It holds significant importance in enhancing living
2023, 15, 10088. https://doi.org/
standards, promoting sustainability [2], fostering community development [3], and driving
10.3390/su151310088
design innovation. Firstly, residences are the central places where human life unfolds, and
Academic Editor: Ali Bahadori- most non-work activities take place within them. The quality of residential spaces directly
Jahromi impacts people’s mood, lifestyle, and even their family and social relationships [4–6].
Received: 7 May 2023
Secondly, the construction and maintenance of residences rank among the most resource-
Revised: 15 June 2023 intensive human activities [7], thus necessitating the evaluation of residential design to
Accepted: 19 June 2023 gauge sustainability. Questions regarding how to evaluate residential design, the factors
Published: 26 June 2023 that determine residential quality, including the key determinants, and the future direction
of residential design, are all essential topics for scholarly discussion.
In fact, the residential design evaluation system evolves as society develops. Global
climate change and frequent extreme weather are completely reshaping ideas about human
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. living [8], leading to growing demand for ecological and green residential design. Thus,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. environmental protection, energy efficiency, and material conservation have become impor-
This article is an open access article tant design evaluation elements [9]. The issue of residential senior-friendliness brought
distributed under the terms and
about by global population aging is a new trend that residential design must respond
conditions of the Creative Commons
to [10–13]. Factors such as design for accessibility, the home health care environment,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
and residents’ health have become particularly important in residential design for older
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
adults [14–16]. During the pandemic, many countries and regions were forced to address
4.0/).

Sustainability 2023, 15, 10088. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310088 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 10088 2 of 19

unexpected issues, resulting in many people working from home, travel restrictions, and
the moving of classes online [17], with some regions adopting even more conservative mea-
sures [18]. These phenomena impacted residential properties and blurred the boundaries
between residential buildings and offices, schools, and other venues [19], leading factors
such as residential flexibility and fairness to become key elements for consideration in
residential design [20–22].
The objective of the evaluation system research is to provide a standardized evalua-
tion method to gauge the residential design for various demands from different groups
of residents, promote residential design innovations, and adapt designs to the develop-
ment of the society. Since different policies, laws, lifestyles, and residential forms affect
the evaluation elements of residential design, these elements vary over different periods.
Residential design evaluation was first applied to assess the user experience of special
populations [23], such as low-income groups and older adults. Nasar proposed conducting
a post-occupancy evaluation (POE) by conducting personal interviews with users and
observing the characteristics of the housing environment [24]. Subsequently, residential
design evaluation was applied to the economic evaluation of residential buildings. In 1991,
the European Symposium on Management, Quality and Economics in Housing and Other
Building Sectors published studies on the feasibility and economic evaluation of residential
design [25]. As early as 1994, Kumar proposed an energy assessment of passive houses
to achieve better thermal comfort [26], and Ulusoy presented an assessment framework
that combined physical housing stock, the housing market, and the population [27]. Na-
tividade argued that the existing evaluation system only dealt with a small number of
residential design elements and lacked overall evaluation, and then proposed the Design
Support System for a multidimensional evaluation of residential design [28]. In recent years,
apartments have proliferated worldwide as iterative commodities. Concerns have been
raised regarding the quality and healthiness of apartments. Foster proposed an assessment
and regulatory framework for the healthiness of residences, considering factors such as
daylighting, ventilation, sound insulation, privacy, and the extent to which policies are
implemented to ensure open interior spaces. This approach considers the impact of design
regulations on residential design during the design process [29]. While a significant amount
of research has focused on commercial housing, some scholars evaluate the residential
environment for special populations, including those residing in social housing and public
housing, to ensure and promote social welfare [30].
The scope of residential design evaluation has continuously expanded, with adapt-
ability, flexibility, sociability, safety, healthiness, fairness, and inclusiveness emerging as
critical evaluation factors. People have begun to conduct more comprehensive and wide-
ranging assessments of residential design to guide design practices and provide a basis for
government housing policies [31,32]. However, questions regarding energy conservation,
environmental protection, user participation, social housing, and housing fairness all arise
when considering the future of residential design.
To understand the research status of residential design evaluation in recent years,
this paper used Web of Science (WoS) as a data source, selected literature included in the
core database from 2002 to 2023 as a sample, and adopted VOSviewer (version 1.6.16)
and CiteSpace (v.6.2.R2 (64-bit) Advanced) software to visualize the number of papers
published annually, as well as the research fields, publishers, and keywords in the relevant
literature, in order to track the evolution of residential design evaluation factors and present
the research hotspots, research frontiers, and future research trends in residential design
evaluation to drive innovative developments in this field (Figure 1).
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 20
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10088 3 of 19

Figure 1. An analysis of hotspots and trends in residential design evaluation theoretical framework.
Figure 1. An analysis of hotspots and trends in residential design evaluation theoretical framework.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Acquisition
2. Materials and Methods
The literature in this paper is derived from the Web of ScienceTM Core Collection of the
2.1. Data Acquisition
Institute for Scientific Information, and database sources include the Science Citation Index
The literature
Expanded, in this
the Social paper
Sciences is derived
Citation Index,from theArt
and the Web
andofHumanities
ScienceTM Citation
Core Collection
Index. of
theToInstitute for Scientific
retrieve literature in theInformation, and
research field of database
knowledge sources include
visualization the Science
and ensure Citation
its accuracy,
multiple
Index search strategies
Expanded, the Socialwere tested, Citation
Sciences and TS = (Apartment
Index, andDesign
the ArtEvaluation) OR (House
and Humanities Citation
Design Evaluation) OR (Condominium Design Evaluation) was finally
Index. To retrieve literature in the research field of knowledge visualization employed as a and
search
ensure
thread. The timespan was from 2002 to 2023, and the language selected was
its accuracy, multiple search strategies were tested, and TS = (Apartment Design Evalua-English. Each
bibliography included the author, institution, abstract, keywords, publication year, issue
tion) OR (House Design Evaluation) OR (Condominium Design Evaluation) was finally
(volume), and references. A total of 1610 papers were retrieved, and 504 articles were finally
employed as a manually
selected after search thread. The
deleting timespan
those outside was from 2002
the research scope,to such
2023,asand the language se-
conferences.
lected was English. Each bibliography included the author, institution, abstract, key-
words, publication year, issue (volume), and references. A total of 1610 papers were re-
trieved, and 504 articles were finally selected after manually deleting those outside the
research scope, such as conferences.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 20

2.2. Research Methods

Sustainability 2023, 15, 10088 4 of 19
After completing the collection of raw data, two types of bibliometric software
VOSviewer and CiteSpace, were used to analyze studies related to the residential design
evaluation system
2.2. Research with a combination of qualitative and quantitative research [33]. Bibli-
Methods
ometricsAfter
owescompleting
its systematic development
the collection of rawmainly to D.J.D.
data, two typesPrice and Eugene
of bibliometric Garfield [34]
software,
Since the 1990s,and
VOSviewer bibliometrics
CiteSpace, were hasused
gradually
to analyzebecome
studiesthe maintotool
related the for evaluating
residential designscientific
evaluation
research. system
In recent with aacombination
years, significant of qualitative
trend has beenandtoquantitative research [33].supplemented
adopt bibliometrics Biblio-
metrics owes its
by information systematic to
technology development
assess hotmainly
topicstoinD.J.D. Pricefields
related and Eugene Garfield [34]. trends
and development
Since the 1990s, bibliometrics has gradually become the main tool for evaluating scientific
in the field [35]. As a visual analysis tool based on the co-citation analysis theory and bib-
research. In recent years, a significant trend has been to adopt bibliometrics supplemented
liometric methods,
by information CiteSpace
technology can behot
to assess used
topicsto in
fully explore
related fields the
and overall
developmentresearch
trendssituation
andindevelopment
the field [35]. trends of a analysis
As a visual certain field and analyze
tool based elementsanalysis
on the co-citation of the theory
literature
and such as
authors, institutions,
bibliometric methods,countries,
CiteSpace canandbekeywords
used to fully[36]. However,
explore inresearch
the overall the clustering
situation of key-
and CiteSpace
words, development trends
has someof adrawbacks,
certain field and
suchanalyze elements
as blurred of the and
images literature
unclearsuch clustering
as
authors, institutions, countries, and keywords [36]. However, in
time. VOSviewer boasts advantages in co-occurrence network clustering and density anal- the clustering of key-
words, CiteSpace has some drawbacks, such as blurred images and unclear clustering
ysis [37]. The two types of software can be applied to preprocessing and modeling analy-
time. VOSviewer boasts advantages in co-occurrence network clustering and density anal-
sis, ysis
the [37].
results
The of
twowhich
types ofare displayed
software can bein the form
applied of visual and
to preprocessing models or charts
modeling to reflect
analysis,
research trends
the results and are
of which hotspots
displayed ininthe field.of Therefore,
the form visual modelswe aim to
or charts to reflect
use CiteSpace
research and
VOSviewer
trends and to hotspots
demonstratein the visually the knowledge
field. Therefore, we aim tostructure and development
use CiteSpace and VOSvieweroftoresearch
demonstrate
related visually theofknowledge
to the evaluation residential structure
designand from development
2002 to 2023.of research related to the
We summarize the annual
evaluation of residential design from 2002 to 2023. We summarize the
changes in the publication of the core literature, analyze highly influential countries, in- annual changes
in the publication of the core literature, analyze highly influential countries, institutions,
stitutions, research fields, journals, authors, and key literature, and identify emergent
research fields, journals, authors, and key literature, and identify emergent hotspots of
hotspots of
research inresearch in the evaluation
the evaluation of residentialof residential
design and thedesign andofthe
prediction prediction
development of develop-
trends
ment trends
(Figure 2).(Figure 2).

Figure 2. Research methods flow chart.

Figure 2. Research methods flow chart.
3. Results
3.1. Annual Distribution of Literature on the Residential Design Evaluation System
3. Results
According to the annual analysis report presented in the WoS core collection (Figure 3),
3.1. Annual Distribution
the number of Literature
of papers published in theonfield
theof
Residential
research onDesign Evaluation
residential System has
design evaluation
According
continued to the annual
to increase over theanalysis report
last 22 years. Thepresented inthree
research has the WoS core
distinct collection
stages, namely (Figure
exploration, stable development, and rapid development.
3), the number of papers published in the field of research on residential design evaluation
has continued to increase over the last 22 years. The research has three distinct stages
namely exploration, stable development, and rapid development.
 Sustainability
Sustainability 15, x15,
2023,2023, FOR10088
PEER REVIEW 5 of 195 of 20

Figure
Figure Annual changes
3.3.Annual changes ininthe number
the numberof papers published
of papers on residential
published design evaluation
on residential on WoS.
design evaluation on
WoS.
(1) The exploration stage (2002–2008). Before 2008, there was a significant fluctuation
in the number of papers published on residential design evaluation. During this stage, a
(1)ofThe
total exploration
47 papers stage (2002–2008).
were published, Before
with an average 2008,publication
annual there wasrate a significant fluctuation
of 6.7 papers. In
in 2005,
the number of papers published on residential design evaluation.
only one core paper was published, indicating that residential design evaluation was During this stage, a
total of 47 papers were published, with an average annual publication
still in the stage of exploration and experimentation. High-rise apartment buildings [38] rate of 6.7 papers.
Inwere
2005,theonly oneresearch
main core paperobjectwas published,
at this stage, and indicating
residentialthat residential
design evaluation design
mainly evaluation
fo-
wascused
stilloninenvironmental quality [39], and
the stage of exploration light experimentation.
wells [40], and energy efficiency.
High-rise Hence, many
apartment buildings
evaluation
[38] were thesystems for sustainable
main research object technologies
at this stage,emerged. This indicates
and residential designthat residential
evaluation mainly
design was developing in the direction of energy conservation
focused on environmental quality [39], light wells [40], and energy efficiency. and environmental protec- Hence,
tion during this stage. Evaluating high-rise apartment buildings in the design phase would
many evaluation systems for sustainable technologies emerged. This indicates that resi-
effectively reduce future energy consumption, which would help to achieve the sustainable
dential design was developing in the direction of energy conservation and environmental
development goals.
protection(2) Theduring
stablethis stage. Evaluating
development high-rise apartment
stage (2009–2018). During thisbuildings in the design
decade, research on res-phase
would
identialeffectively reduce future
design evaluation showed energy consumption,
an overall upward trend, which withwould
a totalhelp
of 221to papers
achieve the
sustainable
published and development
an average goals.
annual publication rate of 22.1 papers, indicating that scholars in
various
(2) The fields had begun
stable to conduct
development large-scale
stage research
(2009–2018). on residential
During designresearch
this decade, evaluation. on resi-
At this stage, a large number of papers started to examine
dential design evaluation showed an overall upward trend, with a total of 221 residential design from the pub-
papers
perspective
lished and anofaverage
consumers, explore
annual feedback on
publication theof
rate living
22.1environment from residents,
papers, indicating and
that scholars in
pay attention to the consumer preference for residences and life cycles of residences [41],
various fields had begun to conduct large-scale research on residential design evaluation.
Such studies explored whether the physical environment (such as thermal comfort) met
Atthethisneeds
stage, a large number of papers started to examine residential design from the
of consumers in terms of use, which became a new standard for evaluating
perspective of
residential design consumers,
[31]. explore feedback on the living environment from residents, and
pay attention to thedevelopment
(3) The rapid consumer preference for residences
stage (2019–2022). Since 2019, and lifegrowth
rapid cycles has
of residences
been seen [41],
Such studieson
in research explored
residential whether the physical
design evaluation. Over environment (such the
the past four years, as thermal
number ofcomfort)
papers met
thepublished
needs ofreached
consumers 234, accounting
in terms offor 46.4%
use, of the
which total inathe
became new past 22 years.for
standard The average res-
evaluating
annualdesign
idential number of papers published reached 56.2 and peaked at 66 in 2022. Eleven core
[31].
papers
(3) Thewere published
rapid in February
development stage 2023. It is important
(2019–2022). Since to notice
2019, rapidthatgrowth
this third
hasstage
been seen
coincides with the outbreak of the public health crisis brought about by the COVID-19
in research on residential design evaluation. Over the past four years, the number of pa-
pandemic and the environmental crisis caused by the worsening global climate, leading to
pers published reached 234, accounting for 46.4% of the total in the past 22 years. The
worldwide discussions about the sustainable development of human living environments,
average annual
and making thenumber
importance of papers published
of residential reached
design 56.2 and
evaluation evenpeaked at 66 in 2022.
more apparent. Thus, Eleven
core papers
greater were published
attention is paid by the in academic
Februarycommunity
2023. It is important
to residentialto design
notice evaluation.
that this third stage
coincides with the outbreak of the public health crisis brought about by the COVID-19
pandemic and the environmental crisis caused by the worsening global climate, leading
to worldwide discussions about the sustainable development of human living environ-
ments, and making the importance of residential design evaluation even more apparent.
Thus, greater attention is paid by the academic community to residential design evalua-
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 20

Sustainability 2023, 15, 10088 6 of 19

3.2. Distribution of Research Fields

According oftoResearch
3.2. Distribution the dataFields
retrieved from WoS, research on residential design evaluation
covers various fields.
According The retrieved
to the data research from
on residential design
WoS, research on evaluation over the
residential design past 22 years
evaluation
focused
covers various fields. The research on residential design evaluation over the past 22 years for
on the fields of construction and building technology as well as engineering,
which
focused182 onand 163 papers
the fields were published
of construction on WoS,
and building respectively,
technology as wellranking first andfor
as engineering, second,
which
which 182 is far
andhigher than in
163 papers other
were fields (Figure
published on WoS, 4).respectively,
This indicates that the
ranking firstfocus on residen-
and second,
tial
which technology
is far higher is most
than inevident in the
other fields evaluation
(Figure 4). Thisof residential
indicates design.
that the focusResidential
on residential design
technology is most evident in the evaluation of residential design.
evaluation is also relevant in fields such as energy and fuels (96), environmental studies Residential design
evaluation
(91), green is andalso relevant inscience
sustainable fields such
andas energy and(86),
technology fuelsand
(96), environmentalsciences
environmental studies (79),
(91),
of green70%
which and of
sustainable
papers are science and technology
directly (86),environment;
related to the and environmental the keysciences (79), of ad-
technologies
which 70% of papers are directly related to the environment; the key technologies addressed
dressed include passive technology, new energy technology, and purification technology.
include passive technology, new energy technology, and purification technology. As can be
As can be seen from the distribution of research fields, residential design evaluation
seen from the distribution of research fields, residential design evaluation mainly assesses
mainly assesses the impact of residential buildings on the environment, and the main re-
the impact of residential buildings on the environment, and the main research direction of
search
residential designof
direction residential
evaluation design
is still evaluation issustainability
the technological still the technological
of residential sustainability
buildings, of
residential
i.e., evaluatingbuildings, i.e., evaluating
if the application if the application
of residential technologyof residential
meets technology
sustainable meets sus-
development
tainable development
goals (Table 1). goals (Table 1).

Figure 4. Distribution of fields on WoS.

Figure 4. Distribution of fields on WoS.
The core literature related to residential design evaluation is mainly published in
Table
three 1. The most
journals, frequent
i.e., Energytopics on WoS.
Buildings, Sustainability, and Building and Environment. As
an internationally influential and authoritative journal with an impact factor (IF) of 7.201,
Count Centrality Category
Energy Buildings has published a total of 47 related papers, of which the cumulative ci-
tation182
frequency is0.49 Construction
1581 times, with 33 citations andon
per paper, building
average.technology
Sustainability has
146 a total of0.31
published 36 articles, with a citation frequencyEngineering
of 171 times, and Building and En-
96 has published
vironment 0.18 a total of 33 relevant papers, Energy and fuels
with a citation frequency of 717 times
(Table912). The three0.12
journals focus on how designEnvironmental
promotes environmental
studies sustainability
and the86 interaction0.02
between humans Greenand indoor and outdoorscience
and sustainable built environments, aiming
and technology
to promote the sustainable development of architecture.
79 0.22 Environmental sciences
62 0.05 Environmental engineering
48 0.68 Occupational health
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10088 7 of 19

Table 1. The most frequent topics on WoS.

Count Centrality Category

182 0.49 Construction and building technology
146 0.31 Engineering
96 0.18 Energy and fuels
91 0.12 Environmental studies
86 0.02 Green and sustainable science and technology
79 0.22 Environmental sciences
62 0.05 Environmental engineering
48 0.68 Occupational health
48 0.07 Architecture
45 0.01 Urban studies

Table 2. Top five journals with the highest number of publications on WoS.

Source Count Frequency IF2022

Energy Buildings [42,43] 47 1581 7.201
Sustainability [44] 37 171 3.889
Building and Environment [45] 33 717 7.093
Building Research and Information [46] 14 546 4.799
Sustainable cities and Society [47] 13 216 10.696

3.3. Analysis of Research Countries, Regions, and Institutions

Through the VOSviewer publication country cooperation network (Figure 5), it can
be seen that the size of the nodes in the publication country cooperation network reflects
the total number of papers published. The color of the nodes changing from purple to
yellow represents the time when the country started to publish research, the yellow line
represents close cooperation in recent years, the purple line represents close cooperation in
the early years, and the thickness of the lines indicates the intensity of cooperation. More
than 30 countries around the world are home to scholars producing research on residential
design evaluation, with China (N = 65) and the UK (N = 48) ranking first and second for
the number of papers published, accounting for 10% of the total. Other countries in the
top 10 are the USA (N = 43), South Korea (N = 29), Spain (N = 25), Australia (N = 22), Italy
(N = 20), Canada (N = 19), Turkey (N = 18), and Sweden (N = 13). Japan, Turkey, and the
USA were the first countries to produce research on residential design evaluation, while
China, Canada, and Spain started later. The UK has the closest cooperation in research with
Japan, Australia, and China; China has the strongest cooperation with the USA and the
UK. This analysis indicates that research on residential design evaluation is concentrated in
developed countries and regions where the housing market is mature. Their continuous
interest in this research field aims at further improving the market. Although China, as
a developing country, started researching residential design evaluation relatively late, it
has become the country with the highest number of papers published and works in close
cooperation with other countries. This is largely due to the fact that China is one of the
fastest growing housing markets in the past 20 years, and the rapid development of its
housing market and the consequent social problems have provided a sufficient basis for
research on residential design evaluation. This demonstrates the significance of residential
design evaluation on residential designs.

3.4. Analysis of Highly Cited Authors

By tracking highly cited authors, we can identify influential researchers in relevant
research fields and thus find hot topics and research frontiers. According to the ranking
of authors by frequency of citation, among the top five highly cited authors, Professor
Akalin from Gazi University published the most papers, focusing on the evaluation of
residential appearance [48,49], with a total of 166 citations. Professor Akalin and Professor
Yildirim at Gazi University collaborated on a total of three papers [50]; Professor Pulselli
 Sustainability 2023, 15, 10088 8 of 19

from the University of Florence was the most-cited scholar [51]; Gill, a scholar dedicated
to researching the evaluation system of low-energy residential design, studies sustainable
building technology; in 2007, he published a paper on evaluating sustainable housing,
which was cited 223 times. Although Kane, a scholar of the sociology of aging at Lincoln
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
University, only published one paper in this field on the comprehensive design evaluation 8 of 20
of family-style elder care apartments, his frequency of citation reached 212. Highly cited
studies in the field of residential design evaluation are relatively scattered, due to a lack of
sustained attention to this field, with little, though occasional, cooperation, and without
continuous and inter-agency cooperation (Table 3).

Figure
Figure5.5.Network
Networkmap
mapof
of international collaborationon
international collaboration onWoS.
WoS.

Table
3.4. 3. Top five
Analysis highlyCited
of Highly cited authors
Authorson WoS.
By tracking
Author highly cited authors, weCount can identify influential researchers
Frequency in relevant
research fields and thus
Pulselli, R.M. find hot topics and 2 research frontiers. According
259 to the ranking
of authors by Gill,frequency
Z.M. of citation, among1 the top five highly cited authors,
223 Professor
Akalin from Gazi
Kane, R.A.University published the1 most papers, focusing on212 the evaluation of
residentialYildirim,
appearanceK. [48,49], with a total of 4 166 citations. Professor Akalin
184 and Professor
Akalin, A. 5 166
Yildirim at Gazi University collaborated on a total of three papers [50]; Professor Pulselli
from the University of Florence was the most-cited scholar [51]; Gill, a scholar dedicated
to3.5. Keyword Analysis
researching the evaluation system of low-energy residential design, studies sustainable
3.5.1. Most
building FrequentlyinOccurring
technology; 2007, he Keywords
publishedand Keyword
a paper Clustering sustainable housing,
on evaluating
whichBy wasranking
cited 223the times.
research keywords
Although on WoS
Kane, from of
a scholar 2002
thetosociology
2023 in descending
of aging at order
Lincoln
of frequency, it can be seen that keywords such as performance, thermal comfort,
University, only published one paper in this field on the comprehensive design evaluation health,
ofenergy, environment,
family-style and apartments,
elder care sustainabilityhis
arefrequency
the main research topics
of citation in the 212.
reached field Highly
of residen-
cited
tial design evaluation. Among them, performance and thermal comfort have the highest
studies in the field of residential design evaluation are relatively scattered, due to a lack
frequency and intensity, appearing 62 and 40 times, respectively, showing that residen-
of sustained attention to this field, with little, though occasional, cooperation, and without
tial energy consumption is a mainstream topic in residential design evaluation research
continuous and inter-agency cooperation (Table 3).
(Table 4).
We imported the WoS literature data into the VOSviewer and obtained a total of
Table 3. Top five highly cited authors on WoS.
2733 keywords. After setting the minimum number of keyword occurrences to 6, a total of
77 valid Author
keywords were obtained, and 6 clusters were formed after Frequency
Count the screening, namely
cluster 1, health;
Pulselli, R.M.cluster 2, energy; cluster
2 3, environment; cluster 4,259
decision making;
cluster 5, study method; and cluster 6, sustainability. Clusters 1, 2, and 3 contained 64% of
Gill, Z.M. 1 223
the keywords and were the three major keyword clusters for residential design evaluation
Kane, R.A. 1 212
Yildirim, K. 4 184
Akalin, A. 5 166
 Sustainability 2023, 15, 10088 9 of 19

research. Among them, clusters 1 and 2 focused on the physical environment of residences,
while cluster 3 focused more on the social attributes of residences (Figure 6).

Table 4. Top 10 high-frequency keywords on WoS.

# Keyword Count Strength # Keyword Count Strength

ustainability 2023,1 15, x FOR PEER

Performance
REVIEW 62 199 6 Environment 23 72 of 20
10
2 Thermal comfort 41 149 7 Simulation 22 71
3 Health 40 76 8 Consumption 21 78
4 Energy 33 95 9 Sustainability 21 71
5 Energy efficiency 26 68 10 Energy performance 18 63

Figure 6. Network
Figure map keyword
6. Network clustering
map keyword on WoS.
clustering on WoS.

Cluster 1 concerns the evaluation of the physical environment of residences from

the perspective of user experience and includes 19 keywords, such as health, people,
physical activity, perception, exposure, quality, built environment, policy, satisfaction, and
impacts [52–56]. Through analysis, we found that this clustering indicates that when
designing residential buildings, it is necessary to consider the multiple impacts of the
building’s environment on the physical health, behavior, cognition, and experience of
residents while paying attention to the quality of residential buildings to meet their needs
and preferences [57]. Cluster 2 was composed of 17 keywords, including energy, passive
house, refurbishment, thermal comfort, climate, retrofit, and ventilation, for the evaluation
of the physical environment of residential buildings from the perspective of a residence’s
overall performance. Cluster 2 indicated that the evaluation of residential sustainability
involves the issues of energy efficiency, costs, renovation, and thermal comfort and needs
to consider the impact of climate conditions, in terms of where a residential building is
located, on its design and energy use [58–61]. The keywords included in clusters 1 and 2
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10088 10 of 19

are crucial in residential design evaluation and need to be considered comprehensively

to achieve the efficiency and sustainability of designing and using residential buildings.
Cluster 3 consists of 13 keywords, including environment, behavior, consumption, benefits,
social housing, and comfort, to evaluate the social aspects of residential design [62,63].
Cluster 3 mainly comprises the relationship between residential design and social equity,
emphasizing the impact of housing services on specific populations. It is believed that
factors such as residential behavior, living habits, consumption, and welfare policies have a
profound impact on residential evaluation for special groups. These keywords essentially
reflect whether residential designs meet the goals of social sustainability [64], namely
achieving social equity, ensuring social participation, maintaining social stability, and
respecting social diversity. The above data indicate that there has been in-depth research in
this area. The research focuses on evaluating the technological sustainability of the physical
environment of residential buildings, from both the perspective of user experience and that
of the overall performance of the residential building itself, as well as evaluation
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11of
of the
20
social sustainability of residential buildings (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Co-occurrence density map of keywords on WoS.

Figure 7. Co-occurrence density map of keywords on WoS.

In summary,
In summary, the the research
research focus
focus of residential design
of residential design evaluation
evaluation isis to
to evaluate
evaluate the the
sustainability of residential buildings. In the early stages, scholars focused
sustainability of residential buildings. In the early stages, scholars focused on the on theimpact
impact of
of performance
performance indicators
indicators related
related to sustainable
to sustainable residential
residential technology
technology on on residential
residential de-
design
sign standards
standards and provided
and provided a system
a system for evaluating
for evaluating the the sustainability
sustainability of residential
of residential de-
design,
sign, aiming to develop more efficient energy-saving technologies to reduce
aiming to develop more efficient energy-saving technologies to reduce residential energy residential
energy consumption
consumption [65,66].[65,66]. In the middle
In the middle stage,
stage, the the academic
academic community
community paid attention
paid more more at-
tention to the assessment of carbon emissions, comfort, and quality throughout
to the assessment of carbon emissions, comfort, and quality throughout the lifecycle the lifecy-
of
residential buildings, thereby expanding the meaning of sustainability [67]. In recentrecent
cle of residential buildings, thereby expanding the meaning of sustainability [67]. In years,
years, technical
technical issues issues
such assuch as residential
residential energyenergy consumption
consumption relatedrelated to sustainability
to sustainability have
have remained a research focus. However, scholars have begun to pay more attention to
the design and evaluation of public housing, social housing, and other housing for special
populations, advocating social sustainability and emphasizing the equity, diversity, and
inclusivity of residential buildings [68]. Studies have shown that the research in this field
is developing toward evaluating the social sustainability of residential buildings.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10088 11 of 19

remained a research focus. However, scholars have begun to pay more attention to the
design and evaluation of public housing, social housing, and other housing for special
populations, advocating social sustainability and emphasizing the equity, diversity, and
inclusivity of residential buildings [68]. Studies have shown that the research in this field is
developing toward evaluating the social sustainability of residential buildings.

3.5.2. Keyword Bursts

Bursts on CiteSpace is used to represent the degree of change in the frequency of the
occurrence of a keyword within a certain period. It can analyze the occurrence frequency
and trend of a keyword in different periods to further understand the evolution of keywords
in the field. Figure 8 shows the time of the first occurrence and duration of each keyword,
reflecting its duration of influence in the research field. The blue line represents the
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
timespan of research, and the red line represents the time of bursts. From the list 12 of of
the20
top 15 burst terms in the field of research on residential design evaluation from 2002 to
2023, we can see the years when bursts begin and end, as well as the strength of bursts
in each period.
undergone Since 2014,
a significant andthe
rapidresearch hotspots [69,70].
transformation of residential design
From 2002 evaluation
to 2014, have
the academic
undergone a significant and rapid transformation [69,70]. From 2002 to 2014,
community mainly explored evaluation methods for residential energy efficiency, leading the academic
community mainlyofexplored
to a large number papers onevaluation
residentialmethods
energy for residential
efficiency energy
emerging inefficiency, leading
2014 and reaching
to a large number of papers on residential energy efficiency emerging in 2014 and
saturation in 2020. The speed of bursts has accelerated since 2014, with new hotspots ap- reaching
saturation in 2020.
pearing almost everyThe speed
year. of bursts
Following the has accelerated
emergence sinceefficiency,
of energy 2014, withburstnewterms
hotspots
such
appearing almost every year. Following the emergence of energy efficiency,
as social housing, consumption, ventilation, criteria, sustainability, and quality have burst terms
such as social
emerged, andhousing, consumption,
this research dimension ventilation, criteria,
is constantly sustainability,
expanding. Amongand thequality
top 15 have
burst
emerged, and this research dimension is constantly expanding. Among the top 15 burst
terms, energy efficiency has lasted for six years and has been the keyword with the longest
terms, energy efficiency has lasted for six years and has been the keyword with the longest
emergence time, followed by social housing and ventilation, which have lasted for four
emergence time, followed by social housing and ventilation, which have lasted for four
years. Sustainability and quality have been the leading hotspots of research since their
years. Sustainability and quality have been the leading hotspots of research since their
emergence. The strength of social housing, quality, and sustainability is higher, indicating
emergence. The strength of social housing, quality, and sustainability is higher, indicating
that they are key research directions for residential design evaluation. The above research
that they are key research directions for residential design evaluation. The above research
suggests that with the rapid development of human society, residential design is also pro-
suggests that with the rapid development of human society, residential design is also
gressing iteratively. Humanistic indicators such as fairness and suitability for older adults
progressing iteratively. Humanistic indicators such as fairness and suitability for older
have entered the purview of research on residential design evaluation. The focus of resi-
adults have entered the purview of research on residential design evaluation. The focus of
dential design evaluation has shifted from evaluation based on technological indicators
residential design evaluation has shifted from evaluation based on technological indicators
towards comprehensive evaluation, including social indicators, with broader research
towards comprehensive evaluation, including social indicators, with broader research
perspectivesand
perspectives andgreater
greaterinclusiveness
inclusiveness[66].
[66].

Figure 8. Top 15 keywords with the strongest citation bursts, 2002–2023.

Figure 8. Top 15 keywords with the strongest citation bursts, 2002–2023.

3.6. Analysis of Highly Cited Literature

The key literature in this field can be analyzed through the highly cited literature.
Among the 495 papers related to residential design evaluation retrieved from the WoS
core collection database, the top 15 highly cited papers mainly come from fields such as
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10088 12 of 19

3.6. Analysis of Highly Cited Literature

The key literature in this field can be analyzed through the highly cited literature.
Among the 495 papers related to residential design evaluation retrieved from the WoS
core collection database, the top 15 highly cited papers mainly come from fields such as
architecture and building technology, energy, public science, and geriatrics. Among these
15 papers, 9 are from the field of architecture and building technology, constituting 60% of
the highly cited literature.
The majority of the highly cited papers combine energy science, environmental sci-
ence, environmental psychology, and other disciplines to evaluate and study sustainable
technologies such as housing life cycles, resource consumption, and ecological construction
technology (Table 5). Gill et al. (2010) [71] published “Low energy Dwellings: the Con-
tribution of Behaviours to Actual Performance”, the most frequently cited paper, with a
total of 223 citations. The authors conducted a continuous POE of users on the website
Eco Homes in the UK to verify the energy performance of residential buildings, as well
as user comfort and satisfaction, under the influence of daily activities [71]; Pulselli et al.
(2007) [72] published “Energy analysis of building manufacturing, maintenance and use:
Em-building indices to evaluate housing sustainability”, the third most cited paper, with
a total of 168 citations. This article tested and compared different architectural elements
to evaluate which materials and structures contribute to achieving housing sustainability,
providing a series of parameters for a comprehensive evaluation of the building indus-
try [72]. Sage-Lauck et al. published the paper “Evaluation of phase change materials
for improving thermal comfort in a super insulated residential building”, ranking fifth
with a frequency of 107 citations. This paper pointed out that a common challenge for
passive houses is overheating; the authors conducted an evaluation of the performance of
phase changing materials by monitoring the indoor environmental quality and architectural
energy consumption [73]. “An environmental assessment of wood and steel-reinforced
concrete housing construction” by Gerilla et al. (2007) [74] was cited 106 times, ranking
seventh. This paper compared the life cycles of Japanese wood and steel-reinforced concrete
houses and designed different optimized schemes for a final energy-saving scheme [74].
The paper “GA-based decision support system for housing condition assessment and refur-
bishment strategies” proposed an assessment model for house refurbishment based on a
generic algorithm, while discussing the feasibility of the refurbishment scheme by assessing
life-cycle cost, restoration cost, and improved quality [75]. The paper “Impact of building
automation control systems and technical building management systems on the energy
performance class of residential buildings: An Italian case study” concentrated on the
assessment of the impact on residential design of building automation control systems and
technical building management systems, the result of which would help users decide which
system to choose [76]. Kane et al. (2007) [77] published “Resident outcomes in small-house
nursing homes: A longitudinal evaluation of the initial greenhouse program”, the second
most cited paper (cited 212 times). This paper proposed a residential model more suitable
for older adults [77]. By altering the scale of the living environment and conducting four
interviews, the team gathered data on 11 factors, such as emotional well-being, satisfaction,
self-reported health, and functional status, to evaluate the life quality of older adults and
the sustainability of their living environment.

Table 5. Top 15 highly cited papers.

Authors Title Frequency Year Keywords Source

Planned behavior;
Low-energy dwellings: the
Gill, Z.M., Tierney, Domestic appliances; Building Research
contribution of behaviors to 223 2010
M.J. et al. [71] Consumption; and Information
actual performance
Determinants; Context
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10088 13 of 19

Table 5. Cont.

Authors Title Frequency Year Keywords Source

Resident outcomes in
Journal of the
Kane, R.A., Lum, small-house nursing homes: A Managed-care program;
212 2007 American
T.Y. et al. [77] longitudinal evaluation of the Quality of life
Geriatrics Society
initial Green House program
Energy analysis of building
manufacturing, maintenance, Energy analysis;
Pulselli, R.M., Energy
and use: Em-building indices 168 2007 Em-building indices;
Simoncini E. et al. [72] and Buildings
to evaluate housing Housing sustainability
sustainability
Evaluation of phase change
materials for improving
Sage-Lauck, J.S., Sailor, Passive house; Concrete; Energy
thermal comfort in a 107 2014
D.J. et al. [73] Walls; Mass and Buildings
super-insulated
residential building
Environmental impact;
Residential
An environmental assessment
Gerilla, G.P., Teknomo, development; Building and
of wood and steel reinforced 106 2007
K. et al. [74] Sustainable Environment
concrete housing construction
development; Life-cycle
assessment
Adults; Mobility; Frailty;
Life space and risk of
Cohort; Work; American Journal
James, B.D., Boyle, Alzheimer disease, mild
105 2011 Population; Disability; of Geriatric
P.A. et al. [78] cognitive impairment, and
Enrichment; Psychiatry
cognitive decline in old age
Pathology; People
A fuzzy quality function
Yang, Y.Q., Wang, deployment system for Customer; Automation in
102 2003
S.Q. et al. [54] buildable design Framework; Needs Construction
decision-makings
Evaluation of a seasonal Solar energy; Seasonal
Hui, L., Edem, storage system of solar energy storage; Absorption; Energy Conversion
100 2011
N.K. et al. [79] for house heating using Storage capacity; and Management
different absorption couples Efficiency
Sustainable housing;
Zhu, Y.X., Lin, Sustainable housing and Urban construction; Energy and
89 2004
B.R. [80] urban construction in China Techniques; Simulation; Buildings
Evaluation
Developing occupancy Post-occupancy
Stevenson, F., Rijal, Building Research
feedback from a prototype to 88 2010 evaluation; Design;
H.B. [81] and Information
improve housing production Environment; Behavior
House facade preference;
Individual differences;
The effects of color and light Spatial orientation;
Journal of
Hidayetoglu, M.L., on indoor wayfinding and the Gender differences; Sex
86 2012 Environmental
Yildirim, K. et al. [50] evaluation of the differences; Complexity;
Psychology
perceived environment Mood; Representations;
Satisfaction;
Architecture
GA-based decision support
Construction; Design;
Juan, Y.K., Kim, system for housing condition Automation in
85 2009 Model; Optimization;
J.H. et al. [75] assessment and Construction
Buildings; Knowledge
refurbishment strategies
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10088 14 of 19

Table 5. Cont.

Authors Title Frequency Year Keywords Source

Construction solutions for
Environmental
energy efficient single-family
Motuziene, V., Rogoza, performance; Building Journal of Cleaner
house based on its life cycle 79 2016
A. et al. [82] energy; CO2 Production
multi-criteria analysis: a
emissions; Design
case study
Kaewunruen, S., A digital-twin evaluation of Residential buildings;
Rungskunroch, net zero energy building for 70 2019 House; Resource; Sustainability
P. et al. [83] existing buildings Design; System
Turkish students;
Architecture and engineering
Design; Perception;
students’ evaluations of house Journal of
Akalin, A., Yildirim, Environment;
facades: Preference, 67 2009 Environmental
K. et al. [48] Exploration; Experience;
complexity, and Psychology
Laypersons; Buildings:
impressiveness
Diversity; American

Another theme discussed in the highly cited literature is the social sustainability
of housing. James et al. (2008) [78] published a paper entitled “Life Space and Risk of
Alzheimer Disease, Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Cognitive Decline in Old Age”, with a
frequency of 105 citations, ranking eighth [78]. This paper tests the hypothesis that a narrow
living space (the degree of movement in the environment covered during daily functions)
is associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease, mild cognitive impairment,
and faster cognitive decline among older adults. The results indicated that people with
limited living space at home are almost twice as likely to have Alzheimer’s disease as
those with larger living spaces and that the area of residential space is positively correlated
with the quality of life of older adults. The above data reflect that although research on
residential design evaluation mainly focuses on residential performance, social factors such
as residential senior-friendliness are starting to receive increasing attention.

4. Discussion
Residential design evaluation is a comprehensive concept that integrates the archi-
tectural environment, engineering technology, socioeconomics, and psychology. As an
interdisciplinary research field, it has significant implications for various fields, such as
architecture, environmental science, and socioeconomics. At the same time, with the con-
stantly changing social relationships and the impact of constantly developing technology
on housing, evaluating residential design is the key to advancing residential development.
The distribution of research fields and the bursts of keywords indicate that the eval-
uation of the sustainability of residential buildings through the perspectives of building
technology and energy technology has developed rapidly. The field has progressed to
the point that it is now possible to realize the vision of zero-energy housing. However,
concerns still persist regarding the energy consumption of residential buildings in general,
and difficulties remain in articulating a precise definition of sustainability in this context.
Although previous studies have employed bibliometric methods to examine specific as-
pects of residential design evaluation, such as satisfaction assessment [84], passive housing
design evaluation [85], building life-cycle assessment [86], evaluation of smart housing for
older adults [87], and solar technology for residential buildings [88,89], there remains a lack
of comprehensive discussion on residential design evaluation as a whole. While evaluating
specific aspects of residential design is crucial for ensuring housing quality, the focus of this
study lies in observing and discussing the overall trends and comprehensive development
of residential design evaluation, which allows us to track the dynamic changes in residential
design. By synthesizing the key areas of focus and hotspots in previous studies, we aim to
outline the future direction of residential design. Thus, the uniqueness of this study lies in
providing a more macroscopic and holistic perspective of residential design to better guide
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10088 15 of 19

its future development. The analysis of keywords and highly cited literature demonstrates
that, although various technical means are being explored in an attempt to achieve residen-
tial sustainability, and evaluations related to energy efficiency, materials, water resources,
and lifecycle analysis are being conducted to ensure the quality of residential structures,
residential buildings continue to have a significant environmental impact. The underlying
causes behind these contradictory phenomena warrant further discussion and exploration.
Due to the commodity nature of most residential buildings, their construction, buying, sell-
ing, replacement, and renovation processes are subject to market factors. While they yield
commercial benefits, they also give rise to a range of environmental and residential fairness
issues. To address these challenges, it is imperative to reassess the concept of residence and
broaden the understanding of sustainability. It is recognized by the academic community
that evaluating residential buildings based solely on technical factors appears insufficient to
achieve sustainable development. Research on residential design evaluation has begun to
advocate for more comprehensive and wide-ranging assessments. Social factors, including
adaptability, flexibility, sociability, safety, healthiness, fairness, and inclusiveness, have
started to play an increasingly important role in evaluating the sustainability of residential
buildings, as exemplified by the influence of Kane’s 2007 article evaluating the residential
environment for older adults. Residential design evaluation based on this understanding
of sustainability can help to optimize residential design comprehensively, thereby elevating
industry standards, stimulating innovation, and ultimately realizing more sustainable and
humanized residential environments.
Based on the above analysis, it becomes evident that residential design evaluation
encompasses a broader significance beyond its function as a mere evaluation tool. It serves
as a reflection of human cognition of housing. While the literature data provide a tangible
manifestation of the evolving framework of residential design evaluation, its true essence
lies in its ability to represent the transformations in human understanding and perception
of the residential environment.

5. Conclusions
The current study uses bibliometrics to explore the core literature in the field of resi-
dential design evaluation and adopts CiteSpace and VOSviewer to deduce and analyze the
research status and development trends in the field of residential design evaluation, laying
the foundation for more in-depth theoretical research on residential design evaluation.
Firstly, the literature related to residential design evaluation has shown a continuous
growth trend since 2002, and especially since 2018; the annual number of papers published
has more than doubled compared to the period before 2018, indicating that a comprehen-
sive understanding of such research is urgent and necessary. This study involves multiple
disciplines, covering the environment, management, and economics based on construction
and building technology, with high requirements in terms of the researcher’s interdisci-
plinary background. It reflects the complex and comprehensive nature of this research
work. As of February 2023, this paper identified Pulselli et al. as representative figures
in the field of residential design evaluation using bibliometric methods and specified the
highly influential literature in this field. China, the UK, and the USA are major participants
in residential design evaluation research.
Secondly, the diversity of research fields and the analysis of keywords (over 90 key-
words had a frequency exceeding six) indicate that studies on residential design evaluation
have a variety of backgrounds, although housing sustainability is evaluated from two
main perspectives. One is the evaluation of the sustainability of residential technology to
evaluate more effectively whether sustainable technology is used optimally in residential
design to create a more efficient, energy-saving, and comfortable living environment while
mitigating environmental harm. Keywords for this perspective account for 70%, among
which the most frequently appearing one is “performance”. The other is the evaluation of
the social sustainability of residential buildings. The intention is to provide methods for
the evaluation of hidden factors in residential design and ensure the rights and interests of
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10088 16 of 19

vulnerable groups are upheld, such as energy rights and the right to an adequate standard
of living and, thus, to provide residential designs that are better adapted to residents’
physical habits, that protect safety, and that achieve residential fairness. During the process
of its development, the research focus of residential design evaluation has shifted from
technological sustainability to social sustainability. The high citation rates of the literature
on residential design for older adults and social housing affirm the public’s attention to
social equity, suggesting that residential design has entered a new stage. The study indi-
cates that the following aspects may become hot topics in the future. First, to address the
worsening global climate, residential design evaluations of technological sustainability,
such as residential energy consumption, will remain a research focus in this field. Second,
following the global pandemic, issues in the social sustainability dimension, such as the
flexibility, adaptability, and health of residential spaces, will continue to be of concern to the
academic community. Third, still from the perspective of social sustainability, the decline
in global birth rates, negative population growth, and other aging issues have made it
increasingly necessary to establish an evaluation system for housing design for older adults.
This, therefore, may become a future research focus.
This study provides a development path for residential design evaluation, a review
of the research history, and important references to formulate residential policies. The
research findings can also help residential design researchers to formulate new research
directions, provide solutions for some basic design research as well as the application of
new technologies, and guide scholars in forming new perspectives. In future research,
residential design evaluation will be studied in terms of sustainability, and the discrepancy
between technological and social sustainability evaluations via residential design practice
will be analyzed.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.S.; methodology, M.S.; software, M.S.; validation, M.S.,
J.C. and Y.X.; formal analysis, M.S.; investigation, M.S.; resources, M.S.; data curation, M.S. and Y.X.;
writing—original draft preparation, M.S.; writing—review and editing, M.S.; visualization, M.S. and
Y.X.; supervision, J.C.; project administration, J.C.; funding acquisition, J.C. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Project of Humani-
ties and Social Sciences, grant number 20YJC760093.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Chen, Y.; Li, M.; Lu, J.; Chen, B. Influence of residential indoor environment on quality of life in China. Build. Environ. 2023,
232, 110068. [CrossRef]
2. Jiang, W.; Lu, Q.W.; Lin, S.H.; Lv, H.; Zhao, X.; Cong, H. A New Hybrid Decision-Making Model for Promoting Sustainable Social
Rental Housing. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6420. [CrossRef]
3. Deng, Y.; Mu, Y.; Wang, X.; Jin, S.; He, K.; Jia, H.; Li, S. Two-stage residential community energy management utilizing EVs and
household load flexibility under grid outage event. Energy Rep. 2023, 9, 337–344. [CrossRef]
4. Yunitsyna, A. Evaluation of contemporary housing in Tirana using space syntax visibility graphs. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2022, 38,
651–669. [CrossRef]
5. Ronald, R.; Lennartz, C. Housing Careers, Intergenerational Support and Family Relations; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
6. Di, F.C.; Dagkouly-Kyriakoglou, M. The housing pathways of lesbian and gay youth and intergenerational family relations: A
Southern European perspective. Hous. Stud. 2022, 37, 414–434.
7. Pacheco, R.; Ordóñez, J.; Martínez, G. Energy efficient design of building: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16,
3559–3573. [CrossRef]
8. Evins, R. A review of computational optimisation methods applied to sustainable building design. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2013, 22, 230–245. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10088 17 of 19

9. Chau, C.K.; Leung, T.M.; Ng, W.Y. A review on life cycle assessment, life cycle energy assessment and life cycle carbon emissions
assessment on buildings. Appl. Energy 2015, 143, 395–413. [CrossRef]
10. Roy, N.; Dubé, R.; Després, C.; Freitas, A.; Légaré, F. Choosing between staying at home or moving: A systematic review of factors
influencing housing decisions among frail older adults. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0189266. [CrossRef]
11. Stephens, C.; Szabó, Á.; Allen, J.; Alpass, F. Livable environments and the quality of life of older people: An ecological perspective.
Gerontologist 2019, 59, 675–685. [CrossRef]
12. Ausserhofer, D.; Deschodt, M.; De Geest, S.; van Achterberg, T.; Meyer, G.; Verbeek, H.; Sjetne, I.S.; Malinowska-Lipień, I.;
Griffiths, P.; Schlüter, W.; et al. There’s no place like home”: A scoping review on the impact of homelike residential care models
on resident-, family-, and staff-related outcomes. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2016, 17, 685–693. [CrossRef]
13. Lau, M.H.M. Residential Age Segregation: Evidence from a Rapidly Ageing Asian City. J. Popul. Ageing 2023, 1–21. [CrossRef]
14. Wang, X.J.; Zhang, J.; Gao, Q.Q. The comprehensive evaluation for design elements of urban aged residential engineering project
based on NSFDSS. Syst. Eng. Procedia 2011, 1, 236–243.
15. Gómez-Jiménez, M.L.; Antonio, V.Y. Key Elements for a New Spanish Legal and Architectural Design of Adequate Housing for
Seniors in a Pandemic Time. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7838. [CrossRef]
16. Tomioka, K.; Kurumatani, N.; Hosoi, H. Association between social participation and instrumental activities of daily living
among community-dwelling older adults. J. Epidemiol. 2016, 26, 553–561. [CrossRef]
17. Rojo-Perez, F.; Rodriguez-Rodriguez, V.; Fernandez-Mayoralas, G.; Sánchez-González, D.; Perez de Arenaza Escribano, C.;
Rojo-Abuin, J.M.; Forjaz, M.J.; Molina-Martínez, M.Á.; Rodriguez-Blazquez, C. Residential Environment Assessment by Older
Adults in Nursing Homes during COVID-19 Outbreak. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16354. [CrossRef]
18. Giorgi, E.; Martín López, L.; Garnica-Monroy, R.; Krstikj, A.; Montoya, M.A. Co-housing response to social isolation of COVID-19
outbreak, with a focus on gender implications. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7203. [CrossRef]
19. Appau, M.W.; Attakora-Amaniampong, E.; Tannor, O. Student housing design implications for single-room occupancy during
COVID-19 in Ghana. Open House Int. 2023, 48, 356–380. [CrossRef]
20. Ito, T.; Hirata-Mogi, S.; Watanabe, T.; Sugiyama, T.; Jin, X.; Kobayashi, S.; Tamiya, N. Change of use in community services among
disabled older adults during COVID-19 in Japan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1148. [CrossRef]
21. Yip, C.C.; Sridhar, S.; Cheng, A.K.; Leung, K.H.; Choi, G.K.; Chen, J.H.; Poon, R.W.; Chan, K.H.; Wu, A.K.; Chan, H.S.; et al.
Evaluation of the commercially available LightMix® Modular E-gene kit using clinical and proficiency testing specimens for
SARS-CoV-2 detection. J. Clin. Virol. 2020, 129, 104476. [CrossRef]
22. Świader,
˛ M.; Szewrański, S.; Kazak, J.K. Environmental carrying capacity assessment—The policy instrument and tool for
sustainable spatial management. Front. Environ. Sci. 2020, 8, 579838. [CrossRef]
23. Chen, A.; Newman, S. Validity of older homeowners’ housing evaluations. Gerontologist 1987, 27, 309–313. [CrossRef]
24. Nasar, J.L.; de Nivia, C.U. A post occupancy evaluation for the design of a light pre-fabricated housing system for low income
groups in Colombia. J. Archit. Plan. Res. 1987, 4, 199–211.
25. Betts, M. The economic evaluation of public housing projects. In Proceedings of the European Symposium on Management,
Quality and Economics in Housing and Other Building Sectors, Lisbon, Portugal, 30 Spetember–4 October 1991; p. 916.
26. Kumar, S.; Tiwari, G.N.; Sinha, S. Optimization and comparative thermal evaluation of four different solarium-cum-solar houses.
Energy Convers. Manag. 1994, 35, 835–842. [CrossRef]
27. Ulusoy, Z. Housing rehabilitation and its role in neighborhood change: A framework for evaluation. J. Archit. Plan. Res. 1998, 15,
243–257.
28. Natividade-Jesus, E.; Coutinho-Rodrigues, J.; Antunes, C.H. A multicriteria decision support system for housing evaluation.
Decis. Support Syst. 2007, 43, 779–790. [CrossRef]
29. Foster, S.; Hooper, P.; Duckworth, A.; Bolleter, J. An evaluation of the policy and practice of designing and implementing healthy
apartment design standards in three Australian cities. Build. Environ. 2022, 207, 108493. [CrossRef]
30. Rangiwhetu, L.; Pierse, N.; Chisholm, E. Public housing and well-being: Evaluation frameworks to influence policy. Health Educ.
Behav. 2020, 47, 825–835. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Jiboye, A.D. Post-occupancy evaluation of residential satisfaction in Lagos, Nigeria: Feedback for residential improvement. Front.
Archit. Res. 2012, 1, 236–243. [CrossRef]
32. Basińska, M.; Kaczorek, D.; Koczyk, H. Building thermo-modernisation solution based on the multi-objective optimisation
method. Energies 2020, 13, 1433. [CrossRef]
33. Ding, X.; Yang, Z. Knowledge mapping of platform research: A visual analysis using VOSviewer and CiteSpace. Electron. Commer.
Res. 2020, 22, 787–809. [CrossRef]
34. Godin, B. On the origins of bibliometrics. Scientometrics 2006, 68, 109–133. [CrossRef]
35. Broadus, R.N. Toward a definition of “bibliometrics”. Scientometrics 1987, 12, 373–379. [CrossRef]
36. Chen, C.; Chen, Y. Searching for clinical evidence in CiteSpace. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 2005, 2005, 121–125.
37. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Text mining and visualization using VOSviewer. arXiv 2011, arXiv:1109.2058.
38. Chan, E.H.W.; Lam, K.S.; Wong, W.S. Evaluation on indoor environment quality of dense urban residential buildings. J. Facil.
Manag. 2008, 6, 245–265. [CrossRef]
39. Jones, P.J.; Alexander, D.; Marsh, A.; Burnett, J. Evaluation of methods for modelling daylight and sunlight in high rise Hong
Kong residential buildings. Indoor Built Environ. 2004, 13, 249–258. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10088 18 of 19

40. Choi, A.S.; Jang, S.J.; Park, B.C.; Kim, Y.O.; Kim, Y.S. Rational-design process and evaluation of street-lighting design for apartment
complexes. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 3001–3013. [CrossRef]
41. Pan, A.P. Evaluation of Innovation Effect of Residential Design Based on Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Method. Appl. Mech.
Mater. 2010, 37, 407–411. [CrossRef]
42. Zhang, J.; Liu, N.; Wang, S. Generative design and performance optimization of residential buildings based on parametric
algorithm. Energy Build. 2021, 244, 111033. [CrossRef]
43. Huang, Z.Y. Evaluating intelligent residential communities using multi-strategic weighting method in China. Energy Build. 2014,
69, 144–153. [CrossRef]
44. Cho, M. Housing Workers’ Evaluations of Residential Environmental Quality in South Korean Welfare Housing for Low-Income,
Single-Parent Families. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5599. [CrossRef]
45. Kim, J.; Kent, M.; Kral, K.; Dogan, T. Seemo: A new tool for early design window view satisfaction evaluation in residential
buildings. Build. Environ. 2022, 214, 108909. [CrossRef]
46. Torrington, J. Evaluating quality of life in residential care buildings. Build. Res. Inf. 2007, 35, 514–528. [CrossRef]
47. Anastaselos, D.; Oxizidis, S.; Manoudis, A.; Papadopoulos, A.M. Environmental performance of energy systems of residential
buildings: Toward sustainable communities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 20, 96–108. [CrossRef]
48. Akalin, A.; Yildirim, K.; Wilson, C.; Kilicoglu, O. Architecture and engineering students’ evaluations of house façades: Preference,
complexity and impressiveness. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 124–132. [CrossRef]
49. Wilson, C. Users’ Evaluations of House FaÇades: Preference, Complexity and Impressivenes. Open House Int. 2010, 35, 57–65.
50. Hidayetoglu, M.L.; Yildirim, K.; Akalin, A. The effects of color and light on indoor wayfinding and the evaluation of the perceived
environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2012, 32, 50–58. [CrossRef]
51. Pulselli, R.M.; Simoncini, E.; Marchettini, N. Energy and emergy based cost–benefit evaluation of building envelopes relative to
geographical location and climate. Build. Environ. 2009, 44, 920–928. [CrossRef]
52. Giddings, B.; Sharma, M.; Jones, P.; Jensen, P. An evaluation tool for design quality: PFI sheltered housing. Build. Res. Inf. 2013,
41, 690–705. [CrossRef]
53. Orrell, A.; McKee, K.; Torrington, J.; Barnes, S.; Darton, R.; Netten, A.; Lewis, A. The relationship between building design and
residents’ quality of life in extra care housing schemes. Health Place 2013, 21, 52–64. [CrossRef]
54. Yang, Y.Q.; Wang, S.Q.; Dulaimi, M.; Sui, P.L. A fuzzy quality function deployment system for buildable design decision-makings.
Autom. Constr. 2003, 12, 381–393. [CrossRef]
55. Barton, A.; Basham, M.; Foy, C.; Buckingham, K.; Somerville, M. The Watcombe Housing Study: The short term effect of
improving housing conditions on the health of residents. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2007, 61, 771–777. [CrossRef]
56. Vaid, U.; Evans, G.W. Housing quality and health: An evaluation of slum rehabilitation in India. Environ. Behav. 2017, 49, 771–790.
[CrossRef]
57. Wang, P.K.; Shih, S.G.; Perng, Y.H. Competitive Advantage Evaluation Model of Sustainable Housing Design. Sustainability 2020,
12, 6020. [CrossRef]
58. Victoria, M.F.; Deveci, G.; Musau, F.; Clubb, M. Life cycle carbon and cost assessment comparing milled and whole timber truss
systems and insulation options for affordable housing. Energy Build. 2023, 285, 112895. [CrossRef]
59. Hyun, C.T.; Cho, K.M.; Hong, T.; Moon, H. Effect of delivery methods on design performance in multifamily housing projects.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2008, 134, 468–482. [CrossRef]
60. Bianchi, P.F.; Yepes, V.; Vitorio, P.C., Jr.; Kripka, M. Study of alternatives for the design of sustainable low-income housing in
Brazil. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4757. [CrossRef]
61. Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Antucheviciene, J. Selecting a contractor by using a novel method for multiple attribute analysis:
Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment with grey values (WASPAS-G). Stud. Inform. Control. 2015, 24, 141–150. [CrossRef]
62. Shi, J.; Sun, J. Prefabrication Implementation Potential Evaluation in Rural Housing Based on Entropy Weighted TOPSIS Model:
A Case Study of Counties in Chongqing, China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4906. [CrossRef]
63. Abu-Ghazzeh, T.M. Housing layout, social interaction, and the place of contact in Abu-Nuseir, Jordan. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999,
19, 41–73. [CrossRef]
64. Eizenberg, E.; Jabareen, Y. Social sustainability: A new conceptual framework. Sustainability 2017, 9, 68. [CrossRef]
65. Tiefenbeck, V.; Staake, T.; Roth, K.; Sachs, O. For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral energy
conservation campaign. Energy Policy 2013, 57, 160–171. [CrossRef]
66. Yu, Y.; Wang, F.; Zhu, F. Residential satisfaction of elderly as determinant behind design thinking in urban planning. Nano Life
2018, 8, 1840004. [CrossRef]
67. Cheng, B.; Lu, K.; Li, J.; Chen, H.; Luo, X.; Shafique, M. Comprehensive assessment of embodied environmental impacts of
buildings using normalized environmental impact factors. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 334, 130083. [CrossRef]
68. Sun, Y.; Ng, M.K.; Chao, T.Y.S.; He, S.J.; Mok, S.H. The impact of place attachment on well-being for older people in high-density
urban environment: A qualitative study. J. Aging Soc. Policy 2022, 1–21. [CrossRef]
69. Hoicka, C.E.; Parker, P.; Andrey, J. Residential energy efficiency retrofits: How program design affects participation and outcomes.
Energy Policy 2014, 65, 594–607. [CrossRef]
70. Praznik, M.; Butala, V.; Senegačnik, M.Z. Simplified evaluation method for energy efficiency in single-family houses using key
quality parameters. Energy Build. 2013, 67, 489–499. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10088 19 of 19

71. Gill, Z.M.; Tierney, M.J.; Pegg, I.M.; Allan, N. Low-energy dwellings: The contribution of behaviours to actual performance. Build.
Res. Inf. 2010, 38, 491–508. [CrossRef]
72. Pulselli, R.M.; Simoncini, E.; Pulselli, F.M.; Bastianoni, S. Emergy analysis of building manufacturing, maintenance and use:
Em-building indices to evaluate housing sustainability. Energy Build. 2007, 39, 620–628. [CrossRef]
73. Sage-Lauck, J.S.; Sailor, D.J. Evaluation of phase change materials for improving thermal comfort in a super-insulated residential
building. Energy Build. 2014, 79, 32–40. [CrossRef]
74. Gerilla, G.P.; Teknomo, K.; Hokao, K. An environmental assessment of wood and steel reinforced concrete housing construction.
Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 2778–2784. [CrossRef]
75. Juan, Y.K.; Kim, J.H.; Roper, K.; Castro-Lacouture, D. GA-based decision support system for housing condition assessment and
refurbishment strategies. Autom. Constr. 2009, 18, 394–401. [CrossRef]
76. Ippolito, M.G.; Sanseverino, E.R.; Zizzo, G. Impact of building automation control systems and technical building management
systems on the energy performance class of residential buildings: An Italian case study. Energy Build. 2014, 69, 33–40. [CrossRef]
77. Kane, R.A.; Lum, T.Y.; Cutler, L.J.; Degenholtz, H.; Yu, T. Resident outcomes in small-house nursing homes: A longitudinal
evaluation of the initial green house program. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2007, 55, 832–839. [CrossRef]
78. James, B.D.; Boyle, P.A.; Buchman, A.S.; Barnes, L.L.; Bennett, D.A. Life space and risk of Alzheimer disease, mild cognitive
impairment, and cognitive decline in old age. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2011, 19, 961–969. [CrossRef]
79. Hui, L.; N’Tsoukpoe, K.E.; Lingai, L. Evaluation of a seasonal storage system of solar energy for house heating using different
absorption couples. Energy Convers. Manag. 2011, 52, 2427–2436. [CrossRef]
80. Zhu, Y.; Lin, B. Sustainable housing and urban construction in China. Energy Build. 2004, 36, 1287–1297. [CrossRef]
81. Stevenson, F.; Rijal, H.B. Developing occupancy feedback from a prototype to improve housing production. Build. Res. Inf. 2010,
38, 549–563. [CrossRef]
82. Motuzienė, V.; Rogoža, A.; Lapinskienė, V.; Vilutienė, T. Construction solutions for energy efficient single-family house based on
its life cycle multi-criteria analysis: A case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 532–541. [CrossRef]
83. Kaewunruen, S.; Rungskunroch, P.; Welsh, J. A digital-twin evaluation of net zero energy building for existing buildings.
Sustainability 2018, 11, 159. [CrossRef]
84. Biswas, B.; Sultana, Z.; Priovashini, C.; Ahsan, M.N.; Mallick, B. The emergence of residential satisfaction studies in social
research: A bibliometric analysis. Habitat Int. 2021, 109, 102336. [CrossRef]
85. Kolani, K.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, D.; Nouyep Tchitchui, J.U.; Okolo, C.V. Passive building design for improving indoor thermal comfort
in tropical climates: A bibliometric analysis using CiteSpace. Indoor Built Environ. 2023, 142, 0326X231158512. [CrossRef]
86. Geng, S.; Wang, Y.; Zuo, J.; Zhou, Z.; Du, H.; Mao, G. Building life cycle assessment research: A review by bibliometric analysis.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 76, 176–184. [CrossRef]
87. Tarragona, J.; de Gracia, A.; Cabeza, L.F. Bibliometric analysis of smart control applications in thermal energy storage systems. A
model predictive control approach. J. Energy Storage 2020, 32, 101–704. [CrossRef]
88. Fauzi, M.A.; Abidin, N.H.Z.; Suki, N.M.; Budiea, A.M.A. Residential rooftop solar panel adoption behavior: Bibliometric analysis
of the past and future trends. Renew. Energy Focus 2023, 45, 1–9. [CrossRef]
89. Omrany, H.; Chang, R.; Soebarto, V.; Zhang, Y.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Zuo, J. A bibliometric review of net zero energy building
research 1995–2022. Energy Build. 2022, 262, 111996. [CrossRef]

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.