MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407308429 · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2025.115471

Integrating urban building energy modeling (UBEM) and urban-building environmental impact assessment (UB-EIA) for sustainable urban development: A comprehensive review

2025· review· en· W4407308429 on OpenAlexaff
Yang Li, Haibo Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental planningSustainable developmentUrban planningEnvironmental impact assessmentUrban environmentEnvironmental resource managementArchitectural engineeringEnvironmental scienceCivil engineeringEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid urbanization has increased energy demand and environmental impacts in urban buildings, highlighting the need to understand building interactions and energy transfer. This has led to various methodologies for large-scale building assessment, such as Urban Building Energy Modeling (UBEM) and Urban-Building Environmental Impact Assessment (UB-EIA). Both have been separately and widely studied to support urban planning and building design, develop sustainable and smart cities, and enable stakeholders to optimize resource use and make informed decisions. However, a detailed comparative analysis of various UBEM and UB-EIA methodologies and their integrations have not been thoroughly reviewed in current existing research. To fill this research gap, this comprehensive review systematically investigated 157 articles to understand the evolution, methodologies, challenges of UBEM and UB-EIA. This review provides a holistic understanding, highlighting complementary strengths and identifying opportunities for integration to enhance urban building sustainability assessments. The findings of the review found that integrating UBEM and UB-EIA holds significant potential for enhancing urban sustainability usually through a comprehensive, data-driven approach. UBEM can serve as a foundation for UB-EIA by using similar data and methods, improving validation, and addressing gaps. UB-EIA's reliance on Building Information Management (BIM) can be enhanced by UBEM's detailed 2D and 3D models for precise EIA. This integration fosters more informed decision-making, promoting resilient and sustainable urban development by accurately reflecting complex urban interactions. Further research should explore the social and economic impacts of urban buildings using integrated UBEM and UB-EIA strategies for thorough and robust assessments. • Evaluates current UBEM and UB-EIA, assessing their strengths and limitations. • Promotes the need for integration and validation for effective UBEM and UB-EIA. • Highlights opportunities to enhance data transparency in UBEM and UB-EIA. • Reviews data collection, modeling, and validation for both UBEM and UB-EIA. • Provides insights for integrating environmental and energy profiles in urban buildings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenewable and Sustainable Energy ReviewsSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207