Introduction
The architecture, engineering, construction, and operation (AECO) sector faces several sustainability challenges. Environmentally, it contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions and the depletion of natural resources (Kanafani et al., 2023). Socially, the AECO sector faces issues such as ensuring worker safety and minimising negative impacts on local communities (Zhang et al., 2020). Economically, the sector often struggles to balance cost efficiency with the adoption of sustainable practices (Alaloul et al., 2022; Hussain & Hussain, 2023). These challenges underscore the need for a systemic transformation toward sustainable construction and building management.
Digital transformation has been shown to support sustainability transformation by enabling data-driven decision-making, process automation, and enhanced transparency (Chatzistamoulou, 2023). In the AECO sector, digital building permit (DBP) processes and digital building logbooks (DBL) can contribute to supporting sustainable construction and building management (Crisan et al., 2024). The DBP process utilises digital tools and online building permitting and compliance services to streamline and automate the preparation, review, and approval of building permits (Ataide et al., 2023; Fauth et al., 2024; Ullah et al., 2022). The DBP process is found to be more efficient, faster, and transparent (Noardo et al., 2022). On the other hand, DBL encompasses all pertinent building-related data throughout the building’s entire lifecycle, providing various stakeholders with the specific information they need for different purposes at the appropriate times (Malinovec Puček et al., 2023).
DBP and DBL concepts are intertwined throughout the building lifecycle (Mêda et al., 2024a). For instance, DBL can provide datasets required for DBP initiation, while DBP outputs can be automatically recorded in DBL, ensuring continuity and compliance documentation from the outset. This interoperability is further strengthened by their shared reliance on Building Information Modelling (BIM), which serves as a foundational layer for digital twins and lifecycle analytics (Mêda et al., 2021). As the building enters the in-use phase, several services and purposes are expected to be provided by the DBL, whereas real-time data are captured and versioned if required, reflecting any changes or inspections related to the permit (European Commission, 2021; Mêda et al., 2024a; Mêda et al., 2024b; Volt & Toth, 2020).
The availability of consistent and reliable building data can contribute to better design, construction, and management of buildings. Currently, data regarding the physical characteristics of buildings, including information on environmental performance, sustainability, and the data necessary for checking building code compliance, remains unreliable, scarce, and inaccessible. Together, DBP and DBL can establish a common approach that aggregates all related data on a building, such as building materials and energy usage, helping to identify inefficiencies and to take corrective measures to reduce waste (Mêda et al., 2024a). Building-related data can also help better manage building maintenance by identifying potential risks associated with the lifespan of building systems and materials (European Commission, 2021; Mêda et al., 2024a; Mêda et al., 2024b; Volt & Toth, 2020). Additionally, non-digital or paper-based systems require extensive paperwork, multiple physical copies, the consumption of other resources for their generation, and numerous in-person visits to various government offices. By contrast, a digital system eliminates the need for physical documents, reduces paper usage, and conserves the resources—such as trees and water — used in paper production. Moreover, by streamlining administrative tasks, digital systems can reduce the energy consumption associated with running a physical office.
Thus, DBP and DBL have the potential to enhance the efficiency, transparency, and sustainability of the construction and building management processes. They promise more precise planning and efficient resource utilisation, reduced waste, and improved building energy management (Crisan et al., 2024; Mêda et al., 2024a; Mêda et al., 2024b; Noardo et al., 2022). However, despite their theoretical promise, empirical evidence on the sustainability impacts of DBP and DBL remains limited. Several studies have mentioned that DBP processes enhance sustainability (Amor & Dimyadi, 2021; Malinovec Puček et al., 2023). Still, these studies treat sustainability as an implicit outcome rather than a measurable objective; they do not explicitly investigate how and to what extent this is the case. Instead, they considered it to be an implicit consequence of the DBP process and DBL implementation. This presents a key research gap, as no study has yet empirically examined the sustainability impacts of DBP and DBL.
To address this research gap, this study poses the following research question: What are the sustainability impacts of DBL and DBP, and how can those impacts be achieved? The study answers this question by applying the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations, 2024) as an analytical framework to examine the sustainability of DBP and DBL. This approach enables a structured evaluation of how DBP and DBL practices can promote environmental, social, and economic sustainability. The study extends prior work by providing a replicable method for mapping digital construction practices to global sustainability targets and validating them through expert and stakeholder engagement. The study also contributes to sustainable construction and building management by identifying DBP and DBL practices that support global sustainability objectives. Unlike previous studies that treat sustainability as an assumed outcome of digitalisation, this research systematically maps specific DBP and DBL practices to the SDG targets. This offers a structured, replicable methodology for evaluating sustainability in the digitalisation of construction permitting and lifecycle management.
Research process
The research consisted of four phases that combined expert elicitation, literature synthesis, and validation through a stakeholder workshop. This approach integrates both academic and practical perspectives, ensuring that the identified sustainability impacts are grounded in real-world practices and validated by a diverse group of professionals (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Research process: data collection methods, research phases and outputs.
In the first phase, the authors, considered as an expert group, searched for literature on the relationship between sustainability and DBP and DBL. The expert group was selected using purposive sampling, targeting individuals with at least two years of experience in research or implementation of DBP and/or DBL. Most experts were actively involved in ongoing European research and development (R&D) projects related to these topics. The authors applied the UN SDGs as a structured sustainability analytical framework to assess the sustainability impacts of DBP and DBL practices.
The SDGs comprise 17 goals, each with specific targets to be achieved by 2030. In total, there were 169 targets across all SDGs. During this first phase, the expert group analysed the relationships between DBP processes and SDGs, as well as between DBL and SDGs. Following an autoethnographic approach (Grosse, 2019), the expert group used their experience and knowledge to identify which SDGs were related to DBP and DBL.
The first round of analysis yielded some dissenting opinions among the expert group; however, after discussions, ten SDGs were selected as being related to DBP and/or DBL: 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17.
The second phase focused on identifying relevant targets of the selected SDGs. The selected Goals 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17 have a total of 95 Targets. The expert group also searched for evidence-based sources – reports, scientific articles, and regulatory documents – to support their claims on the relationships. This phase provides a list of selected targets for the selected SDGs.
In the third phase, the expert group specified DBP and DBL practices to support the relevant targets, underlined with references where possible. The references ranged from scientific literature and project reports to practical and project experience.
In phase 4, the expert group organised a single-point-in-time assessment workshop to enhance the empirical robustness and stakeholder relevance of the results and validate them. The hybrid workshop had 38 participants, approximately half of whom participated onsite and the rest online. The workshop was conducted on September 24, 2024, at the Sustainable Places 2024 conference in Luxembourg. Participants were provided with a research information sheet that explained the research and their rights. Personal or sensitive data were not collected; however, some background information on the participants was collected anonymously using a Slido online tool1 to ensure that participants were competent in validating the study results. All responses were aggregated to ensure participant privacy. The participants were asked about their country of origin, professional title, and level of knowledge of DBP and DBL. Most of the participants worked in R&D related to the built environment. The professional titles included project managers, research associates, researchers, R&D directors, and a professor. On a scale of 1 (no knowledge), 2 (some knowledge), 3 (lots of knowledge), and 4 (experts in the field), participants’ levels of knowledge of DBP and DBL varied. However, most participants had a significant understanding of either DBPs or DBLs. The participants came from the following European countries and regions: Luxembourg, Portugal, the UK, the Netherlands, Spain (including Catalonia), France, Italy, Poland, Germany, and Belgium.
The workshop consisted of two parts. The first part, lasting 1.5 hours, included an introduction consisting of a research information sheet (10 minutes), a presentation of the SDGs (20 minutes), and six project presentations on DBP and DBL from ongoing R&D projects (60 minutes). After the first part, there was a 30-minute break for coffee. The second part of the workshop began with collecting background information on the participants using Slido (20 minutes). Then it continued with group discussions to validate the connection between SDGs and DBP processes and DBLs (70 minutes). The participants were not shown the analysis that the expert group had done. Still, they had the opportunity to make their observations, which the expert group then compared with its findings after the workshop. During the group discussions, participants could select from three options to indicate their perception of the relationship between each SDG and DBP, as well as between each SDG and DBL: 0 (no relationship), 1 (implicitly related), or 2 (explicitly related). The exercise was conducted on an online Miro tool2, which allowed both in-person and remote participants to contribute in real-time. Miro included two tables: one for analysing the relationship between SDGs and DBP and one for analysing the relationship between SDGs and DBL. Both tables’ columns included the scale numbers (0, 1, and 2), and rows included the 17 SDGs. Mainly, the discussion facilitators made notes on tables based on the group discussions. However, the participants could also access the tables themselves, but only a few added any content there.
The Slido and Miro tools were chosen for their accessibility and ability to support hybrid participation. All data were processed manually by the research team individually and then cross-validated together in a group discussion among the research team. As the study was qualitative and based on expert judgment and group consensus, no numerical data normalisation or standardisation was required.
Results
This section reports findings regarding the relationship between SDGs and DBP and/or DBL. SDGs 7, 9, 11, and 13 had the most evident relationship to DBP and DBL practices. The results originated from the expert group and workshop discussions. The workshop participants agreed that DBP processes and DBLs can enhance sustainability in the AECO sector. They highlighted how DBP and DBL can enhance the traceability of materials, mitigate environmental impacts, and foster circularity in construction. The participants strongly emphasised data transparency and interoperability, which could further streamline sustainable practices. These workshop findings were aligned with those of the expert group.
Supplementary Table 13 lists those SDGs and targets (target descriptions are directly quoted) that were identified as linked to sustainable DBP or DBL practices through evidence-based references (marked after the name of the goal), the expert group and/or workshop discussions. The right column of the supplementary Table 1 describes the DBP and DBL practices that contribute to achieving ten SDGs: 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), 10 (Reduced Inequalities), 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), 13 (Climate Action), 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) and 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).
The following paragraphs briefly summarise the findings regarding the relationship between DBP and DBL to the targets of the selected SDGs and sustainable practices.
Regarding SDG 3, “Good Health and Well-Being,” and its chosen targets of 3.4, 3.6, 3.8, and 3.9, it was found that DBP processes can support universal health coverage by ensuring that health facilities are safe and comply with health standards (Soliman-Junior et al., 2020; Soliman-Junior et al., 2021). DBL, a Digital Twin enabler, captures data related to soil properties, toxicity of used materials, and building air quality, thereby supporting users’ health and safety. The role of DBL as a digital twin enabler is further elaborated in a recent study that highlights how lifecycle data can be leveraged to support circular construction and sustainability goals (Mêda et al., 2024c). In general, digital services have ensured access to public services despite physical restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, underscoring the importance of digital systems in times of crisis.
Regarding SDG 7, “Affordable and Clean Energy,” and its chosen Targets 7.1-7.3, it was found that DBPs, while not directly related to energy services, influence the planning and construction of energy-efficient buildings, and the incorporation of renewable energy sources such as geo-energy (Majuri et al., 2020). Building codes and regulations within the permit process can mandate energy-efficient designs, materials, and technologies, thereby reducing energy consumption. However, research indicates discrepancies between the permitted energy consumption calculations and actual measurements (Ruusala et al., 2018). Permits also facilitate the installation of renewable energy systems, thereby contributing to a sustainable energy mix (Chen et al., 2024; Li & Feng, 2023). Regarding the SDG7 targets, 7.a and 7.b, DBP processes are national mechanisms with some similarities (Bloch & Fauth, 2023; Fauth et al., 2023a; Fauth et al., 2023b; Fauth & Soibelman, 2022; Noardo et al., 2022). They can facilitate knowledge transfer and capacity building, which are essential for deploying energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. Enforcing regulations for energy-efficient materials and technologies through building permits promotes the adoption of clean energy and supports investment in energy infrastructure.
Regarding SDG 8, “Decent Work and Economic Growth,” and its chosen Targets 8.1–8.5, it was identified that DBP processes ensure safety and regulatory compliance while also boosting economic productivity by fostering innovation, efficiency, and the use of sustainable materials (Fauth et al., 2024). Digital technologies can streamline the permitting process, reduce bureaucratic barriers, and facilitate SME growth (Ataide et al., 2023; Beach et al., 2024; Beach et al., 2020). This can boost economic activity and job creation (World Bank Group, 2020; World Bank Group, 2024). Digitalisation enhances transparency and efficiency, making regulatory navigation easier for entrepreneurs and simplifying compliance. Digitalising the building permit process reduces paper usage and streamlines operations, leading to efficient resource use. It enhances data collection and analysis, informing sustainable urban planning and construction. Digitalisation also enhances the monitoring and enforcement of environmental regulations, creates tech job opportunities, and improves access to services for a wider range of people.
Regarding SDG 9, “Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure,” and its chosen targets 9.1–9.5, it was discovered that DBP supports resilient infrastructure by enhancing project efficiency and transparency and reducing delays and costs. This ensures that new constructions meet modern sustainability and resilience standards, foster innovation through smart technologies, and ensure compliance with building codes and safety regulations. Automated code compliance checks verify adherence to seismic and sustainability standards (Amor & Dimyadi, 2021; Patlakas et al., 2024). DBP processes support digital transformation, improve resource-use efficiency, and encourage clean and environmentally sound technologies and industries (Ataide et al., 2023; Crisan et al., 2024). Innovations such as applied computing for code compliance checking can boost the R&D workforce and increase public and private R&D spending (Amor & Dimyadi, 2021).
Regarding SDG 10, “Reduced Inequalities,” and its chosen Targets 10.2 and 10.3, it was found that DBP processes and DBL provide insights into the built stock, its condition, occupancy, and costs, aiding decision-making. Thus, they enhance transparency, reduce discriminatory practices, and ensure equal opportunities.
Regarding SDG 11, “Sustainable Cities and Communities,” and its chosen targets 11.1–11.7, and 11. a. The analysis revealed that DBP processes streamlined housing project approvals, facilitating the development of affordable housing and access to basic services, which in turn led to more efficient resource utilisation and faster housing delivery. Digitalising the permit process enhances urban planning efficiency and transparency, facilitating citizen participation and developer compliance (Eirinaki et al., 2018). Digital processes enhance transparency and accountability, ensuring that buildings meet sustainability and resilience standards. Streamlining the permit process reduces time and cost, aiding developers in the least-developed countries. This fosters efficient use of local materials and sustainable building practices (cdbb, 2019; Olanrewaju Yusuf et al., 2021).
Regarding SDG 12, “Responsible Consumption and Production”, and its chosen Targets 12.2 and 12.5-12.8, it was discovered that a digital permit process reduces the environmental impact of construction by minimising waste, optimising material use, and ensuring efficient resource use. It also provides better data for resource management and mandates the reuse of materials. Enhanced accessibility and transparency promote awareness of sustainable practices and regulations (Hradil et al., 2024), aligning with development goals. Selective demolition permits the reuse of recoverable materials based on data availability and DBL.
Regarding SDG 13, “Climate Action,” and its chosen Targets 13.1–13.3, digitalising the permit process can reduce construction’s environmental impact by minimising waste, optimising material use, and ensuring efficient resource use. It also provides improved data and analytics for resource management (Gillingham et al., 2021; Hradil, 2023; Hradil et al., 2024).
Regarding SDG 16¸ “Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions,” and its chosen targets of 16.6, 16.7, and 16.10, it was identified that digitalising the permit process improves transparency in government spending and budget implementation, ensuring effective use of resources for sustainable development (World Bank Group, 2020; World Bank Group, 2024). It enhances citizen engagement and inclusivity in local governance, promoting transparency and accountability. Digital platforms offer improved access to information and facilitate informed public participation in decision-making (Eirinaki et al., 2018).
Regarding SDG 17, “Partnerships for the Goals” and its chosen Targets 17.1 and 17.6, it was concluded that DBPs and DBLs enhance global collaboration in the building sector by offering a unified platform for data sharing throughout the building lifecycle. This standardisation promotes interoperability and cooperation, thereby aligning sustainability and efficiency efforts worldwide. (World Bank Group, 2020; World Bank Group, 2024)
These findings not only reveal which SDGs are affected but also demonstrate how specific digital practices contribute. For example, automatic compliance checking (DBP) directly supports SDG 9.4 (upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable) by ensuring that buildings meet efficiency and resilience standards from the outset. Similarly, the integration of the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) in DBL supports SDG 7.3 (doubling the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency) by enabling comparisons between theoretical and actual energy consumption and identifying corrective actions. These concrete examples illustrate the operational mechanisms by which DBP and DBL advance sustainability, moving beyond high-level assumptions into actionable pathways.
Discussion
In general, digital technologies can support the achievement of the SDGs (Mantovani Ribeiro et al., 2021). They can help identify and agree on the most sustainable ways to work, build appropriate skills across stakeholder groups, attract finance, and ensure practical processes for multi-stakeholder engagement at all stages of building construction. This study supports these findings in the context of DBP and DBL technologies, which provide opportunities for environmental, social, and economic sustainability. Environmentally, these technologies can help enhance energy management, reduce carbon emissions, and improve resource utilisation and waste reduction. Socially, they can promote social inclusion by creating an accessible, user-friendly, and remotely accessible built environment. Economically, they can offer cost savings and long-term financial benefits by streamlining permit application and building management processes, improving efficiency and transparency, and minimising human error or differences due to human interpretation through automated data handling. However, it is worth noting that digitalisation also has negative environmental impacts. For example, data storage has environmental impacts due to the high energy and water usage. Although solutions such as using renewable energy to power data centres are being studied to counteract this impact, more research is needed to understand the environmental impact of digitalisation.
Research conducted in the horticulture industry has also identified that digitalisation has the potential to support sustainability; however, we do not yet have evidence to support this claim, and thus, monitoring and evaluating the impact of digitalisation is needed (Sharma et al., 2023). To this end, this study is the first to systematically map DBP and DBL practices to specific Goals and Targets of the UN SDGs, providing a structured and replicable framework for future sustainability assessments.
Although this paper has envisioned a future in which digital means support the achievement of sustainable construction, challenges exist in the implementation of DBP processes and DBLs. These challenges can be grouped into initial implementation costs, data security, user adoption, and interoperability and provide the corresponding legislative framework for its correct deployment. The initial setup costs, which can be significant, include software development, hardware installation, and staff training. Data security and privacy concerns may arise owing to the storage of sensitive building data in a digital format. The digitalisation of building permits varies across Europe. Some regions adopt Artificial Intelligence (AI), whereas others use PDFs. The need for harmonisation at the European level is crucial for efficiency. Furthermore, ensuring compatibility and seamless data exchange between software platforms and building systems presents interoperability challenges. Therefore, solutions are needed to create strategies that support stakeholders in adopting digital solutions, ensuring the protection of sensitive information, addressing potential user resistance, and enhancing digital literacy. Thus, solutions for seamless data integration across platforms are needed, especially when considering multi-asset DBLs (e.g., for infrastructure), consisting of multiple lower-level DBLs. A lack of familiarity with digital tools among building controls, permit applicants, and management staff can also hinder user adoption. The digital divide, which affects people living in poverty (SDG 1), especially in rural areas and developing countries, is also a challenge. Thus, an improved digital infrastructure is crucial to ensure equitable access to DBPs and DBLs.
As data-driven concepts, DBP and DBL can reshape the way production, consumption, and living occur. However, data infrastructure platforms and governance frameworks are required to facilitate data pooling, access, and sharing. In the European Union, data spaces will play this role. In line with Europe’s strategy for the digital age, the legal framework is being revised. Concerning the built environment, the Common European Green Deal Data Space4 is developing a highly accurate digital model of the Earth, on top of which all other layers will stand. Currently, there are no common data spaces for construction or built environments. This situation may not be an issue if the required data is captured, stored, and managed in several data spaces. Nevertheless, understanding these boundaries may be challenging and raises several issues. However, if a construction or built environment is set in a similar situation with boundaries, defining the borders of this data space may be extremely difficult. All these ongoing discussions are relevant and constitute challenges for the system architecture and data management systems of DBP and DBL. The Rolling Plan for ICT Standardisation 20245 considers four key processes for all actions: “Data Governance”, “Data Discovery”, “Data Sharing”, and “Data Usage”. All these need to be evaluated from the data spaces and DBP/DBL perspectives. This paper primarily focuses on the “Data Usage” process, specifically supporting the achievement of the UN SDGs' targets; however, it is essential to work in conjunction with other processes to address the challenges.
Conclusions
This study addressed the following research question: “What are the sustainability impacts of DBL and DBP, and how can those impacts be achieved?”. To this end, this study applied the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a structured analytical framework to assess the sustainability impacts of DBP and DBL practices.
The findings regarding the first research question, “What are the sustainability impacts of DBL and DBP?”, are that DBP and DBL contribute, both directly and indirectly, to 10 out of 17 SDGs: 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), 13 (Climate Action), 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), and 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). This study documents how these sustainable impacts of DBP and DBL can be achieved. These findings indicate that digitalising building permits and logbooks provides environmental, social, and economic sustainability.
The findings regarding the second research question, “How can those impacts be achieved?”, are illustrated by concrete examples of DBP and DBL practices documented in Supplementary Table 1. For example, DBP and automatic code-compliance checking speed up approval times, reduce errors, increase transparency, help reduce building carbon footprint, improve operational efficiency, promote equal access to permitting processes, and streamline housing approvals, facilitating affordable housing development. DBL, on the other hand, supports energy-related data management by streamlining the issuance of Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) and enabling comparisons between theoretical and actual energy use. It also supports assessments for recyclability and design for disassembly, aligning with the principles of the circular economy. However, the quantitative effects of DBP and DBL remain to be determined. The value of digitalisation can only be measured once digital transformation has been completed and digitalisation is in place. During the transformation process, the impacts of DBP and DBL are challenging to measure, even though predictions can be made. Overall, the findings suggest that DBP processes and DBL are integral to a broader digital transformation that can support sustainability.
Additionally, the findings provide implicit evidence that DBP and DBL are increasingly aligned with the three current European initiatives and strategies. One of them is Europe’s fit for the digital age. DBP and DBL support the EU’s digital transformation by standardising data collection, management, and sharing across the construction sector. This harmonisation facilitates transparency, trust, and informed decision-making. Another initiative is the European Green Deal and its Renovation Wave, which aims to improve the energy efficiency of buildings. DBP and DBL can support the integration of data from energy performance certificates, smart readiness indicators, and building renovation passports, thereby supporting the Green Deal’s goals of reducing carbon emissions and promoting sustainable building practices. Finally, DBL can contribute to the New Circular Economy Action Plan initiative by providing a comprehensive repository of building-related data. These data help track materials and resources, promote reuse and recycling, and support the lifecycle management of buildings.
The impact of this study is twofold. First, it introduces a structured and replicable framework for assessing the sustainability of DBP and DBL practices by explicitly mapping them to specific SDG targets. This goes beyond prior literature, which often treats sustainability as an implicit benefit rather than a measurable outcome. Second, the study demonstrates how expert-driven analysis and stakeholder validation can be used to identify actionable DBP and DBL practices that support environmental, social, and economic sustainability. By doing so, the paper lays a foundation for future empirical research and policy development, supporting the alignment of digital construction tools with global sustainability objectives. This will enable both the quantitative and qualitative assessment of DBP and DBL research as it enters adoption across Europe. However, key future work is needed in this area to develop further and validate methods for assessing DBL and DBP implementation against the relevant SDGs.
Despite the strengths of this study, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the research is qualitative and based on expert elicitation and workshop validation, which may introduce subjectivity and limit generalisability. Second, the geographic scope of the workshop was primarily European, which may constrain the applicability of the findings to other regions with different regulatory or technological contexts. Third, the data reflect a single-point-in-time assessment conducted during the Sustainable Places 2024 conference and do not capture longitudinal changes or evolving practices. Fourth, while the online tools used for data collection facilitated data collection and collaboration, they limited the granularity of data and depth of interaction. Fifth, although this study identifies how specific DBP and DBL practices contribute to sustainability goals, it does not quantify the extent of those contributions. Measuring the actual sustainability impact—such as energy saved, emissions reduced, or time gained—requires future work with quantitative indicators, monitoring systems, and longitudinal data. These limitations highlight opportunities for future research to expand the scope, duration, and empirical depth of analysis. These limitations highlight opportunities for future research to expand the scope, duration, and empirical depth of analysis.
Declaration of AI-assisted technologies in the writing process
While finalising this article, the authors used Microsoft Copilot to edit the abstract and shorten some sentences. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and took full responsibility for the content of the published article.
Ethical consideration
Ethical approval and consent were not required.
Data availability
Extended data
Repository name: ACCORD project. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15078988
This project contains the following extended data:
Supplementary Table 1 (The selected targets of the selected SDGs and DBP and DBL practices with evidence-based references)
Workshop data (Data collected during a workshop on Digital Building Logbooks and Permit Processes for Sustainability. The workshop was held in Sustainable Places on the 24th of September 2024 in Luxembourg)
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Faculty Opinions recommendedReferences
- Alaloul WS, Musarat MA, Rabbani MBA, et al.:
Assessment of economic sustainability in the construction sector: evidence from three developed countries (the USA, China, and the UK).
Sustainability.
2022; 14(10): 6326. Publisher Full Text
- Amor R, Dimyadi J:
The promise of automated compliance checking.
Developments in the Built Environment.
2021; 5: 100039. Publisher Full Text
- Ataide M, Braholli O, Siegele D:
Digital transformation of building permits: current status, maturity, and future prospects.
Buildings.
2023; 13(10): 2554. Publisher Full Text
- Beach T, Yeung J, Nisbet N, et al.:
Digital approaches to construction compliance checking: validating the suitability of an ecosystem approach to compliance checking.
Adv Eng Inform.
2024; 59: 102288. Publisher Full Text
- Beach TH, Hippolyte JL, Rezgui Y:
Towards the adoption of automated regulatory compliance checking in the built environment.
Automat Constr.
2020; 118: 103285. Publisher Full Text
- Bloch T, Fauth J:
The unbalanced research on digitalization and automation of the building permitting process.
Adv Eng Inform.
2023; 58: 102188. Publisher Full Text
- cdbb: D-COM: digital COMpliance D-COM: digitisation of requirements, regulations and compliance checking processes in the built environment final report. 2019; 104. Publisher Full Text
- Chatzistamoulou N:
Is digital transformation the Deus ex Machina towards sustainability transition of the European SMEs?
Ecol Econ.
2023; 206: 107739. Publisher Full Text
- Chen L, Hu Y, Wang R, et al.:
Green building practices to integrate renewable energy in the construction sector: a review. In: Environ Chem Lett. Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH, 2024; 22(2): 751–784. Publisher Full Text
- Crisan A, Fauth J, Deac-Kaiser SB:
Sustainability in the context of BIM-Enabled Digital Building Permits. In: M. di Prisco, S.-H. Chen, I. Vayas, S. K. Shukla, A. Sharma, N. Kumar, C. M. Wang, & Z.-D. Cui (Eds.), 4th International Conference “Coordinating Engineering for Sustainability and Resilience” & Midterm Conference of CircularB “Implementation of Circular Economy in the Built Environment”. Springer Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, 2024; 679–689. Publisher Full Text
- Eirinaki M, Dhar S, Mathur S, et al.:
A building permit system for smart cities: a cloud-based framework.
Comput Environ Urban Syst.
2018; 70: 175–188. Publisher Full Text
- European Commission: Study on the development of a European Union framework for digital building logbooks - final report. 2021. Publisher Full Text
- Fauth J, Bloch T, Noardo F, et al.:
Taxonomy for building permit system - organizing knowledge for building permit digitalization.
Adv Eng Inform.
2024; 59: 102312. Publisher Full Text
- Fauth J, Bloch T, Soibelman L:
Process model for international building permit benchmarking and a validation example using the Israeli building permit process.
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management.
2023a; 31(13): 121–139. Publisher Full Text
- Fauth J, Pasetti Monizza G, Malacarne G:
Understanding processes on Digital Building Permits - a case study in South Tyrol.
Building Research and Information.
2023b; 51(5): 518–532. Publisher Full Text
- Fauth J, Soibelman L:
Conceptual framework for building permit process modeling: lessons learned from a comparison between Germany and the United States regarding the as-is building permit processes.
Buildings.
2022; 12(5): 638. Publisher Full Text
- Gillingham KT, Huang P, Buehler C, et al.:
The climate and health benefits from intensive building energy efficiency improvements.
Sci Adv.
2021; 7(34): eabg0947. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- Grosse H:
An insider’s point of view: autoethnography in the construction industry.
Construction Management and Economics.
2019; 37(9): 481–498. Publisher Full Text
- Hradil P:
AC(CO2)RD tool (https://extgit.vtt.fi/petr.hradil/ac-co2-rd). VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 2023. Reference Source
- Hradil P, Lavikka R, Mäkeläinen T:
Towards automated building lifecycle assessment calculation. In: F. Noardo & J. Fauth (Eds.),
Digital Building Permit Conference 2024.
European Network for Digital Building Permit (EUNet4DBP). 2024; 61–66. Reference Source
- Hussain A, Hussain I:
Sustainability assessment for construction projects: a cost-sustainability tradeoff approach.
J Clean Prod.
2023; 423: 138727. Publisher Full Text
- Kanafani K, Magnes J, Lindhard SM, et al.:
Carbon emissions during the building construction phase: a comprehensive case study of construction sites in Denmark.
Sustainability.
2023; 15(14): 10992. Publisher Full Text
- Li Y, Feng H:
GIS for the potential application of renewable energy in buildings towards net zero: a perspective.
Buildings.
2023; 13(5): 1205. Publisher Full Text
- Majuri P, Kumpula A, Vuorisalo T:
Geoenergy permit practices in Finnish municipalities – challenges with good governance.
Energy Strategy Reviews.
2020; 32: 100537. Publisher Full Text
- Malinovec Puček M, Khoja A, Bazzan E, et al.:
A data structure for Digital Building Logbooks: achieving energy efficiency, sustainability, and smartness in buildings across the EU.
Buildings.
2023; 13(4): 1082. Publisher Full Text
- Mantovani Ribeiro DMN, Hourneaux Junior F, Lara Cunha CL, et al.:
Digital sustainability: how Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) support Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) assessment in municipalities.
Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance.
2021; 23(3): 229–247. Publisher Full Text
- Mêda P, Calvetti D, Hjelseth E, et al.:
Incremental digital twin conceptualisations targeting data-driven circular construction.
Buildings.
MDPI, 2021; 11(11): 554. Publisher Full Text
- Mêda P, Fauth J, Schranz C, et al.:
Digital Building Permits and Digital Building Logbooks – clustering the challenges and requirements for alignment. Proceedings of the 2024 European Conference on Computing in Construction. 2024a. Reference Source
- Mêda P, Fauth J, Schranz C, et al.:
Twinning the path of digital building permits and digital building logbooks – Diagnosis and challenges.
Developments in the Built Environment.
2024c; 20: 100573. Publisher Full Text
- Mêda P, Fauth J, Sousa H, et al.:
When DBP meets DBL conceptual alignment at the process level. In: F. Noardo & J. Fauth (Eds.), European Network for Digital Building Permits. 2024b; 29–31. Publisher Full Text
- Noardo F, Guler D, Fauth J, et al.:
Unveiling the actual progress of Digital Building Permit: getting awareness through a critical state of the art review.
Building and Environment.
Elsevier Ltd, 2022; 213: 108854. Publisher Full Text
- Olanrewaju Yusuf S, Adamu Musa M, Chimdi Adindu C, et al.:
A systematic literature review approach on the role of digitalization in construction infrastructure and sustainable city development in developing countries.
8th Zero Energy Mass Custom Housing (ZEMCH) International Conference.
United Arab Emirates University Ain, UAE, Dubai, UAE, 2021; 1075–1093. Reference Source
- Patlakas P, Christovasilis I, Riparbelli L, et al.:
Semantic web-based automated compliance checking with integration of Finite Element analysis.
Adv Eng Inform.
2024; 61: 102448. Publisher Full Text
- Ruusala A, Laukkarinen A, Vinha J:
Energy consumption of Finnish schools and daycare centers and the correlation to regulatory building permit values.
Energy Policy.
2018; 119: 183–195. Publisher Full Text
- Sharma K, Kumar R, Kumar A, et al.:
A digital ecosystem for sustainable fruit supply chain in Uttarakhand: a comprehensive review.
Environ Dev Sustain.
2023; 26(5): 13217–13252. Publisher Full Text
- Soliman-Junior J, Formoso CT, Tzortzopoulos P:
A semantic-based framework for automated rule checking in healthcare construction projects.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering.
2020; 47(2): 202–214. Publisher Full Text
- Soliman-Junior J, Tzortzopoulos P, Baldauf JP, et al.:
Automated compliance checking in healthcare building design.
Autom Constr.
2021; 129: 103822. Publisher Full Text
- Ullah K, Witt E, Lill I:
The BIM-based building permit process: factors affecting adoption.
Buildings.
2022; 12(1): 45. Publisher Full Text
- United Nations: The 17 Goals. 2024. Reference Source
- Volt J, Toth Z:
Definition of the digital building logbook: report 1 of the study on the development of a European Union framework for buildings’ digital logbook. 2020. Reference Source
- World Bank Group: Doing business 2020 - comparing business regulation in 190 economies. 2020. Reference Source
- World Bank Group: Dealing with construction permits. Subnational studies - measuring business regulations.
2024. Reference Source
- Zhang M, Shi R, Yang Z:
A critical review of vision-based occupational health and safety monitoring of construction site workers. In: Safety Science. Elsevier B.V, 2020; 126: 104658. Publisher Full Text
