The development of novel techniques to assist in more sustainable urban development is a core theme running through this issue of Engineering Sustainability. Reflecting on how buildings are designed, what materials they use, and how their performance is monitored provides the construction industry with new pathways to incorporate innovative approaches to development. This includes proposing new evaluative techniques to better understand building performance (see Musial et al., 2025) or the role of timber or prefabricated units in construction to lower the embedded carbon associated with development (see Dierikx (2025) and Dal Lago et al. (2025), respectively). Moreover, the issue looks at the possibilities of reuse of waste to address energy usage in construction, building management and recycling. This issue also discusses the use of agro-industrial ash (AIA) in construction materials (Chippagiri et al., 2025) and the potential role of azithromycin antibiotics (Sabai et al., 2025) and proposes options for more sustainable management.
Linking these five papers is a drive to ensure that practice is grounded in robust data related to the global warming potential (GWP) of construction materials and techniques, and questions whether the most effective approaches to monitoring are currently in place. This is supported by an ongoing call for the use of alternative materials in construction that make best use of timber and waste materials rather than continuing to rely on concrete and steel. Progressing such a transition to the use of more sustainable buildings materials, therefore, requires us to consider how prefabricated units and the use of nature by way of biomimicry can be used to facilitate development that meets societal needs while also respecting the capacity of environmental resources. Each of these themes works towards an appreciation that alternative forms of construction are needed if we are to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals – especially SDG11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).
The first paper by Musial et al. (2025) proposes a comprehensive framework for assessing building performance using biomimicry principles. The authors argue that current construction practices lack consistent, quantifiable quality metrics and often treat buildings as prototypes rather than evolving systems. The authors argue that there is a lack of continuity in terms of how buildings are monitored and what data is available for analysis, thus leading to diversity in approach and consistent failures as problems are not being identified in a timely manner. In an attempt to address this issue, they develop a scoring system based on the Biomimicry 3.8 Life Principles (e.g. evolve to survive, adapt to changing conditions) and test it on the Council House 2 building in Melbourne. The study finds that even well-documented buildings lack sufficient data for holistic performance evaluation, highlighting a systemic gap in postoccupancy assessment and feedback loops in the construction industry. The authors therefore argue that if we are to effectively understand if buildings are performing sustainably that the construction industry needs to move away from a static towards a dynamic and data-informed form of design and monitoring. Moreover, they go on to state that biomimicry offers a promising lens through which a more holistic approach to building assessment can be achieved.
Sabai et al. (2025) follow the promotion of biomimicry by Musial et al. (2025) with a discussion of the potential role of azithromycin antibiotics as a more sustainable management method for waste disposal. This review explores the environmental persistence of azithromycin, a widely used antibiotic, and evaluates photocatalytic degradation as a sustainable treatment method. It examines various photocatalytic materials (e.g. TiO2, ZnO, bismuth-based compounds, silver composites, MOFs, and g-C3N4) and their effectiveness in degrading azithromycin in wastewater. The study emphasises the importance of doping and heterojunction formation to enhance photocatalytic efficiency and calls for further research into degradation by-products and toxicity. They base the need for such change on the level of antibiotics in the water system, especially those associated with animal husbandry and the ecological risks these pose to society. The authors therefore propose photocatalysis as a promising and eco-friendly degradation method. They do, however, note that although material innovation, e.g., doping and/or composites, is key to performance that more research is needed on degradation pathways to ensure that any by-product is safe.
The third paper focusses on the potential benefits of using precast structures in small/medium-sized buildings to reduce the embedded carbon and emissions related to construction. Dal Lago et al. (2025) examine the variation in environmental impact between precast and cast-in-situ structures on two supermarket developments in Italy using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. Despite using higher-impact materials, the precast structure achieved a 44% reduction in GWP due to structural optimisation and material efficiency. The study also explored the potential for further reductions through alternative materials such as sulfoaluminate cement and glass fibre reinforced polymer bars, although these offer smaller gains than structural optimisation. The authors conclude that precast structures can significantly reduce environmental impact. However, structural optimisation outweighs material substitution in GWP reduction in their analysis. Further research and data are therefore needed if the precast solutions approach proposed by the authors is to be scalable. They, however, note that this should be considered outside of an LCA, as the structures and evaluative feedback options built into LCA are essential to make informed material and design choices.
The choice of materials is also the focus of the fourth paper by Dierikx (2025), who focusses on GWP of multi-storey timber buildings. Dierikx presents a meta-analysis of 42 comparative LCAs of multi-storey timber buildings looking at their environmental credentials compared with concrete and steel alternatives. The paper finds that timber consistently results in lower GWP across all life cycle stages, especially when energy recovery is considered at end-of-life. However, results vary widely due to differences in assumptions, especially regarding carbon sequestration and end-of-life scenarios. The authors also note that, when heating and cooling of buildings are considered, timber framed buildings do not always outperform those constructed of concreate or steel. The study thus calls for more standardised, dynamic LCA approaches and better data and the long-term impacts of timber disposal methods. The paper concludes that timber buildings offer substantial GWP reductions and that end-of-life treatment, e.g., combustion vs. landfill, significantly affects outcomes. However, the author also provides a note of caution stating that timber’s role in climate mitigation is promising but complex and should yet be considered a panacea for sustainable urban development.
The final paper by Chippagiri et al. (2025) also looks at construction materials in its evaluation of embodied energy (EE) and operational energy (OE) using panelised building systems with AIA in India as its focus. It compares the EE and OE of this system to conventional techniques that use fly ash and clay brick in construction. The AIA-based system achieved a 23% and 8% reduction in EE compared with clay and fly ash bricks, respectively, and a 52%–53% reduction in peak cooling loads. The study also makes use of Building Information Modelling (BIM) to simulate the potential effectiveness of AIA in construction and emphasises the potential of prefab systems to support sustainable and rapid urban housing. The authors conclude that AIA-based prefab systems reduce both EE and OE significantly and that BIM provides a powerful tool to test energy performance within controlled simulations. If taken forward, the use of AIA-based prefab systems could support the use of local materials to support sustainable urban housing in high-density areas. However, further testing is needed to ensure that the materials and computational tools being used to drive innovation are empirically robust, too.
Each of the five papers presented in this issue of Engineering Sustainability aims to push the boundaries of academic and practical knowledge related to sustainable urban development. By focussing on the intersection of materials and design, the authors proposed innovative pathways for the construction industry to act more sustainably. This focusses on an understanding of the life cycle of materials but also buildings themselves, and aims to understand how alternative approaches can lower GWP and promote more liveable places. Moreover, the papers explore the impacts of waste and the potential of its reuse to support construction, thus examining the lifespan of materials and alternative ways in which they can promote more adaptive approaches to sustainable urban development.
