Towards an integrated framework for sustainability: evaluating selected projects from Saudi Arabia

Abstract

The capital of Saudi Arabia is evolving into one of the most attractive cities in the Middle East due to various ambitious expansion projects aligned with Vision 2030. This urban development strategy requires researchers to adopt evaluation approaches based on comprehensive sustainability criteria, including environmental and cultural sustainability, community involvement, and economic feasibility. This study utilizes the Delphi methodology to define evaluation criteria and their importance, employing the Delphi technique to gather insights from a group of experts through three rounds of questionnaires. The responses were analyzed using the Top-of-Priority Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) technique to develop an integrated evaluation model, which assessed architectural practices in Riyadh through three key projects: The King Fahad National Library, Qasr Al-Hokm, and Saudi Arabia's Digital City. Data sources included extensive site visits, project documentation, and expert evaluations. The evaluation model demonstrated varying levels of sustainability across the projects. The King Fahad National Library and Qasr Al-Hokm showed high scores in sustainability practices, while Digital City lagged behind in several areas, highlighting the need for improvement. This research enhances the understanding of how globalization influences urban renewal in Riyadh and emphasizes the importance of developing effective evaluation models that address the multifaceted nature of sustainability. The findings underscore the need for continuous reassessment of architectural initiatives in the city to align with both international standards and local cultural contexts. The proposed evaluation model successfully tests sustainability frameworks at the local level, indicating areas for future enhancements and contributing valuable insights toward achieving sustainable urban development in Saudi Arabia.

1 Introduction

Urban development processes reflect the progress of social development and their impact on people’s quality of life (Chaskin and Joseph, 2011). It serves as an indicator of the overall economic performance of both developed and developing nations, making significant contributions to their GDPs. The primary products of this industry are “buildings,” which are essential to daily life (Sun et al., 2024). he rapid urban expansion seen in Riyadh offers a unique and illustrative example for exploring global urban development issues (Jarrar and Al-Homoud, 2024).

Today, contemporary architecture is confronted with the challenges of spatial globalization. In rapidly developing regions, construction processes may result in a situation where the distinctions between one place and another become irrelevant, leading to cities that are imitations of other cities. Buildings are moved from one context to another without considering their impact or adopting a sustainable approach to design (Bowring et al., 2009). A recent literature review by on “urban development” points to shifts towards sustainability adoption and an increasing focus on the urban context and examination of different dynamics in sustainability transitio (Frantzeskaki et al., 2017) Cities have increasingly been identified as particularly important places for sustainability transitions and related system innovations to emerge and unfold (Fuenfschilling et al., 2018). Sustainability assessment has been identified as one of the beneficial tools that exist and can be used in order to foster the sustainable development, ranging from the design, construction, right through to management stages (Ameen and Mourshed, 2019; Bai and Guo, 2021).

Nowadays, many countries or researchers have developed related indicator frameworks to evaluate an individual building or entire cities (Yang et al., 2015), involving Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) from the United States (Hopkins, 2015). Exam current architectural landscape in Riyadh through the lens of globalization reveals a number of complexities. Over the past few decades, various architectural trends have emerged that, despite being labeled differently and having overlapping elements, ultimately converge toward the same goal of modernity across various domains, including architecture. In most cases, they have focused on incorporating the principles, characteristics and elements of sustainable design but have suffered from a gap in the comprehensive evaluation approach (Akadiri et al., 2012).

While the application of global technologies and sustainability practices may be entirely beneficial, the overuse of architectural materials and features that are incompatible with the local context is becoming increasingly worrisome. This is an ongoing discourse that emphasizes the balance between global influence and local reality (Sassen and Wills, 2004), thus placing at its heart the fundamental challenge of architecture is what works and what does not (Punter, 2016). Indeed, the emerging focus on global architectural trends has led critics to assert that expansionist projects such as these have grossly neglected contextual issues of a local nature. This adoption of global architectural models reflects the quest for modernity in architecture, but when replicated on a large scale in many countries, it has led to this research interest in a comprehensive understanding of the contemporary architectural landscape in Riyadh in light of globalization from a sustainable perspective (Naim, 2013).

There is a lack of research on measuring the sustainability of urban development at the community level. This is generally done in a subjective and one-sided manner when it comes to selecting and weighting indicators. Most studies on sustainability assessment take the perspective of consistency with certification bodies such as LEED or others that deal only with energy consumption, ignoring the economic and cultural dimensions of sustainability. (Ding, 2005; Dziekan, 2012).

Numerous studies (Michalina et al., 2021) argue that some community-level indicator frameworks for measuring sustainable urban devlopment, such as LEED-ND and BREEAM-Communities, also neglect to comprehensively analyze the social, economic and environmental aspects of sustainability. They exhibit ambiguity and shortcomings in weighting, scoring, or ranking systems. Furthermore, The number and type of indicators also differ significantly among these proposed indicator frameworks.

Too many indicators make data collection and assessment cumbersome (Ghosh et al., 2006), while a few indicators cannot provide full insight into any assessment. The continual conversation about the equilibrium between global influences and cultural authenticity highlights the fundamental challenge within the architectural domain of discerning what is suitable and what is not. It is crucial to acknowledge that, although there is an increasing emphasis on global architectural trends and expansion initiatives, concerns have been voiced about the oversight of local contextual matters (Mba et al., 2024; Selim, 2018). From this standpoint, the importance and methods of assessing the sustainability of buildings (BSAM) are established to enable project stakeholders to understand the expected and actual sustainability performance of their buildings (Thomson and El-Haram, 2018), but they are often applied in a technical and quantitative manner without considering other sustainability measures. Hence, the idea of research in an attempt to propose an integrated assessment model.

2 Method

Initially, based on the literature review, this study aims to identify sustainability indicators that are considered important worldwide. By improving the integration of these indicators, redundancy will be removed, thus arriving at a model that includes all environmental, cultural and social criteria. It consists of basic and sub-criteria under which the indicators fall. The present study utilized the expert judgment method to assess the proposed model and allocate weights to each indicator. This is a well-acknowledged and valid strategy, particularly when empirical data is scarce or challenging to obtain. Instances of expert evaluations, including weights, were collected from 13 out of 19 experts contacted in the fields of architecture and sustainability, urban renewal and construction project management and officials of some major projects in Riyadh. The study favored participants who possess extensive experience in sustainable architecture and urban development, particularly those who have worked in Riyadh or in comparable contexts. Research highlights the importance of having an expert background as a key method for obtaining reliable data on the fundamental aspects of the subject (Olander and Landin, 2005). In fact, the expert judgment framework builds on the sound foundations established by the literature by emphasizing the fact that expert judgment, where there is a lack of quantitative data, will yield crucial insights (Cashmore et al., 2004). This research adopts the ETE methodology to determine the evaluation criteria and their weights, which is an interactive method of prediction based on the opinion of a group of experts, or what is known as the Delphi method. Experts answered questionnaires to determine the weights of the criteria in three rounds where they received an anonymous summary of the experts’ predictions from the previous round along with the reasons they provided for their judgments. Several studies have shown that 10–12 expert respondents are sufficient to confirm the validity of the results, as these types of studies do not rely on statistical inference. The optimal weights for the main items derived from the survey data were then estimated using the best and worst case TOPSIS method. The results were reviewed with the expert respondents again in order to confirm the final weights (Wergin et al., 2018). Then,the study will examine leading architectural practices in Riyadh by evaluating a model that analyzes three major projects: the King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center, the King Abdullah Financial District, and the King Abdullah Financial District Metro Station. Data sources will include comprehensive site visits and detailed project documentation. These projects will be subjected to a comprehensive analysis according to the model that will be reached. See Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

3 Literature review

Previous research on the issue of sustainable urban development in urban communities includes disciplines related to the evaluation of community conservation initiatives and case studies of sustainable communities (Fouseki and Nicolau, 2018). Until recently, this movement started to take hold in developed countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and Japan (Russell and Redmond, 2009).

Further, the New European Bauhaus initiative (Alvelos and Barreto, 2022), introduced in 2020 by the European Union, aims at accelerating the green transition across sectors of the economy, society, and everyday life. The solutions being put across entail rebuilding the cities, retrofit buildings to put in consideration affordable housing and construction in line with carbon neutrality (Karlsson Hjorth et al., 2021). Unlike previously similar projects which focused mainly on enhancement of physical setting, these new projects incorporate social, economic and environmental considerations into the development of a sustainable community.

Appropriate indicators can be applied, above all, within a comprehensive framework which allows for the evaluation of sustainable practices (Gao et al., 2020). The DSR model, proposed by UNCED, chose 58 indicators that evaluate 22 countries and regions (Goswami et al., 2017). Case studies regarding Vietnam, Mexico City, and a host of projects dealing with community level urban development projects such as Masdar Eco-City in UAE also show that the assessment toolsets utilized within a specific economic, social, and cultural background would greatly enhance development functions in terms of sustainability (United Nations, 2007). However, comprehensive assessment for most of these projects is missing in many aspects, with lots of details on location. For instance, Egyptian projects of urban development illustrate that developments can place pressures on surrounding older cities due to a lack of facilities and services (Selim et al., 2024). Even in some European cities with the successes of a sustained approach to urban development, there is quite a marked disparity between concept and reality (Shamaee et al., 2024). Quite an evident separation exists between theory and reality in the indicator frameworks for the holistic process of identifying issues and implementing a response against environmental degradation, in being able to measure social and cultural performance, and in communicating effectively through research and among stakeholders and decision-makers.

4 Building the proposed sustainability model

4.1 Classifying the most important sustainability indicators globally

Several major bodies play a significant role in advocating for environmental standards and certifications in sustainable architecture and building practices. Energy Star and the International Energy Agency, in particular, are vital in measuring energy efficiency based on the amount of energy used per square foot. (Jiang et al., 2019). The World Carbon Project or World Resources Institute is involved in measuring greenhouse gas emissions from buildings (Friedlingstein et al., 2019). The AWS Water Stewardship Alliance and the Global Water Partnership provide guidelines for efficient water use to address water conservation (Alodah, 2023). In indoor air quality, the WELL Building Standard and the WELL International Building Institute review indoor pollutant levels such as volatile organic compounds and carbon dioxide (Persily and Emmerich, 2011). These sustainable materials have ratings from entities such as LEED for the use of recycled or sustainably sourced materials and Cradle to Cradle Certified. Similarly, waste management practices are supported by LEED and ZWIA (Zero Waste Europe, 2020). Biodiversity in Good Company and the International Union for Conservation of Nature monitor biodiversity impacts (Marselle et al., 2021). The RE100 initiative and the World Renewable Energy Council call for a commitment to 100% renewable electricity among participating companies (The Climate Group, 2014). Finally, site sustainability and urban development impact can be assessed through certifications such as LEED-ND and BREEAM Communities (Adewumi et al., 2024).

ASHRAE (ASHRAE, 2020) standards address thermal comfort, while ISO 14040/14044 guides building lifecycle assessments. Similarly, the USGBC regulates the LEED (U.S. Green Building Council, 2024), certification process, which has 60 credit points on different sustainability measures. The criteria provided assess buildings on natural light and acoustic performance, with LEED credit awarded for daylight access and sound insulation. ILFI (International Living Future Institute, 2024) also sets very stringent standards through its Living Building Challenge; under the LBC, buildings must meet 20 indictors to achieve certification. For example, the CASBEE framework–particularly its city-focused iteration–allows for urban sustainability assessments, while BREEAM for Communities sets sustainability standards for community development. The German Urban Building Association evaluates new urban areas, including the DGNB (Weise Frank et al., 2022),valuates new urban districts, including the DGNB-NS certification. Additionally, the Assessment Standard of Green Eco-district (ASGE) (Khan et al., 2022) facilitates local eco-district evaluations (Adamu Salihi et al., 2024) For example, UN-Habitat (Burton, 2003), defines social indicators such as social equality in housing. In contrast, community participation is promoted through local development organizations. Health and safety compliance in building design is regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in cooperation with ISO 45001 (Minor, 2024). The economic impacts of the Global Reporting Initiative for construction projects under the Global Reporting Initiative are aligned with the targets set by the UN Sustainable Development Goals (Dubravská et al., 2020). The International Labor Organization reports on indicators related to job creation. It also allows for the preservation of community culture through local organizations and a way to ensure access to cultural facilities through local government agencies. IDEA (Chen et al., 2023) also advocates for civic engagement in governance issues to ensure that communities are involved and well informed about sustainable development practices. See Table 1.

While the above sustainability indicators available so far in architecture and construction practices provide constructive assessments, most fall short of representing a comprehensive assessment model for the environmental, economic, social, and cultural dimensions. Inclusion of other meaningful indicators of economic viability, such as return on investment and long-term cost savings, would also add more insight into financial sustainability. Social equity, access, and community wellbeing dimensions would have to be incorporated if the process is meaningfully to contribute to benefit all residents. Community engagement in cultural sustainability indicators would also ensure the preservation of local heritage and cultural identities. Only by applying all of those indicators within one assessment model will stakeholders understand what sustainability truly means and make better decisions to accomplish high-quality buildings that serve current and future generations as well.

4.1.1 Process of selecting suitable indicators for the local context

The Delphi method (Goktas and Yumusak, 2024), was thereafter used in collaboration with a multidisciplinary team of experts-in particular, 11 expert team members in the field of sustainable design and urban studies, besides experts working on key projects in Riyadh-to build and enhance these indicators. We commenced by defining the purpose of our research and its importance in terms of architectural sustainability in all of its comprehensive dimensions through in-person meetings and using Zoom technologies. A set of questions straightforward and concise were constructed in order to gauge the opinions of the experts on the various indications of sustainability. In the first round, comments with regards to the relevance and feasibility of the indicators were to be made by the experts. The responses were then analyzed to identify recurring and converging themes and contradictions using the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) (Hwang and Yoon, 1981). After two rounds, The development of the assessment criteria has been done to provide an orderly procedure toward effective and efficient impacts that different projects have, considering multidimensional criterion varying by their subcriteria and weight. This comprehensive framework evaluates architectural contributions in key areas of high importance: sustainability (Kibert, 2012a), economic integration, cultural value, community integration, and urban connectivity. We applied these filtered indicators to the three most prominent projects in Riyadh and followed the impact that these would have on sustainability outcomes across time. In this way, the Delphi method and TOPSIS technique has allowed structured and meaningful collaboration, with useful insight into the advance of sustainability in its comprehensive meaning. Accordingly, there were comments on the evaluation model according to sets of basic criteria. See Figure 2 the main criterion of fnvironmental; the most pertinent topic involves Sustainable Design (Fioretti et al., 2020), whereby aspects are included in the various stages of architectural projects by pointing out the adoption of the structures to meet the requirements for LEED certification, verification of efficiency for advanced technologies, and design feature assessment that would tackle environmental criterion (Federal Ministry for the Environment et al., 2016). LEED compliance review upholds the importance of recognized standards for sustainability and therefore reflects a project’s commitment to energy efficiency and care for the environment.

FIGURE 2

Critical evaluation of advanced technologies is important, since high scores under this category reveal their relevance to enhancing the sustainability of the built environment. Besides that, creative solutions for energy consumption reduction and prioritizing sustainability give full support to the concept of great contribution to achieve sustainability goals in an architectural design. However, the sub-criterion was low in the selection of materials, which might imply difficulties in quantifying sustainability in material selections or a tendency towards greater prioritization in operational aspects over the consideration of materials. The additionally emphasizes the strategy of conserving water and enhancing indoor environmental quality. This reflects a comprehensive approach that takes into account both indoor and outdoor environmental effects (Kibert, 2012b). Another important certification is the Urban Heat Island Effect, which considers architectural strategies to limit temperature retention within the built-up environment. In this regard, improved urban climatic conditions stand to benefit from this factor.

An average score arises for the implementation of cool roofs and pavements; such cool surfaces are underlined as being important for managing surface temperatures while proposing a wider adoption across projects. The shading structure with greenery is more integrated, showing high contribution to the reduction of solar heat gain and increasing comfort in urban areas. Urban layout for maximizing natural ventilation has a relatively lower score, which shows that there is some improvement to be made in the strategy in order to enhance airflow effectively. The use of heat-resistant materials demonstrates awareness of their role in minimizing heat absorption, while the use of water features and thermal mass for cooling is functional and aesthetic. With respect to the exacerbation of urban heating, Beatley (2011) (Vanolo, 2015), supports such a stance by reviewing some of the benefits of biophilic design approaches in dealing with such urban challenges.

The third major criterion in envronmental facotor, Smart Building Technology, assesses advanced technologies intended for enhancement of energy efficiency and occupant comfort in modern architectural practice.

This includes assessment on energy-saving HVAC systems in relation to total energy consumption-a reinforcement in operation efficiency so key to sustainable design. The optimization of the use of energy through smart building technologies underlines their crucial role in energy management. In contrast, under sub-criterion IV, which represents the advanced lighting system, no score was obtained; this shows an important omission in stating the crucial role that lighting plays toward total sustainability and comfort of occupants. Building Automation Systems, BAS, have been evaluated to effectively manage building operations, an important aspect in smart architecture.

This work, in a nutshell, explains that the integration of renewable energies involving solar panels and wind turbines has an integral role to play in the sustainability attainment goals and, consequently, the demand reduction in general, which perfectly supports Lehmann (2011), who expressed that all the renewable technologies have transformed urban sustainability. The second most important factor is the Technological and economic Factor, because it expresses how collaboration with international firms influences design innovation and the introduction of sophisticated technologies. Laying an emphasis on a design innovation process in respect to collaboration assumes that partnerships with international experts might bring substantial added value to project quality, creativity, and sustainability, which corroborates insights by Fischer and Mone (2002) (Mach et al., 2017) concerning the use of expert panels in solving complex interdisciplinary problems.

The latter assessment also considers how international partnerships facilitate the incorporation of advanced systems and sustainable technologies, further underlining the benefits of global knowledge sharing in enhancing local ventures. The Role as Economic Hub criterion evaluates the contribution that a project brings out in developing Riyadh’s standing in the world economic arenaThis will involve its ability to attract international businesses, cross-border investment, and enhance the international standing of Riyadh (Scott, 2012). These kinds of evaluations bring out the correlation between architectural excellence and economic development, something considered of utmost importance in the task of long-term sustainability, as expressed by Vanolo (2015) (Stachura and Kuligowska, 2021). Who argue about the role that urban environment plays in the development of an economy.

Thirdly, cultural criterion assess the level of integration of the buildings under study with Saudi culture and respect for architectural heritage within the project. They also reflect a commitment to preserving local cultural identity, which has been considered vital in the case of maintaining authenticity in modern design and the desire to achieve cultural sustainability, as highlighted by Alsayyad (2001) (Moscatelli, 2022).

While a low score in promoting a sense of identity may indicate shortcomings in ensuring cultural relevance in current practices, sensitivity to local values and aesthetic preferences is very important for the sustainability of community heritage. Lastely, Community Connectivity, accounting for 10% of the evaluation, emphasizes the importance of pedestrian-friendly infrastructure and effective public transportation in promoting urban connectivity. By designing walkable environments with safe pathways and amenities, projects can enhance accessibility and encourage social interaction among residents. Additionally, well-integrated public transportation facilities facilitate seamless movement across the city, linking residents to essential services and opportunities. Lastly, interconnected public spaces create cohesive urban landscapes, fostering community engagement and enriching the urban experience. Overall, this criterion highlights the critical role of connectivity in developing vibrant and inclusive urban environments (Litman, 2021).

Table 2 include four main sections for each main criterion. After analyzing the results and extracting the weights that were done by experts to facilitate the analysis, a code was created for each sub-indicator that begins with the first letter of the main criterion, then the indicator number/indicator weight. All the numbers and values received from the experts were entered into the Excel statistics program to finally come up with a weight for each indicator. See Table 2.

The following diagrams represent the determination of ratios and weights for each of the primary and secondary criteria. Figure 3.

FIGURE 3

According to the above table and diagrams, the presence of four main criteria was confirmed:environmental (53.99%), technological and economic (24.36%), cultural (18.48%) and urban connectivity (3.17%). The environmental criterion is dominant, reflecting its decisive contribution to any form of sustainability assessment; it is supported by three sub-criteria and 15 indicators in total. The technological and economic criterion came in second place, with two sub-criteria and six indicators. The cultural criterion had two sub-criteria and six indicators with a weight of 18.48%. On the other hand, it had the least weight, which means that it could be a less important point in this context with 3.17%, and therefore one that should be given more attention in further research. See Figure 4.

FIGURE 4

5 Application for case studies

All available information on the three projects was sent to the expert committee tasked with determining the weights, in addition to the researchers’ participation in the evaluation after determining the evaluation model and determining the weights see Table 3. These data collection tools included field visits to collect field observations and analytical descriptions, consultation with project stakeholders, and site photography in 2024. The case projects were selected due to their strategic importance within Riyadh, allowing the study to be more in-depth in their impacts. The three projects were also designed and implemented by international experts, which helps the research in monitoring how to deal with global trends. Given the climatic conditions in Riyadh, this study will receive another boost in environmental feasibility and special attention will be paid to how architects adapt their strategies to the prevailing environmental conditions. The next part contain short description for each project.

5.1 King fahd national library

The King Fahad National Library, recognized as one of the premier cultural institutions in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, officially commenced operations in November 2013 (Gerber Architekten, 2024). This monumental project was brought to life by Professor Eckhard Gerber and his esteemed team at Gerber Architekten, marking a significant milestone in the urban development and cultural landscape of Riyadh. See Figure 5.

FIGURE 5

The library’s design acts as a catalyst for urban transformation, thoughtfully integrating modern architectural elements with the existing urban fabric. It embodies a harmonious blend of contemporary design and Arabian cultural heritage, reflecting the values and traditions of the region. Key features include extensive collections of manuscripts, rare books, and digital resources that aim to promote knowledge, culture, and learning for Saudi citizens and visitors alike (Saudi Press Agency, 2024). Moreover, the library serves as a pivotal institution for educational programs, exhibitions, and cultural events, bolstering its role as a community hub. The project underscores the commitment of the Saudi government to invest in cultural infrastructur e that supports both preservation and innovation (Mashary Alnaim and Bay, 2023). The library project uses advanced tent fabric to achieve three goals. First, the tent structure recalls desert tent dwellings in Arab culture. Second, the building envelope provides shade, and reducing heat. Third, it combines a new technology material and a structural composition to combine the traditional and contemporary. The innovative design enhances the aesthetic appeal of the area and encourages community engagement and interaction, fostering a deeper appreciation for literature and scholarship. Its strategic location within the capital reinforces its importance as a center for knowledge and cultural exchange (Architizer, 2023).

The architectural design of the King Fahd National Library harmoniously combines the splendor of modern aesthetics with elements of Arab cultural heritage. Advanced materials such as glass and steel allow ample natural light to penetrate the interior spaces, ensuring a highly welcoming environment for visitors. The interior design enhances functionality and accessibility, with clear designations for reading, research and community activities areas. The design also reflects environmental concerns in its use of sustainable practices that increase energy efficiency.

5.2 Qasr Al-Hokm

The Qasr Al-Hokm District and the Great Mosque project, which was successfully completed in 1992, represents a significant achievement in the revitalization of the historical center of Riyadh. This project was recognized with the prestigious Aga Khan Award for Architecture for the 1993–1995 award cycle. Commissioned by the Arriyadh Development Authority, it embodies the second phase of a comprehensive plan aimed at rejuvenating the Qasr Al-Hokm District, which is known as the old heart of Riyadh (Royal Commission for Riyadh City, 2024). See Figure 6.

FIGURE 6

The project encompasses not only the Great Mosque of Riyadh but also includes surrounding public squares, gates, towers, remnants of the old city wall, streets, and commercial facilities (Bay et al., 2022) The design, led by architect Rasem Badran, emphasizes the dynamic interaction between people and their environment, a principle he believes promotes a sense of community and ownership among residents. Badran’s approach creatively revitalizes and transforms the local Najdi architectural tradition, with outward-facing buildings that are framed by walls, gates, and towers (Architecture and Design Commission, 2021) See Figure 9.

The architectural style reflects classic Saudi features, characterized by columns, courtyards, and narrow corridors, creating a seamless blend of functionality and traditional aesthetics. The mosque’s strat egic public location integrates it into the urban fabric, allowing it to function as a vibrant part of the city rather than merely a detached landmark. To enhance durability and maintain aesthetic harmony with the local environment, the project employs local materials, including Riyadh limestone, which offers advantages over traditional mud brick in terms of resilience while still preserving the traditional look (Al-Jazirah, 2020).

5.3 Digital city in riyadh

Located in the heart of Riyadh, Digital City is Saudi Arabia’s first mixed-use development with commercial, residential, and retail offerings. Underpinned by international-standard services and facilities, Digital City is the optimal destination for forward-thinkers and urban-living enthusiasts. See Figure 7 The development is designed to stimulate and nurture a knowledge-based economy by cultivating an innovative business environment and a dynamic workplace. Digital City feature a world-class assortment of retail selections, smarter services and technologically advanced features. It is a community that fosters inclusivity and is driven by a commitment to excellence. Digital City, initially named Al-Raidah Digital City, is a significant milestone in Saudi Arabia’s drive towards modernization and technological innovation, situated in the al-Nakheel neighborhood of Riyadh (Arab News, 2022). This mixed-use development is strategically located near King Saud University, allowing for collaborative opportunities between academia and industry. Spanning over 470 acres, it functions as an information technology park that hosts multinational companies, government ministries, and various commercial and residential facilities. The vision for Digital City was conceived in 2005 by the Saudi Public Pension Agency, positioning it as the first smart city in the Kingdom, inspired by successful international models such as Dubai Internet City. The Royal Commission for Riyadh City played a crucial role in establishing this tech hub, approving the project and overseeing its initial studies and framework.

FIGURE 7

By 2006, project plans accelerated with a focus on creating a science park to attract both local and international technology firms, and the architectural design was a collaborative effort between Zuhair Fayez and Jurong International, blending local and modern influences in constructio (Moscatelli, 2023). Digital City enhances Riyadh’s skyline and contributes to urban planning strategies by integrating workspaces with residential and retail areas, promoting a vibrant living and working environment and fostering community engagement and economic growth. Since its opening in 2017, Digital City has emerged as a focal point for various cultural events and initiatives, including an international taste festival featuring Michelin-starred restaurants and numerous community events³, thereby promoting local culture and cuisine while attracting tourism and contributing to the economy (Al-Gihaz, 2022). As the city continues to evolve, Digital City adapts by incorporating smart technologies and innovative features that align with Saudi Vision 2030, which aims to enhance the quality of life for citizens and create a sustainable urban environment. In summary, Digital City stands as a testament to Saudi Arabia’s ambitions to become a leader in technology and innovation; by creating a vibrant, mixed-use environment that integrates various sectors, it reinforces the Kingdom’s commitment to building a knowledge-based economy, and as further developments unfold, Digital City will likely play a pivotal role in shaping the future landscape of Riyadh and beyond.

6 Implementation of the evaluation model

In the next stage of the research, the results of the analysis of the projects that were briefly explained above.

7 Discussion

• 1. The assessment of the environmental criteria across the King Fahad National Library, Qasr Al-Hokm, and Digital City reveals considerable variations in sustainable design effectiveness, strategies addressing the Urban Heat Island Effect, and the application of smart building technologies. In the domain of Sustainable Design, the King Fahad National Library emerges as a leader, achieving an impressive overall score of 88.19%—notably excelling in LEED certification compliance (92.06%) and materials selection (94.25%). These metrics reflect a robust commitment to environmental sustainability, setting a high benchmark for future developments. Qasr Al-Hokm follows closely with a total score of 89.59%, showcasing particularly strong integration of advanced technologies (92.87%) and exceptional LEED compliance (98.78%). In contrast, Digital City shows alarming deficiencies, registering an overall score of 68.76% due to poor performance in design features aimed at reducing environmental impacts, specifically in materials selection (50.00%) and energy consumption reduction (59.33%) Table 4.

When addressing the Urban Heat Island Effect, the performance gaps are stark. The King Fahad National Library scores an impressive 91.50% through effective strategies, such as cool roofs (89.57%) and extensive vegetation integration (97.73%). Qasr Al-Hokm demonstrates strong results as well, achieving a total score of 88.17% with high ratings for shade structures (99.34%) and heat-resistant materials (95.21%). In contrast, Digital City is severely lacking, with an overall score of only 32.29%, evidencing a complete absence of effective strategies; it scores 0.00% for both cool roofs and vegetation integration. This stark comparison highlights the necessity for Digital City to implement proactive measures to mitigate urban heat and enhance overall environmental performance Table 5.

In the assessment of Smart Building Technology, the King Fahad National Library again leads, scoring 86.29%, largely due to outstanding performance in advanced lighting systems (98.58%) and building automation systems (92.80%). Qasr Al-Hokm closely follows with a score of 89.00%, demonstrating high efficiency in HVAC systems (95.47%). However, Digital City’s low score of 64.09%, particularly in renewable energy integration (38.65%), indicates a critical area for improvement. These findings underscore the strengths of the King Fahad National Library and Qasr Al-Hokm in implementing sustainable practices and advanced technologies, while highlighting urgent areas for improvement within Digital City’s environmental strategies. Enhancements in sustainable design, effective urban heat island mitigation strategies, and the advancement of smart building technologies are crucial for Digital City to elevate its environmental performance and contribute positively to Riyadh’s urban landscape Figures 8-10.

FIGURE 8

FIGURE 9

FIGURE 10

In terms of the Role as Economic Hub, King Fahad National Library scores 90.36%, effectively attracting international businesses (88.51%) and enhancing Riyadh’s economic profile (85.63%). Its ability to foster a robust economic environment is indicative of its strategic design and operational initiatives that appeal to multinational corporations. Qasr Al-Hokm excels even further with an impressive total score of 96.95%, particularly highlighting its capacity to attract corporate headquarters (98.04%) and promote international trade (97.18%). This performance not only underscores the project’s significant contributions to the local economy but also illustrates its role in positioning Riyadh as a global economic center. Conversely, Digital City’s overall score of 60.66% reveals substantial challenges in attracting international businesses (50.61%) and establishing itself as an economic hub, indicating urgent areas for improvement. Conclusively, while the King Fahad National Library and Qasr Al-Hokm demonstrate strong achievements through effective international collaboration and economic integration, Digital City must address its deficiencies in technological advancement and economic roles to enhance its contributions to Riyadh’s urban landscape. Strengthening these areas will be essential for Digital City to realize its potential as a transformational project within the region, ultimately fostering a more robust and diversified economy Figures 11, 12.

FIGURE 11

FIGURE 12

Qasr Al-Hokm also performs admirably, achieving a total score of 88.91%. It excels particularly in incorporating Saudi cultural elements, achieving 94.50% for its efforts to reflect local aesthetics and customs. The project’s design strategies display a thoughtful incorporation of cultural heritage, contributing positively to its communal identity. Yet, while Qasr Al-Hokm shows strengths in cultural integration, its performance still trails behind that of the King Fahad National Library, suggesting additional opportunities for enhancing its cultural narrative.

In stark contrast, Digital City scores significantly lower with an overall achievement of 30.21%. This project faces notable challenges, particularly in integrating traditional styles (27.88% in 1.3.1) and aligning with cultural values (27.75% in 1.3.2). The lack of effective strategies to reflect local culture and heritage diminishes Digital City’s identity and sense of community, highlighting a critical area for development. The low performance indicates that the project has not sufficiently capitalized on the rich architectural and cultural context of Saudi Arabia, which is essential for fostering community acceptance and pride.

Additionally, when examining community engagement through the Community Engagement sub-criterion, the King Fahad National Library achieves a total score of 81.38%, indicating strong effectiveness in providing spaces for community activities (97.63% in 2.3.1). However, it falls short in promoting interaction and inclusivity, with a score of only 57.81% in 2.3.2, suggesting a gap in fully fostering community cohesion. Qasr Al-Hokm, with an overall score of 79.60%, excels in creating spaces conducive to interaction (94.38%), indicating a strong focus on community engagement, but still lacks in providing spaces specifically dedicated to activities (90.52% in 2.3.1). Digital City reflects moderate performance with a total achievement of 65.18%, showing similar effectiveness in promoting interaction (65.31% in 2.3.2) and community spaces (65.09% in 2.3.1), yet illustrating the need for more robust frameworks to enhance social cohesion Figures 13, 14.

FIGURE 13

FIGURE 14

In summary, while the King Fahad National Library and Qasr Al-Hokm effectively embody cultural integration within their designs, Digital City presents a significant opportunity for improvement. Enhancing the incorporation of Saudi cultural elements and fostering community engagement will be crucial for Digital City to connect meaningfully with local identities, thus facilitating its acceptance and success in the urban context Table 9.

Qasr Al-Hokm performs even better overall, attaining a total score of 94.32%. The project excels in its pedestrian-friendly infrastructure with a score of 95.32%, indicating a design that prioritizes walkability and encourages community interaction. Its high performance in public transportation facilities (93.15%) further showcases its role in creating an interconnected urban environment that supports seamless transportation options for users. This strong focus on connectivity not only enhances accessibility but also fosters economic activity and social engagement within the area.

In contrast, Digital City scores 86.44%, which is reflective of a relatively solid performance across both areas but still trails behind the other two projects. With scores of 88.89% for pedestrian infrastructure and 83.56% for transportation effectiveness, Digital City demonstrates commendable efforts; however, there remains an opportunity for further enhancements to reach the standards set by the King Fahad National Library and Qasr Al-Hokm. The results indicate that while Digital City is making progress in promoting walkability and accessibility, it could benefit from a more integrated approach that prioritizes public transportation and pedestrian connectivity Figure 15.

FIGURE 15

Overall, the assessment underscores the strengths of Qasr Al-Hokm and the King Fahad National Library in enhancing urban connectivity. Their designs not only encourage pedestrian movement but also link seamlessly to public transportation, improving the urban experience for all. Digital City, while performing satisfactorily, must leverage opportunities for improvement in urban connectivity to enhance overall functionality and integration within Riyadh’s urban landscape. Enhanced focus on creating a more interconnected environment will be vital for fostering a sustainable and vibrant urban community in the future Table 10.

8 Conclusion

The comprehensive assessment of the four key criteria—Environmental, Technological and Economic, Cultural, and Urban Connectivity—across the King Fahad National Library, Qasr Al-Hokm, and Digital City reveals distinct strengths and weaknesses that shape their contributions to Riyadh’s urban development. Both the King Fahad National Library and Qasr Al-Hokm excel in sustainable design, with the Library achieving an overall score of 88.19% and notable metrics in LEED compliance and materials selection, while Qasr Al-Hokm closely follows with a score of 89.59%. In stark contrast, Digital City faces significant challenges with a score of 68.76%, highlighting deficiencies in sustainable design features aimed at environmental impact reduction. The assessment of the Technological and Economic Criterion shows King Fahad National Library leading with a score of 92.58%, particularly excelling in design innovation, while Qasr Al-Hokm achieves 95.55%, showcasing strong technological advancements; Digital City, with a score of 66.75%, underscores its need for improvement in leveraging international expertise. In the domain of Cultural integration, the King Fahad National Library stands out with a remarkable score of 95.03% for its integration of Saudi architectural styles, whereas Digital City struggles at 30.21%, indicating a significant lack in cultural relevance. Lastly, the evaluation of Urban Connectivity reveals that King Fahad National Library and Qasr Al-Hokm effectively promote pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, scoring 90.22% and 94.32% respectively, while Digital City scores 86.44%, highlighting opportunities for further enhancement. Overall, while the King Fahad National Library and Qasr Al-Hokm demonstrate exemplary performance across these criteria, Digital City must address its shortcomings in sustainable design, cultural integration, and urban connectivity to contribute more effectively to a vibrant and integrated urban ecosystem in Riyadh.

8.1 Study limitations

These are some limitations that should be taken into consideration. Focusing on three specific projects in Riyadh may present challenges in generalizing to the rest of Saudi Arabia, as different environmental, cultural, and economic contexts may lead to diverse sustainability outcomes, considering that relying on expert judgments through the Delphi method with larger numbers may be useful in ensuring the reliability of all perspectives on architecture and sustainability, and thus, the set of evaluation criteria and their weights may become more objective. Furthermore, the timing of the evaluation may not take into account future developments in sustainability best practices and supporting technologies; thus, over time, the results may be constrained by limitations. Additionally, limited access to detailed project documentation may limit the analysis to relying on qualitative judgments, which can easily introduce variance into the results. This is also because local cultural practices and their impact on sustainability may not be well captured in this research, which may lead to some important dimensions not being adequately represented.

8.2 Evaluation of methods, results, and data interpretation

Methods: The methodological approaches used in this study are objective and effectively aligned with the research objectives. The Delphi technique facilitates the systematic collection of expert opinions, while the TOPSIS framework clearly prioritizes sustainability indicators, ensuring a robust analytical process.

The results are expressed in a clear and accessible manner, offering meaningful comparisons across projects. Expanding the interpretation of these results to consider future trends or potential policy implications could provide greater relevance and utility to urban development stakeholders.

8.3 Data interpretation

Data interpretation is warranted, and a more rigorous analysis could provide deeper insights into the broader impacts and lessons learned from the evaluated projects. This would enhance understanding of sustainability practices in Saudi urban development and provide a more comprehensive view of their impact.

8.4 Knowledge contribution

From the authors’ perspective, this work is novel; it contributes significantly to sustainable urban development in Saudi Arabia by proposing an integrated assessment model that includes environmental, technological, cultural, and economic criteria to evaluate sustainability in architecture projects. This integration, using the Delphi technique along with the TOPSIS method, allows for the effective integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches to ensure comprehensive assessments based on expert judgment. The research provides valuable insights into mega projects such as the King Fahd National Library, the Government Palace, and the Digital City with best practices and areas for improvement to achieve Saudi Vision 2030. In addition, the approach emphasizes cultural integration. It emphasizes how to integrate local identity and heritage into modern design strategies. This paper concludes by recommending community engagement in sustainability assessment as part of comprehensive urban planning that is responsive to local needs. Furthermore, the assessment model provides evidence-based recommendations for policymakers and city planners regarding future regulations and investments. Thus, this study not only points to potential areas for further studies on sustainability issues, but also pledges to support sensitive architecture practices in Riyadh and even beyond.

References

• 1

  Adamu Salihi A. Ibrahim H. Mastura Baharudin D. (2024). Environmental governance as a driver of green innovation capacity and firm value creation. Innovation Green Dev.3 (2), 100110. 10.1016/j.igd.2023.100110

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  Adewumi A. S. Opoku A. Dangana Z. (2024). Sustainability assessment frameworks for delivering environmental, social, and governance (ESG) targets: a case of building research establishment environmental assessment method (BREEAM) UK new construction. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.31, 3779–3791. 10.1002/csr.2768

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  Akadiri P. O. Chinyio E. A. Olomolaiye P. O. (2012). Design of A Sustainable building: a conceptual framework for implementing sustainability in the building sector. Buildings2, 126–152. 10.3390/buildings2020126

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  Al-Gihaz (2022). Digital city: brilliantly reimagined in Riyadh. Available at: https://algihaz.com/news/digital-city-brilliantly-reimagined-in-riyadh/ (Accessed September 25, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  Ali H. H. Al-Betawi Y. N. Al-Qudah H. S. (2019). Effects of urban form on social sustainability – a case study of Irbid, Jordan. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev.11 (2), 203–222. 10.1080/19463138.2019.1590367

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  Al-Jazirah (2020) Salmaniya architecture precedes the curriculum and sustains the vision, 17565. Riyadh, Saudi: Al-Jazirah Newspaper. Available at: https://www.aljazirah.com/2020/20201211/rg1.htm (Accessed October 4, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 7

  Alodah A. (2023). Towards sustainable water resources management considering climate change in the case of Saudi Arabia. Sustainability15, 14674. 10.3390/su152014674

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  Aloshan M. (2024). Sustainable environmental design: evaluating the integration of sustainable knowledge in Saudi Arabian architectural programs. Discov. Sustain5, 176. 10.1007/s43621-024-00382-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  Alvelos H. Barreto S. (2022). Contributions towards a plurality in design narratives: addressing dynamics between global and local discourses. Des. J.25 (6), 934–954. 10.1080/14606925.2022.2125731

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  Alsayyad N. (2003). The end of tradition?. 10.4324/9780203421338

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  Ameen R. F. M. Mourshed M. (2019). Urban sustainability assessment framework development: the ranking and weighting of sustainability indicators using analytic hierarchy process. Sustain. Cities Soc.44, 356–366. 10.1016/j.scs.2018.10.020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  Arab News (2022). The Place: Al-Raidah Digital City: boosting Saudi Arabia's IT and communication capabilities. Available at: www.arabnews.com (Accessed August 22, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 13

  Architecture and Design Commission (2021). King salman charter for architecture and urbanism. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Architecture and Design Commission.

  • Google Scholar

• 14

  Architizer (2023). King Fahad national library Riyadh. Available at: https://architizer.com/blog/projects/king-fahad-national-library-riyadh/(Accessed May 9, 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 15

  ASHRAE (2020). ASHRAE handbook—fundamentals. Available at: https://sovathrothsama.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ashrae-hvac-2001-fundamentals-handbook.pdf.

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  Bai Y. Guo R. (2021). The construction of green infrastructure network in the perspectives of ecosystem services and ecological sensitivity: the case of Harbin, China. Glob. Ecol. Conservation27, e01534. 10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01534

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  Bay M. A. Alnaim M. M. Albaqawy G. A. Noaime E. (2022). The heritage jewel of Saudi Arabia: a descriptive analysis of the heritage management and development activities in the at-turaif district in ad-dir’iyah, a world heritage site (WHS). Sustainability14, 10718. 10.3390/su141710718

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  Beatley T. (2011). Biophilic cities: Integrating nature into urban design and planning. 1st edition. Washington, DC: Island Press. 10.5822/978-1-59726-986-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  Bowring J. Egoz S. Ignatieva M. (2009). As good as the West’: two paradoxes of globalisation and landscape architecture in St. Petersburg. J. Landsc. Archit.4 (1), 6–15. 10.1080/18626033.2009.9723409

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  Burton E. (2003). Housing for an urban renaissance: implications for social equity. Hous. Stud.18 (4), 537–562. 10.1080/02673030304249

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  Cashmore M. Gwilliam R. Morgan R. Cobb D. Bond A. (2004). The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais.22 (4), 295–310. 10.3152/147154604781765860

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  Chaskin R. J. Joseph M. L. (2011). Social interaction in mixed-income developments: relational expectations and emerging reality. J. Urban Aff.33 (2), 209–237. 10.1111/j.1467-9906.2010.00537.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  Chen S. Song Y. Gao P. (2023). Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance and financial outcomes: analyzing the impact of ESG on financial performance. J. Environ. Manag.345, 118829. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118829

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  Ding G. K. C. (2005). Developing a multicriteria approach for the measurement of sustainable performance. Build. Res. and Inf.33 (1), 3–16. 10.1080/0961321042000322618

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  Dubravská M. Marchevská M. Vašaničová P. Kotulič R. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and environmental management linkage: an empirical analysis of the Slovak republic. Sustainability12, 5431. 10.3390/su12135431

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  Dziekan K. (2012). Evaluation of measures aimed at sustainable urban mobility in European cities–case study CIVITAS MIMOSA. Procedia-Social Behav. Sci.48, 3078–3092. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1274

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  Elsheshtawy Y. (2008). The evolving Arab city: tradition, modernity and urban development. 1st ed. (New York: Routledge).

  • Google Scholar

• 28

  Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) (2016) “Guideline for sustainable building: future-proof design,” in Construction and operation of buildings. 2nd updated edition. Berlin: BMUB.

  • Google Scholar

• 29

  Fischer S. Sahay M. (2002). Modern hyper- and high inflations. J. Econo. Liter.40, 837–880. 10.1257/002205102760273805

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  Fioretti C. Pertoldi M. Busti M. Van Heerden S. (2020). Handbook of sustainable urban development strategies (EUR 29990 EN) (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union).

  • Google Scholar

• 31

  Fouseki K. Nicolau M. (2018). Urban heritage dynamics in ‘heritage-led regeneration’: towards a sustainable lifestyles approach. Hist. Environ. Policy and Pract.9 (3–4), 229–248. 10.1080/17567505.2018.1539554

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  Frantzeskaki N. Coenen L. Castán Broto V. Loorbach D. (2017). Urban sustainability transitions. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315228389

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  Friedlingstein P. Jones M. W. O'Sullivan M. Andrew R. M. Hauck J. Peters G. P. et al (2019). Global carbon budget 2019. Earth Syst. Sci. Data11 (4), 1783–1838. 10.5194/essd-11-1783-2019

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  Fuenfschilling L. Frantzeskaki N. Coenen L. (2018). Urban experimentation and sustainability transitions. Eur. Plan. Stud.27 (2), 219–228. 10.1080/09654313.2018.1532977

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  Gao H. Medjdoub B. Luo H. Zhong H. Zhong B. Sheng D. (2020). Building evacuation time optimization using constraint-based design approach. Sustain. Cities Soc.52, 101839. 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101839

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  Gerber Architekten (2024). King Fahad national library. Available at: https://www.gerberarchitekten.de/app/uploads/2015/07/140110_en_King-Fahad-info.pdf (Accessed September 23, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  Ghosh S. Vale R. Vale B. (2006). Indications from Sustainability Indicators: <span class=“smallcaps smallerCapital”>PRACTICE NOTE</span&gt. J. Urban Des.11 (2), 263–275. 10.1080/13574800600644597

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  Goktas H. O. Yumusak N. (2024). Applying the Delphi method to assess critical success factors of digitalization while sustaining lean at a lean automaker. Sustainability16, 8424. 10.3390/su16198424

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  Goswami R. Saha S. Dasgupta P. (2017). Sustainability assessment of smallholder farms in developing countries. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst.41 (5), 546–569. 10.1080/21683565.2017.1290730

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  Hamdan H. A. M. Andersen P. H. de Boer L. (2021). Stakeholder collaboration in sustainable neighborhood projects—a review and research agenda. Sustain. Cities Soc.68, 102776. 10.1016/j.scs.2021.102776

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  Hopkins E. A. (2015). LEED certification of campus buildings: a cost-benefit approach. J. Sustain. Real Estate7 (1), 99–111. 10.1080/10835547.2015.12091877

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  Huang B. Gao X. Xu X. Song J. Geng Y. Sarkis J. et al (2020). A life cycle thinking framework to mitigate the environmental impact of building materials. One Earth3 (5), 564–573. 10.1016/j.oneear.2020.10.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  Hwang C. L. Yoon K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer.

  • Google Scholar

• 44

  International Living Future Institute (2024). Living Building Challenge: What if every single act of design and construction made the world a better place?Available at: https://living-future.org/lbc (Accessed March 25, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 45

  Jarrar O. M. Al-Homoud M. (2024). Sustainable urban development in Riyadh: a projected model for walkability. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev.16 (1), 398–421. 10.1080/19463138.2024.2421163

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  Jiang B. Li H. Dong L. Wang Y. Tao Y. (2019). Cradle-to-Site carbon emissions assessment of prefabricated rebar cages for high-rise buildings in China. Sustainability11, 42. 10.3390/su11010042

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  Karlsson Hjorth H.-O. Antonsson R. Liljefors L. Näslund M. Lagnerö L. Svensson E. Boverket (2021). Implementation of the EPBD: Sweden status in 2021. Boverket. Available at: https://www.ca-epbd.eu/Media/638373595736227761/Implementation-of-the-EPBD-in-Sweden.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 48

  Khan O. Khan M. Z. Khan E. Bhatt B. K. Afzal A. Ağbulut Ü. et al (2022). An enhancement in diesel engine performance, combustion, and emission attributes fueled with Eichhornia crassipes oil and copper oxide nanoparticles at different injection pressures. Energy Sources, Part A Recovery, Util. Environ. Eff.44 (3), 6501–6522. 10.1080/15567036.2022.2100014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  Kibert C. J. (2012a). Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery. 3rd edn. Wiley.

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  Kibert C. J. (2012b). Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery. John Wiley and Sons.

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  Lak A. Sharifi A. Khazaei M. Aghamolaei R. (2021). Towards a framework for driving sustainable urban regeneration with ecosystem services. Land Use Policy111, 105736. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105736

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  Lehmann S. (2011). Transforming the city for sustainability: the principles of green urbanism. J. Green Build.6, 104–113. 10.3992/jgb.6.1.104

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  Litman T. (2021). Evaluating public transit benefits and costs. Victoria, BC: Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

  • Google Scholar

• 54

  Mach K. J. Mastrandrea M. D. Freeman P. T. Field C. B. (2017). Unleashing expert judgment in assessment. Glob. Environ. Change44, 1–14. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.02.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  Marselle M. R. Hartig T. Cox D. T. C. de Bell S. Knapp S. Lindley S. et al (2021). Pathways linking biodiversity to human health: a conceptual framework. Environ. Int.150, 106420. 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106420

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  Mashary Alnaim M. Bay M. A. (2023). Regionalism indicators and assessment approach of recent trends in Saudi Arabia’s architecture: the Salmaniah architectural style and the King Salman Charter initiatives as a case study. Ain Shams Eng. J.14 (10), 102144. 10.1016/j.asej.2023.102144

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  Mba E. J. Okeke F. O. Igwe A. E. Ozigbo C. A. Oforji P. I. Ozigbo I. W. (2024). Evolving trends and challenges in sustainable architectural design; a practice perspective. Heliyon10 (20), e39400. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39400

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  Michalina D. Mederly P. Diefenbacher H. Held B. (2021). Sustainable urban development: a review of urban sustainability indicator frameworks. Sustainability13, 9348. 10.3390/su13169348

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  Minor (2024). Occupational health and safety (OHS), and well-being: commitment to safe and healthy working environment. Available at: https://www.minor.com/storage/download/sustainability-report/2022/ohs-management-system-en.pdf.

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  Mohammed Abdullah Eben Saleh (1998). The integration of tradition and modernity: a search for an urban and architectural identity in Arriyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia. Habitat Int.22 (Issue 4), 571–589. 10.1016/S01973975(98)00020-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  Mohsen M. S. Matarneh R. (2023). Exploring the interior designers’ attitudes toward sustainable interior design practices: the case of Jordan. Sustainability15, 14491. 10.3390/su151914491

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  Moscatelli M. (2022). Cultural identity of places through a sustainable design approach of cultural buildings. The case of Riyadh. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.1026, 012049. 10.1088/1755-1315/1026/1/012049

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  Moscatelli M. (2023). Rethinking the heritage through a modern and contemporary reinterpretation of traditional najd architecture, cultural continuity in Riyadh. Buildings13, 1471. 10.3390/buildings13061471

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  Moshood T. D. Rotimi J. O. Shahzad W. (2024). Enhancing sustainability considerations in construction industry projects. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 10.1007/s10668-024-04946-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  Naim M. (2013). Urban transformation in the city of Riyadh: a study of plural urban identity. Open House Int.38, 70–79. 10.1108/OHI-04-2013-B0008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  Olander S. Landin A. (2005). Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation of construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag.23 (5), 321–328. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.02.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  Persily A. Emmerich S. (2011). Indoor air quality in sustainable, energy efficient buildings. Hvac&r Res.18, 4–20. 10.1080/10789669.2011.592106

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  Punter J. (2016). The vancouver achievement: urban planning and design. Vancouver: UBC Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 69

  Royal Commission for Riyadh City (2024). Qasr Al-hokm district development project. Available at: https://www.rcrc.gov.sa/en/publication/qasr-al-hukm-development-program-phase-two (Accessed July 25, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 70

  Russell P. Redmond D. (2009). Social housing regeneration in Dublin: market-based regeneration and the creation of sustainable communities. Local Environ.14 (7), 635–650. 10.1080/13549830903089309

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  Sassen S. (2004). “Global city: introducing a concept,” in The globalization and development reader. Editor WillsJ. D. (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), 75–90.

  • Google Scholar

• 72

  Saudi Press Agency (2024). Launch of king Fahad national library. Available at: www.spa.gov.sa (Accessed July 25, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 73

  Scott A. (2012). Triumph of the city: how our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and happier – by edward glaeser. Econ. Geogr.88, 97–100. 10.1111/j.1944-8287.2011.01134.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  Selim H. S. (2018). Reactions to architectural globalization in the context of contemporary cairo. Int. J. Archit. Res. Archnet-IJAR12, 307–325. 10.26687/ARCHNET-IJAR.V12I1.1571

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  Selim H. S. Mayhoub M. S. Abuzaid A. (2024). A comprehensive model to assess sustainable architecture in emerged megacities: a closer look at cairo’s new administrative capital (nac). Sustainability16, 5046. 10.3390/su16125046

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  Shamaee S. H. Yousefi H. Zahedi R. (2024). Assessing urban development indicators for environmental sustainability. Discov. Sustain5, 341. 10.1007/s43621-024-00563-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  Stachura P. Kuligowska K. (2021). Multi-criteria analysis of urban policy for sustainable development decision-making: a case study for Warsaw city, Poland. Procedia Comput. Sci.192, 259–269. 10.1016/j.procs.2021.08.027

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  Sun Z. Gao Y. Yang J. Chen Y. Guo B. H. W. (2024). Development of urban building energy models for Wellington city in New Zealand with detailed survey data on envelope thermal characteristics. Energy Build.321, 114647. 10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.114647

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  Tagg A. Laverty K. Escarameia M. Garvin S. Cripps A. Craig R. et al (2016). A new standard for flood resistance and resilience of buildings: new build and retrofit. E3S Web Conf.201, 13004. 10.1051/e3sconf/20160713004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  The Climate Group (2024). RE100 - 100% renewable power. Available at: https://www.there100.org.

  • Google Scholar

• 81

  Thomson C. S. El-Haram M. A. (2018). Is the evolution of building sustainability assessment methods promoting the desired sharing of knowledge amongst project stakeholders?Constr. Manag. Econ.37 (8), 433–460. 10.1080/01446193.2018.1537502

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  United Nations (2007). Indicators of sustainable development: guidelines and methodologies. 2nd edn. New York: United Nations.

  • Google Scholar

• 83

  U.S. Green Building Council (2024). LEED certification for neighborhood development: looking beyond the scale of buildings to consider entire communities. Available at: https://www.usgbc.org/leed/rating-systems/neighborhood-development.

  • Google Scholar

• 84

  Vanolo A. (2015). The Fordist city and the creative city: evolution and resilience in Turin, Italy. City, Cult. Soc.6 (4), 69–74. 10.1016/j.ccs.2015.01.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  Weise Frank E. Dahy H. Sánchez Vibæk K. (2022). Challenges in creating a sustainable building certificate for single-family housing in Denmark through an Actor-Network Theory (ANT) lens. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain.4 (2022), 100144. 10.1016/j.crsust.2022.100144

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  Wergin V. V. Zimanyi Z. Mesagno C. Beckmann J. (2018). When suddenly nothing works anymore within a team – causes of collective sport team collapse. Front. Psychol.9, 2115. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02115

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  Yang B. Li S. Binder C. (2015). A research frontier in landscape architecture: landscape performance and assessment of social benefits. Landsc. Res.41 (3), 314–329. 10.1080/01426397.2015.1077944

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  Zero Waste Europe (2020). Sustainable finance for a zero waste circular economy. Available at: https://zerowasteeurope.eu.

  • Google Scholar

• 89

  Zhong W. Schröder T. Bekkering J. (2022). Biophilic design in architecture and its contributions to health, well-being, and sustainability: a critical review. Front. Archit. Res.11 (Issue 1), 114–141. 10.1016/j.foar.2021.07.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar