This study advances beyond conventional narrative reviews by proposing an Integrated Life-Cycle Environmental Control Framework (ILECF), which serves as both a classification system and a decision-support model for sustainable construction. The framework integrates environmental impact domains (waste, air, water, and noise) with project life-cycle stages (design, construction, operation, and end-of-life), while explicitly incorporating governance mechanisms, performance metrics, and digital tools such as BIM and LCA.

In addition, this study contributes:

These contributions address existing gaps in the literature by transforming fragmented knowledge into a coherent, actionable framework for both research and industry practice.

Beyond design-stage prevention, circular construction requires pre-demolition audits, selective deconstruction, and high-quality sorting to maximize material recovery and minimize hazards-practices increasingly codified in European guidance [3,4].

Real-world example: WRAP’s offsite volumetric case projects documented significant reductions in site waste through standardized modules and factory-led QA/QC-highlighting how product platforms and logistics planning yield predictable outcomes.

Root causes of C&D waste-such as change orders, inaccurate take-offs, and poor coordination-should be managed with configuration control and standardized components to reduce rework and offcuts [5,6].

Selective deconstruction, pre-demolition audits, and economic instruments elevate recovery value and minimize hazards in C&D streams [3,4,7].

Design-stage decisions-particularly unmanaged change orders and poor coordination-drive site waste; prevention begins with standardized components, configuration control, and prefabrication [6,8].

Figure 2 illustrates the multi-dimensional classification framework used to structure the literature review. Studies are categorized simultaneously across life-cycle stages, environmental impact domains, and methodological approaches. This classification enables systematic comparison of research trends, identification of methodological biases, and recognition of regional disparities. For instance, LCA-based studies dominate material-related assessments in developed regions, whereas empirical monitoring studies are more prevalent in construction-phase analyses. The framework provides the foundation for critical synthesis and gap identification presented in this review.

Air pollution impacts in construction span multiple scales and lifecycle stages, involving distinct stakeholders, processes, and performance metrics. To improve clarity and analytical rigor, this study categorizes air-related impacts into three interconnected components: (1) on-site emissions during construction activities, (2) upstream emissions associated with material production and supply chains, and (3) operational-phase air quality and energy use. While each component differs in scale and control mechanisms, they are intrinsically linked through design decisions and project execution strategies.

Stormwater management translates environmental intent into site controls: under EPA’s Construction General Permit (CGP), operators must prepare a SWPPP, submit an NOI via NeT, install BMPs, maintain inspection and records, implement corrective actions, and submit a NOT at completion [17].

Highway and site runoff transport sediments and sorbed toxics that reduce drainage capacity and impair aquatic ecosystems; effective controls combine source management with structural practices such as vegetated buffers, ponds, infiltration systems, constructed wetlands, and filters [18,19].

In the U.S., the EPA’s 2022 CGP operationalizes compliance through SWPPP preparation, NOI submission via NeT, BMP installation, inspections/records, corrective actions, and termination via NOT; a 2025 modification expanded eligibility in lands of exclusive federal jurisdiction [17].

Highway and site runoff transport sediments and sorbed toxics, reducing drainage capacity and impairing aquatic life; controls combine planning with vegetated buffers, ponds, infiltration, wetlands, and filters [18,20].

Figure 3 presents a decision-support flowchart for implementing environmental interventions at the project level. The schematic links strategic objectives with regulatory requirements, certification pathways, and operational constraints. It integrates lifecycle-specific decisions with quantitative evaluation metrics, enabling project teams to assess trade-offs between cost, performance, and environmental outcomes. The iterative feedback loop ensures continuous improvement through monitoring and adaptive management, aligning project execution with sustainability targets.

OSHA limits and hearing conservation programs provide baseline worker protection, while site monitoring and time-of-day controls reduce community exposure [21,22].

Construction noise has non-auditory health impacts-including cardiovascular stress and sleep disturbance-documented in clinical and epidemiological literature; mitigation must address source, path, and receiver [23,24].

LEED v4’s 2024 energy update raises minimum performance thresholds and introduces dual metrics-source energy and GHG-alongside cost; on-site renewables now contribute toward prerequisite compliance, aligning v4 closer to v4.1 pathways [25,26].

Real-world example: The UC Davis Manetti Shrem Museum of Art achieved LEED Platinum with significant reductions in energy and water use, waste diversion exceeding 80%, and transit/active mobility provisions-demonstrating how design, operations, and access policies combine for measurable environmental performance [25,27].

Integrating BIM with LCA enables earlier, data-driven decisions on material and operational trade-offs; recent reviews catalog IFC exchange, BOQ imports, BIM viewers, and plugin workflows to calculate impacts within design environments [28].

Project teams should standardize data handoffs and select tools that support whole-life carbon metrics and circularity decisions-so configuration changes and product-platform choices are informed by quantified outcomes [28].

Recent reviews catalog IFC exchange, BOQ imports, BIM viewers, and plugin workflows that bring LCA into BIM environments, enabling earlier trade-offs on materials and operations; interoperability and standardization remain adoption barriers [28].

Governance at feasibility should set configuration-freeze gates, interface matrices, and change-control boards; align procurement to factory slots and logistics windows to avoid idle modules or site crews [6].

Environmental due diligence should tie SWPPP/BMP commitments to CGP obligations and noise controls to OSHA/eCFR baselines; certification pathways (LEED v4 update, v4.1 substitutions) should be selected early to shape energy and GHG targets [17,21,22,25,26].

Sustainable construction outcomes depend on aligning decisions, metrics, and site practices across the life cycle-supported by policy frameworks and market guidance [1,2].

By combining circular design, task-specific air and noise controls, stormwater compliance, and performance-based certification-enabled by BIM + LCA-projects can materially reduce environmental burdens while improving outcomes for workers and communities [3,4,28] (Table 1).

The practical decision table synthesizes lifecycle-specific environmental interventions into a structured decision-support tool for project stakeholders. The table organizes recommended actions across the major phases of the project life cycle-design, construction, operation, and end-of-life-and evaluates each intervention based on performance metrics, implementation cost, and applicability conditions.

By integrating technical measures with decision criteria, the table translates the conceptual framework into an operational guide. For example, design-stage interventions such as prefabrication and modular construction are associated with measurable reductions in material waste and rework, while construction-phase measures such as dust suppression and stormwater controls are evaluated in terms of pollutant reduction efficiency and regulatory compliance. Operational-stage strategies, including HVAC optimization and energy performance monitoring, are linked to energy use intensity and indoor environmental quality metrics. End-of-life interventions, such as selective deconstruction and material recovery, are assessed based on reuse rates and circularity outcomes.

Importantly, the table provides a comparative perspective by indicating relative cost levels and implementation feasibility, enabling practitioners to balance environmental performance with economic and logistical constraints. This addresses a key gap in the literature, where recommendations are often presented in isolation without consideration of trade-offs or practical constraints.

Furthermore, the table supports stage-specific and scenario-based decision-making by clarifying which interventions are most effective under different project conditions (e.g., project size, regulatory context, and resource availability). By aligning interventions with measurable outcomes and decision criteria, the table enhances the usability of the review for industry practitioners and facilitates the development of tailored sustainable construction strategies.

Overall, the practical decision table operationalizes the integrated life-cycle framework presented in this study, bridging the gap between theoretical synthesis and real-world application, and providing a systematic foundation for evidence-based environmental management in construction projects.

To enhance practical applicability, this study translates the conceptual framework into a structured decision-support tool (Table 2). The table organizes lifecycle-specific environmental interventions and evaluates them based on measurable performance metrics, implementation cost, and applicability conditions.

Key quantitative indicators include embodied carbon (kgCO₂/m²), waste diversion rates (%), particulate matter reduction efficiency (%), and noise exposure levels (dB thresholds). These metrics enable objective comparison of alternative interventions and support evidence-based decision-making.

By integrating environmental effectiveness with economic and operational considerations, the framework allows practitioners to balance sustainability goals with project constraints. This structured approach addresses a critical gap in existing literature, where recommendations are often presented without assessment of feasibility or trade-offs.

The practical decision table (Table 2) synthesizes lifecycle-specific interventions into a structured tool for project stakeholders. It links technical measures with performance metrics, cost considerations, and applicability conditions, enabling systematic evaluation of trade-offs. By aligning interventions with measurable outcomes, the table enhances decision-making transparency and supports tailored implementation strategies for different project contexts.

The inclusion of decision level, cost, and implementation complexity provides a structured hierarchy that supports multi-criteria decision-making and enables integration with digital tools such as BIM-LCA workflows.

While consensus exists on the importance of lifecycle thinking and circular practices, significant uncertainties remain. For example, trade-offs between embodied carbon reduction and operational performance are still debated, especially in rapidly urbanizing regions. Additionally, most empirical studies are concentrated in Europe and North America, leaving a critical gap in context-specific knowledge for developing economies.