The construction industry is an enormous economic sector with a profound economic, social, and environmental impact. The building sector is responsible for one-third of total energy consumption and, notably, construction activities account for 39% of the total carbon emissions in the world. Therefore, nowadays, the promotion of green building concepts is essential for all countries. Typically, the sustainability level of a building is evaluated by specified certification systems through rating assessment tools. The development of national assessment tools is necessary for the developing world due to environmental, social, and economic issues; consequently, a national assessment tool adopted under specific local conditions would provide a more precise assessment. This paper analyzes the rating system of BREEAM, LEED, CASBEE, and Green Globes certification systems and discusses their adoption with assessment measures for the existing buildings in Kazakhstan’s reality. The following main criteria were discussed during six roundtable sessions: sustainable site and landscape, energy and carbon footprint reduction, water and wastewater management, indoor environmental quality, sustainable building materials, commissioning, and maintenance. A set of assessment criteria and measures were suggested, and 43 existing buildings were assessed. Only eight buildings reached a high rating level. The “sustainable site and landscape” and “indoor environmental air quality” categories were the categories with the highest scores; otherwise, “energy and carbon footprint reduction” with “water and wastewater management” had the lowest average scores. One of the buildings was evaluated separately by several experts to check the consistency of the suggested assessment measures. This evaluation also provided insight into how the assessors’ knowledge and experience may change the overall rating scores obtained. The most critical issues for the existing buildings in Kazakhstan’s reality were discussed. Despite the widespread adoption of green certification methodology, the application of global certification systems in Kazakhstan remains complicated due to the lack of knowledge and limited awareness.

Understanding the link between the energy-efficiency of buildings and climatic conditions can improve the design of energy-efficient housing. Due to global climate change and growing requirements for building energy-efficiency, the number of publications on climate zoning for buildings has grown over the last 20 years. This review attempted to give the reader an up-to-date assessment of the scientific literature in the field of climate mapping for buildings on a global and national scale, filling in the gaps of previous works and focusing on details that were not presented before. There were 105 scientific sources examined. The most dominant climate zoning variables were thoroughly analyzed. A clear categorization of climate zoning methods with specific criteria was shown. The most used methods were evaluated, emphasizing their similarities and differences, as well as their essential components and advantages. The main literature review was supported with bibliometric and bibliographic analysis. The existence of many climate zoning methods can be an indicator of the lack of agreement on the most effective strategy. A tendency has been established for the popularization among scientists of methods based on machine learning and building energy simulations, which are relatively easy to use and have proven to be the most reliable climate zoning methods. A transformation is emerging by shifting from a climate-based to a building performance-based climate zoning approach.

There is a growing need for comprehensive and transparent frameworks in bibliometric evaluation that support fairer assessments and capture the multifaceted nature of research performance. This study proposes a novel methodology for identifying top-performing researchers based on a composite performance index (CPI). Unlike existing rankings, this framework presents a multidimensional approach by integrating sixteen weighted bibliometrics metrics, spanning research productivity, citation, publications in top journal percentiles, authorship roles, and international collaboration, into a single CPI, enabling a more nuanced and equitable evaluation of researcher performance. Data were retrieved from SciVal for 1996–2025. Two ranking exercises were conducted with Kazakhstan as the analytical unit. Subject-specific rankings identified the top 1% authors within different research areas, while subject-independent rankings highlighted the overall top 1%. CPI distributions varied markedly across disciplines. A comparative analysis with the Stanford/Elsevier global top 2% list was conducted as additional benchmarking. The results highlight that academic excellence depends on a broad spectrum of strengths beyond just productivity, particularly in competitive disciplines. The CPI provides a consistent and adaptable tool for assessing and recognizing research performance; however, future refinements should enhance data coverage, improve representation of early-career researchers, and integrate qualitative aspects.