Lets start with your definition - what are you trying to accomplish with it? Are you using 'green' in the same may as I am in the image attached? In which case, you are using something like Green means 'degrading the ecosystem at a rate slower than conventional'. Is that what you mean? In which case, I think you are not reducing environmental impact, but rather the rate which we are creating environmental impacts.

Sustainable Development is functionally 'do no harm', but the minimum threshold for Sustainability is Needs Security (eg, the capacity of the community to meet all of their needs using the skills and time of the population, and the energy, resources, and ecological functions of the land they are stewards (or co-stewards) of.

If you're trying to reduce ecological impact, I think you're really asking about Restoration or Regeneration. Restoration puts back the ecological function that has been removed previously, while regeneration enhances quality of life and ecological functions together.

So, on that spectrum of development, what do you mean by 'green'?

Hi Douglas Nuttall , thank you for your answer.

In my research, Green deals with only environmental principle of triple bottom line approach which is focusing on reduced adverse environmental impacts of energy consumption, resources consumption and waste production that leads towards sustainability by governing economic and social benefits.

Does it make sense?

I am looking for definitions of green technology and green design which ensures this green approach/concept of undertaken research.

Ok. So that's a fairly 'normal' understanding of "Green". It relies on the principal of 'relative sustainability', which expects that if everything we do is less unsustainable that what we have been doing, then eventually we will become sustainable. TBL and similar balance approaches (like PSM II) are able to find solutions that are always better than both conventional and doing nothing. But since doing nothing isn't sustainable (we don't meet our needs today, and we interfere with the ability of people in the future to meet their needs), it's a poor goal-post.

But it is a goal-post, so lets use it...

Starting at technology: Technological development is the creation or enhancement of systems of infrastructure with an expectation of an improvement in the quality of life of a community. If we pull out the concept of development, we're left with: Technology is a creation or enhancement of systems of infrastructure. And infrastructure is an investment of time and resources with an expectation of a return on that investment in the form of time and/or resources into the future.. Green is an approach to human activities that causes less ecological degradation than conventional approaches to accomplish similar things. So Green Technology would be an investment of time and resources that produces a return on that investment into the future in the form of time and/or resources that causes less ecological degradation than conventional approaches to accomplish similar things.

Lets try that with green design. Design is a process of predicting a future state and creating a system that can achieve a desired performance in that future state. So Green Design would be a process of predicting a future state and creating a system that can achieve a desired performance in that future state in a manner that causes less ecological degradation than conventional approaches would.

SO, that brings us to Construction. I'm a design engineer with 25 years experience, and I've constructed all sorts of stuff. But you are researching this stuff, so if my definition is a bit biased, feel free to batter it into shape. Construction is the process of converting a design into infrastructure. And thus Green Construction would be a process of converting a prediction of a system that can achieve a desired performance in a future state into an investment of time and resources with an expectation of a return on that investment in the form of time and/or resources into the future, in a manner that causes less ecological degradation than conventional approaches would.

And ultimately, that brings us to your original question. "Can green construction be defined as a process which incorporates green technology and green design for reducing adverse environmental impacts?"

Based on my logic above, no. Not completely. It has to include the future desired performance (eg, survive a 1:100 year flood, carry a 140 lb/sq.ft pedestrian load, or a 300 km/hr tornado), that produces a return on the investment in the form of time and/or resources (broadly defined - can include energy, ecological functions, non-renewable resources, etc), and it must compare itself to both conventional approaches and 'do nothing'.

Now, if you want to achieve Sustainability (eg, the capacity of the people of a community to meet all of their needs using their time and skills, and the energy, resources, and ecological functions of the land/air/water that they are stewards or co-stewards of, in perpetuity), you'll need a different approach. Green can only do that if we are going past 'better than do nothing' and getting to 'just better than achieving Needs Security'. Which looks like Regeneration.