Input-Output Benefit Analysis of Green Building Incremental Cost Based on DEA-Entropy Weight Method
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Green Building Input-Output Measurement Index System
2.1. Incremental Cost of Green Building
2.2. Incremental Benefits of Green Building
- (1)
- Economic benefit: Economic benefit refers to the reduction of environmental influence brought by green building compared with ordinary building in the operation stage. The reduced influence of this aspect will usually bring economic benefits, namely, the saved using cost.
- (2)
- Environmental benefit: Environmental benefit of green building is demonstrated in the energy, water, material, land resource conservation, improvement of the air, noise, light conditions in the ambient environment, as well as the creation of ecological environment. Environmental benefit of green building is firstly and primarily manifested by the reduction of the pollutant emissions, including CO2 and SO2, the generated emission reduction, as well as the creation and improvement of the ecological environment by using the green technology. The life cycle process of green building includes the common energy consumption, common building material consumption and common plant using. Its CO2 emission factors are indicated in Table 3.
- (3)
- Social benefit: Social benefit can be divided into micro social benefit, regional social benefit and macro social benefit. Micro social benefit means that green building emphasizes on providing healthy, comfortable and safe habitation activity space for human beings, reducing the suffering opportunity cost, improving the people’s living quality and habitation comfort. Regional social benefit means that green building can improve the community image and spiritual appearance, reduce the contributions of the city in pollution treatment and ecological maintenance. Macro social benefit means: On one hand, green building can enhance the “environmental awareness” of the whole society, improve people’s living and consumption philosophies; On the other hand, green building has great and positive influence to the establishment of a harmonious society, and it promotes the stable development of the whole society.
2.2.1. Calculation Rules of Economic Benefit
2.2.2. Calculation Rules of Environmental Benefit
- (1)
- CO2 emission reduction
- (2)
- Ecological improvement
2.2.3. Calculation Rules of Social Benefit
3. Measurement Comparison Model of Green Building
3.1. DEA Model of Green Building Input-Output Benefit Measurement
3.2. Efficiency Evaluation Model Based on DEA-Entropy Weight Method
4. Empirical Analysis of Input-Output Benefit of Green Buildings
4.1. Selection of Input and Output Indicators
4.2. Data Collection and Processing
4.3. Green Building Incremental Cost Benefit Evaluation
4.3.1. Comprehensive Technical Effectiveness Analysis
- (1)
- The comprehensive technical efficiency value of DMU2, DMU4 and DMU5 is 1, which indicates that the three decision making units are effective, and according to Table 6, there is no redundant input or insufficient output, that is, the comprehensive performance of these three green building projects reaches the best level. Its incremental cost input-output benefit has reached a relatively ideal state. In theory, these green building projects have no incentive to increase cost input, they can improve the innovation level of green technology measures on the basis of maintaining the existing status, and strive to find ways to reduce incremental costs.
- (2)
- Similarly, it can be seen from the figure above that the comprehensive efficiency values of the remaining five decision-making units are all less than 1, indicating that these five decision-making units are invalid decision-making units, and the results of the output benefits corresponding to their incremental costs are not ideal. The reason for the ineffectiveness may be the unreasonable ratio of input and output, or the scale factor of the decision-making unit. The project construction party should strengthen the integration of resources, improve the allocation of production resources, improve the management level, and increase the benefits and income.
- (3)
- The average value of the comprehensive efficiency value of the eight projects is 0.934 as the dividing line, and the projects with higher than 0.934 are considered as high-efficiency projects, and those lower than 0.934 are considered as low-efficiency projects. According to the appeal classification, DMU2, DMU3, DMU4, and DMU5 are high-effectiveness items, and DMU1, DMU6, DMU7, and DMU8 are low-effectiveness items. This shows that the DMU1, DMU6, DMU7, and DMU8 projects have excess input resources and insufficient output capacity during the construction process. Among them, DMU6 is taken as an example to analyze the redundancy and deficiency of its input and output, as shown in Table 7.
4.3.2. Pure Technical Effectiveness Analysis
4.3.3. Scale Performance and Returns to Scale Analysis
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- For projects with poor overall performance, that is, projects whose DEA evaluation result is relatively ineffective, it indicates that the green building has excess resources, which is not conducive to the promotion and use of green buildings. Developers should strengthen the internal management level of the enterprise and the green technology innovation ability, control the investment scale in an appropriate scale state, increase the input-output ratio, and maximize its incremental cost effectiveness. The government needs to organize experts and scholars to study the incremental costs and benefits of green buildings, and standardize the relevant indicators in the construction process, so as to promote the optimization of incremental costs and benefits, and at the same time provide reasonable economic subsidies to consumers to encourage consumption buy green houses.
- (2)
- For projects with better performance, that is, projects whose DEA evaluation result is relatively effective, it shows that the green building can obtain the output of large incremental benefit through the input of small incremental cost In this case, developers should, on the basis of accurately positioning their own advantages, give full play to their advantageous technologies and make continuous improvements, and at the same time strengthen technological innovation and improve the application level of various types of green building technical measures. While, the government can further mobilize the enthusiasm of green building developers through policy support, green star subsidies and other means.
- (1)
- Support the establishment of green building development legal system. As the deepening and extension of building energy-saving work, the working basis of promoting green building development is only Green Building Action Plan and other department regulations issued by the relevant ministries and commissions of the State Council. The related work of green building is hard to coordinate various departments to form the joint work force effectively, thus reducing the relevant policy implementation forces. No legal system has been established to support the development of green building in China. This is also one of the restriction factors resulting in the slow and unbalanced development of green building in China.
- (2)
- Formation of green building market atmosphere. In Australia, in addition to Green Star, there are still numerous other companies and organizations providing green building assessment systems, such as Green Magazine which possesses a certain practical significance. Similarly, the stabilizing effect of non-profit organizations in the US deserves our reference in the green development process. On the contrary, although some large-scale real estate enterprises in China have enacted green building development strategies, the quantity and area of the projects obtaining green building label are expanding rapidly year by year, the projects which can truthfully reflect the practical effect of green building are very few, accounting about 6% of the total. Aimed at unqualified green building practical using quality and insufficient post-assessment in energy-saving effect, the comprehensive benefit displayed by green building is not significant. Combined with the under advertised green building philosophy of the social public, various circles of the society are hindered to have correct understanding to the essential connotation of green building. It is the priority among priorities to develop green building in China by promoting green building concept and penetrating green concept into the public.
- (3)
- Enhance green building ability construction. Green building in China lays particular stress on green building exhibition and brand effect, resulting in a higher technology application grade. This is determined by China economic development level and green building development stage as well as green building development value dominant demand. Therefore, it is required to accelerate to promote green technology practice accumulation and expansion on such basis, drive the industrial development, ensure to bring authentic effect by the subsequent operation, such as positively introduce advanced enterprises and enhance the improvement effect of their advanced experiences to local enterprises.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Liu, G.; Fu, Y.J. Research on the innovation path and strategy of green building operation management under the background of carbon neutrality. Build. Econ. 2022, 43, 98–104. [Google Scholar]
- Liang, X.; Fu, Y. Research on the supply-side evolutionary game of green buildings under the government’s dynamic reward and punishment mechanism. China Manag. Sci. 2021, 29, 184–194. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, K.; Lu, Y.M.; Lu, H.S. Research on the high-quality development strategies of green buildings in my country under the background of dual carbon goals. Build. Econ. 2022, 43, 14–20. [Google Scholar]
- Vyas, G.S.; Jha, K.N. Benchmarking green building attributes to achieve cost effectiveness using a data envelopment analysis. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 28, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perdana, M.; Ali, B.M.; Rahma, U.S. Economic feasibility of green office building: Combining life cycle cost analysis and cost–benefit evaluation. Build. Res. Inf. 2021, 49, 624–638. [Google Scholar]
- Greg Kats, C.E. The Costs and Financial Costs of Green Building. California, 2003. Available online: https://icma.org/documents/costs-and-financial-benefits-green-buildings (accessed on 3 November 2022).
- Zhang, X.L.; Platten, A.; Shen, L. Green property development practice in China: Costs and barriers. Build. Environ. 2011, 46, 2153–2160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, B.G.; Zhu, L.; Wang, Y.L.; Cheong, X. Green Building Construction Projects in Singapore: Cost Premiums and Cost Performance. Proj. Manag. J. 2017, 48, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Samari, M.; Ghodrati, N.; Esmaeilifar, R.; Olfat, P.; Shafiei, M.W. The Investigation of the Barriers in Developing Green Building in Malaysia. Mod. Appl. Sci. 2013, 7, 12–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moris, P. Incremental Cost Benefits of Building Green. Green Build. 2014, 5, 46–53. [Google Scholar]
- Sartori, I.; Hestnes, A.G. Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: A review article. Energy Build. 2007, 39, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castleton, H.F.; Stovin, V.; Beck, S.B.M. Green roofs, building energy savings and the potential for retrofit. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 1582–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wallhagen, M.; Glaumann, M. Design consequences of differences in building assessment tools: A case study. Build. Res. Inf. 2011, 39, 16–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, W.; Yu, S.J. Research on the driving mechanism and influence path of green building development based on SEM. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2021, 38, 91–97. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y.H. Construction of Green Building Incremental Cost-Benefit Estimation Model—Based on the Perspective of System Dynamics. Financ. Account. Commun. 2020, 41, 118–122. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y. Research on the calculation and application of green building operation cost based on BIM technology. Build. Econ. 2021, 42, 53–56. [Google Scholar]
- Goh, B.H.; Sun, Y. The development of life-cycle costing for buildings. Build. Res. Inf. 2016, 44, 319–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Guo, X.; Hu, F. Cost-benefit analysis on green building energy efficiency technology system: A case in China. Energy Build. 2014, 82, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dwaikata, L.N.; Ali, K.N. Green Buildings Life Cycle Cost Analysis and Life Cycle Budget Development: Practical Applications. J. Build. Eng. 2018, 18, 303–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saurabh, V.; Satya, N.M.; Spenser, R.; Deepak, B.; Anupam, S. Investment appraisal and financial benefits of corporate green buildings: A developing economy case study. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2021, 11, 392–408. [Google Scholar]
- Gabay, H.; Meir, I.A.; Schwartz, M.; Werzberger, E. Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Green Buildings: An Israeli Office Buildings Case Study. Energy Build. 2014, 76, 558–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khoshbakht, M.; Gou, Z.; Dupre, K. Cost-benefit Prediction of Green Buildings: SWOT Analysis of Research Methods and Recent Applications. Procedia Eng. 2017, 180, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huang, Y.; Li, L. Comprehensive measurement and spatiotemporal evolution of green development level of urban agglomerations in China. Geogr. Res. 2017, 36, 1309–1322. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, C.B.; Jiang, Q.J. Research on the Green Development of Western Regions under the Framework of Green Total Factor Productivity Analysis. Explor. Econ. Issues 2017, 38, 155–161. [Google Scholar]
- Zhong, S.; Feng, Y. Measurement and Evaluation of Inter-provincial Green Development Welfare in China. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2017, 27, 196–204. [Google Scholar]
- Sattary, S.; Thorpe, D. Potential carbon emission reductions in Australian construction systems through bioclimatic principles. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 23, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chel, A.; Kaushik, G. Renewable energy technologies for sustainable development of energy efficient building. Alex. Eng. J. 2017, 57, 655–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayodeji, E.O.; Clinton, O.A.; Samkeliso, A.D. Carbon emission trading in South African construction industry. Energy Procedia 2017, 142, 2371–2376. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, J.; Shi, Q.; Shen, L. What makes the difference in construction carbon emissions between China and USA? Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 44, 604–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.M.; Liu, C.B. Evaluation of Economic Benefit of Existing Buildings Based on Life Cycle Cost Theory. Build. Econ. 2009, 30, 58–61. [Google Scholar]
- Brambilla, A.; Salvalai, G.; Imperadori, M.; Sesana, M.M. Nearly zero energy building renovation: From energy efficiency to environmental efficiency, a pilot case study. Energy Build. 2018, 166, 71–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, S.W.; Guo, H.D.; Liu, J.R.; Wei, X. Dynamic Feedback Analysis of Factors Affecting Comprehensive Benefits of Energy-saving Retrofit Projects Based on Value-Added Life. Sci. Technol. Prog. Countermeas. 2014, 31, 147–151. [Google Scholar]
- Azad, A.S.; Ancev, T. Measuring environmental efficiency of agricultural water use: A luenberger environmental indicator. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 145, 314–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scott, M.J.; Daly, D.S.; Zhou, Y.; Rice, J.S.; Patel, P.L.; McJeon, H.C.; Kyle, G.P.; Kim, S.H.; Eom, J.; Clarke, L.E. Evaluating sub-national building-energy efficiency policy options under uncertainty: Efficient sensitivity testing of alternative climate, technological, and socioeconomic futures in a regional integrated-assessment model. Energy Econ. 2014, 43, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Z.; Li, Y.R.; Chen, C. Analysis and Evaluation of the Incremental Cost and Incremental Benefit of Green Building Life Cycle Energy Saving. Build. Econ. 2018, 39, 113–116. [Google Scholar]
- Cao, S.; Dong, C. Cost-benefit evaluation of green building life cycle. J. Tsinghua Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 2012, 52, 843–847. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, M.C. Analysis of economic benefits of green buildings under the concept of life cycle cost. Urban Dev. Res. 2015, 22, 25–28. [Google Scholar]
- Huo, T.F.; Xu, L.B.; Feng, W.; Cai, W.G.; Liu, B.S. Dynamic scenario simulations of carbon emission peak in China’s city-scale urban residential building sector through 2050. Energy Policy 2021, 159, 112612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huo, T.F.; Ma, Y.L.; Cai, W.G.; Liu, B.S.; Mu, L.L. Will the urbanization process influence the peak of carbon emissions in the building sector? A dynamic scenario simulation. Energy Build. 2021, 232, 110590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huo, T.F.; Cao, R.J.; Du, H.Y.; Zhang, J.; Cai, W.G.; Liu, B.S. Nonlinear influence of urbanization on China’s urban residential building carbon emissions: New evidence from panel threshold model. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 772, 145058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashuri, B.; Wang, J.; Shahandashti, M.; Baek, M. A data envelopment analysis (DEA) model for building energy benchmarking. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2019, 17, 747–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Z.J.; Ma, G.F. Incremental cost-benefit quantitative assessment of green building: A case study in China. Energy Build. 2022, 269, 112251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iribarren, D.; Marvuglia, A.; Hild, P.; Guiton, M.; Popovici, E.; Benetto, E. Life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis approach for the selection of building components according to their environmental impact efficiency: A case study for external walls. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 87, 707–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, W.J.; Shi, Y.; Xu, Z.H.; Ouyang, F.; Zhang, L.; Chen, H. The Green Innovative Power of Carbon Neutrality in China: A Perspective of Innovation Efficiency in China’s High-Tech Industry Based on Meta-Frontier DEA. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 857516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaltegger, S.; Sturm, A. Ökologische rationalitӓt: Ansatzpunkte zur ausgestaltung von ökologieorientierten managementinstrumenten. Unternehmung 1990, 44, 273–290. [Google Scholar]
- Xue, F.; Shen, L.; Qian, J. Factors influencing the incremental cost of green residential buildings. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2019, 36, 194–200. [Google Scholar]
- Long, G.Q.; Xu, T.X.; Li, C. Evaluation of green building incremental cost and benefit based on SD model. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 237, 03012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, X.; Li, X.J.; Lu, J.; Yang, L. Analysis of Influencing Factor on Green Building’s Incremental Cost. Adv. Mater. Res. 2014, 1073–1076, 1249–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, X.Y.; Yang, T. Research on the whole process control of green building incremental cost. J. Eng. Manag. 2014, 28, 12–16. [Google Scholar]
- Bhat, R. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). J. Health Manag. 2001, 3, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W.; Rhodes, E. Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1979, 3, 429–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Incremental Costs in the Construction Cycle Phase | Incremental Cost Notes |
---|---|
Upfront incremental cost | Incremental cost of planning, design, certification, etc. in the early stage of engineering projects |
Construction Incremental Cost | Incremental costs incurred in the construction phase due to green technology, water saving, land saving, material saving, indoor and outdoor environment improvement, etc. |
Incremental cost of operations | Incremental costs in maintenance of energy-saving equipment, post-operation star certification fees, etc. |
Demolition recovery incremental cost | Incremental cost of adopting advanced environmental protection demolition measures, incremental cost of restoring the original ecology and incremental cost of recycling waste building materials |
Incremental Benefit Indicators | Interpretation of Indicators | Type of Benefit |
---|---|---|
Economic benefit | Save energy, water, land and material | Explicit benefit |
Save maintenance cost in operation, and prolong the building service life | ||
Environmental benefit | Reduce pollution benefit | Implicit benefit |
Improve the ecological environment | ||
Social benefit | Micro-level: inhabitant health | |
Regional level: save public utilities | ||
Macro level: promote sustainable development |
Energy Type | CO2 Emission Factor | Material Type | CO2 Emission Factor | Plant Type | CO2 Fixed Amount (kg/m3 × Year) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coal | 2.49 kg CO2/kg | Cement | 1.45 | Ecological multilayer | 1200 |
Gasoline | 2.99 kg CO2/kg | Steel | 4.47 | Arbor | 600 |
Diesel | 3.16 kg CO2/kg | Concrete | 0.95 | Bush | 300 |
Nature gas | 2.19 kg CO2/kg | Concrete block | 0.44 | Cirrus | 100 |
Electricity | 0.997 kg CO2/kwh | Solid clay brick | 0.73 | Natural weeds, aquatic plants | 20 |
- | - | Glass | 5.13 | - | - |
- | - | Lime | 2.75 | - | - |
DMU | Input Indicator (10,000 yuan) | Output Indicator (10,000 yuan) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | |
DMU1 | 159.06 | 5053.79 | 690.44 | 46.34 | 3846.72 | 901.61 | 564.04 |
DMU2 | 191.41 | 3633.32 | 101.78 | 36.4 | 2020.31 | 805.56 | 806.32 |
DMU3 | 120.56 | 4451.45 | 898.94 | 53.32 | 3176.71 | 901.55 | 461.7 |
DMU4 | 80.12 | 3472.45 | 586.6 | 46.4 | 3023.2 | 780.1 | 266.6 |
DMU5 | 154.3 | 6052.1 | 632.2 | 35.8 | 5340.1 | 1260 | 640.3 |
DMU6 | 206.4 | 5800.3 | 1250.5 | 73.1 | 3260.8 | 897.2 | 609.3 |
DMU7 | 221.9 | 7683.2 | 854.6 | 52.1 | 6443.2 | 721.2 | 674.1 |
DMU8 | 211.48 | 7361.43 | 888.41 | 45.71 | 6133.36 | 703.25 | 621.81 |
Value | 168.15 | 5438.51 | 737.93 | 48.65 | 4155.55 | 871.31 | 580.52 |
221.9 | 7683.2 | 1250.5 | 73.1 | 6443.2 | 1260 | 806.32 |
Indicator | Input Indicator | Output Indicator | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | ||
0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.12 | ||
0.14 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.17 | ||
0.09 | 0.10 | 0.15 | 0.14 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.10 | ||
0.06 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.06 | ||
0.11 | 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.16 | 0.18 | 0.14 | ||
0.15 | 0.13 | 0.21 | 0.19 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.13 | ||
0.16 | 0.18 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.19 | 0.10 | 0.15 | ||
0.16 | 0.17 | 0.15 | 0.12 | 0.18 | 0.10 | 0.13 |
Firm | θ | vrste | Scale | NRIS |
---|---|---|---|---|
DMU1 | 0.904 | 0.919 | 0.984 | irs |
DMU2 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | - |
DMU3 | 0.960 | 0.965 | 0.995 | irs |
DMU4 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | - |
DMU5 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | - |
DMU6 | 0.750 | 0.762 | 0.984 | irs |
DMU7 | 0.928 | 1.000 | 0.928 | drs |
DMU8 | 0.926 | 0.980 | 0.945 | drs |
Mean | 0.934 | 0.953 | 0.980 |
Indicators | Original Value | Radial Movement | Slack Movement | Projected Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
X1 | 206.4 | −53.697 | −2.754 | 149.949 |
X2 | 5800.300 | −1508.991 | 0.000 | 4291.309 |
X3 | 1250.500 | −325.327 | −535.699 | 389.474 |
X4 | 73.100 | −19.018 | −15.099 | 38.983 |
Y1 | 3260.800 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 3260.496 |
Y2 | 897.200 | 0.000 | 33.396 | 930.496 |
Y3 | 609.300 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 609.300 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Liu, W.; Huang, X.; He, Z.; Wang, Y.; Han, L.; Qiu, W. Input-Output Benefit Analysis of Green Building Incremental Cost Based on DEA-Entropy Weight Method. Buildings 2022, 12, 2239. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122239
Liu W, Huang X, He Z, Wang Y, Han L, Qiu W. Input-Output Benefit Analysis of Green Building Incremental Cost Based on DEA-Entropy Weight Method. Buildings. 2022; 12(12):2239. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122239
Chicago/Turabian StyleLiu, Wei, Xiaohui Huang, Zhuan He, Yongxiang Wang, Luyao Han, and Wenxuan Qiu. 2022. "Input-Output Benefit Analysis of Green Building Incremental Cost Based on DEA-Entropy Weight Method" Buildings 12, no. 12: 2239. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122239