Critical risk factors of public building green retrofit projects- an empirical study in Chongqing, China

Figures & data

Figure 1. The flowchart of the proposed Choquet integral FMEA method.

Table 1. Risk factors of green retrofit projects in public buildings.

Phase	Code	Risk Factors	References
Decision Stage Risks	FM1	Risk of uncompleted policies	(Alam et al. 2019; Berghorn and Syal 2016; Lee, Lam, and Lee 2015; Wang et al. 2018)
	FM2	Risk of delays in government approvals	(Lee, Lam, and Lee 2015; Lu, Zhang, and Chen 2017; Wang et al. 2018)
	FM3	Interest rate exchange rate change risk	(Berghorn and Syal 2016)
	FM4	Risk of policy or standard adjustments	(Berghorn and Syal 2016; Lee, Lam, and Lee 2015; Lu, Zhang, and Chen 2017; Wang et al. 2018)
	FM5	Financing risks for renovation projects	(Alam et al. 2019; Berghorn and Syal 2016; Lee, Lam, and Lee 2015; Lu, Zhang, and Chen 2017)
	FM6	Risk of inadequate contractual agreements	(Liu, Wang, and Bai 2016; Berghorn and Syal 2016)
	FM7	Risk of increased consultation and retrofitting costs	(Liu, Wang, and Bai 2016)
	FM8	Risk of inaccurate measurement of existing building status	(Liu, Wang, and Bai 2016; Alam et al. 2019; Berghorn and Syal 2016; Lee, Lam, and Lee 2015)
	FM9	Fierce competition in the green retrofit market	(Liu, Wang, and Bai 2016)
	FM10	Risk of inaccurate projection of retrofit benefits	(Wang et al. 2018)
	FM11	Risk of inaccurate targeting of transformation	(Wang et al. 2018)
Design phase risk	FM12	Risk of deviation from the retrofit design plan	(Berghorn and Syal 2016)
	FM13	Risk of missing original design information for existing buildings	(Wang et al. 2018)
	FM14	Risk of the inexperience of design units for public building renovation	(Jafari, Valentin, and Bogus 2019; Wang et al. 2018)
	FM15	Risk of changing standards for public building renovation	(Wang et al. 2018)
	FM16	Lack of green awareness in public building renovation	(Alam et al. 2019; Ferreira and Almeida 2015; Jafari, Valentin, and Bogus 2019; Wang et al. 2018)
Construction phase risk	FM17	Force majeure risk	(Liu, Wang, and Bai 2016; Berghorn and Syal 2016; Lee, Lam, and Lee 2015)
	FM18	Insufficient experience in green renovation construction management	(Wang et al. 2018)
	FM19	The impact of renovation construction on the original building and surrounding buildings	(Chen 2019; Marique and Rossi 2018)
	FM20	Liquidity risks	(Berghorn and Syal 2016; Liu, Wang, and Bai 2016)
	FM21	Risk of improper selection of green retrofit technology for public buildings	(Liu, Wang, and Bai 2016; Berghorn and Syal 2016; Ferreira and Almeida 2015; Lee, Lam, and Lee 2015; Li et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2018)
	FM22	Risk of unreasonable selection of new materials or equipment	(Liu, Wang, and Bai 2016; Chen 2019; Lee, Lam, and Lee 2015; Wang et al. 2018)
	FM23	Lack of insurance related to green retrofitting of public buildings	(Lee, Lam, and Lee 2015; Wang et al. 2018)
Operational phase risks	FM24	The risk that the renovation does not meet the relevant norms and standards	(Liu, Wang, and Bai 2016; Beijing Municipal Commission of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, Beijing Major Projects Construction Headquarters Office 2020; Berghorn and Syal 2016; Chen 2019; Lee, Lam, and Lee 2015)
	FM25	Risk of improper green technology mastery by managers	(Beijing Municipal Commission of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, Beijing Major Projects Construction Headquarters Office 2020; Berghorn and Syal 2016; Li et al. 2015; Nguyen, Do, and Macchion 2021; Wang et al. 2018)
	FM26	Risk of material and equipment obsolescence	(Wang et al. 2018)
	FM27	Subject of interest responsibility for sharing unknown risks	(Lee, Lam, and Lee 2015; Wang et al. 2018)
	FM28	Risk of inadequate operation and maintenance	(Berghorn and Syal 2016; Lee, Lam, and Lee 2015; Wang et al. 2018)
	FM29	Risk of inappropriate green awareness and behavior of property owners	(Berghorn and Syal 2016)
	FM30	Risk of inaccurate measurement of operational energy consumption	(Liu, Wang, and Bai 2016; Wang et al. 2018)

Table 2. Risk assessment level and triangular fuzzy number.

Risk assessment level	Triangular fuzzy number
Very high (VH)	(0.75,1.00,1.00)
High (H)	(0.50,0.75,1.00)
Medium (M)	(0.25,0.50,0.75)
Low (L)	(0.00,0.25,0.50)
Very low (VL)	(0.00,0.00,0.25)

Table 3. Background information of experts.

	Number	Proportion
Type of Organization
Real estate developers	2	8%
Construction units	8	32%
Supervision and Consulting units	5	20%
Design Units	2	8%
Government Sectors	2	8%
Research Institution	6	24%
Years of Working Experience
3–5 years	12	48%
6–10 years	8	32%
10 years or more	5	20%

Table 4. Weights of the parameters in the case study.

Experts	Weights of the parameters			λ	Experts	Weights of the parameters			λ
	O	S	E			O	S	E
DM1	1	0.5	0.5	−1	DM14	0.2	0.4	0.4	0
DM2	0.4	0.5	0.4	−0.5845	DM15	0.3	0.4	0.2	0.3719
DM3	0.7	0.8	0.8	−0.9862	DM16	0.3	0.4	0.4	−0.2580
DM4	0.7	0.5	0.3	−0.7985	DM17	0.4	0.3	0.3	0
DM5	0.9	0.9	0.8	−0.9979	DM18	0.4	0.4	0.3	−0.2580
DM6	0.4	0.5	0.8	−0.9025	DM19	0.5	0.9	1	−1
DM7	0.3	0.4	0.3	0	DM20	0.9	0.6	0.7	−0.9857
DM8	0.2	0.5	0.3	0	DM21	0.5	0.2	0.3	0
DM9	0.8	0.9	0.6	−0.9909	DM22	0.4	0.5	0.3	−0.4516
DM10	0.3	0.4	0.2	0.3719	DM23	0.6	0.4	0.2	−0.4796
DM11	0.5	0.8	0.7	−0.9606	DM24	0.5	0.8	1	−1
DM12	0.9	0.6	0.6	−0.9800	DM25	0.9	0.5	0.6	−0.9736
DM13	1	0.5	0.5	−1

Table 5. Results of RPN calculation.

Risk Factors	FMEA model with the Choquet integral
	O	S	E	Fuzzy RPN	Ranking
FM1	0.2996	0.5189	0.7499	0.57350	6
FM2	0.2942	0.5260	0.7600	0.57705	5
FM3	0.0968	0.2972	0.5472	0.30807	30
FM4	0.2671	0.4886	0.7291	0.53664	11
FM5	0.3361	0.5407	0.7602	0.60537	3
FM6	0.3348	0.5765	0.8085	0.63538	1
FM7	0.2807	0.5282	0.7637	0.57235	7
FM8	0.2181	0.4389	0.6889	0.47672	19
FM9	0.2866	0.5249	0.7274	0.56414	10
FM10	0.2480	0.4636	0.7051	0.50833	15
FM11	0.2319	0.4439	0.6889	0.48619	17
FM12	0.2318	0.4498	0.6980	0.49149	16
FM13	0.2873	0.5143	0.7463	0.56419	9
FM14	0.2073	0.4403	0.6793	0.46956	21
FM15	0.2194	0.4324	0.6639	0.46766	22
FM16	0.1431	0.3271	0.5751	0.35345	29
FM17	0.3083	0.5311	0.7597	0.58655	4
FM18	0.2566	0.4901	0.7356	0.53384	12
FM19	0.2510	0.4854	0.7304	0.52742	14
FM20	0.3087	0.5520	0.7915	0.60557	2
FM21	0.1745	0.3973	0.6473	0.42325	25
FM22	0.1551	0.3800	0.6270	0.39955	27
FM23	0.1415	0.3508	0.6008	0.37128	28
FM24	0.2220	0.4395	0.6895	0.47917	18
FM25	0.1886	0.4271	0.6771	0.45304	23
FM26	0.2165	0.4390	0.6890	0.47606	20
FM27	0.2773	0.5203	0.7703	0.56842	8
FM28	0.2564	0.4879	0.7304	0.53137	13
FM29	0.1971	0.4201	0.6676	0.45129	24
FM30	0.1605	0.3800	0.6300	0.40310	26

Alam, M., P. X. Zou, R. A. Stewart, E. Bertone, O. Sahin, C. Buntine, and C. Marshall. 2019. “Government Championed Strategies to Overcome the Barriers to Public Building Energy Efficiency Retrofit Projects.” Sustainable Cities and Society 44:56–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.09.022.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Berghorn, G. H., and M. M. Syal. 2016. “Risk Framework for Energy Performance Contracting Building Retrofits.” Journal of Green Building 11 (2): 93–115. https://doi.org/10.3992/jgb.11.2.93.1.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lee, P., P. T. I. Lam, and W. L. Lee. 2015. “Risks in Energy Performance Contracting (EPC) Projects.” Energy and Buildings 92:116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.01.054.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wang, W., X. Liu, Y. Qin, and Y. Fu. 2018. “A Risk Evaluation and Prioritization Method for FMEA with Prospect Theory and Choquet Integral.” Safety Science 110:152–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.08.009.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lu, Y., N. Zhang, and J. Chen. 2017. “A Behavior-Based Decision-Making Model for Energy Performance Contracting in Building Retrofit.” Energy and Buildings 156:315–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.09.088.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liu, X., B. Wang, and C. Bai. 2016. “Risk Assessment Studies on the Contract Energy Management in Energy-Saving Reconstruction of Residential Buildings Based on ANP-Grey.” Construction Technology 45 (4): 56–61. In Chinese.

 Google Scholar

Jafari, A., V. Valentin, and S. M. Bogus. 2019. “Identification of Social Sustainability Criteria in Building Energy Retrofit Projects.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 145 (2): 04018136. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001610.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ferreira, M., and M. Almeida. 2015. “Benefits from Energy Related Building Renovation Beyond Costs, Energy and Emissions.” Energy Procedia 78:2397–2402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.199.

 Google Scholar

Chen, L. 2019. Case Set of Comprehensive Performance Improvement and Renovation Project of Existing Public Buildings. Bei Jing: China Architecture & Building Press. In Chinese.

 Google Scholar

Marique, A. F., and B. Rossi. 2018. “Cradle-To-Grave Life-Cycle Assessment within the Built Environment: Comparison Between the Refurbishment and the Complete Reconstruction of an Office Building in Belgium.” Journal of Environmental Management 224:396–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.02.055.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Li, H., X. Cai, G. Feng, S. Yu, Y. Zhao, and Y. Wang. 2015. “Green Retrofit Survey and Analysis of Public Institution Building in Cold Region.” Procedia Engineering 121:1510–1514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.09.126.

 Google Scholar

Beijing Municipal Commission of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, Beijing Major Projects Construction Headquarters Office. 2020. A Detailed Analysis of the Case of Energy-Saving and Green Renovation of Public Buildings in Beijing. Beijing: China Building Materials Industry Press. In Chinese.

 Google Scholar

Nguyen, H. D., Q. N. H. Do, and L. Macchion. 2021. “Influence of practitioners’ Characteristics on Risk Assessment in Green Building Projects in Emerging Economies: A Case of Vietnam.” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-05-2021-0436.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar