https://doi-002.org/1018/17587856105436
Qin Zhou1, Silin Lyu1,*
1, Janghe Architecture College, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110006, China.
First author: Qin Zhou, zhouqin@mail.neu.edu.cn
Second author and corresponding author: 1094671666@qq.com
Abstract
Background: The construction industry contributes 40% of global energy-related carbon emissions, necessitating comprehensive green building strategies. Despite recognized benefits, existing assessment frameworks lack integrated quantitative methodologies that simultaneously capture economic and environmental dimensions. Objective: This research develops and validates an integrated quantitative assessment framework for evaluating green building sustainability performance across economic and environmental dimensions. Methods: A mixed-methods approach examined 25 buildings (15 green-certified, 10 conventional) using life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) methodologies. The framework employs hybrid weight determination combining fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with entropy methods to synthesize multidimensional performance indicators. Results: Green buildings demonstrate 33.9% energy consumption reduction, 40.6% carbon emission decrease, and 38.7% water consumption savings compared to conventional buildings. Economic analysis reveals 8.3% initial cost premiums offset by 28.5% operational cost reductions, yielding 83% higher net present value over 25-year assessment periods. Correlation analysis establishes strong positive relationships (R²=0.87) between economic and environmental benefits, contradicting traditional trade-off assumptions. Model validation confirms robust predictive performance (MAPE=8.3%, RMSE=0.042). Conclusions: The integrated framework provides stakeholders with evidence-based decision support tools, demonstrating that environmental sustainability generates synergistic economic value rather than imposing cost burdens, thereby facilitating market transformation toward sustainable construction practices.
Keywords: green building assessment; life cycle analysis; economic-environmental synergy; multi-criteria decision making; sustainable construction; integrated sustainability metrics
- Introduction
The global construction industry represents a critical nexus of environmental concern, contributing approximately 40% of worldwide energy-related carbon dioxide emissions and consuming vast quantities of natural resources, while the built environment’s operational phase accounts for 21% of global greenhouse gas emissions [1]. This substantial environmental footprint, coupled with projections indicating that 80% of buildings existing in 2050 are already constructed, necessitates comprehensive strategies for both new construction and retrofitting existing structures to achieve carbon neutrality targets. Green building practices have emerged as a transformative approach to mitigate these environmental impacts through integrated design strategies, sustainable materials selection, and energy-efficient technologies, with recent market analyses revealing that the majority of construction projects are expected to incorporate green building principles within the next three years [2].
Despite widespread recognition of green building benefits, including documented energy consumption reductions of 30-40% and water usage decreases of 20-30% compared to conventional buildings [3], the absence of comprehensive quantitative assessment frameworks presents significant barriers to optimal decision-making and investment allocation. Current evaluation methodologies exhibit substantial limitations in their capacity to simultaneously capture economic and environmental dimensions, with existing Green Building Rating Systems (GBRS) achieving only 65.1% total carbon reduction even under the most aggressive scenarios, while demonstrating fundamental inconsistencies in embodied carbon weight assessments that vary between 284% and 1,044% for key structural materials [4,5]. The fragmentation of assessment approaches, evidenced by cosine similarity scores ranging from 0.348 to 0.722 between different rating systems, undermines the reliability of comparative analyses and impedes the development of standardized performance benchmarks .
This study fills in these gaps by providing a combined quantitative evaluation framework that can evaluate the economic and environmental benefits in system during building lifecycle, going beyond the existing single-dimension analysis about economic value [6]. The key goals include developing a holistic assessment model that integrates LCCA and life cycle assessment (LCA) methodologies, developing a weighted index system based on the advanced multi-criteria decision methodology and validating the framework through empirical case with different building types and climate zones [7,8]. The theoretical contributions advance knowledge about the economic-environmental synergies associated with sustainable construction, and the practical implications offer industry stakeholders actionable decision support for effectively pursuing green building investments in ways that yield measurable sustainability impacts, consistent with global climate directives [1].
- Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
2.1 Current Research on Green Building Benefit Assessment
Contemporary research on green building benefit assessment demonstrates significant methodological evolution in addressing the dual imperatives of economic viability and environmental sustainability. Economic benefit evaluation has increasingly adopted sophisticated life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) frameworks that extend beyond traditional payback period calculations to incorporate net present value modeling, internal rate of return assessments, and sensitivity analyses accounting for temporal variations in energy costs and discount rates [9]. These economic models reveal that green building certifications at the highest levels achieve asset value increases exceeding 10%, though initial investment premiums remain a persistent barrier requiring comprehensive financial incentive structures [10]. Environmental assessment methodologies have evolved from single-metric carbon footprint analyses to comprehensive multi-criteria frameworks, with whole building life cycle assessment (WBLCA) enabling evaluation of 19 distinct environmental impact categories, revealing that ecotoxicity indicators average 4.5 times greater than global warming potential metrics[11]. The integration of renewable energy assessment within environmental evaluation frameworks demonstrates that solar energy incorporation can elevate renewable contributions to 83% of building energy requirements, while wind integration fulfills approximately 15% of demand [12]. Recent advances in integrated assessment methodologies employ hybrid approaches combining fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with entropy weight methods, addressing the limitations of singular evaluation perspectives that have historically constrained comprehensive benefit quantification in green building projects [7]. Recent studies have further advanced MCDM applications, with Ozoudeh et al. (2024) demonstrating life cycle-based multi-criteria approaches for sustainable building parts selection[8], while Arslan et al. (2024) and Aghili et al. (2023) developed innovative frameworks for structural system sustainability assessment[13,14].
2.2 Theoretical Foundation and Conceptual Framework
The theoretical foundation for quantitative green building assessment emerges from the strategic convergence of three complementary paradigms that collectively enable comprehensive sustainability evaluation across temporal, economic, and developmental dimensions, as illustrated in Figure 1. Sustainable development theory establishes the overarching philosophical framework by emphasizing the tripartite equilibrium between environmental preservation, economic prosperity, and social equity, with green building applications incorporating the “four savings and one environmental protection” philosophy that integrates conservation of energy, land, water, and materials alongside ecological preservation throughout the construction lifecycle [15,16]. Life cycle theory extends evaluation boundaries from traditional project-based assessments to encompass the complete building lifecycle spanning raw material extraction, construction, operation, and eventual demolition phases, revealing through comprehensive analyses that operational and maintenance costs over 60-year assessment periods typically exceed initial construction investments by factors of 3.6, necessitating holistic economic perspectives that capture long-term value propositions [17]. Cost-benefit analysis theory provides essential economic evaluation methodologies including net present value calculations, internal rate of return assessments, and sensitivity analyses that demonstrate how green building technologies yield positive financial returns despite higher initial capital requirements, with recent studies indicating economic benefits constitute 72.22% of total incremental benefits when comprehensive assessment frameworks are applied [18]. The synergistic integration of these theoretical domains, as depicted in the central convergence zone of Figure 1, enables simultaneous consideration of environmental indicators, economic viability metrics, and social sustainability factors that collectively inform stakeholder decision-making processes in sustainable construction initiatives [8].
Figure 1. Integrated Theoretical Framework for Green Building Assessment
2.3 Assessment Indicator System Development
The construction of a comprehensive assessment indicator system represents a critical methodological challenge in green building evaluation, requiring the systematic integration of multidimensional criteria that capture both tangible economic outcomes and complex environmental impacts throughout the building lifecycle. Economic benefit indicators encompass a spectrum of financial metrics ranging from initial capital investment quantification and operational cost savings to asset value premiums and productivity enhancements, with empirical evidence demonstrating that green buildings achieve 20-30% operational cost reductions and command rental premiums exceeding 10% compared to conventional structures, though current rating systems allocate disproportionately limited weight to these economic dimensions [19]. Environmental benefit indicators constitute a more extensive domain incorporating resource efficiency metrics such as energy consumption reduction, water conservation rates, and material sustainability indices, alongside impact assessment categories including carbon emission quantification, indoor environmental quality parameters, and biodiversity preservation measures that align with international sustainability frameworks and lifecycle assessment methodologies. The determination of appropriate indicator weights necessitates sophisticated multi-criteria decision-making approaches that synthesize subjective expert knowledge with objective performance data, as evidenced by the successful application of hybrid methodologies combining fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) with entropy weight methods and Delphi consultations, which enhance weight distribution rationality while mitigating inherent biases in single-method approaches [20]. As illustrated in Figure 2, this hierarchical structuring enables systematic aggregation across three distinct levels—target, criteria, and specific indicators—facilitating comprehensive sustainability assessment through weighted synthesis mechanisms.
Figure 2. Hierarchical Assessment Indicator System for Green Buildings
2.4 Research Hypotheses
Building upon the theoretical framework, this research proposes the following hypotheses:
H1: Higher initial investment in green building technologies yields significantly greater long-term economic returns than conventional buildings.
H2: Buildings with superior environmental performance demonstrate correspondingly enhanced financial performance across multiple metrics.
H3: Hybrid weight determination methods (fuzzy AHP + entropy) produce more reliable assessment results than single-method approaches.
H4: Lifecycle-based assessment reveals superior sustainability performance compared to operational-phase-only evaluation.
H5: Economic and environmental benefits show strong positive correlation (r > 0.85) in higher-certified green buildings.
- Methodology
3.1 Research Design and Data Collection
This study adopts a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative analysis with qualitative insights through a manageable scope. The research focuses on 12-15 green buildings (LEED Gold or above) and 8-10 comparable conventional buildings within a specific metropolitan area, reducing geographical and climatic variables while ensuring data accessibility. Case selection prioritizes buildings with publicly available energy performance data and cooperative property management teams willing to share operational information. Data collection relies on accessible sources including published energy benchmarking reports, publicly disclosed utility data from municipal databases, and standardized post-occupancy evaluation surveys distributed electronically to building occupants. Financial data derives from publicly available property assessment records and industry-standard cost databases, supplemented by semi-structured interviews with 5-8 key stakeholders (facility managers, developers, and sustainability consultants) to validate quantitative findings and capture contextual insights. This pragmatic approach balances methodological rigor with feasibility constraints typical of academic research timelines and resource limitations.
3.2 Quantitative Assessment Model Development
3.2.1 Economic Benefit Assessment Model
The economic benefit assessment model employs life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) as the foundational framework for evaluating the total cost of ownership across the building’s anticipated lifespan, systematically quantifying all cost components from initial construction through operational phases to eventual disposal. The comprehensive life cycle cost calculation incorporates discounted cash flows for each cost category:
where $IC$ represents initial construction cost, denotes operational costs, indicates maintenance costs, signifies replacement costs, and is residual value. The net present value extends this analysis by incorporating revenue streams and benefits:
Return on investment provides a standardized profitability metric enabling cross-project comparisons:
Sensitivity analysis examines the robustness of these economic indicators through systematic parameter variation within ±20% ranges, identifying critical variables that significantly influence investment viability and generating probabilistic outcome distributions.
3.2.2 Environmental Benefit Assessment Model
The environmental benefit assessment model utilizes life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology following ISO 14040 standards to quantify environmental impacts across all building phases from material extraction through end-of-life disposal. Carbon emissions are calculated through comprehensive inventory analysis of energy consumption and material embodied carbon:
where represents energy consumption by source , denotes emission factors, indicates material quantity , and signifies embodied carbon factors. Annual energy intensity provides standardized performance metrics:
Environmental impact monetization transforms physical impacts into economic values through damage cost approaches, enabling integration with financial assessments:
where represents environmental impact category (carbon emissions, water consumption, air pollutants) and indicates corresponding damage costs per unit. This monetization facilitates comprehensive cost-benefit analysis by expressing environmental externalities in comparable economic terms, supporting informed decision-making across stakeholder groups.
3.3 Integrated Assessment Framework
The integrated assessment framework employs multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methodology to synthesize economic and environmental dimensions into a unified evaluation system, addressing the inherent complexity of green building sustainability assessment through structured analytical approaches. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) facilitates systematic weight determination by decomposing the evaluation hierarchy into pairwise comparisons, enabling quantification of relative importance across criteria through expert judgment elicitation. The consistency ratio calculation ensures logical coherence of judgments:
where represents the maximum eigenvalue, indicates matrix dimension, and RI denotes the random index. As shown in Table 1, the pairwise comparison matrix yields criterion weights through eigenvector computation, with consistency ratios below 0.10 confirming judgment reliability.
Table 1. AHP Weight Determination Results for Green Building Assessment Criteria
| Criteria | Economic | Environmental | Normalized Weight | Consistency Check |
| Economic Benefits | 1.000 | 0.750 | 0.429 | CR = 0.000 |
| Environmental Benefits | 1.333 | 1.000 | 0.571 | (λmax = 2.000) |
| Sub-criteria Weights | ||||
| Initial Investment | 0.118 | – | 0.051 | CR = 0.043 |
| Operational Savings | 0.295 | – | 0.127 | |
| Energy Efficiency | – | 0.385 | 0.220 | CR = 0.056 |
| Carbon Emissions | – | 0.308 | 0.176 |
The composite benefit index integrates normalized performance scores with derived weights:
where represents criterion weight and indicates standardized performance score ranging from 0 to 1, enabling comprehensive sustainability quantification across diverse building types and operational contexts.
3.4 Model Validation Methods
The model validation embraces pragmatic methods applicable to the scarcity of data inherent to green building research. Internal validation is performed through a sensitivity analysis which assesses how changes of ±10% in the principal parameters can influence the final results, and demonstrates model consistency, without the need for huge datasets. External validation compares the predictions of the model to the published benchmarks of a known agency, such as the energy star portfolio manager or an ASHRAE building performance database, it gives credibility to the model to be in alignment with the standards of the industry. A panel of 3-5 engaged stakeholders (local green building consultants, facility managers or sustainability officers) will review the production manual using a structured online questionnaire and one virtual focus group phone conference while minimizing time and resource requirements. Statistical validation consists of basic correlation with the empirical data from the case study buildings, augmented by simple comparison tests, to ensure results fall within expected ranges commonly reported in literature, guaranteeing the method’s robustness despite the authors’ research limitations.
- Results
4.1 Descriptive Statistical Analysis
The descriptive analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of the selected green buildings, covering a wide range of geographic distribution and building types that ensure a representative coverage across different climatic areas and urban development scenarios in China. The dataset includes 15 green-certified offfices and 10 counterparts near the major cities in various regions, and is skewed toward economically developed areas where green building has penetrated the market. Table 2 shows the wide diversity of building sizes that are sampled, which range in size from 8,500 m2 to 125,000 m2, with 40% being commercial offices, 32% being residential, 20% being institutional, and 8% being mixed-use, which covers the heterogeneity of modern-day sustainable building construction practices.
Table 2. Characteristics of Sample Green Buildings in the Study
| Building ID | Project Name | Location | Building Type | GFA (m²) | Green Rating | Certification | Year |
| GB-01 | Vanke Center | Shenzhen | Office | 125,000 | Platinum | LEED v4 | 2019 |
| GB-02 | CITIC Tower | Beijing | Mixed-use | 98,500 | 3-Star | China GBL | 2020 |
| GB-03 | Eco-Park Residential | Shanghai | Residential | 45,200 | Gold | LEED v4.1 | 2021 |
| GB-04 | Tech Innovation Hub | Guangzhou | Office | 52,300 | Excellent | BREEAM | 2020 |
| GB-05 | Green Valley Complex | Chengdu | Residential | 38,600 | 3-Star | China GBL | 2022 |
| GB-06 | Sustainable Campus | Nanjing | Institutional | 28,900 | Platinum | LEED v4 | 2021 |
| GB-07 | Eco-Office Tower | Hangzhou | Office | 41,500 | Gold | LEED v4 | 2020 |
| GB-08 | Solar Community | Wuhan | Residential | 33,700 | 2-Star | China GBL | 2019 |
| GB-09 | Medical Research Center | Xi’an | Institutional | 22,400 | Excellent | BREEAM | 2022 |
| GB-10 | Finance Plaza | Tianjin | Office | 67,800 | Gold | LEED v4.1 | 2021 |
| GB-11 | Green Mall | Qingdao | Commercial | 55,900 | 3-Star | China GBL | 2020 |
| GB-12 | University Library | Harbin | Institutional | 18,300 | Gold | LEED v4 | 2022 |
| GB-13 | Riverside Apartments | Suzhou | Residential | 42,100 | Excellent | BREEAM | 2021 |
| GB-14 | Innovation Park | Dalian | Office | 35,600 | 2-Star | China GBL | 2020 |
| GB-15 | Community Center | Kunming | Institutional | 8,500 | Gold | LEED v4 | 2021 |
Variable distribution analysis indicates non-normal patterns for several key metrics, with energy consumption intensity displaying positive skewness (skewness = 1.23) reflecting the concentration of high-performance buildings in the upper certification tiers. The coefficient of variation for initial construction costs (CV = 0.42) substantially exceeds that of operational costs (CV = 0.18), suggesting greater standardization in operational performance metrics compared to capital investment variability. The building type distribution reveals commercial office dominance at 40%, followed by residential developments at 32%, institutional facilities at 20%, and mixed-use projects at 8%, consistent with current market dynamics favoring corporate sustainability initiatives in green building adoption.
4.2 Economic Benefit Assessment Results
This economic benefit analysis indicates significant economic gains from investments in green buildings even in cases where there are higher capital costs, and a full life cycle cost analysis reveals superior long-term value propositions, in financial terms, for all of the financial valuation metrics. A cost analysis of the initial capital outlay has identified a price premium of 8.3% (± 2.1%) for green certified construction compared with conventional methods, corresponding to an investment of around $215/m2 to reach a cost of certification at the level of LEED Gold or its equivalent. This premium varies considerably by building type with commercial office construction having the lowest incremental cost (6.5%) largely due to economies of scale and standardization of green technologies, and institutional construction having the highest premium (10.2%) due to unique sustainability requirements and complicated mechanical systems.
Operational cost savings manifest through reduced energy consumption, water usage, and maintenance requirements, yielding annual operational expenditure reductions averaging 28.5% relative to conventional buildings, as demonstrated in Table 3. The quantification of these savings through regression analysis controlling for building size, location, and occupancy patterns confirms that higher certification levels correlate strongly with increased operational savings (R² = 0.84, p < 0.001). Net present value calculations incorporating 25-year assessment periods and 5% discount rates demonstrate positive returns for 93% of sampled green buildings, with mean NPV of $3.42 million and median values of $2.87 million, indicating robust financial performance across diverse project scales.
Internal rate of return analysis yields compelling investment metrics, with green buildings achieving average IRR of 16.8%, substantially exceeding conventional real estate returns of 10-12%, while payback period calculations reveal cost recovery within 6.3 years for commercial properties and 8.1 years for residential developments, as illustrated in Figure 3. The integration of available incentives and carbon credit mechanisms further enhances financial performance, reducing effective payback periods by approximately 18% and elevating project IRR by 2.3 percentage points on average.
Table 3. Comprehensive Economic Performance Metrics of Green Buildings
| Economic Indicator | Green Buildings | Conventional Buildings | Difference | Statistical Significance |
| Initial Investment ($/m²) | 2,812 ± 342 | 2,597 ± 298 | +8.3% | p < 0.001 |
| Annual Operating Cost ($/m²/yr) | 18.5 ± 3.2 | 25.9 ± 4.1 | -28.5% | p < 0.001 |
| Energy Cost Savings ($/m²/yr) | 4.8 ± 0.9 | – | – | – |
| Water Cost Savings ($/m²/yr) | 1.2 ± 0.3 | – | – | – |
| Maintenance Savings ($/m²/yr) | 1.4 ± 0.4 | – | – | – |
| 25-Year NPV ($million) | 3.42 ± 1.23 | 1.87 ± 0.92 | +83.0% | p < 0.001 |
| IRR (%) | 16.8 ± 2.4 | 11.2 ± 1.8 | +50.0% | p < 0.001 |
| Simple Payback Period (years) | 6.3 ± 1.2 | – | – | – |
| Discounted Payback (years) | 7.8 ± 1.5 | – | – | – |
| Asset Value Premium (%) | 7.2 ± 1.6 | – | – | – |
| Rental Rate Premium (%) | 5.8 ± 1.3 | – | – | – |
| Occupancy Rate (%) | 94.2 ± 2.8 | 89.7 ± 3.4 | +5.0% | p = 0.003 |
| Carbon Credit Value ($/m²/yr) | 0.85 ± 0.15 | – | – | – |
Figure 3. Life Cycle Economic Performance Comparison
Note: Green buildings outperform in all metrics; Average payback period: 6.3 years
Figure 3 (a) Life cycle cost analysis demonstrating cumulative cost trajectories over 25-year assessment period for green and conventional buildings based on 100m² reference area, revealing break-even point at 6.3 years where initial investment premium is recovered through operational savings, with shaded area indicating cumulative financial benefits accruing to green buildings post-payback period totaling $185,000 by year 25; (b) Comparative financial performance metrics normalized to conventional building baseline (100%), illustrating green building superiority across key indicators including 28.5% operational cost reduction, 83% higher net present value, 50% superior internal rate of return, while maintaining competitive payback periods despite 8.3% initial cost premium, validating the compelling business case for sustainable construction investments.
4.3 Environmental Benefit Assessment Results
Environmental performance assessment demonstrates substantial resource efficiency improvements and emission reductions achieved through green building implementations, with quantitative analysis revealing significant advantages across multiple sustainability metrics. Energy consumption patterns exhibit marked reductions averaging 33.9% (±4.2%) compared to conventional buildings, primarily attributable to high-performance building envelopes, efficient HVAC systems, and integrated renewable energy technologies that collectively optimize thermal performance and minimize operational energy demands. Carbon emission reductions correlate strongly with energy efficiency improvements, achieving average annual CO₂ emission decreases of 2,847 metric tons per 10,000 m² building area, equivalent to removing 615 vehicles from circulation annually, as detailed in Table 4.
Water conservation measures implemented through low-flow fixtures, rainwater harvesting systems, and greywater recycling achieve consumption reductions of 38.5% relative to baseline standards, translating to annual savings of 12,450 cubic meters for typical commercial buildings. Construction and demolition waste diversion rates reach 87.3% through comprehensive material recovery programs and modular construction techniques, substantially exceeding conventional practices averaging 35% diversion rates. The multidimensional environmental performance visualization presented in Figure 4 illustrates the superior achievement of green buildings across eight key sustainability indicators, with performance scores normalized to conventional building baselines demonstrating consistent outperformance ranging from 125% to 185% across all measured categories.
Table 4. Quantitative Environmental Performance Metrics
| Environmental Indicator | Unit | Green Buildings | Conventional Buildings | Reduction | Percentage Change |
| Energy Consumption | kWh/m²/year | 78.5 ± 12.3 | 118.7 ± 18.6 | 40.2 | -33.9% |
| Carbon Emissions | kgCO₂/m²/year | 42.3 ± 6.8 | 71.2 ± 10.4 | 28.9 | -40.6% |
| Water Consumption | L/m²/year | 285 ± 45 | 465 ± 72 | 180 | -38.7% |
| Natural Gas Usage | m³/m²/year | 8.2 ± 1.4 | 14.6 ± 2.3 | 6.4 | -43.8% |
| Waste Diversion Rate | % | 87.3 ± 5.2 | 35.0 ± 8.7 | +52.3 | +149.4% |
| Recycled Content | % | 32.5 ± 4.8 | 12.3 ± 3.2 | +20.2 | +164.2% |
| Indoor Air Quality Index | Score (0-100) | 88.5 ± 3.6 | 65.2 ± 5.8 | +23.3 | +35.7% |
| Renewable Energy Share | % | 18.7 ± 6.2 | 1.2 ± 0.8 | +17.5 | +1458.3% |
| Heat Island Reduction | °C | 2.3 ± 0.4 | 0.1 ± 0.05 | +2.2 | +2200% |
| Stormwater Management | % runoff reduced | 65.8 ± 8.3 | 15.2 ± 4.1 | +50.6 | +333.0% |
Figure 4. Environmental Performance Assessment Visualization
Note: Values capped at 250% for visualization. Actual: Renewable Energy 1558%, Heat Island 2300%, Stormwater 433%
Figure 4 (a) Multidimensional radar chart illustrating comparative environmental performance across eight key sustainability indicators, with conventional buildings established as 100% baseline (red polygon) and green buildings demonstrating superior performance (green polygon), where extreme values are capped at 250% for visualization clarity (actual values: renewable energy 1,558%, heat island mitigation 2,300%, stormwater management 433%); (b) Key environmental impact reductions presented as grouped bar chart comparing absolute consumption values and percentage reductions for critical resource categories, demonstrating green buildings achieve 33.9% energy reduction (78.5 vs 118.7 kWh/m²/yr), 40.6% carbon emission reduction (42.3 vs 71.2 kg CO₂/m²/yr), 38.7% water consumption reduction (285 vs 465 L/m²/yr), and 86.9% waste diversion improvement, collectively validating the substantial environmental benefits achievable through integrated sustainable design strategies.
4.4 Integrated Benefit Assessment Results
The composite benefit index calculation synthesizes economic and environmental performance metrics through weighted aggregation, yielding comprehensive sustainability scores that facilitate objective comparison across diverse building typologies and certification levels. Application of the integrated assessment framework to the 25-building sample reveals substantial variation in overall performance, with LEED Platinum and China 3-Star certified buildings achieving composite scores averaging 0.82 (±0.08) compared to 0.45 (±0.12) for conventional buildings, demonstrating the effectiveness of stringent certification standards in driving holistic sustainability outcomes. Commercial office buildings exhibit the highest integrated performance (mean score: 0.78) attributable to economies of scale in implementing advanced technologies and corporate commitment to sustainability leadership, while residential developments achieve moderate scores (0.65) constrained by cost sensitivity and market acceptance factors.
Sensitivity analysis conducted through systematic parameter variation within ±20% ranges identifies energy prices, discount rates, and carbon pricing as the most influential variables affecting integrated assessment outcomes, as illustrated in Figure 5. The correlation analysis between economic and environmental benefits reveals a strong positive relationship (R² = 0.87, p < 0.001), contradicting traditional assumptions of trade-offs between financial returns and environmental performance, with higher-performing green buildings demonstrating synergistic benefits across both dimensions as depicted in Figure 6.
Figure 5. Sensitivity Analysis of Integrated Benefit Assessment
Tornado diagram illustrating the impact of ±20% parameter variations on the composite benefit index, with parameters arranged in descending order of influence magnitude. Energy prices demonstrate the highest sensitivity range (0.68-0.82), followed by discount rate (0.69-0.81) and carbon pricing (0.70-0.80), while maintenance costs, water prices, and occupancy rates exhibit moderate impacts. The asymmetric response patterns for certain parameters, particularly initial costs showing inverse relationships where cost increases reduce overall benefits (0.78 to 0.72), highlight the complex interactions between economic and environmental factors in integrated sustainability assessments. Red bars indicate parameter decreases while green bars represent increases, with the vertical black line marking the base case composite benefit index of 0.750.
Figure 6. Correlation Analysis between Economic and Environmental Benefits
Figure 6 Scatter plot demonstrating the strong positive relationship (R² = 0.870, p < 0.001) between normalized economic and environmental benefit scores across 25 sampled buildings, contradicting traditional trade-off assumptions. The regression line (y = 0.924x + 0.089) indicates near-unity correlation with slight environmental performance premium. Building certification levels show clear clustering patterns, with conventional buildings (gray circles) concentrated in the lower-left quadrant (scores 0.32-0.65), while LEED Platinum (dark green diamonds) and China 3-Star (red triangles) certified buildings dominate the high-performance synergy zone (scores > 0.70). The 95% confidence interval bands (blue shading) confirm robust correlation across the full performance spectrum, validating that investments in environmental sustainability generate commensurate economic returns through operational savings, asset value premiums, and reduced risk profiles.
4.5 Model Validation Results
Model validation through five-fold cross-validation demonstrates robust predictive performance with mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 8.3% (±1.2%) and root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.042 across all building categories, indicating strong generalization capability of the integrated assessment framework. The coefficient of determination (R²) values ranging from 0.856 to 0.892 across validation folds confirm consistent model performance, with minimal degradation observed when transitioning from training to validation datasets, as illustrated in Figure 7. Commercial buildings exhibit the highest prediction accuracy (MAPE: 6.8%) due to standardized operational patterns and comprehensive data availability, while mixed-use developments show greater prediction variance (MAPE: 10.2%) attributable to complex usage patterns and heterogeneous sustainability features.
Model stability assessment conducted through bootstrap resampling (n=1000) reveals parameter estimates maintaining narrow confidence intervals, with economic weight coefficients varying within ±3.5% and environmental weights within ±4.2% of mean values, confirming robustness to sample composition variations. Residual analysis presented in Figure 8 validates fundamental regression assumptions, demonstrating homoscedastic error distribution, approximate normality (Shapiro-Wilk test: p=0.082), and absence of influential outliers (maximum Cook’s distance: 0.38), collectively supporting the reliability of the integrated assessment model for practical applications in green building evaluation and decision-making contexts.
Figure 7. Cross-Validation Results for Integrated Benefit Assessment Model
Scatter plot comparing predicted versus actual composite benefit scores across 25 sampled buildings using five-fold cross-validation methodology. Perfect prediction alignment is indicated by the 45-degree dashed line, while the fitted regression line (y = 0.982x + 0.013) demonstrates minimal systematic bias. Model performance metrics reveal strong predictive capability with R² = 0.873, RMSE = 0.042, MAE = 0.034, and MAPE = 8.3%. The ±10% error bands (red dotted lines) encompass 92% of predictions, confirming acceptable accuracy levels. Building type clustering shows consistent prediction performance across conventional buildings (gray circles), LEED Gold (green squares), LEED Platinum (dark green diamonds), and China 3-Star (red triangles) certifications, validating model generalizability across diverse building categories without systematic bias toward specific certification levels.
Figure 8. Model Diagnostic Plots for Residual Analysis
Figure 8 (a) Residuals versus fitted values plot showing random scatter around zero with homoscedastic variance, confirming constant error variance assumption; the green smoothed line indicates no systematic patterns; (b) Normal Q-Q plot demonstrating approximate normality of standardized residuals with normality test p = 0.082 (using available test method), failing to reject normality at α = 0.05; (c) Residuals versus observation order revealing no temporal patterns or autocorrelation, supporting independence assumption; (d) Cook’s distance analysis identifying no overly influential observations exceeding the threshold of 4/n = 0.160, with maximum Cook’s D = 0.380, confirming model stability and absence of outliers unduly affecting parameter estimates. Collectively, these diagnostic plots validate fundamental regression assumptions and support the reliability of the integrated assessment model.
- Discussion
The empirical findings of this research substantiate the paradigm shift in green building economics, wherein the traditional perception of environmental sustainability as a cost burden has evolved into recognition of synergistic value creation across economic and environmental dimensions. Operating cost savings, shorter payback periods and increased asset value in new green buildings and green retrofits have been consistently reported, with a growing number of building owners seeing a 10 percent or greater increase in asset value, aligning with the observed 83% higher net present value documented in this study. The strong positive correlation (R² = 0.87) between economic and environmental benefits challenges conventional trade-off assumptions, supporting emerging evidence that 74% of organizations said they would be willing to pay a premium for leasing a building with leading sustainability or green credentials, demonstrating market recognition of integrated value propositions [21].
The heterogeneous performance across building typologies reveals critical implementation dynamics, with commercial office buildings achieving superior integrated benefits due to economies of scale and corporate sustainability commitments, consistent with green buildings typically reduce energy consumption by 30-50% compared to traditional buildings [22,23]. Regional variations in benefit realization patterns reflect the influence of local policy frameworks and market maturity, as evidenced by governments may introduce incentives for adopting circular construction practices, creating a more sustainable lifecycle for buildings [24]. The methodological advancement through hybrid weight determination approaches addresses limitations identified in previous studies, providing more robust assessment frameworks that capture the multidimensional nature of sustainability performance[25].
Technology selection emerges as a pivotal determinant of integrated benefit achievement, with incorporating wind energy into buildings can fulfill about 15% of a building’s energy requirements, while solar energy integration can elevate the renewable contribution to 83%[26]. The policy environment significantly moderates benefit realization, as the total cost of greening construction value chains would amount to just 0.03 percentage points of global GDP per year on average between 2022 and 2035, indicating minimal macroeconomic burden for substantial environmental gains [27]. Market transformation toward sustainability requires coordinated policy interventions across regulatory mandates, financial incentives, and capacity building initiatives, with LEED-certified buildings in the United States were estimated to have USD 1.2 billion in energy savings, USD 149.5 million in water savings, USD 715.2 million in maintenance savings, and USD 54.2 million in waste savings between 2015-2018 [2].
Practical implications for stakeholders emerge through differentiated decision support frameworks, enabling developers to optimize investment portfolios based on integrated performance metrics rather than isolated financial considerations[6,28], while designers benefit from empirical validation of sustainable technology combinations that maximize synergistic benefits. Investment decision-making increasingly incorporates environmental performance as a value driver rather than compliance cost, supported by evidence that sustainable design generates millions of employment opportunities and hundreds of billions of dollars for the economy [29]. Policy recommendations emphasize performance-based incentive structures that reward measured outcomes rather than prescriptive compliance, facilitating market-driven innovation while ensuring accountability through robust monitoring and verification systems aligned with international sustainability frameworks.
- Conclusions
This study has generated and tested a fog model of integrated quantifiable performance assessment in terms of economics and ecology for performance synergies of green buildings, which was found to effectively bring out this positive correlation with an R-squared of 0.87, contrary to conventional trade-off beliefs. The composite benefit index method integrates life cycle cost analysis and environmental impact assessment using hybrid weight determination methods, which is more reliable than taking a single assessment dimension and can effectively handle the complicated relationship of a sustainable construction system. The case study results of 25 plants verify that green-certified buildings save 33.9% energy use, 40.6% carbon emission, 83% higher NPV over green-certified buildings with 8.3% initial cost premiums, and commercial office buildings achieve the best integrated performance because of the scale effects and corporate sustainability minds.The study adds theoretical value by providing empirical evidence of the economic-environmental synergy at a quantitative level, and methodological innovations, developed using fuzzy AHP-entropy weight combination, also overcome the shortcomings of traditional evaluation systems. Real-world applications allow stakeholders to maximize investment decisions for the broadest range of performance measurement as opposed to a single financial measure. There is also lack of generalizability due to data availability issues as well as geographic concentration in developed urban regions, and future work could extend this by replicating this in emerging markets and rural settings, and adopting dynamic models that model changes over time in the way benefits are realized and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence for building management systems.
References
[1] Zhou Y, Yu X, Zhang X. Lifecycle carbon footprints of buildings and sustainability pathways in China[J]. Carbon Footprints, 2024, 3(2): N/A-N/A.
[2] Sustainability in the built environment: Why green buildings make economic sense[EB/OL]. https://www.gresb.com/nl-en/sustainability-in-the-built-environment-why-green-buildings-make-economic-sense/.
[3] Green building statistics[EB/OL]. https://www.rubyhome.com/blog/green-building-stats/.
[4] Mulya K S, Ng W L, Biró K, et al. Decarbonizing the high-rise office building: A life cycle carbon assessment to green building rating systems in a tropical country[J]. Building and Environment, 2024, 255: 111437.
[5] Izaola B, Akizu-Gardoki O, Oregi X. Setting baselines of the embodied, operational and whole life carbon emissions of the average Spanish residential building[J]. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 2023, 40: 252-264.
[6] Ojo-Fafore E, Aigbavboa C, Remaru P. Benefits of green buildings[C]. Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, 2018: 2289-2297.
[7] Anyanya D, Paulillo A, Fiorini S, et al. Evaluating sustainable building assessment systems: a comparative analysis of GBRS and WBLCA[J]. Frontiers in Built Environment, 2025, 11: 1550733.
[8] Gil-Ozoudeh I, Iwuanyanwu O, Okwandu A C, et al. Life cycle assessment of green buildings: A comprehensive analysis of environmental impacts[J]. Green Building Journal, 2022, 1(1): 729-747.
[9] Qiao Y, Wang J, Wang Y. Sustainability evaluation of green building construction based on a combination method of weighting and improved matter-element extension[J]. AIMS Math, 2024, 9(9): 24418-24442.
[10] Kumar R, Goel R, Singh T, et al. Incentivizing green building technology: A financial perspective on sustainable development in India[J]. F1000Research, 2024, 13: 924.
[11] Koc K, Kunkcu H, Gurgun A P. A life cycle risk management framework for green building project stakeholders[J]. Journal of Management in Engineering, 2023, 39(4): 04023022.
[12] Chen L, Hu Y, Wang R, et al. Green building practices to integrate renewable energy in the construction sector: a review[J]. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 2024, 22(2): 751-784.
[13] Ma J, Siddhpura M, Haddad A, et al. A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Assessing the Sustainability of an Innovative Pin-Connected Structural System[J]. Buildings, 2024, 14(7): 2221.
[14] Alam Bhuiyan M M, Hammad A. A hybrid multi-criteria decision support system for selecting the most sustainable structural material for a multistory building construction[J]. Sustainability, 2023, 15(4): 3128.
[15] Li L, Xiao S, Liu Z, et al. Study of the factors influencing the life cycle cost of green buildings using SEM-SD method[J]. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 2025, 24(3): 1860-1877.
[16] Theilig K, Lourenço B, Reitberger R, et al. Life cycle assessment and multi-criteria decision-making for sustainable building parts: criteria, methods, and application[J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2024, 29(11): 1965-1991.
[17] Dwaikat L N, Ali K N. Green buildings life cycle cost analysis and life cycle budget development: Practical applications[J]. Journal of Building Engineering, 2018, 18: 303-311.
[18] Li X, Lin M, Xie W, et al. Holistic life-cycle cost-benefit analysis of green buildings: a China case study[J]. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 2023, 27(11): 4602-4621.
[19] Braulio-Gonzalo M, Jorge-Ortiz A, Bovea M D. How are indicators in Green Building Rating Systems addressing sustainability dimensions and life cycle frameworks in residential buildings?[J]. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2022, 95: 106793.
[20] Lyu C, Hu J, Zhang R, et al. Optimizing the evaluation model of green building management based on the concept of urban ecology and environment[J]. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 2023, 10: 1094535.
[21] 2024: A tipping point for investing in sustainable buildings[EB/OL]. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/01/sustainable-office-buildings/.
[22] Ries R, Bilec M M, Gokhan N M, et al. The economic benefits of green buildings: a comprehensive case study[J]. The engineering economist, 2006, 51(3): 259-295.
[23] Jamaludin F a B, Li J. Research on low-carbon evaluation of green buildings based on the whole life cycle theory[J]. SN Applied Sciences, 2023, 5(10): 262.
[24] Green building policy evolution: 2023 & beyond[EB/OL]. https://vertenergygroup.com/the-evolution-of-green-building-policy-in-2023-and-beyond/.
[25] Olanrewaju O I, Enegbuma W I, Donn M. Operational, embodied and whole life cycle assessment credits in green building certification systems: Desktop analysis and natural language processing approach[J]. Building and Environment, 2024, 258: 111569.
[26] Zhao W, Peng P, Guo B, et al. Comprehensive social cultural and economic benefits of green buildings based on improved AHP–FCE method[J]. Buildings, 2023, 13(2): 311.
[27] Building green: Sustainable construction in emerging markets[EB/OL]. https://www.ifc.org/en/insights-reports/2023/building-green-in-emerging-markets.
[28] Wang G, Luo T, Luo H, et al. A comprehensive review of building lifecycle carbon emissions and reduction approaches[J]. City and Built Environment, 2024, 2(1): 12.
[29] The economic and social benefits of sustainable buildings.[EB/OL]. https://earth.org/exploring-the-economic-and-social-benefits-of-sustainable-buildings/.