Comprehensive Social Cultural and Economic Benefits of Green Buildings Based on Improved AHP–FCE Method

Abstract

Green buildings can effectively alleviate energy scarcity and improve environmental quality, and are becoming the mainstream mode of transformation and upgrading of the construction industry. It is given great importance by all sectors of society committed to implementing the “carbon peak” and “carbon neutral” goals earnestly. However, the unclear comprehensive benefits of green buildings restrict their development in China. The existing studies tend to be limited to a single aspect, such as economic benefits or environmental benefits. The purpose of this study is to establish a more systematic and complete evaluation system for green buildings’ comprehensive benefits. It can increase the consideration of the impact of social and cultural benefits, along with the first two benefits. Firstly, by also considering the triple bottom line principle and benefit principle, four primary indicators and twenty secondary indicators were selected to establish a comprehensive benefit evaluation system for green buildings. Secondly, an improved AHP–FCE method was adopted to determine the weights of each secondary indicator. Finally, the feasibility of the evaluation system was verified through a case study, and some suggestions for improving the comprehensive benefits of green buildings were put forward.

1. Introduction

With the global environment worsening, green living is becoming more popular, and the rising call for green concepts can be witnessed. Securing green energy efficiency and sustainability in buildings is highly favored by today’s homeowners, architects, and government agencies. In 2020, China pledged at the 75th UN General Assembly that “China will increase its national independent contribution, adopt stronger policies and measures, strive to peak CO₂ emissions by 2030, then work towards achieving carbon neutrality by 2060” [1,2]. The 14th Five-Year Plan is an important period to achieve the “carbon peak”, which requires coordination and cooperation among various industries. The construction industry plays an important role in the process of achieving the “double carbon” goal, and it is urgent to promote energy saving, emission reduction, and green development in the construction industry [3]. The development of green buildings has become the new direction of new urbanization construction. A green building is a high-quality building that saves resources, protects the environment, reduces pollution, and provides people with a healthy, suitable, and efficient space to maximize the harmony between humans and nature during its entire lifetime [4,5]. Its role is to achieve a symbiosis between humans and the natural environment, as well as assist in people’s continuous pursuit of a better life under the premise of maintaining the balance of environmental resources to a greater extent [6]. At present, there are relatively mature evaluation standards for green buildings [7] and more studies on the economic benefits of green buildings [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. However, there are few studies on the evaluation of the comprehensive benefits of green buildings. The promotion and development of green buildings were hindered because the comprehensive benefits of green buildings are still unclear. Therefore, an evaluation system for green buildings’ comprehensive benefits is urgently needed. In this paper, combining the existing research and the evaluation index factors of green buildings, we constructed a referenceable evaluation system for green buildings’ comprehensive benefits from four aspects: economic benefits, environmental benefits, social benefits, and cultural benefits. It aims to provide theoretical support for the development of green buildings.

2. Literature Review

The concept of green buildings originated in the United States. From as early as the 1960s, experts in the United States put forward the concept of “ecological architecture”. With the deepening of the concept of ecological architecture and sustainable development, green buildings have spread in western developed countries. Many great global green evaluation systems were established, such as LEED [35] in the United States, BREEAM [36] in the United Kingdom, CASBEE [37] in Japan, GREENSTAR [38] in Australia, DGNB [39] in Germany, etc., which have promoted the development of green buildings to a certain extent. All have their strengths. However, there is a lack of evaluation systems for comprehensive benefits.

There have been fruitful research results on the techno-economic and benefit calculations of green buildings. The former advantage is often more prominent in the comparison of the comprehensive benefits of green buildings and ordinary buildings [12]. Additionally, occupants are more satisfied with green buildings than traditional buildings [2]. The core of green buildings lies in the ability to constitute a circular system so that the energy consumed by the building is internally recyclable. Additionally, little excess energy consumption becomes a reality if clean energy is used. Kaewunruen et al. [40] conducted a large number of net-zero energy green building research studies, using BIM and digital twin technology to evaluate and measure them. The implementation of net-zero energy buildings and the relationship between energy application and cost are discussed, concluding that building a zero-energy-consuming building is completely achievable. The key to achieving green buildings lies in green energy-saving technologies, the use of which can reduce the economic cost of construction and continuously generate environmental and economic benefits throughout the building’s life cycle. Establishing an economic evaluation system for green building energy-saving technology, considering the incremental cost and economic benefits brought by energy-saving technology, reveals that energy-saving technology has a greater importance in green building development [29]. Yueer He [21] quantified the benefits generated by energy-saving technologies through a case study of green building, and the outcome showed that the centralized air conditioning system exhaust-air full heat recovery technology saves up to 35% and generates the largest energy-saving benefits. Zhou Li et al. [20] used the abatement potential cost curve method to account for abatement costs through a case study, and the results showed that energy-efficient technologies have good economic and environmental benefits. Green buildings have great advantages for human development, and when green buildings are studied from a whole life cycle perspective, it is found that green buildings have a positive impact on human health while reducing energy consumption and improving efficiency. Additionally, this goal can be achieved through the impact of green products on the environment [11]. The current development of green building, both domestically and internationally, is not optimistic, and in the Chinese market, the green economic performance of the Chinese construction industry is both fluctuating and low, and there is still much room for improvement [19]. The issue of the cost effectiveness of green buildings is a major impediment to their development [41]. Zhang Xiaoling et al. [9] explored the reasons for the uneven development of green technologies in China through specific project analysis, concluded that the main reason for the impeding of the development of green building is the high cost, and proposed a green strategic plan to promote sustainable building development. Samari et al. [10] conducted a study by means of field research and found that high input costs, low demand rate, and low credit resources are the main influencing factors that hinder the promotion of green buildings in Malaysia. Ma Xiaoguo [15] used the “with and without comparison” method to identify and measure the incremental costs and benefits of green buildings and used the real options method to scientifically evaluate green building projects, and the results showed that the incremental costs and marginal benefits of green buildings are not sufficient to attract a large number of investors, so the development of green buildings requires government intervention. An increasing number of scholars are also studying methods to solve the cost problem. Cao Shen et al. [26] conducted a cost–benefit evaluation on the water-saving benefits of a residential area by establishing a green building cost–benefit evaluation system, and found that effective cost control and improved saving efficiency are conducive to shortening the payback period of incremental costs. Mingchun Sun [28] established a green building evaluation system based on LCC and calculated the payback period of economic benefits and ecological benefits of green buildings by representing incremental benefits through the cost of saving quantity. Finally, it is proposed that green buildings should effectively control costs and consider the scale effect. In the current era of the fourth information technology revolution, a number of scholars have combined BIM technology to propose a series of innovative ideas for green buildings in terms of whole-life cycle and whole-process management. Based on the development of intelligent green buildings, Yang Bin et al. [42] proposed that digital twin technology has not been fully integrated with the development of green buildings and needs to be further developed. Hyun Seok Moon et al. [32] combined CBR with the method of LCA to measure the carbon emissions of green residential buildings and construct a pre-evaluation system for their carbon emissions. Bee Hua Goh, based on information on parameters related to LCC, investigated a model analysis method for estimating the whole life cycle cost of green buildings, and it was concluded that the traditional LCC measurement needs to be improved [34]. Li Zhong Fu assigned the comprehensive benefit evaluation index of BIM green building O&M management with the help of the COWA operator, established a comprehensive benefit evaluation model and method, and determined the advantageous role of BIM in green building O&M management [27]. Cao Yu et al. studied the application of BIM technology in the construction process of green buildings and found that BIM technology is used in green building construction. It plays a big role in quality improvement, data storage, and collaborative optimization [43].

On the contrary, socio-economic benefits are less studied in the field of green buildings. Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) is a method of assessing the social impact of products and services throughout the life cycle (e.g., from the extraction of raw materials to the end-of-life stage, e.g., disposal), which is also a new direction for studying the comprehensive benefits of green buildings [44].

In general, the purpose of green building is to provide a comfortable and energy-efficient living environment for users [31], and considering only economic benefits is equally detrimental to the green building market [25]. By summarizing the established domestic and foreign-related studies, it is found that most of the current studies on the benefits of green buildings and their evaluation are conducted from a single aspect, such as economic benefits or environmental benefits. Additionally, not enough attention is paid to the social and cultural benefits. In addition, there are fewer studies that consider the benefits of green buildings from the four aspects of economy, environment, society, and culture in a comprehensive manner. It is not difficult to see that there is a lack of comprehensive benefit evaluation in systematically considering these four aspects. A research gap exists in the evaluation of the comprehensive benefits of green buildings. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to establish a more comprehensive benefit evaluation system for green buildings. We seek to find the importance of the social and cultural benefits of green buildings, combined with the economic and environmental aspects.

Under the policy background of green economy and high-quality development of the construction industry, combined with the triple bottom line principle and benefit principle, this study establishes a comprehensive evaluation system including economic benefits, environmental benefits, social benefits, and cultural benefits. Additionally, we use the improved hierarchical analysis–fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method (improved APH–FCE) to determine the weights of each secondary index, and then the five-star evaluation is established. It provides a new research perspective and measurement direction for the comprehensive benefit evaluation of green buildings. Finally, it verifies the feasibility of the evaluation model through a case study, which has certain practical significance. This study can enrich the knowledge system for the comprehensive benefit evaluation of green buildings.

3. Modeling Steps of Improved Analytic Hierarchy Process–Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation (AHP–FCE) Method

3.1. Establish a Set of Evaluation Indicators

First, a discriminative evaluation index system is constructed for the target. Usually, the discriminative model of fuzzy synthesis includes a total of three layers of indicators, namely, the uppermost target layer, the lowermost scheme layer, and the intermediate indicator layer. The evaluation object (comprehensive green building benefits) X is a collection of indicators with a hierarchy [35].

The second-level indicators can be established for the comprehensive green building benefits, and the first-level indicators are established as $X_i$ (i = 1, 2, 3, ..., n). The first-level indicator system is

$$X=(X_1,X_2,\dots ,X_n)$$

(1)

The secondary indicators can be established as follows:

$$X_i=(X_{i1},X_{i2}\cdots ,X_{in}), i=1,2,3\cdots ,n$$

(2)

where j is the number of secondary indicators.

3.2. Establish Evaluation Grade

To establish a comprehensive benefit grade for evaluating green buildings’ comprehensive benefits with V:

$$V=\left\{V_1,V_2,V_3,\cdots ,V_k\right\}$$

(3)

where V denotes the comprehensive benefits of green buildings, classifying the evaluation objects according to different evaluation levels.

$$P_{ijk}=\frac{V_{ijk}}{s}, V_k=(k=1,2,\dots , K),$$

(4)

where $V_{ijk}$ indicates the number of evaluation objects belonging to evaluation level K, and s is the total number of evaluation experts.

3.3. Construct Fuzzy Relation Matrix

To construct the affiliation matrix, the fuzzy relationship matrix of the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, we need to construct the evaluation results based on expert evaluations in different single-factor domains to obtain the affiliation vector, and then aggregate the different single-factor affiliation vectors into the affiliation matrix, quantitatively analyze all the factors that may have an impact on each evaluation object, and finally, obtain the affiliation matrix A.

To construct the affiliation matrix A:

$$A=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}{a}_{11}& a_{12}& \cdots & a_{1n}\\ a_{21}& a_{22}& \cdots & a_{2n}\\ ⋮& ⋮& ⋮& ⋮\\ a_{n1}& a_{n2}& \cdots & a_{nn}\end{array}\right]$$

(5)

when factor i is not as important as factor j, a_ij = 0; when factor i and factor j are equally important, a_ij = 1; and when factor i is more important than factor j, a_ij = 2.

3.4. Calculate Weights Using Improved AHP Method

The AHP method (The Analytic Hierarchy Process) was initially proposed by Saaty [36]. The traditional AHP method uses a nine-scale hierarchical analysis from 1 to 9; although the analysis of the weights of different factors of the evaluation object is more refined, the process is more redundant and not conducive to expert scoring, and it is difficult for the general public to understand the evaluation obtained. This research adopts the improved AHP evaluation method, replacing the traditional 1–9 scale method with the more easily understood and consistent three-scale method (0, 1, 2), which is more convenient for experts to score, and the evaluation results are more understandable and acceptable to the general public. Additionally, it not only makes the fuzzy evaluation more accurate but also greatly simplifies the subsequent steps for consistency testing, reduces the calculation volume, and ensures the credibility of the evaluation results [37,38,39,40].

We solve the elements in the judgment matrix H, the matrix of the weights of the comprehensive benefits of green buildings, to analyze and judge the different factors affecting the evaluation objects.

$$s_i={{\displaystyle \sum }}_{j=0}^n{r}_{ij}, h_{ij}=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\left(s_i-s_j\right)\left(q-1\right)}{s_{max}-s_{min}}+1\hfill & ,s_i\ge s_j\hfill \\ {\left[\frac{\left(s_j-s_i\right)\left(q-1\right)}{s_{max}-s_{min}}+1\right]}^{-1}\hfill & ,s_i<s_i\hfill \end{array}\right.$$

(6)

where $s_{max}$ = max ($s_i$), $s_{min}$ = min ($s_i), \mathrm{and}$q = $\frac{s_{max}}{s_{min}}$.

To solve for the elements $m_{ij}$ in the fitted consistent matrix M:

$$n_{ij}=\lg h_{ij}, u_{ij}=\frac{1}{n}{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{k=1}^n\left(n_{ik}-n_{jk}\right), m_{ij}={10}^{u_{ij}}$$

(7)

To calculate the discriminant matrix we obtained, multiply each row of the discriminant matrix to obtain the result, and root n times to obtain the result to form the vector W:

$$W_i=\sqrt[n]{Y_i}=\sqrt[n]{\prod m_{ij}},$$

(8)

the normalized pair $W_{\mathrm{i}}$* is obtained as follows:

$$W_i*=\frac{W_i}{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_1^n{W}_i},$$

(9)

finally, we obtain the weight vector W of n single elements on the evaluation object

$$W=(W_1, W_2,\dots , W_{\mathrm{n}})$$

(10)

4. Comprehensive Benefits of Green Buildings Evaluation Index System Based on Improved AHP–FCE Method

This paper mainly selects green building benefit indicators based on the triple bottom line principle and the benefit principle. Due to the lack of a unified certification standard for green buildings internationally, in the process of index selection, this paper chooses to refer to LEED, DGNB, and ASGC. Firstly, we choose to refer to U.S. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), which is the green building certification standard with the highest recognition and the widest coverage worldwide. Secondly, this paper refers to the German Sustainable Building Certification Standard (DGNB), which was promulgated later but is also recognized internationally and is known as the second-generation green building evaluation system compared to the U.S. LEED. Thirdly, China is the country with the fastest development of green buildings in recent years. Therefore, we choose to refer to the indicators and requirements of China’s Assessment Standard for Green Buildings (ASGB).

The triple bottom line principle was proposed by British scholar John Elkington [45]. The principle shows that enterprises have not only an economic responsibility towards themselves, but also an environmental responsibility and social responsibility (economic bottom line, environmental bottom line, and social bottom line). Economic responsibility is no longer the only element to define the success of enterprises, and an increasing number of enterprises have begun to agree with the concept of sustainable development. Likewise, green buildings should not only be considered in terms of their economic and environmental benefits, but also their impact on the benefits of society to meet the triple bottom line principle.

The benefit principle points out that benefit is the beneficial effect to be produced by a certain activity and the degree it achieves, which is the general term of effect and benefit. It can be divided into two categories: economic benefits and social benefits, of which social benefits are difficult to measure and must be indirectly assessed with the help of other forms [46]. The benefit concept of sustainable development should be considered as the economic benefits of green building and its utility to society, the harmony between heaven and man, and the influence of culture.

The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) [35] assessment system consists of nine aspects and several indicators: the integration process, site selection and transportation, sustainable sites, water conservation, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality, innovation, and regional priority are nine aspects of the building analyzed for a comprehensive examination. From the perspective of environmental protection, it mainly aims to examine green buildings and emphasize the environmental benefits.

The Sustainable Building Certification Standard (DGNB) [39] aims for ecological quality (protection of the environment), economic quality (reduction in life-cycle resources, energy, and other costs), and socio-cultural and functional quality (protection of health). It has developed a series of evaluation indicators to measure the environmental, economic, and social characteristics of sustainable development. These broad categories include ecological quality, economic quality, socio-cultural functional quality, process quality, technical quality, and base quality.

From the definition of green building in the ASGB [46], it is clear that the “green” in green building is not simply the degree of greening of the building, but emphasizes the economic efficiency and environmental friendliness of the building (e.g., the level of utilization of natural resources and energy saving). It also indicates the environmental benefits of the building (e.g., whether it reduces environmental pollution and carbon dioxide emissions). In addition, the social benefits of the building are also taken into account (e.g., “health,” “suitability,” and “efficiency”). It is pointed out that the green building evaluation index system should be composed of five categories of indicators: safety and durability, health and comfort, convenience of living, resource saving, and environmental livability.

As mentioned above, the evaluation of green building benefits should not be limited to one aspect only, but should be considered in a more comprehensive manner. Only by comprehensively evaluating the benefits of green buildings from a systematic perspective can we better promote the comprehensive and balanced development of green buildings, drive the promotion of green buildings, and gain people’s recognition. We consider the benefits of green buildings from four aspects: economic, environmental, social, and cultural, and establish a comprehensive benefit evaluation system that includes 4 primary indicators, 20 secondary indicators, and the corresponding 90 judgment rules. Among them, the first-level indicators include economic benefits, environmental benefits, social benefits, and cultural benefits. Economic benefits include five secondary indicators: energy-saving benefits, water-saving benefits, land-saving benefits, material-saving benefits, and operation and management benefits. Environmental benefits include five secondary indicators: improvement in the greenhouse effect, sewage and wastewater treatment, improvement in air quality, the extension of building life, and improvement in occupant health. Social benefits include five secondary indicators: driving regional economic growth, saving financial losses, improving user efficiency, making life more convenient and livable for residents, and promoting green construction. Cultural benefits include five secondary indicators: buildings are aesthetically pleasing, buildings have local characteristics, residents’ lives are enriched, and corporate cultural benefits.

In order to build a more systematic and comprehensive green building comprehensive benefit evaluation system, reasonable primary and secondary indicators and corresponding scoring rules must be selected, and it is necessary to ensure that each indicator should be relatively independent to avoid redundant and cluttered indicators. At the same time, in order to facilitate understanding and application, relatively simple and easy-to-implement indicators should be constructed.

Following the principles of scientificity, systematicity, hierarchy, inheritance, and innovation, combined with the rationale and justifications above, we constructed a comprehensive benefit evaluation index system for green buildings, which is shown in

Table 1. Comprehensive benefits of green buildings evaluation system.

Target Layer	First-Level Indicators	Secondary Indicators	Judging Rules
Evaluation of green building comprehensive benefit A	Economic benefits B1	Energy-saving benefits C11	Optimize the thermal performance of the building maintenance
			Heating and air conditioning system energy performance better than the national standard energy consumption
			Rational use of renewable energy
			Use of lighting and electrical energy-saving devices
			Take other measures to reduce energy consumption in buildings
		Land-saving benefits C12	Rational use of old buildings
			Rational use of underground space
			Increase green space ratio
			Reasonable paving of permeable ground
		Water-saving benefits C13	Use of good water-saving appliances for irrigation and cooling water
			Reasonable use of non-traditional water sources
			Comprehensive use of rainwater for landscape water
			The use of higher water efficiency sanitary appliances to view water use
		Material-saving benefits C14	Integrated design and construction of civil works and decoration works
			Reasonable choice of building structure materials and components
			Industrialized interior parts for building decoration
			Selection of recyclable materials, reusable materials, and waste-friendly building materials
			Choose green building materials
		Operation and management benefits C15	There is a reasonable level of green management systems and property management
			Application of construction equipment management system
			Application of information system
			Application for Green Building Label Certification
	Environmental benefits B2	Improve the greenhouse effect C21	Prioritize the use of localized materials to reduce transportation emissions
			Reasonable increase in greening-rate level
			Optimize the construction period to avoid waste
			Calculation and analysis of building carbon emissions, with plans for emission reduction measures
		Wastewater treatment C22	There is a reasonable construction plan for the use of medium water
			Set up water system to collect domestic sewage and wastewater
			Set up wastewater recycling system
			Set up water quality monitor
			Drainage system with diversion system
		Improve air quality C23	Garage with car exhaust fan setup
			Households choose low-pollution piped gas fuel
			Bathroom drainage pipe ventilation form
			Reasonable fume treatment measures
		Extend building life C24	Adopting measures to improve building adaptability
			Adopting measures to enhance the durability of building components
			Improving the durability of building structure materials
			Reasonable use of durable, easy-to-maintain decorative building materials
			There is a reasonable building restoration program
		Improve the health of residents C25	Pollutant concentration in accordance with current national standards
			No-smoking signs in building interiors and main entrances
			Reasonable installation of smoking rooms
			Living drinking water quality better than national standards
			Carbon monoxide concentration monitoring device in underground garage
	social benefits B3	Drive regional economic growth C31	Promote the development of the new energy industry
			Promote the development of the construction materials industry
			Promote the development of the consulting and design industry
			Promote the transformation and upgrading of the construction industry
			The commercial value of the building itself
		Save financial losses C32	Reduce losses from water pollution treatment
			Reduce losses from water shortages
			Reduce spending on unemployment benefits
		Improve the efficiency of tenants C33	Reasonable noise pollution control measures
			Make full use of natural light and have good lighting
			Air quality condition
			Reasonable interior decoration
			Measures to protect the indoor thermal environment
		Convenient and livable for residents C34	Common areas designed to meet the needs of all ages
			Provide convenient public services
			Open urban green spaces, squares, and other places
			Rational layout of architecture and landscape
			Reasonable setting of fitness venues and spaces
		Promote green construction C35	Achieve civilized construction
Protect the health and safety of workers
Has measures to alleviate the contradiction between environmental protection and cost
Accumulate green building construction experience
Promote the transformation and upgrading of the construction industry
Cultural benefits B4	Aesthetically pleasing architecture C41	Beautiful architectural design
		The effect of building facade is beautiful
		Adopt a reasonable architectural form
		Indoor soft design is simple and generous
		Give consideration to the economy and applicability of architecture
	Architecture with local characteristics C42	Adopt architectural design principles and techniques with regional characteristics
		Embody the characteristics of traditional regional architecture
		An amorous commercial street with local characteristics
		Protect and utilize the historic buildings on the site
	Household-life enrichment C43	There are abundant supporting facilities for residents
		The completeness of the traffic facilities on the site
		Regional adaptability
		Carries out community green culture activities
	Corporate culture benefits C44	The green construction of enterprises and the change of management concept
		The improvement of staff and workers’ professional quality
		Take green as the symbol to shape the green image of enterprises
		Corporate commitment to social responsibility
	Drive innovation and improvement C45	Application of BIM technology
		Innovation in green technology, product selection, and management methods
		Reasonable selection of abandoned sites
		Increase the green capacity of the site
		The use of insurance products for hidden quality of construction works

.

5. Case Study

The Wanda Plaza in Bengbu, Anhui Province, is a large-scale comprehensive commercial building that adopts the brand-new business model of the third-generation urban complex. It is a super-large commercial building urban complex-integrating entertainment center, indoor urban commercial street, outdoor urban commercial street, office building, department store, and high-grade The Business Inn. It is a commercial construction project developed and built by Anhui Construction Engineering Group. It is located at the intersection of Bengbu Donghai Avenue and Gongnong Road in Bengshan District. The planned land area is 153,266 m², the greening rate is 32%, and the volume ratio is 2.7. The total building area is 603,500 m², of which the underground building area is 215,000 m², and is mainly for underground garages and equipment rooms.

5.1. Building Evaluation System Based on Improved AHP–FCE Model

The comprehensive benefits of green buildings are evaluated systematically by the improved three-scale AHP–FCE method. The specific steps are as follows. Firstly, determine the goal: green building comprehensive benefit evaluation; Secondly, establish the first-level index: a total of four first-level index factors; Thirdly, establish the second-level index: a total of 19 s-level index factors.

5.2. Construction of Judgment Matrix and Single-Layer Weight Calculation

According to the comprehensive benefit evaluation index system for green buildings established in Table 1, a hierarchical structure was constructed by combining the interrelationship among the indicators.

In order to reflect the importance of each index, it is necessary to give a weight to each index. A questionnaire survey and mathematical analysis were used to obtain the weights. A total of 10 experts were invited to participate in the determination of the weights. Before the weights were determined, each participant was questioned in a survey to ensure that he or she had sufficient relevant knowledge and experience. The experts included two representatives from construction companies, two representatives from real-estate developers, two representatives from relevant government departments, and four professors from universities (with research interests in green building, sustainable development, engineering project management, and environmental economics). All 10 experts have 8 to 25 years of experience in green building project management or scientific research, and have good performance or social recognition in their respective positions. Therefore, it can be considered that the 10 selected experts have sufficient experience and knowledge of the comprehensive benefits of green building and can judge the importance of various benefits to determine the weights of different indicators.

The questionnaire calculated based on the weight of the improved AHP method was distributed to the 10 experts and handed over with an explanation. They were collected after the experts completed them, and finally, eight valid answer sheets were collected. The two experts with apparently inconsistent scores were invited to score again after re-explanation and exchanging opinion feedback. Finally, 10 questionnaires with basically consistent opinions were recovered. Combining these questionnaires with the construction of the judgment matrix and calculating the corresponding weights, the results obtained are as follows.

$$A=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& 1& 2\\ 1& 1& 2& 2\\ 1& 0& 1& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 1\end{array}\right]$$

(11)

Following the steps of the improved fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, the weights of each criterion level (primary indicators) are calculated, and the same methods and principles are applied to construct the judgment matrix of the scheme level (secondary indicators) to the criterion level.

$$W_A=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}{W}_{B1}& W_{B2}& W_{B3}& W_{B4}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0.3417& 0.3917& 0.1750& 0.0916\end{array}\right)$$

(12)

Using the same methodology and rationale, the judgment matrix of the secondary indicators (program level) to the criterion level is constructed.

$$\begin{gathered} B_1=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 2& 1& 1& 2\\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 2& 1& 1& 2\\ 1& 2& 1& 1& 2\\ 0& 2& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right]B_2=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 0& 1& 0& 1\\ 2& 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 2& 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right] \\ {B}_3=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 0& 1& 1& 2\\ 2& 1& 1& 1& 2\\ 1& 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1& 2\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 1\end{array}\right]B_4=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 0& 2& 1& 1\\ 2& 1& 1& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 1& 1& 0\\ 1& 1& 1& 1& 2\\ 1& 2& 2& 0& 1\end{array}\right] \end{gathered}$$

The weights of each program level (secondary indicators) are calculated according to the improved method.

$$W_{B1}={\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0.3016& 0.0222& 0.3016& 0.3016& 0.0730\end{array}\right)}^T$$

(13)

$$W_{B2}={\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0.1086& 0.2371& 0.2086& 0.2371& 0.2086\end{array}\right)}^T$$

(14)

$$W_{B3}={\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0.1800& 0.2867& 0.2216& 0.2467& 0.0650\end{array}\right)}^T$$

(15)

$$W_{B4}={\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0.1971& 0.1986& 0.1186& 0.2586& 0.2271\end{array}\right)}^T$$

(16)

5.3. Calculation of Synthetic Weights of Each Layer Element to the Target Layer

After the above calculation and its evaluation results, the comprehensive weights of green buildings’ comprehensive benefit evaluation targets are derived, and the results are shown in

Table 2. Comprehensive weight table of comprehensive benefits of green buildings evaluation objectives.

Target Layer $\mathit{A}$	First Level Indicators ${\mathit{B}}_{\mathit{i}}$	First Level Weight ${\mathit{W}}_{\mathit{i}}$	Secondary Indicators $\mathit{C}$	Secondary Weight ${\mathit{W}}_{\mathit{j}}$	Weights ${\mathit{W}}_{\mathit{i}\mathit{j}} = {\mathit{W}}_{\mathit{i}}*{\mathit{W}}_{\mathit{j}}$
Green Building Comprehensive Benefit Evaluation A	Economic benefits B1	0.3417	Energy-saving benefits C11	0.3016	0.1031
			Land-saving benefits C12	0.0222	0.0076
			Water-saving benefits C13	0.3016	0.1031
			Material-saving benefits C14	0.3016	0.1031
			Operation and management benefits C15	0.0730	0.0249
	Environmental benefits B2	0.3917	Improve the greenhouse effect C21	0.1086	0.0425
			Wastewater treatment C22	0.2371	0.0929
			Improve air quality C23	0.2086	0.0817
			Extend building life C24	0.2371	0.0929
			Improve the health of residents C25	0.2086	0.0817
	Social benefits B3	0.1750	Drive regional economic growth C31	0.1800	0.0315
			Save financial losses C32	0.2867	0.0502
			Improve the efficiency of tenants C33	0.2216	0.0388
			Convenient and livable for residents C34	0.2467	0.0432
			Promote green construction C35	0.0650	0.0114
	Cultural benefits B4	0.0916	Aesthetically pleasing architecture C41	0.1971	0.0181
			Architecture with local characteristics C42	0.1986	0.0182
			Household-life enrichment C43	0.1186	0.0109
			Corporate culture benefits C44	0.2586	0.0237
			Drive innovation and improvement C45	0.2271	0.0208

.

The overall ranking of indicator weights is shown in Figure 1. Among all the influencing indicators, the most significant are energy saving (C11), water saving (C13), and material saving benefits (C14), followed by wastewater treatment (C32) and extending building life (C24), then followed by improving air quality benefits (C23) and saving financial losses (C32).

The weight distribution of the indicators in Table 1 is shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. The main indicators that affect the evaluation of green buildings’ comprehensive effects are environmental benefits (B2, weight is 0.3917), followed by economic benefits (B1, weight is 0.3417) and social benefits (B3, weight is 0.1750), then followed by cultural benefits (B4, weight is 0.0916). The main indicators that affect environmental benefits (B2) are wastewater treatment (C22, weight is 0.2371) as well as extending building life (C24, weight is 0.2371); the main indicators that affect economic benefits (B1) are energy saving benefits (C11, weight is 0.3016) and water saving benefits (C13, weight is 0.3016) as well as material saving benefits (C14, weight is 0.3016); the main indicators that affect social benefits (B3) are saving financial losses (C32, weight is 0.2867) and convenient and livable for residents (C34, weight is 0.2467); the main indicators that affect cultural benefits are corporate culture benefits (C44, weight is 0.2586) and driving innovation and improvement (C45, weight is 0.2271).

5.4. Determine the Set of Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation criteria refer to the Green Building Evaluation Standard (GB/T50378-2019) [46] for setting the rubric set. The five-level evaluation method is chosen, which is divided into one-star, two-star, three-star, four-star, and five-star. Additionally, the use of each standard corresponding to the rubric score is determined. V is used to denote the set of evaluation criteria.

$$\begin{array}{ll}V& =\left\{V_1,V_2,V_3,V_4,V_5\right\}\\ & =\left\{\mathrm{five}\text{-}\mathrm{star}, \mathrm{four}\text{-}\mathrm{star}, \mathrm{three}\text{-}\mathrm{star}, \mathrm{two}\text{-}\mathrm{star}, \mathrm{one}\text{-}\mathrm{star}\right\}\\ & =\left\{\left[100~80\right], \left(80~60\right], \left(60~40\right], \left(40~20\right], \left(20~0\right]\right\}\end{array}$$

5.5. Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation of Criterion Level

Based on the actual situation of the Wanda Plaza project in Bengbu, Anhui Province, and by collecting relevant information and using questionnaires, a group of experts in green building economics, technology, and environmental protection was formed to collect the evaluation opinions on the comprehensive benefits of green buildings, and the fuzzy evaluation matrix obtained after collation is as follows.

$$P_{B1}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.3& 0.2& 0.1& 0.2& 0.2\\ 0.2& 0.1& 0.5& 0.2& 0\\ 0.4& 0.1& 0.3& 0.1& 0.1\\ 0.1& 0.1& 0.5& 0.2& 0.1\\ 0.5& 0.1& 0.2& 0.1& 0.1\end{array}\right],$$

(17)

$$P_{B2}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.1& 0.2& 0.5& 0.2& 0\\ 0.4& 0.2& 0.2& 0.1& 0.1\\ 0.4& 0.2& 0.3& 0.1& 0\\ 0.5& 0.2& 0.1& 0.1& 0.1\\ 0.2& 0.3& 0.2& 0.2& 0.1\end{array}\right],$$

(18)

$$P_{B3}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.4& 0.1& 0.3& 0.2& 0\\ 0.3& 0.2& 0.2& 0.2& 0.1\\ 0.2& 0.1& 0.3& 0.2& 0.2\\ 0.6& 0.2& 0.1& 0.1& 0\\ 0.4& 0.3& 0.1& 0.2& 0\end{array}\right],$$

(19)

$$P_{B4}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.4& 0.3& 0.1& 0.2& 0\\ 0.3& 0.3& 0.2& 0.2& 0\\ 0.4& 0.3& 0.1& 0.1& 0.1\\ 0.3& 0.2& 0.2& 0.2& 0.1\\ 0.4& 0.1& 0.3& 0.1& 0.1\end{array}\right],$$

(20)

According to the steps of the improved AHP method, the weight vector W of each evaluation index is calculated, the fuzzy evaluation matrix is established, and the comprehensive evaluation vector of the criterion layer (first-level index) is calculated using the formula Y = W × P.

$$Y_{B1}=W_{B1}\times P_{B1}=[0.2837, 0.1092, 0.3534, 0.1524, 0.1013],$$

(21)

$$Y_{B2}=W_{B2}\times P_{B2}=[0.3494, 0.2209, 0.2297, 0.1317, 0.0683],$$

(22)

$$Y_{B3}=W_{B3}\times P_{B3}=[0.3764, 0.1663, 0.2090, 0.1753, 0.0730],$$

(23)

$$Y_{B4}=W_{B4}\times P_{B4}=[0.3625, 0.2729, 0.1375, 0.1688, 0.0583],$$

(24)

5.6. Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation of Target Layer

Based on the relevant calculation rules of the fuzzy hierarchical comprehensive evaluation, the fuzzy evaluation matrix of the target layer of this project was constructed according to the calculation results of the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of the first-level indicators (criterion layer), and the results are as follows.

$$P_A=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.2822& 0.1302& 0.2971& 0.1625& 0.1279\\ 0.3494& 0.2209& 0.2297& 0.1317& 0.0683\\ 0.3764& 0.1663& 0.2090& 0.1753& 0.0730\\ 0.3543& 0.2287& 0.1911& 0.1654& 0.0604\end{array}\right]$$

(25)

According to the formula Y = W × P, the comprehensive evaluation vector of the target layer is obtained.

$$Y_A=W_A\times P_A=(0.3316, 0.1810, 0.2456, 0.1530, 0.0888)$$

(26)

According to the principle of maximum affiliation, the comprehensive evaluation results of the comprehensive benefits of green buildings can be determined, and the comprehensive evaluation values can be obtained, by comprehensive analysis while quantifying the indicators. Then, the quantified comprehensive evaluation results can be obtained. Here, the evaluation criteria G for quantification are taken as the median of the corresponding values in the evaluation criteria set V, and the quantified comprehensive evaluation score S is

$$\begin{array}{cc}S=& Y_A\times G^T=\left(0.3316\hspace{1em}0.1810\hspace{1em}0.2456\hspace{1em}0.1530\hspace{1em}0.0888\right)\\ & \times {\left(90\hspace{1em}70\hspace{1em}50\hspace{1em}30\hspace{1em}10\right)}^T=60.28\end{array}$$

(27)

5.7. Analysis of Evaluation Results

According to the quantitative green building comprehensive benefit evaluation results, the overall evaluation comprehensive score of the project corresponds to a three-star evaluation level. Based on the certification of the China Green Building Standard, the project has been certified as a three-star green building. Additionally, on the grounds of the feedback from stakeholders, the evaluation results are basically consistent with the actual situation. This indicates that the evaluation model established in this paper has a certain validity. If we follow the evaluation rules in Table 1 to score each one of them, we can reach a consistent conclusion. However, we need to determine the weight values of the evaluation rules, which will increase the workload of expert scoring; the selection of the improved AHP–FCE method can reduce the corresponding workload and improve efficiency. This can be seen from the relevant articles [47,48] and the feedback from the experts involved.

6. Discussion

According to the quantitative green building comprehensive benefit evaluation results, the overall evaluation comprehensive score of the project corresponds to a three-star evaluation level. If we follow the evaluation rules in Table 1 to score each one of them, we can reach a consistent conclusion. However, we need to determine the weight values of the evaluation rules, which will increase the workload of expert scoring; the selection of the improved AHP–FCE method can reduce the corresponding workload and improve efficiency.

Under the global orientation of advocating carbon and emission reduction and green development, vigorously promoting and developing green buildings is an irreversible trend. At present, the benefit evaluation method and index system for green buildings should be further deepened and improved. This paper integrates the benefits of four dimensions: economic, environmental, social, and cultural, and tries to establish a green building evaluation index system for benefits. It is suitable for China’s national conditions. The improved AHP–FCE method was adopted to determine the index weights. Compared with the traditional AHP (1–9 scoring method), the improved AHP method’s (0, 1, 2 scoring method) arithmetic process ensures the consistency of the model without the need for a consistency test [49,50,51,52,53]. Therefore, it is easier to obtain a unanimously accepted outcome, and the arithmetic efficiency is higher. It is found in this paper that the environmental benefits account for the largest proportion of the comprehensive benefits of green buildings, followed by economic benefits; meanwhile, social benefits and cultural benefits also occupy a certain proportion. Among them, energy saving, water saving, material saving, wastewater treatment, and extending building life are very important for the evaluation of the comprehensive benefits of green buildings, and energy saving has the largest weight in the refined index, which is consistent with the results of many scholars [17]. At the same time, according to our research outcome, indicators such as saving financial losses, residents’ living convenience and livability, and corporate culture also have considerable weight. This study adds to the existing body of green building knowledge. Firstly, it enriches the green building benefit evaluation system. Secondly, it provides a new research perspective and data support for green building evaluation criteria. Thirdly, it gives a more effective analysis tool and decision support for quantifying the comprehensive benefits of green buildings. Finally, it supplies a reference for promoting the evaluation and development of green buildings.

At present, scholars have established green building evaluation index systems from different perspectives. Most of them focus on the evaluation of the design and operation phases, and evaluate the unilateral benefits of green buildings in terms of economic or environmental benefits. However, the social and cultural benefits are less considered. The benefits of green buildings are mainly expressed in external benefits, including economic benefits, social benefits, environmental benefits, and macroeconomic impacts. Additionally, the great environmental and social benefits of green buildings are important reasons for the development of green buildings [15]. The innovation of this paper can be found as follows. It is concerning that some of the cultural and social benefits are difficult to quantify. They can be handled and analyzed with the method in this paper, which are also systematically combined with economic and environmental benefits. This allows developers, consumers, and other relevant groups to form a more comprehensive understanding of the benefits of green buildings in order to facilitate their promotion. Therefore, from a certain point of view, strengthening the emphasis on the social and cultural benefits of green buildings can better promote the comprehensive and balanced development of green buildings.

7. Limitations

Meanwhile, there are some limitations in this paper, mainly in the following aspects. Initially, the evaluation weights were determined by questionnaires, and we invited experts and stakeholders to participate in the development of indicators and weights. Although the survey population was screened, there is still a certain degree of subjectivity. Secondly, the degree of quantification of indicators such as aesthetically pleasing architecture and architecture with local characteristics can be further refined and qualified. Finally, due to limited time and energy, the correlation analysis of indicators was not conducted, and the sensitivity analysis and Bayes’ assessment of the obtained indicator weighting results were not verified on our model, which can be performed to further improve the follow-up study.

8. Conclusions and Recommendations

From the analysis of the evaluation results, we can find that the benefits of green buildings are not only limited to economic and environmental benefits, but also influenced by the comprehensive social and cultural benefits. Along with the process of new urbanization, the development of green building becomes the general trend in the construction industry and even national development. In the context of high-quality development, we should increase the attention given to the social and cultural benefits of green buildings and focus on the enhancement of green buildings’ comprehensive benefits. The main indicators that have an influence on the improvement of comprehensive benefits of green buildings include economic benefits, environmental benefits, social benefits, and cultural benefits. On the basis of these four indicators, a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model of the comprehensive benefits of green buildings is established, and then the evaluation is verified by a corresponding case, which further enriches the evaluation system for the comprehensive benefits of green buildings.

In terms of economic benefits, green buildings can greatly save energy, water, and materials during their whole lifespan compared to ordinary buildings. They save a lot of economic expenses for the whole of society, and fewer social resources are occupied; as for environmental benefits, due to the internal circulation of energy and the use of clean energy, green buildings emit few harmful substances. Meanwhile, they have a greater effect on the treatment of sewage and wastewater and the reduction of water pollution. In addition, the benefits for the environment can also effectively reduce the loss of the building itself and extend the life of the building; with regard to social benefits, the socio-economic benefits of green building will bring great resources and financial savings to the government and the whole of society. Therefore, green building will indirectly drive social development and have an impact on society. At the cultural level, the most crucial thing is the cultural influence of green buildings on enterprises. When green buildings are developed to a considerable extent, a green corporate culture should be promoted to form. It encourages enterprises to take up environmental and social responsibilities, and even reconstructs the concept of competition. Green will become a major element for enterprises even in social culture, promoting a virtuous cycle between enterprises and ecology.

In order to comprehensively promote green buildings, accelerate the high-quality development of urban and rural green buildings, and improve the comprehensive benefits of green buildings, the following points should be given priority: (1) Firstly, based on our comprehensive weight of indicators, it is found that environmental and economic benefits are still the most important. On the one hand, wastewater treatment and extending building life are in line with comprehensive benefits. On the other, energy, water, and material saving can be paid more attention to in order to gain comprehensive benefits. We should further deepen technical research in energy saving, water saving, material saving, and energy conservation, and strengthen the management level in the design and operation stages from the perspective of the whole life cycle of buildings, so as to promote the coordinated development of economic and environmental benefits. Meanwhile, local governments should vigorously support the development of green buildings, further increase research on the development of green building products, and introduce relevant support, such as subsidy policies, to accelerate the upgrading of the green building industry. (2) Secondly, the attention given to the social benefits of green buildings should be increased. Pursuing only the immediate short-term benefits will make it difficult to maintain lasting gains. The background of high-quality development of the construction industry requires not only steady growth at the economic level and implementation of the basic national policy of resource conservation and environmental protection at the environmental level, but also cultivation at the social level. The social benefits of green building change people’s awareness of green building from an ideological point of view, strive to create benchmark projects of green building, stimulate the rapid promotion of green building, and enrich people’s green lives, which can bring greater long-term benefits. (3) Finally, in terms of cultural benefits, green building should follow the people-centered principle for development. Green building should not only make people feel achieved and make the lives of a green building’s residents livable, convenient, and comfortable, but also develop people, train more construction and management personnel who master advanced green construction techniques, and promote the innovation of green technology, so as to promote the sustainable development of the construction industry and drive the growth of the regional economy.