# Evaluation and Optimization of Sustainable Development Level of Construction Industrialization: Case Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Methods

#### 2.1. Index System Screening

#### 2.1.1. Preliminary Screening of Indicators

#### 2.1.2. Index Optimization 1

- (1)
- Meaning duplicate term

- (2)
- Inappropriate items

- (3)
- Other indicators to be deleted

- (4)
- Indicators to be added

#### 2.1.3. Index Optimization 2

- (1)
- Questionnaire design and distribution

- (2)
- Second index optimization

#### 2.1.4. The Final Index System

#### 2.2. Determine Index Weight and Index Scoring Levels

#### 2.2.1. Determine the Index Weights

_{ij})

_{n×n}for different levels, then applied yaahp (yaahp is an analytic hierarchy process auxiliary software) to determine indicator weights, sort, and conduct consistency tests. We determined the weight set of the first-level indicators of comprehensive evaluation U

_{i}as W = (W

_{1}, W

_{2}, W

_{3}, W

_{4}) and the second-level indicators as W

_{i}= (W

_{i}

_{1}, W

_{i}

_{2}, …, W

_{ili}).

_{i}of indicators in each layer are obtained and expressed as (W

_{i}) and (W

_{ili}).

#### 2.2.2. Decide the Index Scoring Levels

#### 2.3. Gray Comprehensive Evaluation

#### 2.3.1. Determine Evaluation Sample Matrix

_{ij}be b

_{ijk}, then the evaluation sample matrix B can be obtained as follows.

#### 2.3.2. Determine the Evaluation Gray Clustering

- (1)
- The first gray cluster is “high level”, e = 1, gray number is ${\otimes}_{1}\in (5,\infty )$, and its whitenization weight function is expressed as Equation (3).$${f}_{1}({b}_{ijk})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{{b}_{ijk}}{5},& {b}_{ijk}\in [0,5]\\ 1,& {b}_{ijk}\in [5,\infty ]\\ 0,& {b}_{ijk}\in [-\infty ,0]\end{array}$$
- (2)
- The second gray cluster is “higher level”, e = 2, gray number is ${\otimes}_{2}\in [0,4,8]$, and its whitenization weight function is expressed as Equation (4).$${f}_{2}({b}_{ijk})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{{b}_{ijk}}{4},& {b}_{ijk}\in [0,4]\\ 2-\frac{1}{4}{b}_{ijk},& {b}_{ijk}\in [4,8]\\ 0,& {b}_{ijk}\notin [0,8]\end{array}$$
- (3)
- The third gray cluster is “medium level”, e = 3, gray number is ${\otimes}_{2}\in [0,3,6]$, and its whitenization weight function is expressed as Equation (5).$${f}_{3}({b}_{ijk})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{{b}_{ijk}}{3},& {b}_{ijk}\in [0,3]\\ 2-\frac{1}{3}{b}_{ijk},& {b}_{ijk}\in [3,6]\\ 0,& {b}_{ijk}\notin [0,6]\end{array}$$
- (4)
- The fourth gray cluster is “relatively low level”, e = 4, gray number is ${\otimes}_{2}\in [0,2,4]$, and its whitenization weight function is expressed as Equation (6).$${f}_{4}({b}_{ijk})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{{b}_{ijk}}{2},& {b}_{ijk}\in [0,2]\\ 2-\frac{1}{2}{b}_{ijk},& {b}_{ijk}\in [2,4]\\ 0,& {b}_{ijk}\notin [0,4]\end{array}$$
- (5)
- The fifth gray cluster is “low level”, e = 5, gray number is ${\otimes}_{2}\in [0,1,2]$, and its whitenization weight function is expressed as Equation (7).$${f}_{4}({b}_{ijk})=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,& {b}_{ijk}\in [0,1]\\ 2-{b}_{ijk},& {b}_{ijk}\in [1,2]\\ 0,& {b}_{ijk}\notin [0,2]\end{array}$$

#### 2.3.3. Calculate Gray Evaluation Coefficients and Weight Matrix

_{ij}, we let the gray evaluation coefficient of the e Grey clustering be M

_{ije,}then all coefficient of all gray clusters be M

_{ij,}the gray evaluation weight of U

_{ij}about the e gray cluster be recorded as r

_{ije,}and the gray evaluation weight vector of U

_{ij}to each gray cluster be r

_{ij}, so that the gray evaluation weight matrix R

_{i}of the subordinate indicators U

_{ij}of U

_{i}for all gray clusters is obtained.

#### 2.3.4. Comprehensive Evaluation

_{ij}is done. The set result is B

_{i}, and the calculation formula is Equation (13), based on which the gray evaluation weight matrix R of U

_{i}for each evaluation gray cluster can be obtained, as Equation (14). According to the maximum membership degree principle, the development of each U

_{i}layer indicator is determined.

## 3. Case Study

#### 3.1. Study Region

#### 3.2. Grey Comprehensive Evaluation

- 1.
- Experts Score to Determine Sample Matrix B$$B=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccc}2& 3& 2& 1& 2& 2& 2& 3& 2\\ 2& 2& 2& 2& 2& 2& 2& 2& 2\\ 3& 4& 4& 3& 4& 3& 3& 3& 3\\ 2& 2& 1& 1& 2& 2& 2& 1& 1\\ 3& 3& 3& 3& 3& 3& 3& 3& 3\\ 2& 2& 3& 1& 2& 3& 2& 3& 2\\ 2& 2& 2& 1& 3& 2& 2& 3& 2\\ 2& 3& 2& 2& 3& 3& 3& 3& 3\\ 4& 4& 3& 5& 4& 4& 3& 4& 4\\ 3& 4& 3& 3& 4& 4& 4& 5& 3\\ 2& 3& 2& 2& 3& 3& 2& 2& 2\\ 3& 3& 3& 3& 3& 3& 3& 3& 3\\ \begin{array}{l}4\\ 2\\ 3\\ 3\end{array}& \begin{array}{l}3\\ 3\\ 2\\ 4\end{array}& \begin{array}{l}4\\ 2\\ 4\\ 3\end{array}& \begin{array}{l}3\\ 1\\ 3\\ 4\end{array}& \begin{array}{l}3\\ 1\\ 4\\ 3\end{array}& \begin{array}{l}4\\ 2\\ 4\\ 3\end{array}& \begin{array}{l}4\\ 2\\ 3\\ 4\end{array}& \begin{array}{l}3\\ 2\\ 3\\ 3\end{array}& \begin{array}{l}3\\ 2\\ 3\\ 3\end{array}\end{array}\right]$$

- 2.
- Calculate Gray Weight Matrix R

_{i}of the subordinate indicators U

_{ij}of U

_{i}for all gray clusters is obtained.

- 3.
- Comprehensive Evaluation

_{ij}and obtain the result B

_{i}, then the gray evaluation weight matrix R of U

_{i}for each evaluation gray cluster is further obtained.

## 4. Results and Discussion

#### 4.1. Analysis of the Level of Development of the Economic Dimension

#### 4.2. Analysis of the Level of Development of the Social Dimension

#### 4.3. Analysis of the Level of Development of Technological Innovation Level

#### 4.4. Analysis of the Level of Development of the Environmental Resource Dimension

## 5. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Guidance of the General Office of the State Council on Vigorously Developing Assembly-Type Buildings, Bulletin of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2016; 24–26.
- Lu, W.S.; Tan, T.; Xu, J.Y.; Wang, J.; Chen, K.; Gao, S.; Xue, F. Design for manufacture and assembly (DfMA) in construction: The old and the new. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag.
**2021**, 17, 77–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lekan, A.; Clinton, A.; Fayomi, O.S.I.; James, O. Lean Thinking and Industrial 4.0 Approach to Achieving Construction 4.0 for Industrialization and Technological Development. Buildings
**2020**, 10, 221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yashiro, T. Conceptual framework of the evolution and transformation of the idea of the industrialization of building in Japan. Constr. Manag. Econ.
**2014**, 32, 16–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ara, B.R.; Khadijah, S.S.; Jacqueline, P.J. Waste Generation and Recycling: Comparison of Conventional and Industrialized Building Systems. Am. J. Environ. Sci.
**2010**, 6, 383–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Dawood, I.; Alshawi, M. Decision Support Systems (DSS) Model for the Housing Industry; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Yue, F.; Ming, Y. Development Strategy for Housing Industrialization with Chinese Characteristics. Archit. J.
**2012**, 4, 19–22. [Google Scholar] - Attouri, E.; Lafhaj, Z.; Ducoulombier, L.; Linéatte, B. The current use of industrialized construction techniques in France: Benefits, limits and future expectations. Clean. Eng. Technol.
**2022**, 7, 100436. [Google Scholar] - Liu, P.; Li, Q.M.; Song, L.L.; Jia, R.Y. The Index System for the Development Level Evaluation of Regional Construction Industrialization: A Case Study in Jiangsu, China. Appl. Sci.
**2017**, 7, 492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Xiahou, X.E.; Yuan, J.F.; Liu, Y.; Tang, Y.C.; Li, Q.M. Exploring the Driving Factors of Construction Industrialization Development in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
**2018**, 15, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Jin, X.; Shen, G.Q.P.; Ekanayake, E. Improving Construction Industrialization Practices from a Socio-Technical System Perspective: A Hong Kong Case. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
**2021**, 18, 9017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jiang, W.; Huang, Z.; Peng, Y.; Fang, Y.Q.; Cao, Y.Z. Factors affecting prefabricated construction promotion in China: A structural equation modeling approach. PLoS ONE
**2020**, 15, e0227787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Lou, E.C.W.; Wong, P.F.; Wood, R.; Che-Ani, A.I. Developing weighting system for refurbishment building assessment scheme in Malaysia through analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Energy Policy
**2018**, 112, 280–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Akhanova, G.; Nadeem, A.; Kim, J.R.; Azhar, S. A Framework of Building Sustainability Assessment System for the Commercial Buildings in Kazakhstan. Sustainability
**2019**, 11, 4754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Morii, T.; Kawamura, S.; Watanabe, S.; Inoue, M. Environmental and Economic Evaluation of Wooden and Reinforced Concrete Non-residential Buildings III. A comparative analysis of LCA and eco-efficiency indicator based on input-output method. Mokuzai Gakkaishi
**2021**, 67, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, M.; Xu, K.; Huang, S. Evaluation of green and sustainable building project based on extension matter-element theory in smart city application. Comput. Intell.
**2020**, 19, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Karji, A.; Namian, M.; Tafazzoli, M. Identifying the Key Barriers to Promote Sustainable Construction in the United States: A Principal Component Analysis. Sustainability
**2020**, 12, 5088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shamseldin, A.K.M. Including the building environmental efficiency in the environmental building rating systems. Ain Shams Eng. J.
**2018**, 9, 455–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Huang, W.J.; Yan, J.W.; Wang, F. Comprehensive Evaluation of the Development of the Construction Industry Based on Factor Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering, Xian, China, 26–27 December 2009; pp. 460–463. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, F.; Zhao, J. The Study on Evaluation Index System of Restructuring Construction Industry Under the Green Development Model. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop of Advanced Manufacturing and Automation (IWAMA), Suzhou, China, 11–12 September 2017; pp. 325–334. [Google Scholar]
- Gallo, P.; Romano, R.; Belardi, E. Smart Green Prefabrication: Sustainability Performances of Industrialized Building Technologies. Sustainability
**2021**, 13, 4701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, L.; Li, Z.; Li, X.; Zhang, S.; Luo, X. A new framework of industrialized construction in China: Towards on-site industrialization. J. Clean. Prod.
**2020**, 244, 118469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gan, X.-L.; Chang, R.-D.; Langston, C.; Wen, T. Exploring the interactions among factors impeding the diffusion of prefabricated building technologies. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag.
**2019**, 26, 535–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Amoruso, F.M.; Sonn, M.H.; Chu, S.; Schuetze, T. Sustainable Building Legislation and Incentives in Korea: A Case-Study-Based Comparison of Building New and Renovation. Sustainability
**2021**, 13, 4889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, Y.R.; Wang, J.J.; Hu, F.F.; Wang, Y.F. Comparison of evaluation standards for green building in China, Britain, United States. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2017**, 68, 262–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Luo, T.; Xue, X.L.; Wang, Y.N.; Xue, W.R.; Tan, Y.T. A systematic overview of prefabricated construction policies in China. J. Clean. Prod.
**2021**, 280, 124371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Luo, L.Z.; Jin, X.; Shen, G.Q.; Wang, Y.J.; Liang, X.; Li, X.; Li, C.Z. Supply Chain Management for Prefabricated Building Projects in Hong Kong. J. Manag. Eng.
**2020**, 36, 05020001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yuan, Z.M.; Zhang, Z.Y.; Ni, G.D.; Chen, C.; Wang, W.S.; Hong, J.K. Cause Analysis of Hindering On-Site Lean Construction for Prefabricated Buildings and Corresponding Organizational Capability Evaluation. Adv. Civ. Eng.
**2020**, 2020, 8876102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ji, Y.B.; Zhu, F.D.; Li, H.X.; Al-Hussein, M. Construction Industrialization in China: Current Profile and the Prediction. Appl. Sci.
**2017**, 7, 180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Navaratnam, S.; Ngo, T.; Gunawardena, T.; Henderson, D. Performance Review of Prefabricated Building Systems and Future Research in Australia. Buildings
**2019**, 9, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Almashaqbeh, M.; El-Rayes, K. Optimizing the prefabrication finishing level in modular construction. Can. J. Civ. Eng.
**2021**, 48, 1534–1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wu, P.; Jin, R.Y.; Xu, Y.D.; Lin, F.; Dong, Y.T.; Pan, Z.H. The analysis of barriers to bim implementation for industrialized building construction: A china study. J. Civ. Eng. Manag.
**2021**, 27, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - O’Brien, M. Success and failure in industrialized prefabricated housing. In Proceedings of the International Structural Engineering and Construction, Sydney, Australia, 23–28 November 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, H.X.; Yue, Y.L. Configuration analysis of the influencing factors of design standardization in China’s building industrialization—Qualitative Comparative Analysis based on (fsQCA) fuzzy set. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng.
**2021**, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Arslan, G. Web-based contractor evaluation system for mass-housing projects in turkey. J. Civ. Eng. Manag.
**2012**, 18, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Popescu, C. Impact of cluster building in labor intensive industries on regional economy (western romania). Transylv. Rev. Adm. Sci.
**2018**, 55, 45–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, Y.Q.; Wang, H.; Gao, W.J.; Wang, F.; Zhou, N.; Kammen, D.M.; Ying, X.Y. A Survey of the Status and Challenges of Green Building Development in Various Countries. Sustainability
**2019**, 11, 5385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Zhao, W.S.; Zhang, B.B.; Yang, Y. Empirical study of comprehensive benefits for prefabricated buildings: A case study of Hefei city. Int. J. Electr. Eng. Educ.
**2020**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Garay, R.; Pfenniger, F.; Castillo, M.; Fritz, C. Quality and Sustainability Indicators of the Prefabricated Wood Housing Industry-A Chilean Case Study. Sustainability
**2021**, 13, 8523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lam, P.T.I.; Chan, E.H.W.; Poon, C.S.; Chau, C.K.; Chun, K.P. Factors affecting the implementation of green specifications in construction. J. Environ. Manag.
**2010**, 91, 654–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Liang, X.; Hong, T.; Shen, G.Q. Occupancy data analytics and prediction: A case study. Build. Environ.
**2016**, 102, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Nunez-Cacho, P.; Gorecki, J.; Molina-Moreno, V.; Corpas-Iglesias, F.A. What Gets Measured, Gets Done: Development of a Circular Economy Measurement Scale for Building Industry. Sustainability
**2018**, 10, 2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Chuai, X.W.; Gao, R.Y.; Huang, X.J.; Lu, Q.L.; Zhao, R.Q. The embodied flow of built-up land in China’s interregional trade and its implications for regional carbon balance. Ecol. Econ.
**2021**, 184, 106993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, H.; Zhang, Y.Q.; Gao, W.J.; Kuroki, S. Life Cycle Environmental and Cost Performance of Prefabricated Buildings. Sustainability
**2020**, 12, 2609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Jia, J.J.; Liu, B.; Ma, L.Y.; Wang, H.; Li, D.; Wang, Y.R. Energy saving performance optimization and regional adaptability of prefabricated buildings with PCM in different climates. Case Stud. Therm. Eng.
**2021**, 26, 101164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Oh, O.; Lim, J.; Lim, C.; Kim, S. A Health Performance and Cost Optimization Model for Sustainable Healthy Buildings. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng.
**2017**, 16, 303–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]

Preliminary Screening Indicators | |
---|---|

1 | Compulsory policy [23] |

2 | Subsidy policy [24] |

3 | Technology standard [25] |

4 | The degree of government support [26] |

5 | The scientific level of industry chain structure [27] |

6 | the level of construction organization management and scientific management [28] |

7 | The capacity of industry workers [29] |

8 | Market share level of industrialized enterprises [30] |

9 | Construction assembly level [31] |

10 | Degree in information management [32] |

11 | Factory level of production of components and accessories [33] |

12 | Degree of design standardization [34] |

13 | The technical proficiency of industry workers [35] |

14 | Industry cluster level [36] |

15 | Level of regional economy contribution [9] |

16 | The investment level in scientific research [37] |

17 | Cost-effectiveness level [38] |

18 | Resource utilization rate [39] |

19 | Level of consumer awareness [40] |

20 | Degree of consumer satisfaction [41] |

21 | Degree of scale efficiency [42] |

22 | Provision level of land market [43] |

23 | The quality-price ratio of construction product [44] |

24 | Level of green and energy-saving [45] |

25 | The degree to which resources are optimized and allocated [46] |

Preliminary Screening Indicators | The Index of the First Optimization | |
---|---|---|

1 | Compulsory policy | The degree of government support for construction industrialization |

2 | Subsidy policy | |

3 | Technology standard | |

4 | The degree of government support | |

5 | The scientific level of industry chain structure | √ |

6 | the level of construction organization management and scientific management | √ |

7 | The capacity of industry workers | √ |

8 | Market share level of industrialized enterprises | √ |

+ Industry collaboration level | ||

9 | Construction assembly level | √ |

10 | Degree in information management | √ |

11 | Factory level of production of components and accessories | √ |

12 | Degree of design standardization | √ |

+ construction parts and set up product certification system | ||

13 | The technical proficiency of industry workers | × |

14 | Industry cluster level | × |

15 | Level of regional economy contribution | √ |

16 | The investment level in scientific research | √ |

17 | Cost-effectiveness level | √ |

18 | Resource utilization rate | × |

19 | Level of consumer awareness | × |

20 | Degree of consumer satisfaction | × |

21 | Degree of scale efficiency | × |

22 | Provision level of land market | √ |

23 | The quality-price ratio of construction product | × |

24 | Level of green and energy-saving | √ |

25 | The degree to which resources are optimized and allocated | √ |

The Index of the First Optimization | J | Q | The Index of the Second Optimization |
---|---|---|---|

The degree of government support for construction industrialization | 4.1 | 0.539 | √ |

The scientific level of industry chain structure | 3.9 | 0.436 | √ |

the level of construction organization management and scientific management | 3.55 | 0.589 | √ |

The capacity of industry workers | 4 | 0.837 | √ |

Market share level of industrialized enterprises | 3.8 | 0.678 | √ |

Industry collaboration level | 3.75 | 0.766 | √ |

Construction assembly level | 3.7 | 0.458 | √ |

Degree in information management | 3.65 | 0.572 | √ |

Factory level of production of components and accessories | 3.65 | 0.572 | √ |

Degree of design standardization | 3.6 | 0.663 | √ |

+ construction parts and set up product certification system | 2.4 | 1.020 | √ |

Level of regional economy contribution | 4.25 | 0.622 | √ |

The investment level in scientific research | 3.65 | 0.792 | √ |

Cost-effectiveness level | 3.8 | 0.678 | √ |

Provision level of land market | 2.2 | 0.510 | × |

Level of green and energy-saving | 2.58 | 0.726 | √ |

The degree to which resources are optimized and allocated | 3 | 0.447 | √ |

Target Layer | Criterion Layer | Indicator Layer |
---|---|---|

Sustainable Development of Construction Industrialization U | Economy U _{1} | Cost-benefit U_{11} |

Regional economic contribution U_{12} | ||

Spending on science and technology U_{13} | ||

Society U _{2} | Quality of industrial practitioner U_{21} | |

Market share of industrial enterprises U_{22} | ||

Scientization of industrial chain structure U_{23} | ||

Scientization of construction organization and management U_{24} | ||

Industrial synergy U_{25}Support of government for construction | ||

industrialization U_{26} | ||

Technological Innovation U _{3} | Degree of information management U_{31} | |

Degree of design standardization U_{32} | ||

Industrialization of components, fittings and parts U_{33} | ||

Construction assembly U_{34} | ||

Building parts and components product certification system U_{35} | ||

Environmental Resources U _{4} | Degree of optimal resource allocation U_{41} | |

Green energy saving U_{42} |

Target Layer | Criterion Layer (Weight W _{i}) | Indicator Layer (Weight W _{il}_{i}) | Indicator Evaluation Standard Score | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

V_{1} | V_{2} | V_{3} | V_{4} | V_{5} | |||

[1,2) | [2,3) | [3,4) | [4,5) | [5,∞) | |||

Sustainable Development of Construction Industrialization U | Economy U_{1}(0.3303) | Cost-benefit U_{11}(0.3299) | Far below | Slightly far below | Similarly | Sightly above | Far above |

Regional economic contribution U_{12}(0.4938) | 0~10% | 10~20% | 20~30% | 30~50% | >50% | ||

Spending on science and technology U_{13}(0.2072) | Very low | Relatively low | medium | Slightly above | Very high | ||

Society U_{2}(0.1594) | Quality of industrial practitioner U_{21}(0.1092) | 0~20% | 20~40% | 40~60% | 60~80% | 80~100% | |

Completely unskilled | Less skilled | Generally skilled | Skilled | Master | |||

Market share of industrial enterprises U_{22}(0.0721) | 0~10% | 10~30% | 30~50% | 50~70% | 70~100% | ||

Scientization of industrial chain structure U_{23}(0.2866) | Uncompleted | Less complete | medium | More complete | Totally complete | ||

Scientization of construction organization and management U_{24}(0.1553) | Completely incompatible | Less compatible | medium | More compatible | Fully compatible | ||

Industrial synergy U_{25}(0.2556) | Completely unrelated | Less related | medium | More related | Complete synergy | ||

Support of government for construction industrialization U_{26}(0.1212) | Completely unadaptable | Less adaptable | medium | More adaptable | Fully adaptable | ||

Technological Innovation U _{3}(0.2128) | Degree of information management U_{31}(0.3681) | 0~5% | 5~20% | 20~50% | 50~70% | 70~100% | |

Poor results | Less poor results | Average results | Better results | Put into application | |||

Degree of design standardization U_{32}(0.1094) | Very low | Relatively low | medium | Slightly high | Very high | ||

Industrialization of components, fittings and parts U_{33}(0.2121) | 0~1 | 1~2 | 2~3 | 3~4 | 4~5 | ||

0~20% | 20~40% | 40~60% | 60~80% | 80~100% | |||

Construction assembly U_{34}(0.201) | Very low | Relatively low | medium | Slightly high | Very high | ||

Building parts and components product certification system U_{35}(0.1094) | Very low | Relatively low | medium | Slightly high | Very high | ||

Environmental Resources U _{4}(0.2975) | Degree of optimal resource allocation U_{41}(0.3975) | Almost no change | Very little change | Few changes | More changes | Much more changes | |

Green energy saving U_{42}(0.6025) | Almost no change | Very little change | Few changes | More changes | Much more changes |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Jin, Z.; Xia, S.; Cao, H.; Geng, X.; Cheng, Z.; Sun, H.; Jia, M.; Liu, Q.; Sun, J.
Evaluation and Optimization of Sustainable Development Level of Construction Industrialization: Case Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region. *Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, 8245.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148245

**AMA Style**

Jin Z, Xia S, Cao H, Geng X, Cheng Z, Sun H, Jia M, Liu Q, Sun J.
Evaluation and Optimization of Sustainable Development Level of Construction Industrialization: Case Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region. *Sustainability*. 2022; 14(14):8245.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148245

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Jin, Zhanyong, Shuang Xia, Huanhuan Cao, Xiaohan Geng, Zimeng Cheng, Hongbo Sun, Menglin Jia, Qingyue Liu, and Jie Sun.
2022. "Evaluation and Optimization of Sustainable Development Level of Construction Industrialization: Case Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region" *Sustainability* 14, no. 14: 8245.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148245