You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Sustainability
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

22 August 2022

Integrating Sustainability and Users’ Demands in the Retrofit of a University Campus in China

,
and
1
School of Architecture, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
2
Research and Development Institution, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Beijing 100044, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability2022, 14(16), 10414;https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610414
This article belongs to the Special Issue To Practice Sustainability in Architecture and Urbanism: Contemporary Approaches
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Green retrofit is essential for the sustainable development of Chinese Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Limited by time and cost, a campus retrofit plan needs to consider both sustainability principles and usage demands to set feasible priorities. By integrating usage demands with sustainability principles, this paper aims to observe the relationship between the sustainability assessment tool (SAT) indicators of campus retrofit and users’ needs in this process. The Chinese official SAT for campuses was combined with the campus environment components from six investigated HEIs, and then processed by a group of 15 members to establish an implementable framework of retrofit objectives. Taking the Weijin Campus of Tianjin University as an example, feedback from 432 users on the sample environment was analyzed according to our framework. The results show the difference between the users’ perspective and sustainability indicators, emphasizing the importance of the sustainable development of HEIs and leading to the implementation of measures to improve sustainability awareness and guide a retrofit.

1. Introduction

Environmental and health problems caused by rapid urbanization are causing countries to turn to sustainable development in social and economic aspects []. As a carrier of educational and research activities, HEIs, such as universities, consume a large number of resources and could have more responsibility in ensuring sustainability [,]. Many countries have developed and implemented SATs for campuses, which have increased diversity in campus construction []. China also updated its own national SATs for campuses in 2019 (GB/T 51356-2019). These SATs reflect the consensus normative framework [] and priorities [] of HEIs’ sustainable development adopted in different contexts. They represent the hardware standards of a sustainable campus and the supporting resources to help a campus realize sustainability []. Through these tools, HEIs can measure their degrees of sustainability, increase their sense of sustainability, develop strategies, disseminate best practices [], and guide organizations toward sustainability [].
At the environmental level, the SATs also mark the evaluation content and boundary of the sustainability principles of campus construction under different backgrounds []. This usually includes site, water, materials, energy, indoor environmental quality (IEQ), and other factors [].
Many studies reported the efforts of HEIs in these aspects, including the realization of campus energy conservation [,], sustainable resource usage [,], environment performance [], etc. More up-to-date research covers carbon neutralization [,] and near-zero energy consumption [,] renovation in HEI campus.
On the other hand, adapting to users’ demands is also one of the motivations for campus retrofit in many HEIs. In addition to the topics of safety [,], space model development [,], and historical elements [], previous studies discussed the decision-making mode [] and social elements in campus retrofit design [].
The sustainability of the campus environment is connected to users’ demands. For example, the relationship between energy consumption and environmental performance has been taken into account more in the multi-objective optimization of sustainable campus retrofit [,]. Other researchers discussed the link between sustainability indicators and users’ needs, such as the impact of IEQ and the outdoor space on usage [,], and there remains a discussion of students’ views toward HEIs’ sustainability [,]. However, studies that simultaneously consider the relationship between sustainability and usage demands as a whole in campus retrofit are limited, whereas some green buildings studies have shown a possible discrepancy between pursuing sustainability indicators and meeting usage demands [,]. However, at the HEI campus level, there is still a lack of corresponding evidence and recognition. In China, a sustainable campus is also called a ‘Green campus’. China’s first green university campuses were introduced at the end of the last century. In recent decades, Chinese researchers and designers have worked on the energy-saving design of campus buildings [,], SATs of campuses [,], new campus construction projects [], and other green campus technical strategies []. Since new campus construction of HEIs in China has gradually entered a stable development period, the problems of sustainable development in old campuses have recently received more attention from researchers.
Compared with the simple overlay of various types of retrofit projects, it is vital to use the whole campus as the object of green retrofit projects [,]. This requires the examination of multiple aspects, including planning, architecture, and the landscape [,]. In China, the drivers of campus retrofit construction in universities still focus on meeting usage needs []. Meanwhile, under the constraint of resources, campus renovation should set feasible priorities [,]. This makes it more realistic to discuss usage demands in the green renovation of Chinese university campuses at a holistic level. However, the state of matching between evaluation criteria-oriented construction indicators and the specific issues of campus planning, the transportation system, landscape layout, building use, and other aspects is still unclear. Considering the diversity of China’s climate and geography, as well as the uneven development between campuses, we believe that it would be beneficial to develop a regional matching assistant tool for campus green retrofit. This tool needs to focus on the integration of campuses in the context of sustainability indicators and allow for cross-institutional assessments with similar conditions in the same region.
Therefore, this study aims to develop a framework for the campus retrofit of HEIs based on integrating sustainability indicators with usage demands, and examine the characteristics of the relationship between usage demands and sustainability indicators in retrofit using sample campuses.
To fulfill this aim, this study investigates the usage status of several selected HEI campuses in the Tianjin region and integrates them with national campus SAT indicators to establish a retrofit tool. Then, based on the tool application in a case study, an explanation of the gap between usage demand and sustainability principles in university campus retrofit is provided and suggestions are made in the conclusions.

2. Materials and Methods

Mixed methods research (MMR) was used in this study. First, the Chinese Assessment Standard for Green Campus (GB/T 51356-2019, ASGC) was integrated with the usage demands of the old campus. The importance of each component of the assistant tool for campus green retrofit was identified by a team of 15 experts through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The tool was then used on the Weijin Road Campus of Tianjin University in order to comprehensively assess its retrofit elements. Finally, the priority of each retrofit point was calculated, and suggestions for campus retrofit were developed.

2.1. Tool Development

2.1.1. Framework and Indicators

  • Users’ demands
The Tianjin region was used as the background for tool development. This region, located in northern China, has 56 HEIs with more than 583,400 students. These campuses cover 1756 hectares, and their size has remained relatively stable in recent years (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Overview of the HEIs in Tianjin: (a) number of HEIs; (b) student number of HEIs (10,000 person); (c) construction area of HEIs (hm2); (d) average building area of HEIs (m2).
We investigated 6 university campuses from a possible 56 universities in the Tianjin area. The oldest of these campuses is the Hongqiao Campus of Hebei University of Technology, built in 1903, and the newest is the Weijin Road Campus of Tianjin University, built in 1952. All of the investigated campuses have been in operation for more than 70 years (Table 1). The feedback from the users of these campuses and their fieldwork reveals some typical conditions of old local university campuses.
Table 1. Overall situation of the investigated campuses.
Structured and semi-structured interviews were conducted to assess the needs of different people on campus to improve campus space usage []. Those surveyed included: (a) campus administrators, mainly from the campus administration, and (b) campus user groups, consisting of faculties, staff, and students. We also conducted fieldwork to identify these demands, and categorized the recorded and identified demand points.
As shown in Figure 2, the feedback of the users’ demands was summarized into usage issues, such as campus planning, architecture, and landscape, and connected with relevant retrofit measures. The retrofit measures were divided into 8 different categories. This process refers to the structure of HEI campus SATs [,] in order to be able to integrate the contents of the SAT with subsequent stages. It includes common contents in campus SATs, such as ‘Campus planning’, ‘Energy’, and ‘Water ‘, but also content topics based on usage, such as ‘Building facade and function’ and ‘Campus safety’.
Figure 2. Identifying usage issues toward retrofit.
  • Sustainable Criteria of Green Campus
A variety of SATs for HEIs have been developed (Table 2), which reflect the sustainable development of universities from concept to practice. There are calls for using a tool to evaluate global HEIs with the same criterion [,]. However, in practice, most SATs act more applicability in their original region [].
Table 2. Overview of major sustainable campus assessment systems by country.
As a guideline for the sustainable environmental construction of university campuses in China, ASGC is the national SAT for campus construction promulgated by the Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development of China (MoHURD). The content of ASGC is divided into two sections for elementary and higher education institutions. Each section consists of ‘Planning and Ecology’, ‘Energy and Resources’, ‘Environment and Health’, ‘Operation and Management’, and ‘Education and Publicity‘. Among them, 28 indicators are related to campus retrofit and are distributed in three sections: ‘Planning and Ecology’, ‘Energy and Resources’, and ‘Environment and Health’ (Table 3).
Table 3. Indicators related to retrofit in ASGC.
  • Integration
Addressing usage demands remains a driving force for university campus retrofit in China. In order to show a balance between sustainability goals and usage demands, we integrated the contents of Table 3 into Figure 2. The principle of integration is to merge indicators with the same retrofit content and retain indicators that will lead to different retrofit measures on both sides. This ensures that as many features of usage demands and sustainability principles as possible are covered in the framework of the tool.
As a result, we developed a framework of 8 primary indicators, 36 secondary indicators, and 66 tertiary indicators to support decision-making in green campus retrofit. These indicators include both the principles of sustainable campuses and the practical problems with the use of old campuses. (Table 4).
Table 4. Retrofit framework integrating usage and sustainability principles.

2.1.2. AHP

Next, an online questionnaire was organized to identify the weights of the indicators in the framework. The questionnaire for the pairwise comparison of indicators was developed according to AHP. AHP is a well-known structured, quantitative analysis method that was introduced by Saaty in the 1980s []. It has been widely used for the criteria weight-calculation of assessment tools [,]. AHP follows simple operating procedures, has high accuracy and the ability to manage complex factors, and is considered a successful technology for the research of evaluation systems []. The application of AHP has the following advantages: (a) As with most problems, campus retrofit can be fundamentally regarded as a combination of different hierarchical structures. (b) The hierarchical structure can match and describe the framework and content of the campus retrofit system in this study. (c) With pairwise comparisons, it is easy for researchers to judge various elements of complex campus retrofits.
In use, AHP is based on a hierarchical structure of a pairwise comparison of experts’ judgments on both more- and less-important factors, and the steps that were used are shown in Figure 3. To quantify the relative importance among the elements, a one-way hierarchical scale of 1–9 was used for measurement [] (Table 5) and forms a pairwise comparison matrix-like Formula (1).
X n ∗ n = 1 a 12 a 13 ⋯ ⋯ a 1 n a 21 1 a 23 ⋯ ⋯ a 2 n a 31 a 32 1 ⋯ ⋯ a 3 n ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ a n 1 a n 2 a n 3 ⋯ ⋯ 1
where a i j represents the relative importance of x i element relative to x j element among n elements from the X level. The X n ∗ n matrix satisfies the following: (a) For any x i and x j , a i j > 0 . (b) When i = j , a i j = 1 . (c) For the mutual comparison of x i and x j , a i j = 1 / a j i .
Figure 3. AHP process in this study.
Table 5. Linguistic terms and numbers.
On this basis, the geometric mean (GM) of all comparison results in X n ∗ n is calculated, which is G i in Formula (2). Additionally, the weight result w i of Formula (3) is obtained by normalizing GM.
G i = ∏ j = 1 n a i j n  
w i = G i ∑ j = 1 n G i
This process helps to determine the relative importance of indicators, but the response of expert knowledge and perception may also be inconsistent. This means that the consistency of the judgment results must be evaluated through the validation mechanism. In the AHP, the consistency of the pairwise comparison matrix is calculated using the consistency ratio ( C R ).
C R = C I R I
where C I = λ max − n / n − 1 , and λ max represents the largest eigenvalues. R I is the random consistency index of the 1–9-dimension judgment matrix. According to Saaty [], if the C R value is greater than 0.1, the pairwise comparison should be repeated.
In April 2020, we invited 19 experts working in urban planning, architecture, and campus management in Tianjin, and received 15 positive responses. As a result, we assembled a team of 15 local experts to undertake an online questionnaire (Table 6), all of whom had previous experience in old campus retrofit or new green campus construction. The questionnaire was sent by email and the responses were verified for consistency. All experts were informed about the risk of having to fill out the questionnaire again in case of inconsistency ( C R < 0.1).
Table 6. The team of experts.
After two rounds of questionnaire surveys conducted in July, 15 valid questionnaires were finally obtained, calculated, and counted.

2.2. Tool Application

2.2.1. User Survey

We applied the assistant tool to determine the willingness to retrofit the Weijin Road Campus of Tianjin University. This university is one of the oldest modern universities in China. As the basis for a green campus, the university obtained an energy-saving campus certification from the MoHURD and the Ministry of Education (MoE) [] and participated in the demonstration application of the campus energy management system (CEMS) []. It is a good sample for investigating the transition of Chinese HEIs from energy-saving campuses to a green campuses. Moreover, in 2018, Weijin Road Campus was selected by the MoHURD as the national green campus construction demonstration project to test the typical situation of sustainable development in the campuses of old HEIs [,]. Therefore, this is the most realistic campus to choose for a case study.
The response of users on campus was examined by using a tool that integrates demand and sustainability principles. Due to the influence of COVID-19, the Weijin Road campus was closed to the public by a smart access control system that recorded the attendance on campus and posted it to the campus mobile APP.
Accommodation and activities for students varied widely on campus during the pandemic. Based on the APP records from 7–11 September 2020, we calculated the average attendance distribution on campus between 06:00 and 24:00 on weekdays (Figure 4), and found the attendance number on campus peaks to be between 12:00 and 14:00. In order to cover more campus users, 12:00–14:00 was selected as the time for the survey.
Figure 4. Average attendance number on campus.
The next 5 working days were used for the investigation. A sample size of approximately 1% of the average campus attendance at that time was collected each day through random sampling in multiple fixed scenarios. The locations for data collection included restaurants, gardens, dormitories, and teaching buildings on campus. The sample groups surveyed comprised several different campus users, including (a) students, (b) teachers, (c) staff, and (d) other personnel (campus visitors, non-university staff, etc.). Respondents were asked to provide basic information to avoid repeated collection.
In the research, we created electronic and paper versions of the questionnaire based on the same question system, constructed the logic of the questions and answers in the interview, and adopted various collection strategies according to the respondents. We used positive statements to describe the issues in the form of ‘In the current situation of X -level at Weijin Road Campus, I am satisfied with the x i -aspect’, and used Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) to process the feedback. This made the users’ scores proportional to their satisfaction.
In addition, some tier 3 indicators in the framework were not easily understood by the respondents. Therefore, these indicators were consolidated and replaced with their parent indicators in the form of questions. These made the collected feedback from the users of Tianjin University’s Weijin Road Campus more accurate, and reduced the distortion of respondents’ feedback due to the collection form.
Finally, 432 valid samples were recovered, and the basic information of the respondents is shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Baseline characteristics of the respondents.

2.2.2. Calculation of Results

The arithmetic mean of satisfaction was used to initially quantify the results of feedback. In order to compare the relative values of different data, the following formula was used to normalize the indicators’ weights and average satisfaction:
S = x i − x m i n x m a x − x m i n
where S is the synthetical weight or satisfaction index; x i is the absolute value of the weight or average satisfaction; and x m a x and x m i n represent the maximum and minimum values in the corresponding data. This makes the data from the two different dimensions more comparable. The results comprise the absolute and relative values of the indicators in the overall level of campus retrofit under the two main orientations of sustainability principles and usage demands.

3. Results

3.1. Weights

The mathematical function of the weight calculations is to show the degree of importance of each element of the corresponding indicator. Appendix A shows the weight of each element calculated in the framework of the assistant tool. In the calculation of the primary indicators, the elements with the highest weights are ‘Energy’ and ‘Campus safety’, followed by ‘Indoor environmental quality’, ‘Water’, and ‘Campus planning’. The weights of these five elements were significantly higher than those of the next three elements: ‘Architectural aesthetics and function’, ‘Ecology’, and ‘Construction’. This indicates that the performance of campus safety and energy efficiency are the most sensitive and affected issues in established campus retrofit.
By determining the synthetical weight (Appendix B), the secondary indicators, which provide strong guidance and functions for the relevant design strategies, can be broadly divided into three groups (Table 8): an emphasis on indicators with S values higher than 0.6, a relative emphasis on S of 0.3 to 0.6, and general indicators with a synthetical weight below 0.3. In addition to ‘Green building materials’, the secondary indicators with the highest weight in each category were related to usage demands. The highest percentage of important indicators was found in ‘Indoor environmental quality’, ‘Water’, and ‘Energy’. This result shows that experts have a higher perception of specific issues under the relevant topics during retrofit. The weights of the primary indicators of ‘Ecology’ and ’Construction’ were low. After further communication with the respondents, since existing campus landscapes have formed certain styles and usage habits over the course of their long-term development, universities regularly maintain and improve their campuses, while campus retrofit mainly focuses on small-scale construction, so these indicator weights are lower.
Table 8. Synthetical weights of the indicators in the framework.

3.2. Satisfaction

The overall average satisfaction score of Tianjin University Weijin Road Campus was 3.53 (Appendix A), the score rate was 70.68%, and the sample satisfaction rate was 87.28%. These data indicate that users’ feedback regarding the campus was generally positive, but there was still room for optimization and improvement.
As with the weights, the synthetical satisfaction results (Appendix B) could be grouped into three similar categories (Table 9). They included satisfactory issues with an S value greater than 0.6, relatively satisfactory issues with an S value between 0.3 and 0.6, and less satisfactory issues with an S value below 0.3. Regarding the primary indicators, ‘Ecology’ contained the most satisfactory indicators. Compared with dissatisfactory issues, ‘Campus safety’ and ‘Indoor environmental quality’ contained more satisfactory indicators. The scores of ‘Construction’, ‘Architecture aesthetics and function’, ‘Campus planning’, and ‘Water’ were average, and the score of ‘Energy’ was low. Regarding the secondary and tertiary indicators, users gave positive feedback regarding the architectural style of the campus, safety of the building structure, safety protection measures in the building, number of irregular buildings on campuses, greening irrigation, quality of surface water, quality of indoor air, heat island intensity, green planting, vegetation protection, etc. The issues that received negative comments were mainly associated with usage demands. Users gave negative feedback regarding the underground space on campuses, electricity safety, waste heat utilization, equipment energy efficiency, green rainwater infrastructure, etc.
Table 9. Synthetical satisfaction of indicators in the framework.
The satisfaction results essentially reflected the actual perception of users on campuses. The green space ratio of Weijin Road Campus is 36%. Additionally, the campus is adjacent to the city’s water body, and there are four small artificial lakes on the campus. The rich ecological resources of the campus are essential for the ‘Begonia Festival’ and other landscape cultural activities. From a biological perspective, this explains the users’ positive comments regarding campus ecology []. Campus users made positive comments regarding campus ecology. Tianjin University invests nearly CNY 300 million each year in the retrofit of the existing buildings and campuses to improve their overall appearance and function. The previous forms of campus retrofit were mainly fragmentary and gradual, avoiding the disturbance to normal teaching and living activities due to the overall retrofit.
Meanwhile, the Weijin Road campus was built in the 1950s, 76.14% of the buildings were built more than 20 years ago, and 31.25% of the buildings were built before 1970. It is difficult to improve the use of underground space through general retrofit and repair due to the limitations of the built environment. The overall score of campus safety was high, but some of the old buildings on campus, such as the former Liulitai Student Dormitory (which has been gradually renovated) and Qilitai Student Dormitory, have aging electrical facilities and poor electrical safety. Some of the old buildings that have not been retrofitted have aging heating equipment and leaking pipelines. While some of the old buildings that have been retrofitted excessively focus on reducing energy consumption, and due to the subjective differences [] in some users’ perceptions of the indoor thermal environment in the winter, the feedback regarding energy was generally negative. Old buildings and limited retrofit also reduced some positive comments on indoor environmental quality. Meanwhile, the drainage of rainwater and sewage pipes in some areas of the campuses are poor, and water accumulation is more serious in the rainy season.

4. Discussion

This study constructed a comprehensive campus retrofit auxiliary tool that integrates usage demands and sustainability indicators, and examined users’ feedback on the sample campus based on this tool. It can be found from the results that: (a) There are differences in the content between users’ demands and sustainability indicators in the setting of HEI campus retrofit issues. (b) Retrofit issues related to usage account for a higher proportion of the more sensitive content in each category. (c) The users’ feedback from the sample campus is more based on the perceivable characteristics of the campus.
As mentioned, previous studies emphasized the importance of usage perspective in buildings [,]. The application of green assessment systems does not entirely imply the satisfaction of users’ demands []. This provides the basis for similar discussions about HEI campuses. By integrating usage demands in retrofitting, along with the Chinese official green campus assessment standard from a whole-campus level, this study suggests a new perspective for observing the difference between campus users’ demands in the context of a sustainability assessment system for higher education.
The combination of results from previous studies with the development of sustainability assessment systems can be understood in two ways. One aspect is the difference between the contents. Although some previous studies described some common characteristics of both campus sustainability indicators and users’ needs [,], evidence suggests that there is a difference []. Our findings provide more evidence for this view from the perspective of user needs in the context of HEI. Some issues of usage demands, such as the layout of campus facilities, building functions, building structural safety, and campus architectural appearance, have not been included in the ASGC, while, for the aspect of commonality, the results of weights and feedback explain more important retrofit issues from the perspective of demand. For instance, although energy indicators had a high weight in the framework, users provided more feedback based on comfort, and little feedback involved concerns about energy consumption and carbon emissions in use. The sustainability principles that users were concerned about were also more oriented toward the health and comfort aspects of use, such as poor heating in winter and indoor noise.
Furthermore, the update of ASGC also explained this difference, to some extent. Unlike STARS and UI GreenMetric, ASGC is closely related to China’s Assessment Standard for Green Buildings (ASGB). Green building assessment tools, including ASGB, pay more attention to economic and environmental factors in the early stage [,], while neglecting end users []. The first vision of ASGC (CSUSGBC 04-2013) promulgated in 2013 adopted the model structure of ‘Land conservation’, ‘Water conservation’, ‘Material conservation’, and ‘Energy conservation’ from ASGB (GB/T 50378-2006). In recent years, user-side indicators, such as comfort and psychological experience, are constantly being included in various green building assessment systems []. ASGB also changed its structure in the 2019 update based on users’ feedback from the application. The updated ASGC in the same year synchronized this approach, adopting a more comprehensive framework and incorporating more user-related indicators. However, the economy and environment remain important themes. Their importance in sustainability principles cannot be overstated, but the question remains of how to associate this factor with the demands of campus users []. Relevant studies have underlined the role of users’ awareness [,,]. In the practice of raising awareness, improving the clarity of information regarding campus energy consumption is seen as an effective method [,,]. The improvement of energy awareness can increase users’ enthusiasm for campus energy-saving retrofitting, change some retrofit demands from the perspective of comfort, and raise the awareness of users of energy saving.
Another aspect is reflected in the meticulous expressions of the content of sustainable campus evaluation indicators and users’ demands. Compared with the ASGC, which has two tiers, users tend to express their specific needs from a more practical perspective and are more likely to provide clear retrofit suggestions [,]. This difference explains, to some extent, demand orientation dominating the retrofitting of university campuses in China. A college campus can be viewed as a more streamlined model of a city [], including a community, workplaces, natural landscapes, and complex social and economic aspects. This makes it easier to implement repairs based on actual demand. rather than systematic green retrofits, since corrections to usage problems allow us to more easily find paradigm solutions. Similarly, some cities have introduced guidelines for green retrofit in urban areas to reduce the trial costs of retrofitting large-scale urban areas [,]. This may provide a good reference for the green retrofitting of local university campuses; however, the specificity of universities in terms of educational attributes and population needs to be considered.

5. Conclusions

This study aimed to inspect the difference between sustainability principles and users’ demands in campus retrofitting through the construction of the assistance tool for the green retrofitting of established university campuses. To achieve this goal, six selected university campuses were investigated to determine typical campus usage issues. We identified the indicators involved in campus retrofit using the Green Campus Evaluation Criteria, and established the scope and characteristics of green campus retrofit through integration with users’ demands. By calculating the weight assignments and case satisfaction, the difference between users’ demands for campus retrofit and the sustainability principles was explained. This difference is reflected in the content and clarity. The differences in content may stem from the different orientations between the concepts and the awareness of users. This reflects the resistance to the green retrofit of established university campuses due to complexity. We recommend improving the clarity of information regarding campus energy and developing different local guidelines to promote the improvement of users’ awareness and reduce the cost of trial.
  • Limitation
University campuses are also considered important places of activity for residents from the surrounding communities []. However, due to the impact of the epidemic, local universities have adopted closed management during study, which means that the campuses were inaccessible to city residents other than students, faculty, and staff. Therefore, this study only considered the use demand of the institutional users and their views on campus retrofit. We hope to expand the research scope of this assistant tool in the future to analyze the users’ demands in campus retrofit from a more comprehensive perspective.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.C. and L.C.; methodology, G.C., L.C. and F.L.; software, G.C. and L.C.; validation, G.C., L.C. and F.L.; formal analysis, G.C.; investigation, G.C. and L.C.; resources, G.C.; data curation, G.C.; writing—original draft preparation, G.C.; writing—review and editing, L.C. and F.L.; visualization, G.C., L.C. and F.L.; supervision, F.L.; project administration, G.C. and F.L.; funding acquisition, G.C. and F.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was jointly funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 52078325, and Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, grant number S122018003.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the team of Chinese experts for their participation in this research, especially Kun Song and his Campus Retrofit Research Team from Tianjin University for their knowledge and experience regarding sustainable campus construction.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Weight and average satisfaction.
Table A1. Weight and average satisfaction.
Tier 1WeightSatisfactionTier 2WeightSatisfactionTier 3WeightSatisfaction
B10.1533.694C10.0383.727D10.0163.322
D20.0224.032
C20.0113.182
C30.0283.655D30.0153.192
D40.0124.22
C40.023.606D50.0073.325
D60.0064.328
D70.0073.235
C50.0353.513D80.0133.624
D90.0223.445
C60.0214.319D100.0183.323
D110.0053.192
D120.0052.983
B20.073.832C70.0294.234D130.0164.321
D140.0134.123
C80.0413.541D150.0143.987
D160.0162.972
D170.0113.835
B30.1873.976C90.0223.875D180.0154.128
D190.0083.383
C100.0393.735D200.0163.358
D210.0143.774
D220.014.283
C110.0414.492D230.0264.567
D240.0154.358
C120.0434.324D250.0243.994
D260.0194.728
C130.0413.38D270.0143.127
D280.0273.516
B40.1883.48C140.0173.512
C150.0363.528
C160.0343.342D290.0123.432
D300.0093.343
D310.0133.256
C170.033.312
C180.0583.212D320.0232.832
D330.0163.583
D340.0193.368
C190.0154.58
B50.1663.632C200.0124.328
C210.013.526
C220.0083.987
C230.0453.853D350.0283.674
D360.0174.152
C240.0713.04D370.0193.178
D380.0162.923
D390.0063.282
D400.0043.328
D410.0133.128
D420.0142.728
C250.024.757
B60.1673.775C260.0523.641D430.0153.128
D440.013.738
D450.0093.682
D460.0114.125
D470.0063.728
C270.0373.746D480.0154.125
D490.0093.973
D500.0133.152
C280.053.593D510.0183.452
D520.0134.127
D530.023.383
C290.0284.378D540.01
D550.019
B70.0484.216C300.014.782D560.005
D570.005
C310.0174.312D580.0064.343
D590.0074.578
D600.0043.777
C320.0064.156
C330.0153.764D610.0073.988
D620.0053.158
D630.0034.384
B80.0213.929C340.0033.752
C350.0154.027D640.007
D650.003
D660.005
C360.0033.592

Appendix B

Table
Table A2. Synthetical results of weight (Sw) and satisfaction (Ss).
Table A2. Synthetical results of weight (Sw) and satisfaction (Ss).
Tier 1Tier 2SwSs
B1. Campus PlanningC1. Facility layout0.5164 0.3944
C2. Underground space0.1163 0.0815
C3. Wind environment 0.3608 0.3530
C4. Public transportation0.2497 0.3249
C5. Parking design0.4719 0.2715
C6. Social cooperation0.2719 0.7342
B2. Architecture aesthetics and functionC7. Architectural aesthetics0.3880 0.6854
C8. Building functions0.5508 0.2876
B3. Campus SafetyC9. Safety site planning0.2868 0.4793
C10. Traffic Safety0.5314 0.3990
C11. Building structure0.5586 0.8335
C12. Safety protection measures0.5857 0.7371
C13. Electricity Safety0.5586 0.1952
B4. Energy C14. Reduction in average energy consumption0.2072 0.2710
C15. Energy efficiency 0.4812 0.2801
C16. Renewable energy utilization0.4538 0.1734
C17. Waste heat utilization0.3990 0.1561
C18. Equipment energy efficiency 0.8099 0.0987
C19. Building irregular shape0.1799 0.8840
B5. Water C20. Water-saving irrigation0.1299 0.7394
C21. Separate metering0.1058 0.2790
C22. Utilization of recycled water0.0816 0.5436
C23. Water equipment0.6135 0.4667
C24. Green infrastructure for rainwater1.0000 0.0000
C25. Surface water quality0.2508 0.9856
B6. Indoor environmental qualityC26. Indoor acoustical environment0.7143 0.3450
C27. Daylighting0.4955 0.4053
C28. Indoor thermal0.6900 0.3175
C29. Indoor air quality0.3739 0.7681
B7. EcologyC30. Reduction in heat island intensity0.1016 1.0000
C31. Greening planting0.2143 0.7302
C32. Vegetation protection and ecological compensation0.0523 0.6406
C33. Green space0.1791 0.4156
B8. ConstructionC34. Building-material-saving design0.0066 0.4087
C35. Green building materials and local building materials0.1808 0.5666
C36. Prefabricated building0.0004 0.3169

References

  1. Li, M.; Wiedmann, T.; Fang, K.; Hadjikakou, M. The role of planetary boundaries in assessing absolute environmental sustainability across scales. Environ. Int. 2021, 152, 106475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Jorge, M.L.; Madueño, J.H.; Calzado, Y.; Andrades, J. A proposal for measuring sustainability in universities: A case study of Spain. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2016, 17, 671–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lee, K.-H.; Barker, M.; Mouasher, A. Is it even espoused? An exploratory study of commitment to sustainability as evidenced in vision, mission, and graduate attribute statements in Australian universities. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 48, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Veidemane, A. Education for sustainable development in higher education rankings: Challenges and opportunities for developing internationally comparable indicators. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Franco, I.; Saito, O.; Vaughter, P.; Whereat, J.; Kanie, N.; Takemoto, K. Higher education for sustainable development: Actioning the global goals in policy, curriculum and practice. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 14, 1621–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Fukuda-Parr, S.; Muchhala, B. The Southern origins of sustainable development goals: Ideas, actors, aspirations. World Dev. 2020, 126, 104706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lozano, R.; Ceulemans, K.; Alonso-Almeida, M.; Huisingh, D.; Lozano, F.J.; Waas, T.; Lambrechts, W.; Lukman, R.; Hugé, J. A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: Results from a worldwide survey. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Du, Y.; Arkesteijn, M.; den Heijer, A.; Song, K. Sustainable Assessment Tools for Higher Education Institutions: Guidelines for Developing a Tool for China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lauder, A.; Sari, R.F.; Suwartha, N.; Tjahjono, G. Critical review of a global campus sustainability ranking: GreenMetric. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 852–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Alba-Hidalgo, D.; Del Álamo, J.B.; Gutiérrez-Pérez, J. Towards a definition of environmental sustainability evaluation in higher education. High. Educ. Policy 2018, 31, 447–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cho, H.M.; Yun, B.Y.; Yang, S.; Wi, S.; Chang, S.J.; Kim, S. Optimal energy retrofit plan for conservation and sustainable use of historic campus building: Case of cultural property building. Appl. Energy 2020, 275, 115313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhu, B.; Wang, Z.; Sun, C.; Dewancker, B. The motivation and development impact of energy saving to sustainability in the construction of green campus: A case study of the Zhejiang University, China. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 14068–14089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ismaeil, E.M.H.; Sobaih, A.E.E. Assessing xeriscaping as a retrofit sustainable water consumption approach for a desert university campus. Water 2022, 14, 1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Oliveira, R.A.F.; Lopes, J.P.; Abreu, M.I. Sustainability perspective to support decision making in structural retrofitting of buildings: A case study. Systems 2021, 9, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Berardi, U. The outdoor microclimate benefits and energy saving resulting from green roofs retrofits. Energy Build. 2016, 121, 217–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sen, G.; Chau, H.-W.; Tariq, M.A.U.R.; Muttil, N.; Ng, A.W.M. Achieving sustainability and carbon neutrality in higher education institutions: A review. Sustainability 2021, 14, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Osorio, A.M.; Úsuga, L.F.; Vásquez, R.E.; Nieto-Londoño, C.; Rinaudo, M.E.; Martínez, J.A.; Filho, W.L. Towards carbon neutrality in higher education institutions: Case of two private universities in Colombia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fonseca, P.; Moura, P.; Jorge, H.; De Almeida, A. Sustainability in university campus: Options for achieving nearly zero energy goals. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2018, 19, 790–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Duarte, D.C.D.C.; Rosa-Jiménez, C. Cost-optimal nZEB reform strategies and the influence of building orientation for Mediterranean university buildings: Case study of the University of Málaga. Heliyon 2022, 8, E09020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Motra, G.B.; Paudel, S. Performance evaluation of strengthening options for institutional brick masonry buildings: A case study of Pulchowk Campus. Prog. Disaster Sci. 2021, 10, 100173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chernoff, W.A. Retrofit design for preventing theft on the university campus. Secur. J. 2021, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Xia, B.; Wu, K.; Guo, P.; Sun, Y.; Wu, J.; Xu, J.; Wang, S. Multidisciplinary innovation adaptability of campus spatial organization: From a network perspective. SAGE Open 2022, 12, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Harper, D.J.; Mathuews, K.B. Designing library space to support evolving campus needs. In Designing Effective Library Learning Spaces in Higher Education; Sengupta, E., Blessinger, P., Cox, M.D., Eds.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2020; Volume 29, pp. 147–166. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ahmed, N.; Rafeeqi, S.F.A. Infusing life: Restoration of Nadirshaw Edulji Dinshaw city campus in Karachi. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Munic. Eng. 2012, 165, 115–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lundström, A.; Savolainen, J.; Kostiainen, E. Case study: Developing campus spaces through co-creation. Arch. Eng. Des. Manag. 2016, 12, 409–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Leung, T.N.; Chiu, D.K.; Ho, K.K.; Luk, C.K. User perceptions, academic library usage and social capital: A correlation analysis under COVID-19 after library renovation. Libr. Hi Technol. 2021, 40, 304–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Liao, Y.T.; Chiang, C.M.; Liu, K.S.; Tzeng, C.T. Decision-making factors of school building renovations for improving built environment. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 2014, 15, 1246–1254. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ruggiero, S.; Iannantuono, M.; Fotopoulou, A.; Papadaki, D.; Assimakopoulos, M.N.; De Masi, R.F.; Vanoli, G.P.; Ferrante, A. Multi-objective optimization for cooling and interior natural lighting in buildings for sustainable renovation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Von Sommoggy, J.; Rueter, J.; Curbach, J.; Helten, J.; Tittlbach, S.; Loss, J. How does the campus environment influence everyday physical activity? A photovoice study among students of two German universities. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 561175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. King, S.B.; Kaczynski, A.T.; Wilt, J.K.; Stowe, E.W. Walkability 101: A multi-method assessment of the walkability at a university campus. SAGE Open 2020, 10, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Grindsted, T.S. Regional planning, sustainability goals and the mitch-match between educational practice and climate, energy and business plans. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 171, 1681–1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Leiva-Brondo, M.; Lajara-Camilleri, N.; Vidal-Meló, A.; Atarés, A.; Lull, C. Spanish university students’ awareness and perception of sustainable development goals and sustainability literacy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gou, Z.; Prasad, D.; Lau, S.S.-Y. Are green buildings more satisfactory and comfortable? Habitat Int. 2013, 39, 156–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Li, Y.; Li, M.; Sang, P.; Chen, P.-H.; Li, C. Stakeholder studies of green buildings: A literature review. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 54, 104667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hu, S.; Liu, F.; Tang, C.; Wang, X.; Zhou, H. Assessing Chinese campus building energy performance using fuzzy analytic network approach. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2015, 29, 2629–2638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Liu, Q.; Wang, Z. Green BIM-based study on the green performance of university buildings in northern China. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2022, 12, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhu, B.; Dewancker, B. A case study on the suitability of STARS for green campus in China. Eval. Program Plan. 2021, 84, 101893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shuqin, C.; Minyan, L.; Hongwei, T.; Xiaoyu, L.; Jian, G. Assessing sustainability on Chinese university campuses: Development of a campus sustainability evaluation system and its application with a case study. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 24, 100747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tan, H.; Chen, S.; Shi, Q.; Wang, L. Development of green campus in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 64, 646–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, D.; Hao, M.; Chen, S.; Morse, S. Solid Waste Characterization and Recycling Potential for a University Campus in China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Schopp, K.; Bornemann, M.; Potthast, T. The whole-institution approach at the university of Tübingen: Sustainable development set in practice. Sustainability 2020, 12, 861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Kohl, K.; Hopkins, C.; Barth, M.; Michelsen, G.; Dlouhá, J.; Razak, D.A.; Bin Sanusi, Z.A.; Toman, I. A whole-institution approach towards sustainability: A crucial aspect of higher education’s individual and collective engagement with the SDGs and beyond. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2021, 23, 218–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dipeolu, A.A.; Akpa, O.M.; Fadamiro, A.J. Mitigating environmental sustainability challenges and enhancing health in urban communities: The multi-functionality of green infrastructure. J. Contemp. Urban Aff. 2020, 4, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Li, Y.; Yuan, K.; Chen, L. Reconstruction of an university’s old buildings. Ind. Constr. 2012, 42, 30–33. [Google Scholar]
  45. Shiue, F.-J.; Zheng, M.-C.; Lee, H.-Y.; Khitam, A.F.; Li, P.-Y. Renovation construction process scheduling for long-term performance of buildings: An application case of university campus. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Ares-Pernas, A.; Carvajal, C.C.; Rodríguez, A.G.; Ibáñez, M.I.F.; Casás, V.D.; Fernández, M.S.Z.; Pita, M.D.P.S.; Allut, A.D.G.; Pérez, M.P.C.; López, M.J.C.; et al. Towards a sustainable campus: Working together to achieve the green campus flag on the UDC peripheral campus of Ferrol. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2020, 21, 1367–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tookaloo, A.; Smith, R. Post occupancy evaluation in higher education. Procedia Eng. 2015, 118, 515–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Findler, F.; Schönherr, N.; Lozano, R.; Stacherl, B. Assessing the Impacts of higher education institutions on sustainable development—An analysis of tools and indicators. Sustainability 2018, 11, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Shi, H.; Lai, E. An alternative university sustainability rating framework with a structured criteria tree. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 61, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. De AraÚjo Góes, H.C.; Magrini, A. Higher education institution sustainability assessment tools: Considerations on their use in Brazil. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2016, 17, 322–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Saaty, R.W. The analytic hierarchy process—What it is and how it is used. Math. Model. 1987, 9, 161–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Elshafei, G.; Katunský, D.; Zeleňáková, M.; Negm, A. Opportunities for using analytical hierarchy process in green building optimization. Energies 2022, 15, 4490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. 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]
  54. AbdelAzim, A.I.; Ibrahim, A.M.; Aboul-Zahab, E.M. Development of an energy efficiency rating system for existing buildings using Analytic Hierarchy Process—The case of Egypt. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 71, 414–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Saaty, T.L. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990, 48, 9–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Tianjin University. Available online: http://news.tju.edu.cn/info/1016/40931.htm (accessed on 7 August 2022).
  57. National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) People’s Republic of China. Available online: https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xwdt/ztzl/qgjnxcz/bmjncx/202006/t20200626_1232117.html?code=&state=123 (accessed on 6 August 2022).
  58. National Center for Schooling Development Programme. Available online: https://www.csdp.edu.cn/article/7887.html (accessed on 7 August 2022).
  59. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. Available online: https://www.mohurd.gov.cn/gongkai/fdzdgknr/tzgg/201804/20180404_235620.html (accessed on 7 August 2022).
  60. Tok, E.; Agdas, M.G.; Ozkok, M.K.; Kuru, A. Socio-psychological effects of urban green areas: Case of Kirklareli city center. J. Contemp. Urban Aff. 2020, 4, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Saraoui, S.; Belakehal, A.; Attar, A.; Bennadji, A. Evaluation of the thermal comfort in the design of the museum routes: The thermal topology. J. Contemp. Urban Aff. 2018, 2, 122–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Khoshbakht, M.; Gou, Z.; Lu, Y.; Xie, X.; Zhang, J. Are green buildings more satisfactory? A review of global evidence. Habitat Int. 2018, 74, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Worden, K.; Hazer, M.; Pyke, C.; Trowbridge, M. Using LEED green rating systems to promote population health. Build. Environ. 2020, 172, 106550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Grzegorzewska, M.; Kirschke, P. The impact of certification systems for architectural solutions in green office buildings in the perspective of occupant well-being. Buildings 2021, 11, 659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Cole, R.J. Postscript: Green building challenge 2000. Build. Res. Inf. 1999, 27, 342–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Doan, D.T.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Naismith, N.; Zhang, T.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Tookey, J. A critical comparison of green building rating systems. Build. Environ. 2017, 123, 243–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Martek, I.; Hosseini, M.R.; Shrestha, A.; Edwards, D.J.; Seaton, S.; Costin, G. End-user engagement: The missing link of sustainability transition for Australian residential buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 224, 697–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yahuza, M.S.; Erçin, Ç. Determination of user’s need and comfort in designing and purchasing green buildings in Kano State, Nigeria. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 9, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hopkins, E.A. Barriers to adoption of campus green building policies. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2016, 5, 340–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Raji, A.; Hassan, A. Sustainability and stakeholder awareness: A case study of a Scottish University. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Şahin, H.; Erkal, S. An investigation of university students’ attitudes toward environmental sustainability. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 6, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Macarulla, M.; Casals, M.; Gangolells, M.; Forcada, N. Reducing energy consumption in public buildings through user awareness. In Ework and Ebusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction; Mahdavi, A., Martens, B., Scherer, R., Eds.; Taylor & Francis Group: Vienna, Austria, 2015; pp. 637–642. [Google Scholar]
  73. Méndez, J.I.; Ponce, P.; Peffer, T.; Meier, A.; Molina, A. A gamified HMI as a response for implementing a smart-sustainable university campus. In Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises, Smart and Sustainable Collaborative Networks 4.0; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  74. Ogbuanya, T.C.; Nungse, N.I. Effectiveness of energy conservation awareness package on energy conservation behaviors of off-campus students in Nigerian universities. Energy Explor. Exploit. 2020, 39, 1415–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Prati, D.; Spiazzi, S.; Cerinšek, G.; Ferrante, A. A User-oriented ethnographic approach to energy renovation projects in multiapartment buildings. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Senior, C.; Salaj, A.; Vukmirovic, M.; Jowkar, M.; Kristl, Ž. The spirit of time—The art of self-renovation to improve indoor environment in cultural heritage buildings. Energies 2021, 14, 4056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Heijer, A.D.; Magdaniel, F.T.C. The university campus as a knowledge city: Exploring models and strategic choices. Int. J. Knowl.-Based Dev. 2012, 3, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Dirutigliano, D.; Delmastro, C.; Moghadam, S.T. A multi-criteria application to select energy retrofit measures at the building and district scale. Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2018, 6, 457–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Nan, Y.; Jing, G. Formation of better streets: Interpretation of urban design guidelines for Beijing street regeneration and governance. China City Plan. Rev. 2019, 28, 45–55. [Google Scholar]
  80. Wang, X.; Zheng, W. College neighborhood in coexistence with the city-Analysis on sustainable campus construction planning for the University of Calgary in Canada. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. Ed. 2017, 44, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Notes on Recommendations for Enabling Policy Interventions in the Seaweed Cultivation and Processing Domain in India
Previous
The Efficiency Evolution and Risks of Green Development in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China
Next