Synergizing Policy, Cost, and Technology in Green Building Renovation: A Multi-Stakeholder Satisfaction Perspective

Abstract

The construction industry is one of the major sources of carbon emissions, and green retrofitting of buildings is an effective pathway to promoting sustainable development in the sector. However, existing research and implementation strategies often struggle to reconcile the needs of governments, businesses, and residents. Therefore, this study proposes a comprehensive research framework that employs bibliometric and text analysis methods to examine implementation barriers in retrofitting projects across four dimensions: policy, cost, technology, and resident satisfaction. The results indicate that retrofitting costs are the primary factor, while technology is a secondary factor. Furthermore, existing policies feature vague technical standards, insufficient incentives, and a lack of differentiation. Conflicts of interest and challenges regarding cost allocation persist throughout the renovation life cycle. Decision-support tools and renovation technologies face limitations and issues regarding applicability. Residents face constraints from multiple factors, including their knowledge base and economic capacity. Based on these findings, the government urgently needs to improve a differentiated policy system and encourage technological R&D and knowledge dissemination. Enterprises must actively respond to policies and optimize their technologies and management practices. Residents need to enhance their energy-saving awareness, participate in retrofitting efforts, and improve their energy consumption behaviors.

1. Introduction

According to the EU Energy Efficiency in Buildings Directive, buildings account for 40% of the EU’s total energy consumption and are one of the leading sectoral sources of carbon emissions [1]. Reducing energy consumption in the building sector and using renewable energy sources are, therefore, important measures needed for greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing CO₂ emissions by retrofitting the existing building stock is one of the most attractive and low-cost options [2] and is an effective measure to accelerate the fulfillment of decarbonization targets [3].

Building green retrofits is a sustainable way to improve existing buildings’ energy and resource efficiency. Scholars around the world have studied green remodeling, such as in China [4], Germany [5], Italy [6], Australia [7], Singaporean [8], and the United Kingdom [9].

Governments in developed regions and some developing countries have implemented a range of actions to reduce emissions in the greening of buildings. The European Union requires each member state to deploy EPBDs at the national or regional level, including minimum levels of energy efficiency in new and refurbished buildings [1]. At the federal, provincial, and municipal levels across Canada, a variety of GHG reduction measures are being implemented to achieve the 2050 climate action target [10,11]. The Algerian government launched a thermal retrofit program for existing buildings in 2016 to reduce energy consumption [12]. China has also proposed the Energy Efficiency Design Standard for Residential Buildings (DB11/891-2020), which aims to reduce energy consumption in the construction sector [13,14]. Whilst governments around the world have acted for the green retrofit of buildings, a top-down policy approach is often insufficient to change the outcome of the retrofit, and stakeholder engagement must also be addressed [15]. However, the fragmentation of authority among the government and numerous stakeholders—including businesses and residents—has slowed the development of sustainable buildings [15], making it difficult for the government to coordinate the needs of various stakeholders when formulating policies. Low-carbon retrofitting involves multiple stakeholders, including the government, owners of public buildings, and the general public, making it a complex process [16]. Conflicts of interest among these groups often pose challenges, making it difficult to implement low-carbon renovation projects [17]. In particular, the issue of coordinating residents’ interests—such as the emphasis in the Two Sessions that resident participation in the renovation of old residential communities must shift from an “optional” to a “mandatory” requirement [18], remains a challenge, as most property owners lack the incentive to invest. According to the EU’s Wave Plan, achieving the proposed 55% climate target by 2030 will require an additional annual investment of approximately 275 billion euros [19]. How to fairly distribute this massive funding gap among property owners, tenants, the government, and private investors has become a point of contention. Consequently, establishing an effective policy framework to improve the existing building stock represents a major challenge for global energy policymakers [15].

Businesses are an influential factor in achieving the 2050 carbon neutrality target, and the transformative technologies they possess, the resources they have, and the level of business engagement are all factors the government considers when formulating its policies. While improvements in the energy efficiency of buildings can have tangible co-benefits for the construction industry as well as for businesses [20], several factors can affect business practices in retrofitting, such as cost, time efficiency, customer demand, and the confidence of the installer of the retrofit product in the reliability of the final job [20]. Therefore, under the government’s policy call for green retrofit of buildings, firms waver between pursuing economic returns and emission reduction performance, which affects the retrofit efficiency [21], and is likely to affect the progress of building retrofit due to issues such as information asymmetry of firms and difficulties in project financing [22,23]. The need for firms to meet both the needs of the residents and the green objectives in the context of the government’s energy efficiency policy during the retrofitting process can lead to high costs and make it difficult to achieve the goal of maximizing benefits [24].

Residents’ willingness to participate is essential in accelerating or slowing down comprehensive rehabilitation [25]. While building retrofits can improve occupant comfort and indoor climate [26], residents value economic considerations more than the environment [27]. Therefore, residents need to be educated and financially supported for energy efficiency. During the renovation process, excessive focus on economic costs by both businesses and residents often leads to conflicts of interest [16]. Business behavior is typically driven by economic rationality, aiming to maximize profits or optimize returns on investment by minimizing both direct and indirect costs in renovation projects [21]. This cost-oriented strategy may lead businesses to lower compensation standards for residents, use low-quality materials, or simplify renovation plans, sacrificing long-term social benefits for short-term economic gains. As the parties are directly affected by the renovation, residents primarily focus on personal economic costs and changes in welfare, including sensitivity to relocation expenses, rising living costs, property value depreciation, and future quality of life [28]. Residents often demand higher financial compensation, better resettlement conditions, or more sustainable environmental improvements to offset the uncertainty and risks associated with the redevelopment [29]. These differing cost priorities lead to fundamental conflicts of interest. Furthermore, differences in interest, background, and knowledge among residents can also lead to differences in their preferences in decision-making, making it difficult to harmonize decision-making outcomes [30].

To summarize, for the sustainable development of the construction industry, it is necessary to formulate measures and policy recommendations that can promote the satisfaction of the government, enterprises, and residents [31]. Therefore, this study aims to accomplish three objectives through a review of the relevant literature. (1) Proposing a technical approach to building green retrofit for the Tri-party Satisfaction of Government-Enterprise-Residents, (2) identifying key factors and barriers affecting building green retrofit, and (3) giving specific advice to governments, businesses and residents on green building retrofits. Figure 1 shows the research framework of this paper.

2. Methods

The “Citation Explorer” tool in Web of Science (WOS) provides a method for locating citations from specific sources and assessing their impact in academic publications; this tool has become the industry standard for citation analysis [32]. Therefore, this study searched the Web of Science database using the term “building renovation” as the keyword, yielding 1828 relevant articles. We then filtered out articles not classified in Q1 or Q2 that were related to the low-carbon theme, leaving 1584 articles. Next, we restricted the time frame to 2021–2023, which eliminated another 6625 articles. We retained only review articles and research papers, without distinguishing by research region, resulting in 273 articles. The process is illustrated in Figure 2. Finally, we performed keyword clustering analysis on the selected articles [33] and visualized the results using VOSviewer software (version 1.6.20), as shown in Figure 2.

This paper uses the literature visualization software VOSviewer to conduct a keyword analysis of the selected 273 papers. After excluding non-representative terms such as “building,” “model,” and “people,” we obtained Figure 3. Figure 3 features seven colors, each representing a cluster of keywords with different focuses. Darker colors indicate that the keyword appeared earlier, while lighter colors indicate that it appeared later. Based on all the keywords in Figure 3, we further categorized them into eight groups through manual tagging. The specific results are shown in

Table 1. Keyword categories.

Policy	Cost	Technique	Resident Satisfaction	Building Reconstruction	Energy-Related Concepts	Building	Other
policies policy management sector	cost-effectiveness life cycle cost cost benefits efficiency	deep renovation model BIM energy efficiency measures genetic algorithm system thermal insulation multi-objective optimization systems insulation optimization generation ventilation calibration design district heating tool methodology building envelope decision-support life cycle assessment simulation framework LCA building energy simulation strategies life-cycle models sustainability assessment decision-making	comfort thermal comfort health behavior demand performance thermal performance energy demand	renovation retrofit building renovation energy renovation retrofits retrofitting social housing energy-saving renovation refurbishment	environment energy efficiency zero-energy energy energy savings sustainability energy use consumption carbon energy performance climate change savings CO2 emissions emissions energy-consumption	residential buildings buildings construction stock dwellings building stock existing buildings dwelling stock apartment buildings building	impact barriers impacts gap challenges China selection

, including policy, cost, technology, resident satisfaction, building retrofitting, energy-related concepts, building stock, and others. Since this study focuses on green building retrofitting, we selected only the core keywords and excluded content related to building retrofitting, energy-related concepts, building stock, and other categories. Since this study is based on green building retrofitting, we selected only core keywords and excluded content related to building retrofitting, energy-related concepts, building stock, and the “others” category. Therefore, this paper analyzes the barriers to implementing green building retrofitting from these four aspects. To avoid redundancy, terms such as “building green retrofit,” “building retrofit,” “building sustainability,” “retrofit,” are used interchangeably to refer to the green retrofitting of buildings. In this paper, these terms collectively denote the process of systematically updating and optimizing existing buildings through technological upgrades, material replacements, and system reconfiguration to achieve energy conservation, emissions reduction, efficient resource utilization, and environmental sustainability throughout their entire life cycle. Additionally, the terms “enterprises” and “energy-saving enterprises” used in this paper refer to companies engaged in retrofitting, as well as home appliance manufacturers and other firms possessing energy-saving technologies.

Based on the analysis of the current status of green building retrofit, four aspects, namely, building retrofit policy, retrofit cost, retrofit technology, and stakeholder satisfaction, are important for building sustainability. Therefore, further identification of barriers to retrofit implementation is based on a literature analysis of such four aspects, as shown in Figure 4.

3. Result

3.1. Analysis of the Main Factors Affecting the Green Transformation of Buildings

The European Union (EU) and China are representative in the field of green building retrofit. The EU, as a developed region, has policy formulation and implementation experiences that are relevant to other countries [34]; while China, as the world’s largest developing country, is also highly representative of the needs and challenges of green retrofitting of buildings [35,36]. Therefore, this paper takes the green retrofit of buildings in the European Union (EU) and China as the object of study, aiming to provide useful references and lessons for the formulation and implementation of green retrofit of buildings in other regions.

Policy formulation influences the process of implementing green building retrofits and the distribution of benefits among stakeholders. However, the lack of energy efficiency standards and codes has increased building energy consumption over the past decade [37]. Currently, many countries have developed and implemented building energy codes [38], but there is still a problem of inconsistency between retrofit theory and retrofit reality when greening buildings, which is due to some imperfections in the policies, such as unclear definitions of near-zero energy consumption, insufficient consideration of residents’ satisfaction in the policies, which affect the efficiency of retrofitting. Therefore, countries must continue to improve policies on green building retrofitting.

Retrofit cost is a critical factor in the retrofit process and can significantly impact retrofit progress and efficiency. According to the results in Figure 4, the number of research publications on retrofitting costs is significantly higher than those on policies, technologies, and satisfaction. This is consistent with the conclusions of existing studies, which indicate that retrofitting costs are the primary factor influencing building retrofits [39]. The cost of retrofitting is not only affected by the government’s financial support for retrofitting projects but also depends on the retrofitting technologies available in the market as well as the acceptance and support of retrofitting products by residential users [40,41]. High investment and transaction costs are major barriers to energy efficiency in buildings [42]. They are often associated with technological uncertainty and high costs limiting the implementation of energy-efficient technologies. In addition, the uncertainty of the actual costs incurred during the retrofit construction process, including management and retrofit costs, may result in transaction costs that are 20 percent higher than investment costs [42]. Therefore, there is a need to understand more deeply and seek strategies to reduce the transaction costs associated with implementation [43].

In the retrofitting process, the maturity of the decision support modeling technology and the sophistication of the retrofitting technology directly impact the retrofitting efficiency. Compared to policies and satisfaction, there is a greater volume of research literature on renovation technologies, which has become a key—though not the primary—factor influencing the satisfaction of the three parties involved in building renovations [44]. Firstly, decision-makers need to get a complete picture of the pros and cons of retrofit options by analyzing and evaluating technologies to select the best solution and identify the most effective energy-saving measures [45]. Therefore, Kamari et al. (2021) [46] proposed PARADIS, a decision support system based on Building Information Modeling (BIM) tailored for optimal and holistic retrofitting scenarios for residential retrofitting in the Danish context, facilitating discussions between expert and very expert stakeholders. Taillandier et al. (2016) [47] used the ARD-FOURMI tool to help owners formalize their ideas for thermal retrofits, converging project stakeholder perspectives based on deep interaction between experts and owners.

Secondly, the choice of retrofit technology can impact the cost and sustainability of the building. Many researchers have also examined the envelope and the heating and ventilation system. In the retrofitting strategy, technical studies on windows [48,49,50,51], façade structures [48,52,53], ventilation systems [54,55] and heating systems [50,56]. Niemelä et al. (2017a) [57] have been researched to identify retrofit technologies that can realize the environment-economics-technology-society but still have shortcomings that need to be improved.

Building modifications are also influenced by occupant use and behavior [58]. La Fleur et al. (2017) [59] show that different user behaviors lead to significant differences in predicted energy use. However, most residents may not realize that their lifestyles and decisions significantly impact energy consumption. They, therefore, may not actively participate in retrofitting activities [60]. This phenomenon may stem from a lack of knowledge about retrofitting among residents, insufficient expert advice, or a preference for what they are able to do independently [61]. Therefore, it becomes essential to popularize knowledge about remodeling, coordinate residents’ interests, and enhance residents’ satisfaction. If the factors affecting residents’ satisfaction are not considered, significant problems will arise in the implementation of remodeling [25].

To summarize, policy, cost, technology, and user satisfaction affect the transformation efficiency of green building renovation and the participation of government, enterprises, and residents in building sustainability. It is necessary to study further the major and minor factors affecting the three parties’ satisfaction and propose measures and solutions that can achieve synergistic benefits for the three parties. Therefore, this paper analyzes the existing implementation barriers in terms of policy, cost, technology, and residents’ satisfaction and proposes an implementation plan that can satisfy the government-enterprise-residents about the existing implementation barriers to promote the transformation efficiency of green building renovation.

3.2. Multidimensional Obstacle Identification and Influence Mechanism Analysis of Green Building Renovation

3.2.1. National Building Renovation Policy to Be Improved

In modern cities, where political, social, and environmental issues are all intertwined, well-considered policy strategies are needed to address the social problems related to available housing [62]. As a result, the EU and China have proposed a series of policies related to building retrofitting, as shown in Figure 5. However, the existing policies have certain areas for improvement [63]. At the same time, there is a research deficit in policy research.

On the one hand, there are inherent gaps in existing policies that impede the development of building sustainability. Figure 5. shows the policies related to the green transformation of buildings that have been introduced since 2000, including the European Union and China, and the following shortcomings are obtained by analyzing the policies:

• In terms of the scope of policy implementation, except for the EU’s Energy Performance of Buildings Directive [1], there are fewer references to emissions reductions in the building sector, and there is a lack of clarity on the definition of near-zero energy consumption [64,65], leading to differences in the understanding of building retrofitting across countries [66]. Therefore, the definition of standards still needs further refinement [67]. Secondly, with economic development as well as regional differences across the EU countries and China, and with public policy formulation being the result of multiple stakeholders with different values, views, and preferences [68], it is difficult to realize EU carbon emissions reductions using only the same policies. For example, the EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change recommends that the EU establish common climate scenarios and methodological standards, and requires that climate resilience be incorporated into policy-making [69]. However, significant disparities among EU member states in terms of economic development, risk exposure, and administrative capacity have led to marked variations in the effectiveness of implementing uniform policies. Therefore, regionally differentiated retrofit policies should be formulated according to economic conditions, climate change, and development status. In addition, the government’s policy support for developing financial products and technical support for enterprises with different strengths needs to be improved, which can promote the efficiency of green building transformation [70]. The China’s “Comprehensive Work Plan for Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction during the 13th Five-Year Plan Period” states that price formation mechanisms should be improved for households and tax incentive policies should be refined for enterprises [71]. However, it lacks guidance on how to resolve core conflicts of interest—such as cost sharing, benefit distribution, and risk sharing—that inevitably arise during the retrofitting process. The China’s “National Guidelines on Climate, Environmental Protection, and Energy Subsidies” permit subsidies to cover the “full incremental costs” of green investments [19]. However, the methodology for calculating “net incremental costs” is complex and relies on comparisons with “alternative projects.” This requirement may limit the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises and individual property owners with limited resources and capacity.
• Regarding technology policies, most current policies point out that energy upgrades for doors, home appliances, heating systems and so on are conducive to reducing energy waste in buildings. However, there is less support for retrofitting building envelopes [72]. In fact, improvements in the building envelope’s energy efficiency also contribute to realizing of cost-environmental benefits [73]. Second, the use of energy-saving technologies and products during renovation helps improve the energy efficiency of buildings [74]. However, incentive policies supporting these technologies and products need to be further refined to increase participation by businesses and residents. However, there is no incentive policy to support energy-saving technologies and products to increase the participation of enterprises and residents. Finally, there are fewer technical support policies for predicting the behavior of managers and construction workers in the process of green retrofitting of buildings [75], which tends to cause an increase in costs and thus increase the difficulty of retrofitting. Furthermore, the implementation of many macro-level policies leads to disparities among countries in terms of enforcement rigor and regulatory resources. For example, the EU’s Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) must be transposed into national law. These disparities result in the fragmentation of internal market rules within the EU, affecting overall emission reduction progress and the level playing field. Additionally, the requirement for mandatory retrofitting of non-residential buildings with the lowest energy performance places financing pressures on small and medium-sized property owners [1].
• Regarding the social aspects of the policy, most policies are based on economic and environmental examinations and do not consider residents’ comfort. The study of residents’ comfort with the policy is not comprehensive enough, and there is a need to formulate policies based on residents’ health as well as their sense of experience [76]. For example, the policies outlined in the China’s 14th Five-Year Plan for Building Energy Efficiency and Green Building Development do not provide any incentives or funding guidance for investments aimed at enhancing the climate resilience of buildings, thereby neglecting the core need to ensure building safety and the health of occupants in the context of climate change [77]. Secondly, Baek and Park (2012) [41] suggest that financial support is vital in the renovation policy of residential buildings because there is usually a relatively high correlation between residents’ financial ability and housing quality. Moreover, based on the current domestic and international policies, it can be found that the subsidy policies still need to be continuously improved and still lack incentive strategies for building energy retrofits that apply to different building types, different income households, and different levels of regional development [78]. In addition, some of the policies lack economic incentives to increase business and user participation. At the same time, economic consideration and support for businesses and residents are still insufficient to address the problem of harmonizing the interests of businesses and residents [78]. The China’s “Decision of the State Council on Strengthening Energy Conservation” proposes “implementing effective incentive policies” and states that “localities with the necessary conditions may provide appropriate financial support for certified energy-saving products that meet advanced national energy efficiency standards”. However, it does not specify the exact form of such financial support, nor does it distinguish between the incentive needs of different sectors [79]. However, the China’s Interim Measures for the Administration of Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction Subsidies, the Energy Conservation Law, the General Specifications for Energy Conservation in Buildings and the Use of Renewable Energy, and the targets of the 14th Five-Year Plan are effective for China because robust central planning and administrative enforcement enable the rapid breakdown and implementation of national goals, resulting in high efficiency in promoting the large-scale construction of green buildings and infrastructure. These approaches should be maintained and optimized. The European Union has ensured the long-term stability of its low-carbon goals through a rigid legal framework, including the European Climate Act, the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, the National Subsidies Guide on Climate, Environment, and Energy, and the European Climate Act. However, future efforts should focus on simplifying rule enforcement, reducing compliance costs, and ensuring cross-border capital flows to support less developed member states.

On the other hand, there are deficiencies in policy research. To enhance the efficiency of building retrofitting, most of the existing studies have focused on building codes in policies, energy use, and incentives and information dissemination strategies for different building types [41,80,81,82]. In addition, some of the studies have focused on policy development tools to explore how to promote green retrofit of buildings through policy instruments [83,84]. However, these studies have not sufficiently considered the satisfaction of residents with different incomes in different building types during the policy development process, which makes it difficult to clearly define the factors that affect residents’ satisfaction, which in turn affects the soundness of the policy, and the different building types and their contextual factors should be adequately taken into account in the development of policies for green retrofitting of buildings [85]. However, the current articles that have targeted such studies are not comprehensive enough, and although the influence of environmental-economic factors has been emphasized when examining policy development tools, the influence of social factors is often overlooked.

Focusing on the national building retrofit policy, this paper first analyzes the policy itself in terms of coverage, technology, society, and sustainability. It examines the theoretical issues of the policy itself, including the problems of low-carbon technology standards and norms in the policy, the technical requirements for the building envelope, the incentives for energy-efficient technologies and products as well as low-carbon financial products, and the protection of the interests of enterprises and residents in the policy, the issue of interest protection for enterprises and residents in the policy and so on. Secondly, the current policy research is analyzed, and the research deficiencies and future research prospects are found. It is proposed that research can be carried out in terms of differentiated economic incentive policy research and technical requirements, as well as policy formulation tools that weigh economic-technical-social-environmental issues and that the future green transformation of buildings needs to be supported by a perfect policy system to promote the sustainable development of buildings.

In summary, current building retrofit policies play a crucial guiding role in advancing the global energy transition and sustainable development. However, the effectiveness of these policies is constrained by multiple factors, with shortcomings in areas such as standardization, regional adaptability, technological comprehensiveness, and social inclusivity. For example, the definition of “nearly zero-energy” in existing policies is vague, and policy design lacks consistency, making it difficult to adapt to differences in regional economic levels, climate risks, and stages of development. Second, the technical incentives in these policies focus on the replacement of energy-consuming equipment while neglecting performance improvements in building envelopes and other structural elements. Furthermore, existing policies have not fully incorporated objectives related to residents’ health, comfort, and indoor environmental quality, nor do they provide refined cost–benefit adjustments tailored to different income groups and tenancy statuses—particularly lacking support for low-income households and small-to-medium-sized properties. Furthermore, existing academic research also has limitations. While most existing studies focus on technical standards and macroeconomic benefit analyses, few delve deeply into how to systematically integrate complex social factors—such as residents’ behavioral preferences, variations in satisfaction, and social equity—into the design of differentiated policy tools. Therefore, future research and policy practice urgently needs to shift toward a socio-technical systems integration perspective. By constructing a differentiated framework that integrates technical feasibility, economic efficiency, and social equity, and by developing dynamic assessment tools based on insights into residents’ behavior, we can drive a profound transformation of building retrofits toward more inclusive and resilient sustainable models.

3.2.2. Cost–Benefit Conflicts in Building Renovation

The cost factor plays a crucial role in the whole life cycle of a green building retrofit project. It significantly impacts the government’s retrofit policymaking and affects various stakeholders’ satisfaction and participation motivation, as shown in Figure 6.

Indeed, building design decisions affect operating costs and the environment over a long period, often decades. Therefore, it is essential to thoroughly consider the design phase of retrofit decisions to ensure that all stakeholders can be effectively involved [86].

• Although the government is committed to promoting the sustainable development of the construction industry, it faces financial resource constraints; so, the special funds given by the government for retrofitting are not enough to achieve the goal of carbon peaking [87]. In addition, the government’s subsidy policy needs to be stronger, and the subsidy criteria are too strict [81]. For example, the government may provide subsidies for retrofitting only for those homes with poor retrofitting capacity and severe housing deterioration, and these subsidies are only a small portion compared to the overall retrofitting costs, directly affecting residents’ incentives to engage in green retrofitting. Therefore, governments must rationalize financing, address dedicated funding, and increase financial support to increase refurbishment rates and achieve retrofit emission reduction targets [88].
• For businesses, companies face a trade-off between high retrofit costs and long-term energy-saving payoffs. This trade-off significantly affects their incentives to participate in retrofit programs. As the remodeling market has yet to mature fully, many companies are wary of investing heavily in the remodeling market [89]. Secondly, macroeconomic uncertainty also significantly impacts firms’ investment decisions [90]. As argued by Morelli et al. (2014) [91] and Van Gulck et al. (2020) [14] investors place more importance on the economic aspects of retrofitting. The financial problems associated with the instability and immaturity of the retrofitting market may weaken firms’ incentives to retrofit, thus affecting the actual implementation of retrofitting projects and the cooperation between firms and the government.
• Residents tend to focus on the additional costs associated with retrofitting. In the trade-off between economic factors and environmental benefits, residents are more inclined to consider economic factors [92,93], but the limited financial capacity of residents results in a lack of ability to provide funding for retrofitting in their ability. For higher-income households, on the other hand, despite having the financial capacity to invest in home remodeling, they are often reluctant to invest too much effort in remodeling, partly due to their unwillingness to proactively acquire knowledge about remodeling or to raise awareness of remodeling [94]. Meanwhile, the lack of residents’ ability to assess their portfolios has become a significant difficulty in implementing home remodeling [95]. Together, these factors affect residents’ participation in green building retrofits and the success of retrofit projects.

In the implementation phase of housing retrofits, multiple conflicts of interest, mainly related to the costs of implementing the retrofit and the costs of managing the project, are the main factors affecting the efficiency of green retrofits in buildings.

• From the perspective of retrofitting technology costs, governments, firms, and residents tend to focus on the technology costs themselves during the retrofitting process, ignoring the benefits from the additional costs, such as indirect economic benefits in the form of job creation, increased tax revenues, and income from donations [90,96,97], and this bias in focus may affect the incentives for parties to participate. Secondly, retrofit technology requirements to guarantee the level of savings are the basis for stipulating energy performance contracts. At the same time, higher green building standards and codes set by the government, as well as lower subsidies and incentives, may cause retrofit firms to implement retrofits in pursuit of technological compliance with ever-increasing retrofit costs, resulting in lower economic efficiency [98,99,100], increasing the investment risk faced by firms [101]. Different economic levels of building materials, technological systems, labor, and energy prices also affect cost-effectiveness [102], and therefore, from an economic point of view only, retrofit companies may not choose to participate in the implementation of green retrofitting of buildings. In turn, residents are reluctant to participate in building remodeling, considering the impact of costs such as relocation when implementing the remodeling [90]. Further, the order in which the retrofitting is implemented also affects the cost outlay [86,103,104,105], but there is a lack of technical support that can ensure that the entire retrofitting process is cost-minimizing [106]. Finally, inconsistencies in the terminology used in many documents regarding retrofit implementation techniques and the terminology used in policy development, as well as the lack of standardized specifications, may increase the cost of retrofitting [107], reducing participation of retrofitting companies.
• In retrofit management, managers’ management of people and materials affects the effectiveness of retrofitting and is closely linked to the cost of green retrofitting. Lack of planning for the stacking of materials during the construction process reduces construction efficiency and increases the risk of safety accidents, which raises the cost of retrofitting businesses [108]. The retention of occupants during renovation may cause retrofit businesses schedule overruns and other safety hazards [109], as well as compromising resident safety and comfort [110], and relocation increases the cost of retrofitting for residents [90], all of which exacerbate the difficulty of balancing the interests of retrofitting firms and residents. In addition, the long-term lack of effective control of working hours and work efficiency in the management of grass-roots employees by retrofitting enterprises has led to the formation of bad habits among construction site personnel, which may affect the progress of remodeling and thus increase the cost of enterprises.

There are also specific conflicts of interest at the acceptance assessment and inspection stage at the end of the retrofit. Since economic assessments are usually not conducted from a life cycle perspective and some assessment techniques are very insensitive to changes in investment costs and potential reductions in energy use [111], this leads to inaccurate results of the economic assessment as well as inaccurate results of the evaluation of building performance [112,113], which increases the investment costs for retrofitting businesses and governments. At the same time, residents lack expertise in building retrofitting, and inaccurate acceptance results affect residents’ interests and satisfaction during building use [114]. Inaccuracies in sustainability assessment results due to the lack of a standardized basis for sustainable buildings [114,115], can then lead to inaccuracies in the gap between the implementation results and acceptance results of building retrofits in terms of sustainability [2], affecting the cooperation between government and retrofit business as well as the satisfaction of the inhabitants after the building is put into operation.

At the end of acceptance, subsequent maintenance costs may be incurred, and this cost increase can cause dissatisfaction among residents, resulting in cost-sharing issues between the remodeling company, residents, and property owners [116]. When problems arise in common areas after acceptance, costs are shared through property rates. However, rising property rates exacerbate social inequality risk and affect residents’ satisfaction with their use, especially among low-income households [99]. Wrong building maintenance practices can lead to additional and unnecessary costs [117]. Therefore, there is a need for renovation safeguard systems and measures [118].

Cost is the main factor in the whole green building renovation process, which will affect the government’s renovation decision and the participation of retrofitting enterprises and residents in the process. The interests under the tripartite satisfaction of the government-enterprises-residents in the design stage of the investment decision, the technical implementation problems and management problems in the implementation stage of the renovation, the accuracy of the renovation assessment and acceptance stage, and the cost responsibility in the maintenance stage, etc., will affect the satisfaction and participation of the government, retrofitting enterprises, and residents. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a reasonable and practical program to coordinate the points of interest of all parties and to solve the problem of implementation barriers to economic benefits due to conflicting interests, as proposed in this paper.

Therefore, cost is a major influencing factor throughout the entire green building retrofit process, affecting not only government decisions regarding retrofits but also the level of participation by retrofit companies and residents in this process [119,120]. First, the maturity of the retrofit market and macroeconomic stability directly determine the certainty of the investment environment and companies’ willingness to invest [121]. Among these, direct cost variables affecting project economic feasibility—including market-based retrofit technology costs and energy-saving returns, government-set green standards and incentive levels, fluctuating prices, and potential cost overruns resulting from technical specifications—are key factors influencing the market [122,123]. At the same time, the efficiency of the retrofit implementation process—particularly construction efficiency and additional costs determined by the optimization of retrofit sequences and on-site management levels—is a key factor affecting project profitability. Finally, the certainty of project evaluation and post-project risks—namely, the accuracy of life-cycle-based economic assessment tools, discrepancies between acceptance results and actual performance, and the allocation of potential future maintenance responsibilities—also influence a company’s ultimate return on investment and risk assessment. Therefore, to clarify a building’s sustainability performance, assessments can be conducted using life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) methodologies [109], employing LCA to evaluate environmental impacts and LCC analysis for economic evaluation.

3.2.3. Bottlenecks in Building Renovation Technology

Currently, simplifying the green building retrofit process and improving the energy efficiency of retrofit technologies is the quickest way to achieve emission reduction goals. Although many studies have been conducted to improve green retrofit technologies, the existing multi-criteria retrofit modeling technologies and retrofit implementation technologies still need to be improved and expanded [124]. Current research on retrofit technology focuses on retrofit decision support technology for building stock on one hand and retrofit implementation technology on the other.

The impact of occupant comfort preferences and behavior on performance is often overlooked during the design phase [125]. In contrast, an effective retrofit decision modeling technique can dynamically take into account different criteria, as well as occupant preferences [49] and address the gap between expected and actual energy savings [126]. There are not many techniques that take into account the dynamic nature of retrofitting buildings [127], uncertainty [128], and multidisciplinary and multi-user subjects. Figure 7 show that various decision support modeling techniques have different evaluation performance metrics. There are studies on decision support tools for professional users (government and retrofitting business), non-professional users (residents), and both professional and non-professional users.

This study compares several techniques and points out the strengths and weaknesses of each one, as shown in the Appendix A, which shows that the market for the selection and use of retrofit modeling techniques is still difficult. By comparison, Multi-objective optimization combined with a dynamic building energy simulation tool for professional users can better balance the consideration of multiple factors such as environment-economy-technology-time-priority, which increases the efficiency and accuracy of decision-making for professional users and accuracy, but the technique is unable to take into account the issue of user preferences [129]. For non-specialized users, the Generation of sustainability analysis methods considers the energy and technical performance of the renovation, life cycle costs, and homeowner preference factors to help homeowners determine quantitative and qualitative decisions. Still, the technique does not have a relationship with other stakeholders and does not give strategic choices to prioritize renovations [130].

To take into account multiple subjects of interest, Multi-standard decision support method designed for home decoration [112], Multi-standard analytical methods for multivariate design and building renovation [131] and Evaluation model based on 12 weighted indicators [132] can provide expertise for professionals and non-professionals alike, and applies multidisciplinary guidelines, including environmental, economic, social, and technical criteria, to enhance the satisfaction of governments, retrofitting businesses, and residents, and to optimize the results of retrofitting. However, the performance of these techniques in actual projects is still uncertain, and there is room for future research. Therefore, there is still a need to increase the research and development of decision-support modeling techniques to facilitate professionals and non-professionals in making appropriate retrofit strategy choices.

Moreover, the implementation techniques of building green retrofit can affect the retrofit efficiency and the development of the retrofit market [48]. Among the current studies, building green retrofit options include retrofitting the building envelope, including facades and windows, and retrofit measures for ventilation structures and heating systems, as shown in the Appendix A and Figure 7. Firstly, retrofitting of windows can be done by adding insulation, which avoids extensive glass replacement and reduces retrofitting costs [48], as low emissivity double glazing, triple glazing, and installation of glazed curtain walls are strategies that can affect user comfort and increase retrofitting costs. Secondly, renovation of facades can be done by applying a hydrogel layer, changing to modular wood construction, and adding insulation to facades and roofs. However, modular wood construction is costly, and the market for hydrogel coatings is still unstable. Hence, adding insulation to facades and roofs is an effective strategy for facade renovation.

Finally, for ventilation and heating systems one can choose single-flow mechanical ventilation and photovoltaic panels, respectively [48], but this increases the user’s operational behavior and reduces the user’s comfort; so, one can choose a combined heat recovery ventilation system, which is more cost-effective [133,134]. As shown in the Appendix A, some current retrofit implementation techniques still have shortcomings. Therefore, there is also a need to increase research and development of implementation techniques to reduce the cost of retrofitting and increase the satisfaction of retrofitting enterprises and residents during the retrofitting process [120].

Existing technologies in the process of building green retrofit, including standards involving environmental-economic-social-technical aspects and decision support modeling technologies for the consideration of multiple stakeholders, as well as technologies for the building envelope and ventilation and heating systems adopted in the retrofit, affect the development of the market for green retrofit of buildings and thus the participation and satisfaction of retrofitting businesses and residents in building sustainability. And the development and selection of these technologies will affect the efficiency of building green retrofit [135].

In summary, the development and application of green building retrofit technologies represent a key pathway to achieving emission reduction targets in the building sector. Research in this area primarily focuses on two dimensions: decision-support technologies for retrofits and implementation technologies. At the decision-support level, while tools designed for professional users can perform multi-objective optimization, they struggle to integrate residents’ behavioral preferences and comfort requirements. Conversely, tools designed for non-professional users, while accounting for building owners’ preferences, lack coordination with other stakeholders and guidance on prioritization strategies. Although existing research has attempted to develop multi-criteria decision-making models that balance the interests of multiple parties, their effectiveness in actual projects remains to be verified. At the implementation level, specific retrofit solutions for building envelopes, ventilation, and heating systems all face multiple trade-offs. For example, while exterior wall insulation and window thermal insulation are effective strategies, modular timber structures are costly; conversely, heat-recovery ventilation systems, though cost-effective, increase operational complexity for users. The development and selection of these technologies directly impact the efficiency of building retrofits [135]. Therefore, future technical research should focus on developing more integrated and adaptive solutions. This can be achieved by constructing intelligent decision-support systems capable of dynamically responding to the needs of multiple stakeholders and standards, and by promoting implementation technologies that strike a better balance between improving energy efficiency, controlling costs, and ensuring user health and comfort, thereby systematically enhancing the efficiency of the retrofit process and the satisfaction of all parties involved.

3.2.4. Resident Satisfaction Neglected in Building Renovation

Residents are the participants in building retrofits and can choose to implement energy efficiency measures from the consumer side. Li et al. (2023) [30] analyzed the design guidelines proposed in 2022 and suggested that the application of the design guidelines was influenced by the desire of the public to participate in the work with the retrofitting and the willingness to demolish unauthorized buildings. Therefore, it is also important to study the participants of building renovation.

Although occupant behavior is a factor that significantly influences the energy performance of a building, the complex, stochastic nature of user behavior makes it difficult to define actual occupancy patterns [136]. It is widely recognized that improving the energy efficiency of buildings is a means to reduce energy demand and improve thermal comfort [137]. Factors such as socioeconomic variables, occupancy characteristics, and indoor thermal perception influence the willingness of residents to accept comprehensive retrofits [25]. Van den Brom et al. (2019) [85] prove that the building retrofit process considered not only the energy efficiency of the building before the building retrofit, the type of the building, but also the influencing factors related to the occupants, including the number of occupants, the level of income of the occupants, and occupancy rates. The study by Taillandier et al. (2016) [47] also considered household income, comfort level, health and safety, knowledge of building retrofitting possessed by the occupants themselves, level of education, level of dissemination of knowledge of building retrofitting, and energy efficiency after retrofitting. Among the effects of residents’ comfort levels include temperature, humidity, wind speed, UV intensity of the sun, and human characteristics, which affect which and what level of retrofit option is chosen [138]. Also, the energy efficiency of the retrofit is affected by the type of building, household income, and occupancy rate of the house, as shown in Figure 8.

First, studies have shown that residents are willing to accept basic retrofitting measures but less willing to accept quality improvement and renewable energy measures [25] because of the low level of education of some residents [139,140], and thus lack of proactive response to the national renovation policy, while differences in the refurbishment awareness of residents can also hinder the sustainable development of the country’s residential buildings [141]. Therefore, Silva et al. (2016) [142] propose to raise awareness among building clients and other stakeholders about the advantages of low-energy buildings. Secondly, the lack of publicity of the green building concept causes residents to lack professional knowledge of building retrofitting, which makes it difficult for the green building industry to develop healthily. There are still relatively few sustainability assessment tools and decision-making tools for non-professional users [143], which is one of the barriers to residents’ participation in building retrofit implementation. Finally, for poor households, the energy transition does not significantly impact them because their energy is inherently low. Hence, most poor households are reluctant to participate in the retrofit.

Whereas there is room for further research on business and resident satisfaction studies, there is a need to emphasize research on the satisfaction aspects of residents in building retrofits. Firstly, the existing research on user satisfaction still needs to be deeper, especially on how tenants and landlords can coordinate the cost-sharing of energy retrofits [118]. Secondly, there is also a need for more research that integrates the effects of residents’ remodeling preferences, income levels, and regional differences in formulating remodeling measures [85]. Finally, studies have shown that air pollution is harmful and should be closely monitored [144]. However, there is still a lack of research on the relationship between building retrofitting decisions and occupants’ satisfaction with indoor environmental quality (IAQ) [145,146]. Few studies have also considered the impact of building retrofit measures on indoor IAQ [147].

In conclusion, the factors affecting residents’ satisfaction are often related to their own and external factors, with their factors including their educational background and the remodeling knowledge they possess. In contrast, external factors include family income, health and comfort due to renovation, and external publicity. The uncertainty of resident satisfaction due to the interference of self and external factors affects the development of green building remodeling. The research literature on resident satisfaction is also characterized by a lack of research on solving the landlord-tenant problem, on remodeling solutions that satisfy residents’ differences, and on the relationship between building remodeling decisions and occupants’ satisfaction with the quality of the environment; so, in-depth research in these directions is the trend for the future.

In summary, as key participants in building retrofits, residents’ willingness to participate and their satisfaction directly determine the effectiveness and sustainability of energy-saving measures. However, this process is constrained by multiple factors, including residents’ socioeconomic status, living patterns, thermal comfort needs, and level of awareness. Among these, awareness barriers—such as low educational attainment, a lack of specialized knowledge, and insufficient promotion of green concepts—lead to limited acceptance of renovation measures among residents, while low-income households lack motivation to participate due to their low energy consumption [30]. Furthermore, academic research remains insufficient in revealing the underlying mechanisms of user satisfaction, particularly regarding the coordination of cost-sharing between tenants and landlords, the development of renovation strategies that comprehensively consider resident preferences and regional differences, and the clarification of the relationship between building renovation decisions and indoor air quality satisfaction [118]. Therefore, future research and practice should focus on developing a comprehensive resident satisfaction analysis model that integrates behavioral characteristics and environmental psychology, while considering targeted policy tools and renovation frameworks for improving IAQ. The current SC Tool can effectively measure resident satisfaction and drive the low-carbon transition of the building sector [148].

3.3. Summary of Green Building Renovation Obstacles

There are specific barriers to the implementation of building renovation, including four aspects: national policy, cost conflict of interest, renovation technology, and resident satisfaction. The specific problems are as follows:

First, at the national policy level, there are a series of theoretical problems implicit in the existing policy framework, such as the lack of standardized policy criteria and stringent technological requirements that would make it impossible to guarantee the sustainability of retrofitting, as well as the lack of incentives and retrofitting policies that are regionally differentiated and harmonized with the satisfaction of multiple stakeholders, which magnifies the regional differences in the process of policy implementation, affecting the achievement of the emission reduction targets at the global level. The lack of incentives and transformation policies that harmonize the satisfaction of multiple stakeholders has magnified regional differences in the policy implementation process, affecting the achievement of global emission reduction targets. At the same time, there is also a lack of research on emission reduction policies in different countries, for example, the efforts to publicize and popularize the policies, policy adjustments to enhance public satisfaction, specific policy recommendations to adapt to varying types of buildings, and multidisciplinary policymaking tools that take into account the environmental, economic, and social benefits, which limits the comprehensiveness of the government’s considerations in formulating and launching the policies.

Secondly, the conflict of interest arising from the issue of costs throughout the life cycle of building renovation affects the incentives of the government, retrofit enterprises, and residents to participate in the renovation. At the investment decision-making stage, the lack of dedicated funds the strict policies set by the government, the market and macroeconomic uncertainties faced by enterprises, and the limitations of residents in terms of their economic capacity and knowledge level affect their investment participation. Increased management and renovation costs incurred during the renovation implementation phase, biased assessment results due to cost or market factors during the renovation assessment phase, difficulties in assessing the sustainability of renovated buildings, and the often-neglected costs of the maintenance phase are all important factors affecting the participation of enterprises and residents in building renovation.

In addition, building green retrofitting is significantly affected by the level of technology available. Despite improvements in decision modeling support technologies, there are still some limitations, including differences in the criteria covered, narrow scope of application, and uncertainty of real-world application, and decision-makers often have to rely on selecting decision technologies with more comprehensive criteria for decision-making. Therefore, attention needs to be paid to developing more widely applicable decision modeling support technologies to address multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholder coordination issues. At the same time, implementation techniques also need help coordinating economic-environmental-social issues, which, combined with lower renovation rates, affects the efficiency of retrofitting and increases the difficulty of implementing building retrofits.

Finally, resident satisfaction is influenced by various intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Intrinsic factors are mainly related to residents’ educational background and knowledge of building retrofitting, while extrinsic factors include household income levels, the impact of retrofitting on health and comfort, and external publicity. The combination of these factors leads to fluctuations in residents’ satisfaction, which questions the promotion of green building remodeling. Meanwhile, current research on resident satisfaction has certain limitations, especially in meeting residents’ individualized retrofit needs and the relationship between building retrofit decisions and occupant satisfaction with environmental quality.

In summary, the barriers to building retrofitting involve policy, cost, technology, and resident satisfaction, which limit the promotion of green building retrofitting. Therefore, there is a need to comprehensively assess the feasibility of retrofitting strategies by considering environmental, economic, and social benefits, formulating comprehensive policies and upgrading technologies, and promoting the participation and satisfaction of governments, enterprises, and residents in building retrofitting.

4. An Analysis of Satisfactory Approaches for Multiple Stakeholders in Green Building Retrofits

To reduce carbon emissions and increase the use of renewable energy, many countries require measures to be taken to improve the energy efficiency of buildings [86]. Through the combination of literature, green building retrofitting is a practical approach that requires the participation of government, businesses, and residents, creating the potential for conflict of interesting problems for the participants, as shown in Figure 9. In the process of green building retrofits, the core concerns of different stakeholders vary [16,149]. For example, governments tend to focus more on achieving policy objectives, as well as social benefits and equity [150,151]), while businesses tend to focus more on return on investment, technical feasibility, and risk [152,153], while residents are more concerned with the distribution of renovation costs and benefits, comfort, and health impacts [16,28]. Resolving such issues then depends on critical stakeholders who possess knowledge about energy retrofits, on the access of crucial stakeholders to appropriate knowledge networks, and on active coordination and trust between relevant stakeholders [154].

4.1. Green Renovation Path for Government Buildings

• Increased attention to the building sector and the introduction of differentiated retrofit and incentive policies: Firstly, policies need to take into account natural and social factors, such as climate and economic conditions, and introduce mandatory standards and codes that require new buildings to meet specific energy efficiency standards, as well as energy efficiency retrofitting of existing structures and defining regionally differentiated near-zero and minimum energy consumption standards for building retrofits [64,65], reducing unnecessary misunderstandings and differences in retrofit implementation. At the same time, financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, and low-interest loans should be provided according to family composition and household income, with priority given to financial support for the low-income bracket to reduce the cost of energy-saving retrofitting for residents. It is also necessary to provide subsidies and incentives for energy-saving enterprises to lower the threshold of energy-saving renovation, for example, encouraging the organization of experts to advise enterprises on modifications at the planning and design stage and helping them complete the design of green building schemes. Enterprises also need to be provided with subsidized policy support for energy-efficient product development, with a suggested list of attractive mainstream financial instruments and subsidies based on a certain percentage. The government can also recognize and reward enterprises and residents who actively participate in energy-saving renovation to increase their motivation and sense of honor.
• Encouraging technological research and development and providing technological services: When formulating policies, governments can choose policymaking tools with more comprehensive criteria, promote the use of decision-making technologies, and try to take into account multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholder criteria, for example, the multi-standard decision support method designed for home decoration [112], multi-standard analytical methods for multivariate design and building renovation [131], and the evaluation model based on 12 weighted indicators [132] take into account multidimensional criteria such as economic, quality, technical, ecological, climatic and social conditions to conduct complex assessments and more accurately advise professionals and non-professionals on retrofitting decisions. In addition, governments need to encourage, through incentives, the participation of businesses and residents in the retrofitting and use of technologies such as envelope, rooftop photovoltaics, and heat recovery ventilation systems. However, these decision-making and retrofitting technologies have limitations such as incomplete standards, uncertainty of practical use, and unstable markets; so, governments should increase incentives and support for the research and development of new energy-saving technologies and smart technologies and promote the use of energy-efficient building materials, renewable energy, and energy management systems.
• Publicizing energy-saving knowledge and promoting information sharing: The government should encourage the promulgation and dissemination of knowledge documents on retrofitting for energy conservation and carry out community education on energy conservation knowledge to raise residents’ awareness of retrofitting; widely publicize the importance of energy conservation and retrofitting through various channels, including the media, the Internet, and community activities, to raise the public’s awareness of energy conservation; and provide technical guidance and advisory services to enterprises and residents to help them understand applicable energy conservation technologies and retrofitting options.
• Establishing cooperation mechanisms with appliance companies to promote resource integration: To mitigate the financial subsidies, the cost compensation for green building renovation can be obtained from the carbon trading market, and the economic burden can also be compensated through the cost replacement in the process of appliance replacement. Therefore, the government can cooperate with home appliance enterprises due to the government’s participation can increase the residents’ home appliance replacement behavior; at the same time, the home appliance enterprises respond to the policy in the form of low profit with more efficient low-carbon home appliances and residents to replace the aging appliances, the discarded appliances are used to sell, and the portion of the appliances that can be utilized is used for sustainable recycling, where the profit is used to compensate for the cost of the building renovation by the proportion of the rest of the costs through the rest of the costs are compensated by increased property fees and financial subsidies so that the funds for the sustainable development of the building can be continuously supplied. The rest of the funds can be subsidized by adjusting the price of electricity or improving tax policies.

4.2. Path to Green Transformation of Corporate Buildings

• Actively participating in government programs and complying with regulations and standards: First, retrofit companies should conduct energy audits of retrofitted buildings to assess the building’s energy use, identify energy-saving potentials, and formulate energy-saving retrofit plans; conduct detailed energy-saving return-on-investment analyses, and demonstrate the economic benefits of energy-saving retrofits to management and shareholders. Retrofit enterprises should actively participate in government-promoted energy-saving retrofit programs and take advantage of government financial subsidies and incentives to reduce retrofit costs. At the same time, they should comply with national and local energy-saving regulations and standards to ensure that new or renovated buildings meet energy-saving requirements.
• Increasing research and development of energy-saving technologies and adopting advanced new energy-saving technologies: According to the analysis in Section 3.2.3, the building envelope, including the exterior walls and windows, can be remodeled to increase the heat-insulating layer, avoid large-scale replacement of materials, and reduce the remodeling cost. Rooftop emission reduction measures take the installation of rooftop photovoltaic panels, but the installation of rooftop photovoltaics requires a certain degree of skill, and rooftop photovoltaics are affected by climate, direction, and sunlight; so, they require expert evaluation of implementation as well as the participation of the government. Considering only the ventilation system, companies can use single-flow mechanical ventilation systems, which is a critical way to improve residents’ satisfaction. Alternatively, renovation companies can adopt a heat recovery ventilation system, which promotes residents’ participation in retrofitting with low-cost and high-efficiency retrofitting effects, thus forming a virtuous cycle. However, other implementation technologies have disadvantages as described in Section 3.2.3 and the Appendix A and retrofit companies must increase their research and development of the technologies. Enterprises can reduce the energy consumption and carbon emissions of buildings by increasing the R&D of other structural energy-saving technologies and green energy utilization technologies. In addition, new intelligent technologies can be used in the retrofitting process, such as real-time monitoring of environmental data inside and outside the building using an intelligent environmental monitoring system, and optimization of energy use strategies using an intelligent building management system.
• Renovation enterprises need to carry out energy-saving training for their employees before the implementation of building renovation, improve their energy-saving awareness and skills, ensure that energy-saving measures are effectively implemented, and at the same time, strictly control the requirements to be met by the renovation, minimize the harm to human beings, and increase the satisfaction of the residents. To ensure the safety and effectiveness of construction, renovation companies must use energy-saving management systems, regularly monitor and evaluate energy-saving effects, and adjust and improve energy-saving measures according to the actual situation.
• Increased focus on appliance efficiency improvements: Rooftop photovoltaic power generation in cities corresponds to a small portion of the electricity supply, and the rest still needs to be compensated by appliance efficiency improvement. Therefore, appliance companies also need to improve the energy efficiency of appliances, focus on customer needs, and provide personalized energy-saving appliance selection solutions to improve customer satisfaction and market competitiveness. As residents become more energy-conscious, improving the energy efficiency of appliances will encourage residents to prefer energy-conscious appliances when purchasing appliances, thus reducing energy consumption in buildings.

4.3. Green Renovation Path for Residential Buildings

• Considering the initiative to raise awareness of energy conservation and utilize energy conservation incentives, residents can obtain the latest energy-saving technologies and retrofitting cases through information released by the government and research reports from professional organizations; learn and understand the basics of building energy efficiency through major websites, software, and corporate promotional activities; and participate in energy-saving publicity and educational activities organized by the community to share the experience and benefits of energy-saving retrofitting with other residents, encouraging more people to participate in energy-saving activities. In addition, learn about and make use of the government’s incentives, such as energy-saving subsidies and tax breaks, to reduce the financial burden of energy-saving retrofits.
• Active participation in individual and community retrofitting processes: Residents should actively participate in meetings related to energy-saving retrofitting organized by the community or the residents’ committee and make suggestions and comments on the retrofitting plan to ensure that the retrofitting plan meets the actual needs and interests of the residents. Second, energy-saving investments should be made, and energy-saving equipment and systems, such as high-efficiency appliances, insulation materials, and solar panels, should be considered, which can save energy costs in the long run. During the construction period of the energy-saving remodeling, actively cooperate with the construction team and comply with the construction regulations to ensure that the remodeling project is carried out smoothly. After the retrofit is completed, properly use and maintain the energy-efficient equipment and systems to ensure regular operation and energy-saving effect.
• Improving daily energy-saving behavior: Residents should adopt energy-saving measures in their daily lives, such as using energy-saving light bulbs, turning off unnecessary electrical appliances, adjusting the indoor temperature reasonably, and making full use of natural light, etc.; improve their water consumption habits by using water-saving sanitary ware and repairing leaks, to reduce unnecessary water consumption; recycle and reuse rubbish, to minimize environmental pollution; and reduce the use of private cars by using public transport, cycling, or walking, to reduce carbon emissions.
• Adopting smart technologies to reduce the energy consumption of home appliances. Residents can remotely control electrical appliances and equipment at home through smart home systems, such as smart home APPs, smart meters, and smart sockets, and automatically set the operating modes and times of the equipment according to the residents’ living habits and preferences, to achieve energy-saving effects. It is also possible to detect the real-time data of the room through the smart temperature control system and automatically adjust the operating power and mode of the air conditioner, fresh air system, and other equipment.

In summary, this study suggests improvements to government, businesses, and residents regarding policy, cost, technology, and resident satisfaction barriers to implementing green building retrofits to promote the satisfaction of all three parties in building sustainability.

5. Conclusions and Future Directions

Based on existing literature, this paper provides a literature review of research on technical pathways for green building retrofits, focusing on the perspectives of the government, businesses, and residents regarding policies, costs, technology, and resident satisfaction. Drawing on the findings regarding barriers, this paper proposes corresponding policy and implementation recommendations to enhance satisfaction among all three stakeholders in the process of sustainable building development. This study overcomes the limitations of previous research, which often focused on a single dimension or a single stakeholder. It innovatively establishes a systematic correlation and integration between policies, costs, and technologies, and the satisfaction objectives of the three core stakeholders: the government, enterprises, and residents. This study found that renovation costs are the primary factor influencing the satisfaction of the government, enterprises, and residents during the process of green building development, while renovation technologies are a secondary factor. Addressing cost issues can align the interests of the three parties, thereby establishing a foundation for cooperation, while addressing technical issues can enable renovation enterprises to generate profits and provide the government and residents with technical assurance.

• From a policy perspective, this study reveals a lack of synergy among existing renovation policies in terms of standards, technical requirements, and incentives. Policy formulation requires the establishment of a “differentiated coordination” framework capable of simultaneously addressing government regulatory functions, corporate market demands, and residents’ individual needs. This implies that the government should strive to refine and unify technical standards, incorporate social indicators such as residents’ health and comfort into the policy evaluation system, and design differentiated economic incentive tools—including subsidy and loan schemes tailored to households of varying income levels, building types, and regions—to foster participation among both businesses and residents [155].
• From a cost perspective, the conflict between costs and benefits persists throughout the entire renovation lifecycle and constitutes the core economic obstacle hindering collaboration among the three parties. Research indicates that the key to resolving this issue lies in establishing a mechanism for cost-sharing and value recovery [156]. The government needs to innovate financing models, such as exploring compensation mechanisms linked to the carbon trading market [157]. Businesses must control costs throughout the entire process through refined management and technological optimization, while residents need to rationally bear a portion of the renovation costs based on expectations of long-term energy savings and asset appreciation. In particular, the “appliance replacement” model is key to balancing short-term expenditures with long-term benefits and enhancing the willingness of all parties to pay.
• From a technical perspective, on the one hand, there is a need to develop intelligent decision-support systems capable of deeply integrating economic, environmental, and social standards, as well as dynamically responding to the diverse preferences of governments, businesses, and residents, thereby transforming technology into a communication platform and quantitative tool for coordinating the objectives of these three parties. On the other hand, we should accelerate the development of cost-effective, market-stable technologies for building envelope retrofits and mechanical and electrical systems that can effectively improve indoor environmental quality, ensuring that technical solutions strike a balance between environmental benefits, economic benefits, and social acceptability.
• In terms of resident satisfaction, satisfaction is not merely a passive outcome of renovation but rather the key to its success. Research indicates that improving satisfaction must be based on the personalized needs of residents, taking into account their educational background, income level, and lifestyle. Through effective community communication, public education, and participatory design, residents’ concerns regarding health, comfort, and affordability can be integrated into renovation decision-making and implementation. This approach stimulates residents’ willingness to participate, ensures the long-term sustainability of renovation outcomes, and ultimately creates a win–win situation where the government achieves effective governance, businesses gain market share, and residents enjoy improved living conditions.

In summary, the success of green retrofitting in buildings depends on the coordination and balance of the interests of the government, businesses, and residents. Based on the identified challenges to implementation, this study proposes effective solutions. The government faces obstacles such as vague policy definitions, a lack of differentiated incentives, limited financial support, and insufficient consideration of residents’ comfort. Therefore, the government’s core strategy lies in improving the policy framework, including establishing clear and regionally differentiated technical standards and regulations, and designing tailored economic incentive packages—such as subsidies and tax breaks—for households of varying income levels and different building types. Additionally, the government should increase support for energy-saving technology R&D and public awareness campaigns to align macro-level emission reduction goals with the interests of micro-level stakeholders. The primary obstacles faced by enterprises include high renovation costs and uncertainty regarding return on investment, risks stemming from an immature renovation market, and pressure to meet the demands of multiple stakeholders. Consequently, enterprises should proactively respond to policies, actively participate in government projects, and commit to technological innovation. This includes researching and applying more cost-effective technologies for building envelopes and ventilation and heating system retrofits, as well as improving the energy efficiency of household appliances. Simultaneously, by optimizing construction management and cost control, they can ensure renovation quality while achieving economic returns. As the end-users and beneficiaries of retrofits, residents face obstacles primarily stemming from their focus on short-term economic costs, a lack of professional knowledge and awareness regarding retrofits, and the fact that their satisfaction is influenced by multiple factors such as personal income and experiences related to health and comfort. Consequently, residents should actively take advantage of government incentive policies, proactively learn about energy conservation, improve their daily energy-use behaviors, invest in high-efficiency appliances, and cooperate with community retrofit projects. In summary, the combined efforts of all three parties are necessary to overcome these obstacles and achieve the sustainable upgrading of the existing building stock.

Furthermore, based on the obstacles identified above, future research should focus on developing a differentiated analytical framework that deeply integrates technical feasibility, economic efficiency, and social equity. Specifically, at the policy research level, it is necessary to move beyond the formulation of macro-level standards and delve into how to systematically incorporate complex social factors, such as residents’ behavioral preferences, variations in satisfaction levels, and social equity, into the design of differentiated policy instruments. Additionally, models capable of dynamically assessing policy benefits across different income groups, building types, and regional development stages should be developed. Regarding the coordination of costs and benefits, research should shift its focus toward establishing innovative cost-sharing and value-recovery mechanisms from a full life-cycle perspective, particularly by studying financing models linked to carbon trading markets. In the technological domain, future research should focus on developing intelligent decision-support systems capable of responding to the diverse demands and standards of governments, businesses, and residents, and translating these into quantifiable coordination tools. Concurrently, efforts should be accelerated to promote renovation technologies that achieve a better balance between improving energy efficiency, controlling costs, and ensuring the health and comfort of occupants. Finally, regarding resident satisfaction, there is an urgent need to construct comprehensive analytical models that integrate resident behavioral characteristics with environmental psychology, and to conduct specialized research on the relationship between indoor environmental quality improvements and satisfaction, thereby transforming residents’ personalized needs into core inputs for renovation decisions and technology selection. In summary, future academic exploration should aim to break down research barriers between policy, cost, technology, and satisfaction, providing a solid theoretical foundation for achieving sustainable building transformation.