IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i21p9360-d1508494.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multiple Paths to Green Building Popularization Under the TOE Framework—A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Fuzzy Sets Based on 26 Chinese Cities

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaokang Wang

    (Research Center of Chinese Village Culture, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

  • Li Zhu

    (School of Architecture and Art, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

  • Yue Tang

    (School of Architecture and Art, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

  • Haoyu Deng

    (School of Architecture and Art, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

  • Haolong Wang

    (School of Architecture and Art, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

Abstract

Green buildings are a crucial element in achieving sustainable development. The use of green buildings can save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Promoting the widespread adoption of green buildings has become a significant concern in many countries or regions. Although previous studies have identified a range of key factors influencing the promotion of green buildings, further analysis of the combination of these critical factors needs to be conducted. Therefore, based on the technology–organization–environment (TOE) framework, this study utilizes the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) method to analyze survey data from 26 cities in China, resulting in four high-level configuration paths for the widespread adoption of green buildings. The results indicate that (1) achieving high levels of widespread adoption of green buildings does not depend on any single factor; instead, it relies on the collaborative interaction of multiple elements across technological, organizational, and environmental dimensions; (2) the potential substitution relationships between conditional variables among different configurations within the TOE framework indicate that science and technology expenditure and gross domestic product play more significant roles in the path combinations for the promotion of green buildings; (3) through the study of the substitutive relationships of four configuration paths, it was found that when a city faces challenges in the widespread adoption of green buildings, such as an insufficient number of green building technology patents or underdeveloped green finance incentive systems, it can still achieve efficient green building adoption by formulating corresponding policies and enhancing cultural value guidance for groups like developers, contractors, and consumers. Conversely, the same is true. This paper explores the combination of critical factors in green building adoption, providing insights into addressing the differing foundational conditions of cities in the process.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaokang Wang & Li Zhu & Yue Tang & Haoyu Deng & Haolong Wang, 2024. "Multiple Paths to Green Building Popularization Under the TOE Framework—A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Fuzzy Sets Based on 26 Chinese Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-21, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:21:p:9360-:d:1508494
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/21/9360/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/21/9360/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zezhou Wu & Mingyang Jiang & Yuzhu Cai & Hao Wang & Shenghan Li, 2019. "What Hinders the Development of Green Building? An Investigation of China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-18, August.
    2. Yinqi Zhang & He Wang & Weijun Gao & Fan Wang & Nan Zhou & Daniel M. Kammen & Xiaoyu Ying, 2019. "A Survey of the Status and Challenges of Green Building Development in Various Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-29, September.
    3. Shaoliang Li & Xiazhong Zheng & Qin Zeng, 2023. "Can Green Finance Drive the Development of the Green Building Industry?—Based on the Evolutionary Game Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-17, August.
    4. Michal Gluszak & Agnieszka Malkowska & Bartłomiej Marona, 2021. "Green Building Adoption on Office Markets in Europe: An Empirical Investigation into LEED Certification," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-12, April.
    5. Kuo, Chung-Feng Jeffrey & Lin, Chieh-Hung & Hsu, Ming-Wen, 2016. "Analysis of intelligent green building policy and developing status in Taiwan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 291-303.
    6. Gholamreza Dehdasht & M Salim Ferwati & Rosli Mohamad Zin & Nazirah Zainul Abidin, 2020. "A hybrid approach using entropy and TOPSIS to select key drivers for a successful and sustainable lean construction implementation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-32, February.
    7. Ng, Alex & Zheng, Di, 2018. "Let's agree to disagree! On payoffs and green tastes in green energy investments," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 155-169.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yu Cao & Cong Xu & Syahrul Nizam Kamaruzzaman & Nur Mardhiyah Aziz, 2022. "A Systematic Review of Green Building Development in China: Advantages, Challenges and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-29, September.
    2. Shi Yin & Yudan Zhao, 2024. "An agent-based evolutionary system model of the transformation from building material industry (BMI) to green intelligent BMI under supply chain management," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Amal Shamseldin & Ashraf Balabel & Mamdooh Alwetaishi & Ahmed Abdelhafiz & Usama Issa & Ibrahim Sharaky & Mohamed Al-Surf & Mosleh Al-Harthi, 2020. "Adjustment of the Indoor Environmental Quality Assessment Field for Taif City-Saudi Arabia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-27, December.
    4. Sabina Kordana-Obuch & Michał Wojtoń & Mariusz Starzec & Beata Piotrowska, 2023. "Opportunities and Challenges for Research on Heat Recovery from Wastewater: Bibliometric and Strategic Analyses," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-36, September.
    5. Zhang, Li & Wu, Jing & Liu, Hongyu, 2018. "Policies to enhance the drivers of green housing development in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 225-235.
    6. Tamar Awad & Jesús Guardiola & David Fraíz, 2021. "Sustainable Construction: Improving Productivity through Lean Construction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-24, December.
    7. Marlena Piekut, 2024. "Housing conditions in European one-person households," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-23, May.
    8. Meng, Jia & Zhang, ZhongXiang, "undated". "Corporate Environmental Information Disclosure and Investor Response: Empirical Evidence from China's Capital Market," FEEM Working Papers 317842, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    9. Hulshof, Daan & Mulder, Machiel, 2020. "The impact of renewable energy use on firm profit," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    10. Zhenxu Guo & Qing’e Wang & Rumeng Zhang & Yizhuoyan Qi, 2025. "Simulation Analysis of the Three-Party Evolutionary Game of Green Housing Market Stakeholders Under Low-Carbon Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-24, June.
    11. Moses Msiska & Alex Ng & Randall K. Kimmel, 2021. "Doing well by doing good with the performance of United Nations Global Compact Climate Change Champions," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    12. Liu, Xiangqiang & Peng, Yuling & Li, Qinyang & Wu, Chu-Hua, 2025. "CEO pay structure and ESG rating disagreement," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    13. Dalton Garcia Borges de Souza & Erivelton Antonio dos Santos & Francisco Tarcísio Alves Júnior & Mariá Cristina Vasconcelos Nascimento, 2021. "On Comparing Cross-Validated Forecasting Models with a Novel Fuzzy-TOPSIS Metric: A COVID-19 Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-25, December.
    14. Dingkun Xie & Jun Fang & Weihang Du & Junyi Zhu & Yaohui Xia & Hang Yan & Lixiong Cai, 2025. "Utilization of Solid Waste as Building Materials (USB): Review of Chinese Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-27, February.
    15. Chang, Kai & Zeng, Yonghong & Wang, Weihong & Wu, Xin, 2019. "The effects of credit policy and financial constraints on tangible and research & development investment: Firm-level evidence from China's renewable energy industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 438-447.
    16. Seeram Ramakrishna & Muhammad Pervaiz & Jimi Tjong & Patrizia Ghisellini & Mohini M Sain, 2022. "Low-Carbon Materials: Genesis, Thoughts, Case Study, and Perspectives," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 649-664, June.
    17. Danbei Mo & Liang Huang & Linghong Zeng, 2023. "Green Development Level Evaluation of Urban Engineering Construction in the Mid-Low Reaches of Yangtze River, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-19, July.
    18. Richter, Sylvia & Heyde, Frank & Horsch, Andreas & Wünsche, Andreas, 2021. "Determinants of project bond prices – Insights into infrastructure and energy capital markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    19. Dany Perwita Sari & Yun-Shang Chiou, 2019. "Do Energy Conservation Strategies Limit the Freedom of Architecture Design? A Case Study of Minsheng Community, Taipei, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-23, April.
    20. Andreea Chițimiea & Mihaela Minciu & Andreea-Mariana Manta & Carmen Nadia Ciocoiu & Cristina Veith, 2021. "The Drivers of Green Investment: A Bibliometric and Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-25, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:21:p:9360-:d:1508494. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.