Department of Civil Engineering, Design school , Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University , Suzhou , China
Department of Civil Engineering, Design school, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University , Suzhou , China
With the rise of green building projects in the construction industry, questions of risks in project implementation have become increasingly prominent. The green building industry showcases new design concepts, material applications, innovations in green technologies, energy efficiency and carbon dioxide emission reduction. This study adopts the grey cluster assessment method for risk evaluation to improve the risk management ability of green building projects. Through the theory and method of grey mathematics, the subjective assessment of risk factors is transformed into grey quantitative indicators, and the uncertainty in the evaluation process is effectively dealt with by combining qualitative and quantitative research methods. The green building risk assessment index system is established, the relative importance of each risk factor is judged by experts, and the contribution of each factor to the overall risk is calculated. Finally, the analysis identifies the key risk factors that need to be focused on mitigation and control, and puts forward the corresponding risk countermeasures, which provide scientific decision support for the risk management of green building projects. The key risk factors in green building projects in China are: construction accidents, design errors, inaccurate GB investment estimation, absence of site-specific design considerations, designs with poor constructability and the quality problems of GB materials. While the least critical risks in GB projects are the deterioration of GB materials during the operation and maintenance period, unclear responsibility sharing for future upgrades, absence of regular maintenance of equipment and innovative equipment for assembling GB products.
It is on request.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
