Next Article in Journal
A Social Media Analysis of the Experiences of Chinese Early Childhood Educators and Families with Young Children during COVID-19
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Intention: Mediation of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Moderating Model of Psychological Capital
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/su15032551
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Vertical Greenery Systems in Commercial Complexes: Development of an Evaluation Guideline

by
Yimeng Wu
1,2,
Zhendong Wang
1,3,* and
Hao Wang
4,5
1
College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
2
College of Design and Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117566, Singapore
3
Key Laboratory of Ecology and Energy-Saving Study of Dense Habitat (Tongji University), Ministry of Education, Shanghai 200092, China
4
School of Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, China
5
Key Laboratory of Cold Region Urban and Rural Human Settlement Environment Science and Technology, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(3), 2551; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032551
Submission received: 7 December 2022 / Revised: 22 January 2023 / Accepted: 26 January 2023 / Published: 31 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Urban and Rural Development)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Building vertical greenery has become an effective measure to solve the contradiction between the shortage of urban greenery and the increasing demand for greenery. However, the lack of direct economic benefits dampens motivation for its development. As a vital development mode for high-density cities worldwide, commercial complexes are the most appropriate buildings to support greenery because of economic agglomeration and resource integration. An important reason for whether or not commercial complex greenery is constructed is the need for an evaluation system. To bridge this research gap, we propose a holistic evaluation guideline for commercial complex greenery. First, a list of related sustainable rating systems from the academic literature and official websites was compiled and reviewed to identify and compare their referential features. Second, the limitations of these evaluation systems in assessing the greenery of commercial complexes were explored using a case study. Third, the features of commercial complex greenery were introduced through field research and interviews. Finally, a holistic evaluation guideline for vertical greenery systems in commercial complexes was proposed, including logical thinking for the evaluation system of the dimension–indicator–quantitative method, the creation of innovative evaluation indicators, the establishment of a database, the assignment of weights to different dimensions and indicators, and the construction of an evaluation mechanism for the whole life cycle. This research demonstrates the significance of an evaluation process for commercial complex greenery systems, proposes a refined guideline for its development, and rationally grasps the development direction from a macro perspective.

1. Introduction

As a city’s population grows, the available space for urban greenery becomes scarce and more expensive. The contradiction between the shortage of urban land and the increasing demand for urban greenery [1,2,3] has prompted the development of three-dimensional urban space and the full use of existing urban levels, building planes, and facade spaces for greenery [4]. Although the number of buildings with vertical greenery is gradually increasing, there are still some challenges. One of the most important is the need for direct economic benefits. Mostly, this involves converting social and environmental benefits into indirect economic benefits [5,6,7], which hinders motivation for development to a certain extent. Therefore, relevant policies and regulatory measures have been introduced at home and abroad to expand public benefits and reduce cost [8,9,10,11]. However, more needs to be done to balance the high-cost input and maintenance expenditure within a decade or even 30 years [12,13]. Therefore, it is necessary to determine a suitable building space carrier. Then, vertical greenery can continue to create certain economic benefits for the carrier while maximizing the environmental and social value to balance its operating costs, which has become the main driving force to promote further construction of building greenery.
The commercial complex is a vital development model for high-density cities worldwide [14]. Based on real estate management, commercial complexes contain multi-functional parts, such as hotels, offices, parking areas, shopping centers, convention halls, and apartments, which can effectively provide a package of high-quality services to the local community, with the concept of continuous development [15,16]. Therefore, as an economic agglomeration and resource integrator [17], the commercial complex is the most appropriate building carrier to support greenery.
In addition to generating regular benefits such as general building greenery, commercial complex greenery can also effectively enhance the attractiveness of places to stimulate potential consumption and increase turnover [18]. Moreover, it can further generate direct economic benefits through productive landscapes and green-themed activities to balance the operating costs. At the same time, as places capable of providing innovative services, the greenery at such complexes can also enhance the competitiveness of the venue and the overall development of the region and even the city [19,20], which cannot be matched by the vertical greenery of general buildings. In particular, since commercial complexes, which can have a significant positive impact on the local community, generally have a longer lifespan [21], adding greenery to them can also generate more benefits during the long life cycle of the greenery.
The growing interest in vertical greenery in commercial complexes, the pursuit of innovative buildings, and the corporate social responsibility of developers have increased the number of commercial complexes with vertical greenery, but not the quality. Through field investigations and in-depth research, the authors found several reasons for this phenomenon. First, the indirect benefits generated from commercial complex greenery, such as aesthetics and societal benefits, are indeterminate. Usually, surveys are employed to determine people’s subjective perceptions in terms of aesthetics or satisfaction, which have not been quantified [18,22]. Second is the deficiency of sustainability. China does not have preferential policies such as tax reductions related to the greenery of commercial complexes, and some plants end up being discarded due to their limited lifespan or poor maintenance rather than being sustainably and effectively replaced [23,24]. Third, the lack of consideration in the design stage, especially for the building structure, air-conditioning, electrical machinery, etc., and the construction stage has led to low survival rates for some plants due to additional soil cover and environmental requirements. Fourth, the need for more information, foresight, and cooperation among various stakeholders, such as developers, architects, landscape architects, and maintenance agents, can also cause problems, which ultimately shows that the greenery of commercial complexes underperforms in optimal configuration and presence [25].
Fundamentally, the main reason for whether commercial complex greenery is constructed or not is the lack of an evaluation system of the cost and benefit from the perspective of the whole life cycle in the research and specific criteria to accurately pinpoint indicators and parameters. This has not been addressed, yet is a crucial issue affecting the sustainable and large-scale construction of building complex greenery. A reasonable and feasible evaluation system for commercial complex greenery can guide the government in formulating relevant incentive measures and subsidy policies, reduce the cost of building vertical greenery for building owners, foster enthusiasm for construction, and then promote the construction of vertical greenery in high-density commercial buildings. The influence mechanism of an evaluation guideline for greenery in commercial complexes is shown in Figure 1.
To fill the research gap regarding the lack of an evaluation system of complex building greenery from the perspective of the whole life cycle, the study is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews and summarizes the related research. Section 3 describes the methodology of this study, including the selection of evaluation systems and the features of commercial complex greenery. Section 4 presents and discusses a summary of critical features of sustainable evaluation systems, the limitations of these systems in commercial complexes, and features of commercial complex greenery. Based on the conclusions of Section 3 and Section 4, Section 5 concludes by describing the holistic development direction of evaluation guidelines for commercial complex greenery from a macro perspective. Section 6 describes the limitations and future research.

2. Review of the Literature

The benefits of building greenery, taking vertical green systems and green roofs as common forms, can be divided into three categories: energy savings in terms of cooling and heating the building [26,27,28], carbon dioxide uptake by plants [28,29,30], and air cleaning ability of plants [31,32,33]. Other studies have performed comparative analyses of the economic sustainability of vertical green systems and green roofs [34,35], and have explored the life cycle cost (LCC) of building greenery using detailed first-hand data [13,36]. In addition, research has proven the economic benefits of rent premiums and rising real estate prices [37,38]. A commercial complex is an architectural form based on a concentration of diverse human consumption behavior and the compound utilization of space in a high-density urban environment [39]. Focusing on the particular building type of a commercial complex, which is a critical development model of high-density cities, the potential value provided by greenery may be even better. Unfortunately, scholars have yet to focus on this aspect in order to sort out and propose an evaluation guideline.
As commercial buildings face the tremendous growth of e-commerce [40], many enclosed malls and shopping strips are dying. In contrast, others have survived or even thrived, often due to incorporating natural elements (e.g., gardens) in the shopping environment [41]. In surveys of people’s preference for public spaces inside shopping malls, the green dimension received the highest scores [24,42]. In addition, several studies on consumer experience and behavior have highlighted the importance and impact of the use of ecological elements in commercial settings on attitudes and intentions to visit and purchase [43], and have demonstrated that the combination of space and vegetation positively affects shopping behavior and mood [44]. Moreover, the environmental design of natural spaces in commercial settings geared toward consumption and lifestyles facilitates a relationship between the environment and shoppers’ well-being [45,46]. These indicate the need for action to include a more significant share of greenery within shopping malls through modes such as plant displays, presentations of natural spaces or scenes, and the perception of an eco-environmental design [22], which will encourage customers to return and become regulars, thus ensuring sustainable spatial development [47], and maybe even promoting health [41].
However, the above review of the literature only found that the one-way transmission of visual ecological elements, i.e., the natural landscape of greenery, can evoke different perceptions and thus affect people’s behavior. It only showed the public’s desire for greenery in commercial spaces at the macro level but did not focus on which details of the greenery would arouse people’s shared appreciation. There is also no uniform measurement of economic sustainability to explain how building greenery in commercial complexes is actually profitable rather than losing money. Evaluating the greenery of commercial complexes needs to be mentioned. Consequently, there is great significance in proposing an evaluation guideline for vertical greenery systems in commercial complexes to fill this research gap.

3. Methods

This research seeks to propose a more holistic development guideline for commercial complex greenery, and it was divided into four steps. First, focusing on the keywords “commercial complex” and “greenery”, a list of global sustainable rating systems from the academic literature and official websites was compiled and reviewed to identify and compare their features. The second step used the case study method to explore the limitations of these evaluation systems to assess commercial complex greenery. Third, the characteristics of commercial complex greenery were introduced through on-site investigation and archival material searches. Finally, we critically examined and compared the evaluation systems related to commercial complex greenery and the limitations of their application (the conclusion of steps 1 and 2). Combined with the characteristics of vertical greenery of commercial complexes (the conclusion of step 3), an evaluation guideline suitable for commercial complex greenery was proposed (Figure 2).

3.1. Selection of Evaluation Systems

To select full-scale referential evaluation systems according to the vertical greenery in commercial complexes, we used the main keywords “commercial complex” and “vertical greenery”. Specifically, “commercial complex” refers to the category of building, so we selected “green building evaluation systems”. Similarly, the term “vertical greenery” can be broken down into “landscape architecture” and “landscape”, so we selected “sustainable landscape evaluation systems”. Thus, two types of evaluation systems were analyzed as the reference systems according to this research object: green buildings and sustainable landscape performance (Figure 3).
We referred to the screening criteria of the GSA sustainable building rating system [48], which are relevance, measurability, applicability, and availability, to narrow down the list of possible evaluation systems, as a more detailed review can provide a more useful comparison tool. Based on the above criteria, six green building evaluation systems (LEED, SBtool, CASBEE, Green Mark Certification Scheme, DGNB, and ESGB) and four sustainable landscape evaluation systems (LPS, SITES, Guideline for Federal Agencies on Sustainable Practices for Designed Landscapes, and LEAF) were used. Only the selected evaluation systems were analyzed and compared to obtain the overall features described in this study.
After determining the specific evaluation system, the official websites for each evaluation system of green buildings and sustainable landscapes were searched using Google Chrome. In addition, a specific keyword search was conducted in two central databases, Compendex Engineering Village and Web of Science, using the name of each sustainable building and landscape evaluation system, as well as “green evaluation tool”, “landscape performance”, and “greenery/greening evaluation/assessment.” Priority was given to studies published after 2013 (within a decade) to provide more up-to-date and relevant architectural and landscape information. The technical approach to the literature analysis in this study involved a review of all forms of technical writing; for example, peer-reviewed articles, official evaluation reports, conference publications, and dissertations. The literature was collected from journal articles with a high-impact factor greater than 2.5 because this represents a higher level within this discipline [49]. A total of 15 papers were retrieved for analysis to effectively summarize the available information on relevant evaluation systems.

3.2. Selection of Commercial Building Cases

Since commercial complexes integrate a series of buildings with multiple functions and features, green planting and sustainable evaluation are more complicated than in other buildings. We considered whether the conclusions drawn from mature international green evaluation systems could apply to commercial buildings. Therefore, a case study method was employed in this research to explore the limitations of the above evaluation systems in assessing commercial complex greenery.
First, we should select the evaluation systems for analysis in this research. The evaluation of commercial buildings using sustainable systems is mainly limited to energy consumption, that is, a rating of “sustainability.” [50], which have little reference significance in this research. Therefore, the application case selection link selected sustainable landscape evaluation systems. In this type of evaluation system, the landscape performance series (LPS) integrates the feedback logic of other evaluation systems to scientifically quantify the project’s actual performance [51]. Moreover, LPS aims to use indicators and multi-source data to quantify resulting benefits to evaluate the comprehensive benefits to the environment, society, and the economy [52,53], which is related to the concept of the evaluation system in this paper. The Landscape Architecture Foundation (LAF) provides case study briefs for LPS, a built-in sustainable project database (this database mainly includes post-construction benefit results, sustainability characteristics, problems and solutions, lessons learned, etc.), and is continuously updated with accumulating case studies [54,55]. To summarize, the combination of LPS and commercial complex cases was selected to discuss the evaluation deficiencies.
In this study, the methodological basis of the case study mainly came from a systematic review of performance criteria and variables from:
  • LAF landscape performance series case study briefings [56];
  • Secondary data from project firms, stakeholders, scholarly literature, databases, and other publicly available sources.
First, we found “Project type” in the “Case study briefs” section of the official LPS website and searched for suitable cases by filtering the keywords “Retail” and “Mixed-use development.” After that, the completeness and relevance of the data were checked through archival material searches, such as public records and the Internet, to finalize cases further. This part finally determined three analysis cases to explore the limitations of the above evaluation systems in assessing commercial building greenery: the Shops at Park Lane, the 1100 block of Lincoln Road Mall, and TAXI II (Appendix A).

3.3. Features of Commercial Complex Greenery

This section aims to comprehensively review the objective features of vertical greenery in commercial complexes in order to reasonably choose the analysis results of the first two steps according to the features of this research object.
A case study was conducted to comprehensively analyze the greenery characteristics of commercial complexes through on-site investigation and archival material searches. The case was selected in Shanghai because it is not only the city with the most commercial complexes with vertical greenery in China but also where the case appeared earlier and is now relatively well developed. According to the preliminary statistics of the research team, there are 96 commercial complexes with vertical greenery; among them, 76 have opened in the past 10 years.
We searched for five commercial complexes with relatively more comments on the topics of “Greenery,” “Greenery facilities,” “Parks,” and “Roofs” on the Dianping website. They are the Nanxiang Impression complex, Greenland Colorful complex, Changning Raffles complex, Henderson CIFI complex, and Ufang Shopping Center. After identifying these complexes, we conducted an on-site investigation and archival retrieval. Because this part was aimed at obtaining the objective characteristics of the greenery of commercial complexes, it was separate from the weather and specific time during the research. Each commercial complex was visited and investigated for two days to obtain a series of objective data, and the archives of each complex were searched for relevant effective features, including articles published on WeChat public accounts, public records, and real estate websites [57,58]. In the integration stage, we performed a hard-classified cluster analysis based on different characteristics, intimacy, and similarities among the data. We divided the data into three categories: function, physical environment, and operational features.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Systematic Review and Synthesis of Selected Evaluation Systems

The six green building evaluation systems (LEED, SBtool, CASBEE, Green Mark Certification Scheme, DGNB, and ESGB) and four sustainable landscape evaluation systems (LPS, SITES, Guideline for Federal Agencies on Sustainable Practices for Designed Landscapes, and LEAF) used in this study are summarized in Appendix B and Appendix C. It is evident that, while they were developed for building and landscape performance more broadly, sustainability evaluation systems also have reference significance for commercial complex greenery.
This section outlines the referential points of the features in the broader analysis, which can assist in deriving novel thoughts and identifying and integrating criteria and critical indicators. A more precise comparison is provided in Table 1, including the rationale for the evaluation, frameworks, expected outcomes, pros and cons, etc.
Through the above analysis, the characteristics of the evaluation systems were briefly summarized in reference to constructing a commercial complex greenery evaluation system. They are:
  • The research object and variable control range need to be accurately positioned;
  • Some innovative indicators should be flexibly designed based on the research object. For example, there are 7% “innovation” credits points in LEED, and the landscape management part, which accounts for 30% of the LPS, also includes a bonus for innovative design;
  • Evidence of the effect of the weight evaluation mechanism should not only be adequate and objective but also have strong adaptability to be accepted in different regions by adjusting weights and benchmarks;
  • The consideration of operation management should be included from the perspective of the whole life cycle;
  • There should be a comprehensive database for some metrics to offer the essential data. In the mature period of system development, different academic institutions should be encouraged to conduct active research and jointly build a case database like the Landscape Performance Series case study briefs database;
  • Long-term directional observation and verification are required, feedback analysis can be carried out on the effectiveness of the design strategy after evaluation, and the index system is tested and revised;
  • The construction of the evaluation system should consider all stakeholders.

4.2. Limitations of the Evaluation Systems on Evaluating the Greenery of Commercial Buildings

Through the analysis of three case studies, this research describes the features and limitations of evaluating the greenery of commercial buildings with respect to the environment, economy, and society, like the theoretical framework of LPS [59,60]. Other evaluation deficiencies from a macro perspective and the time dimension are also discussed (Table 2).

4.2.1. Environmental Performance Benefits

Through the analysis of three case studies, we found that evaluating the environmental benefits of the cases required a targeted assessment of the landscape based on specific building characteristics in LPS. Instead, it often uses available online calculation tools. The measurement information was retrieved from planting design documents, relying on tools and estimations [61]. We discovered the limitations of online computing tools for evaluation by applying the two calculators most commonly used in case evaluation, the National Tree Benefit Calculator and the i-Tree Design online tool. Specifically, they did not assess non-tree vegetation that covers most of a commercial complex area. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a primary database and distinguish the different environmental benefits that can be produced indoors and outdoors. In addition, when using the i-Tree Design online tool to quantify the benefits of environmental indicators, such as the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed and the amount of rainfall intercepted, since it could only be used to estimate past environmental benefit data, future projected benefits could only be approximated by analogy with projected benefits for the same years, which may have led to errors. For example, for the TAXI II project, the planting benefit data were approximated by inputting the tree information from 2022 as the data for 2032 [62].

4.2.2. Social Performance Benefits

Across the three projects, the evaluation of the social dimension mostly used a combination of methods, including site investigations, searches of the literature, online subjective perception surveys, and in-person or email interviews.
In the survey of social benefits, it was difficult to tease out the specific use and perception of the landscape due to the difficulty in separating the landscape from other phases of the overall development of survey tools. Thus, the keyword “greenery” had to be clearly defined in the investigation to distinguish only the social value brought by greenery. In addition, owing to the online format limitations of the LAF website, which limited the research team’s targeted investigation based on actual cases, almost all survey results/findings contained only a sample of survey results. Therefore, it was necessary to flexibly increase the evaluation content items by obtaining the opinions of stakeholders based on establishing the basic format. In the survey of various indicators in the social dimension, the proportions were generally drawn in the form of a pie chart or Excel table to show the social benefits of the project by comparing the data before and after. Although this comparison method can show the social benefits of the project, it was not standardized and integrated into a general total value of social benefits and was unable to integrate social, environmental, and economic benefits into total benefits in order to compare total benefits between projects.

4.2.3. Economic Performance Benefits

The data on economic performance evaluation were mainly collected from secondary sources; for example, the total appraisal value of real estate (the value of properties in the vicinity of 1100 Lincoln Road Shopping Center increased by 85%, while that of the whole city increased by only 12% in the same period [63]) and improvements in sales rankings in the city (increasing customers’ stay time in the region helped sales in the Park Lane stores rank in the top 10% of their chain stores [64]). These may have inherited errors or commissions beyond the researchers’ control. In addition, similar to social benefits, these economic factors include many aspects, and the excellent shaping of the landscape is only one of them. However, it is impossible to separate the economic impact of landscape design, since improvements in interior building space and increased road accessibility may have contributed significantly to enhancing surrounding real estate values.

4.2.4. Macro Dimension

From a macro perspective, on the one hand, there were no particular weight coefficients for this kind of evaluation object in ecological, social, economic, and other dimensions to form a standard comprehensive evaluation index. On the other hand, each indicator was simply a comparison before and after renovation, with little monetization and quantification, not to mention the weighting of indicators and deeper dimensions, nor was it ultimately integrated into the total value. To summarize, monetization quantification, weight assignment, and holistic thinking are critical to the evaluation system.

4.2.5. Time Dimension

With regard to the time dimension, although each survey was carried out over a long time, usually monthly, the measurement of indicators was instantaneous. In other words, analogical thinking was only used to compare pre-renovation and post-renovation, or between after-transformation and other areas with similar conditions in the same period (for example, plots adjacent to the 1100 block of Lincoln Road Mall were used as a base condition for a comparison study [63]). There is a need for a long-term follow-up survey from the perspective of the whole life cycle, such as a time span of three or five years.

4.3. Features of Commercial Complex Greenery

Commercial complex greenery refers to fixed or movable green spaces combined with vertical greenery on the walls, terraces, and roofs of the public spaces of commercial complexes, such as entrance squares, atriums, internal pedestrian systems, etc. (Figure 4). It provides urban residents with public spaces for various activities such as recreation, sightseeing, social interaction, and commercial services to realize the coexistence of various urban functions.
Combining the function, physical environment, and operation, we divided commercial complex greenery into dominant mode and auxiliary mode by on-site investigation and archival material searches. In dominant mode, the green space is a collection of virtual spaces with large areas and scales, such as atriums, roofs, or terraces. Positioning a theme with immersive greenery as the key attraction can encourage people to be immersed in it, such as the theme of tropical ecological rainforest, combined planting and catering at urban farms, and children’s playgrounds and potted green plants; examples include the Nanxiang Impression complex, Greenland Colorful complex, Changning Raffles complex, and Henderson CIFI complex in Shanghai. In addition, such spaces are also equipped with leisure and theme-related facilities (such as camping facilities, pet activities, and children’s amusement at Changning Raffles, and children’s amusement and themed activities at Ufang Shopping Center) that are more geared toward young people and children.
Using behavioral observation methods, the authors found that thematic complexes in dominant mode have high people flow and mainly attract more people to stay for a long time due to the increased greenery, visual and plant-filled areas, and available activities. Therefore, a coordinated layout, matching colors, and plentiful activities can be used as plus points to increase the attractiveness and people’s satisfaction. In addition, the plant types are more diverse, combining three-dimensional landscapes with columns, ferns, and ground cover. In auxiliary mode, the greenery is generally distributed in dots or lines on both sides of the pedestrian system or on the walls on a small scale and is inaccessible. It only stays at the level of sensory enjoyment (Table 3).

5. Conclusions

Combining the standard features generalized by the sustainability evaluation systems in Section 4.1 and evidence based on the limitations derived from their evaluation of greenery in Section 4.2, this section proposes a comprehensive evaluation guideline for vertical greenery systems in commercial complexes based on the features summarized in Section 4.3.

5.1. Logical Thinking on the Evaluation System of Dimension–Indicator–Quantitative Method

5.1.1. Dimension

Focusing on its characteristics and referring to the LPS theoretical framework, a multidimensional method is required to evaluate commercial complex greenery, including the economic and environmental dimensions, in order to provide an idea of how to quantify and embed social dimensions in decision-making. The measurement of economic benefit can use specific monetary amounts to evaluate the balance between the direct and potential consumption brought by commercial complex greenery and its operating cost. Environmental benefits are mainly used to measure the ability of commercial complex greenery to provide material products, environmental resources, ecological public welfare, and aesthetic value to maintain human physical and mental health [65]. Social benefit assessment expands the public’s understanding of public functions and perception of commercial complex greenery, which can significantly inform future designs and decision-making [66].

5.1.2. Indicators

The indicators are helpful for reducing complexity and simplifying the interpretation to facilitate the exchange of ideas between professionals and non-professionals scientifically [67,68]. Therefore, it is necessary to think more deeply about constructing evaluation criteria for commercial complex greenery and further determine the specific key indicators to measure performance differences based on precise evaluation dimensions. For example, social benefit indicators include satisfaction, space performance, human flow, etc.; ecological benefit indicators include energy saving, carbon reduction, water interception, dust collection, noise reduction, etc.; and economic indicators include the direct costs (labor/construction, materials, plants, mechanical equipment) and indirect costs (water and electricity, management, sewage, taxes, etc.) of green plants.

5.1.3. Quantitative Method

One way to assess total benefits is through monetization by translating direct and indirect benefits into economic value [69]. Similar to the concept of environmental impact monetization [70], the benefit of monetizing commercial complex greenery is that it uniformly converts the impacts of different dimensions or indicators into monetary units to overcome the trade-off problem between many impact categories. For example, in this study, the quantification of satisfaction and spatial performance indicators in social benefits can be calculated using the contingent valuation method or choice experiments [71,72]. In terms of environmental benefit indicators, such as the LPS evaluation library, there should be a general online calculation tool to quantify the different benefits of commercial complex greenery, and the parameters should be determined in advance. In the economic benefits, the “Area benefit” indicator is calculated using the following formula: turnover/planar area occupied by greenery; construction cost = 3.5% of the direct cost of materials; management cost = (direct cost of materials + sum of construction cost) × 10%; tax = (direct cost of material + construction cost + management cost + profit) × 3.48%.
In addition to the above logical thinking on the evaluation system of the dimension–indicator–quantitative method, the demands of a wide range of stakeholders and their feedback on the proposed framework should also be considered to propose a more practical assessment module for auditing. According to the value co-creation theory [73], stakeholders in the commercial complex greenery system can be categorized as national and local governments in the government series and relevant management offices and operators, consumers, experts and scholars, social organizations, and media in the non-governmental series. Their demands in the economic, environmental, and social dimensions according to the previous determination of the framework dimensions are shown in Table 4.

5.2. Creation of Innovative Evaluation Indicators

Different from the restrictions on the LPS evaluation system’s format, when establishing a commercial complex greenery evaluation system, it is best to flexibly increase the evaluation indicators by obtaining the opinions of stakeholders in order to encourage exceptional or innovative performance on projects, such as design methodologies or strategies used to meet any needs not addressed in the primary evaluation system.
According to the survey results in Section 3.3, the dominant mode of commercial complex greenery is the mode that attracts the most people, retains them, and promotes their potential consumer behavior. Therefore, according to the characteristics of this type, the degree of sight interference (green vision rate), the number of green layers (leaf area index), the amount of three-dimensional greenery (volume of green space), the diversity of greenery (ratio of different plants), color diversity (different color ratios), etc., can be tentatively set as new evaluation indicators. On the other hand, expected operation and maintenance practices such as thematic activities (children’s science classes, planting and maintenance, pet activities, etc.) in immersive interaction design in dominant mode, the use of unique equipment/technologies [74], and multi-party participation in version 3.0 are also new evaluation indicators. In addition, in the later stage, the comprehensive evaluation and consideration of various stakeholders (developers, architects, landscape architects, and maintenance agents) should also be included in the new evaluation indicators.

5.3. Establishment of the Database

Similar to the online calculation tools used to measure the benefits of some environmental indicators, we suggest that there should be a publicly available comprehensive database of reference data and computational tools, such as the CSB section of the LPS Knowledge Base, the CASBEE Technical Manual, etc. It is essential to identify reasonable measurement criteria and metrics by reviewing the literature and interviewing experts, users, and relevant managers devoted to commercial complexes or greenery. At the same time, it is necessary to strengthen the relative accuracy and validity of the primary data used for evaluation and prevent randomness in the data through large-scale research to provide a more reliable knowledge base for evaluating future design practices of similar projects. Eventually, the entire database would be publicly provided to the network to serve more practitioners.

5.4. Assignment of Weights to Dimensions and Indicators

As with SBtool, weighting factors need to be pre-determined for accurate and simplified evaluation. Indeed, for each dimension and the next level of indicators, relative weights are assigned through a quasi-objective method or sufficient evidence, aiming to find a balance between practicality and scientific revision [75]. It should also have the ability to adapt to different regions by adjusting weights and benchmarks.
Combined with the characteristics of commercial complex greenery in the previous section, the analysis shows that more weight should be given to the social dimension in each dimension of the evaluation system to support exceptional public service performance.

5.5. Construction of the Whole Life Cycle Evaluation Mechanism

In the above sustainable rating systems, Green Mark, DGNB, and ESGB demonstrate the concept of Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) (life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) covers all environmental, social, and economic benefits over the entire life cycle of a product) [76]. However, most existing impact-based life-cycle decision support systems only cover the environmental influence. Thus, it is imperative to develop a comprehensive framework based on LCSA to assess the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of commercial complex greenery. In addition, ensuring that operational phase values are considered in the construction phase of the rating system for commercial complex greenery will help to improve the design and construction quality and maintain best practices. Commercial complex greenery is a dynamic system with vitality. Therefore, regular monitoring using measurable indicators will enable assessments of performance and effectiveness.
Overall, this research not only demonstrates the significance of constructing a commercial complex greenery evaluation system, but also proposes refined guidelines for the construction of the system, rationally grasps the development direction of the evaluation system from a macro perspective, and emphasizes the strength of specific indicators that should be focused on under different dimensions. Theoretically, this review-based research contributes to the knowledge of sustainable rating systems for commercial complexes. Relevant evaluation networks and research areas were revealed, interactions of their key characteristics and the object of this study were explored, and gaps and future directions were fully discussed. Methodologically, a comparison study was adopted to review the research on inclusive correlation evaluation systems. Then, combining the characteristics and the evaluation of the research object, a guideline is proposed for the future development of commercial complex greenery evaluation systems to solve the contradiction between the shortage of urban greenery and the increasing demand for greenery.

6. Limitations and Future Research

Even though this paper provides valuable information about the current research status and future development direction of evaluation systems for commercial complex greenery through data mining and classification analysis, certain limitations should be considered when evaluating the conclusions. It should be pointed out that the range of case selection was limited to LPS case study briefs because of the control of the evaluation system. As a result, the evaluation defects obtained by the final analysis may need to be more comprehensively elaborated. In addition, only five cases in the Shanghai area were selected to explore the greenery features of commercial complexes, which may have led to biased results owing to insufficient sample size.
As far as we know, this research is the first to propose the significance of comprehensively evaluating the greenery of commercial complexes. The proposed evaluation guideline for vertical greenery systems of commercial complexes was derived from (1) standard features generalized for sustainability evaluation systems; (2) evidence-based limitations derived from these cases evaluating greenery; and (3) commercial complex greenery features. This should be viewed not as a prescriptive approach, but rather as a guide.
Future works should focus on constructing an evaluation system for commercial complex greenery. Meanwhile, a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method can be used to determine the significance levels of the criteria. Moreover, the calculation method of each indicator needs to be summarized reasonably and objectively, which will then be input into the primary database. Thereafter, the development will result from a new quantitative, rational, and scientific performance indicator model of commercial complex greenery.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.W. and Z.W.; methodology, Y.W and H.W.; investigation, Y.W.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.W. and H.W.; writing—review and editing, Z.W.; visualization, Y.W.; supervision, Z.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by The National Social Science Fund of China, grant number 21BGL028, and The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, grant number 22120210239.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Descriptions of commercial building cases.
Table A1. Descriptions of commercial building cases.
CaseIntroductionBefore and after Photos
The Shops at Park LaneTransit-oriented development (TOD) on 33 acres at a prime intersection of intermodal public activity. Project team initiated the Park Lane development, integrating a half-acre urban plaza surrounded by restaurants and retail to create a vibrant destination with an outdoor plaza, amenities, and pedestrian-friendly shopping, dining, and entertainment.Sustainability 15 02551 i001
Lincoln Road Mall in
Miami Beach		Second oldest open-air pedestrian street in the United States. In 2010, a public–private partnership between the City of Miami Beach and developer UIA Management restored spaces that had been replaced by motorized lanes 20 years earlier as pedestrian-friendly. The redesign of the 1100 block includes a parking structure, new retail, offices, and apartments. The new design recreates the historic character of the mall while incorporating new ecological connections, mainly through water gardens and native plants, which increased plant species diversity of the streetscape by 338%, evoking the habitat and atmosphere of the nearby Everglades. It also improves pedestrian circulation, strengthens the retail environment, and promotes the renewal of urban values.Sustainability 15 02551 i002
TAXI IIInnovatively combines seven porous landscape retention (PLD) gardens with native grass cover (76% reduction in the cost of groundcover planting materials) with multipurpose outdoor spaces that can accommodate a wide range of workday and evening social events. For example, gardens manage stormwater runoff and allow very little discharge into the river; curbless driveways and parking lots allow more open space, which also reduces the area of impervious surfaces and allows rainwater to infiltrate; industrial materials were recycled to create most of the site furniture and landscape elements to blur the lines between development and nature.Sustainability 15 02551 i003

Appendix B

Table
Table A2. Green building evaluation systems for analysis.
Table A2. Green building evaluation systems for analysis.
Evaluation SystemCountryInstitution/TimeDescriptionWebsite
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)United StatesUSGBC
1993		LEED increases dimensions of design and innovation; e.g., it allows 7% “innovation” credits, which can be aimed at unique design strategies or equipment, expected operation and maintenance practices of the building.https://www.usgbc.org/leed
Santa Barbara Tool (SBtool)CanadaiiSBE
1996		Incorporates social and economic factors. It sets pure performance indicators and develops a universal evaluation system framework through international cooperation. Can select up to three building types out of 18, and apply them in multifunctional projects, which is valuable for this research. Requires “upfront” work to establish 22 weighting factors, which can be adjusted to adapt to different regions and evaluation objects; once that is completed, the level of effort per building decreases.https://www.iisbe.org/
Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE)JapanJSBC
2001		Jointly developed by industrial departments, governments, and academic institutions. Introduces the concept of “building environmental efficiency” and evaluates environmental quality and load separately. Technical manual offers reference material and calculation tools.https://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/
Green Mark Certification SchemeSingaporeBCA
2005		Increases building functional value and comparative evaluation of old and new buildings.https://www1.bca.gov.sg/buildsg/sustainability/green-mark-certification-scheme
Deutsche Guetesiegel Nachhalteges Bauen (DGNB)GermanyBMVBS 2008In addition to complete building life cycle in terms of sustainability, also evaluates ecological, economic, and sociocultural factors, as well as technical, process, and location aspects.https://dstv.deutscherstahlbau.de/wissen/nachhaltigkeit/nachhaltigkeit-glossar/deutsches-guetesiegel-nachhaltiges-bauen-dgnb
Evaluation System of Green
Building (ESGB)		ChinaMOHURD 2014Adds evaluation of operation management dimensions and comprehensive performance evaluation of the whole life cycle.GB/T50378-2014

Appendix C

Table
Table A3. Sustainable landscape evaluation systems for analysis.
Table A3. Sustainable landscape evaluation systems for analysis.
Evaluation SystemCountryInstitution/TimeEvaluation StageDescriptionWebsite
Landscape Performance Series (LPS)United StatesLAF
2011		After
completion and use of landscape project		Built on basic framework of sustainability triad: environmental, social, and economic benefits. Impact factors and bearing elements of environmental benefits are relatively straightforward to quantify in a stylized way with evaluation tools and methods, while social and economic benefits are intangible and indirect, making it challenging to select evaluation index elements and measurement methods.https://www.landscapeperformance.org/
Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES)United StatesU.S. Botanic Garden
Austin
ASLA
2005		At initial stage of landscape project
design and construction		Highlighting the importance of a healthy ecosystem, SITES is organized
according to project life cycle: site selection, conceptual design, design, construction, and use, and focuses on environmental and social rather than economic aspects, increasing the level of operation and management. Its evaluation criteria and requirements are optimized by the accumulation of practical experience.		https://sustainablesites.org/
Guidance for Federal Agencies on Sustainable Practices for Designed LandscapesUnited StatesEPA
2009		At initial stage of landscape project
design and construction		Based on environmental value, it
increases evaluation of operation management level and cultural landscape value.		https://www.sustainability.gov/pdfs/sustainable_landscaping_practices.pdf
Landscape Excellence Assessment Framework (LEAF)SingaporeNParks
2015		At initial stage of landscape project
design and construction, after completion		Takes into account all stakeholders (developers, architects, landscape architects, and maintenance agents), assesses developments by focusing the program on two key areas: provision of greenery (70%) and landscape management (30%), including environmental, economic, social, management, cultural, and innovative aspects.https://www.nparks.gov.sg/partner-us/landscape-industry/leaf

References

  1. Haaland, C.; van den Bosch, C.K. Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 760–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Artmann, M.; Kohler, M.; Meinel, G.; Gan, J.; Ioja, I.-C. How smart growth and green infrastructure can mutually support each other—A conceptual framework for compact and green cities. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 96, 10–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Russo, A.; Cirella, G.T. Modern Compact Cities: How Much Greenery Do We Need? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Baranzini, A.; Schaerer, C. A Sight for Sore Eyess: Assessing the Value of View and Landscape Use in the Housing Market. Working Paper. Geneva School of Business Administration, University of Applied Sciences, Western Switzerland. 2007. Available online: http://ssrn.com/abstract=981189 (accessed on 22 May 2015).
  5. Magliocco, A. Vertical greening systems: Social and aesthetic aspects. In Nature based strategies for urban and Building Sustainability. Butterworth-Heinemann 2018, 4, 263–271. [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark, C.; Adriaens, P.; Talbot, F.B. Green roof valuation: A probabilistic economic analysis of environmental benefits. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 2155–2161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Manso, M.; Teotonio, I.; Silva, C.M.; Cruz, C.O. Green roof and green wall benefits and costs: A review of the quantitative evidence. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 135, 110–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Updates to the Landscaping for Urban Spaces and High-Rises (Lush) Programme: Lush 3.0. Available online: https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Guidelines/Circulars/dc17-06 (accessed on 9 November 2017).
  9. An Overview of the Lush Programme. Available online: https://www.ura.gov.sg/-/media/User%20Defined/URA%20Online/media-room/2017/Nov/pr17-77a.pdf (accessed on 9 November 2017).
  10. Eco-Roof Incentive Program Review. Available online: http://www1.toronto.ca/City%20Of%20Toronto/Environment%20and%20Energy/Programs%20for%20Residents/PDFs/Eco-Roof/Eco-Roof%20Incentive%20Program%20Review%202016.pdf (accessed on 6 January 2020).
  11. Green Roofs for Stormwater Management. Available online: http://columbia-green.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NYC-1-pager.pdf (accessed on 24 August 2014).
  12. Green Roofs, Walls & Facades Policy Options Background Paper. Available online: https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20141106054955/http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/149252/20141106-1616/GrowingGreenGuideRoofsWalls.pdf (accessed on 6 November 2014).
  13. Huang, Z.; Lu, Y.; Wong, N.H.; Poh, C.H. The true cost of “greening” a building: Life cycle cost analysis of vertical greenery systems (VGS) in tropical climate. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 437–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wong, N.H.; Tay, S.F.; Wong, R.; Ong, C.L.; Sia, A. Life cycle cost analysis of rooftop gardens in Singapore. Build. Environ. 2003, 38, 499–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. DeLisle, J.; Grissom, T. An empirical study of the efficacy of commercial development: The Seattle experience. J. Real Estate Lit. 2013, 21, 25–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cheng, Q.; Xu, X.; Shi, J.; Gu, X. The study on foundations of HOPSCA’s formation. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 12, 39. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hu, M.Z.; Fan, Y.H.; Zhao, Q.Q. A study of HOPSCA development under the intensive land use. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2011, 71, 589–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yujie, Y. The development characteristics and its reasons for the formation of city complex in Xiamen. J. Putian Univ. 2015, 22, 60–64. [Google Scholar]
  19. Zhang, X. Paradigm shift toward sustainable commercial project development in China. Habitat Int. 2014, 42, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhendong, W. Research on the Synergistic Effect of Urban Complex; China Architecture Press: Beijing, China, 2008; pp. 51–57. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ning, T. Analysis of the city theme park development model and design from HOPSCA perspective. Mod. Urban Res. 2016, 7, 127–132. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ortegon-Cortzar, L.; Royo-Vela, M. Attraction factors of shopping centers Effects of design and eco-natural environment on intention to visit. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2017, 26, 199–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Kirkpatrick, L.O. Urban Triage, City Systems, and the Remnants of Community: Some “Sticky” Complications in the Greening of Detroit. J. Urban Hist. 2015, 41, 261–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hami, A.; Moula, F.F.; Bin Maulan, S. Public preferences toward shopping mall interior landscape design in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 30, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhendong, W.; Qingzhe, Y.; Yu, Y.; Nannan, D. Research on post-use evaluation of three-dimensional greening in urban complexes: Shanghai Jin Hong Qiao International Center as an example. Archit. Tech. 2020, 26, 102–105. [Google Scholar]
  26. Natarajan, M.; Rahimi, M.; Sen, S.; Mackenzie, N.; Imanbayev, Y. Living wall systems: Evaluating life-cycle energy, water and carbon impacts. Urban Ecosyst. 2015, 18, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pan, L.; Chu, L.M. Energy saving potential and life cycle environmental impacts of a vertical greenery system in Hong Kong: A case study. Build. Environ. 2016, 96, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Perini, K.; Magrassi, F.; Giachetta, A.; Moreschi, L.; Gallo, M.; Del Borghi, A. Environmental Sustainability of Building Retrofit through Vertical Greening Systems: A Life-Cycle Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4886–4899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Salah, G.M.; Romanova, A. Life cycle assessment of felt system living green wall: Cradle to grave case study. Environ. Chall. 2021, 3, 100046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Su, Y.M.; Lin, C.H. Removal of indoor carbon dioxide and formaldehyde using green walls by bird nest fern. Hortic. J. 2015, 84, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Thomsit-Ireland, F.; Essah, E.A.; Hadley, P.; Blanusa, T. The impact of green facades and vegetative cover on the temperature and relative humidity within model buildings. Build. Environ. 2020, 181, 107009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Weerakkody, U.; Dover, J.W.; Mitchell, P.; Reiling, K. Evaluating the impact of individual leaf traits on atmospheric particulate matter accumulation using natural and synthetic leaves. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 30, 98–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ysebaert, T.; Koch, K.; Samson, R.; Denys, S. Green walls for mitigating urban particulate matter pollution? A review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 59, 127014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Perini, K.; Rosasco, P. Is greening the building envelope economically sustainable? An analysis to evaluate the advantages of economy of scope of vertical greening systems and green roofs. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 20, 328–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rosasco, P.; Perini, K. Evaluating the economic sustainability of a vertical greening system: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of a pilot project in mediterranean area. Build. Environ. 2018, 142, 524–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Huang, Z.; Tan, C.L.; Lu, Y.; Wong, N.H. Holistic analysis and prediction of life cycle cost for vertical greenery systems in Singapore. Build. Environ. 2021, 196, 107735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wiley, J.A.; Benefield, J.D.; Johnson, K.H. Green Design and the Market for Commercial Office Space. J. Real Estate Financ. Econ. 2010, 41, 228–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yang, J.; Rong, H.; Kang, Y.; Zhang, F.; Chegut, A. The financial impact of street-level greenery on New York commercial buildings. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 214, 104162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Qin, Y.C.; Yao, M.F.; Shen, L.; Wang, Q.C. Comprehensive Evaluation of Functional Diversity of Urban Commercial Complexes Based on Dissipative Structure Theory and Synergy Theory: A Case of SM City Plaza in Xiamen, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Parlette, V.; Cowen, D. Dead Malls: Suburban Activism, Local Spaces, Global Logistics. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2011, 35, 794–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Rosenbaum, M.S.; Losada Otalora, M.; Contreras Ramirez, G. The restorative potential of shopping malls. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 31, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Awuni, J.A.; Du, J. Sustainable Consumption in Chinese Cities: Green Purchasing Intentions of Young Adults Based on the Theory of Consumption Values. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 24, 124–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Do Paço, A.; Raposo, M. Green segmentation: An application to the Portuguese consumer market. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2009, 3, 364–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Brengman, M.; Willems, K.; Joye, Y. The Impact of In-Store Greenery on Customers. Psychol. Mark. 2012, 29, 807–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Amerigo, M.; Garcia, J.A.; Sanchez, T. Attitudes and Behavior towards Natural Environment. Environmental Health and Psychological Well-Being. Univ. Psychol. 2013, 12, 845–856. [Google Scholar]
  46. Herzog, T.R.; Strevey, S.J. Contact with Nature, Sense of Humor, and Psychological Well Being. Environ. Behav. 2008, 40, 747–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Blazy, R.; Labuz, R. Spatial Distribution and Land Development Parameters of Shopping Centers Based on GIS Analysis: A Case Study on Krakow, Poland. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fowler, K.M.; Rauch, E.M. Sustainable Building Evaluation Systems Summary (No. PNNL-15858); Pacific Northwest National Lab: Richland, WA, USA, 2006; p. 15858. [Google Scholar]
  49. Rana, A.; Sadiq, R.; Alam, M.S.; Karunathilake, H.; Hewage, K. Evaluation of financial incentives for green buildings in Canadian landscape. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 135, 110199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ying, F. The application of the new version of “Green Building Evaluation Criteria” in store-type green buildings. Build. Sci. 2014, 30, 72–77. [Google Scholar]
  51. Yang, Y.; Lin, G. The Development, Connotations, and Interests of Research on Landscape Performance Evaluation for Evidence-Based Design. Landsc. Archit. Front. 2020, 8, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Deming, M.E.; Shui, M. Social & Cultural Metrics: Measuring the Intangible Benefits of Designed Landscapes. Landsc. Archit. 2015, 1, 99–109. [Google Scholar]
  53. Yang, B.; Blackmore, P.; Binder, C. Assessing Residential Landscape Performance: Visual and Bioclimatic Analyses through In-Situ Data. Landsc. Archit. 2015, 1, 87–98. [Google Scholar]
  54. Yang, B. Landscape performance evaluation in socio-ecological practice: Current status and prospects. Socio-Ecol. Pract. Res. 2020, 2, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Modi, S.K. Perspectives on Environmental Landscape Performance Indicators and Methods: Learning from Landscape Architecture Foundation’s Case Study Investigation Program; The University of Texas at Arlington: Arlington, TX, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  56. Landscape Performance Series: Case Study Briefs. Available online: https://landscapeperformance.org/ (accessed on 24 August 2017).
  57. Morgan, H. Conducting a Qualitative Document Analysis. Qual. Rep. 2022, 27, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Francis, M. A case study method for landscape architecture. Landsc. J. 2001, 20, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Burton, I. Report on reports: Our common future: The world commission on environment and development. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 1987, 29, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Singh, R.K.; Murty, H.R.; Gupta, S.K.; Dikshit, A.K. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9, 189–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Casey Trees and Davey Tree Expert Co. National Tree Benefit Calculator. Available online: http://treebenefits.com/calculator/ (accessed on 22 May 2009).
  62. Hong, W.; Clarissa, F.A. “TAXI II.” In Landscape Performance Series; Landscape Architecture Foundation: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  63. Özer, E. Methodology for Landscape Performance Benefits: 1100 Block Streetscape of Lincoln Road Mall. In Landscape Performance Series; Landscape Architecture Foundation: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  64. Ozdil, Taner, R.; Khoshkar, A.; Munshi, R.; Pradhan, R. The Shops at Park Lane. In Landscape Performance Series; Landscape Architecture Foundation: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  65. Satz, D.; Gould, R.K.; Chan, K.M.A.; Guerry, A.; Norton, B.; Satterfield, T.; Halpern, B.S.; Levine, J.; Woodside, U.; Hannahs, N.; et al. The Challenges of Incorporating Cultural Ecosystem Services into Environmental Assessment. Ambio 2013, 42, 675–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Yang, B.; Li, S.; Binder, C. A research frontier in landscape architecture: Landscape performance and assessment of social benefits. Landsc. Res. 2016, 41, 314–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Segnestam, L.; Winograd, M.; Farrow, A. Developing Indicators: Lessons Learnt from Central America; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  68. Velimirović, D.; Velimirović, M.; Stanković, R. Role and importance of key performance indicators measurement. Serb. J. Manag. 2011, 6, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. MacDonald, E.; Sanders, R.; Anderson, A. Performance Measures for Complete, Green Streets: A Proposal for Urban Arterials in California (Monograph No. UCTC-FR-2010-12); University of California Transportation Center: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  70. Baracskay, D. Cost-benefit analysis: Concepts and practice. Public Choice 1998, 96, 417–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Vanstockem, J.; Vranken, L.; Bleys, B.; Somers, B.; Hermy, M. Do Looks Matter? A Case Study on Extensive Green Roofs Using Discrete Choice Experiments. Sustainability 2018, 10, 309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Petcharat, A.; Lee, Y.; Chang, J.B. Choice Experiments for Estimating the Non-Market Value of Ecosystem Services in the Bang Kachao Green Area, Thailand. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Galvagno, M.; Dalli, D. Theory of value co-creation: A systematic literature review. Manag. Serv. Qual. 2014, 24, 643–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Giordano, R.; Montacchini, E.; Tedesco, S.; Perone, A. Living wall systems: A technical standard proposal. Energy Procedia 2017, 111, 298–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kamino, G.; Gomes, S.; Bragança, L. Improving the sustainability assessment method SBTool Urban–A critical review of construction and demolition waste (CDW) indicator. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 225, 012004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ciroth, A.; Finkbeiner, M.; Traverso, M.; Hildenbrand, J.; Kloepffer, W.; Mazijn, B.; Vickery-Niederman, G. Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: Making Informed Choices on Products; U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 02551 g001 550
Figure 1. Influence mechanism of greenery evaluation guideline for commercial complexes.
Figure 1. Influence mechanism of greenery evaluation guideline for commercial complexes.
Sustainability 15 02551 g001
Sustainability 15 02551 g002 550
Figure 2. Approach for proposing an evaluation guideline for commercial complex greenery.
Figure 2. Approach for proposing an evaluation guideline for commercial complex greenery.
Sustainability 15 02551 g002
Sustainability 15 02551 g003 550
Figure 3. Process of selecting reference evaluation systems.
Figure 3. Process of selecting reference evaluation systems.
Sustainability 15 02551 g003
Sustainability 15 02551 g004 550
Figure 4. Common forms of commercial complex greenery.
Figure 4. Common forms of commercial complex greenery.
Sustainability 15 02551 g004
Table
Table 1. Summary of comparison across sustainable building and landscape performance evaluation systems.
Table 1. Summary of comparison across sustainable building and landscape performance evaluation systems.
Evaluation SystemGreen BuildingSustainable Landscape
DefinitionComparison of actual performance of a building or site to clearly documented performance standardsMeasure of efficiency of a landscape solution in achieving its pre-set goals while meeting sustainability
Evaluation TargetProvide feedback on successful experiences, reveal problems, and improve design qualityProvide evidence of landscape sustainability and reduce uncertainty in design; promote ecological, cultural, sustainable design practices
Performance Comparison BasisPerformance standards databaseDesigner’s preset goals
Initiation Time1960s1990s
FrameAccording to four stages of building life cycle: design, build, operation, and refurbishmentThree aspects of assessing project sustainability: environment, economics, and society
Related GroupsClient, architectural designer, project participants, committee, userClient, landscape architect, project participants, user, manager
Evaluation
Frequency		Every 2–5 yearsLong-term continuous monitoring
Whether to Consider CostYes—
Indicator TypeQuantitative and QualitativeQuantitative
Indicator Selection CriteriaWidely accepted by clients, suitable for most buildings, simple, detailed, highly actionable; relatively inexpensive, quick results, ability to handle minor changes, clear, easy to interpret data based on a solid core methodology, continuity, as international as possibleRelated to sustainable strategies and data availability
Advantages1. Evaluation is more comprehensive. Based on general value evaluation, system adds innovative, functional, and comparative evaluation of old and new buildings, as well as evaluation of technical quality, operation management, and comprehensive performance across life cycle.
2. Evaluation scope is broad, and adaptability is vital. System can be applied to various building types and adapted to different regions and evaluation objects by adjusting weights and benchmarks.
3. Primary database is relatively complete, such as life cycle inventory database of building materials and energy products, support of technical tools such as BIM, LCA, LCC, etc.
4. There are innovative indicators.		1. Longitudinal and staged evaluation based on life cycle with emphasis on intensive utilization efficiency, with corresponding evaluation system in early stage of landscape project design and after completion.
2. There are various evaluation methods.
3. CSB section of LPS Knowledge Base provides a comprehensive database for many exemplary sustainable design projects.
4. System defines measurement category of performance.
5. Comprehensive evaluation consideration from all stakeholders.
6. There are innovative indicators.
Disadvantages1. Some data sources are subjective and lack unified objective evaluation criteria.
2. Evidence of effect weight of evaluation mechanism is insufficient and subjective.
3. Some values are not considered by special groups (such as service, aesthetic, functional, etc.).		1. Focused on evaluating resource consumption and economic and social benefits; evaluation dimensions are relatively basic.
2. Because of intangible and indirect characteristics of social and economic benefits, it is challenging to select evaluation index elements and measurement methods; evaluation of operation management is not included.
3. Failure to put forward requirements and discussions on feedback analysis of the effectiveness of design strategy after performance measurement.
Is standardization required?YesYes
Table
Table 2. Features and limitations of evaluating the greenery of commercial buildings.
Table 2. Features and limitations of evaluating the greenery of commercial buildings.
Performance
Benefits		Environmental DimensionSocial DimensionEconomic
Dimension		Macro DimensionTime Dimension
FeaturesAvailable online calculation toolsUsing a
combination of methods, including site investigations, searches of the literature, online subjective perception surveys, and in-person or email interviews		Mainly collected from secondary sourcesWithout weight coefficients to form an evaluation system; Each indicator was simply a comparison before and after renovationEach survey was carried out monthly, but the indicators’ measurement was instantaneous
LimitationsNot assessing non-tree
vegetation;
Only be used to estimate past environmental
benefit data		Difficulty in separating the landscape from other phases of cases; Online format limitations of the LAF website; Not be integrated into a general total valueBe impossible to separate economic impact of landscape designLimitation of weighting of indicators and deeper dimensions; Without integration into a general total valueWithout a long-term follow-up survey from perspective of the whole life cycle
Table
Table 3. Classification and attributes of commercial complex greenery.
Table 3. Classification and attributes of commercial complex greenery.
ModeFunctionPhysical Environment
Intended
Goals		ServiceScaleLocationDistribution FeaturesAccessibility
DominantAesthetic,
marketing,
biodiversity
improvement, vegetable
production		Educational,
production,
entertainment,
view,
experience		LargeCombination of atrium/roof/
terrace/
outdoor square/
internal walking system/wall/porch		Relatively centralizedAccessible, mainly for entertainment
AuxiliaryAestheticViewSmallOutdoor square/
walkway/wall		Relatively dispersedNo entry, mainly for viewing
ModeOperation
Type of
activity		Installation costMaintenanceBuilding levelGrowing
method		Vegetation
DominantThemed activities, roof farms,
science
popularization activities,
children’s parks		HighHighCity and districtOrganic
substrate,
hydroponic cultures with porous inorganic substrates		Ornamental species and vegetables. Epiphytic,
lithophytic, ferns,
succulent, herbaceous,
small shrubs, climbing plants and vegetables, etc.
Auxiliary/LowLowDistrict and community Organic
substrate		Mostly ornamental species. Succulent, herbaceous, climbing and
hanging plants, etc.
Table
Table 4. Stakeholders’ demands for commercial complex greenery systems.
Table 4. Stakeholders’ demands for commercial complex greenery systems.
StakeholderRole Demands
Environmental
Benefits		Social BenefitsEconomic Benefits
Core layerGovernment seriesNational
government		Leader (policy maker)Formulate policies at the macro level to achieve coordination and unity of ecological, social, and economic benefits; mobilize the enthusiasm of all stakeholders to participate.
Local
government		Coordinator
(responsible for
supervision)		Be responsible for supervision, management, protection, and operation, and realize coordination and unity of the three benefits.
Relevant management divisionManager (specific implementation)Implement national policies and be responsible for protection, operation, and management.
Compact layerNongovernment seriesOperatorsOperatorsCompound use of spaceEnhance image and popularityPursue high-profit returns and be able to operate stably for a long time
ConsumersParticipants and beneficiariesExperience green spaceEnrich urban lifeHigh-quality recreation
experience
Experts and scholarsTheoretical
directors		Scientific
research helps ecological cycle		Scientific research achievements need to be recognized by society to obtain policy support/
Peripheral layerSocial
organization		Assisting subjectAssist in strict ecological
protection		Safeguard interests of consumers and attract consumers to participate/
MediaPublic opinion
supervisor		Widely publicize and form a good atmosphere for the whole society to jointly protect and enjoy green environmentRaise citizens’ awareness of
protection through publicity and
education		/
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wu, Y.; Wang, Z.; Wang, H. Vertical Greenery Systems in Commercial Complexes: Development of an Evaluation Guideline. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2551. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032551

AMA Style

Wu Y, Wang Z, Wang H. Vertical Greenery Systems in Commercial Complexes: Development of an Evaluation Guideline. Sustainability. 2023; 15(3):2551. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032551

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wu, Yimeng, Zhendong Wang, and Hao Wang. 2023. "Vertical Greenery Systems in Commercial Complexes: Development of an Evaluation Guideline" Sustainability 15, no. 3: 2551. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032551

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop