X.Liang et aL Journal of Cleaner Production 137(2016)1300-1312 1303 Table 1 The incentives of owners and occupiers in green retrofit Stakeholders Direct short-term incentives Direct long-term incentives Indirect incentives Owners Dow1:Higher rent Dow5:Higher occupancy rate Dow9:Reputation enhancement (Fuerst and McAllister,2011:Thomas,2010) (Fuerst and McAllister.2011: (Gucveter and Gunavdin 2012) Dow2:Lower maintenance cost Ma et al,2012:Thomas.2010) Dow10:Social responsibility (Alanne.2004:Lapinski et al.2006: Dow6:Risks reduction (Davies and Osmani,2011) Ouyang et al,2011:Rey.2004) (avoid premature obsolescence,energy cost increasing) Dow11:Occupiers satisfaction Dow3:Subsidies/tax reduction (Fuerst and McAllister,2011) (Thomas,2010:Xu et al.,2011) (Fuerst and McAllister,2011:Ouyang et al.,2011) Dow7:Longevity (Kaklauskas et aL,2004: Dow4:Return on investment (ROl) Mickaityte et al,2008) (Entrop et al,2010:Kaklauskas et al,2004: Dow8:Asset value raise (Miller and Buys,2008) Miller and Buys,2008) Occupiers Doc1:Lower total cost Doc2:Productivity improvement Doc3:Comfort enhancement (including potentially higher rent (Fuerst and McAllister.2011:Lapinski et al,2006: (Wang et aL,2010:Xu et aL,2011) and lower energy cost) Thomas,2010:Xu et al,2011) Doc4:Social responsibility (Caccavelli and Gugerli,2002: (Davies and Osmani,2011) Juan et al,2010:Newsham et al..2009:Rey,2004) high retrofit cost,finite capital,and long payback periods.The buildings,the occupiers are the main stakeholders in the green second category refers to the barriers indirectly related to economy. retrofit for existing buildings,which can be classified into three such as lack of building information,and highly complex design categories according to occupancy type,namely,owner-occupied. analysis and solution.The specific barriers for the owners and oc- single-occupied (not by owner).and multi-occupied (Rhoads. cupiers are shown in Table 2. 2010).These occupancy types can influence the position and po- wer of the stakeholders,benefit distribution,transaction cost,and 2.4.Summary of the review other factors in decision making.In the case of owner-occupied buildings the owners can make decisions completely by them- The abovementioned studies (Fuerst and McAllister,2011: selves.The single-occupied buildings are rented to a single tenant. Stephan and Menassa,2013,2014)are helpful in understanding probably a company or institute in a relatively large scale.The the important roles of the owners and occupiers and their varying single tenants significantly influence the profit of the building interests in green retrofit.However,understanding alone is not owners and therefore have relatively high negotiation capabilities. sufficient to reveal the underlying logic of the industry's reluctance A retrofit decision must be agreed to by the single occupier. otherwise,the decision becomes difficult to implement.The multi- to conduct green retrofit.The shortcomings of the existing studies are explained in the succeeding paragraphs occupied buildings are occupied by numerous tenants who are First,the existing studies generally overlooked the role of the commonly in a small scale.Every occupier only rents a small part of owners and occupiers in green retrofit at the initial phase.Many the building,and the rent from an individual occupier is not suffi- green retrofit plans were canceled at the beginning stage because of cient to influence the profit of owners.In this case,the owner controversies among the owners and occupiers.Therefore,the dominates the decision-making process,as such,if small occupiers behaviors of the owners and occupiers at the initial phase must be do not agree with the owner,they can only choose to "vote with their feet,"that is,to terminate the contract and move out.Based on re-examined to clearly identify the underlying reasons.Focusing on one phase of green retrofit can also help decompose and simplify the above analysis,the influences of occupancy types on the green the decision-making problems as well as achieve relatively accurate retrofit decisions at the initial phase must not be overlooked. Finally,existing studies mainly focused on the effects of cost. results. Second,the existing studies disregarded the complicated be- energy saving,and comfort on green retrofit(Stephan and Menassa. haviors of the owners and occupiers under different interaction 2014).However,some other factors likewise play important roles in relationships,or different occupancy types.Unlike the case of new green retrofit decisions,such as reputation enhancement,risk Table 2 The barriers of owners and occupiers in green retrofit Stakeholders Direct/Economic barriers Indirect barriers Owners Bow1:High retrofit cost Bow6:Highly complex design (Lapinski et al.2006;Menassa,2011:Xu et al,2011) analysis and solution(Davies and Osmani,2011: Bow2:Long payback periods Kasivisvanathan et al.,2012:Lapinski et al.,2006) (Kasivisvanathan et al.,2012:Menassa.2011) Bow7:Lack of building information Bow3:Finite capital (Davies and Osmani,2011: (Davies and osmani 2011 Kasivisvanathan et aL,2012;Menassa,2011: Kasivisvanathan et al.,2012:Menassa,2011) Stiess and Dunkelberg.2013) Bow8:Lack of retrofit experience Bow4:Interruptions in operations (Ali et al,2008:Korkmaz et al,2010) (Kasivisvanathan et al,2012:Miller and Buys,2008) Bow5:Risk of retrofits (Menassa,2011) Occupiers Boc1:Higher rent (Fuerst and McAllister,2011:Thomas,2010) Boc4:Lack of understanding or interest Boc2:Interruptions in operations(Kasivisvanathan et al..2012: about environment(Davies and Osmani.2011) Miller and Buys,2008) Boc5:Lack of information (Davies and Osmani,2011: Boc3:Risk of retrofits Kasivisvanathan et al,2012:Menassa,2011) (energy may not be saved by retrofit)(Menassa.2011) Boc6:Possibility of relocation (occupiers may not bear interruptions or higher rent) (Fuerst and McAllister.2011)high retrofit cost, finite capital, and long payback periods. The second category refers to the barriers indirectly related to economy, such as lack of building information, and highly complex design analysis and solution. The specific barriers for the owners and oc￾cupiers are shown in Table 2. 2.4. Summary of the review The abovementioned studies (Fuerst and McAllister, 2011; Stephan and Menassa, 2013, 2014) are helpful in understanding the important roles of the owners and occupiers and their varying interests in green retrofit. However, understanding alone is not sufficient to reveal the underlying logic of the industry's reluctance to conduct green retrofit. The shortcomings of the existing studies are explained in the succeeding paragraphs. First, the existing studies generally overlooked the role of the owners and occupiers in green retrofit at the initial phase. Many green retrofit plans were canceled at the beginning stage because of controversies among the owners and occupiers. Therefore, the behaviors of the owners and occupiers at the initial phase must be re-examined to clearly identify the underlying reasons. Focusing on one phase of green retrofit can also help decompose and simplify the decision-making problems as well as achieve relatively accurate results. Second, the existing studies disregarded the complicated be￾haviors of the owners and occupiers under different interaction relationships, or different occupancy types. Unlike the case of new buildings, the occupiers are the main stakeholders in the green retrofit for existing buildings, which can be classified into three categories according to occupancy type, namely, owner-occupied, single-occupied (not by owner), and multi-occupied (Rhoads, 2010). These occupancy types can influence the position and po￾wer of the stakeholders, benefit distribution, transaction cost, and other factors in decision making. In the case of owner-occupied buildings the owners can make decisions completely by them￾selves. The single-occupied buildings are rented to a single tenant, probably a company or institute in a relatively large scale. The single tenants significantly influence the profit of the building owners and therefore have relatively high negotiation capabilities. A retrofit decision must be agreed to by the single occupier, otherwise, the decision becomes difficult to implement. The multi￾occupied buildings are occupied by numerous tenants who are commonly in a small scale. Every occupier only rents a small part of the building, and the rent from an individual occupier is not suffi- cient to influence the profit of owners. In this case, the owner dominates the decision-making process, as such, if small occupiers do not agree with the owner, they can only choose to “vote with their feet,” that is, to terminate the contract and move out. Based on the above analysis, the influences of occupancy types on the green retrofit decisions at the initial phase must not be overlooked. Finally, existing studies mainly focused on the effects of cost, energy saving, and comfort on green retrofit (Stephan and Menassa, 2014). However, some other factors likewise play important roles in green retrofit decisions, such as reputation enhancement, risk Table 1 The incentives of owners and occupiers in green retrofit. Stakeholders Direct short-term incentives Direct long-term incentives Indirect incentives Owners DOW1: Higher rent (Fuerst and McAllister, 2011; Thomas, 2010) DOW2: Lower maintenance cost (Alanne, 2004; Lapinski et al., 2006; Ouyang et al., 2011; Rey, 2004) DOW3: Subsidies/tax reduction (Fuerst and McAllister, 2011; Ouyang et al., 2011) DOW4: Return on investment (ROI) (Entrop et al., 2010; Kaklauskas et al., 2004; Miller and Buys, 2008) DOW5: Higher occupancy rate (Fuerst and McAllister, 2011; Ma et al., 2012; Thomas, 2010) DOW6: Risks reduction (avoid premature obsolescence, energy cost increasing) (Fuerst and McAllister, 2011) DOW7: Longevity (Kaklauskas et al., 2004; Mickaityte et al., 2008) DOW8: Asset value raise (Miller and Buys, 2008) DOW9: Reputation enhancement (Gucyeter and Gunaydin, 2012) DOW10: Social responsibility (Davies and Osmani, 2011) DOW11: Occupiers satisfaction (Thomas, 2010; Xu et al., 2011) Occupiers DOC1: Lower total cost (including potentially higher rent and lower energy cost) (Caccavelli and Gugerli, 2002; Juan et al., 2010; Newsham et al., 2009; Rey, 2004) DOC2: Productivity improvement (Fuerst and McAllister, 2011; Lapinski et al., 2006; Thomas, 2010; Xu et al., 2011) DOC3: Comfort enhancement (Wang et al., 2010; Xu et al., 2011) DOC4: Social responsibility (Davies and Osmani, 2011) Table 2 The barriers of owners and occupiers in green retrofit. Stakeholders Direct/Economic barriers Indirect barriers Owners BOW1: High retrofit cost (Lapinski et al., 2006; Menassa, 2011; Xu et al., 2011) BOW2: Long payback periods (Kasivisvanathan et al., 2012; Menassa, 2011) BOW3: Finite capital (Davies and Osmani, 2011; Kasivisvanathan et al., 2012; Menassa, 2011; Stiess and Dunkelberg, 2013) BOW4: Interruptions in operations (Kasivisvanathan et al., 2012; Miller and Buys, 2008) BOW5: Risk of retrofits (Menassa, 2011) BOW6: Highly complex design analysis and solution (Davies and Osmani, 2011; Kasivisvanathan et al., 2012; Lapinski et al., 2006) BOW7: Lack of building information (Davies and Osmani, 2011; Kasivisvanathan et al., 2012; Menassa, 2011) BOW8: Lack of retrofit experience (Ali et al., 2008; Korkmaz et al., 2010) Occupiers BOC1: Higher rent (Fuerst and McAllister, 2011; Thomas, 2010) BOC2: Interruptions in operations (Kasivisvanathan et al., 2012; Miller and Buys, 2008) BOC3: Risk of retrofits (energy may not be saved by retrofit) (Menassa, 2011) BOC4: Lack of understanding or interest about environment (Davies and Osmani, 2011) BOC5: Lack of information (Davies and Osmani, 2011; Kasivisvanathan et al., 2012; Menassa, 2011) BOC6: Possibility of relocation (occupiers may not bear interruptions or higher rent) (Fuerst and McAllister, 2011) X. Liang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (2016) 1300e1312 1303