ArticleEnvironment, development and sustainability2022
Evaluation of energy-saving retrofit projects of existing rural residential envelope structures from the perspective of rural residents: the Chinese case.
Article in Environment, development and sustainability, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Study on energy retrofits for rural residential envelopes in Northwest China.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The existing residential envelope in rural areas has low energy efficiency, with low energy utilization and serious energy waste for winter heating. However, in recent years, farmers have not undertaken energy efficiency retrofit projects for existing buildings in rural areas. This study proposed an evaluation model based on the logistic-AHP-TOPSIS method from the perspective of farmers. First, this study conducted a questionnaire survey of 208 rural households and used logistic models to determine which existing evaluation indicators significantly impact farmers' willingness to participate in energy efficiency retrofit projects. Second, the weights of the eight indicators were determined using AHP. Finally, this study evaluated the retrofit program of a case in Gansu Province using the TOPSIS method. In the analysis, total investment, annual winter heating costs and energy efficiency improvements were found to be the most important factors for farmers. The highest score for existing buildings was 0.3747 because there is no additional investment required; the option of partial retrofitting according to the actual needs of households scored 0.3350 because it balances economic performance with energy efficiency performance; The entire retrofit program has the highest investment and a long payback period, and its score is the lowest with 0.2904. Furthermore, the study recommended that a self-build and self-repair organization led by village collectives be developed to unify the retrofit design and construction and lower renovation costs. Bulk purchases could enable farmers to increase their power in negotiations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.