Darko_2017b - Green real estate development in China: State of art and prospect agenda-A review

Basic Article Info:

Article key Darko_2017b
Title Green real estate development in China: State of art and prospect agenda-A review
Year 2015
Review type systematic review
Main topic Green real estate development in China
Subjects area(s) Buildings, construction and facilities, Environment and nature
Built environment scale Building system
Application(s) Policy making, Implementation, Design, Innovation, Evaluation
Geographically focused yes
Prisma diagram used no
Study focus start not mentioned
Study focus end 2015
Search string not provided
No. of original sources 73
Synthesis method qualitative
Quantitative map included yes
Conflict of interest not declared specifically
Comments

 

Details about searches

Search sources
Search source name Source type Comments Weblink
Google Scholar Online Database Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. Released in beta in November 2004, the Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online academic journals and books, conference papers, theses and dissertations, preprints, abstracts, technical reports, and other scholarly literature, including court opinions and patents. https://scholar.google.com.au/
Keywords used in search eco-housing, green building, green housing, green project, green property development, green real estate development, sustainable building, sustainable housing, sustainable project, sustainable property

 

Authorship

Authors
Name Email Organisation Address Country
Xiaoling Zhang* xiaoling.zhang@cityu.edu.hk Urban Research Group, Department of Public Policy, City University of Hong Kong Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon Hong Kong

 

Funding

Funding sources
Funding source Address Country Funded year Comments
National Natural Science Fund Hong Kong Project no: 71303203


Article publication information:

Article type Journal article
Article category Text
Geographical scale National
Language English
Chapter or part
Conference date
Conference venue
Published date 2015-03-01
Edition
Issue
Journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
Pagination 1-13
Peer reviewed yes
Publication place
Publisher Elsevier Ltd.
School / department or centre
Series volume no.
Series title
Series sort no.
Volume 47
Website owner
Copyrights of article Elsevier Ltd.
Licences of article
Identifiers of article DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.012, ISBN: 1364-0321, ISSN: 18790690


Quality assessment

Quality measure Details Score Comments
QA question 1 Are the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review clearly delineated? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. Only partial description vague description of aims
QA question 2 Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? 0 = ”No” = research question and inclusion criteria not outlined in detail. not provided
QA question 3 Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? 1 = “Yes” = explicit justification of the study designs/types included in the review. qualitative and/or quantitative published studies
QA question 4 Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 0 =”No” = no information on search strategy, or not fulfilling criteria for “Yes” and “Partially”. 1 database
QA question 5 Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in study selection. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 6 Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in data extraction. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 7 Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 0 =”No” = No list of studies excluded at a full-text stage. not provided
QA question 8 Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? 0 =”No” = no, or partial description of the included studies not provided
QA question 9 Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 0 =”No” = no mention of RoB assessment of individual included studies. not provided
QA question 10 Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 0 =”No” = no report of the sources of funding for individual studies included in the review. not provided
QA question 11 If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 12 If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 13 Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. discussed for some studies
QA question 14 Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? 1 = “Yes” = There was no significant heterogeneity in the results OR if heterogeneity was present the authors performed an investigation of sources of any heterogeneity in the results and discussed the impact of this on the results of the review. discussed methodological factors
QA question 15 If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 16 Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? 1 = “Yes” = The authors reported no competing interests OR the authors described their funding sources and how they managed potential conflicts of interest. Funding sources disclosed in "Acknowledgemets"
Quality index Overall rating (Quality Index) assigned to each SR, highlighting whether major concerns arose during quality assessment that may affect overall conclusions of a SR: A = Minimal flaws; B = Some flaws; C = Major flaws in many aspects of the review. C no protocol, no details of the search; no list of included studies
Suggested review type Actual review type:systematic map, systematic review, rapid review, scoping review, narrative review, etc. scoping review N/A
Risk of bias level How likely are the main conclusions of the review to be biased? Basing on review type and quality index and quality_index_comment assign: high moderate or low risk? medium no protocol, no details of the search; no list of included studies