Multi-criteria decision-making for energy building renovation: Comparing exterior wall structures with the AHP, ANP, utility analysis, and TOPSIS

IF 7.1 1区工程技术 Q1 CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY

Building and Environment Pub Date : 2025-05-09 DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.113075

Kathrin Theilig , Michael Vollmer , Werner Lang , Jutta Albus

{"title":"Multi-criteria decision-making for energy building renovation: Comparing exterior wall structures with the AHP, ANP, utility analysis, and TOPSIS","authors":"Kathrin Theilig , Michael Vollmer , Werner Lang , Jutta Albus","doi":"10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.113075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose:</h3><div>Improving residential building energy efficiency is crucial for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Designing resource-efficient, nearly zero-emission renovations is complex. This study addresses the need for comprehensive frameworks to holistically evaluate building part renovation measures and to provide actionable guidance for strategic planning and implementation across the building life cycle, focusing on exterior walls. Four multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods identify the most environmentally friendly alternative and are compared for rank similarities and decision-making applicability.</div></div><div><h3>Methods:</h3><div>The study follows a two-stage approach: (i) applying the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Analytical Network Process (ANP), Utility Analysis (UA), and TOPSIS to rank exterior wall alternatives regarding environmental impacts and circularity and (ii) comparing these methods using the Borda technique, based on correlation and standard deviation metrics and the Wojciech Sałabun (WS) coefficient. A qualitative assessment from a planner’s perspective is also included.</div></div><div><h3>Results:</h3><div>The results show that different MCDM methods consistently rank the most environmentally friendly renovations, offering clear guidance for strategic implementation. This offers actionable guidance for strategic planning and implementation. The top five alternatives remain consistent across all methods, with slight ranking variations. AHP ranked first by Borda scores, while UA leads by WS coefficient. Curtain walls with timber cladding emerge as the most sustainable choice, outperforming metal cladding and insulated composite structures.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions:</h3><div>The AHP, ANP, UA, and TOPSIS support selecting environmentally friendly building parts. UA and TOPSIS, being more sensitive to emphasized criteria weighting and relatively more applicable in practice, are recommended for building parts’ decision-making.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9273,"journal":{"name":"Building and Environment","volume":"280 ","pages":"Article 113075"},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Building and Environment","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132325005566","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose:

Improving residential building energy efficiency is crucial for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Designing resource-efficient, nearly zero-emission renovations is complex. This study addresses the need for comprehensive frameworks to holistically evaluate building part renovation measures and to provide actionable guidance for strategic planning and implementation across the building life cycle, focusing on exterior walls. Four multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods identify the most environmentally friendly alternative and are compared for rank similarities and decision-making applicability.

Methods:

The study follows a two-stage approach: (i) applying the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Analytical Network Process (ANP), Utility Analysis (UA), and TOPSIS to rank exterior wall alternatives regarding environmental impacts and circularity and (ii) comparing these methods using the Borda technique, based on correlation and standard deviation metrics and the Wojciech Sałabun (WS) coefficient. A qualitative assessment from a planner’s perspective is also included.

Results:

The results show that different MCDM methods consistently rank the most environmentally friendly renovations, offering clear guidance for strategic implementation. This offers actionable guidance for strategic planning and implementation. The top five alternatives remain consistent across all methods, with slight ranking variations. AHP ranked first by Borda scores, while UA leads by WS coefficient. Curtain walls with timber cladding emerge as the most sustainable choice, outperforming metal cladding and insulated composite structures.

Conclusions:

The AHP, ANP, UA, and TOPSIS support selecting environmentally friendly building parts. UA and TOPSIS, being more sensitive to emphasized criteria weighting and relatively more applicable in practice, are recommended for building parts’ decision-making.

查看原文本刊更多论文

能源建筑改造的多准则决策：外墙结构与AHP、ANP、效用分析和TOPSIS的比较

目的：提高住宅建筑能效对减少温室气体排放至关重要。设计资源节约型、几乎零排放的改造是复杂的。本研究解决了对综合框架的需求，以全面评估建筑部分翻新措施，并为整个建筑生命周期的战略规划和实施提供可操作的指导，重点是外墙。四种多准则决策（MCDM）方法确定了最环保的替代方案，并比较了等级相似性和决策适用性。方法：本研究采用两阶段方法：(i)应用分析层次过程（AHP）、分析网络过程（ANP）、效益分析（UA）和TOPSIS对外墙的环境影响和循环度进行排名；（ii）基于相关性和标准差指标以及Wojciech Sałabun （WS）系数，使用Borda技术对这些方法进行比较。从计划者的角度进行定性评估也包括在内。结果：不同的MCDM方法对最环保的装修进行了一致的排名，为战略实施提供了明确的指导。这为战略规划和实施提供了可操作的指导。在所有方法中，前五名的选择都是一致的，只是排名略有不同。AHP在Borda得分上排名第一，UA在WS系数上排名第一。木材包层幕墙成为最可持续的选择，优于金属包层和绝缘复合结构。结论：AHP、ANP、UA和TOPSIS支持环境友好型建筑部件的选择。推荐UA和TOPSIS对强调标准权重更敏感，在实际应用中相对更适用于建筑零部件的决策。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Building and Environment 工程技术-工程：环境

CiteScore

12.50

自引率

23.00%

发文量

1130

审稿时长

27 days

期刊介绍： Building and Environment, an international journal, is dedicated to publishing original research papers, comprehensive review articles, editorials, and short communications in the fields of building science, urban physics, and human interaction with the indoor and outdoor built environment. The journal emphasizes innovative technologies and knowledge verified through measurement and analysis. It covers environmental performance across various spatial scales, from cities and communities to buildings and systems, fostering collaborative, multi-disciplinary research with broader significance.