TY - JOUR
T1 - Testing the reliability of deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods using building performance simulation
AU - Kokaraki, N.
AU - Hopfe, C.J.
AU - Robinson, E.
AU - Nikolaidou, E.
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - The design of a building is a decision problem with multiple stakeholders and several often conflicting criteria. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods are capable of handling decision problems with the abovementioned specific features. This paper focuses on the application and comparison of some of the most well-known and widely applied MCDM methods; namely AHP, TOPSIS, ELECTRE III, and PROMETHEE II. For this purpose, a framework that incorporates the decision-makers’ preferences and the use of dynamic simulation of the potential building forms is developed and applied to a real-life case study. This procedure provides a holistic approach through which the design team arrives at a more appropriate decision. The examined methods yield similar results, showing broad agreement on the top ten alternatives, amongst which the decision-makers can decide. In particular, the majority of the examined methods (all except TOPSIS) concluded with the same optimal solution, a situation that provides confidence in the final decision. Furthermore, an investigation of four “what-if” scenarios indicates that TOPSIS is the most sensitive method to the examined changes in the subjective preferences.
AB - The design of a building is a decision problem with multiple stakeholders and several often conflicting criteria. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods are capable of handling decision problems with the abovementioned specific features. This paper focuses on the application and comparison of some of the most well-known and widely applied MCDM methods; namely AHP, TOPSIS, ELECTRE III, and PROMETHEE II. For this purpose, a framework that incorporates the decision-makers’ preferences and the use of dynamic simulation of the potential building forms is developed and applied to a real-life case study. This procedure provides a holistic approach through which the design team arrives at a more appropriate decision. The examined methods yield similar results, showing broad agreement on the top ten alternatives, amongst which the decision-makers can decide. In particular, the majority of the examined methods (all except TOPSIS) concluded with the same optimal solution, a situation that provides confidence in the final decision. Furthermore, an investigation of four “what-if” scenarios indicates that TOPSIS is the most sensitive method to the examined changes in the subjective preferences.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85067797520&partnerID=MN8TOARS
U2 - 10.1016/j.rser.2019.06.018
DO - 10.1016/j.rser.2019.06.018
M3 - Article
SN - 1879-0690
VL - 112
SP - 991
EP - 1007
JO - Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews
JF - Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews
ER -