Next Article in Journal
Ultra-Short-Term Wind Speed Forecasting Using the Hybrid Model of Subseries Reconstruction and Broad Learning System
Next Article in Special Issue
Energy Analysis of a NZEB Office Building with Rooftop PV Installation: Exploitation of the Employees’ Electric Vehicles Battery Storage
Previous Article in Journal
Performance Evaluation of Convolutional Auto Encoders for the Reconstruction of Li-Ion Battery Electrode Microstructure
Previous Article in Special Issue
An Adaptable Net Zero Model: Energy Analysis of a Monitored Case Study
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Opportunities for Using Analytical Hierarchy Process in Green Building Optimization

Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Minia University, Minia 61519, Egypt
Institute of Architectural Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Košice, 040 01 Košice, Slovakia
Institute of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Košice, 040 01 Košice, Slovakia
Water and Water Structures Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44519, Egypt
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2022, 15(12), 4490;
Submission received: 5 May 2022 / Revised: 6 June 2022 / Accepted: 16 June 2022 / Published: 20 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Green Buildings for Carbon Neutral)


The adoption of green building technology has become significant for ensuring sustainable development; it has become the main step to a sustainable future. The designs for green buildings include finding a balance between comfortable home construction and a sustainable environment. Moreover, the application of emerging technology is also used to supplement existing methods in the development of greener buildings to preserve a sustainable built environment. The main problem of this research is how to tackle the environmental parameters balance based on new techniques that are being used for green building optimization. To mitigate the cumulative effect of the constructed climate on human wellbeing and the regular ecosystem, the most popular goals for green buildings should be planned. This can be achieved by efficient use of natural resources such as energy, water, and other resources and minimizing waste. This will contribute to the security of occupant health, enhancement of work performance, emissions control, and improvement of the environment. In the construction of green buildings, several criteria that may contradict, interrelated indistinct and of qualitative and/or quantitative environment are broadened to utilize. This paper provides a detailed state of the art analysis on improving existing practices in green architecture/building using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) techniques to tackle the environmental balancing values based on optimal strategies and designs by green solutions to help make the best possible option from numerous options.

1. Introduction

The buildings that propose a flexible, relaxed, and energy efficient nature for living at a low price has been the aspirations of residents of buildings. Several innovative design technologies have been introduced to accomplish this objective, to improve building efficiency, and to meet a range of human requirements and environmental sustainability [1]. Also, AHP’s inherent capacity to cope with diverse styles of decisions, where it has been normally been applied in its development, has become its executive research aim throughout the last few years [2].
The implementations of green building problems, techniques, and theories are unique for the greatest challenges in structural planning. The techniques are a portion of the design method in urban planning, landscape, and building. Where the role of environmental design is assigned to architects from a single floor to a whole home, from a multi-storied structure to a large urban space that could even be found in a megacity [3]. The architectural design environmental problem is typically formulated as follows:
The green plan of the ecological architectural is defined as the finding of answers for many interrelated factors such as sustainable renewable sources [4], eco-designs [5], solar energy [6,7,8], lighting [9], compressed shopper waste (CSW) blocks [10], waste disposal [11], air-conditioning facilities [12], ventilation designs [13,14], shading designs [15], heating systems [16,17], green roofs [18], building envelopes [19], and double-skin facades and wall insulation for buildings [20,21,22], which not only comply with design specifications and optimize the efficiency of design according to design preferences but also satisfies usability and aesthetic requirements
Also, some state-of-art- references mentioned for the usability of the AHP scheme include the following: in construction management [23], select the certified parameters in the green building systems based on the AHP identification criteria [24], formulate an assessment model for environmental efficiency to identify the main performance matrix for the green building parameters [25], encapsulate the inclinations of properties among the main different keys to identify the life cycle performance of any structure [26], and gather the data from clients to investigate the main code of the structures so that they agree with the same requirements in the building plan [27].
Allocate a plan layer for the buildings as a main standard guide technique for the home components [28], utilizing a multi-mode dynamic technique to grantee the standard fulfillment of leaders and recipients for development measure for all of the building structure [29], empower the environmental friendly frameworks to create different green building rating systems to increase the quality of buildings [30], create a decision-making classical system to support investors in selecting the materials that wanted to yield sustainable buildings [31], and estimate a green score and rank hostels indicators that outline green training in industry to develop a model to measure the green score values for structures [32], developing a multi criteria decision study of factors to improve decision making in substructure building schemes [33].
To explore a development elements for sustainable built-up renewal building to assess the masses of the derivative elements of it [34], select a fruitful retrofitting strategy that imitates the decision maker’s aims to aid accomplish the objective of zero-energy constructions [35], building a criteria to rank some of indicators based on their level of significance to solve the energy conservation glitches [36], estimating a multidimensional measures that reflects all views in the building manufacture procedure to generate a fit and error-free buildings [37], building an internet-based policy development for smart buildings to study the features of any progress stage in buildings design [38].
The potential use of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms, technologies, and information in decision support systems is well understood in regeneration and urban planning. In any case, concerns have been raised while starting endeavors regarding recovery arranging inside the populated fabricated conditions causing an elevated degree of natural hardship and financial effects from the existing local area. With the advent of high-speed internet technologies, improved sophisticated AI techniques, and graphical automation, the domain of spatial assessment and optimization is now considered a major area of research [39].
This paper uses the presentation procedure of [40] to make a valuable review of various AHP technologies that are used in the green building optimization and valuation within the scope of environmental impact assessment and decision making. This paper will analyze the incorporation level of the impact for several socio-economic parameters, such as health, transport, accessibility, employment, sustainability, and smart growth within urban renewal systems. The exploration shows that keeping up with and controlling the adverse consequences of these elements altogether will generally limit the financial and ecological hardship in assembled climate areas.
Also, the paper evaluates the work conducted in regards to the area of urban planning and renewal in terms of information visualization and decision support tools. Previous research carried out in strategies and models for urban subsystems will also be discussed.
The discussion will finally conclude the current state-of-the-art in the applications of environmental modeling, the use of numerous AHP, and evolutionary computing methods that corroborate relevant knowledge gaps. Ultimately, the paper will present some comparisons to get the development of an optimization solution based on the assessment of various socio-economic deprivation factors. This paper aims to provide a better overview of the areas of decisions and the problems of decisions that AHP might work effectively.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 contains the introduction, Section 2 demonstrates the main hypotheses and purposes of the work, Section 3 presents the scope and specifications, and Section 4 explains the AHP algorithm as an optimum search-technique. In Section 5 we present the AHP issues and approaches that have been combined in green architectural optimization techniques. In Section 6, the concluding section, we highlight issues that can be addressed by our work along with some final findings and a summary of the study.

2. Methodology

Green building for structures and even urban areas has become an inevitable theme for designers, organizers, engineers, and different investors. The purpose of this analysis is to carry out a comprehensive and quantitative examination of green building engineering approaches and developments in the initial stage with an emphasis on evaluating and assessing the innovations from the viewpoint of construction decision-taking AI focused on the AHP technique.
The motives for this study are as follows. Architectural construction is an extensive practice mixing specific interests with objective thinking. Compared to conventional graphic design, architects face a question about how to manage the data-based design process. Second, architects’ technical skills are more rigorous than in any previous time, in which subtle trade-offs in architectural designs and functional logic may have occurred. Finally, the nature of the construction environment needs various engineering team members to operate together in the process, which is radically distinct from the previous style of operation. Architecture and green buildings are offering more compelling reasons for urban design actions to planners and architecture experts.
The hypotheses related to environmental architecture are that the method in which green construction used maybe translated (directly or indirectly) into the recognizable elements of architectural types and their specific forms. In other terms, various strategies are introduced in the optimization phase. In summary, this analysis aims to compile and examine appropriate research and address the real benefits and possible problems in the sustainability sense of performance-oriented building design and optimization.

3. Scope and Specifications

Science Direct and Web of Science were used to accomplish a worldwide quest for articles and conference papers that relevant to this research. The keywords included “urban design”, “technologies”, “optimization”, “analytical hierarchy process”, and “techniques and models”. Diverse variations of the keywords listed have been produced. The date chosen for all works published was from 2000 to 2022. Even so, the number of accessed publications was still massive.
This analysis intends specifically to demonstrate the green building benefits provided by the construction or optimization scheme. Under this requirement, the analysis material must include recognizable graphic elements or style attributes to give it specific architectural design language.
Also, the main study topics include energy, environment, and manufacturing, which follow expectations as they often lead to sustainable development. Green building design dependent on construction specifics is undeniably a dynamic and definitive work field. The key focus here is the green building strategies that planned to reduce the total effect of urban infrastructure on human wellbeing and the natural environment. This can be carried out by utilizing natural resources including water, energy, and other resources efficiently, and by reducing waste.
The findings indicate the vulnerability of the numerous properties and variables based on the particular design objectives. The most commonly employed optimization methods and previously listed simulation techniques are not unintentional. Other traditional features allow it to stand out in the area of functional application. Firstly, this method has been described as an architect friendly for architects and decision-making engineers. Second, the system transmits data from various job channels, so criteria for input and output may be evaluated and reviewed easily. Finally, the technique embraces several alternate models being contrasted [41].

4. AHP Scheme

The AHP is a decision-making approach with several parameters that were introduced by Saaty [42]. The AHP has drawn the attention of many researchers due to its mathematical properties and the method of obtaining the necessary input data that followed. The AHP is a decision-making method that can be used to address difficult issues with decisions. It utilizes a hierarchical system of requirements, sub-criteria, priorities, and alternatives at various stages [43].
The primary operations of the AHP include hierarchy building, priority analysis, and testing of continuity. Next, decision-makers need to break down specific judgment problems with various parameters into their parts with potential characteristics arranged at various hierarchical stages. After that, based on their expertise and knowledge, the decision-makers have to compare each cluster at the same stage in a pair-wise manner. For instance, in the second level, every two parameters are compared with the target at any stage, while in the third level, every two attributes of the same parameters are compared with the corresponding criterion. Since the similarities are made by personal or decisions, there may be a degree of inconsistency.
The final procedure is called consistency verification, which is considered to be one of the most benefits of the AHP, where it is implemented to ensure that the conclusions are consistent. Then, to calculate the degree of consistency among the pairwise comparisons that can measure the consistency ratio. If the accuracy ratio is found to exceed the limit, the pairwise comparisons should be checked and updated by decision-makers. After all, pairwise analyses are carried out and shown to be accurate at all stages, the decisions can then be synthesized to figure out the priority rating of each parameter and its characteristics. AHP’s procedure is shown in Figure 1.
Among many journal/conference articles, 84 papers integrated the AHP with the mathematical programming techniques, including mixed-integer linear programming (MILP), integer linear programming (ILP), and goal programming (GP). The AHP combination and the applications of the mathematical programming approaches are summarized in Table 1.

5. AHP Combination Approaches

An initial search for relevant works was conducted using Google, Library Genesis scientific papers, Egyptian Universities Library (EUL), with search terms including ‘sustainable’, ‘energy’, ‘green’, ‘architecture’, ‘building’, and ‘optimization’. Further searches were then conducted in the archives of the journals and conference proceedings, (conference papers are included unless a similar journal paper exists, in which case it is given in preference). The papers that were cited by this work were also checked for relevance. Papers were chosen from this large search for inclusion in the main overview of Table 1.
The search included all of the areas of sustainable building design; it was exclusively concerned with energy and carbon emissions. For technologies used in buildings, works with significant information as the specification of an air conditioning system is included for a building. Some works made significant use of computational optimization, and some others used the term optimization, but they perform only algebraic or manual processes as a computation (e.g., identifying the minimum). In the following, the AHP issues with other techniques are identified.

5.1. AHP Approach

Bing Wei et al. [44] discussed the configuration and the specialization necessities for layouts of green structures. The evaluation principles, model, and strategy that are suitable for the circumstances in China are situated up by joining the attributes of open-air, indoor environmental of green structures, appraisal list, and arrangement of ecological quality. The processes of the evaluation models of the analytic hierarchy process are established. Ali Zarchi et al. [45] accomplished the variables that contributed to the growth of the green building business among the Malaysian residents of the era through the systematic various levels of methodologies. The discoveries uncovered that the components, for example, diminishment and well-being of contamination elements more needed among Malaysian natives and amid the extension of green buildings in Malaysia. Also, the buildings that focus on healthy and indoor environmental quality are getting interests among Malaysians. P. Arroyo et al. [46] concentrated on the fundamental attributes of suitable strategies, and correspondingly, the components that exclude techniques, particularly on the trademarks that appeared to us for administration practicality, these variables ought not to be weighted.
Yang Yong and Suo Chenxia [47] manufactured a three-level list for the arrangement of occupants’ fulfillment assessment in Beijing. The provincial inhabitations were identified through exploration and field study of writing with building vitality, and every record in the inhabitant fulfillment list framework was gotten by utilization of the AHP entropy technique, and the inhabitants’ fulfillment was demonstrated. Choi et al. [48] conducted a review that focused on the occupants of a flat building that was guaranteed as green building architecture and looked at the significance of the evaluation criteria on condo structures to ensure green structures by utilizing the AHP strategy. Moreover, they proposed a new direction on certification assessment standards from the resident’s perspective. Thus, appraisal criteria, for example, indoor environment, natural environment, energy, environmental contamination, and upkeep administration are among seven principles that turned out critical on evaluating the green standard for energy and environmental design (G-SEED) framework for flat structures. While criteria, for example, water flow administration, material and asset, transportation, and area use were moderately insignificant.
Tahmasebi et al. [49] studied the optimal site selection of urban parks at a local level in the city of Shahrood, which integrated the GIS system with overlaying. In the first place, criteria were fused into GIS and new data layers were made, that were utilized in conjunction with the current information to get data, for example, clashing used military, modern, and besides, no man’s land circumstance has been used. The determinant criteria were weighted in AHP, and pairwise examination was directed to find the ideal different option for building a nearby scale park. Jawdat Goussous and Abbas Al-Refaie [50] assessed the execution of green innovation in current building design, flow building plan and provide acceptable decisions using life cycle cost (LCC) and investigation cost order process systems; the two essential parts of green innovation are considered: energy and water. Wei Yu et al. [51] added a reasonable rating strategy for green stores, this technique referenced the rating prerequisites set by the “China Green Building Evaluation Standard” and weighted credits for all classes. This technique was kept away from the impact of “imbalanced execution” when marking green structures, where the expert decision AHP strategy was used to add the weighting framework for green store structures. The weight circulations highlight the significance of indoor natural quality, operation, administration, and energy effectiveness inside the store buildings, also in industrial buildings [52].
Wang Hui-Jing [53] depicted the assessment substance and extent of the industrial green building, reflects off the modern green building course and the arrangement of imperative quantifiable parameters. Also, the paper presented the compiling process of the green industrial building evaluation standard, through the group experts of the AHP method. They discussed the rationality of the weight allocation result, through analysis and comparison of the assessment of the index system for the green industrial building as the British BREEAM industrial building and the domestic green building.
Ryan Doczy et al. [54] proposed a model using two projects to refine the choice of an alternative design given the competing priorities of the project: cost, leadership in energy and environmental design (LEED), and net-zero. The proposed model incorporates both the AHP and multiple attribute utility theory (MAUT) in a way that a decision-maker can determine the priorities of a project and use weights to assign those objectives. The findings revealed the validity of the model and its relation to sustainable development design practice.
Amos Darko et al. [23] reviewed about 77 AHP-based papers from 2004 to 2014 to help identify and delineate the AHP task areas and problem-solving decision-making within construction management. The results showed that the most common implementation fields of AHP in construction management were risk management and sustainable design. AHP has also been discovered to be versatile and as a stand-alone tool or in conjunction with other approaches, it may be used to address building decision-making problems where it is commonly used in Asia.
Syahrul et al. [55] aimed to support the creation of Malaysia of a refurbishment sustainability appraisal scheme. The AHP technique has been adopted to rate evaluation topics and classify the preferences of participating stakeholders in the research. A collection of weightings and a grading system for the preferred test themes and sub-themes are used in the result. To achieve the aims of sustainable growth by refurbishment, the techniques and results can be tailored for the use of other professionals to create building appraisal schemes. Results showed that the energy and efficiency of the indoor environment quality are the most effective analysis topics for stakeholders participating in the AHP with coefficients weight of 0.208 and 0.182, respectively. Therefore, higher credits are distributed in the MRAS for the electricity and indoor environment quality. These results were assisted during confirmation by interview experts since these two themes of evaluation are the key themes important for the built environment in Malaysia. Established buildings in Malaysia are occupied by old and aged buildings that are low in resources and have poor ventilation.
Harputlugil, et al. [56] conducted a study to select a green building certification System for Turkey based on identifying the most relevant requirements and criteria to be included in establishing a green building certification system in Turkey. They developed a questionnaire based on the AHP technique by determining criteria and sub-criteria, where it analyzed with software. The findings of the study revealed that; all of the current certification systems do not suit perfectly for Turkey, so it is concluded that the implementation of a new national certification system is needed.
Lee, et al. [57] studied how to enhance Korea’s overall residential efficiency by developing the principle of its habitability functions that is distinct from contemporary architecture and providing a performance appraisal model focused on inherent characteristic evaluation factors. Thus, they tried to build an evaluation system composed of proven evaluation items or factors and carried out AHP analyses with certified experts, and applied the relative importance among the evaluation items. Finally, this study suggested an estimation model of the efficiency of habitability. The proposed evaluation framework was applied as the inherent value and its objectivity to be a sustainable method of regeneration for contemporary residency in Korea as a result of applying the evaluation model for weighted habitability results.
Emre Ilicali [25] focused on the level of sustainable project success and environmental performance. This research aims to provide a source for these issues and to assess the environmental success of urban redevelopment projects systemically. It also includes the formulation of the model for assessing environmental efficiency and identifies the main performance metrics. The AHP model being proposed integrates nine efficiency parameters and 55 associated KPIs. They are classified using a 7-point Likert scale questionnaire to assess their priority after assessing the hierarchical structure of KPIs. Then, via the involvement of 25 experts, the AHP process was carried out. Finally, the model for assessing environmental efficiency in urban redevelopment projects was created. The results of the analysis suggest that “energy” requirements have the highest degree of importance in assessing the environmental efficiency of urban regeneration projects. As a consequence, requirements for “water” followed by “land use” and “ecology.”
Al-Saggaf, et al. [26] attempted to diminish the subjectivity in the design assessment. They utilized the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to foster a decision support system (DSS) to encapsulate the overall inclinations of the proprietor and planner among different key standards (usefulness, cost, feel, and so on) to identify the life-cycle performance of the structures. A contextual analysis with five elective designs is similarly liked by specialists, is utilized to show the DSS capacity to rank the plans as far as generally speaking performance scores. The AHP plot upholds the complicated assessment measure that is fundamentally each model in turn and shows up at the best plan, considering all standards all of the while.
Payyanapotta and Thomas [27] presented an information-driven and easy-to-understand structure that cross analyzes the green structure rating frameworks and energy preservation codes dominating India. This system used the data gathered from the client to create code-agreeable structure plan techniques by utilizing the AHP. It considers that the structure’s present maintainability level and joining the client’s inclinations in working on the general manageability of the structures. The proposed building has prospected to urge clients to test the proficiency of different supportable development rehearses and advance more practical construction in the country.
Xingkai Gu [28] summed up some of principles and techniques for an assessment of the plan components of Jiangnan’s traditional home buildings. According to this basis, He built a plan component list arrangement of structures, which incorporates 4 measures layers and 16 plan layers. As per the AHP cycle, the heaviness of each plan layer is allocated, and a total record arrangement of home plan components is built to guide and reference the future structural plan practice and the standard style molding of the Jiangnan region. He can choose the above elements later on plan to acquire and foster the customary of building engineering.
Eryürük et al. [29] utilized a multi-mode dynamic technique to guarantee the popular fulfillment of leaders and recipients in development measures dependent on AHP. Four fundamental sub-models were controlled by adding “green and manageability issues” to the “usefulness”, “quality of building”, and “effect” set of three for the improvement of building quality. The strategy utilized depends on an assessment framework that thinks about every one of the partners’ demeanors. Important information is accumulated from three sorts of partners; a specialized group, a gathering of occupiers, and the last one is the gathering of building creation firms as offices supervisor. It has been inferred that the meaning of standards and assurance of loads of them will not be controlled by just a single partner in a venture, additionally, all specific partners are likewise will be incorporated during arranging and application measure.
Chodnekar et al. [30] utilized the AHP strategy to empower the most part of the nations on the planet to create and explore different green building rating frameworks. These frameworks incorporate rules such as energy productivity, detached plan angles, environmentally friendly power frameworks, life cycle appraisal, post-inhabitance assessment, site arranging, and assets protection perspectives and developments which are normal in the greater part of the nations’ evaluating frameworks of these green standards. They intended to examine the holes between the speculations of green rating frameworks and the reception of the green details practically speaking in development projects that will assist with calling attention to the obstacles in the reception and execution of green structure strategy that is being better utilized.

5.2. AHP-ILP

Braglia et al. [58] utilized the AHP to focus on the relative significance weightings of the option took care of material gadgets. The assessment criteria were advantageous, expensive, and similar to every gadget regarding assembling cells. The weightings were then consolidated into the Integer Linear Programming (ILP) model. The goal was to choose a situated of gadgets with the most extreme weighting. Akgunduz et al. [59] developed an ILP model to find the best mix of choices for parts and sub-segments, with the destinations of expanding consumer loyalty and minimizing the item cost.


Korpela et al. [60] utilized the consolidated AHP and multi-target Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) way to deal with managing the general logistics circulation issue. It was to focus on many issues as: (i) which third part stockroom administrators are deciding to serve the clients; (ii) what are the numbers of items that circulated. In their methodology, the AHP was utilized to quantify the relative significance weightings of options administrators in light of three criteria: flexibility, unwavering quality, and costs. Then, the AHP weightings are used as weighting variables as a part of the target capacity of the MILP model, through/the goal of amplifying clients’ fulfillment. Stannard, B. et al. [61] joined AHP with MILP to ascertain the ideal portion of a predetermined number of airplanes among a gathering of carrier clients with differing levels of length and need of use. Canadian Forces airdrop organizers commonly used this experience such a scope of organizing issues. These issues oblige the compelled task of variable-length missions (undertakings) coordinating many airdrops demands from a few clients with numerous needs to airframes (parallel machines).

5.4. AHP-GP

Zhou, et al. [62] proposed a goal programming (GP) model to address the multi-target issue with the combination of non-relaxation imperatives and relaxation confinements. The AHP, a multi-target choice-making system, is utilized to assess the needs of objectives and weights of deviation variables; its application is shown by a contextual investigation on supportable inventory network improvement of a petrochemical complex and planning. Badri [63] proposed a choice that will permit weighting (organizing) of an association’s extraordinary administration quality measures, considered the genuine of impediment world asset (i.e., spending plan, hour, work, and so on.), and selected the ideal arrangement of administration quality control instruments. The paper addressed two essential issues: how to join and choose quality control measures in an administration industry, and how to consolidate the AHP into the model. A true contextual analysis represented the use of this joined AHP–GP mode.
Kwak and Leeb [64] studied the use of the multi-criteria mathematical programming (MCMP) as a manual for vital getting ready for business process framework improvement in an association with GP. The objective levels are recognized and organized utilizing the AHP. The outcomes are investigated, and the came about arrangement suggestion is assessed to enhance the model materialness. Radcliffe, L.L. and Schniederjans, M.J. [65] presented application consequences of utilizing two systematic techniques that were used to evaluate the overview data from the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), USA’s biggest science venture. The two choices systems created results that helped bolster the SNS administration’s judgment that particularly chosen trust classes ought to be underscored to fabricate trust in this undertaking by using the AHP-GP strategy.

5.5. AHP-QFD

Chuang, P.T. [66] combined AHP and quality function deployment (QFD) strategies to reinforce an office territory decision from a need perspective. The methodology started by recognizing area prerequisites, then deduction of area assessing criteria, at long last a focal relationship lattice was built up to show the level of relationship between each pair of area prerequisites and area foundation for the QFD process. Kwong, C.K. et al. [67] enhanced the loose positioning of client necessities acquired from studies in light of the customary AHP. Moreover, the AHP with degree investigation was straightforward and simple to actualize and organize client needs in the QFD procedure contrasted and the ordinary of AHP.
Partovi, F.Y. [68] presented a key answer for the office area issue which joins both outside and inside criteria in the choice making procedure. The outside parts of the model were clients and their needs, rivals, and the attributes of different areas, where the inside components of the model were the discriminating procedures in the assembling association. The structure displayed the uses of QFD and AHP, but the model calibrated and added accuracy to the generally subjective vital choice procedure. The relevance of their proposed model was exhibited by a contextual investigation that condensed a mediation in which the model’s system and fundamental ideas were applied. Hanumaiah, N. et al. [69] presented a QFD-AHP philosophy which has three stages. The main stage includes organizing the tooling prerequisites (driven by client inclinations) against an arrangement of bite the dust/mold improvement properties (for example, item geometry, material, kick the bucket material, and creation request) through pairwise examination utilizing the expository hierarchal procedure. These need appraisals that are utilized for selecting the most fitting apparatus procedure by using QFD in the second stage. At long last, QFD is utilized again for distinguishing basic procedure parameters (for example, layer thickness, sweep pitch, and laser force) for the choice of the real-time (RT) process.
Kürüm Varolgüne et al. [70] explored a planning model to further develop the plan quality in building structures, specifically in a building of a thermal inn lodging. The strategy depends on applying the quality function deployment (QFD) procedure to pay attention to the client, notwithstanding the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), which permits the determination of the best plan elective. The results show that QFD–AHP techniques have been attempted in various spaces of the structure business. As per the discoveries, QFD was demonstrated to be an appropriate strategy for moving client (inhabitant) necessities to plans in the most precise way, given the perplexing design of thermal hotel buildings structures.

5.6. AHP-ANN

Kuo et al. [71] built up a choice emotionally supportive network for finding another accommodation store. The proposed framework comprised of four parts: (1) various leveled structure advancement for fluffy AHP, (2) weights determination, (3) information accumulation, and (4) choice making. Artificial neural network (ANN) feedforward with error back propagation (EBP) learning calculation is connected to discover the relationship between the elements and the store execution. The outcomes demonstrated that the proposed framework can give more exact results than relapse model incorrectness.

5.7. AHP-GA

Chang and Yu [72] proposed a coordinated methodology for demonstrating the employment shop planning issues, alongside a genetic algorithms (GA)/Tabu Search (TS) blend arrangement approach. Besides, sensible issues, for example, the instability angle, rescheduling, the relative significance of criteria, and option procedure that arranged with the GA/TS methodology, are additionally displayed inside of the system of the multi-target capacities.
Chan and Chung [73] built up a multi-paradigm hereditary for enhancement and taking care of dispersion system issues in-store network administration. Some appropriation issues managed conveyance from a few sources to a few destinations, in which Different elements of preference are interrelated and influence each other. GA plans have been generally received as the advancement instrument in taking care of these issues. They joined AHP with GA to catch the multi-paradigm choice making. The proposed calculation permitted leaders to give weightings for criteria utilizing a pairwise correlation approach.
Chan and Chung [74] built up a multi-measure hereditary advancement methodology that intended for taking care of streamlining issues in-store network administration. The proposed calculation is examined with a request conveyance issue in an interest-driven store network system that consolidated the AHP with the GA scheme. Some numerical results that got from the proposed calculation are contrasted and the multi-target blended in a whole programming methodology, where the examination data demonstrated that the proposed calculation was solid and vigorous.
Chan et al. [75] contemplated vertical and level inventory network coordinated effort and proposed an interest sharing approach in light of an arrangement of predefined joint effort rules. The advancement procedure joined an AHP with GA. They produced a hybrid GA For manufacturing and logistics concerns in multi-factory supply chain models. The supply chain issues may not include multi-basis choice-making, for instance, administration level, working expense, assets usage, and so forth. These criteria were various and interrelated. To compose them, AHP will be used to give a deliberate way to deal with leaders to relegate weightings. The optimization results showed that it was reliable and robust.
Chan and Chung [76] concentrated on the coordinated logistics appropriation issue with the interest due to date element. The consolidated AHP–GA methodology was connected to assess and select the best adaptation. Two additional metrics were used to assess the performance of the proposals, in addition to overall costs: overall lead tardiness and time. Chan et al. [77] mulled over the same issue and connected the same technique as Chan and Chung [78]. There is one distinction, which was due to the assessment criteria utilized as a part of the consolidated AHP–GA approach. The efficacy of capacity usage was also considered, in addition to the overall cost, overall lead time, and tardiness.
Moussaoui, et al. [79] measured the energy efficiency of residential buildings using a performance-based approach in the Algerian context. The technique suggested is based on two approaches: top-down and bottom-up. The first one is descriptive down to encourage the recognition of acceptable efficiency indicators correlated with the norm of energy output for residential buildings. The second is a bottom-up strategy based on a weighted sum method of multi-criteria aggregation. A combination approach was used to measure the weights of chosen indicators, based on the method of AHP and GA. The findings showed that the measurements were very interesting and underlined the efficiency of this method. In the majority of cases surveyed, the poor energy quality of Algerian residential buildings has been verified. The proposed optimization of the AHP system using GA yielded very satisfactory results (in particular improvement of the weighting procedure) and allowed a better estimate of the level of energy efficiency.


Kurttila et al. [80] studied the consolidated AHP with strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) approach in helping the choice making in a Finnish ranger service. There were two choices confronted: (i) make a guaranteed move to certified ranger service; (ii) stay in timber-creation arranged ranger service. To begin with, the key elements concerning this key one was gathered and classified utilizing the SWOT examination. The AHP was then used with the four parameters of the SWOT bunch to measure the relative importance weightings of the SWOT bunch and the weightings of the SWOT elements. The general importance of the variables was derived based on the weightings.
Kajanus et al. [81] studied the joined of AHP–SWOT to deal with answer the topic of whether society can be a winning figure in country tourism or not. The methodology was precisely the same as that introduced before. Shrestha et al. [82] investigated the potential outcomes for Silvopasture reception in south focal Florida City utilizing the consolidated AHP–SWOT approach. The authors addressed that Silvopasture is an agroforestry technique that incorporates trees and pasture with livestock activities, which was used by the AHP to quantify the relative weightings of the different SWOT variables. Dissimilar to the past two methodologies, the AHP weightings were acquired as for the key partners including exploration expert, an extensive landholder, and little landholder.
Other than applying to the farming arranging as in Shrestha et al. [82], and Masozera et al. [83] embraced the same way to deal with evaluate the suitability of a group-based administration strategy to the forests reserve of Nyungwe in Rwanda. The AHP was utilized to focus on the noteworthy relative weightings of the SWOT components concerning the key partners. Shinno et al. [84] exhibited the joined AHP–SWOT way to deal with examine the worldwide aggressiveness of Japan’s machine device industry.
To explore the inner and outer environments successfully, the SWOT examination was received which involves each of the four SWOT gatherings was further partitioned into three principle sub-gatherings as business sector related, association-related, and item related. As the case with the past methodologies, the AHP was utilized to assess the significance weightings of the key that was calculated for every sub-bunch.

5.9. AHP-DEA

Takamura and Tone [85] displayed the consolidated AHP with the data envelopment analysis (DEA) way to deal with manage the migration of a few administration organizations out of Tokyo. In the first place, the AHP was utilized to acquire the qualities (e.g., the fast reaction in a substantial scale calamity), and the relative significance weightings of criteria (e.g., influence on the fate of the nation). Second, the DEA was introduced to assess the efficacy of different sites in terms of the AHP weightings. Yang and Kuo [86] studied the combined AHP–DEA approach for solving the facility report to create any possible models in advance, a computer-aided layout design technique called Spiral was introduced. The relative significance elective weightings of designs were gotten by utilizing the AHP pairwise correlation concerning three subjective elements: openness, flexibility, and upkeep. The DEA was also used to address the issue of layout design by taking into account both qualitative and quantitative performance details (i.e., flow width, adjacency, and shape ratio) at the same time, contributing to the recognition of value boundaries.
Saen et al. [87] studied the consolidated AHP–DEA way to deal with the relative productivity amount of somewhat non-homogeneous decision-making units (DMUs). Due to the way that some DMUs might don’t have at least one component (i.e., yield as well as data), the AHP was used to evaluate the missing worth for a DMU close to reality whatever amount as could be anticipated. So, two alternatives were contrasted with the higher-level point; alternatives include: (i) the DMU that lacks the feature(s); (ii) the other DMUs’ sequence implies. The information for a mean of various DMUs was gotten by taking the typical of all components of all DMUs with the exception of the missing substance interesting occasion, and it was assumed that this information was normally conveyed. Ertay et al. [88] implemented the combined AHP–DEA technique, this methodology was somewhat close to that proposed in favor of the facility architecture concept as presented by Yang and Kuo [86].

5.10. AHP–ANP

Pengpeng Xu and Edwin H.W. Chan [89] used analytic network process (ANP) to create, under the EPC system, a blueprint for sustainable BEER. Key Performance Measures (KPIs) for EPC Vital Success Factors (CSFs) and Sustainable BEERs in hotel buildings have been recognized, taking into account the meeting and polling arrangements previously performed by the founders. In this research, through a focus group conversation, the links between sustainable dimensions, KPIs, and CSFs are established. At long last, an ANP model is based in light of the information gathered in the gathering talk utilizing the super decision programming. Joseph Sarkis et al. [90] made a model that uses both the AHP and the ANP as its basis, a sample application is presented to illustrate its viability and usage once the standardized decision model is specified. The strength of the arrangement is exhibited by utilizing the affectability examination, permitting the leader to value the complexities in this choice environment. This work expanded on the moderately scanty formal numerical displaying examination and applications that have major economic, social, and environmental impacts on the sustainability of the built environment of the industry.

5.11. AHP-GIS

Aydi, et al. [91] used the geographic information system (GIS) to develop a logical ranking tool for green stores using AHP. They looked at the regular utilization of the assessment routines for an appraisal strategy of the green store buildings in China, and the green buildings have been created. This technique referenced the rating necessities set by the “China Green Building Evaluation Standard” and weighted each credit for every classification.

5.12. AHP-LCSA

Navid Hossaini et al. [92] examined an AHP based supportability assessment system as the life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) for mid-ascent residential buildings in light of extensive environmental and socio-economic criteria.

5.13. AHP-Fuzzy

AHP with fuzzy comprehensive judgment (FCJ) was utilized by Lu et al. [93] in China to decide whether a construction plan complies with low-carbon measures straightforward and rapidly; where Lee S.K. et al. [94] utilized a general review means to recognize and gather the outline criteria that influence the energy interest model and assess the needs of every standard utilizing for the fuzzy and AHP strategy. Furthermore, Chan et al. [95] developed the life cycle assessment (LCA) as a systematic system that incorporates, environmental management accounting (EMA) concepts, FL and AHP, to measure the organizational and environmental presentation of diverse designs. They planned a broadcast model for helping architects’ reliance on LCA and a qualitative examination was launched to demonstrate that this methodology gives a methodical technique for assessing option outlines and design improvement options.
Lan et al. [96] analyzing the location using a fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) of centrality and the relative weight of the individual component. The outcome seemed the main five pivotal variables that impacted consumers to buy green structures in Taiwan which are the cost of green development, the degree of information on the climate, the expense of green structure content, and how much green use. The consumer’s decision making would not be impacted by the green building name, the gender orientation, the natural purposeful publicity of the administration, the estimation of standard society, and financial conditions.
In China, Feng et al. [97] developed a fuzzy-AHP comprehensive evaluation method (FACEM) to be reasonable for the waterfront recovery reasonableness assessment process. They prescribed applying the CRSE process to different territories in China for best administration of waterfront recovery and security ventures. In Macedonia, Donevska, K. et al. [98] combined a fuzzy with an AHP scheme to present a geographic information system based on the multi-criteria selection of sites for non-hazardous municipal landfills in the area of Polog. The frameworks were utilized for preparatory appraisal of the most suitable destinations of the landfill. The outcomes demonstrated that the slightest appropriate landfill range of 1.0% from the aggregate is created when natural and financial destinations are esteemed similarly while a most proper landfill region of around 1.8% territory is produced when the monetary goal is set higher.
Han, T. et al. [41] concentrated on the weighting worth of the light assessment when figured with the fuzzy-AHP strategy. Seong et al. [99] evaluated the key energy advances in contrast to high oil costs utilizing five principles including monetary effect, business potential, improvement cost, internal limit, and specialized twist off. They inferred that the qualified proficiency score of energy innovations against high oil costs may be the crucial choice settling that help leaders in Korea to adequately distribute the available R&D funds. Han, F. et al. [100] developed an arrangement of pointer framework for the assessment of urbanization in rocky range in Xianning (China’s city) with AHP using leading a fuzzy thorough assessment of suburbanization for a hilly zone in Xianning.
Hapsari and Subiyanto [101] studied the effective and efficient configuration of the photovoltaic system attached to the building on the academic campus. The design of the photovoltaic system at the project site is based on the roof area and load profile. Five photovoltaic systems were developed using five distinct PV types. Fuzzy AHP used qualitative and quantitative analyses, which can influence the selection process. The systematic standards evaluation consists of the parameters of sizing schemes, the technological, economic, and environmental aspects. The analysis is broken down into 13 sub criteria. From the criteria-based Fuzzy AHP, the findings display the following degree of importance: technological > economic > climate > sizing method. The results indicated that the architecture with monocrystalline and polycrystalline are ideally suited as the least fitting configuration for a photovoltaic device that is connected to the grid and battery energy storage system.
Z. Li et al. [102] used to develop a deliberate strategy utilizing the fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) to recognize which distributions inside the city region Ningbo in China have the best capability of conveying green structures, guaranteeing the set targets are reasonable and deliverable. This strategy consolidates a logical cycle, wherein pairwise correlation investigation was directed for the chose standards and viewpoints to decide the weighting elements and scores for each situation. The procedure will be able to adjust changes with the necessities later on to incorporate more models and more targets.
Z. Yan et al. [103] introduced the utilization of AHP and fuzzy engineered assessment strategy dependent on cloud model hypothesis to assess the general activity performance of the green public structures, thinking about indoor climate quality (IEQ) and energy utilization. The assessment strategy covers three standards as target IEQ, abstract IEQ, and yearly energy utilization. Two instances of green and non-green library buildings are practical to be assessed by this strategy, where building supervisors can pass judgment if the structure performs proficiently or not with this assessment technique. This assessment technique can not exclusively be applied to assess the activity performance of various comparable buildings yet, in addition, can be applied to assess similar structures in diverse years. This examination can give specific directing importance to the improvement of the assessment of the thorough activity performance of green constructing.

5.14. EAHP-Fuzzy

The choice of strategies for current building materials cannot give sufficient answers for two noteworthy issues: an evaluation that taking into account the procedure of manageability standards and allocating weights to important appraisal criteria. The Fuzzy Extended AHP (FEAHP) was used by Akadiri et al. [104] to assign and prioritize important weightings for the recognized standards to get a reasonable material choice which rep-resents a significant system in green structure plan. The model utilized an evaluation strategy that was distinguished in light of practical triple bottom line (TBL) methodology and the requirement for building partners. A questionnaire study of building specialists is led to examine the overall significance of the total and measures into six independent evaluation factors. Also, the FEAHP was used by Jian et al. and Lee, A.H. et al. [105] to focus the file weight of six distinct parameters, environment, specific regions, energy, assets, financial, innovation, and society to set up the green degree assessment list framework.

5.15. AHP-Fuzzy-Delphi

The integration of the AHP with the fuzzy technique and Delphi method was found in, for example; Hsueh S.L. et al. [106] principally connected fuzzy-AHP-Delphi in building as a quantitative assessment model for supportable group development for low-carbon improvement adequacy. They used the model to (i) measure numerical values as the base for qualifications and (ii) assess the output of low-carbon public building developments, the city’s low-carbon, and energy-saving growth levels are compared.
Furthermore, Liu et al. [107], Liu et al. [108] joined three routines to be added to an extraordinary model for surveying the energy-saving design of private buildings in Taiwan. They found that joining double-skin facades, green roof, and solar building materials can adequately give high energy-saving outlines utilizing applying (a) the Delphi decision-making strategy to give a co-design feature; (b) to translate complex interior and outer factors into straightforward rates or proportions that advance choices, the AHP can incorporate multi-criteria decision-making and (c) fuzzy logic theory.
Moreover, Hsueh S.L. et al. [109] utilized the Delphi system, fuzzy rationale, and AHP (DFAHP) as an evaluation to redevelop the neglected public buildings. Alapure et al. [110] established a model for evaluating the sustainability of traditionally constructed structures through utilizing AHP, Delphi, and fuzzy rationale hypothesis for choice-making checked to utilize the physical estimations through meeting based on a survey in India.

5.16. AHP-Fuzzy-GRA

The AHP-fuzzy-GRA combined approach is better to be applied in a complex decision process, which frequently seems OK with subjective information or vague data as utilized by Gumus A.T. et al. [111]. They proposed a Buckley expansion-based- (Fuzzy-AHP) and a direct standardization-based-fuzzy-gray relational analysis (Fuzzy-GRA) that joined with multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) system for unraveling hydrogen energy storage (HES) choice issue in Iran with distinctive defuzzification routines. Also, Wang et al. [112,113] examined the probability of utilizing Fuzzy-AHP with fuzzy-GRA for the ideal determination of competitor tenderers in the procedure by the concern of a fuzzy hybrid environment with deficient weight data. The scheme was proposed and tested in Turkey to get aggregate different types of evaluated information and the exact weight information and to determine the best candidate for tenderers.

5.17. AHP-Fuzzy-IRP

Mangla S.K. et al. [114] assessed that a few distinctive danger calculations are dealing with green supply chain (GSC) problems effectively. These risks tend to interrupt and thus reduce the performance rate of traditional GSC operations. They moderated the results, by displaying which could assess the dangers in the setting of GSC is required from the industrial perspective. This analysis aimed to introduce a scalable decision model based on the framework of the combined fuzzy-AHP and interpretive rating process (IRP) to determine the risks associated with the application of GSC activities in the fuzzy setting. The fuzzy-AHP approach estimates the positioning of the distinguished risks or the need by deciding their overall significance. Then, to explore the risk situating got past the fuzzy-AHP, the way of thinking of IRP is connected. However, the IRP approach also helps decision-makers to comprehend the interpretive rationale for the superiority of one risk over the other for each pairwise distinction. The proposed adaptable risk assessment model is applied to an exact instance of an Indian poly plastic assembling organization.

6. Results and Discussion

The translated article shows the application of Thomas L. Saaty’s AHP method [42] for an overview of literary sources concerning the creation of green buildings, green architecture with an emphasis on the use of non-traditional energy sources. It is an overview of the literature in this area with emphasis on its use in engineering practice [88,115,116]. Specific examples from different countries are shown [117,118].
The paper introduces some environmental and physical design approaches for green buildings to improve plan boundaries and decision-making problems. In this regard, the consider displays an investigation from claiming effects to investigate the worth of effort that utilized the AHP procedure; Furthermore, its combinations similarly to a streamlining plan in the field of green architecture/building plan.
Figure 2 presents graphical data on the works included in the main summary Table 1. The figure sums up the essential statistics of the latest 84 studies on analytical hierarchy process frameworks and their combinations with numerical programming approaches and their applications from 2000 to 2021.
Figure 2a shows that the AHP scheme is used for many objectives for promotion and enhancement in the field of green building; where the most objectives of the research papers are in the building energy-saving and promoting green building that represents (70%) from all of the research objectives that depend on AHP. Also, Figure 2b shows that the ultimate number of researches works that used the AHP technique during the 20 years and it is clear that the algorithm is widely used mostly in 2014.
Analytical hierarchy process techniques are built as a theoretical solution to some problems such as optimization in percent of (15%), but most countries that used these techniques are China (19%) and Taiwan (5%) as in Figure 2c. In Figure 2d the integrated analytical Hierarchy Process with other mathematical programming techniques is presented; was (15%) used the analytical hierarchy process as a mathematical programming technique only, and (15%) used analytical hierarchy process combined with fuzzy as the most two schemes are usually used. Twenty-eight percent (28%) of papers focused on environment applications, where (16%) focused on logistics as the most applications used as shown in Figure 2e. From this discussion, it is obvious that AHP is a trusted scheme for optimization that most researchers depend on it to solve their problems.
Accordingly, to enhance our results, we add a benchmark comparison with one of state-of-art paper [23] that is most suitable with our review process. The results are shown in Table 2.
So, the AHP can help stockholders, planners, and architects to simplify the design for the green building outline, for whoever they employ to consider perfect solutions for green plan building outline advancement and utilization.

7. Limitations of This Study

This study is the first phase of a literature review that study AHP’s application in green building design from various perspectives. However, it does not include application examples that show how AHP can be used step-by-step to solve specific problems in the studies identified. Also, the articles provide a good reference point for understanding how AHP was employed to address a specific problem. Furthermore, future reviews will cover articles published till 2022 and articles interested in analyzing the software techniques to create bibliometric networks in order to better understand the literature.
Furthermore, while it was simple to identify and categorize AHP application areas using the topic coverage of the evaluated articles, the approach was heavily reliant on the authors’ subjective assessments. Finally, research is needed to distinguish between AHP and other multicriteria decision-making approaches by evaluating their benefits and demerits in various green construction scenarios to identify which methods are preferable to the others.

8. Conclusions and Future Work

This paper contributes a comprehensive state-of-art review for the current late artificial intelligence-based practices (2000–2021) using strategies, technologies, models, and techniques that have been used in the green building for analysis in order to find the best green building solutions, strategies, and models. The paper demonstrated that a rising trend of interest in optimization is maintained since businesses and manufacturers understand the high capability of the AHP approach and its combinations (for example, Fuzzy and GA schemes) since they are confronting more severe challenges than ever. More increasing demand to achieve environmentally and economically design needs more optimization techniques to achieve all of the demands.
It is noticed that the AHP integrated methods are applicable, effective, and efficient in the field of sustainable green building in a diversity of environmental and research problems related to green building. It was observed that the AHP technique when combined with other models or techniques such as ILP, MILP, GP, QFD, ANN, GA, SWAT, DEA, ANP, VS, LCSA, FUZZY, EAHP, DAHP, GRA, and IRP yields a more helpful methodology for the vast majority of pragmatic amounts and subjective applications such as a model of quantitative examination for reasonable gathering improvement and low-carbon improvement viability. Based on this review, these recent technologies are widely used in developed countries such as China, Taiwan, Canada, Iran, Korea, and The USA while in developing countries it is still not broadly utilized. Also, the benchmark shows that we used many research papers with 40 papers increased than the state-of-art paper review in the same subject.
In future work, we will consider some of upcoming AHP purposes that could focus on building expertise managing outlines to find new processes, schemes, customs, and tools essential for implementing knowledge strategies in green building design.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization G.E. and D.K.; methodology, G.E.; validation, A.N. and M.Z.; formal analysis, M.Z. and A.N.; investigation, D.K.; data curation, G.E. and D.K.; writing—original draft preparation, G.E. and M.Z.; writing—review and editing, D.K. and A.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.


This paper was elaborated with the financial support of the research project VEGA 1/0626/22 of the Scientific Grant Agency, the Ministry of Education, Science, Research, and Sport of the Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


CSWCompressed Shopper WasteSNSSpallation Neutron Source
AIArtificial Intelligence AlgorithmsDEAData Envelopment Analysis
GAGenetic AlgorithmsDFUZZYDelphi-Fuzzy Method
MILPMixed Integer Linear ProgrammingFCJFuzzy Comprehensive Judgment
ILPInteger Linear ProgrammingR&DResearch and Development
AHPAnalytic Hierarchy ProcessGRAGrey Relational Analysis
GPGoal ProgrammingANPAnalytic Network Process
QFDQuality Function DeploymentLCALife-Cycle Assessment
LCSALife Cycle Sustainability AssessmentCBAChoosing By Advantages
G-SEEDGreen Standard for Energy and Environment DesignGISGeographic Information System
LCCLife Cycle CostFLFuzzy Logic
ANNArtificial Neural NetworkEBPError Backpropagation
TSTabu SearchDMUsDecision-Making Units
EPCEnergy Performance ContractingIRPInterpretive Ranking Process
KPIsKey Performance IndicatorsCSFsCritical Success Factors
SWOTStrengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and ThreatsEMAEnvironmental Management Accounting
MCDMMulti-Criteria Decision MakingTBLTriple Bottom line
HESHydrogen Energy StorageGSCGreen Supply Chain
EAHPExtended Analytical Hierarchy ProcessFACEMFuzzy-AHP Comprehensive Evaluation Method
BREEAMBritish industrial building and domestic green building.FAHPFuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process
CRSECoastal Reclamation Suitability EvaluationEULEgyptian Universities Library
MCMPMulti-Criteria Mathematical Programming FEAHPFuzzy Extended Analytical Hierarchy Process


  1. Wong, J.K.; Li, H. Application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in multi-criteria analysis of the selection of intelligent building systems. Build. Environ. 2008, 43, 108–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Nassar, N.; AbouRizk, S. Practical application for integrated performance measurement of construction projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2014, 30, 04014027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dutta, K.; Sarthak, S. Architectural space planning using evolutionary computing approaches: A review. Artif. Intell. Rev. 2011, 36, 311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Airaksinen, M.; Matilainen, P. A carbon footprint of an office building. Energies 2011, 4, 1197–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tsikaloudaki, K.; Laskos, K.; Bikas, D. On the establishment of climatic zones in Europe with regard to the energy performance of buildings. Energies 2012, 5, 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wright, C.; Baur, S.; Grantham, K.; Stone, R.B.; Grasman, S.E. Residential energy performance metrics. Energies 2010, 3, 1194–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, L. Building space heating with a solar-assisted heat pump using roof-integrated solar collectors. Energies 2011, 4, 504–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liao, K.S.; Yambem, S.D.; Haldar, A.; Alley, N.J.; Curran, S.A. Designs and architectures for the next generation of organic solar cells. Energies 2010, 3, 1212–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Jacob, B. Lamps for improving the energy efficiency of domestic lighting. Lighting Res. Technol. 2009, 41, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Shaukat, A.K.; Kamal, M.A. Study of visco-elastic properties of shoppers waste for its reuse as construction material. Constr. Build. Mater. 2010, 24, 1340–1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Begum, R.A.; Siwar, C.; Pereira, J.J.; Jaafar, A.H. Attitude and behavioral factors in waste management in the construction industry of Malaysia. Resources. Conserv. Recycl. 2009, 53, 321–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kikegawa, Y.; Genchi, Y.; Yoshikado, H.; Kondo, H. Development of a numerical simulation system toward comprehensive assessments of urban warming countermeasures including their impacts upon the urban buildings’ energy-demands. Appl. Energy 2003, 76, 449–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Deru, M.; Pless, S.; Torcellini, P. BigHorn Home Improvement Center Energy Performance (No. NREL/CP-550-39533); National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  14. Jalalzadeh-Azar, A.A. Experimental Evaluation of a Downsized Residential Air Distribution System: Comfort and Ventilation Effectiveness. ASHRAE Trans. 2007, 113, 313–322. [Google Scholar]
  15. Tzempelikos, A.; Athienitis, A.K. The impact of shading design and control on building cooling and lighting demand. Sol. Energy 2007, 81, 369–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zago, M.; Casalegno, A.; Marchesi, R.; Rinaldi, F. Efficiency analysis of independent and centralized heating systems for residential buildings in Northern Italy. Energies 2011, 4, 2115–2131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Pacheco, R.; Ordóñez, J.; Martínez, G. Energy efficient design of building: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 3559–3573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sailor, D.J. A green roof model for building energy simulation programs. Energy Build. 2008, 40, 1466–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lai, C.M.; Wang, Y.H. Energy-saving potential of building envelope designs in residential houses in Taiwan. Energies 2011, 4, 2061–2076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Roth, K.; Lawrence, T.; Brodrick, J. Double-skin facades. Ashrae J. 2007, 49, 70. [Google Scholar]
  21. Shekarchian, M.; Moghavvemi, M.; Rismanchi, B.; Mahlia, T.M.I.; Olofsson, T. The cost benefit analysis and potential emission reduction evaluation of applying wall insulation for buildings in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 4708–4718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shameri, M.A.; Alghoul, M.A.; Sopian, K.; Zain, M.F.M.; Elayeb, O. Perspectives of double skin façade systems in buildings and energy saving. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 1468–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C.; Ameyaw, E.E.; Owusu, E.K.; Pärn, E.; Edwards, D.J. Review of application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2019, 19, 436–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Harputlugil, T. A research on selecting the green building certification system suitable for Turkey. GRID-Archit. Plan. Des. J. 2019, 2, 25–53. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ilıcalı, E. Sustainable Performance Measurement Model for Urban Regeneration Projects. Ph. D. Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Graduate School of Science Engineering and Technology, Istanbul, Turkey, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  26. Al-Saggaf, A.; Nasir, H.; Hegazy, T. An Analytical Hierarchy Process-based system to evaluate the life-cycle performance of buildings at early design stage. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 31, 101364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Payyanapotta, A.; Thomas, A. An analytical hierarchy based optimization framework to aid sustainable assessment of buildings. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 35, 102003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gu, X. The Analysis of Architecture Design Elements of Jiangnan Traditional Residence Based on AHP. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Guangzhou, China, 2021; Volume 768, p. 012137. [Google Scholar]
  29. Eryürük, Ş.; Varolgüneş, F.K.; Varolgüneş, S. Assessment of stakeholder satisfaction as additive to improve building design quality: AHP-based approach. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2021, 1, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chodnekar, H.; Yadav, P.; Chaturvedi, H. Review and Assessment of Factors Associated with Green Building Rating Systems. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Guangzhou, China, 2021; Volume 795, p. 012033. [Google Scholar]
  31. Alwafi, A.A. Sustainable Material Selection Criteria Framework for Environmental Building Enhancement. Am. J. Civ. Eng. Archit. 2022, 10, 31–44. [Google Scholar]
  32. Piya, S.; Shamsuzzoha, A.; Azizuddin, M.; Al-Hinai, N.; Erdebilli, B. Integrated Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Method to Analyze Green Management Practice in Hospitality Industry in the Sultanate of Oman. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Belay, S.; Goedert, J.; Woldesenbet, A.; Rokooei, S. AHP based multi criteria decision analysis of success factors to enhance decision making in infrastructure construction projects. Cogent Eng. 2022, 9, 2043996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Awad, J.; Jung, C. Extracting the Planning Elements for Sustainable Urban Regeneration in Dubai with AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process). Sustain. Cities Society 2022, 76, 103496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mejjaouli, S. Toward ZEB: A Mathematical Programing-, Simulation-, and AHP-Based Comprehensive Framework for Building Retrofitting. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yadegaridehkordi, E.; Nilashi, M. Moving towards green university: A method of analysis based on multi-criteria decision-making approach to assess sustainability indicators. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 1, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Eryürük, Ş.; Kürüm Varolgüneş, F.; Varolgüneş, S. Assessment of stakeholder satisfaction as additive to improve building design quality: AHP-based approach. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2022, 37, 505–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Li, K.; Duan, T.; Li, Z.; Xiahou, X.; Zeng, N.; Li, Q. Development Path of Construction Industry Internet Platform: An AHP–TOPSIS Integrated Approach. Buildings 2022, 12, 441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yusuf, S.A.; Georgakis, S.A.; Nwagboso, C. Review of modelling, visualisation and artificial intelligent methodologies for built environment applications. Built Hum. Environ. Rev. 2010, 3, 1759–0574. [Google Scholar]
  40. Evins, R. A review of computational optimisation methods applied to sustainable building design. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 22, 230–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Han, T.; Huang, Q.; Zhang, A.; Zhang, Q. Simulation-based decision support tools in the early design stages of a green building—A review. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Karayalcin, I.I. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation; Thomas, L., Ed.; SAATY McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980; p. xiii+287. [Google Scholar]
  43. Evangelos, T.; Stuart, H.M. Using the AHP for Decision Making in Engineering Applications: Some Challenges. Int. J. Eng. 1995, 2, 34–44. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wei, B.; Zhang, B.; Luo, W. Research on assessment method of green buildings in China. Energy Sustain. 2010, 43949, 65–73. [Google Scholar]
  45. Zarchi, A.K.; Marthandan, G.; Eshaghi, M. An Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) based Approach for Promoting Green Buildings among the Citizens of Next Generation in Malaysia 2012. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Economics, Business and Marketing Management IPEDR Volume 29 (2012), Singapore, 26–28 February 2012; IACSIT Press: Singapore, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  46. Arroyo, P.; Tommelein, I.D.; Ballard, G. Comparing multi-criteria decision-making methods to select sustainable alternatives in the AEC industry. In Proceedings of the ICSDEC 2012, Developing the Frontier of Sustainable Design, Engineering, and Construction, Fort Worth, TX, USA, 7–9 November 2012; pp. 869–876. [Google Scholar]
  47. Yang, Y.; Suo, C. AHP entropy method based satisfaction evaluation of rural residence energy saving transformation. J. Chem. Pharm. Res. 2014, 6, 566–570. [Google Scholar]
  48. Choi, Y.J.; Lhee, S.C. Improvement Directions for the G-SEED System from the Resident’s Perspective-Focused on Certification Assessment Criteria for Apartment Buildings. KIEAE J. 2014, 14, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Tahmasebi, E.; Jalali, M.; Gharehghashlo, M.; Nicknamfar, M.; Bahmanpour, H. Urban park site selection at local scale by using geographic information system (GIS) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Eur. J. Exp. Biol. 2014, 4, 357–365. [Google Scholar]
  50. Goussous, J.; Al-Refaie, A. Evaluation of a green building design using LCC and AHP techniques. Life Sci. J. 2014, 11, 29–40. [Google Scholar]
  51. Yu, W.; Li, B.; Yang, X.; Wang, Q. A development of a rating method and weighting system for green store buildings in China. Renew. Energy 2015, 73, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Katunsky, D.; Korjenic, A.; Katunska, J.; Lopusniak, M.; Korjenic, S.; Doroudiani, S. Analysis of thermal energy demand and saving in industrial buildings: A case study in Slovakia. Build. Environ. 2013, 67, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hui-Jing, W. Evaluation system for different assessment index in green building system based on group experts analytic hierarchy process. In Proceedings of the 2014 7th International Conference on Intelligent Computation Technology and Automation, Hong Kong, China, 25–26 October 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2014; pp. 244–247. [Google Scholar]
  54. Doczy, R.; AbdelRazig, Y. Green buildings case study analysis using AHP and MAUT in sustainability and costs. J. Archit. Eng. 2017, 23, 05017002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Syahrul, S.; Arifin, A.; Datuk, A.; Almu, F.F. Pengembangan Bahan Ajar Berorientasi Literasi Kearifan Lokal di Mas Al-Hikmah Soe Nusa Tenggara Timur. JPM J. Pemberdaya. Masy. 2019, 4, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Harputlugil, T.; Gültekin, A.T.; Prins, M.; Topcu, Y.I. Architectural Design Quality Assessment Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Case Study. METU J. Fac. Archit. 2014, 31, 139–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lee, M.H.; Cheon, D.Y.; Han, S.H. An AHP Analysis on the Habitability Performance toward the Modernized Hanok in Korea. Buildings 2019, 9, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Braglia, M.; Gabbrielli, R.; Miconi, D. Material handling device selection in cellular manufacturing. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 2001, 10, 303–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Akgunduz, A.; Zetu, D.; Banerjee, P.; Liang, D. Evaluation of sub-component alternatives in product design processes. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2002, 18, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Korpela, J.; Kyläheiko, K.; Lehmusvaara, A.; Tuominen, M. An analytic approach to production capacity allocation and supply chain design. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2002, 78, 187–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Stannard, B.; Zahir, S.; Rosenbloom, E.S. Application of analytic hierarchy process in multi-objective mixed integer programming for airlift capacity planning. Asia-Pac. J. Oper. Res. 2006, 23, 61–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhou, Z.; Cheng, S.; Hua, B. Supply chain optimization of continuous process industries with sustainability considerations. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2000, 24, 1151–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Badri, M.A. A combined AHP–GP model for quality control systems. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2001, 72, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kwak, N.K.; Lee, C.W. Business process reengineering for health-care system using multicriteria mathematical programming. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2002, 140, 447–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Radcliffe, L.L.; Schniederjans, M.J. Trust evaluation: An AHP and multi-objective programming approach. Manag. Decis. 2003, 41, 587–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Chuang, P.T. Combining the analytic hierarchy process and quality function deployment for a location decision from a requirement perspective. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2001, 18, 842–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kwong, C.K.; Bai, H. Determining the importance weights for the customer requirements in QFD using a fuzzy AHP with an extent analysis approach. Iie Trans. 2003, 35, 619–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Partovi, F.Y. An analytic model for locating facilities strategically. Omega 2006, 34, 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hanumaiah, N.; Ravi, B.; Mukherjee, N.P. Rapid hard tooling process selection using QFD-AHP methodology. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2006, 17, 332–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Varolgüneş, F.K.; Canan, F.; del Río-Rama, M.d.l.C.; Oliveira, C. Design of a Thermal Hotel Based on AHP-QFD Methodology. Water 2021, 13, 2109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kuo, R.J.; Chi, S.C.; Kao, S.S. A decision support system for selecting convenience store location through integration of fuzzy AHP and artificial neural network. Comput. Ind. 2002, 47, 199–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Chang, P.T.; Lo, Y.T. Modelling of job-shop scheduling with multiple quantitative and qualitative objectives and a GA/TS mixture approach. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2001, 14, 367–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Chan, F.T.S.; Chung, S.H. Multi-criteria genetic optimization for distribution network problems. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2004, 24, 517–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Chan, F.T.; Chung, S.H. A multi-criterion genetic algorithm for order distribution in a demand driven supply chain. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2004, 17, 339–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Chan, F.T.; Chung, S.H.; Wadhwa, S. A heuristic methodology for order distribution in a demand driven collaborative supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2004, 42, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Chan, F.T.; Chung, S.H. Multicriterion genetic optimization for due date assigned distribution network problems. Decis. Support. Syst. 2005, 39, 661–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Chan, F.T.; Chung, S.H.; Wadhwa, S. A hybrid genetic algorithm for production and distribution. Omega 2005, 33, 345–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Chan, F.T.; Chung, S.H.; Choy, K.L. Optimization of order fulfillment in distribution network problems. J. Intell. Manuf. 2006, 17, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Moussaoui, F.; Cherrared, M.; Kacimi, M.A.; Belarbi, R. A genetic algorithm to optimize consistency ratio in AHP method for energy performance assessment of residential buildings—Application of top-down and bottom-up approaches in Algerian case study. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 42, 622–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kurttila, M.; Pesonen, M.; Kangas, J.; Kajanus, M. Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis—a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case. For. Policy Econ. 2000, 1, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kajanus, M.; Kangas, J.; Kurttila, M. The use of value focused thinking and the A’WOT hybrid method in tourism management. Tour. Manag. 2004, 25, 499–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Shrestha, R.K.; Alavalapati, J.R.; Kalmbacher, R.S. Exploring the potential for silvopasture adoption in south-central Florida: An application of SWOT–AHP method. Agric. Syst. 2004, 81, 185–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Masozera, M.K.; Alavalapati, J.R.; Jacobson, S.K.; Shrestha, R.K. Assessing the suitability of community-based management for the Nyungwe Forest Reserve, Rwanda. For. Policy Econ. 2006, 8, 206–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Shinno, H.; Yoshioka, H.; Marpaung, S.; Hachiga, S. Quantitative SWOT analysis on global competitiveness of machine tool industry. J. Eng. Des. 2006, 17, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Takamura, Y.; Tone, K. A comparative site evaluation study for relocating Japanese government agencies out of Tokyo. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2003, 37, 85–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Yang, T.; Kuo, C. A hierarchical AHP/DEA methodology for the facilities layout design problem. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2003, 147, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Saen, R.F.; Memariani, A.; Lotfi, F.H. Determining relative efficiency of slightly non-homogeneous decision making units by data envelopment analysis: A case study in IROST. Appl. Math. Comput. 2005, 165, 313–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ertay, T.; Ruan, D.; Tuzkaya, U.R. Integrating data envelopment analysis and analytic hierarchy for the facility layout design in manufacturing systems. Inf. Sci. 2006, 176, 237–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Xu, P.; Chan, E.H. ANP model for sustainable Building Energy Efficiency Retrofit (BEER) using Energy Performance Contracting (EPC) for hotel buildings in China. Habitat Int. 2013, 37, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Sarkis, J.; Meade, L.M.; Presley, A.R. Incorporating sustainability into contractor evaluation and team formation in the built environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 31, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Aydi, A.; Zairi, M.; Dhia, H.B. Minimization of environmental risk of landfill site using fuzzy logic, analytical hierarchy process, and weighted linear combination methodology in a geographic information system environment. Environ. Earth Sci. 2013, 68, 1375–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Hossaini, N.; Reza, B.; Akhtar, S.; Sadiq, R.; Hewage, K. AHP based life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework: A case study of six storey wood frame and concrete frame buildings in Vancouver. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2015, 58, 1217–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Lu, H.; Phdungsilp, A.; Martinac, I. A Study of the Design Criteria Affecting Energy Demand in New Building Clusters Using Fuzzy AHP. In Sustainability in Energy and Buildings; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 955–963. [Google Scholar]
  94. Lee, S.K.; Mogi, G.; Hui, K.S. A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP)/data envelopment analysis (DEA) hybrid model for efficiently allocating energy R&D resources: In the case of energy technologies against high oil prices. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 21, 347–355. [Google Scholar]
  95. Chan, H.K.; Wang, X.; Raffoni, A. An integrated approach for green design: Life-cycle, fuzzy AHP and environmental management accounting. Br. Account. Rev. 2014, 46, 344–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Lan, S.H.; Sheng, T.C. The Study on Key Factors of Influencing Consumers’ Purchase of Green Buildings: Application of Two-stage Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. Int. Bus. Res. 2014, 7, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Feng, L.; Zhu, X.; Sun, X. Assessing coastal reclamation suitability based on a fuzzy-AHP comprehensive evaluation framework: A case study of Lianyungang, China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 89, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Donevska, K.R.; Gorsevski, P.V.; Jovanovski, M.; Peševski, I. Regional non-hazardous landfill site selection by integrating fuzzy logic, AHP and geographic information systems. Environ. Earth Sci. 2012, 67, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Seong, H.Y.; Majid, Z.A.; Ismail, F. Solving Second-Order Delay Differential Equations by Direct Adams-Moulton Method. Math. Probl. Eng. 2013, 2013, 261240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Han, F. AHP-based fuzzy comprehensive evaluation for urbanization of mountainous area in Xianning. In Advanced Materials Research; Trans Tech Publications Ltd.: Kapellweg, Switzerland, 2015; Volume 1073, pp. 1331–1336. [Google Scholar]
  101. Hapsari, M.A.; Subiyanto, S. Fuzzy AHP based optimal design building-attached photovoltaic system for academic campus. Int. J. Photoenergy 2020, 2020, 6508329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Li, Z.; Chow, D.H.C.; Ding, D.; Ying, J.; Hu, Y.; Chen, H.; Zhao, W. The development and realisation of a multi-faceted system for green building planning: A case in Ningbo using the fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. Energy Build. 2020, 226, 110371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Zhou, Y.; Cai, J.; Xu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Jiang, C.; Zhang, Q. Operation performance evaluation of green public buildings with AHP-fuzzy synthetic assessment method based on cloud model. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 1027, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Akadiri, P.O.; Olomolaiye, P.O.; Chinyio, E.A. Multi-criteria evaluation model for the selection of sustainable materials for building projects. Autom. Constr. 2013, 30, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Lee, A.H.; Kang, H.Y.; Lin, C.Y.; Chen, J.S. A novel fuzzy quality function deployment framework. Qual. Technol. Quant. Manag. 2017, 14, 44–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Hsueh, S.L.; Yan, M.R. Enhancing sustainable community developments a multi-criteria evaluation model for energy efficient project selection. Energy Procedia 2011, 5, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Liu, K.S.; Hsueh, S.L.; Wu, W.C.; Chen, Y.L. A DFuzzy-DAHP decision-making model for evaluating energy-saving design strategies for residential buildings. Energies 2012, 5, 4462–4480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Liu, L.; Zhang, T. Application of FCJ in the evaluation of low-carbon construction program. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013, 357, 2913–2916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Hsueh, S.L.; Lee, J.R.; Chen, Y.L. DFAHP multicriteria risk assessment model for redeveloping derelict public buildings. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 2013, 17, 333–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Alapure, G.M.; George, A.; Bhattacharya, S.P. Delphi-AHP-Fuzzy computational approach to sustainability assessment model and Indian traditional built forms. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2014, 3, 1330–1335. [Google Scholar]
  111. Gumus, A.T.; Yayla, A.Y.; Çelik, E.; Yildiz, A. A combined fuzzy-AHP and fuzzy-GRA methodology for hydrogen energy storage method selection in Turkey. Energies 2013, 6, 3017–3032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Wang, Y.; Xi, C.; Zhang, S.; Yu, D.; Zhang, W.; Li, Y. A combination of extended fuzzy AHP and fuzzy GRA for government E-tendering in hybrid fuzzy environment. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 123675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Wang, J.L.; Ma, R.H.; Dong, X.H. Research on energy saving of appliances with evaluation method and application of appliances green degree based on fuzzy-EAHP. Adv. Mater. Res. 2014, 977, 155–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Mangla, S.K.; Kumar, P.; Barua, M.K. Flexible decision modeling for evaluating the risks in green supply chain using fuzzy AHP and IRP methodologies. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 2015, 16, 19–35.10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Saaty, T.L. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process; RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  116. Ilicali, E.; Giritli, F.H. Measuring the environmental performance of urban regeneration projects using AHP methodology. ITU 2020, 17, 123–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Wei, B.; Luo, W.; Zhang, B. Assessment Indexes and Systems of Environmental Quality of Green Buildings in China. Energy Sustain. 2010, 43949, 163–169. [Google Scholar]
  118. Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Lou, E.C.W.; Wong, P.F.; Wood, R.; Che-Ani, A.I. Developing weighting system for refurbishment building assessment scheme in Malaysia through analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Energy Policy 2018, 112, 280–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The analytic hierarchy process flowchart.
Figure 1. The analytic hierarchy process flowchart.
Energies 15 04490 g001
Figure 2. AHP graphical information (a) AHP objectives, (b) the AHP during years, (c) the AHP studies in countries, (d) the AHP and its combination schemes and (e) AHP Applications.
Figure 2. AHP graphical information (a) AHP objectives, (b) the AHP during years, (c) the AHP studies in countries, (d) the AHP and its combination schemes and (e) AHP Applications.
Energies 15 04490 g002aEnergies 15 04490 g002b
Table 1. Summary of all AHPs for sustainability and building design optimization schemes 2000–2021.
Table 1. Summary of all AHPs for sustainability and building design optimization schemes 2000–2021.
AHPindoor and outdoor environmentEnvironmentBing et al.2010China
Green BuildingsEnvironmentAli et al.2012Malaysia
characteristics of ‘viable’ methodsMethodsArroyo et al.2012Theoretical
energy savingEnergyYang and Suo 2014China
apartment buildingEnvironment, EnergyChoi et al.2014China
site of urban parksEnvironmentElahe et al.2014Iran
aspects of green technologyEnergy, WaterJawdat et al.2014Amman
green storesEnergyWei et al.2015China
industrial building directionEnvironmentWang 2014China
Construction ManagementConstruction ManagementAmos et al.2004–2014Theoretical
Sustainability and CostsEnvironmentRyan et al.2017Florida
Sustainability assessmentRefurbishmentSyahrul et al.2018Malaysia
Green building & sustainability studiesEnvironmentFatma et al.2019Turkey
Habitability Performance and SustainabilityEnvironmentHyang et al.2019Korea
Sustainability and CostsEnvironmental efficiencyRyan et al.2020Florida
life-cycle performance Design assessmentAl-Saggaf et al.2020Theoretical
sustainable assessment Energy and resoursesPayyanapott and Thomas2020India
assessment plan componentsstructural plan practice Xingkai2021China
building qualityassessment framework Eryürük et al.2021Theoretical
building rating frameworksgreen buildingChodnekar et al.2021India
Selecting building materialsConstructionAbdulhafeez2022Saudi Arabia
Decision makingInfrastructure constructionSolomon et al.2022Ethiopian
planning elements determenationSustainable urban regenerationJihad et al.2022Dubai
Zero-energy buildingsBuilding RetrofittingSobhi2022Saudi Arabia
EnergysustainabilityYadegaridehkordi et al.2022Malaysia
Stakeholder satisfactionBuilding design qualityŞule et al.2022Theoritical
AHP–ILPMaterial selectionManufacturingBraglia et al.2001Theoretical
Sub-component selectionManufacturingAkgunduz et al.2002Theoretical
AHP–MILPTransportation route selectionLogisticsKorpela et al.2002China
Airlift task selectionGovernmentStannard and Zahir2006Canada
AHP–GPScheduling selectionLogisticsZhou et al.2000China
Customer data method selectionServiceBadri2001Emirate
IT-based project selectionHealth-careKwak and Lee.2002Korea
Trust factor selectionIndustryRadclive and Schniederjans2003USA
AHP–QFDFacility location selectionLogisticsChuang.2001Theoretical
Product design selectionManufacturingKwong and Bai 2003Theoretical
Facility location selectionLogisticsPartovi2006Theoretical
Rapid process selectionManufacturingHanumaiah et al.2006Theoretical
building designInhabitant thermal Varolgüne et al.2021Turkey
AHP–ANNConvenience location selectionLogisticsKuo et al.2002Taiwan
AHP–GAJob schedule selectionManufacturingChang and Lo.2001Theoretical
route selectionLogisticsChan and Chung.2004Theoretical
route selectionLogisticsChan and Chung.2004China
route selectionLogisticsChan et al.2004China
route selectionLogisticsChan et al.2005China
route selectionLogisticsChan and Chung.2005Theoretical
route selectionLogisticsChan et al.2006Theoretical
Energy assessmentEnergyFahem et al.2017Algerian
AHP–SWOTevaluation in forest planningEnvironmentKurttila et al.2000Finland
assessment in rural tourism planningTourismKajanus et al.2004Finland, Germany
evaluation adoptionAgricultureShrestha et al.2004USA
evaluation planningEnvironmentMasozera et al.2006Rwanda
evaluation analysisManufacturingShinno et al.2006Japan
AHP–DEAGovernment location selectionGovernmentTakamura and Tone.2003Japan
Facility layout selectionManufacturingYang and Kuo.2003Taiwan
Performance evaluationGovernmentSaen et al.2005Iran
Facility layout selectionManufacturingErtay et al.2006Theoretical
AHP–ANPBuilding Energy Efficiency EnvironmentPengpeng.2013China
built environmentEnvironmentJoseph et al.2012Theoretical
AHP–GISGreen Store BuildingsLandscapeWei2015China
AHP-LCSAmid-rise buildingsEnvironmentNavid et al.2014Canada
AHP-Fuzzylow-carbon ConstructionsEmissionLing et al.2013China
Energy Demand in New BuildingEnergyHai et al.2013Theoretical
Green design: env. ManagementEnvironmentChan et al.2014China
Green Buildings ApplicationEnvironmentLan et al.2014Taiwan
Assessing coastal sustainabilityEnvironment, Socio-ecoFen et al.2014China
GISEnvironment, economicKaterina et al.2015Macedonia
illuminating systemLightYong et al.2015China
energy R&D resourcesEnergySeong et al.2015Korea
Mountainous AreaEconomicTang et al.2015China
Academic buildingEnergyArdisa et al.2020Indonesia
green buildingbuilding locationLi et al.2020China
green building Environment, EnergyYan et al.2021China
EAHP-FuzzySustainable materialsEnvironmentPeter2013Theoretical
Energy Saving EnergyJian2014China
AHP-Fuzzy–DelphiSustainable developmentEnergySung et al.2011Taiwan
Energy designEnvironment, EnergyKuang et al.2012Taiwan
public buildingsEnvironmentSung2013Theoretical
Sustainability assessmentEnvironmentAlapure et al.2014India
gas power plantGasSaffarian2015Turkey
AHP-Fuzzy-GRAEnergy storage selectionEnvironment, EnergyAlev et al.2013Theoretical
AHP-Fuzzy-IRPRisk factors of green supply chainManufacturingSachin et al.2015China
AHP–TOPSISSmart constructionInternet platformsKang et al.2022Theoritical
Fuzzy AHP-TOPSISGreen score measurementHospitality IndustrySujan et al.2022Oman
Table 2. Comparison between our study vs. ref. [23].
Table 2. Comparison between our study vs. ref. [23].
No. of PapersRef. [23]Our Study
Scope of workConstructionsGreen Buildings
No. of papers77117
Covered of Years2004–20142000–2022
No. of Countries2217
The highest year of publication20072014
The location of highest conducted research USAChina
PublishedTaylor & FrancisMDPI
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Elshafei, G.; Katunský, D.; Zeleňáková, M.; Negm, A. Opportunities for Using Analytical Hierarchy Process in Green Building Optimization. Energies 2022, 15, 4490.

AMA Style

Elshafei G, Katunský D, Zeleňáková M, Negm A. Opportunities for Using Analytical Hierarchy Process in Green Building Optimization. Energies. 2022; 15(12):4490.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Elshafei, Ghada, Dušan Katunský, Martina Zeleňáková, and Abdelazim Negm. 2022. "Opportunities for Using Analytical Hierarchy Process in Green Building Optimization" Energies 15, no. 12: 4490.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop