Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach COPRAS for Developing Sustainable Building Practices in the European Region

Abstract

Sustainable building practices face various problematic areas in the European region, such as climate change, high initial costs for sustainable materials and technologies, regulation, sourcing sustainable materials, performance, staff competencies, energy efficiency, waste management, environmental quality and impact, community perception and awareness, integration with existing infrastructure, and others. In order to address these problems, it is essential to adopt appropriate methods and techniques that facilitate informed decision-making and the creation of sustainable strategies for developing building practices. One of the methods for analyzing and developing sustainable building practices is multi-criteria assessment methods that allow for the consideration of multiple criteria simultaneously, providing a more holistic view of the alternatives being assessed. These methods enhance the transparency of the decision-making process by clearly defining the criteria and weights used in the evaluation, and they can be adapted to various building practices. In this study, the COPRAS (Complex Proportional Assessment) method was chosen which is a multi-criteria decision-making method that provides a systematic and quantitative approach for evaluating and ranking alternatives based on multiple criteria and ensures a more objective and data-driven decision-making process. This study aims to analyze the development peculiarities of sustainable building practices in the European region by applying the COPRAS approach and method. In this study, a scientific literature review, the COPRAS method, and expert evaluation were applied. The results of the expert evaluation showed that confidence in the quality and structural properties of secondary materials (traceability) criteria received the highest weight among other criteria. Applying the comprehensive COPRAS method highlighted that assessing the set of criteria is vital for the construction and manufacturing sectors. These findings could be significant for policymakers in developing sustainable building practices.

1. Introduction

Environmental challenges and climate changes present an existential threat globally, including in the European region. Developing sustainable building practices might ensure less pollution and reduce climate change challenges. Therefore, in 2024, the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) adopted its judgment regarding climate protection as a European Fundamental Right under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and recognized the direct connection between climate change and human rights violations. The European Union (EU) has implemented various policies and initiatives, such as the Emissions Trading System (ETS) and the European Green Deal (EGD), to promote sustainability and achieve climate neutrality. The European Green Deal (EGD) should be conceived as a reallocation mechanism. It promotes investment shifts and labor substitution in vital economic sectors and supports the most vulnerable segments of society throughout the decarbonization process [1]. It should be noted that changes are important in all spheres, but attention must be paid to sustainable building practices, as statistical analyses show that there is a lack of sustainable solutions in this area. Therefore, there are potential challenges from the project management perspective when managing sustainable building processes, as well as further difficulties in evaluating the strategies to adopt for addressing the challenging factors of sustainable building practices.

The construction sector significantly impacts the environment through greenhouse gas emissions, resource consumption, and waste generation. It is responsible for 5–12% of total national greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. Buildings and construction account for 40% of total energy consumption, making them the single most important end-user of final energy in the EU. The construction industry consumes approximately 50% of all resource extractions in the EU, with around 50 billion tons of sand and gravel used worldwide. Additionally, the sector is responsible for over 35% of total waste generation in the EU. These statistics highlight the significant environmental footprint of the construction sector and underscore the urgent need for sustainable building practices to mitigate these impacts. The international recognition of the environmental impacts of the construction sector, such as greenhouse gas emissions, resource consumption, and waste generation, underscores the urgent need for sustainable building practices. Global initiatives and policies aimed at addressing these challenges include the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which emphasize the importance of sustainable cities and communities, responsible consumption and production, and climate action. The European Union’s European Green Deal (EGD) is a significant initiative that promotes investment shifts and labor substitution in vital economic sectors and supports the most vulnerable segments of society throughout the decarbonization process. These global initiatives highlight the critical need for sustainable building practices to mitigate the environmental impacts of the construction sector and promote a more sustainable future.

The EU is undertaking initiatives to achieve the goals set out in the EGD. Some initiatives focus on climate change and reducing carbon emissions in all sectors, including building practices, engaging with global partners, and encouraging their initiatives. The EU plans to accomplish a clean and efficient energy transition and reduce GHG emissions. One of the initiative’s goals is to invite and create low-emission technologies and increase sustainable products and services. Additionally, the EU aims to promote research and innovation, which would drive transformations as well as mobilize funding to support sustainable investments, thus improving people’s daily lives by enhancing sustainability practices in buildings and public spaces. A key area of EU policies for environmental sustainability is sustainable construction, which follows sustainable building practices. Adopting sustainable construction by the construction industry could reduce the environmental impact of a built asset throughout its whole lifecycle and lead to sustainable national development [2].

While researchers focus on the European region and what steps it has taken and should yet take when moving towards a sustainable future in building, especially when wanting to achieve energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy resources [3,4,5], to address the complex challenges of sustainable building practices, it is essential to adopt multi-criteria decision-making methods that can evaluate various criteria simultaneously and provide a comprehensive assessment framework. These methods, such as the COPRAS (Complex Proportional Assessment) method, are crucial for informed decision-making as they integrate both quantitative and qualitative criteria, ensuring a balanced and systematic evaluation. The COPRAS method stands out for its ability to rank alternatives based on multiple criteria, enhancing the accuracy and reliability of the study’s findings. By applying the COPRAS method, stakeholders can make more informed decisions that promote sustainability, optimize resource allocation, and minimize environmental impact in the construction sector.

The COPRAS method was chosen in this study because it is the most widely used approach for researching sustainable building practices, leading to more informed sustainability decision-making. It fosters sustainability by assessing the environmental impact of the techniques and materials used and optimizing resource allocation. This approach helps ensure cost-effectiveness and environmental sustainability in building projects. This study aims to analyze the development peculiarities of sustainable building practices in the European region by applying the COPRAS approach and method.

In this study, a scientific literature review, the COPRAS method, and expert evaluation were applied. Applying the comprehensive COPRAS method showed that assessing the set of criteria is vital for the construction and manufacturing sectors.

2. Construction Industry and Pollution

The construction industry is considered to be one of the main sources of environmental pollution. This sector is responsible for 5–12% of total national GHG emissions in the EU. It can be seen what other sectors are responsible for GHG production in the EU in Figure 1.

Buildings and construction are also responsible for 40% of the total energy consumption [7] and are the single most important end-user of final energy in the EU (Figure 2). In the construction industry, GHG emissions can occur directly or indirectly. Direct emissions occur from onsite combustion for heating or, for example, from dust during construction and vehicular exhaust, where these emissions include So2, Co2, and No2 [8]. Indirect emissions, on the other hand, are incurred through power plants generating electricity using solid, liquid, and gas fossil fuels, as well as gas flaring [9]. Hence, there are two main approaches to GHG emission elimination: firstly, targeting the amount of carbon produced and energy consumed for in-use buildings, and secondly, trying to decarbonize and/or reduce the production of materials and energy consumption in construction [10]. The Green Deal is set to employ both of these approaches to achieve its goal of climate neutrality.

Moreover, the construction industry consumes many resources; in the EU, it accounts for approximately 50% of all resource extractions. Around 50 billion tons of sand and gravel are used worldwide. They are the main components of concrete and are essential for all types of construction work. Most of the sand used in construction is mined from fluvial or coastal areas with several severe environmental impacts risk in terms of various rivers’ or beaches’ and islands’ ecosystems preservation and hydrological balance [7]. Moreover, the environmental impact may be multiplied if the aforementioned concrete is not disposed of correctly, which would mean a loss of potentially useful materials. This irresponsible consumption of natural resources would lead to even more extractions and a bigger negative impact on the mining areas. The construction sector is also responsible for over 35% of total waste generation in the EU.

The waste occurs when buildings are constructed, renovated, and demolished. The main way to make this process more sustainable is to alter the building design stage and create waste management plans. A significant amount of waste is generated if poor design concepts and decisions were implemented. On the other hand, poor waste disposal may be of concern if, before the construction work commenced, plans for recycling waste materials were not made, and the types of waste generated were not identified, and the procedures of handling, recycling, and disposing of waste were not established [12]. Industrial symbiosis offers a relevant opportunity to maximize resource value in the built environment by combining industrial ecology, recycling, use of scraps, waste materials, and by-products [13].

However, the division of the proportion of construction waste generated between different European countries varies quite significantly, as seen in Figure 3 below.

Some deviations may come from the different waste reporting practices set up in European countries. The countries with high reported figures may include high amounts of excavated material, such as naturally occurring soil and stones, generated during construction activities (mostly in public works), which in other countries are usually not included in the recycling rate calculation. On the other hand, the countries where reported waste amounts are seemingly low may reflect a lack of control by public authorities and, therefore, an incomplete reporting of the construction waste generated [14]. Figure 3 shows that this may also be the case in Lithuania.

Seeing the effects building and construction have on the environment around the world, there has been a search for solutions to make this industry more environmentally friendly so that it would be GHG-neutral, the energy and resources would be used efficiently, and the waste would be recycled or disposed properly.

One such solution is proposed for EU buildings with nearly zero energy (NZEBs). The concept of Nearly Zero Energy Buildings (NZEBs) is introduced in relation to environmental indicators for buildings because NZEBs represent a significant step towards achieving sustainability in the construction sector. NZEBs are designed to have very high energy performance, using nearly zero or very low amounts of energy, with the majority of this energy generated onsite or locally from renewable sources. This approach directly addresses the environmental impact of buildings by reducing their energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. NZEB describes buildings with a very high energy performance, which would use nearly zero or a very low amount of energy. The majority of this energy would then be generated onsite or locally from renewable energy sources. The directive regulating buildings energy performance established that all newly built buildings would have to be NZEBs by 31 December 2020 [4].

Environmental indicators for buildings typically include metrics such as energy efficiency, carbon emissions, resource consumption, and waste generation. By focusing on NZEBs, we can significantly improve these indicators. For instance, NZEBs contribute to lower carbon emissions and reduced energy consumption, which are critical factors in mitigating climate change. Additionally, integrating renewable energy sources in NZEBs supports transitioning to a more sustainable energy system.

Moreover, the EU has set ambitious goals for climate neutrality and sustainable development, and NZEBs are a key component of these strategies. The directive regulating energy performance of buildings established that all newly built buildings will have to be NZEBs. This directive highlights the importance of NZEBs in achieving the EU’s environmental and sustainability targets, supporting the overall sustainability of the construction sector.

However, 35% of EU buildings are over 50 years old, and 90% were built before 1990. These buildings, hence, present a challenge when moving towards a sustainable future. Some of them may be considered for demolition while others are protected, or it is more sustainable to renovate them. Though the wave of renovation points boosts the low present rate (for EU Member States 0.4–1.2%), the renovation of NZEBs remains the critical challenge for the region of Europe. The importance of this question is also underlined in the 2018 update for the energy efficiency Directives EPBD (The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive) and EED (Energy Efficiency Directive). Regarding the following update, the EU Member States are supposed to ensure a completed strategy to achieve a highly efficient stock of decarbonized buildings by 2050 and efficient renovation of old buildings into NZEBs [15].

However, even if all buildings in the EU became NZEBs, it would only cover one of the objectives when making building and construction environmentally friendly, and the emissions of GHGs during the construction, waste disposal, and recycling, as well as recourse extraction, would not be taken into consideration. Hence, it is critical to show what other considerations in the building should be made to make the transition towards a climate-neutral Europe as fast and efficient as possible in the building and construction sector.

3. Legal Framework and Legal Disputes

This section provides context and background to illustrate the challenges encountered in implementing sustainable building practices. This section outlines the legal regulations and policies that govern sustainable building practices in the EU, as well as the legal disputes that have arisen concerning these regulations.

The first part presents legal regulations and policies, and the second analyzes legal disputes.

3.1. Legal Regulation

Sustainable building practices have to be aligned with legal regulations, even though the packages of different laws have been updated.

The EGD reforms the EU to a contemporary one with adequate resources and a competitive economy to overcome climate change challenges. The European Commission (EC) implements different climate, energy, transport, and taxation policies to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030. Recently, a package of different laws, such as regulations, directives, and political agreements, was adopted to implement EGD policy (as specified in

Table 1. Recently taken actions in connection with the EGD [16].

Action	Subject Matter
Regulation on nature restoration (2024/1991)	✓ Restoration measures to be area-based and effective; ✓ Jointly covers 20% of sea areas and 20% of land areas by 2030; ✓ The needs of restoration should be met in all ecosystems by 2050.
Directive on repair of goods (2024/1799)	✓ Repair of goods; ✓ Provide a high level of consumer and environmental protection.
Regulation strengthening net-zero technology manufacturing ecosystem in Europe (2024/1735)	✓ Internal market functioning improvement; ✓ Establish and to ensure sustainable, secured net-zero technologies supply; ✓ Safeguard resilience; ✓ Achieve targets of climate neutrality objective.
Regulation for transport network (2024/1679)	✓ Build a reliable, seamless, and high-quality transport network; ✓ Ensure sustainable connectivity across Europe;
Regulation on CO2 emission performance standards (2024/1610)	✓ Emissions reduction of 45% by 2030; ✓ Emissions reduction of 65% by 2035; ✓ Emissions reduction of 90% by 2040.
Regulation on deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure (2023/1804)	✓ Deploy publicly accessible alternative fuels infrastructure for road vehicles; ✓ Common rules for user information, data provision, and payment requirements in connection to adopting delegated acts; ✓ Ensure infrastructure interoperability by mandating technical specifications and planning and reporting requirements.
Directive on performance of buildings energy (2024/1275)	✓ Reduce emissions and energy use in buildings; ✓ Reduce the overall energy use of buildings across the EU.
Directive empowering for the green transition consumers (2024/825)	✓ Internal market for proper functioning; ✓ Environmental protection and high level of consumer protection; ✓ Ensure the green transition progresses.
Regulation on fluorinated greenhouse gases (2024/573)	✓ Containment, reclamation, use, recycling, recovery, and destruction of fluorinated greenhouse gases; ✓ Control their import, export, subsequent supply, and placing them on the market.

).

The recent revision of legislation regarding making the EU’s economy sustainable indicates the targets, impact, and integration of turning climate and environmental challenges into opportunities across all policy areas. In 2019, new underlines were drawn in connection with supporting the circular economy EC Report on the enforcement of the Circular Economy Action Plan, where construction and demolition were identified as one of the five priority areas, and sustainability and circularity should be evaluated over the whole lifecycle of a building (EC Report SWD (2019)90) [17]. Sustainable building practices covers demolition of construction and successful construction waste management.

Despite the EC’s initiative, it failed to ensure the collection of waste and targets of recycling indicated in the Directive of Waste Framework (2008/98/EC) in general. The EC decided to launch infringement proceedings against each country, and a formal notice letter has been sent. The EC assessment identifies that EU Member States (18 from 27) are at risk of overlooking recycling and re-use targets for municipal waste management, and (10 from 27) are also at risk of overlooking packaging waste recycling (EC Report SWD (2023)188) [18]. The EC indicated possible actions to improve equipment to expand waste processing facilities for remaking municipal waste and to pay attention to the higher levels of the waste hierarchy.

In the cases of Estonia (EC Report SWD (2023)180) [19] and Lithuania (EC Report SWD (2023)188) [18] actions such as supplementing centralized biowaste treatment with decentralized composting solutions such as home composting and community composting are recommended; in the cases of Poland (EC Report SWD (2023)196) [20], Portugal (EC Report SWD (2023)197 [21]), and Latvia (EC Report SWD (2023)187 [22]), actions such as increasing treatment capacity for biowaste to fully cover the generated biowaste and support home-composting are recommend, together with recommended proper economic aid to encourage management of waste linked with the higher steps of the waste hierarchy to all five above-mentioned Member States. More attention should be paid to the waste hierarchy: the fifth level is disposal, the fourth is recovery, for example energy recovery, the third is recycling, the second is preparation for re-use, and the first level starts with prevention. Furthermore, the hierarchy of waste essentially indicates the preference method of what creates the prime aggregate environmental selection and policy together with legislation in waste management.

According to the EC, the EU Member States failed to follow the Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste (94/62/EC), which required that between 55% and 80% of all packaging waste be recycled. To recycle more waste, it would be helpful to approve legislation for EU Member States that will make producers and importers more responsible for the waste from their products or goods. There are many question marks leading to legal complications that surround the legal regulation and implementation of the Waste Framework Directive. EU Member States should take implementation actions to update the legal framework to achieve the EU policies’ goals.

3.2. Legal Disputes

According to our research, there have been cases discussed at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the Waste Framework Directive and at the ECtHR concerning the harm caused by climate change.

In the light of EU law in the case of Sydhavnens Sten & Grus v Kobenhavns Kommune, the CJEU observed conclusions regarding the unique or exclusive right to gather construction waste. It was ruled that an exclusive right to process the building waste produced in a municipality is granted to a limited number of undertakings and does not necessarily have the effect of creating a barrier to exports (Case C-209/98) [23]. It should be noted that the case Ragn-Sells AS v Sillamäe Linnavalitsus (Case C-292/12) [24] is one of the cases regarding industrial and construction waste management in connection to waste ownership and freedom regarding services provided. The dispute arose because of the lawfulness of the contracts specifying that municipal mixed waste should be transferred to the disposal installation 5 km away.

In contrast, industrial and construction waste was to be transferred to the disposal installation 25 km away. In the following case, the CJEU stated that the Waste Framework Directive must be read as permitting territorial governance to demand the commitment liable for the gathering of waste on its domain to the conveyance of municipal hybrid waste to the nearest appropriate treatment infrastructure and not requiring the conveyance of industrial and building waste prepared on its domain to the nearest appropriate treatment infrastructure, where that waste is planned for regeneration (Case C-292/12) [24]. According to the CJEU, EU Member States may accept procedures of common application that prohibit shipments of the following waste between each other.

In another case, Commission v Italy, the CJEU ruled that EU Member States possess some rationality regarding the domain basis they deem designated for acquiring national autonomy for waste processing (Case C-297/08) [25]. The Court declared that Italy failed to adopt all necessary instruments to secure recovery, together with the disposal of waste without danger to the health of the environment and harmful influence on the environment. It failed to establish an adequate and integrated network of disposal facilities.

As noted, the construction industry is considered one of the primary sources of environmental pollution, and improper waste management can lead to significant pollution. Developing sustainable building practices might affect the resolution of climate change problems and reduce them. The importance of climate change was taken seriously by the ECtHR, which recently adopted several decisions regarding climate change cases. In the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland case, an elderly group of people from a Swiss association claimed to have encountered an issue with the outcome of global warming and its impact on living conditions and health, and the Swiss authorities failed to ensure climate protection (Case 53600/20) [26]. The claim was based on positive obligations and respect of family life, together with a lack of effective access to court. It was indicated that the government had failed to admit necessary regulations to achieve success in the struggle against climate change.

The ECtHR ruled that it was a violation of the positive obligations of the states in the context of climate change. It was held that the national courts had not paid attention seriously nor provided corresponding reasons why the complaints were not examined, and scientific evidence regarding climate change was not considered (Case 53600/20) [26]. The ECtHR has started to rule on practice regarding climate change and the responsibilities of the States and governmental authorities to overcome the existing and unavoidable future influence of that change on different features of human rights.

It is noteworthy that two other cases were ruled in general inadmissible. The Careme v France case was submitted by the former mayor and claimed that France ‘did not take suitable solutions for the prevention of the climate change (Case 7189/21) [27]. Regarding the following situation, respect for private and family life and right to life was violated. It asked state authorities to take all necessary steps and measures to prevent the increasing of GHG emissions. The applicant had moved from France to Brussels and the case was ruled as inadmissible. The other case was Duarte Agostinho and Others v Portugal and 32 Others where the contracting member States (33) of the Convention were accused of polluting greenhouse gas emissions that impact health and living conditions (Case 39371/20) [28]. The applicants, young people of Portugal, were claiming an effective domestic remedy and the responsibility of the States. The case was ruled as inadmissible for too many countries; territorial jurisdiction was established only for Portugal and the case was inadmissible for an effective domestic remedy.

The CJEU case law pays attention to the waste management hierarchy and the management and disposal of construction waste. Moreover, construction waste management is essential, as this may highlight the development of sustainable building practices. Undoubtedly, many new questions about implementing recently adopted EGD laws and policies will remain one of the critical challenges for the CJEU in the area of environmental protection. In addition, the ECtHR case law recognizes that environmental protection is relevant to fundamental human rights and notes the specific importance of the findings of national courts and other responsible institutions in assessing and responding to protection against climate change. The coherence of sustainable building practices and construction waste solutions might reduce the climate change perspectives in the future.

4. Research Methodology

The first part explores the research methodology, while the second part presents the evaluation results and their analysis based on established criteria. At the beginning of the research methodology section, multi-criteria assessment methods relevant to the studied topic are introduced.

4.1. Application of Multi-Criteria Assessment Methods and Other Techniques

Multi-criteria assessment methods are essential tools in decision-making processes across various fields, including management, economics, environmental science, and building practices. The purpose of these methods is to evaluate a wide variety of criteria, often complex, to make informed decisions. Multi-criteria assessment methods are discussed in this section, emphasizing their significance as well as their limitations.

Multi-criteria assessment methods are valuable in situations where decisions must consider a variety of factors that cannot be easily quantified or compared directly. Traditional decision-making approaches often rely on single-criterion analysis, which can be overly simplistic and fail to capture the complexity of dynamic business problems [29]. Multi-criteria assessment methods provide a structured framework for evaluating multiple criteria simultaneously, allowing decision-makers to weigh the relative importance of each criterion and analyze the trade-offs involved [30]. These methods can also help identify the best solution by considering both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the problem and analyzing factors. Furthermore, multi-criteria assessment methods can help to identify potential risks associated with the formed solution.

One of the multi-criteria assessment methods is the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) developed by Thomas Saaty in the 1970s. AHP breaks down a complex decision problem into a hierarchy of smaller, more manageable parts [31,32]. Each element of the hierarchy is compared to others within its level, using pairwise comparisons based on a fundamental scale of relative importance. This process results in a set of priority scales that can be used to weigh the criteria and alternatives, ultimately leading to a final decision. AHP has limitations such as subjectivity in assigning weights during pairwise comparisons, which can lead to biased outcomes and be time-consuming when dealing with a large number of criteria and alternatives, making it less practical for very complex decision-making scenarios.

Another multi-criteria assessment method is the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). TOPSIS is based on the concept that the chosen alternative should have the shortest distance from the ideal solution and the farthest from the worst solution. It involves identifying the best and worst alternatives in terms of each criterion, calculating the Euclidean distance of each alternative from these ideal and worst points [33], and ranking the alternatives based on their distance from the ideal solution [34]. This method has some limitations, such as its sensitivity to the selection of weights for each criterion, which can significantly influence the final ranking of alternatives, and it may also struggle to handle qualitative data effectively, as it relies heavily on quantitative measurements for calculating distances.

The Weighted Sum Model (WSM) and Weighted Product Model (WPM) are also multi-criteria assessment methods [31,35,36]. WSM involves multiplying the performance rating of each alternative by the weight of the corresponding criterion and summing these products to rank the alternatives. Conversely, WPM involves multiplying the performance ratings and taking the product of these multiplications. Both methods are straightforward and easy to implement, making them suitable for various applications; however, these methods have some limitations. WSM assumes linearity and additive independence, which may not hold true for all decision-making scenarios. While avoiding these assumptions, WPM can be sensitive to scale differences, requiring careful data normalization to ensure fair comparisons.

In environmental management, multi-criteria assessment methods are used to evaluate the sustainability of projects and policies [37]. For example, the Sustainable Asset Valuation (SAVi) tool integrates financial, social, and environmental criteria to assess the sustainability of infrastructure projects [38]. By considering a wide range of criteria, such as carbon emissions, job creation, and community impact, SAVi provides a comprehensive evaluation that supports decision-makers in promoting sustainable development.

Applying multi-criteria assessment methods in sustainable building practices is pivotal in addressing modern construction’s complex and interconnected challenges [39]. Sustainable building practices aim to minimize environmental impact, enhance occupant health and well-being, and ensure economic viability. Multi-criteria assessment methods provide a structured approach to evaluating these diverse and often conflicting criteria [29] facilitating informed decision-making in designing, constructing, and operating sustainable buildings [40].

One of the assessment methods used in sustainable building practices is the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification system [41,42]. LEED evaluates buildings based on several criteria, including sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality [43]. Each criterion is assigned points, and buildings earn LEED certification at different levels (Certified, Silver, Gold, or Platinum) depending on the total points achieved [44]. This comprehensive evaluation ensures that buildings meet high sustainability standards across multiple dimensions.

Another method is the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) (BREEAM, 2024) [45]. BREEAM assesses buildings’ environmental performance through energy, water, materials, waste, pollution, health and well-being, transportation, and management processes [42]. Each category is scored, and the overall rating reflects the building’s sustainability. BREEAM has been instrumental in promoting sustainable building practices by encouraging developers to adopt environmentally friendly design and construction methods.

The Sustainable SITES Initiative (SITES) is another assessment method focused on sustainable land development and management (Ma, 2024) [46]. SITES certification evaluates projects based on site design, construction, operations, and maintenance criteria. It emphasizes the importance of preserving and restoring natural ecosystems, reducing water use, improving soil health, and promoting biodiversity. By integrating these criteria, SITES helps create outdoor spaces that contribute to the overall sustainability of the built environment.

Tools such as the Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) provide detailed information on the environmental impact of building materials throughout their life cycle, from extraction and manufacturing to use and disposal [47]. By considering factors such as embodied energy, carbon footprint, and recyclability, these tools help organizations select materials that contribute to the overall sustainability of the building [48].

In addition to these certification systems, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) techniques [49] are used to evaluate and prioritize sustainable building practices. MCDA involves identifying and weighing various criteria, such as energy efficiency, material sustainability, indoor air quality, and cost-effectiveness [42]. By assigning weights to these criteria based on their relative importance [49], decision-makers can compare different building options and select the most sustainable alternative.

Multi-criteria assessment methods are used to evaluate the performance of sustainable building infrastructure and systems. For example, the use of renewable energy systems, such as solar panels and wind turbines, can be assessed based on criteria such as energy production, cost, and environmental impact. Similarly, water-saving technologies, such as rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling, can be evaluated based on their effectiveness, cost, and environmental benefits. By applying multi-criteria assessment methods, organizations can select the most appropriate technologies and systems to enhance the sustainability of their buildings.

The authors reviewed 17 papers seeking to identify what multi-criteria decision support methods are used in research dedicated to sustainable building practices.

Table 2. Results of the evaluation of criteria implementation in the decision support models for sustainable building practices.

No	Key Aspect	Method	Source
1	Sustainable architecture	Hybrid fuzzy BWM-COPRAS	[50]
2	Sustainability metrics in urban development projects	Hybridized IT2F-AHP and COPRAS	[51]
3	Decision-making in green building investment	AHP and COPRAS-gray	[52]
4	Sustainable construction materials	Hybrid fuzzy BWM-COPRAS	[53]
5	The sustainability level of the building	COPRAS-G	[54]
6	Renovation solutions for building	COPRAS and BIM	[55]
7	Evaluation of building sustainability	COPRAS	[56]
8	Sustainable building practices	COPRAS	[57]
9	Sustainable housing	COPRAS	[58]
10	Sustainable development of building structures	COPRAS	[59]
11	Sustainability of buildings	COPRAS, LCA, and LCC	[60]
12	Urban sustainability	COPRAS	[61]
13	Sustainable urban development	Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS	[62]
14	Sustainable urban renewal proposals	AHP	[63]
15	Selection of sustainable building components	BIM-integrated TOPSIS-Fuzzy	[64]
16	Social Sustainability Analysis in Residential Complexes	SWARA-TOPSIS	[65]
17	Sustainable design approach	BIM	[66]

Herein: AHP—Analytic hierarchy process; BIM—Building Information Modeling; BWM—Best-Worst Method; IT2F—Interval type-2 fuzzy; G—Grey interval; LCA—Life Cycle Assessment; LCC—Life Cycle Costing; SWARA—Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis.

shows that the COPRAS method is the most commonly applied in researching sustainable building practices.

The innovation of the COPRAS method lies in its ability to evaluate multiple criteria simultaneously, ensuring a balanced and systematic framework for decision-making.

Compared to other recognized affordable methods, COPRAS offers several advantages:

-

COPRAS has relatively simple mathematical foundations, making it one of the most popular methods for multi-criteria evaluation. This simplicity allows for efficient calculations and easier implementation in various decision-making scenarios;

-

By considering both quantitative and qualitative criteria, COPRAS ensures a more balanced evaluation, enhancing the accuracy and reliability of the study’s findings;

-

COPRAS provides a systematic framework for decision-making, which helps in evaluating and ranking alternatives based on multiple criteria. This systematic approach supports informed decision-making in sustainable building practices.

While other methods like AHP, TOPSIS, and WSM have their strengths, COPRAS stands out for its ability to integrate both quantitative and qualitative criteria, providing a more comprehensive and balanced evaluation. This innovation is particularly valuable in sustainable building practices, where multiple criteria must be considered simultaneously to achieve optimal decision-making.

Multi-criteria assessment methods and other methods are indispensable tools for addressing complex decision-making problems in various domains. By allowing for the simultaneous evaluation of multiple criteria, these methods provide a comprehensive and systematic approach to decision-making [67]. Their applications in various fields of building demonstrate their versatility and effectiveness in supporting informed decisions. As the complexity of decision-making continues to increase [29], the importance of multi-criteria assessment methods for forming sustainable decisions is critical, highlighting their relevance and value for achieving sustainability.

4.2. Application of COPRAS for Researching Sustainable Building Practices

The Complex Proportional Assessment method is a multi-criteria decision-making method developed by Zavadskas and Kaklauskas in 1996, which is designed to rank alternatives according to their priorities and expected usefulness. Due to the relatively simple mathematical foundations, COPRAS is one of the most popular methods of multi-criteria evaluation for determining the best alternative, taking into account the best solution and the worst possible solution [68].

COPRAS is a multi-criteria decision-making approach designed to rank alternatives according to their priorities and potential usefulness. As a result of COPRAS, it is possible to evaluate the alternatives and choose the alternative with the highest priority over the other alternatives. This study will use the COPRAS method to integrate both quantitative and qualitative approaches. This method enables a comprehensive assessment of the problem by considering multiple criteria and providing a systematic framework for decision-making. By combining these approaches, the COPRAS method ensures a more balanced evaluation, which enhances the accuracy and reliability of the study’s findings.

4.2.1. Expert Evaluation

Solving complex economic and social problems, as well as problems with the development of technology and innovation, process forecasting, and strategy evaluation, requires the contribution of experts. Experts usually have different and sometimes conflicting approaches to various problems. When decisions are based on expert competencies, it is essential to assess the extent to which experts agree with each other. For the selection of experts, experience in sustainable construction lasting more than 5 years and managerial roles in construction companies were the most important criteria in this study.

Expert evaluation is an essential process that ensures the quality and reliability of an expert study [69]. For the application of multi-criteria assessment methods, it is important to assess the extent to which experts’ opinions coincide [70].

The expert evaluation was based on various sets of criteria, such as the European Environment Agency study (2024) [71] and other scientific studies’ results, which are presented below:

• Price competition with virgin alternatives (Alshboul et al., 2022) [72];
• Confidence in quality and structural properties of secondary materials (traceability) [73];
• Hazardous substances content (Shehata et al., 2022 [74]; Iwuanyanwu et al., 2024 [75]);
• Lack of sufficient and reliable data on (historical) buildings (Sartori et al., 2021 [76]);
• Time delay (Raouf et al., 2023 [77]).

The five criteria were selected after the assessment of sustainable building practices, focusing on the aspects that most significantly impact sustainable construction, such as:

(1)

Criteria such as price competition and time delay directly address cost efficiency and operational speed. These criteria represent the competitiveness of sustainable construction projects;

(2)

Criteria such as confidence in the quality and hazardous substances content are crucial for ensuring that sustainable materials meet reliably and safety. These criteria focus on the long-term viability of environmental impact;

(3)

The criterion related to the lack of sufficient and reliable data highlights the importance of robust information for decision-making. Reliable historical data are essential for assessing performance and planning improvements in sustainable building practices.

While other potential criteria, such as environmental impact, regulatory compliance, or innovation potential, were considered, these criteria were not included in the above-mentioned criteria set, facilitating precise consensus measurement among experts without overcomplicating the assessment.

Overall, these five criteria were deemed to offer a balanced and targeted evaluation of the critical factors affecting sustainable construction, ensuring that expert insights are relevant and actionable.

This empirical study was conducted based on the calculations (the formulas set out in Appendix A). The initial data necessary for the application of the method were collected. Experts were selected based on selection criteria to take part in expert evaluation. Based on the data obtained from the expert assessment, the weights of the criteria were determined. Next, guided by the presented formulas, calculations were carried out, and the results of the study were formed.

4.2.2. Results of COPRAS Method Application

In this study, five evaluation criteria were selected for the COPRAS method. Six experts assessed these criteria by using a ten-point scoring system.

An expert assessment (

Table 3. Initial expert assessment data (compiled by the authors).

Criteria	Experts
	X1	X2	X3	X4	X5	X6
1. Price competition with virgin alternatives	7	8	6	8	8	8
2. Confidence in the quality and structural properties of secondary materials (traceability)	9	8	9	10	9	9
3. Hazardous substances content	9	8	9	8	8	9
4. Lack of sufficient and reliable data on (historical) buildings	7	8	8	7	9	8
5. Time delay	8	9	8	9	10	9
Total	40	41	40	42	44	43

) showed that confidence in quality and structural properties of secondary materials (traceability) was the most important criterion for experts. However, further analysis using the COPRAS approach is necessary to fully assess and confirm these conclusions.

All ranks given by experts were summed. According to Formulas (1) and (2), it is possible to calculate the sums and weights of the ranks of the indicators in order to carry out further actions of COPRAS:

$$c={\sum }_{e=1}^r{c}_{ie}\left(i=1,\dots ,n\right)=7+8+6+8+8+8=45$$

(1)

$$q_i={\displaystyle \frac{c_i}{c}}={\displaystyle \frac{45}{250}}=0.180$$

(2)

Herein: c—sum of all i criteria scores; r—number of experts; e—concrete expert; i—number of concrete criteria; n—number of criteria; q—weight of criteria.

The results of the expert evaluation showed that confidence in the quality and structural properties of secondary materials (traceability) received the highest weight compared to other criteria (as specified in Figure 4).

Accordingly, this is how we count the other values, where the results are shown in

Table 4. The sums of ranks and weights of criteria (compiled by the authors).

Criteria	Experts
	X1	X2	X3	X4	X5	X6	Sum	Weights
1. Price competition with virgin alternatives	7	8	6	8	8	8	45	0.180
2. Confidence in the quality and structural properties of secondary materials (traceability)	9	8	9	10	9	9	54	0.216
3. Hazardous substances content	9	8	9	8	8	9	51	0.204
4. Lack of sufficient and reliable data on (historical) buildings	7	8	8	7	9	8	47	0.188
5. Time delay	8	9	8	9	10	9	53	0.212
Total	40	41	40	42	44	43	250	1

.

Next, we can calculate the total average and the sum of squares (Formulas (3) and (4)) using the most elementary formulas:

$$\overline{c}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r(n+1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\times 6(5+1)=18$$

(3)

$$N={\sum }_{i=1}^n({c_{ai}-\overline{c})}^2{=(9-18)}^2=81$$

(4)

Herein:

$$\overline{c}-total average; c_{ai}-average value of i criteria scores; N-sum of deviations$$

The overall average for both assessments will remain the same, as the number of criteria and experts will remain unchanged, and

Table 5. The sums of deviations from the mean (compiled by the authors).

Criteria	Sum of Deviations
1. Price competition with virgin alternatives	81.231
2. Confidence in the quality and structural properties of secondary materials (traceability)	51.712
3. Hazardous substances content	60.487
4. Lack of sufficient and reliable data on (historical) buildings	74.049
5. Time delay	54.961
Sum	322.440

shows the sum of deviations from the mean.

In the further course, it will be necessary to calculate the maximum value of the sum of squares, as well as calculate the concordance coefficient (Formulas (5) and (6)):

$$N_{max}={\sum }_{i=1}^n({r\times i-{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r(n+1))}^2={\displaystyle \frac{r^{2}n(n^2-1)}{12}}={\displaystyle \frac{6^2\times 5(5^2-1)}{12}}=360$$

(5)

$$W={\displaystyle \frac{12N}{r^{2}n(n^2-1)}}={\displaystyle \frac{N}{N_{max}}}={\displaystyle \frac{322}{360}}=0.896$$

(6)

Herein:

$$W-concordance coeficient;N_{max}-sum of deviations in ideal case$$

The value of the concordance coefficient W ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 means a complete mismatch, and 1 means absolute coincidence. The W value is 0.896. This indicates a greater consensus among experts on the criteria weights [70].

In addition, it is important to check whether the values of x² exceed the critical limit. If they are indeed such, it means that the opinions of experts coincide, and such results can be used for further decision-making processes (Formula (7)):

$$x^2=Wr(n-1)={\displaystyle \frac{12N}{rn\left(n+1\right)}}=0.896\times 6(5-1)=21.496$$

(7)

Herein: $x^2-significance of concordance coeficient$

The degree of freedom is calculated as follows for the selected level of significance, which is usually 0.05 or 0.01. In this case, the choice is made, and the degree of freedom is equal to 4. Therefore, the critical value is 9.487,$V=n-1=5-1=4\left(a\right)$ [78] (a) = 0.05.

The coefficient of significance of compatibility is, respectively, equal to 21.496. This value exceeds the critical limit of 9.487. This suggests that the consensus among experts is statistically significant. This indicates that the expert evaluation process achieves the statistical significance condition.

Matrix normalization and ranking of alternatives. To accurately assess which option is better and set priorities, it is necessary to normalize the initial matrix. This allows for more accurate calculations and applying methods for ranking alternatives, ensuring their correct comparison.

In the initial matrix, it is important to determine the desired directions for each criterion: in which areas larger values are desired and positive, and in which they are negative. This means defining for which criteria higher values correspond to better results and for which they are worse. The directions are outlined in

Table 6. Initial matrix (compiled by the authors).

Criteria	Direction	Weights	Sum of Evaluated Alternatives
1. Price competition with virgin alternatives	Max	0.180	${\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^n}{d}_{1j}$
2. Confidence in the quality and structural properties of secondary materials (traceability)	Max	0.216	${\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^n}{d}_{2j}$
3. Hazardous substances content	Max	0.204	${\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^n}{d}_{3j}$
4. Lack of sufficient and reliable data on (historical) buildings	Max	0.188	${\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^n}{d}_{4j}$
5. Time delay	Min	0.212	${\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^n}{d}_{5j}$

.

For further calculations, it is necessary to normalize the matrix to ensure more accurate results. This is an important step that allows us to effectively proceed with the analysis of data and the evaluation of alternatives (we carry this out according to Formula (8)):

$$D_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{d_{ij}\times q_i}{{\sum }_{j=1}^n{d}_{ij}}}, i=\mathrm{1,6};j=1, n, {\sum }_{i=1}^6{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}Dij=1$$

(8)

Herein: $D_{ij}-normalized value;d_{ij}-criteria value;j-number of alternatives$

After the matrix is normalized (

Table 7. Normalized matrix (compiled by the authors).

Criteria	Direction	Normalized Value Calculations
1. Price competition with virgin alternatives	Max	$D_{1j}=$0.18 × /$c_{1j}\sum _{j=1}^n{d}_{1j}$
2. Confidence in the quality and structural properties of secondary materials (traceability)	Max	$D_{2j}=$0.216 × $c_{2j}$/$\sum _{j=1}^n{d}_{2j}$
3. Hazardous substances content	Max	$D_{3j}=$0.204 × $c_{3j}$/$\sum _{j=1}^n{d}_{3j}$
4. Lack of sufficient and reliable data on (historical) buildings	Max	$D_{4j}=$0.188 × $c_{4j}$/$\sum _{j=1}^n{d}_{4j}$
5. Time delay	Min	$D_{5j}=$0.212 × $c_{5j}$/$\sum _{j=1}^n{d}_{5j}$

), further calculations can be made. These include the calculation of the sum of the materiality matrix, the sums of the maximizing and minimizing values, the identification of an alternative with minimal significance in relation to the criteria that minimize, the calculation of the relative significance of the comparative variants, and the prioritization. These actions are necessary for evaluating and ranking the alternatives (see Formulas (9)–(13)).

Before calculating the relative importance of the alternative, the minimizing value should be calculated concerning the alternative with the lowest minimizing value, given in

Table 8. Ranking of alternatives (compiled by the authors).

Alternatives	Criteria					Sum of Normalized Maximizing Values	Sum of Normalized Minimizing Values	Relative Importance of Comparable Alternatives	Priority Row
Name	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5
	Normalized Values
A1	D11	D21	D31	D41	D51	S + 1	S − 1	Q1
A2	D12	D22	D32	D42	D52	S + 2	S − 2	Q2
A3	D13	D23	D33	D43	D53	S + 3	S − 3	Q3
...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...
An	D1n	D2n	D3n	D4n	D5n	S + n	S − n	Qn
Sum	D1j	D2j	D3j	D4j	D5j	Equal to 1

, where the relative importance of the alternatives was finally calculated [78]:

$${ Q}_j=S_{+j}+{\displaystyle \frac{S_{-min}\times \sum _{j=1}^n{S}_{-j}}{S_{-J}\times \sum _{j=1}^n\frac{S_{-min}}{S_{-j}}}}, j=1,n$$

(9)

Herein: $S_{+}-weight of sum of normalized criteria values;$

$S_{-}—weight of sum of minimized criteria values;$

$Q_j-relative importance of comparable alternative.$

As for the application of COPRAS method a negative direction criterion is important, in this study it was possible to apply it to the criterion of time delay involved as was recently recommended by the European Environment Agency (2024) [71].

Table 8 shows the assessment of alternatives against various criteria, including the sum of the materiality matrix, the sums of the maximization and minimization values, and the relative significance of the options being compared. The analysis shows which alternative occupies the highest place, reflecting better comparative significance and effectiveness indicators. This comprehensive assessment helps to make informed decisions. Applying the COPRAS method to a normalized initial matrix makes it possible to effectively evaluate and compare alternatives according to several criteria. The results provide the basis for making optimal decisions. This method facilitates decision-making in the area of sustainable building practices.

Further, more criteria could be used to evaluate sustainable building practices, and results could be compared between the different approaches. Construction professionals should be trained in the COPRAS methodology to foster widespread adoption and increase their sustainability impact. Policymakers should consider incorporating COPRAS-based assessments into sustainability certifications and regulations to ensure consistency in green building practices.

5. Conclusions

The construction industry is a major contributor to environmental pollution, significantly impacting climate change. Developing a multi-criteria decision-making approach for assessing building practices is crucial for mitigating these effects and ensuring a sustainable future for buildings.

The preceding argumentation in this study discusses various aspects of sustainable building practices, environmental challenges, and the importance of adopting multi-criteria decision-making methods. It highlights the significance of addressing climate change, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and implementing sustainable construction practices. This study also emphasizes the role of the EU’s policies and initiatives in promoting sustainability and achieving climate neutrality.

The COPRAS method is introduced as a multi-criteria decision-making approach that integrates both quantitative and qualitative criteria to provide a comprehensive assessment. The reliability of the COPRAS method is supported by its ability to evaluate multiple criteria simultaneously, ensuring a balanced and systematic framework for decision-making.

The application of multi-criteria assessment methods in sustainable building practices is essential for addressing modern construction’s complex and interconnected challenges. Even though the analyzed multi-criteria assessment methods and other certificate systems provide a comprehensive and structured approach to evaluating diverse criteria, facilitating informed decision-making, and promoting sustainable development, these methods have some limitations. Considering environmental, social, and economic factors for sustainable building practices, there is a strong need to choose a multi-criteria assessment method that could help create buildings that are not only environmentally friendly but also economically viable and beneficial in various other aspects (Wojnarowska & Ingrao, 2024 [79]). As the demand for sustainable buildings continues to grow, the importance of selecting suitable multi-criteria assessment methods increases, underscoring their relevance and value in the development of sustainable building practices.

Several multi-criteria assessment methods were discussed, including the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), Weighted Sum Model (WSM), and Weighted Product Model (WPM). Each method has its strengths and limitations, and their applications in various fields demonstrate their versatility and effectiveness in supporting informed decisions. Applying these methods in sustainable building practices is pivotal in addressing modern construction’s complex and interconnected challenges. Sustainable building practices aim to minimize environmental impact operational performance and ensure economic viability. Multi-criteria assessment methods provide a structured approach to evaluate these diverse and often conflicting criteria, facilitating informed decision-making in the design, construction, and operation of sustainable buildings.

Various certification systems and tools, such as LEED, BREEAM, SITES, Environmental Product Declaration (EPD), and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), are also mentioned. These systems provided detailed information on the environmental impact of building materials throughout their life cycle, helping organizations select materials that contribute to the overall sustainability of the building. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) techniques are used to evaluate and prioritize sustainable building practices. MCDA involves identifying and weighing various criteria, such as energy efficiency, material sustainability, indoor air quality, and cost-effectiveness. By assigning weights to these criteria based on their relative importance, decision-makers can compare different building options and select the most sustainable alternative.

The argumentation preceding the COPRAS method aims to establish the context and importance of sustainable building practices and the need for effective decision-making tools. It sets the stage for introducing the COPRAS method as a suitable approach for addressing these challenges.

The authors reviewed scientific studies seeking to identify the multi-criteria decision support methods used in research on sustainable building practices. The review showed that the COPRAS method is the most commonly applied in researching sustainable building practices. Multi-criteria assessment methods are indispensable tools for addressing complex decision-making problems in various domains. These methods provide a comprehensive and systematic approach to decision-making by allowing for the simultaneous evaluation of multiple criteria. Their applications in various fields of building demonstrate their versatility and effectiveness in supporting informed decisions. As the complexity of decision-making continues to increase, the importance of multi-criteria assessment methods for forming sustainable decisions is critical, highlighting their relevance and value for achieving sustainability.

Expert evaluation results and analysis of the COPRAS method showed that the criterion confidence in the quality and structural properties of secondary materials (traceability) stands out, especially for the qualitative aspects of construction waste. Although another criterion, time delay, also received high marks in terms of the importance of time, it is inferior in the overall rating to the criterion confidence in the quality and structural properties of secondary materials (traceability). Therefore, considering the comprehensive assessment of its benefits and functionality, it is recommended to strive for higher values of the criterion confidence in the quality and structural properties of secondary materials (traceability). The results of the comprehensive COPRAS method highlighted that evaluating the criteria set is essential for the building construction sector, which plays a key role in promoting sustainable building practices.

The use of the COPRAS method for sustainable building methods has proven to be effective in assessing decision-making processes based on various criteria. The accuracy of COPRAS estimates depends on extensive data, environmental impacts of applied materials, and other factors. A standardized system for exchanging information between operators in the construction sector should be established. By combining COPRAS with Building Information Modelling (BIM) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, decision-making can be improved by providing real-time updates on the durability of materials and building performance.

While the study highlights the applicability of COPRAS method for sustainable building practices, a number of limitations need to be acknowledged. Some sustainability indicators are difficult to measure, leading to decision-making gaps. The analysis provided insights into sustainable building practices, but long-term performance assessments are needed to confirm the effectiveness of COPRAS applications over time. The results of COPRAS are based on expert opinions, which showed statistical confirmations. This indicates that expert input was indeed considered in the evaluation process; however, more detailed insights from various experts in sustainable building practices could have further enriched the findings. The study focused mainly on key criteria, but future research may include an assessment of the impact of COPRAS in decision-making and planning of construction projects on overall sustainability and regulatory compliance.

Future applications should be analyzed in different geographical and economic contexts to ensure that COPRAS can also be used in other regions. Further research may also include a study to assess how COPRAS compares to other multi-criteria decision-making methods such as AHP, TOPSIS, or Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE) in the context of sustainable construction. The development of adaptive COPRAS models, including AI-based optimization, can be further foreseen, and these models could dynamically adjust the weights of criteria based on real-time construction and environmental developments. The improvement of COPRAS can be further planned by adding life-cycle assessment methods to provide a more detailed assessment of the long-term sustainability of the building.