Evaluating construction projects of hotels based on ... - CyberLeninka

Alexandria Engineering Journal (2017) xxx, xxx–xxx

H O S T E D BY

Alexandria University

Alexandria Engineering Journal www.elsevier.com/locate/aej www.sciencedirect.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Evaluating construction projects of hotels based on environmental sustainability with MCDM framework Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani a,e,*, Morteza Pourhossein b, Morteza Yazdani c, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas d a Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), Technology Foresight Group, Department of Management, Science and Technology, P.O. Box 1585-4413, Tehran, Iran b 4thDimension Architecture Center, P.O. Box 1919644159, Tehran, Iran c Department of Business Management, Faculty of Social Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670 Madrid, Spain d Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Department of Construction Technology and Management, Sauletekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania e Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Health Services Management Research Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

Received 21 August 2015; revised 20 October 2016; accepted 6 November 2016

KEYWORDS Architecture projects; Sustainability; Environmental sustainability; SWARA; COPRAS

Abstract Environmental issues have got incredible attention among daily life activities. Sustainability penetrated in all society practices specially construction industry due to its substantial impact on the environment. Monitoring and controlling architectural project contains a decision problem with multi-varieties analysis. This study aimed to evaluate construction projects of hotels regarding environmental sustainability. To this end, a hybrid Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) model is proposed. Step‐wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA) and Complex proportional assessment (COPRAS) compose a unified framework. A private construction project is supposed as a case study. The project is based on establishing a five star hotel in Tehran, Iran. In this research SWARA produces criteria weights and COPRAS will rank decision alternatives. This study can be a strategic route for other similar researches in other fields. Ó 2016 Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Hashemkhani Zolfani), [email protected] (M. Pourhossein), morteza_ [email protected] (M. Yazdani), [email protected] (E. Kazimieras Zavadskas). Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University.

Regarding the limited resources and serious environmental impacts in the world, having a more sustainable lifestyle is one of the most significant solutions which must be addressed seriously [1]. One of these solutions is to support the sustainable urban design in a context like live ability and clean energy

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.11.002 1110-0168 Ó 2016 Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Please cite this article in press as: S. Hashemkhani Zolfani et al., Evaluating construction projects of hotels based on environmental sustainability with MCDM framework, Alexandria Eng. J. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.11.002

2 which has attracted considerable attention in recent years [2]. There are a few examples of completed sustainable urban design projects which imply urban developments in general are neither durable nor sustainable [2]. Architects and Urban Planners are the ones who have a great role and a large responsibility in terms of reducing the serious environmental problems existing today since they can be assumed as the beginners of any construction projects [3]. The two most widespread areas of focus in the scholarly studies related to build environments are sustainable architecture and green design [4]. Accordingly, having the importance of environmental assessment and energy performance of buildings in mind, it is vital to develop an overview of current theoretical perspectives, trends, applications and constraints toward the development of green environmentally sustainable buildings [4]. During the last decade, cities have been found as key actors in responding to climate change [5–8]. Recent research has studied particularly how cities intervene in low carbon transitions, adopting concepts from the multi-level perspective but also re-scrutinizing it critically within the context of the city [9]. Some other research works examined the social and environmental justice aspects resulting from low carbon transitions [7]. Studies focusing on urban vulnerability accentuate not only the prominence of energy in improving people’s livelihoods but also the vulnerabilities associated with certain forms of energy in the home [10]. There has been an extensive debate dealing with an architectural transition toward sustainability, supported by a search for some form of consensus around universal best environmental practice; but widely approved solutions remain elusive [11]. Architects, policy-makers, planners and citizens alike have commonly agreed to adopt the vision of a transition toward buildings which are less energy and carbon intensive, which support healthier and happier lifestyles, which are more nature-friendly built and have the least harms to the environment while reserving their visual beauties and which encourage a sense of human community [12]. There is an ever-increasing trend which has been emerged among people who request to have more sustainable building services with least environmental impact [13,14]. The two outstanding reasons for such a trend are namely rising energy costs and growing environmental concerns. Having such green opinions toward the nature and environment and also trying to spread this via mass media bring about the environmental and human health benefits of sustainability (also called green) buildings [15]. The influences of man-made buildings to the environment can be reduced using sustainable building design during the buildings’ whole lives [16]. It is crucial for the investors to take into account the environmental impacts of a building through its whole life, that is, from the initial construction process to the future operation stage of the building [16]. It should be taken into consideration that resources such as energy and raw materials are used in the process of constructing buildings but these buildings also generate waste and potentially harmful atmospheric emissions [17]. Regarding the ever-growing population and the economic growth, there is a big challenge for designers and builders to meet demands for new and renovated facilities that are accessible, secure, healthy, and productive while minimizing their impact on the environment [17]. In fact, to launch such type of building con-

S. Hashemkhani Zolfani et al. struction is part of the ‘‘Sustainable development SB’’ which is defined as a development as it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs which is based on the concepts of sustainability [17]. Usually sustainable architecture definition as a concept is associated from 1987 and Brundtland Report as follows: ‘‘sustainable development seeks to meet the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability to meet those of the future’’ [18]. The current building design practice has been absorbed into the mainstream of authorities and policy makers and is predominated by methods that proceed sequentially in their disciplinary decision-making about energy and resources and that are segmented in the models used [19]. Energy and resource consumption are not considered in designers’ architectural plan as the building shape and its appearance has the highest importance in designers’ conceptual design [19]. Moreover, there are difficulties tracing the effects of changes as there is no direct link between energy simulation and design models [19]. Recently environmental sustainability becomes an important issue in Iran, especially in Tehran. Tehran has critical problem in environment issues. Building constructions is increasing in current decade and is so effective in environment topic. This study is focused on this matter because of importance of sustainability on this issue. This research is conducted in four important parts. In the first part, literature is reviewed and the model consisting of criteria and sub criteria is conducted. The second part is allocated to gather experts’ ideas about model based on SWARA methodology. In the third part, SWARA calculation is done, and at the final part, alternatives are evaluated based on COPRAS methodology. 2. Sustainable architecture The vision of creating greener and smarter cities in 21st century has promoted sustainable cities as a key issue for many developing countries. The concept of sustainability is a widespread global issue as it is comprised of various interrelated studies about people, the environment and society Ghafarian Hoseini et al. [4]. Sustainability is a holistic concept encompassing significant and vital aspects from which human issue, environmental and social issues are the major ones. Sustainability is a type of system that continues to evolve for a sustainable architecture with its surroundings. Hence, this system with its multi-aspect concepts can create a greater connection between people’s wellbeing, environmental considerations, technological possibilities and nature itself which is fundamental to a sustainable future [17]. From a methodological point of view, the available publications define design strategies with different approaches to sustainable architecture; however, the importance of the climatic and/or cultural context in which the project is placed is emphasized and the same design principles, approaches and issues or concerns are addressed [18]. Set of Standards for the best experience in SD presented by BREEAM. The performance of buildings can be evaluating in these mentioned aspects [17]:

Please cite this article in press as: S. Hashemkhani Zolfani et al., Evaluating construction projects of hotels based on environmental sustainability with MCDM framework, Alexandria Eng. J. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.11.002

Evaluating construction projects of hotels Overall management policy, commissioning site management and procedural issues. Energy use: Operational energy and carbon dioxide (CO2) ISSUES. Health and wellbeing: Internal and external issues affecting health and well-being. Pollution: Air and water pollution issues. Transport: Transport-related CO2 and location-related factors. It is finally concluded that three fundamental concepts are embedded in sustainability which are environmental, sociocultural and economic sustainability. However, the relative importance of each of the three mentioned aspects highly depends on the existing condition in each area which all aims to enhance and improve the well-being for the inhabitants as illustrated in Fig. 1 (Ghafarian Hoseini et al. [4]). A comprehensive analysis is done which emphasizes the substantial negative impacts of buildings on the environment and represents the respective impacts as shown in Fig. 2 which is claimed to be very similar in other developed countries (Levin 1997). Sustainable development has been a significant objective for many societies. Governments and countries more than before are noticing to sustainable issues in their missions and longterm plans. Sustainable construction deals with the limited resources like energy and decreasing affection (waste, emissions and pollution) on the environment [20]. This subject goes through technical issues such as materials and requirements for building, construction technologies and design of energy systems. Civil and construction researchers get involve developing and extending environmental and sustainable concerns in their activities and practices using novel and updated theories and models. Theories like decision making are intelligently captured to form and design strong structure in order to achieve sustainable objectives. Generous MCDM methods in various shapes help researchers in wide range of applications [21]. Bakhoum and Brown [22] employed a combined approach using AHP to rate importance of sustainable factors, Shannon entropy to evaluate the weight factor for each phase of material life cycle and TOPSIS for ranking of the structural materials. Tsai et al. [23] defined MCDM framework to assess and select priority of construction methods for green building projects. A building material selection model has been pro-

3 posed by Akadiri et al. [24] employing fuzzy AHP to weight the criteria based on sustainable triple bottom line (TBL). Saparauskas [25] reviewed several building rating systems in different countries and designed multi criteria evaluation system to rate two building projects in a real case based on sustainable design and sustainable materials. Also analyzing sustainable construction projects has been performed in Lithuania by implementing an indicator system as six socioeconomic and environmental indicators. In this study TOPSIS and SAW generated ranking for index of sustainability [26]. For current study, the model of research is shown in Table 1 based on literature review. The evaluation of architecture projects is based on the model. 3. Sustainability, constructions and MADM In this part related studies are presented. Newest studies are also selected to be presented and are prepared as follows: Medineckiene et al. [28] applied AHP, SAW and SAW-G in a research paper about Sustainable construction taking into account the building impact on the environment, Zavadskas et al. [29] applied Multi Attribute Decision Making in a research article about an approach to multi‐attribute assessment of indoor environment before and after refurbishment of dwellings and Turskis et al. [30] applied AHP and ARASF in a research paper about Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Assessment of construction site alternatives for non-hazardous waste incineration plant in Vilnius City, applying ARAS-F and AHP Methods. Tsai et al. [23] used MCDM methods for construction method selection for green building projects to improve environmental sustainability. Vinodh et al. [31] applied TOPSIS for sustainable concept selection which is indirectly related to aim of this study. Sustainability concept can be vital part of constructions in terms of both buildings and architecture, in general point of view. Siozinyte et al. [32] applied AHP and TOPSIS Grey for upgrading the old vernacular building to contemporary norms which is important for a sustainable region, city and also a country. Ignatius et al. [33] used fuzzy ANP for green building assessment which was completely related to environment section of sustainability. Cuadrado et al. [34] applied AHP for sustainability assessment methodology of industrial buildings with three cases about importance of sustainability literature in construction of industrial buildings, in practice. 4. Methodology

Environmental Sustainability Ecosystem integrity Carrying capacity Biodiversity

Environment

Economy Economic Sustainability Growth Development Productivity Trickle-down

Figure 1

Social Sustainability Cultural identity Empowerment Accessibility Stability Equity

Society

Human Well Being

Alnaser et al. [17]; Ghafarian Hoseini et al. [4].

Hybrid MADM approaches are practically appreciated in complex decision systems [35–37]. In current research, two MADM methods as a hybrid model are applied based on SWARA and COPRAS presented the first time by Hashemkhani Zolfani and Zavadskas [38]. This hybrid model is based on SWARA and COPRAS in which SWARA is applied for evaluating and weighting the criteria and the second method, COPRAS, is utilized to evaluate and rank the target criteria. This new powerful model can be helpful for policy makers and decision makers at the top level of decision making levels. One of the advantages of SWARA is creating the chance for decision makers to consider their priorities in the process of decision making. SWARA-COPRAS as a hybrid MADM model was applied for evaluating criteria and alternatives of


4

S. Hashemkhani Zolfani et al.

42%

Energy Use

40%

Atmospheric Emission

30%

Raw Materials Use

25%

Solid Waste

25%

Water Use

20%

Water Effuluents

13%

Other Releases Land Use 0%

Figure 2

Table 1

12% 5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

The environmental impacts of buildings (Levin 1997; Ghafarian Hoseini et al. [4]).

The model of research. Criteria

Reference

C1 C1-1 C1-2

Energy consumption Operational energy Embodied energy

Ding [27]; Ghafarian Hoseini et al. [4]; Li (2011)

C2 C2-1 C2-2 C2-3 C2-4 C2-5

Environmental impact Waste Pollution Land use and ecology Micro climate Health and well-being

C3 C3-1 C3-2 C3-3 C3-4

Society Social diversity Cultural heritage Low impact mobility Law and regulations

C4 C4-1 C4-2

Financial return Project costs Project benefits

this study. The whole and general concept of this research can be categorized as a policy based study which is working on different dimensions and their vital items in sustainable development framework again related to architecture and buildings. This methodology supports the main idea of this study about prioritizing items and strategies of sustainable developments in construction sector in general and in architecture in a specialized way for developing countries like Iran. 4.1. SWARA SWARA has been presented by [39] and has been developed in recent years. It is known an expert-oriented approach in which all the criteria are ranked from the first to the last one (the most significant to the least significant). SWARA will assign rate of 1 to the most significant criterion, and clearly the lowest priority will be given to the least significant criterion. According to the mediocre value of ranks, overall ranks will be achieved [40]. Due to the simplicity of the mentioned process, the experts can easily work together [38]. The recent researches with SWARA Zavadskas and Podvezko [41] methodology are presented by Bitarafan et al. [42] in evaluation of real-time intelligent sensors for structural health monitoring of bridges, Stanujkic et al. [43] in Selection of a packaging design,

Ding [27]; Ghafarian Hoseini et al. [4]; Li (2011)

Li (2011)

Ding [27]; Ghafarian Hoseini et al. [4]

Hashemkhani Zolfani et al. [44] in Multiple Nash equilibriums and evaluation of strategies, Karabasevic et al. [45] in personnel selection, Yazdani et al. [46] in supplier selection and evaluation, Hashemkhani and Saparauskas [47] in energy evaluation. The procedure for determination of weights by SWARA can be stated as steps below: Step 1 – The all criteria should be sorted based on experts’ ideas [48–50]. Step 2 – From the second criterion, comparative importance of average valuesj should be done as follows: the relative importance of criterion j in relation to the previous (j 1) criterion [43]. Step 3 – Determine the coefficient k j 1 j¼1 ð1Þ kj ¼ sj þ 1 j > 1 Step 4 – Determine the recalculated weight qj ( 1 j¼1 qj ¼ kj1 j>1 kj

ð2Þ

Step 5 – Final step in calculating criteria’ weights


Evaluating construction projects of hotels

5

qj wj ¼ Pn

Step 3: Calculate the weighted normalized decision matrix as follows: P where wi includes the weights of criteria and given by ni¼1 wi ¼ 1;

ð3Þ

k¼1 qj

where wj denotes the relative weight of criterion j.

vij ¼ wi rij ; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n

4.2. COPRAS COPRAS method developed by Zavadskas & Kaklauskas is presented by: Zavadskas et al. [51,52] in Multi-criteria analysis of Projects’ performance in construction, Ecer [53] in websites quality evaluation, Hashemkhani Zolfani and Bahrami [54] in investment Prioritizing in High Tech Industries, Haghnazar Kouchaksaraei et al. [55] in glasshouse locating and Nuuter et al. [56] in housing market sustainability and evaluation of light supply [57]. The computational steps as involved in COPRAS method-based analysis are now presented below [58,59]: Step 1: Let D is a decision matrix, containing the performance rating of m number of alternatives with respect to n number of criteria, as shown below. 2 3 x11 x12 . . . x1n 6 7 6 x21 x22 . . . x2n 7 6 7 D¼6 ð4Þ 7 6 ... ... ... ... 7 4 5 xm1

xm2

...

xmn

wherexij is the rating of ith decision criteria on jth alternative, whereas, m is the number of alternatives and n is the number of criteria. Step 2: Normalize the decision matrix using Eq. (5). xij rij ¼ Pm

j¼1 xij

; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n

ð5Þ

ð6Þ

The sum of dimensionless weighted normalized values of each criterion is always equal to the weight for that criterion. m X vij ¼ wi

ð7Þ

j¼1

Step 4: Calculate the sums of weighted normalized values for both the beneficial ðP j Þ and non-beneficial attributes ðRj Þ using the following equations: Pj ¼

k X vij

ð8Þ

i¼1

where k is the number of criteria to be maximized. Rj ¼

nk X vij

ð9Þ

i¼1

where ðn kÞ is the number of criteria to be minimized. Step 5: Determine the relative significances or priorities of the alternatives as follows: Pm j¼1 Rj Qj ¼ Pj þ Pm 1 ; Rj j¼1 Rj

ð10Þ

Step 6: Calculate the quantitative utility (Nj) for jth alternative. Nj ¼

Qj 100% Qmax

ð11Þ

where Qmax is the maximum relative significance value. These utility values of the alternatives range from 0% to 100%. Table 2 section.

Information about participated experts in SWARA

Category

Classification

No.

Fields of experts

Civil Engineer Architecture Environmental Engineer Economic and Management Social Science

1 2 2 2 1

Level of education

Bachelor Master Ph.D.

0 3 5

Gender

Male Female

6 2

Table 3 Criterion C4 C2 C3 C1

5. Proposed model The core goal of this study work was to present an appropriate model for evaluating building construction projects. Moreover, two sections are considered. The first one is based on situation of Iran’s structures criteria evaluating using the ideas of experts and SWARA method. The second section consists of an example about projects which is considered using the evaluating base of COPRAS method. This research is established based on a project that RSAPE is accepted to do for a private investor sector in Tehran. The project is based on client’s need. The client likes to build a five star hotel with the highest grades of environmental sustainability. RSAPE held a contest for this aim. Four preliminary pat-

Final results of the SWARA method in weighting all assessment criteria. Comparative importance of average value sj

0.1875 0.225 0.2

Coefficient kj ¼ sj þ 1

Recalculated weight wj ¼

1 1.1875 1.225 1.2

1 0.842 0.687 0.573

xj1 kj

Weight qj ¼ Pjw w

j

0.3223 0.2714 0.2216 0.1847


6


terns selected as a first output of contest. Environmental sustainability becomes an important issue in Iran, especially in Tehran. Tehran has critical problem in environment issues and pollution and building constructions is increasing in current decade and is so effective in environment topic. This research is focused on this point that building construction should be more sustainable. Due to new projects in municipality of Tehran, essential of environmental sustainability is higher than before. All companies and private investors are responsible for this general issue. As mentioned the research is conducted in four important parts. After literature review section, the model consisting of criteria and sub criteria are conducted. The second part is allocated to gather experts’ ideas about model based on SWARA methodology. In SWARA, Experts play very special role and actually they are core essentials of this methodology. Primarily, it’s important to identify our expert/experts. Concept of sustainability in many concerns is so useful in such matters includes: social and economic issues. Usually, Iranian government and experts are parties who are responsible to decide

Table 4 Criterion

C1-1 C1-2

Table 5 Criterion

C2-2 C2-3 C2-1 C2-4 C2-5

Table 6 Criterion

C3-2 C3-4 C3-1 C3-3

Table 7 Criterion

C4-1 C4-2

over these topics. Generally, this specialized methodology, SWARA, can be beneficial for main policy and decision makers of each system and it can be functioned as an outline in evaluating building construction projects. The information about decision experts to precede SWARA method is seen in Table 2. To achieve weights of each indicator the illustrated

Table 8

Experts’ background.

Category

Classification

No.

Fields of experts

Civil Engineer Environmental Engineer Architecture

2 1 2

Level of education

Bachelor Master Ph.D.

0 2 3

Gender

Male Female

4 1

Final results of the SWARA method in weighting sub-criteria of energy consumption. Comparative importance of average value sj


Recalculated weight x wj ¼ kj1j

Weight w qj ¼ Pjw

Final weights

0.2125

1 1.20

1 0.8248

0.548 0.452

0.1012 0.0835

Final weights

j

Final results of SWARA method in weighting sub-criteria of environmental impact. Comparative importance of average value sj



Weight w qj ¼ Pjw

0.2063 0.1438 0.1668 0.125

1 1.2063 1.1438 1.1668 1.125

1 0.8290 0.7248 0.6212 0.5521

0.2683 0.2224 0.1945 0.1667 0.1481

0.0728 0.0604 0.0528 0.0452 0.0402

j

Final results of SWARA method in weighting sub-criteria of society. Comparative importance of average value sj



Weight w qj ¼ Pj

Final weights

0.1625 0.1688 0.125

1 1.1625 1.1688 1.125

1.0000 0.8602 0.7360 0.6542

0.3077 0.2646 0.2264 0.2013

0.0682 0.0586 0.0502 0.0446

wj

Final results of SWARA method in weighting sub-criteria of financial return. Comparative importance of average value sj



Weight w qj ¼ Pj

Final weights

0.1812

1 1.1812

1 0.847

0.541 0.459

0.1744 0.1479

wj


Evaluating construction projects of hotels

7

procedure in Fig. 1 will be followed. There is another advantage in SWARA methodology and that is experts have this right to delete a criterion or criteria in process of decision making. If they consider a criterion isn’t crucial in an issue, that criterion can be removed. To rate and rank candidate projects, at the end of this evaluation, these five patterns are evaluated with COPRAS methodology.

Table 11

Final results and ranking.

P

R

Q

N

Ranking

1.4145 1.3270 1.2336 1.6057 1.4191 Rmin

1.1378 1.2370 1.4587 1.0341 1.1324 1.0341

2.6633 2.4756 2.2076 2.9797 2.6738

89.38% 83.08% 74.09% 100.00% 90%

3 4 5 1 2

6. Results and analysis Initial decision matrix is delivered by engineers and experts and also the orientation of each decision factor is demonstrated. Five alternative projects are assessed and ranked by COPRAS tool. According to COPRAS algorithm, normalization should be done for all decision elements. Finally, the priority of alternatives is shown in Table 9 and as Table indicates the preference order of projects is here:

In this section, the information about the results of SWARA and COPRAS method is shown. Data are also available in this section. 6.1. SWARA results This section is done based on experts’ ideas. Eight experts participate in this section in four fields of Civil Engineering, Architecture, Environmental Engineering, Economics and Management and Social Science. All experts are from Iran and evaluating is basically due to Iran context. Table 2 depicts information about participated experts in SWARA part. The priorities of criteria are shown in Tables 3–7.

A4 > A5 > A1 > A2 > A3 7. Conclusion Involving in sustainable issues tends to be a very fundamental topic for societies and noticing, realizing and surviving sustainable practices influence the productivity and effectiveness of economic models. Decision making in complicated environments confronting conflicting factors cannot rely on try/error methods and traditional experiences. So, apparently it is a big deal for urban planners, decision makers and policy makers. Sustainable development should fundamentally be associated with architecture and urban planning decisions, construction and building projects, and executive managers in decision stages must consider that point in long term plans. This research tries to obtain decision maker’s attitude on major issues which is the first goal and then making decision on sustainable development of construction projects. The study

6.2. COPRAS results In this section authors have cooperated with RSAPE Company as a joint project. This company is adviser and supervisor in constructing projects that take place in Iran. The output of this research is selecting the best project for constructing the project is more sustainable. In this section a team is established. The team includes 5 experts. Experts’ information is illustrated in Table 8. The results of COPRAS method are presented based on SWARA results in calculating weights shown in Tables 9–11.

Table 9

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

C1-1 0.1012 Min

C1-2 0.0835 Min

C2-1 0.0728 Min

C2-2 0.0604 Min

C2-3 0.0528 Min

C2-4 0.0452 Max

C2-5 0.0402 Max

C3-1 0.0682 Max

C3-2 0.0586 Max

C3-3 0.0502 Max

C3-4 0.0446 Max

C4-1 0.1744 Min

C4-2 0.1479 Max

5 6 7 4 5

4 5 7 4 5

4 6 7 3 4

4 6 6 5 3

6 5 8 4 7

5 6 5 6 6

7 6 6 7 7

7 6 5 8 8

6 5 6 7 7

7 7 5 8 6

6 6 6 7 6

7 4 3 7 6

7 6 6 8 5

Table 10

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

Decision making matrix.

Normalization matrix.

C1-1 0.1012 Min

C1-2 0.0835 Min

C2-1 0.0728 Min

C2-2 0.0604 Min

C2-3 0.0528 Min

C2-4 0.0452 Max

C2-5 0.0402 Max

C3-1 0.0682 Max

C3-2 0.0586 Max

C3-3 0.0502 Max

C3-4 0.0446 Max

C4-1 0.1744 Min

C4-2 0.1479 Max

0.1852 0.2222 0.2593 0.1481 0.1852

0.1600 0.2000 0.2800 0.1600 0.2000

0.1667 0.2500 0.2917 0.1250 0.1667

0.1667 0.2500 0.2500 0.2083 0.1250

0.2000 0.1667 0.2667 0.1333 0.2333

0.1786 0.2143 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143

0.2121 0.1818 0.1818 0.2121 0.2121

0.2059 0.1765 0.1471 0.2353 0.2353

0.1935 0.1613 0.1935 0.2258 0.2258

0.2121 0.2121 0.1515 0.2424 0.1818

0.1935 0.1935 0.1935 0.2258 0.1935

0.2593 0.1481 0.1111 0.2593 0.2222

0.2188 0.1875 0.1875 0.2500 0.1563


8 is executed based on environmental sustainability and novel MCDM perspectives. The importance of environmental sustainability is quietly critical and evaluating constructions projects is a concern for investors. Accordingly, a real case is considered for evaluation and determination of project priorities in Tehran, Iran. Municipality of Tehran is involved in new projects to decrease pollution considerably. All constructing sectors are participated in projects of municipality of Tehran. We focused on a case about private sector (RSAPE co.) and a hybrid MCDM structure is applied to form for evaluating hotels projects. Due to high impacts of buildings on the environment and the climate, the necessity of environmental sustainability can be clear. Decision criteria of the model are evaluated based on SWARA methodology by participation of eight experts. Thereafter, derived weights are used in COPRAS to solve decision problem and achieve full ranking of alternative projects. The main contribution of this study is the combination of environmental sustainability perspective and MCDM framework which can be aid for future researches. Suggestions for future research projects can be stated as using qualitative and fuzzy numbers to interpret decision maker’s impreciseness, using QFD method for considering stakeholders attitude and requirements, evaluating risk of construction projects along with unstable economic, social and cultural condition of Iran. In addition, using other methodologies such as AHP and/or ANP to weight sustainable criteria could be imperative in more complex situation.


[11]

[12]

[13] [14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

References [20] [1] L.Y. Ljunberg, Materials selection and design for development of sustainable products, Mater. Des. 28 (2007) 466–479, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2005.09.006. [2] M. Meijer, F. Adriaens, O. van der Linden, W. Schik, A next step for sustainable urban design in the Netherlands, Cities 28 (2011) 536–544, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2011.07.001. [3] M.C. Guedes, M. Pinheiro, L.M. Alves, Sustainable architecture and urban design in Portugal: an overview, Renew. Energy 34 (2009) 1999–2006, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. renene.2009.02.014. [4] A.H. Ghaffarian Hoseini, N.D. Dahlan, U. Berardi, A. Ghaffarian Hoseini, N. Makaremi, M. Ghaffarian Hoseini, Sustainable energy performances of green buildings: a review of current theories, implementations and challenges, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 25 (2013) 1–17, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2013.01.010. [5] H. Bulkeley, M.M. Betsill, Cities and climate change: urban sustainability and global environmental governance, Routledge, Oxon, NY, 2003. [6] M. Betsill, H. Bulkeley, Looking back and thinking ahead: a decade of cities and climate change research, Local Environ., Int. J. Justice Sustain. 12 (2007) 447–456, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/13549830701659683. [7] V.C. Broto, Social housing and low carbon transitions in Ljubljana, Slovenia, Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 2 (2012) 82–97, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2012.01.001. [8] H. Bulkeley, Cities and the governing of climate change, Annual Rev. Environ. Resour. 35 (2010) 229–253, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev-environ-072809-101747. [9] H. Bulkeley, V. Castan Broto, S. Marvin, M. Hodson, Cities and Low Carbon Transitions, Routledge, London, 2011. [10] J. Clancy, O. Maduka, F. Lumampao, Sustainable energy systems and the urban poor: Nigeria, Brazil and the Philippines, in: P. Droege (Ed.), Urban Energy Transition: From Fossil

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

Fuels to Renewable Power, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2009, pp. 533– 562. S. Guy, G. Farmer, Reinterpreting sustainable architecture: the place of technology, J. Arch. Edu. 54 (2001) 140–148, http://dx. doi.org/10.1162/10464880152632451. S. Guy, Designing fluid futures: hybrid transitions to sustainable architectures, Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 1 (2011) 140–145, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.04.007. S. Azhar, BIM for sustainable design: results of an industry survey, J. Build. Inform. Model. 4 (1) (2010) 27–28. T. Biswas, T. Wang, R. Krishnamurti, Integrated Sustainable Building Rating Systems With Building Information Modeling Master’s thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 2008. S. Azhar, W.A. Carlton, D. Olsen, I. Ahmad, Building information modeling for sustainable design and LEEDÒ rating analysis, Autom. Constr. 20 (2011) 217–224, http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.09.019. N. Wang, Y.C. Chang, C. Nunn, Lifecycle assessment for sustainable design options of a commercial building in Shanghai, Build. Environ. 45 (2010) 1415–1421, http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.12.004. N.W. Alnaser, R. Flanagan, W.E. Alnaser, Model for calculating the sustainable building index (SBI) in the kingdom of Bahrain, Energy Build. 40 (2008) 2037–2043, http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2008.05.015. M.A. Knudstrup, H.T. Ring Hansen, C. Brunsgaard, Approaches to the design of sustainable housing with low CO2 emission in Denmark, Renew. Energy 34 (2009) 2007–2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.02.002. P. Gayer, Systems modelling for sustainable building design, Adv. Eng. Inform. 26 (2012) 656–668, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.aei.2012.04.005. M. Staniunas, M. Medineckiene, E.K. Zavadskas, D. Kalibatas, To modernize or not: ecological–economical assessment of multidwelling houses modernization, Arch. Civil Mech. Eng. 13 (1) (2013) 88–98, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2012.11.003. Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A. (1996). ‘‘Determination of an efficient contractor by using the new method of multi criteria assessment”, In Langford, D. A.; Retik, A. (eds.) International Symposium for ‘‘The Organization and Management of Construction”. Shaping Theory and Practice. Vol. 2: Managing the Construction Project and Managing Risk. CIB W 65; London, Weinheim, New York, Tokyo, Melbourne, Madras. - London: E and FN SPON, 94–104, pp. 94–104. E.S. Bakhoum, D.C. Brown, A hybrid approach using AHP– TOPSIS–entropy methods for sustainable ranking of structural materials, Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 6 (3) (2013) 212–224, http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2012.719553. W.H. Tsai, S.J. Lin, Y.F. Lee, Y.C. Chang, J.L. Hsu, Construction method selection for green building projects to improve environmental sustainability by using an MCDM approach, J. Environ. Planning Manage. 56 (10) (2013) 1487– 1510, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.731385. P.O. Akadiri, P.O. Olomolaiye, E.A. Chinyio, Multi-criteria evaluation model for the selection of sustainable materials for building projects, Autom. Constr. 30 (2013) 113–125, http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.10.004. J. Sˇaparauskas, Multiple criteria evaluation of buildings with emphasis on sustainability, J. Civil Eng. Manage. 9 (4) (2003) 234–240, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13923730.2003.10531334. J. Sˇaparauskas, The main aspects of sustainability evaluation in construction, in: Proc. of the 9th International Conference, Modern Building Materials, Structures and Techniques, 2007, pp. 16–18. G.K.C. Ding, Sustainable construction- the role of environmental assessment tools, J. Environ. Manage. 86 (2008) 451–464, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.025.


Evaluating construction projects of hotels [28] M. Medineckiene, Z. Turskis, E.K. Zavadskas, Sustainable construction taking into account the building impact on the environment, J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manage. 18 (2) (2010) 118–127, http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/jeelm.2010.14. [29] E.K. Zavadskas, A. Kaklauskas, Z. Turskis, D. Kalibatas, An approach to multi-attribute assessment of indoor environment before and after refurbishment of dwellings, J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manage. 17 (1) (2009) 5–11, http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/ 1648-6897.2009.17.5-11. [30] Z. Turskis, M. Lazauskas, E.K. Zavadskas, Fuzzy multiple criteria assessment of construction site alternatives for nonhazardous waste incineration plant in Vilnius City, applying ARAS-F and AHP methods, J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manage. 20 (2) (2012) 110–120, http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/ 16486897.2011.645827. [31] S. Vinodh, G. Mulanjur, A. Thiagarajan, Sustainable concept selection using modified fuzzy TOPSIS: a case study, Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 6 (2) (2013) 109–116. [32] E. Siozinyte, J. Antucheviciene, V. Kutut, Upgrading the old vernacular building to contemporary norms: multiple criteria approach, J. Civil Eng. Manage. 20 (2) (2014) 291–298. [33] J. Ignatius, A. Rahman, M. Yazdani, J. Saparauskas, S.H. Haron, An integrated fuzzy ANP–QFD approach for green building assessment, J. Civil Eng. Manage. 22 (4) (2016) 551– 563. [34] J. Cuadrado, M. Zubizarreta, E. Roji, M. Larrauri, I. Alvarez, Sustainability assessment methodology for industrial buildings: three case studies, Civil Eng. Environ. Syst. 33 (2) (2016) 106– 124. [35] S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, M.H. Aghdaie, A. Derakhti, E.K. Zavadskas, M.H. Morshed Varzandeh, Decision making on business issues with foresight perspective; an application of new hybrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating, Exp. Syst. Appl. 40 (2013) 7111–7121, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. eswa.2013.06.040. [36] E. Mulliner, K. Smallbone, V. Maliene, An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method, Omega 41 (2) (2013) 270–279, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2012.05.002. [37] M. Vafaeipour, S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, M.H. Morshed Varzandeh, A. Derakhti, M. Keshavarz Eshkalag, Assessment of regions priority for implementation of solar plants in Iran: new application of a hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach, Energy Convers. Manage. 86 (2014) 653–663, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.05.083. [38] S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, E.K. Zavadskas, Sustainable development of Rural Areas’ building structures based on local climate, Proc. Eng. 57 (2013) 1295–1301, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.proeng.2013.04.163. [39] V. Kersˇ ulien_e, E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA), J. Bus. Econo. Manage. 11 (2) (2010) 243–258, http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.12. [40] V. Kersˇ ulien_e, Z. Turskis, Integrated fuzzy multiple criteria decision making model for architect selection, Technol. Econo. Develop. Econo. 17 (4) (2011) 645–666, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3846/20294913.2011.635718. [41] E.K. Zavadskas, V. Podvezko, Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM, Int. J. Inform. Technol. Decision Making 15 (02) (2016) 267–283. [42] M. Bitarafan, S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, S. Lale Arefi, E.K. Zavadskas, A. Mahmoudzadeh, Evaluation of real-time intelligent sensors for structural health monitoring of bridges based on SWARA-WASPAS; a case in Iran, Baltic J. Road Bridge Eng. 9 (4) (2014) 333–340, http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/ bjrbe.2014.40. [43] D. Stanujkic, D. Karabasevic, E.K. Zavadskas, A framework for the selection of a packaging design based on the SWARA

9

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48] [49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

method, Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics 26 (2) (2015) 181–187, http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.26.2.8820. S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, R. Maknoon, E.K. Zavadskas, Multiple Nash equilibriums and evaluation of strategies; new application of MCDM methods, J. Bus. Econo. Manage. 16 (2) (2015) 290–306, http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/ 16111699.2014.967715. D. Karabasevic, E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, D. Stanujkic, The framework for the selection of personnel based on the SWARA and ARAS methods under uncertainties, Informatica 27 (1) (2016) 49–65. M. Yazdani, S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, E.K. Zavadskas, New integration of MCDM methods and QFD in the selection of green suppliers, J. Bus. Econo. Manage. 1–17 (2016), http://dx. doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2016.1165282. S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, J. Saparauskas, New application of SWARA method in prioritizing sustainability assessment indicators of energy system, Inzinerine EkonomikaEngineering Economics 24 (5) (2013) 408–414, http://dx.doi. org/10.5755/j01.ee.24.5.4526. M.G. Kendall, Rank Correlation Methods, fourth ed., Griffin, London, 1970. E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, L. Ustinovichius, G. Shevchenko, Attributes weights determining peculiarities in multiple attribute decision making methods, Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics 21 (1) (2010) 32–43. M. Alimardani, S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, M. Aghdaie, J. Tamosaitiene, A novel hybrid SWARA and VIKOR methodology for Supplier selection in an agile environment, Technol. Econo. Develop. Econo. 19 (3) (2013) 533–548, http:// dx.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2013.814606. E.K. Zavadskas, T. Vilutiene, Z. Turskis, J. Saparauskas, Multicriteria analysis of Projects’ performance in construction, Arch. Civil Mech. Eng. 14 (1) (2014) 114–121, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.acme.2013.07.006. N. Banaitiene, A. Banaitis, A. Kaklauskas, E.K. Zavadskas, Evaluating the life cycle of a building: a multivariant and multiple criteria approach, Omega 36 (3) (2008) 429–441, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2005.10.010. F. Ecer, A hybrid banking websites quality evaluation model using AHP and COPRAS-G: a Turkey case, Technol. Econo. Develop. Econo. 20 (4) (2014) 758–782, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3846/20294913.2014.915596. S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, M. Bahrami, Investment prioritizing in high tech industries based on SWARA-COPRAS approach, Technol. Econo. Develop. Econo. 20 (3) (2014) 534–553, http:// dx.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.881435. R. Haghnazar Kouchaksaraei, S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, M. Golabchi, Glasshouse locating based on SWARA-COPRAS approach, Int. J. Strategic Property Manage. 19 (2) (2015) 111– 122, http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2015.1004565. T. Nuuter, I. Lill, L. Tupenaite, Comparison of housing market sustainability in European countries based on multiple criteria assessment, Land Use Policy 42 (2015) 642–651, http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.09.022. J. Nakhaei, S.L. Arefi, M. Bitarafan, S. Kildien_e, Evaluation of light supply in the public underground safe spaces by using of COPRAS-SWARA methods, Int. J. Strategic Property Manage. 20 (2) (2016) 198–206. R. Bausys, E.K. Zavadskas, A. Kaklauskas, Application of neutrosophic set to multi-criteria decision making by COPRAS, Econo. Comput. Econo. Cybernet. Stud. Res. 49 (2) (2015) 1–15. P. Chatterjee, V.M. Athawale, S. Chakraborty, Materials selection using complex proportional assessment and evaluation of mixed data methods, Mater. Des. 32 (2) (2011) 851–860, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2010.07.010.
