Automation in Construction 30 (2013) 113125

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

Multi-criteria evaluation model for the selection of sustainable materials for

building projects
Peter O. Akadiri a,, Paul O. Olomolaiye b, 1, Ezekiel A. Chinyio a, 2
a
b

School of Technology, University of Wolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton, WV1 1LY, UK

Faculty of Environment and Technology, University of West of England, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Accepted 10 October 2012
Available online 12 December 2012
Keywords:
Building material selection
Sustainable criteria
Multi-criteria decision making
Analytical hierarchy process
Fuzzy logic

a b s t r a c t
Sustainable material selection represents an important strategy in building design. Current building materials
selection methods fail to provide adequate solutions for two major issues: assessment based on sustainability
principles, and the process of prioritizing and assigning weights to relevant assessment criteria. This paper
proposes a building material selection model based on the fuzzy extended analytical hierarchy process
(FEAHP) techniques, with a view to providing solutions for these two issues. Assessment criteria are identied based on sustainable triple bottom line (TBL) approach and the need of building stakeholders. A questionnaire survey of building experts is conducted to assess the relative importance of the criteria and
aggregate them into six independent assessment factors. The FEAHP is used to prioritize and assign important
weightings for the identied criteria. A numerical example, illustrating the implementation of the model is
given. The proposed model provides guidance to building designers in selecting sustainable building
materials.
2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The construction, t-out, operation and ultimate demolition of
buildings are signicant factors of human impact on the environment
both directly (through material and energy consumption and the
consequent pollution and waste) and indirectly (through the pressures on often inefcient infrastructure). In response to these impacts, there is growing consensus among organizations committed
to environmental performance targets that appropriate strategies
and actions are needed to make construction activities more sustainable [13]. The pace of actions towards sustainable application depends on decisions taken by a number of actors in the construction
process: owners, managers, designers, rms, etc. [4,3]. An important
decision is the sustainable selection of building materials to be used
in building projects. Careful selection of sustainable building materials has been identied as the easiest way for designers to begin
incorporating sustainable principles in building projects [5]. The selection of building materials is regarded as a multi-criteria decision
problem [6], largely based on trusting experience rather than using

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 7828049507.

E-mail addresses: arcalad@yahoo.com (P.O. Akadiri), paul.olomolaiye@uwe.ac.uk
(P.O. Olomolaiye), E.Chinyio@wlv.ac.uk (E.A. Chinyio).
1
Tel.: +44 117 32 82211.
2
Tel.: +44 1902 321043.
0926-5805/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.10.004

numerical approach, due to lack of formal and availability of measurement criteria or strategies. In addition, many of the current evaluation
approaches were criticized for overemphasizing the environmental
aspects [7]. Ideally, sustainability assessment would integrate social,
technical, environmental and economic considerations at every
stage in decision-making. It should be noted that this pure form of
sustainability assessment is a challenge to develop and evidence of
achieving this in practice is yet to be seen [8].
The earlier attempt to establish comprehensive means of simultaneously assessing a broad range of sustainability considerations in
building materials was the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) [9]. BREEAM known as
the rst commercially available and most widely used assessment
method was established in 1990 in the United Kingdom. Since
then many different tools have been launched around the world
(e.g. Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability
(BEES), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED),
Building environmental performance assessment criteria (BEPAC),
Environmental Resource Guide (ERG), and Environmental Resource
Guide (ERG)). BREEAM, LEEDS, ENVEST and other existing methods
for assessing buildings whose remit is largely restricted to an environmental protection and resource efciency agenda have limited
utility for assessing socio and economic factors as opposed to environmental sustainability, since they are predominantly focused on
environment which is just one of the four principles underpinning
sustainable building. Even against this single principle, they are

114

P.O. Akadiri et al. / Automation in Construction 30 (2013) 113125

only able to offer relative assessment as opposed to absolute [10].

Another criticism that has been raised concerns the fact that the majority of the assessment methods were designed for new construction, and hence have focused on the design of the constructed
buildings. Although energy, water and occupant comfort were well
covered in the tools, there was little focus on the effect of the building system's life during operation. This is especially true for envelope
performance. This tendency has resulted in the failure of many
assessment methods to properly consider other assessment criteria
such as durability, lifecycle cost, and the effects of premature building envelope failures. To be considered truly sustainable, assessment
methods will have to be recast under the umbrella of sustainability
environmental, social, technical and economic [11]. Broadening
the scope of discussion beyond environmental responsibility and
embracing the wider agenda of sustainability are increasingly necessary requirements.
Therefore there is a need for developing a systematic and holistic
sustainable material selection process of identifying and prioritizing
relevant criteria and evaluating trade-offs between environmental,
economic, social and technical criteria [12]. The characterization of
material selection process as an essentially multifaceted problem
involving numerous, variegated considerations, often with complex
trade-offs among them, implied that a suitable solution might be
found among the family of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)
methods [1316]. Further analysis and proling of the selection problem and the identication of the solution methods' desirable capabilities, triggered the consideration of the Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) developed by Saaty [17] as a possible basis for sustainable
material selection method envisaged.
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) [17,18] is widely used for
tackling multi-criteria decision-making problems in real situations.
Bahareh et al. [19] utilized the AHP as a multi-criteria technique for
sustainable assessment of ooring systems. They agree that AHP provides a framework for robust decision making that is consistent with
sustainable construction practices. The use of AHP for sustainable
assessment has been considered in approaches developed by other
researchers [6,7,13,1921]. In spite of its popularity and simplicity
in concept, this method is often criticized for its inability to adequately handle the inherent uncertainty and imprecision associated with
the mapping of the decision-maker's perception to exact (or crisp,
according to the fuzzy logic terminology) numbers.
To improve the AHP method and to facilitate sustainable materials'
selection process, the paper uses a fuzzy extended AHP (FEAHP) approach using triangular fuzzy numbers to represent decision makers'
comparison judgments and fuzzy synthetic extent analysis [22] method
to decide the nal priority of different decision criteria. The fuzzy set
theory resembles human reasoning in its use of approximate information and uncertainty to generate decisions. It has the advantage of
mathematically representing uncertainty and vagueness and provide
formalized tools for dealing with the imprecision intrinsic to many
problems [22,23]. The proposed FEAHP uses the triangular fuzzy
numbers as a pair-wise comparison scale for deriving the priorities
of different selection criteria and sub-criteria. The weight vectors
with respect to each element under a certain criterion are developed
using the principle of the comparison of fuzzy numbers. As a result,
the priority weights of the each material are calculated and based
on that, the most sustainable material is selected. In particular, the
approach developed can adequately handle the inherent uncertainty
and imprecision of the human decision making process and provide
the exibility and robustness needed for the decision maker to understand the decision problem. These merits of the approach developed would facilitate its use in real-life situations for making
effective decisions.
Based on this information and the current research deciencies,
this paper proposes a multi-criteria decision-making model using
the Fussy extended analytic hierarchy process (FEAHP) approach to

evaluate building materials based on their sustainability. First,

Section 2 describes the proposed FEAHP approach. The development
of sustainable assessment criteria for building material selection
used in the FEAHP was discussed in Section 3. Section 4 discusses
the complete implementation of the FEAHP approach. The priority
weights computed for different criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives
are also discussed in this section. Finally, Section 5 draws conclusions
and gives recommendations where necessary. The current study contributes to the building industry and sustainability research in at least
two aspects. First it widens the understanding of selection criteria as
well as their degree of importance. It also provides building stakeholders a new way to select materials, thereby facilitating the sustainability of building projects.

2. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process methodology

2.1. Background
Singh et al. [24] describe AHP method as a multiple step analytical
process of judgment, which synthesizes a complex arrangement into a
systematic hierarchical structure. It allows a set of complex issues that
have an impact on an overall objective to be compared with the importance of each issue relative to its impact on the solution of the problem [25]. It is designed to cope with the intuitive, the rational, and the
irrational when making multi-objective, multi-criterion and multi-actor
decisionsexactly the decision-making situation found with material selection. Furthermore, it can easily be understood and applied by decision
makers saddled with building material selection process.
The application of AHP to a decision problem involves four steps
[25,26]. In structuring of the decision problem into a hierarchical
model, material selection problem is dened, objective is identied,
criteria and attributes that must be satised to objective are recognized.
Objective is at rst level, criteria is at second level, attributes are at third
level, and decision alternatives are at fourth level in hierarchical structure of the problem. In making pair-wise comparisons and obtaining
the judgment matrix, the elements at a particular level are compared
using nine-point numerical scale to dene how much more an element
is important than other. If A and B are the elements to be compared,
then 1 denes that A and B are equal in importance, and 9 denes
that A is extremely more important. All pair-wise comparisons are
given in a judgment matrix. The next step is to determine the local
weights and consistency of comparisons. Local weights of the elements
are calculated from the judgment matrix using eigenvector method. As
the comparisons in the matrix are made subjectively, consistency ratio
can be computed. If the ratio is less than 0.1 human judgments is acceptable. In the last step, local weights at various levels are aggregated
to obtain nal weight of alternatives. The nal weights represent the
rating of the alternatives in achieving the aim of the multi-criterion decision making problem. Further information about AHP can be found in
Saaty [17], Saaty and Shang [27].
Even though AHP has been widely used to address the multicriterion decision making problems, it has been generally criticized because of the use of a discrete scale of one to nine which cannot handle
the uncertainty and ambiguity present in deciding the priorities of different attributes [28]. Even though the discrete scale of AHP has the advantages of simplicity and ease of use, it is not sufcient to take into
account the uncertainty associated with the mapping of one's perception to a number [29]. The linguistic assessment of human feelings
and judgments is vague and it is not reasonable to represent it in
terms of precise numbers. It feels more condent to give interval judgments than xed value judgments [28]. In this condition, linguistic variables and triangular fuzzy numbers can be used to decide the priority of
one decision variable over the other. Synthetic extent analysis method
is used to decide the nal priority weights based on triangular fuzzy
numbers and so-called as fuzzy extended AHP (FEAHP) [30].

P.O. Akadiri et al. / Automation in Construction 30 (2013) 113125

Fuzzy set theory has proven advantages within vague, imprecise and
uncertain contexts and it resembles human reasoning in its use of approximate information and uncertainty to generate decisions [31]. It
was specially designed to mathematically represent uncertainty and
vagueness and provide formalized tools for dealing with the imprecision intrinsic to many decision problems. The FEAHP is the fuzzy extension of AHP to efciently handle the fuzziness of the data involved in the
decision of selecting building materials based on their sustainability. It
is easier to understand and it can effectively handle both qualitative
and quantitative data in the multi-attribute decision making problems.
In this approach triangular fuzzy numbers are used for the preferences
of one criterion over another and then by using the extent analysis
method, the synthetic extent value of the pairwise comparison is calculated. Based on this approach, the weight vectors are decided and normalized, thus the normalized weight vectors will be determined. As a
result, based on the different weights of criteria and attributes the
nal priority weights of the alternative sustainable material are decided.
The highest priority would be given to the material with highest sustainability weight.

115

Fuzzy numbers are intuitively easy to use in expressing the

decision-maker's qualitative assessments. A fuzzy number can always
be given by its corresponding left and right representation of each degree of membership [33]:


M M 1y ; Mry l mly; u muy ; y0; 1

where l(y) and r(y) denote the left side representation and the right
side representation of a fuzzy number, respectively. The algebraic operations with fuzzy numbers can be found in [30,33].
TFNs M1, M3, M5, M7 and M9 are used to represent the pairwise
comparison of decision variables from Equal to Extremely
preferred, and TFNs M2, M4, M6 and M8 represent the middle preference values between them. Fig. 2 shows the membership functions of
the TFNs, Mi = (mi1, mi2, mi3), where i = 1, 2,, 9 and mi1, mi2, mi3 are
the lower, middle and upper values of the fuzzy number Mi respectively. Higher the value of (mi3mi1) or (mi1mi3) signies the greater
fuzziness of the judgment.
2.3. Calculation of priority weights at different level of hierarchy

2.2. Establishment of triangular fuzzy numbers

Saaty [17] contended that the geometric mean accurately represents the consensus of experts and is the most widely used in practical applications. Here, geometric mean is used as the model for
triangular fuzzy numbers. Zadeh [32] introduced the fuzzy set theory
to deal with the uncertainty due to imprecision and vagueness.
A major contribution of fuzzy set theory was its capability of
representing vague data. The theory also allowed mathematical operators and programming to apply to the fuzzy domain. A fuzzy set is a
class of objects with a continuum of grades of membership. Such a set
is characterized by a membership function, which assigns to each object a grade of membership ranging between 0 and 1. In this set the
general terms such as large, medium, and small will each be
used to capture a range of numerical values. A triangular fuzzy number (TFN), M is shown in Fig. 1. A TFN is denoted simply as (l, m, u).
The parameters l, m, and u denote the smallest possible value, the
most promising value and the largest possible value that describe a
fuzzy event [33]. When l = m = u, it is a non-fuzzy number by convention [30]. Each TFN has linear representations on its left and
right side such that its membership function can be dened as [33];

In crisp AHP, a discrete scale of one to nine is used to decide the

priority of one decision variable over another whereas in fuzzy AHP
fuzzy numbers or linguistic variables are used. In practice, decision
makers usually prefer triangular or trapezoidal fuzzy numbers.
Since fuzzy numbers are used in fuzzy AHP, the solution methods
differentiate from crisp AHP. The most common method used in the
solution of fuzzy AHP applications is the extent analysis method proposed by Chang [34]. The extent analysis method is used to consider
the extent of an object to be satised for the goal, that is, satised extent. In the method, the extent is quantied by using a fuzzy number. On the basis of the fuzzy values for the extent analysis of each
object, a fuzzy synthetic degree value can be obtained, which is dened as follows.
In a material selection problem, let p = {p1, p2,, pn} represent the
elements of the alternatives as an object set and let Q = {q1, q2,, qm}
represent the elements of the material selection criteria as a goal set.
According to the concept of Chang's [34] extent analysis, each object is
taken and extent analysis for each goal, Oi, is performed respectively.
Therefore the m extent analysis values for each object can be obtained,
with the following signs:
1

Moi ; Moi ; :::::::; Moi ;

9
8
0; xbl;
>
>
>
>
=
<
xl=ml; lxm;
x
:
> ux=um; mxu; >
>
>
;
:
0; x > u:

j
where all the Moi
(j = 1, 2,........ m) are triangular fuzzy numbers.

M1

where i 1; 2; :::::::; n

M(x)

M2

M3

M4

moderately
important

equally
important

M5

M6

M7

M8

very strongly
important

strongly
important

M9
extremely
important

1.0
M l(y)

M r(y)

0.0
l

Fig. 1. A triangular fuzzy number, M [31].

0
1

Fig. 2. The membership functions of the triangular fuzzy numbers.

116

P.O. Akadiri et al. / Automation in Construction 30 (2013) 113125

The steps of Chang's extent analysis can be given as in the following [33]:The value of fuzzy synthetic extent with respect to ith object
is dened as

Fi

m
X

2
n X
m
X

j
Moi 4

j1

31
j
Moi 5

j1

j1

i1 j1

j
Moi

n
X

li ;

i1

n
X

mi ;

i1

n
X

!
6

ui

i1

and then compute the inverse of the vector in equation above Eq. (6)
such that
0
2
31
B
n X
m
X
B 1
j
4
Moi 5 B
BX
n
@
i1 j1

1
C
1
1 C
C:
;
C
n
n
X
X
A
ui
mi
li
;

i1

i1

1 The degree of possibility of M2 = (l2, m2, u2) M1 = (l1, m1,u1) is

dened as
h

i
V M 2 M1 sup min M1 x; M2 y
xy

when a pair (x,y) exists such that x y and M1 x M2 y 1;

then we have V(M1 M2) = 1. Since M1 and M2 are convex fuzzy
numbers so, V(M1 M2) = 1 if m11 m21 and
V M 2 M1 hgt M 1 M2 M2 d;

where d is the ordinate of the highest intersection point D between

M1 and M2 : Fig. 3 shows the intersection between M1 and M2. To
compare M1 and M2, we need both the values of V(M1 M2) and
V(M2 M1).
2 The degree of possibility for a convex fuzzy number to be greater
than k convex fuzzy numbers Mi (i = 1, 2,, k) can be dened by
V MM 1 ; M 2 ; :::::; Mk V MM1 andMM2 and ::::andMM k 
minV MMi ; i 1; 2; ::::::k:
10

Fig. 3. The intersection between M1 and M2 [35].

12

where Pi(i = 1, 2,..... n) are n elements.

3 After normalizing Wp, we get the normalized weight vectors as
T

j1

i1

W wP 1 ; wP 2 ; :::::; wP n ;

j 1
and the value of [in= 1jm= 1Moi
]
can be obtained by performing
j
the fuzzy addition operation of Moi
(j = 1, 2,....... m) such that

n X
m
X

11

W p mP 1 ; mP 2 ; ::::; mP n ;

i1 j1

0
1
m
m
m
X
X
X
j
Moi @
lj;
mj;
uj A

j1

mP i minV F i F k ;
for k = 1, 2,......, n; k i, then the weight vector is given by

j
can be found by performing the fuzzy addiThe value of jm= 1Moi
tion operation of m extent analysis values from a particular matrix
such that

m
X

If

13

where W is a non-fuzzy number and this gives the priority weights

of one alternative over the other.
3. Development of sustainable assessment criteria
One of the main objectives of this paper is to develop a holistic
sustainable assessment criteria (SAC) set to assist design team members in the selection of sustainable building materials for building
project. A wide scope review of literature revealed that there was
no comprehensive list of assessment criteria that covers the principles of sustainability, developed specically for material selection in
building projects. In trying to develop a set of criteria, Foxon et al.
[36] proposed the consideration of two key factors. What use will
be made of this set of criteria? To what extent can any set of criteria
encompass the range of issues to be considered under the heading
of sustainability? Some of these issues have been considered in approaches developed by other researchers [37,12,24,7,38,39]. The following set of guidelines has been developed to aid the choice of
criteria to assess the options under consideration:
(1) Comprehensiveness
The criteria chosen should cover the four categories of economic, environmental, social and technical, in order to ensure
that account is being taken of progress towards sustainability
objectives. The criteria chosen need to have the ability to demonstrate movement towards or away from sustainability,
according to these objectives.
(2) Applicability
The criteria chosen should be applicable across the range of options under consideration. This is needed to ensure the comparability of the options.
(3) Transparency
The criteria should be chosen in a transparent way, so as to
help stakeholders to identify which criteria are being considered, to understand the criteria used and to propose any
other criteria for consideration.
(4) Practicability
The set of criteria chosen must form a practicable set for the purposes of the decision to be assessed, the tools to be used and the
time and resources available for analysis and assessment. Clearly,
the choice of sustainability criteria will inuence the outcome of
the decision being made, as will the method of comparison or aggregation chosen. The above factors provide initial guidance in
the choice of criteria. Using a pool of existing criteria, combined
with sustainable concerns and requirements of project stakeholders, a list of assessment criteria (see Table 1) was developed.
These criteria are identied under three categories: Environmental, Technical and Socio-economic.
These categories aim to encapsulate the economic, environmental
and social principles of sustainability, together with technical criteria,
which relate primarily to the ability of buildings and its component
system to sustain and enhance the performance of the functions for
which it is designed. For any decision process, the selected criteria

P.O. Akadiri et al. / Automation in Construction 30 (2013) 113125

117

Table 1
Sustainable assessment criteria for building material selection.
Source

Environmental criteria

Social-economic criteria

Technical criteria

Literature review, existing assessment

methods and focus of
construction stakeholders

E1: Potential for recycling and reuse [40]

E2: Availability of environmentally sound
disposal options [41]
E3: Impact of material on air quality [19]
E4: Ozone depletion potential [42]
E5: Environmental Impact during
material harvest [43]
E6: Zero or low toxicity [42]
E7: Environmental statutory compliance [44]
E8: Minimize pollution e.g. air, land [19]
E9: Amount of likely wastage in use
of material [45,42]
E10: Method of raw material extraction [43]
E11: Embodied energy within material [46,47]

S1: Disposal cost [39,48]

S2: Health and safety [42]
S3: Maintenance cost [7,49]
S4: Esthetics [50]
S5: Use of local material [44]
S6: Initial-acquisition cost [51]
S7: Labor availability [52,21]

T1: Maintainability [53,42]

T2: Ease of Construction (buildability) [52,54]
T3: Resistance to decay [55]
T4: Fire resistance [42,56]
T5: Life expectancy of material
(e.g. strength, durability etc.)[7,57]
T6: Energy saving and thermal
insulation [58]

must be broadly applicable to all material options if comparative evaluation is to be achieved.

3.1. Importance of derived criteria

index analysis was selected in this study to rank the criteria according to
their relative importance. The following formula is used to determine the
relative index (RI) [5962]:
RI w=A x N

Based on the derived criteria in Table 1, an industry questionnaire

survey was designed to investigate the perspective of construction
professionals on the importance of the criteria for material selection.
Ninety experts comprising of architects, building designers, contractors
and structural engineers that inuence material selection were thus
asked to rate the level of importance of the derived criteria based on a
scale of 15, where 1 is least important, 2 fairly important, 3 important,
4 very important, and 5 extremely important. Respondents were also
encouraged to provide supplementary criteria that they consider to inuence building material selection but were not listed in the survey. Relative

14

where w, is the weighting as assigned by each respondent on a scale of

one to ve with one implying the least and ve the highest. A is the
highest weight (i.e. 5 in our case) and N is the total number of the sample.
Five important levels are transformed from Relative Index values: High
(H) (0.8RI1), HighMedium (HM) (0.6RIb 0.8), Medium (M)
(0.4RIb 0.6), MediumLow (ML) (0.2RIb 0.4), and Low (L)
(0RIb 0.2). A cut-off value of 0.4 is used and identied those criteria
as relevant for which the values are greater than or equal to 0.4. From
the results in Table 2, an interesting observation is that none of the

Table 2
Rank of sustainable assessment criteria for building material selection.
Sustainable performance criteria

Valid percentage of score of (%)

Relative index

Ranking by category

Overall ranking

Importance level

51.6
33.7
33.3
28.6
23.1
19.8
13.2
18.0
12.1
11.0
8.8

0.846
0.820
0.793
0.763
0.749
0.729
0.723
0.717
0.692
0.670
0.615

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

7
10
13
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
24

H
H
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH

47.3
50.4
50.5
44.0
53.8
48.4

49.5
46.2
45.1
42.9
36.3
20.9

0.892
0.886
0.881
0.859
0.853
0.774

1
2
3
4
5
6

2
3
4
5
6
14

H
H
H
H
H
MH

30.3
56.0
40.9
49.5
47.3
48.4
29.7

59.6
31.9
38.6
30.8
29.7
19.8
8.8

0.898
0.839
0.825
0.810
0.808
0.752
0.639

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

1
8
9
11
12
16
23

H
H
H
H
H
MH
MH

Environmental criteria
E7: Environmental statutory compliance
E8: Minimize pollution
E6: Zero/low toxicity
E4: Ozone depletion potential
E1: Recyclable/reusable material
E9: Amount of likely wastage in use
E11: Embodied energy in material
E2: Environmental sound disposal options
E3: Impact on air quality
E5: Impact during harvest
E10: Methods of extraction of raw materials

4.4
1.1
3.3
3.3
1.1
3.3
1.1
1.1
4.4
4.4
5.5

1.1
1.1
2.2
8.8
7.7
7.7
9.9
10.1
8.8
15.4
19.8

13.2
18.0
22.2
19.8
29.7
29.7
28.6
36.0
35.2
31.9
45.1

29.7
46.1
38.9
39.6
38.5
39.6
47.3
34.8
39.6
37.4
20.9

Technical criteria
T1: Maintainability
T6: Energy saving and thermal insulation
T5: Life expectancy (e.g. durability)
T4: Fire resistance
T3: Ease of construction/buildability
T2: Resistance to decay

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1

3.3
3.2
4.4
13.2
9.9
28.6

Socio-economic criteria
S4: Esthetics
S3: Maintenance cost
S2: Health and safety
S6: First cost
S1: Disposal cost
S5: Use of local materials
S7: Labor availability

0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
1.1
3.3
5.5

0.0
0.0
3.4
5.5
0.0
5.5
16.5

10.1
12.1
15.9
14.3
22.0
23.1
39.6

118

P.O. Akadiri et al. / Automation in Construction 30 (2013) 113125

Table 3
Factor loadings for socio-economic criteria after varimax rotation.
Observed socio-economic variable

Latent socio-economic factors

Life cycle cost

S3: Maintenance cost

S6: First cost
S1: Disposal cost
S4: Esthetics
S5: Use of local material
S2: Health and safety
S7: Labor availability
Eigenvalues
Percentage of variance (%)
Cumulative of variance (%)

Table 5
Factor loadings for environmental criteria after varimax rotation.

0.757
0.693
0.576
0.830
0.759
0.579
0.556
2.205
31.502
53.736

1.556
22.234
22.234

criteria fall under the medium and other lower importance level. This
clearly shows how important the criteria are to building designers in
evaluating sustainable building materials. All criteria were rated with
High or HighMedium importance levels, and all were used in the
assessment process.
3.2. Factor analysis
Factor analysis was employed to analyze the structure of interrelationships among the criteria. Although the most signicant criteria
were identied using ranking analysis, some of them are likely to be
inter-related with each other through an underlying structure of primary factors. Factor analysis was used to obtain a concise list of SACs.
It is conducted through a two-stage process: factor extraction and factor
rotation. Before the factor analysis, validity test for factors is conducted
according to the method by Kaiser [63]. By Kaiser Method, a value called
eigenvalue under 1 is perceived as being inadequate and therefore unacceptable for factor analysis. For the socio-economic criteria, the analysis results showed that the KaiserMeyerOlkin [KMO] measure of
sampling adequacy was 0.606, larger than 0.5, suggesting that the sample was acceptable for factor analysis. The Bartlett Test of Sphericity was
96.100 and the associated signicance level was 0.000, indicating that
the population correlation matrix was not an identity matrix. Both of
the tests showed that the obtained data in socio-economic category
supported the use of factor analysis and that these could be grouped
into a smaller set of underlying factors. Using principal component analysis, the factor analysis extracted two latent factors with eigenvalues
greater than 1.0 for the 7 socio-economic criteria, explaining 53.7% of
the variance. The rotated factor loading matrix based on the varimax rotation for the two latent factors is shown in Table 3.
The component matrix identies the relationship between the observed variables and the latent factors. The relationships are referred
to as factor loadings. The higher the absolute value of the loading, the
more the latent factor contributes to the observed variable. Small factor loadings with absolute values less than 0.5 were suppressed to
help simplify Table 3. For further interpretation, the two latent factors
under the socio-economic category (shown in Table 3) are given
names as: Factor 1: life cycle cost; and Factor 2: social benet. Similar
Table 4
Factor loadings for technical criteria after varimax rotation.
Observed technical variable

Observed environmental variable

Social benet

E7: Environmental statutory

0.882
compliance
E6: Zero or low toxicity
0.824
E4: Ozone depletion potential
0.719
E8 : Minimize pollution
0.586
(e.g. water, land)
E3: Impact of material on air quality
0.557
E10: Method of raw
material extraction
E9: Amount of likely wastage in use
of material
E11: Embodied energy
within material
E5: Environmental Impact
during material harvest
E2: Availability of environmentally
sound disposal options
E1: Potential for recycling and reuse
Eigenvalues
5.505
Percentage of variance (%)
50.048
Cumulative of variance (%)
50.048

0.893
0.773
0.588
0.546
0.912

1.216
11.057
61.105

0.871
1.116
10.149
71.254

Table 6
Summary of roong options for the proposed project.
Description Option A

Option B

Option C

Element
type
Building
type
Element

Pitched Roof Timber

Construction
Residential

Pitched Roof Timber

Construction
Residential

Pitched Roof Timber

Construction
Residential

Timber trussed
rafters and joists with
insulation, roong
underlay, counter
battens, battens and
UK produced concrete interlocking
tiles

Structurally insulated
timber panel system
with OSB/3 each side,
roong underlay,
counter battens,
battens and UK produced reclaimed clay
tiles

Size of tile
or slate
Pitch of
roof

420 mm 330 mm

420 mm 330 mm

Structurally
insulated timber
panel system with
plywood (temperate
EN 6362) decking
each side, roong
underlay, counter
battens, battens and
UK produced Fiber
cement slates
420 mm 330 mm

22.5

22.5

22.5

Latent technical factors

0.799
0.740
0.724
0.712
0.658
0.604
3.016
50.264

Waste
minimization

factor analyses were performed to identify the underlying structures

for technical and environmental categories. In the technical category,
the results for the factor analysis showed that the KMO measure was
0.804 and the Bartlett's test (p = 0.000) was also signicant, which
indicated that the factor analysis was also appropriate in identifying
the underlying structure of the technical category. The results of the
analysis are presented in Table 4 Just one factor named Factor 6: performance capability was extracted, explaining 50.3% of the total variance of the six technical criteria.
For Environmental category, both the KMO measure of sampling
adequacy test (0.801) and Bartlett's sphericity (p = 0.000) were signicant, which indicated that factor analysis was also appropriate.
Three factors under environmental category were extracted from
the factor analysis, namely, Factor 3: environmental impact; Factor
4: Resource efciency; and Factor 5: waste minimization. Along
with rotated factor loading matrix, the percentage of variance attributable to each factor and the cumulative variance values are shown in
Table 5. From the table, it can be seen that the three factors accounted
for 71.3% of the total variance of the eleven environmental criteria.
Following the results of the survey, the 24 criteria identied as
being important components of sustainable material selection are

Performance capability
T4: Fire resistance
T3: Resistance to decay
T6: Energy saving and thermal insulation
T5: Life expectancy of material
T2: Ease of construction
T1: Maintainability
Eigenvalues
Percentage of variance (%)

Latent environmental factors

Environmental Resource
impact
efciency

P.O. Akadiri et al. / Automation in Construction 30 (2013) 113125

decision-making group is formed which consists of ve construction

experts from each strategic decision area. Detailed discussion on
every criteria, sub-criteria and alternative materials has been
conducted and based on expert rating and opinion, six sustainable assessment criteria have been identied. The discussion has been further prolonged to decide the twenty four sub-criteria with three
potential roong elements.
Table 6 summarizes the details for the three options of roong elements for the proposed project. The description of the three options
is based on the standard practices and construction details commonly
used in the United Kingdom.
These 3 roong elements described above will be analyzed for the
selection of sustainable option among alternatives. In other words,
this section will analyze, through the use of the mathematical
multi-criteria decision-making model described in Section 2, which
one is the most sustainable roong material for this scenario.

analyzed and ranked according to expert's opinions. The 24 criteria

were further compressed into 6 assessment criteria factors of environmental impact, resource efciency, waste minimization, life cycle
cost, performance capability and social benet for easy evaluation.
Since these criteria are derived from the survey through expert
opinion, they symbolize the sustainable criteria that promote socioeconomic, technical and environmental consideration in building material assessment and selection. Consideration of these six criteria in
material selection will ensure sustainable development in building
design and construction. In the next section, the mathematical
multi-criteria decision-making model used for this study is briey
presented.
4. Implementation of the FEAHP selection model
The worked example for elucidating the application of the model
in practice involves the application to a realistic scenario of a building
material selection problem. The case study used intends to provide an
indication of the use of the FEAHP multi-criteria decision-making
model for the problem analyzed (i.e., the selection of sustainable
building materials). The case study involves the design of a single
family home located in a light residential area of Wolverhampton,
United Kingdom. An architectural rm is working with a client to select materials (in this case roong elements) for a residential building. The rm wants to take into account all the possible important
criteria which determine sustainability of roong elements. A

Goal

Criteria

Sub criteria

119

4.1. Fuzzy AHP procedure for the sustainable building materials

selection problem
In sustainable material selection problem, the relative importance
of different decision criteria involves a high degree of subjective judgment and individual preferences. The linguistic assessment of human
feelings and judgments are vague and it is not reasonable to represent
them in terms of precise numbers. It feels more condent to give interval judgments. Therefore triangular fuzzy numbers were used in

SELECTING
SUSTAINABLE
MATERIAL

Environmental
impact

Resource
efficiency

Life cycle cost

Waste
minimization

Performance
capability

Social benefit

Environmental
statutory
compliance

Initial cost

Method of raw
material
extraction

Environmental
sound disposal
option

Fire resistance

Use of local
material

Zero /low
toxicity

Maintenance
cost

Amount of
wastage in use

Recycling and
Reuse

Resistance to
decay

Aesthetics

Ozone
depletion

Disposal cost

Embodied
energy

Energy saving
and thermal
insulation

Health and
safety

Environmental
impact during
harvest

Life
expectancy

Material
availability

Minimize
pollution

Impact on air
quality

Ease of
construction

Maintainability

Alternatives

Option A

Option B

Fig. 4. Hierarchy of the decision problem.

Option C

120

P.O. Akadiri et al. / Automation in Construction 30 (2013) 113125

this problem to decide the priority of one decision variable over another. The triangular fuzzy numbers were determined from reviewing
literature [33]. Then synthetic extent analysis method was used to decide the nal priority weights based on triangular fuzzy numbers and
so-called as fuzzy extended AHP. In the following sections, the main
steps of the method will be explained in detail.
Step 1. Dene the main criteria and sub-criteria for material selection
to design the fuzzy analytical hierarchy process tree structure.
First the overall objective of the material selection problem has
been identied which was selection of sustainable materials for
building project. In selecting sustainable materials, a lot of criteria
should be taken into account. All of the possible important criteria
which could affect the sustainability of building materials have been
discussed with experts in the Construction sector. Also other material
selection studies in the literature were reviewed with the expert. By
combining the criteria determined by the expert and the criteria
used in the literature, the main criteria and the sub-criteria in the
study were determined and validated.
After the main criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives were determined, the hierarchy of the material selection problem was structured. Fig. 4 shows the structuring of the material selection problem
hierarchy of four levels. The top level of the hierarchy represents
the ultimate goal of the problem which is to choose a sustainable
roong element among options for the project described previously.
The goal is placed at the top of the hierarchy. The hierarchy descends
from the more general criteria in the second level to sub-criteria in
the third level to the alternatives at the bottom or fourth level. The
general criteria level involved six major criteria: environmental impact, life cycle cost, resource efciency, waste minimization, performance capability and social benet. The decision-making team
considered three roong elements for the decision alternatives, and
located them on the bottom level of the hierarchy.
Step 2. Calculate the weights of the main attributes, sub-attributes
and alternatives.
After the construction of the hierarchy, the different priority
weights of each main criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives were calculated using the fuzzy extended AHP approach. The comparison of
the importance of one main criteria, sub-criteria and alternative
over another were achieved by the help of the questionnaire. The
questionnaires facilitate the answering of pair-wise comparison questions. The preference of one measure over another was decided by the
available research and the experience of the experts.
First the expert compared the main criteria with respect to the main
goal; then the expert compared the sub-criteria with respect to the
main criteria. At the end, the expert compared the roong material options with respect to each sub-criteria. The expert used the linguistic
variables to make the pair-wise comparisons. Then the linguistic variables were converted to triangular fuzzy numbers. Table 7 shows the
linguistic variables and their corresponding triangular fuzzy numbers.
Owing to the limited space, the pair-wise comparison matrix of the
main criteria with respect to the goal will be presented here.
After the pair-wise comparison matrices were formed, the consistency of the pair-wise judgment of each comparison matrix was
checked using the calculation method of consistency index and

Table 7
The linguistic variables and their corresponding fuzzy numbers.
Intensity of
importance

Fuzzy
number

Denition

Membership
function

9
7
5
3
1

~9
~7
~5
~3
~1

Extremely more importance (EMI)

Very strong importance (VSI)
Strong importance (SI)
Moderate importance (MI)
Equal importance (EI)

(8, 9,10)
(6, 7, 8)
(4, 5, 6)
(2, 3, 4)
(1, 1, 2)

consistency ratios in crisp AHP discussed in [64]. Each triangular fuzzy

number, M = (l, m, u) in the pair-wise comparison matrix was
converted to a crisp number using M_crisp = (4 m+ l + u)/6. After
the fuzzy comparison matrices were converted into crisp matrices, the
consistency of each matrix was checked by the method in crisp AHP
[64]. After calculation, the consistency ratio of each comparison matrix
was found to be under 0.10. So we can conclude that the consistency of
the pair-wise judgments in all matrices is acceptable. Then the priority
weights of each main criteria, sub-criteria and alternative were calculated using FAHP method. As an example the calculation of the priority
weights of the main criteria will be explained in detail below.
By using the values in Table 7, the linguistic variables in a comparison matrix can be converted to triangular fuzzy numbers. The fuzzy
evaluation matrix with respect to the goal with triangular fuzzy numbers can be seen in Table 8. In order to nd the priority weights of the
main criteria, rst the fuzzy synthetic extent values of the attributes
were calculated by using Eq. (4). The different values of fuzzy synthetic extent with respect to the six different criteria are denoted by
F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, and F6, respectively.
F1 9; 11; 131=39:62; 1=33:32; 1=27:52
0:23; 0:33; 0:47;
F2 7:9; 9:5; 11:171=39:62; 1=33:32; 1=27:52
0:20; 0:28; 0:41;
F3 4:8; 6; 7:341=39:62; 1=33:32; 1=27:52
0:12; 0:18; 0:27;
F4 3:46; 4:16; 4:971=39:62; 1=33:32; 1=27:52
0:09; 0:12; 0:18;
F5 2:36; 2:66; 3:141=39:62; 1=33:32; 1=27:52
0:06; 0:08; 0:11
F6 2:34; 3; 41=39:62; 1=33:32; 1=27:52
0:05; 0:10; 0:15:
The degree of possibility of Fi over Fj (I j) can be determined by
Eqs. (8) and (9).
V F1F2 1; V F1F3 1; V F1F4 1
V F1F5 1; V F1F6 1
0:23  0:41
0:78
0:28
 3 0:41
  0:33  0:23
V F2F3 1; V F2 F4 1; V F2F6 1:
V F2F1

Table 8
The Fuzzy evaluation of criteria with respect to the overall objective.
Main criteria

Environmental impact

Life cycle cost

Resource efciency

Waste minimization

Performance capability

Social benet

Wo

C1:
C2:
C3:
C4:
C5:
C6:

1,1,1
4,5,6
4,5,6
4,5,6
6,7,8
4,5,6

1/6,1/5,1/4
1,1,1
2,3,4
1/2,1,1
2,3,4
2,3,4

1/6,1/5,1/4
1/4,1/3,1/2
1,1,1
1/4,1/3,1/2
2,3,4
1/2,1,1

1/6,1/5,1/4
1,1,2
2,3,4
1,1,1
4,5,6
2,3,4

1/8,1/7,1/6
1/4,1/3,1/2
1/4,1/3,1/2
1/6,1/5,1/4
1,1,1
1/2,1,1

1/6,1/5,1/4
1/4,1/3,1/2
1,1,2
1/4,1/3,1/2
1,1,2
1

0.155
0.310
0.079
0.058
0.354
0.044

Environmental impact
Life cycle cost
Resource efciency
Waste minimization
Performance capability
Social benet

P.O. Akadiri et al. / Automation in Construction 30 (2013) 113125

121

resource efciency, 0.058 waste minimization, 0.354 performance capability, 0.044 social benet) T. We can conclude that the most important
criteria in the sustainable material selection process for the project
under consideration is Performance capability because it has the
highest priority weight. Life cycle cost is the next preferred criteria.
The complete result is shown in Table 8.
Now the different sub-criteria are compared under each of the criterion separately by following the same procedure as discussed
above. Whenever the value of (n11n23) > 0, the elements of the matrix must be normalized and then do the same process to nd the
weight vector of each criteria. The fuzzy comparison matrices of the
sub-criteria and the weight vectors of each sub-criterion are shown
in Table 9.
Similarly the fuzzy evaluation matrices of decision alternatives
and corresponding weight vector of each alternative with respect to
corresponding sub-criteria are determined. The priority weights of
materials with respect to each criterion are given by adding the
weights per materials multiplied by weights of the corresponding
criteria. The priority weights of each main criteria, sub-criteria, and
alternative can be found in Table 10.

Similarly,
V F3F1 0:21; V F3F2 0:41;
V F3F4 1; V F3F5 1; V F3F6 1;
V F4F1 0:31; V F4F2 0:14;
V F4F3 0:5; V F4F5 1; V F4F6 1;
V F5F1 0:92; V F5F2 0:82; V F5F3 0:11;
V F5F4 0:33; V F5F6 1
V F6F1 0:82; V F6F2 0:71; V F6F3 0:34;
V F6F4 0:44; V F6F5 0:31:
With the help of Eq. (11), the minimum degree of possibility can
be stated as below:
M C1 min V F1F2; F3; F4; F5; F6
min 1; 1; 1; 1; 1 1:
Similarly, m (C2)=0.78, m (C3)=0.21, m (C4)=0.14, m (C5)=0.11,
and m (C6)=0.44.
Therefore the weight vector is given as Wc = (1, 0.78, 0.21.0.14,0.11,
0.44)T and after the normalization process, the weight vector with respect to decision criteria C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, and C6 can be expressed as
follows:Wo = (0.155 environmental impact, 0.310 life cycle cost, 0.079

Step 3. Synthesizing the results.

After computing the normalized priority weights for each pairwise comparison judgment matrices (PCJM) of the AHP hierarchy,
the next phase is to synthesize the rating for each criterion. The nor-

Table 9
Fuzzy evaluation of the attributes with respect to sub-criteria.
Environmental impact

Environmental statutory compliance Zero/low toxicity Ozone depletion Minimize pollution Impact on air quality Priority vector

Environmental statutory compliance

Zero/low toxicity
Ozone depletion
Minimize pollution
Impact on air quality
C.I. = 0.01, R.I. = 1.12, C.R. = 0.009

1,1,1
2/5,1/2,2/3
2/5,1/2,2/3
2/7,1/3,2/5
2/7,1/3,2/5

3/2,2,5/2
1,1,1
2/5,1/2,2/3
2/7,1/3,2/5
2/7,1/3,2/5

3/2,2,5/2
3/2,2,5/2
1,1,1
2/5,1/2,2/3
2/5,1/2,2/3

5/2,3,7/2
5/2,3,7/2
3/2,2,5/2
1,1,1
2/5,1/2,2/3

5/2,3,7/2
5/2,3,7/2
3/2,2,5/2
3/2,2,5/2
1,1,1

0.517
0.137
0.219
0.68
0.60

Life cycle cost

Purchase cost

Disposal cost

Maintenance cost

Priority vector

Purchase cost
Disposal cost
Maintenance cost
C.I. = 0.02, R.I. = 0.58, C.R. = 0.03

1,1,1
1/2,1,1
1/6,1/5,1/4

1,1,2
1,1,1
1/4,1/3,1/2

4,5,6
2,3,4
1,1,1

0.69
0.22
0.09

Resource efciency

Embodied energy

Embodied energy
1,1,1
Amount of wastage
1/2,1,1
Method of extraction
1/2,1,1
Impact during harvest
1/2,1,1
C.I. = 0.025, R.I. = 0.90, C.R. = 0.028

Amount of wastage

Method of extraction

Impact during harvest

Priority vector

1,1,2
1,1,1
1/2,1,1
1/2,1,1

1,1,2
1,1,2
1,1,1
2,3,4

1,1,2
1,1,2
1/4,1/3,1/2
1,1,1

0.289
0.475
0.081
0.155

Waste minimization

Recycling and reuse

Environmental sound disposal

Priority vector

Recycling and reuse

Environmentally sound disposal
C.I. = 0.00, R.I. = 0.00, C.R. = 0.00

1,1,1
1/4,1/3,1/2

2,3,4
1,1,1

0.67
0.33

Performance
capability

Fire
resistance

Fire resistance
1,1,1
Maintainability
2/5,1/2,2/3
Resistance to decay
2/3,1,3/2
Life expectancy
2/7,1/3,2/5
Energy saving and
2/5,1/2,2/3
thermal insulation
Buildability
2/5,1/2,2/3
C.I. = 0.00821, R.I. = 1.24, C.R. = 0.007

Maintainability

Resistance to
decay

Life
expectancy

Energy saving and thermal

insulation

Buildability

Priority
vector

3/2,2,5/2
1,1,1
2/3,1,3/2
2/5,1/2,2/3
3/2,2,5/2

2/3,1,3/2
2/3,1,3/2
1,1,1
2/5,1/2,2/3
3/2,2,5/2

5/2,3,7/2
3/2,2,5/2
3/2,2,5/2
1,1,1
2/3,1,3/2

3/2,2,5/2
2/7,1/3,2/5
2/7,1/3,2/5
2/3,1,3/2
1,1,1

2/3,1,3/2
3/2,2,5/2
2/5,1/2,2/3
7/2,4,9/2
2/7,1/3,2/5

0.183
0.258
0.47
0.204
0.212

2/5,1/2,2/3

3/2,2,5/2

2/5,1/2,2/3

2/5,1/2,2/3

1,1,1

0.095

Social benet

Local material

Esthetics

Health and Safety

Material availability

Priority vector

Local material
Esthetics
Health and safety
Material availability
C.I. = 0.025, R.I. = 0.90, C.R. = 0.03

1,1,1
2/3,1,3/2
2/3,1,3/2
2/5,1/2,2/3

2/3,1,3/2
1,1,1
2/5,1/2,2/3
2/5,1/2,2/3

2/3,1,3/2
3/2,2,5/2
1,1,1
2/5,1/2,2/3

2/3,1,3/2
3/2,2,5/2
3/2,2,5/2
1,1,1

0.193
0.368
0.368
0.070

122

P.O. Akadiri et al. / Automation in Construction 30 (2013) 113125

Table 10
Priority weights for sustainability criteria and sub criteria used in the case study.
Variables in level 1

Local weight (1)a

Variables in level 2

Local weight (2)

Global weight (3)b

Variables in level 3

Local weight (4)

Environmental impact

0.155

Environmental statutory compliance

0.517

0.07962

Zero/low toxicity

0.137

0.02109c

Ozone depletion

0.219

0.03373

Minimize pollution

0.68

0.10472

Impact on air quality

0.60

0.0924

Maintenance cost

0.22

0.07062

Initial cost

0.69

0.22149

Disposal cost

0.09

0.02889

Method of raw material extraction

0.081

0.00624

Amount of wastage

0.475

0.03658

Embodied energy

0.289

0.02225

Environmental impact during harvest

0.155

0.01194

Fire resistance

0.183

0.06405

Resistance to decay

0.47

0.1645

Energy saving and thermal insulation

0.212

0.0742

Life expectancy

0.204

0.0714

Ease of construction

0.095

0.03325

Maintainability

0.258

0.0903

Use of Local material

0.193

0.00791

Esthetics

0.368

0.01508

Health and safety

0.368

0.01508

Material availability

0.070

0.00287

Environmental sound disposal option

0.33

0.01881

Recycling and reuse

0.67

0.03819

Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C
Material A
Material B
Material C

0.072
0.650
0.278
0.200
0.400
0.400
0.747
0.060
0.193
0.674
0.101
0.226
0.796
0.125
0.079
0.691
0.218
0.091
0.770
0.068
0.162
0.731
0.081
0.188
0.400
0.200
0.400
0.126
0.416
0.458
0.691
0.091
0.218
0.754
0.181
0.065
0.804
0.074
0.122
0.472
0.084
0.444
0.802
0.075
0.211
0.184
0.584
0.232
0.691
0.091
0.218
0.45
0.09
0.46
0.300
0.600
0.600
0.082
0.700
0.378
0.770
0.058
0.162
0.770
0.050
0.170
0.69
0.09
0.22
0.45
0.09
0.46

1.000

Life cycle cost

Resource efciency

Performance capability

Social benet

Waste minimization

0.310

0.079

0.354

0.044

0.058

1.000

Local weight is derived from judgment with respect to a single criterion.

Global weight is derived from multiplication by the priority of the criterion.
This entry is obtained as follows: 0.154 0.137 = 0.02109. The global weight of the sub-criterion is obtained by multiplying the local weight of the sub-criterion by the weight of
the criterion.
b
c

P.O. Akadiri et al. / Automation in Construction 30 (2013) 113125

123

Table 11
Overall rating of the three assessed roong material using AHP technique.
Criterion

Local weight (1)

Environmental impact

0.155

Life cycle cost

0.310

Resource efciency

0.079

Performance capability

0.354

Social benet

0.044

Waste minimization

0.058

Total

1.000

Sub-criterion

Environmental statutory compliance

Zero/low toxicity
Ozone depletion
Minimize pollution
Impact on air quality
Maintenance cost
Initial cost
Disposal cost
Method of raw material extraction
Amount of wastage
Embodied energy
Environmental impact during harvest
Fire resistance
Resistance to decay
Energy saving and thermal insulation
Life expectancy
Ease of construction
Maintainability
Use of local material
Esthetics
Health and safety
Material availability
Environmental sound disposal option
Recycling and reuse

malized local priority weights of dimensions of sustainability and various SC were obtained and were combined together in order to obtain
the global composite priority weights of all SC used in the third level
of the AHP model. In order to shorten the solution process for the material selection problem, Expert Choice 11.5 was used to determine
the global priority weights of material alternatives based on the
questionnaire used to facilitate comparisons of main attributes, subattributes and alternatives. It provides two ways of synthesizing the
local priorities of the alternatives using the global priorities of their
parent criteria: the distributive mode and the ideal mode. In the distributive mode the weight of criteria reects the importance that the
decision maker attaches to the dominance of each alternative relative
to all other alternatives under that criterion. In this case, the distributive mode would be the way to synthesize the results. After deriving
the local priorities for the criteria and the alternatives through
pair-wise comparisons, the priorities of the criteria are synthesized
to calculate the overall priorities for the decision alternatives. As
shown in Table 11, the materials are ranked according to their overall
priorities. Material option (A) turns out to be the most preferable
material among the three materials, with an overall priority score
of 0.453.
5. Conclusion
This paper discussed the development of assessment criteria,
computational methods, and analytical models for sustainable material selection. The complex tasks of comparing building materials options based on their sustainability, using multi-criteria considerations
are regarded as daunting challenges by many material speciers.
Hence developing suitable systematic approaches and appropriate
structured decision-making frameworks for sustainable building material selection was considered in this research. Decision making for a
sustainable material alternative, while considering various criteria
that inuence selection, is difcult and this difculty is further complicated not only when conicting relationships exist between the
criteria considered, but also when qualitative criteria are included.

Local weight (2)

0.517
0.137
0.219
0.68
0.60
0.22
0.69
0.09
0.081
0.475
0.289
0.155
0.183
0.47
0.212
0.204
0.095
0.258
0.193
0.368
0.368
0.070
0.33
0.67
Overall priority
Rank

Local weight (3)

Global weight (4)

M (A)

M (B)

MI

M (A)

M (B)

MI

0.072
0.200
0.747
0.674
0.796
0.691
0.770
0.731
0.400
0.126
0.691
0.754
0.804
0.472
0.802
0.184
0.691
0.45
0.300
0.082
0.770
0.770
0.69
0.45

0.650
0.400
0.060
0.101
0.125
0.218
0.068
0.081
0.200
0.416
0.091
0.181
0.074
0.084
0.075
0.584
0.091
0.90
0.600
0.700
0.058
0.050
0.09
0.09

0.278
0.400
0.193
0.226
0.079
0.091
0.162
0.188
0.400
0.458
0.218
0.065
0.122
0.444
0.211
0.232
0.218
0.46
0.600
0.378
0.162
0.170
0.22
0.46

0.0057
0.0042
0.0252
0.0306
0.0736
0.0088
0.0705
0.0216
0.0025
0.0046
0.0154
0.0090
0.0515
0.0376
0.0295
0.0131
0.0229
0.0206
0.0024
0.0012
0.0116
0.0022
0.0130
0.0172
0.453
1

0.0504
0.0084
0.0020
0.0106
0.0116
0.0054
0.0151
0.0023
0.0012
0.0152
0.0020
0.0027
0.0047
0.0138
0.0056
0.0417
0.0030
0.0313
0.0048
0.0106
0.0009
0.0001
0.0017
0.0034
0.249
3

0.0725
0.0084
0.0065
0.0237
0.0073
0.0064
0.0359
0.0054
0.0025
0.0168
0.0049
0.0008
0.0078
0.0330
0.0157
0.0166
0.0072
0.0215
0.0048
0.0057
0.0024
0.0005
0.0041
0.0176
0.324
2

To deal with this difculty effectively, this research proposed a method that focused on aggregation of criteria that inuence sustainable
material selection.
Sustainable assessment criteria (SAC) used in study were identied based on sustainability triple bottom (TBL) approach, review of
the literature in the eld of material selection, combined with requirement of project stakeholders. A questionnaire survey was
employed to obtain the perceived importance of the criteria. Following the results of the survey, the twenty four criteria identied as
being important components of sustainable material selection were
further compressed into six assessment criteria factors of environmental impact, resource efciency, waste minimization, life cycle cost,
performance capability and social benet for modeling and evaluating sustainable performance of building materials. A Fuzzy extended
analytical hierarchical process (FEAHP) was used for aggregating
and assigning numerical values (i.e., weights) to measure the relative
importance of these criteria for a given material alternative. For this
purpose, FEAHP uses simple pairwise comparisons to determine
weights and ratings so that the analyst can concentrate on just two
factors at one time. This process enables decision makers to formalize
and effectively solve the complicated, multi-criteria and vague perception problem of building material alternative selection. An empirical case study of three proposed roong element alternatives for a
new building project was used to exemplify the approach. From the
result of the case study, it can be concluded that the application of
the FEAHP in incorporating both objective and subjective criteria
into the assessment process and improving the team decision process
is desirable. The underlying concepts applied were intelligible to the
decision maker groups, and the computation required is straightforward and simple. A comparison of the result of the traditional decision method and that of the Fuzzy extended AHP method clearly
shows that qualitative criteria have a signicant impact on sustainability of building materials. In the case study project, it was discovered that some materials selected by the traditional methods were
dropped when the qualitative criteria were introduced using AHP.
However, Fuzzy AHP is a highly complex methodology and requires

124

P.O. Akadiri et al. / Automation in Construction 30 (2013) 113125

more numerical calculations in assessing composite priorities than

the traditional method and hence it increases the effort. The fuzzy
methodology could also be extended with the other multi-criteria
decision-making (MCDM) methods such as Analytical Network
Process (ANP), TOPSIS, ELECTRE and DEA techniques in solving material selection problems. Finally, the evaluation model and results can
provide a valuable reference for building professionals seeking to enhance the sustainability of construction projects.
The approach suggested in this research can allow for assessment
of the other civil infrastructures taking into consideration a large criterion set and an extensive number of alternatives, especially where
conicting objectives exist. The authors are convinced that this research can assist building stakeholders in making critical decisions
during the selection of sustainable material alternatives.
References
[1] S. Halliday, Sustainable Construction Butterworth Heinemann. (London) , 2008.
[2] P.S. Barrett, M.G. Sexton, L. Green, Integrated delivery systems for sustainable
construction, Building Research and Information 27 (6) (1999) 397404.
[3] N.Z. Abidin, Investigating the awareness and application of sustainable construction concept by Malaysian developers, Habitat International 34 (4) (2010)
421426.
[4] L. Braganca, R. Mateus, H. Koukkari, Assessment of building sustainability, in:
L. Braganca, et al., (Eds.), Sustainability of Constructions, Integrated Approach to
Life-time Structural Engineering, Proceedings of the rst COST C25 Workshop,
Lisbon, Selected papersMulticomp, Lisbon, Sept 1315 2007, pp. 312.
[5] J. Godfaurd, D. Clements-Croome, G. Jeronimidis, Sustainable building solutions: a
review of lessons from the natural world, Building and Environment 40 (3)
(2005) 319328.
[6] K. Nassar, W. Thabet, Y. Beliveau, A procedure for multi-criteria selection of building assemblies, Automation in Construction 12 (5) (2003) 543560.
[7] J.K.W. Wong, H. LI, Application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in
multi-criteria analysis of the selection of intelligent building systems, Building
and Environment 43 (1) (2008) 108125.
[8] R. Gibson, S. Hassan, S. Holtz, J. Tansey, G. Whitelaw, Sustainability Assessment
Criteria, Processes and Application, Earthscan Publications Limited, London, UK,
2005.
[9] D. Crawley, I. Aho, Building environmental assessment methods: environmental
performance or sustainability? Building Research and Information 27 (4/5)
(1999) 300308.
[10] M. Sinou, S. Kyvelou, Present and future of building performance assessment
tools, Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 17 (5)
(2006) 570586.
[11] O. Ortiz, J.C. Pasqualino, F. Castells, Environmental performance of construction
waste: comparing three scenarios from a case study in Catalonia, Spain, Waste
Management 30 (2010) 646654.
[12] P.O. Akadiri, P.O. Olomolaiye, Development of sustainable assessment criteria for
building materials selection, Journal of Engineering Construction and Architectural Management 19 (6) (2012) 1837.
[13] A. Shapira, M. Goldenberg, AHP-based equipment selection model for construction projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 131 (12)
(2005) 12631273.
[14] T.J. Barker, Z.B. Zabinsky, A multi-criteria decision making model for reverse logistics using analytical hierarchy process, Omega 39 (5) (2011) 558573.
[15] E.K. Zavadskas, A. Kaklauskas, Z. Turskis, J. Tamosaitiene, Selection of the effective
dwelling house walls by applying attributes values determined at intervals,
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 14 (2) (2008) 8593.
[16] H.Z. Alibaba, M.B. Ozdeniz, A building elements selection system for architects,
Building and Environment 39 (3) (2004) 307316.
[17] T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
[18] E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, J. Tamosaitiene, Selection of construction enterprises
management strategy based on the SWOT and multi-criteria analysis, Archives
of Civil and Mechanical Engineering 4 (11) (2011) 10631082.
[19] R. Bahareh, R. Rehan, H. Kasun, Sustainability assessment of ooring systems in
the city of Tehran: an AHP-based life cycle analysis, Construction and Building
Materials 25 (4) (2011) 20532066.
[20] H. Wang, H. Bai, J. Liu, H. Xu, Measurement indicators and an evaluation approach for
assessing strategic environmental assessment effectiveness, Ecological Indicators 23
(2012) 413420.
[21] O.O. Ugwu, M.M. Kumaraswamy, A. Wong, S.T. Ng, Sustainability appraisal in infrastructure projects (SUSAIP): Part 1. Development of indicators and computational methods, Automation in Construction 15 (2) (2006) 239251.
[22] E.K. Zavadskas, J. Antucheviciene, Multiple criteria evaluation of rural building's
regeneration alternatives, Building and Environment 42 (1) (2007) 436451.
[23] M.M. Fouladgar, A. Yazdani-Chamzini, A. Lashgari, E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis,
Maintenance strategy selection using AHP and COPRAS under fuzzy environment,
International Journal of Strategic Property Management 16 (1) (2012) 85104.
[24] R.K. Singh, H.R. Murty, S.K. Gupta, A.K. Dikshit, Development of composite sustainability performance index for steel industry, Ecological Indicators 7 (3)
(2007) 565588.

[25] T.L. Saaty, Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making why
pairwise comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of intangible
factors, The Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process. RACSAM 102 (2) (2008) 251318.
[26] F. Zahedi, The analytic hierarchy process: a survey of the method and its applications, Interfaces 16 (4) (1986) 96108.
[27] T.L. Saaty, J.S. Shang, An innovative orders-of-magnitude approach to AHP-based
multi-criteria decision making: prioritizing divergent intangible humane acts,
European Journal of Operational Research 214 (3) (2011) 703715.
[28] M. Medineckiene, E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, Dwelling selection by applying fuzzy
game theory, Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering 11 (3) (2011)
681697.
[29] P. Jaskowski, S. Biruk, R. Bucon, Assessing contractor selection criteria weights
with fuzzy AHP method application in group decision environment, Automation
in Construction 19 (2) (2010) 120126.
[30] F.T.S. Chan, N. Kumar, Global supplier development considering risk factors using
fuzzy extended AHP-based approach, Omega 35 (4) (2007) 417431.
[31] A. Nieto-Morote, F. Ruz-Vila, A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model for
construction contractor prequalication, Automation in Construction 25 (2012)
819.
[32] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy Sets Information and Control 8 (1965) 338353.
[33] P. Nang-Fei, Fuzzy AHP approach for selecting the suitable bridge construction
method, Automation in Construction 17 (8) (2008) 958965.
[34] D.Y. Chang, Applications of the extent analysis method on Fuzzy-AHP, European
Journal of Operational Research 95 (1996) 649655.
[35] C.K. Kwong, H. Bai, Determining the importance weights for the customer requirements in QFD using a fuzzy AHP with an extent analysis approach, IIE Transactions 35 (7) (2003) 619626.
[36] T.J. Foxon, G. Mcilkenny, D. Gilmour, C. ltean-dumbrava, N. Souter, R. Ashley, D. Butler,
P. Pearson, P. Jowitt, J. Moir, Sustainability criteria for decision support in the UK water
industry, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 45 (2) (2002)
285301.
[37] A.J. Balkema, H.A. Preisig, R. Otterpohl, A.J.D. Lambert, S.R. Weijers, Developing a
model based decision support tool for the identication of sustainable treatment
options for domestic wastewater, Water Science and Technology 43 (7) (2001)
265269.
[38] T. Buchholz, V.A. Luzadis, T.A. Volk, Sustainability criteria for bioenergy systems:
results from expert survey, Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (1) (2009) S86S98.
[39] Y. Chen, G.E. Okudan, D.R. Riley, Sustainable performance criteria for construction
method selection in concrete buildings, Automation in Construction 19 (2)
(2010) 235244.
[40] P. Asokan, M. Osmani, A.D.F. Price, Assessing the recycling potential of glass bre
reinforced plastic waste in concrete and cement composites, Cleaner Production
17 (9) (2009) 821829.
[41] S. Beder, Environmental Principles and Policies: An Interdisciplinary Approach,
UNSW Press, Sydney and Earthscan, London, 2006.
[42] R. Spiegel, D. Meadows, A Guide to Product Selection and Specications Green
Building Materials, third ed. Canada: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New
Jersey, 2010.
[43] J. Kim, B. Rigdon, Sustainable Architecture Module: Qualities, Use, and Examples of
Sustainable Building Materials,Sustainable Architecture Compendium, National
Pollution Prevention Center, University of Michigan, 1998.
[44] K.R. Bunz, G.P. Henze, D.K. Tiller, Survey of sustainable building design practices in
North America, Europe and Asia, Architectural Engineering 12 (1) (2006) 3362.
[45] J. Anderson, D. Shiers, K. Steele, The Green Guide to Specication: An Environmental Proling System for Building Material and Components, BR 501, Building
Research Establishment, UK, 2009.
[46] L.C. Bank, B.P. Thompson, M. McCarthy, Decision-making tools for evaluating the
impact of materials selection on the carbon footprint of buildings, Carbon
Management 2 (4) (2011) 431441.
[47] T. Crosbie, N. Dawood, S. Dawood, Improving the energy performance of the built
environment: the potential of virtual collaborative life cycle tools, Automation in
Construction 20 (2) (2011) 205216.
[48] H. Yao, L. Shen, Y. Tan, J. Hao, Simulating the impacts of policy scenarios on the
sustainability performance of infrastructure projects, Automation in Construction
20 (8) (2011) 10601069.
[49] J. Wong, H. Li, J. Lai, Evaluating the system intelligence of the intelligent building
systems: Part 1: development of key intelligent indicators and conceptual analytical framework, Automation in Construction 17 (3) (2008) 284302.
[50] M. Ashby, K. Johnson, Materials and Design: the Art and Science of Material Selection
in Product Design, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2002.
[51] S. Emmitt, D.T. Yeomans, Specifying Buildings: a Design Management Perspective.
(261 pp) 2nd ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2008.
[52] M. Calkins, Materials for Sustainable Sites: a Complete Guide to the Evaluation, Selection, and Use of Sustainable Construction Materials, Wiley, Hoboken, N.J., 2009.
[53] P. Sirisalee, M.F. Ashby, G.T. Parks, P.J. Clarkson, Multi-criteria material selection
in engineering design, Advanced Engineering Materials 6 (12) (2004) 8492.
[54] C.J. Kibert, Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery, second
ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New jersey, USA, 2008.
[55] P. Joseph, S. Tretsiakova-McNally, Sustainable non-metallic building materials,
Sustainability 2 (2) (2010) 400427.
[56] S.M. Lo, C.M. Zhao, M. Liu, A. Coping, A simulation model for studying the implementation of performance-based re safety design in buildings, Automation in
Construction 17 (7) (2008) 852863.
[57] C.C. Zhou, G.F. Yin, X.B. Hu, Multi-objective optimization of material selection for
sustainable products: articial neural networks and genetic algorithm approach,
Materials and Design 30 (4) (2009) 12091215.

P.O. Akadiri et al. / Automation in Construction 30 (2013) 113125

[58] J. Goggins, T. Keane, A. Kelly, The assessment of embodied energy in typical
reinforced concrete building structures in Ireland, Energy and Buildings 42 (5)
(2010) 735744.
[59] P.O. Olomolaiye, K.A. Wahab, A.D.F. Price, Problems inuencing craftsmen's productivity in Nigeria, Building and Environment 22 (4) (1987) 317323.
[60] E.A. Chinyio, P.O. Olomolaiye, P. Corbett, Quantication of construction clients'
needs through paired comparisons, Journal of Management in Engineering 14
(1) (1998) 8792.
[61] N. Braimah, I. Ndekugri, Consultants' perceptions on construction delay analysis
methodologies, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 135 (12)
(2009) 12791288.

125

[62] P.O. Akadiri, Development of a multi-criteria approach for the selection of sustainable materials for building projects. PhD thesis, SEBE, University of Wolverhampton,
Wolverhampton, 2011.
[63] H.F. Kaiser, An index of factorial simplicity, Psychometrika 39 (1) (1974) 3136.
[64] W. Ying-Ming, L. Ying, H. Zhongsheng, On the extent analysis method for fuzzy
AHP and its applications, European Journal of Operational Research 186 (2)
(2008) 735747.