IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dbj/trasus/v1y2025i3p212-224.html

Embodied carbon meets payback: Stakeholder-driven MCDM for selecting renovation scenarios

Author

Listed:
  • Paulius Spudys

    (Kaunas University of Technology)

  • Deimante Jarmalaviciute

    (YIT Lietuva)

  • Egle Klumbyte

    (Kaunas University of Technology)

Abstract

Ambitious European building sector’s decarbonization goals require significant increase in renovation rates, yet the success of these initiatives relies on aligning technical goals with stakeholder priorities. This study offers a novel perspective by quantitatively comparing how building owners and experts prioritize renovation outcomes using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) to shed a light on the potential disagreements and barriers in renovation processes. The work carried out includes an assessment of building owners and experts’ perception using pairwise comparisons through the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to determine the relative significance of each criterion to evaluate renovation scenarios via Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) and Multiplicative Exponential Weighting (MEW) methods. Five key criteria (i) improvement lifespan, (ii) payback period, (iii) operational energy demand, (iv) energy saved, and (v) global warming potential (embodied carbon), were defined to capture a holistic performance of renovation alternatives. The results showed a strong disagreement between building owners and experts in prioritising renovation criteria. However, application of MCDM methods allowed to assess and select alternative which provides a matching point for stakeholders. These findings contribute to the field of sustainable architecture and civil engineering by highlighting the importance of stakeholder-inclusive MCDM approaches, thereby enhancing the adoption of deep energy retrofits in line with European Green Deal targets.

Suggested Citation

  • Paulius Spudys & Deimante Jarmalaviciute & Egle Klumbyte, 2025. "Embodied carbon meets payback: Stakeholder-driven MCDM for selecting renovation scenarios," Transformations and Sustainability, Centre for Productivity and Sustainability Analysis, vol. 1(3), pages 212-224.
    • Handle: RePEc:dbj:trasus:v:1:y:2025:i:3:p:212-224
    DOI: 10.63775/3ph1qs36
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cpsa.lt/ts/article/view/23/22
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://cpsa.lt/ts/article/view/23
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.63775/3ph1qs36?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Indre Siksnelyte-Butkiene & Dalia Streimikiene & Tomas Balezentis & Virgilijus Skulskis, 2021. "A Systematic Literature Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Sustainable Selection of Insulation Materials in Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Spudys, Paulius & Jurelionis, Andrius & Fokaides, Paris, 2025. "Digitizing buildings sustainability assessment: Integrating energy audits, operational energy assessments, and life cycle assessments for enhanced building assessment," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 316(C).
    3. Linus Malmgren & Kristina Mjörnell, 2015. "Application of a Decision Support Tool in Three Renovation Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-18, September.
    4. C. West Churchman & Russell L. Ackoff, 1954. "An Approximate Measure of Value," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(2), pages 172-187, May.
    5. Kosa Golić & Tatjana Kosić & Vesna Kosorić, 2023. "AHP-Based Model for Energy-Sustainable Renovation of Building Envelopes: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-31, May.
    6. Aliakbar Kamari & Stefan Jensen & Maria Leonhard Christensen & Steffen Petersen & Poul Henning Kirkegaard, 2018. "A hybrid Decision Support System for Generation of Holistic Renovation Scenarios—Cases of Energy Consumption, Investment Cost, and Thermal Indoor Comfort," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Minh Van Nguyen & Tu Thanh Nguyen & Chien Thanh Phan & Khanh Duy Ha, 2024. "Sustainable redevelopment of urban areas: Assessment of key barriers for the reconstruction of old residential buildings," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(3), pages 2282-2297, June.
    2. Willem Karel M. Brauers & Romualdas Ginevičius, 2009. "Robustness in regional development studies. The case of Lithuania," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(2), pages 121-140, February.
    3. Tomasz Szul & Krzysztof Nęcka & Stanisław Lis, 2021. "Application of the Takagi-Sugeno Fuzzy Modeling to Forecast Energy Efficiency in Real Buildings Undergoing Thermal Improvement," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, March.
    4. Kristina Mjörnell & Paula Femenías & Kerstin Annadotter, 2019. "Renovation Strategies for Multi-Residential Buildings from the Record Years in Sweden—Profit-Driven or Socioeconomically Responsible?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-18, December.
    5. Antonio Artino & Riccardo Caponetto & Gianpiero Evola & Giuseppe Margani & Edoardo Michele Marino & Emanuele Murgano, 2020. "Decision Support System for the Sustainable Seismic and Energy Renovation of Buildings: Methodological Layout," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-21, December.
    6. Mohammad Ali Hatefi & Seyyed Abdollah Razavi & Vahid Abiri, 2023. "A Novel Multi-attribute Model to Select Appropriate Weighting Method in Decision Making, an Empirical Application in Petroleum Industry," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 1351-1390, December.
    7. Willem Brauers, 2013. "Multi-objective seaport planning by MOORA decision making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 206(1), pages 39-58, July.
    8. Kuo, Ting, 2017. "A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 152-160.
    9. Jalil Heidary Dahooie & Mehrdad Estiri & Mahshid Janmohammadi & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Zenonas Turskis, 2022. "A novel advertising media selection framework for online games in an intuitionistic fuzzy environment," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 13(1), pages 109-150, March.
    10. Agata Sielska, 2020. "Stability of hospital rankings," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(4), pages 95-112.
    11. Aliakbar Kamari & Ashwin Paari & Henrik Øien Torvund, 2020. "BIM-Enabled Virtual Reality (VR) for Sustainability Life Cycle and Cost Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, December.
    12. Lin, Yi-Kuei & Yeh, Cheng-Ta, 2012. "Multi-objective optimization for stochastic computer networks using NSGA-II and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(3), pages 735-746.
    13. Siksnelyte-Butkiene, Indre & Streimikiene, Dalia & Balezentis, Tomas, 2022. "Addressing sustainability issues in transition to carbon-neutral sustainable society with multi-criteria analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 254(PA).
    14. Hosseini Dehshiri, Seyyed Shahabaddin & Firoozabadi, Bahar, 2025. "Optimizing building energy solutions: A guideline for choosing proper multi criteria decision making methods in energy problems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
    15. Michal Nowakowski, 2020. "Comparative Analysis of Information Usefulness Evaluation Methods on Business Internet Services," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 2), pages 292-306.
    16. Ozan Çakır & İbrahim Gürler & Bora Gündüzyeli, 2022. "Analysis of a Non-Discriminating Criterion in Simple Additive Weighting Deep Hierarchy," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(17), pages 1-22, September.
    17. James S. Dyer & James E. Smith, 2021. "Innovations in the Science and Practice of Decision Analysis: The Role of Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5364-5378, September.
    18. Eglė Klumbytė & Raimondas Bliūdžius & Milena Medineckienė & Paris A. Fokaides, 2021. "An MCDM Model for Sustainable Decision-Making in Municipal Residential Buildings Facilities Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-16, March.
    19. Yeboah, Samuel, 2023. "Unlocking the Potential of Technological Innovations for Sustainable Agriculture in Developing Countries: Enhancing Resource Efficiency and Environmental Sustainability," MPRA Paper 118215, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 26 Jul 2023.
    20. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dbj:trasus:v:1:y:2025:i:3:p:212-224. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Tomas Balezentis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://cpsa.lt/ts/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.