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

Paulius Spūdys; Deimantė Jarmalavičiūtė; Eglė  Klumbytė

doi:10.63775/3ph1qs36

Authors

Paulius Spūdys Kaunas University of Technology Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5673-1828
Deimantė Jarmalavičiūtė YIT Lietuva Author
Eglė Klumbytė Kaunas University of Technology Author https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2585-2042

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63775/3ph1qs36

Keywords:

Building renovation, Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM), experts, building owners, decarbonization

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.

References

Bajwa, A. U. R., Siriwardana, C., Shahzad, W. & Naeem, M. A. (2025). Material selection in the construction industry: a systematic literature review on multi-criteria decision making. Environment Systems and Decisions, 45(1), 8.

Churchman, C. W. and Ackoff, R. L. (1954). An approximate Measure of Value. Journal of the Operations Research. Informs, 2(2), 172-187.

European Commission (2025). Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. Available at: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-performance-buildings/energy-performance-buildings-directive_en [Accessed 15-Aug-2025].

European Commission (2024). Renovation Wave. Available at: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-performance-buildings/renovation-wave_en [Accessed 10-Aug-2025].

European Commission (2024). The European Green Deal - European Commission. Available at: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en [Accessed 11-Aug-2025].

European Environment Agency (2023) Accelerating the energy efficiency renovation of residential buildings - a behavioural approach. Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/accelerating-the-energy-efficiency [Accessed 10-Aug-2025].

Golić, K., Kosić, T. & Kosorić, V. (2023). AHP-Based Model for Energy-Sustainable Renovation of Building Envelopes: A Case Study. Sustainability, 15(10), 8384.

Kamari, A., Jensen, S. R., & Corrao, R. (2018). A hybrid decision support system for generation of holistic renovation scenarios: Cases of energy, cost, and comfort. Sustainability, 10(4), 1255.

Kendall, M. G. (1970). Rank correlation methods. London, Griffin.

Klee, J. A. (1971). The role of decision models in the evaluation of competing environmental health alternatives. Management Science, 18(2), 52-67

Maccrimon, K. R. (1968). Descriptive and normative implications of the decision – theory postulates. In: Borch K., Mossin J. (eds) Risk and Uncertainty. International Economic Association Conference. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Malmgren, L., & Mjörnell, K. (2015). Application of a decision support tool in three renovation projects. Sustainability, 7(9), 12521–12538.

Marsh, R. (2016). Building lifespan: effect on the environmental impact of building components in a Danish perspective. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 13(2), 80–100.

Medineckiene, M. & Björk, F. (2011). Owner preferences regarding renovation measures - The demonstration of using multi-criteria decision making. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 17(2), 284–295.

Pinzon Amorocho, J. A. & Hartmann, T. (2022). A multi-criteria decision-making framework for residential building renovation using pairwise comparison and TOPSIS methods. Journal of Building Engineering, 53, 104596.

Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281.

Seddiki, M., & Bennadji, A. (2025). A Life Cycle Carbon Assessment and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Framework for Building Renovation Within the Circular Economy Context: A Case Study. Buildings, 15(11), 1894.

Spudys, P., Jurelionis, A. & Fokaides, P. (2025). Digitizing buildings sustainability assessment: Integrating energy audits, operational energy assessments, and life cycle assessments for enhanced building assessment. Energy, 316, 134429.

Spudys, P., Afxentiou, N., Georgali, P.-Z., Klumbyte, E., Jurelionis, A., & Fokaides, P. (2023). Classifying the operational energy performance of buildings with the use of digital twins. Energy and Buildings, 290, 113106.

Šikšnelytė-Butkienė, I., Streimikienė, D., Baležentis, T., & Skulskis, V. (2021). A Systematic Literature Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Sustainable Selection of Insulation Materials in Buildings. Sustainability, 13(2), 737.

Theilig, K., Vollmer, M., Lang, W. & Albus, J. (2025). Multi-criteria decision-making for energy building renovation: Comparing exterior wall structures with the AHP, ANP, utility analysis, and TOPSIS. Building and Environment, 280, 113075.

Villalba, P., Sánchez-Garrido, A. J. & Yepes, V. (2024). A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for building assessment, selection, and retrofit. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 30(5), 465–480.

United Nations Environment Programme (2025). Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction 2024/25 Not just another brick in the wall. https://doi.org/10.59117/20.500.11822/47214

Zanakis, H. S., Solomon, A., Wishart, N. and Dublish, S. (1998). Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of selected methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 107(3), 507–529.