Author
Listed:
- D'Agostino, Diana
- De Falco, Francesco
- Minelli, Federico
- Minichiello, Francesco
Abstract
The choice of thermal insulation technology for existing building retrofit can be a complex multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem characterized by multiple stakeholders with conflicting interests. The conflicting interests of the building owners and the policymakers could negatively influence the adoption of low-carbon energy retrofit measures by building possessors, slowing down the progress toward sustainable development. The investigation of this issue is, therefore, crucial to support more informed decisions and offer policymakers useful insights to develop future economic incentives for energy refurbishment of buildings. Most of the existing MCDM studies on the subject do not emphasize the differences among different stakeholders nor consider the outcomes' robustness. To overcome this gap, this paper integrates multi-stakeholder analyses and robustness assessments to provide broad-spectrum and reliable results. An innovative robust MCDM framework for building thermal insulation under conflicting stakeholder interests is proposed and tested on a real case study building (located in Southern Italy) using building dynamic energy simulation. Several alternatives of thermal insulation are evaluated under environmental, energy, and economic key performance indicators (KPIs). The Analytic Hierarchy Process is used to define criteria weights for conflicting decision-makers representing collectivity (policymakers) and private interests. TOPSIS, VIKOR, WASPAS, and MULTIMOORA methods are integrated to perform initial rankings of the alternatives. A rank similarity analysis is performed to evaluate the consensus between MCDM methods, and an ensemble ranking is obtained for each decision-maker using an approach based on the half-quadratic theory. A Confidence Index and a Trust Level are used to evaluate the agreement among the MCDM approaches, verifying the reliability of the final ensemble ranking. The robustness of the framework is attained by complying with well-established literature guidance. The hybrid MCDM analysis showed that porous materials like expanded clay and expanded perlite lead to better results under the KPIs investigated. The worst performances are attained by vacuum insulation panels and aerogel, mainly due to high values of embodied CO2 emissions and long payback periods. Insights upon the performance of different thermal insulating alternatives are also highlighted by the study and a stakeholder comparative analysis demonstrates that global rankings obtained for the different decision-makers show some similarities, but also important deviations, and a full compromise solution is not achieved.
Suggested Citation
D'Agostino, Diana & De Falco, Francesco & Minelli, Federico & Minichiello, Francesco, 2024.
"New robust multi-criteria decision-making framework for thermal insulation of buildings under conflicting stakeholder interests,"
Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 376(PA).
Handle:
RePEc:eee:appene:v:376:y:2024:i:pa:s0306261924016453
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124262
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:eee:appene:v:376:y:2024:i:pa:s0306261924016453. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.