Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Building Design Alternatives for Energy Efficiency Using CRITIC and CoCoSo Methods

Öz

This study aims to evaluate building design alternatives in terms of energy efficiency using the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) approach. The analysis was conducted on 12 representative building alternatives selected from the UCI Energy Efficiency dataset using the K Means clustering algorithm. Relative compactness, surface area, wall area, roof area, overall height, and glazing area design parameters were selected as criteria. The criterion weights were objectively determined using the CRITIC (Criteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation) method, which takes into account inter-criteria correlation and data variability. The CoCoSo (Combined Compromise Solution) method was used to rank the building alternatives. The ranking results of the building alternatives obtained from the analysis were compared with the reference Heating Load and Cooling Load indicators. According to the CoCoSo results, alternative A5 achieved the highest performance score (k=2.426), while the average heating and cooling load of the top four alternatives in the CoCoSo ranking was calculated as 17.428, whereas that of the bottom four alternatives was calculated as 26.523. These results demonstrated that the alternatives with higher performance scores exhibited better energy performance. As a result, the proposed CRITIC-CoCoSo approach provides an objective, reliable, and data-driven decision support tool for the evaluation of building energy performance. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• MCDM
• CRITIC
• CoCoSo
• Energy-Efficient Building
• Energy Efficiency in Buildings
• Energy-Efficient Building Design Parameters

CRITIC ve CoCoSo Yöntemleri Kullanılarak Bina Tasarım Alternatiflerinin Enerji Verimliliği Açısından Çok Kriterli Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Bu çalışma, bina tasarım alternatiflerinin enerji verimliliği açısından Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) yaklaşımı ile değerlendirilmesini amaçlamaktadır. Analiz, UCI Energy Efficiency veri setinden K-Ortalamalar (K-Means) kümeleme algoritması kullanılarak seçilen 12 temsili bina alternatifi üzerinden gerçekleştirilmiştir. Kriter olarak göreceli kompaktlık, yüzey alanı, duvar alanı, çatı alanı, toplam yükseklik ve cam alanı tasarım parametreleri seçilmiştir. Kriter ağırlıkları, kriterler arası korelasyon ve veri değişkenliğini dikkate alan CRITIC (Criteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation) yöntemi ile objektif olarak belirlenmiştir. Bina alternatiflerinin sıralanmasında CoCoSo (Combined Compromise Solution) yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Yapılan analiz sonucunda elde edilen bina alternatiflerinin sıralama sonuçları, referans ısıtma ve soğutma yükü göstergeleri ile karşılaştırılmıştır. CoCoSo yöntemi sonucunda A5 alternatifi en yüksek performans skorunu (k=2.426) elde etmiş, CoCoSo sıralamasında üst sırada yer alan dört alternatifin ortalama ısıtma ve soğutma yükü 17.428, alt sırada yer alan dört alternatifin ise 26.523 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Bu sonuçlar yüksek performans skoruna sahip alternatiflerin daha yüksek enerji performansı sergilediğini göstermiştir. Sonuç olarak, önerilen CRITIC-CoCoSo yaklaşımı, bina enerji performansının değerlendirilmesinde objektif, güvenilir ve veri odaklı bir karar destek aracı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ÇKKV
• CRITIC
• CoCoSo
• Enerji Etkin Bina
• Binalarda Enerji Verimliliği
• Enerji Etkin Bina Tasarım Parametreleri

Kaynakça

1. [1] International Energy Agency (IEA). (2023, July 11). Buildings. IEA Buildings
2. [2] Rahbarianyazd R., Raswol L. Evaluating energy consumption in terms of climatic factors: A case study of Karakol residential apartments, Famagusta, North Cyprus. Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs, 2(45-54), (2018). https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2018.3658.
3. [3] Esen, S. (2019). Enerji Etkin Bina Tasarım Modeli, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Isparta Uygulamalı Bilimler Üniversitesi Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü, Isparta, 109.
4. [4] Mardani A., Jusoh A., Nor K. M., Khalifah Z., Zakwan N., Valipour A. Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications-A review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 28(1): 516-571, (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139.
5. [5] Si J., Marjanovic-Halburda L., Nasiri F., Bell S. Assessment of building-integrated green technologies: A review and case study on applications of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) method. Sustainable Cities and Society, 27(106-115), (2016). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.06.013
6. [6] Ulutaş A., Balo F., Sua L., Karabasevic D., Stanujkic D., Popovic G. Selection of insulation materials with PSI-CRITIC based CoCoSo method. Revista de la Construcción, 20(2): 382-392, (2021). http://doi.org/10.7764/RDLC.20.2.382
7. [7] Hamza M., Bafail O., Alidrisi H. HVAC systems evaluation and selection for sustainable office buildings: An integrated MCDM approach. Buildings, 13(7): 1847, (2023). http://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071847
8. [8] Han Z., Li X., Sun J., Wang M., Liu G. An interactive multi-criteria decision-making method for building performance design. Energy and Buildings, 282(112793), (2023). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.112793

9. [9] Uzair M., Kazmi S. A. A. A multi-criteria decision model to support sustainable building energy management system with intelligent automation. Energy and Buildings, 301(113687), (2023). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113687
10. [10] Radomski B., Mróz T. Application of the hybrid MCDM method for energy modernisation of an existing public building-A case study. Energies, 16(8): 3475, (2023). http://doi.org/10.3390/en16083475
11. [11] Caruso M., Buttazzoni M., Passoni C., Labo S., Marini A., Pinho R. An updated multi-criteria decision-making method for the sustainable renovation of buildings including environmental, economic and social life-cycle metrics. Journal of Building Engineering, 98(110967), (2024). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.11096
12. [12] Eti S., Yüksel S., Dinçer H., Pamucar D., Deveci M., Olaru G. O. A machine learning and fuzzy logic model for optimizing digital transformation in renewable energy: Insights into industrial information integration. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 42(100734), (2024). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2024.100734
13. [13] Yılmaz Özekenci S. BIST Enerji Endeksi Şirketlerinin LOPCOW-CRITIC Tabanlı CoCoSo Yöntemleri ile Finansal Performans Analizi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 27(1): 48-64, (2024). http://doi.org/10.29249/selcuksbmyd.1400056
14. [14] D’Agostino D., De Falco F., Minelli F., Minichiello F. New robust multi-criteria decision-making framework for thermal insulation of buildings under conflicting stakeholder interests. Applied Energy, 376(124262), (2024). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124262
15. [15] Nguyen V. T., Chaysiri R. CRITIC-CoCoSo model application in hybrid solar-wind energy plant location selection problem: A case study in Vietnam. Energy Engineering, 122(2): 515-536, (2025). http://doi.org/10.32604/ee.2024.057786
16. [16] Tang C., Li N., Chen Q., Huang Z. A data-driven CRITIC-CoCoSo framework for energy retrofit potential assessment in HSCW commercial buildings. SSRN Preprint, (2025). http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5297138
17. [17] Ecer F., Saha A., Dinçer H., Yüksel S. Evaluating energy management investments for sustainable transition of smart cities through a new intuitionistic fuzzy consensus-based CoCoSo methodology. Renewable Energy, 244(122655), (2025). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2025.122655
18. [18] Yang L. AI-based classification model for low-energy buildings: Promoting sustainable economic development of smart cities with spherical fuzzy decision algorithm. IEEE Access, 13(18386-18402), (2025). http://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3530965
19. [19] Vianna V. W., dos Santos M., Gomes C. F. S., Lauro A. Application of the MPSI-CoCoSo method to rank OECD member countries towards the energy transition. Computational Economics, 67(2429-2458), (2025). http://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-025-10963-8
20. [20] Goswami S. S., Tapankumar T., Naik N. C. K., Gowrishankar J., Bhosle N., Singh A., Raju G. S., Nagesh D., Santhosh A. J. Multi-model MCDM framework for sustainable renewable energy selection in India: Integrating CRITIC-EDAS-CODAS-CoCoSo. Discover Sustainability, 6(500), (2025). http://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-01069-0
21. [21] Diakoulaki D., Mavrotas G., Papayannakis L. Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The CRITIC method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7): 763-770, (1995). https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H.
22. [22] Yazdani M., Zarate P., Zavadskas E. K., Turskis Z. A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Management Decision, 57(9): 2501-2519, (2019). http://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458.
23. [23] Tsanas A., Xifara A. Energy efficiency [Dataset]. UCI Machine Learning Repository, (2012). http://doi.org/10.24432/C51307.
24. [24] Tsanas A., Xifara A. Accurate quantitative estimation of energy performance of residential buildings using statistical machine learning tools. Energy and Buildings, 49(560-567), (2012). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.03.003
25. [25] Lai H., Huang T., Lu B., Zhang S., Xiaog R. Silhouette coefficient-based weighting k-means algorithm. Neural Computing and Applications, 37(3061-3075), (2025). http://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-024-10706-0
26. [26] Žižović M., Miljković B., Marinković D. Objective methods for determining criteria weight coefficients: A modification of the CRITIC method. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 3(2): 149-161, (2020). http://doi.org/10.31181/dmame2003149z
27. [27] Çakır S., Perçin S. Çok kriterli karar verme teknikleriyle lojistik firmalarında performans ölçümü. Ege Akademik Bakış, 13(4): 449-459, (2013).
28. [28] Ecer F., Pamucar D. Sustainable supplier selection: A novel integrated fuzzy best worst method (F-BWM) and fuzzy CoCoSo with Bonferroni (CoCoSo’B) multi-criteria model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 266(121981), (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121981
29. [29] Lai H., Liao H., Long Y., Zavadskas E.K. A Hesitant Fermatean Fuzzy CoCoSo Method for Group Decision-Making and an Application to Blockchain Platform Evaluation. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 24(6): 2643-2661, (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-022-01319-7
30. [30] Khan S., Haleem A. Investigation of circular economy practices in the context of emerging economies: a CoCoSo approach. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 14(6): 1800-1814, (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2020.1871442