Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for selection of optimum passive design strategy

In the pursuit of achieving high-performance building design, the selection of the most suitable passive design strategies often involves the use of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods to address multiple conflicting criteria simultaneously. However, identifying the appropriate MCDM method for a specific building design context poses a challenge, as methods commonly effective in other contexts may not yield equivalent results. This study evaluates five MCDM methods (AHP, COPRAS, TOPSIS, VIKOR, and WSM) to understand their sensitivity in recommending the best solution. The considered criteria are energy demand, thermal comfort and daylight availability. The sensitivity analysis involves the impact of the variability of assigned weights on the rank shifting given by the considered MCDM method and the sensitivity of each criterion to weights variability. The findings reveal that implementing a fair-weight allocation leads to similar top 5 solutions among all MCDM methods. However, when a negative shift is applied to each criterion weight, AHP demonstrates greater robustness to weight variability compared to the other methods evaluated, while VIKOR is the most sensitive to weight variation. •Compares MCDM methods for optimal passive design with diverse criteria.•Sensitivity analysis on MCDM methods to criteria weight variations.•AHP and WSM lean slightly to some criteria but remain robust to weight changes.•VIKOR is the most sensitive MCDM method, unbiased to evaluated criteria.•COPRAS and TOPSIS consistently favor ASE, revealing strong sensitivity.