Construction Industry Impacts on Environment and Sustainability

Abstract
Construction industry not only depletes the non-renewable resources but also majorly
responsible for global warming and adverse changes in climatic condition. This continues to
increase as the demand grows. Further, the impacts of construction not only effects the
environment but also effects social benefit and economic development. This necessitates the
conventional construction practices to shift towards sustainable construction. Sustainable
development is an integration of Environmental, Social and Economic aspects a Triple-
Bottom-Line (TBL) approach. But, to achieve sustainable construction, keeping in view,
Reduce, Reuse and Recycle (3R), design process and innovative concepts the study as
introduced Technological aspect along with TBL.
The study has identified 15 crucial Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) to assess their
performance towards Social, Environment, Economic and Technological (SEET) aspects.
The objective of the study is to establish the interrelationship between indicators and criteria
using a pair wise comparison technique Analytical Hierarchy Process(AHP),a Multi criteria
Decision Making (MCDM) approach. Since, human judgements are always subjective,
imprecise and vague in nature, fuzzy set theory and Triangular fuzzy numbers are used to
assess the linguistic variables. The results have been analysed using AHP and Fuzzy AHP.
Then the findings are compared and suggests the use of fuzzy numbers to reflect the
vagueness and imprecision.
The study observed that FAHP findings has relative importance towards criteria and
indicators and are more objective and realistic than the traditional AHP numerical findings.
The findings of the both the approaches reveals that to achieve sustainable construction,
among SEET criteria Environmental and Technological aspects have achieved major
importance. Amongst KPI’s both the approaches have different rankings. However,
Greenhouse Gas emissions, Pollution, Reducing Construction Waste and Encourage
recycling, reusage and Renewable energy resources, innovative technologies have major
relative importance towards achieve sustainable construction. The study further concludes
that FAHP rating for relative importance of indicators and criteria can able to cover more
reliability in assessing the performance.
Keywords: sustainable construction, AHP, Fuzzy AHP, TBL, performance indicators, green
building, greenhouse gases, MCDM, SEET, KPI, construction waste, recycling, and reusage.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................1
1.1 GENERAL....................................................................................................................1
1.2 INDIANCONSTRUCTIONINDUSTRY......................................................................1
1.3 PROBLEMDEFINITION.............................................................................................3
1.4 OBJECTIVE.................................................................................................................5
1.5 ORGANISATION OFTHETHESIS.............................................................................5
2. LITERATUREREVIEW.....................................................................................................7
2.1 GENERAL..................................................................................................................7
2.2 DEFINITIONOFSUSTAINABILITY........................................................................7
2.3 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORSOFSUSTAINABILITY...............................7
2.4 SUSTAINABILITYRATINGSYSTEMS...................................................................9
2.4.1 An Overview of Green Building Rating Systems...........................................10
2.4.1.1 LEED-2011 for India NC Rating System................................10
2.4.1.2 GRIHA rating system...................................................................11
2.5 AHP, FUZZY AHP ANDITSIMPLEMENTATION...............................................13
2.6 SUMMARY..............................................................................................................15
3. RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY.......................................................................................17
3.1 SURVEY..................................................................................................................17
3.1.1 Questionnaire Design......................................................................................17
3.1.2 Data Analysis..................................................................................................18
3.1.3 Cronbach’s Alpha...........................................................................................19
3.2 ANALYTIC HIERARCHYPROCESS(AHP)..........................................................20
3.2.1 Computing the vector of criteria weight.........................................................20

vi
3.2.2 Normalise the matrix......................................................................................22
3.2.3 Computing matrix of options core..................................................................22
3.2.4 Check for consistency.....................................................................................22
3.3 FUZZY ANALYTIC HIERARCHYPROCESS(F-AHP)........................................29
3.4 PEARSON’SCORRELATION................................................................................36
4. RESULTSANDDISCUSSIONS........................................................................................39
4.1 GENERAL................................................................................................................39
4.2 DEMOGRAPHYOFRESPONDENTS.....................................................................39
4.3 RESULTS.................................................................................................................39
4.4 DISCUSSIONS.........................................................................................................58
5. CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................61
5.1 GENERAL................................................................................................................61
5.2 SUMMARY..............................................................................................................61
5.3 CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM THE RESULTS OF AHP AND FUZZY AHP
APPROACHES................................................................................................................61
6. REFERNCES......................................................................................................................64
7. APPENDIX-1......................................................................................................................66
8. APPENDIX-2......................................................................................................................74
vii
List of figures
Fig.1.0. Four Dimensions of Sustainability................................................................................2
Fig.1.1.Sustainabilitychart..........................................................................................................6
Fig.2.0. LEED Weightage Distribution....................................................................................11
Fig.2.1. GRIHA Weightage Distribution.................................................................................12
Fig.3.1. Fuzzy Triangular membership function.....................................................................30
Fig.3.2. Methodology flowchart..............................................................................................38
Fig.4.1. Graph showing the comparisons in index values of Economical Indicators..............51
Fig.4.2. Graph showing the comparisons in index values of Social Indicators.......................52
Fig.4.3. Graph showing the comparisons in index values of Technological Indicators...........53
Fig.4.4. Graph showing the comparisons in index values of Environmental Indicators..........53
Fig.4.5.Environmental criterion Indicators sorted according to importance level in AHP

approach...................................................................................................................................54
Fig.4.6.Environmental criterion Indicators sorted according to importance level in F-AHP

approach...................................................................................................................................55
Fig.4.7.Social criterion Indicators sorted according to importance level in AHP approach....55
Fig.4.8.Social criterion Indicators sorted according to importance level in F-AHP approach.

……………………………………………………………………………..…………………56
Fig.4.9.Technological criterion Indicators sorted according to importance level in AHP

approach...................................................................................................................................56
Fig.4.10.Technological criterion Indicators sorted according to importance level in F-AHP

approach...................................................................................................................................57

approach...................................................................................................................................57

approach...................................................................................................................................58
vii
i
List of Tables
Table.1.0. Worldwide Known Sustainability Rating System.....................................................3
Table.1.1. Identified Performance Indicators.............................................................................4
Table.2.0. Credit Point for Different Levels of Certification...................................................11
Table.2.1. Points Achieved GRIHA Rating.............................................................................13
Table.3.1. Likert scale selected for survey...............................................................................18
Table.3.2. Cronbach's Alpha standard values..........................................................................19
Table.3.3. Scale of relative importance according to saaty(1980)...........................................21
Table.3.4. Converted values as per importance level...............................................................21
Table.3.5. Scale of random index according to saaty(1977,1980)...........................................22
Table.3.6. Decision matrix of Respondent 13 of the survey....................................................23
Table.3.7. Likert scale responses of survey converted to saaty scale forF1indicator..............23
Table.3.8. Formulation of pairwise comparison matrix forF1indicator...................................24
Table.3.9. Likert scale responses of survey converted to saaty scale forF2indicator..............24
Table.3.10. Formulation of pairwise comparison matrix forF2indicator.................................25
Table.3.11. Formulation of pairwise comparison matrix for all indicators..............................26
Table.3.12 Formulation of normalized comparison matrix.....................................................27
Table.3.13 Formulation Eigen values and check for data consistency....................................28
Table.3.14. Linguistic Terms and the Corresponding Triangular Fuzzy Numbers..................30
Table.3.15. Conversion of survey to Corresponding Triangular Fuzzy Numbers of F1

indicator....................................................................................................................................32

Indicator...................................................................................................................................33
Table.3.17. Formulation of pairwise comparison matrix for all indicators..............................34
ix
Table.3.18.Formulationofnormalisationmatrixandweightsdeterminationforallindicators
…………………………………………………………………………………………….…35
Table.3.19. Pearson’s Correlation values and strength of relationship....................................37
Table.3.20. Pearson’s Correlation values of AHP and Fuzzy AHP index values....................37
Table.4.1. Weights of all criteria’s Indicators in descending order after AHP Analysis........40
Table.4.2. Weights of Criteria’s after AHP Analysis...............................................................42
Table.4.3. Index values of Indicators in descending order after AHP Analysis......................42
Table.4.4. Weights of Indicators in descending order after Fuzzy AHP Analysis...................45
Table.4.5. Percentages of Criteria’s after Fuzzy AHP Process................................................48
Table.4.6. Index values of Indicators in descending order after Fuzzy AHP Analysis............48
Table.4.7.Ranking of key sustainable indicators from the analysis of AHP (left table) and
Fuzzy AHP (right table) based on index values.......................................................................50
Abbreviations
AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process Fuzzy

FAHP Analytic Hierarchy Process
ECO Economical
ENV Environmental
SOC Social
TEC Technological
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
GRIHA Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment
BREEAM Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method
xi
Assessment of Key Sustainable Performance Indicators Using AHP and Fuzzy AHP Approaches
1.
1.1 GENERAL
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) defines sustainability as a set of

economic, environmental and social conditions in which all of society has the capacity and
opportunity to maintain and improve its quality of life indefinitely without degrading the
quantity, quality or the availability of economic, environmental and social resources.
Sustainable development is the application of these resources to enhance the safety, welfare,
and quality of life for all of society [10].
Sustainable construction is considered as subset of sustainable development where

economicgrowthandsocialprogressiscombinedwitheffectiveprotectionoftheenvironment and
prudent use of resources. Sustainable construction results in achieving lean construction and
efficient use of resources which in terms results into quantifiable cost saving, reduced energy
consumption and other benefits by adopting sustainability includes reducing landfill
costbyincreasingrecyclingofmaterials,reducingcarryingcostrelatedtotransportofmaterial by
utilizing maximum locally available materials.
1.2 INDIAN CONSTRUCTIONINDUSTRY
The construction industry in India has contributed an estimated 7.8% of GDP,

second after agriculture which is 16%(TERI,2015) and it employs 33million people.
Areport"Global Construction 2020", estimates that India will be the third largest global
construction market after China and USA[19].
India will overtake Japan as the third-largest construction market with annual growth
2
Construction rank 2nd, after Nigeria, in fastest growing global construction

markets.
Indicatorsperformmanyfunctions.Theycanleadtobetterdecisionsandmoreeffective
actions by simplifying, clarifying and making aggregated information available to policy
makers.
They can help incorporate physical and social science knowledge into decision-
making, and they can help measure and calibrate progress toward sustainable development
goals. They can provide an early warning to prevent economic, social and environmental
UCEOU/CEM/2018-20 1|Page
setbacks. They are also useful tools to communicate ideas, thoughts and values.
Environmental aspects in construction involve the use of natural resources, waste
minimization, and energy and water efficiency. To check the harmful outcome on the
environment social factors, taking the stakeholders into account which include employees,
economic progress and employment (Ofori et al., 2015).
Sustainability has the concept of Triple Bottom Line which has only three dimensions
namely Social, Economic and Environment.
in every aspect of life; likewise technology has very high effect on construction industry. And
the principle of 3R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) and 5R (Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Repurpose,
Recycle) insists to add Technology dimension to triple bottom line, So there is a need to
incorporatetheTechnologicaldimensiontosustainabilitywhichisshowninFig.1.0thatdepicts four
dimensions of sustainability. Modern innovative materials and technologies are playing a big
role in reducing GHG Emissions; Construction Waste; minimizing energy and water
consumptionetc.,alongwith3basicelementsofsustainabledevelopmentstechnologicalaspect
should be considered while applying suitability in construction.
Fig.1.0. Four Dimensions of Sustainability [10].
Sustainability is achieved by maintaining the Economical, Environmental, Social and

Technological aspects in the proper proportions as shown in Fig.1.0. A sustainable project is
always Bearable, Viable and Equitable. Sustainability Score is being measured by many
rating systems such as GRIHA, LEED,BREEAM and IGBC. These rating systems are
presently used all over the world, and their year of launch, countries are shown in the
Table.1.0below.
Table.1.0. Worldwide Known Sustainability Rating System [11].
1.3 PROBLEMDEFINITION
Construction Industry
largest contributor.
Managing waste and the cost effective technology adoption and socially viability is the
major problem in the rising construction industry.
Indian construction industry is growing at an average rate of 9.5% as compared to the
global average of 5% (IGBC).
India will be the fastest growing construction market globally till 2030 (Global
Construction 2030, 2015).
As the population and economy continues to grow, construction stakeholders face the
challenge of meeting the demand for new buildings (Bhatt, 2015).
To meet the increasing demand of energy and natural resources, sustainable practices
are required.
TomaintainthegrowthrateofIndianconstructionindustryandtopromotetheconcept of
sustainable construction at higher level, we need a well-defined set of performance
indicators for sustainable construction.
To enhance the likelihood of sustainable construction, the first step should be taken to
identifysubstantialindicatorsforallthedimensionsofsustainabilitywhichcanbeused for
assessing sustainable projects.
Indicators which can fulfil the need of overall development, where concept of triple
bottom line is there, should need to be found and incorporated.
Indicators should be country specific as each country in this world have its own unique
geographical location and features and their own set of problems, every criterion is not
important for each country. Indicators with proper blend of socio-economic and technological
factors are missing Society, being the foremost thing should be given priority while
developing indicators as anything related to growth is ultimately going to affect them.
Also, proper set of Indicators which include the contribution of technology are missing
from most of the research work of researchers. Recently many researchers have tried to
include technological factors in their work, but due to lack of data, they failed to calculate the
impact andeffectofsuchindicatorsaccurately.Weneedawell-definedsetofindicatorswhichfollow
overall development concept of sustainable development in construction industry. So that
project managers, clients, contractors and engineers etc. can focus on major factors which are
responsible for sustainable construction.
Performance Indicators of sustainable construction has been identified from content

analysis based literature review.
Table.1.1. Identified Performance Indicators.
SL.NO INDICATORS
1 Reducing GHG Emission
2 Controlling Pollution
3 Preserving Ecology
Water reduction and

4
conservation
5 Renewable energy resources
6 Reducing Construction waste
7 Human Satisfaction
8 Health and Safety
9 Functional and Usability
10 Cultural Heritage
11 Design process
12 Social Welfare
13 Innovative Technology
14 Profitability
15 Cost
The four criteria (Social, Environmental, Economical and Technological) are

interrelatedwiththese15performanceindicatorsthathavebeenfiguredoutinTable.1.1.These
criteria proportions and indicator proportions individually in a criterion which ultimately
helps in attaining the sustainability of a structure as shown in the flowchart Fig.1.1. This flow
chart exhibits the relationship between the criteria, indicators and sustainability.
1.4 OBJECTIVES
To identify and establish the interrelationship between sustainable parameters and

criteria using the theories of Decision making (Multi-Criteria Decision Making
Methods) for evaluation and ranking key sustainable indicators.
To quantify and rank the significant parameters that influence the sustainable criteria
for achieving a sustainable construction.
To compare the findings from AHP and FUZZY AHP technique to appraise the
competence of Hybrid Decision Making method.
To find the ranking of the chosen sustainable indicators using AHP and FUZZY-AHP
methods individually (among SEET criterions) and wholly.
Tofindthebestsuitableindicatorsthroughtheabovehybridrankingandobtainthebest
suitable, viable, aptable indicators for the Indian conditions.
1.5. ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS
After introducing the problem taken up for study, its definition and objectives of the
studyincludinganoverviewofthemainproblemsinthischapter.Anextensiveandexhaustive
literature review relevant to the study is presented in Chapter 2. In Chapter 3, the research
procedure, including the creation of the conceptual framework and the collection of data from
the questionnaire survey is described. Chapter 4 is devoted to the results and analysis of the
data. The summary of the thesis, conclusions arrived are presented in Chapter5.
SUSTAINABILITY
SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICAL TECHNOLOGICAL

Greenhouse gas Emissions Greenhouse gas Emissions Greenhouse gas Emissions Greenhouse gas Emissions
Pollution Pollution Pollution Pollution
Water reduction and Water reduction and Water reduction and Water reduction and
conservation conservation conservation conservation
Reducing Construction Waste Reducing Construction Waste Reducing Construction Waste Reducing Construction Waste
and encourage recycling, and encourage recycling, and encourage recycling, and encourage recycling,
reusage reusage reusage reusage
Human Satisfaction Human Satisfaction Human Satisfaction Human Satisfaction
Renewable energy resources Renewable energy resources Renewable energy resources Renewable energy resources
Preserving Ecology Preserving Ecology Preserving Ecology Preserving Ecology
Cost Cost Cost Cost
Profitability Profitability Profitability Profitability
Social welfare Social welfare Social welfare Social welfare
Health and safety Health and safety Health and safety Health and safety
Cultural Heritage Cultural Heritage Cultural Heritage Cultural Heritage
Design process Design process Design process Design process
Functional and usability Functional and usability Functional and usability Functional and usability
Innovative Technology Innovative Technology Innovative Technology Innovative Technology
Fig.1.1.Sustainability chart.
UCEOU/CEM/2018-20 6 | P a ge
2.
This chapter covers a wide range of literature including books, published journal
articles, conference papers, and internet source covering the issues relating to sustainability,
sustainable development, scoring systems and performance indicators, multi criterion decision
making methods (AHP and Fuzzy AHP) that are potentially useful for the selecting best
alternative among available alternatives. It encompasses a synopsis of sustainable
development, major sustainable building rating system in world, green building rating systems
in India and major factors or performance indicators. It also includes a brief review of multi-
criteria decision techniques that are used to carry out this dissertation work.
2.2 DEFINITION OFSUSTAINABILITY
Sinem Korkmaz, Duygu Erten (2009): Has done research in sustainability where he
mentioned that as per The United Nations World Commission on Environment and
Development-Brundtl and Commission-
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
Extraction of raw materials, continuing the planning, design and construction of buildings,
Gholamreza Heravi, Medya Fathi, Shiva Faeghi (2015): Has mentioned in research
that the concept of increasing the quality of life by providing a healthy environment, while
promoting societal and economic qualities, not only for present but also the future generations
is sustainability. (Ortiz et al, 2009).
2.3 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS OFSUSTAINABILITY
H. Alwaer a, D.J. Clements-Croome (2010): Has mentioned that the recent decades
have witnessed a maturing of concern and interest in building performance that is increasingly
evidenced in building design. Sustainable or green design is not simply about attaining higher
environmental performance standards or investing in new values; it is also about rethinking
critical in what Underlies valid sustainable buildings. These concepts have no absolutes- these
terms are more useful when thought of as a mind-set- a goal to be sought, a process to follow.
Indeed, many of the concepts are pertaining to intelligent buildings have inherent relevancein
rt of being sustainable but tends to emphasize designs that
considers the usefulness of applying solar energy, day-lighting and natural ventilation and
reducing consumption, as well as treatment of any waste by recycling for example. However,
sustainable b
requires a continuous process of balancing all three systems environmental, social and
economic sustainability i.e. sustain for future generations.
The main objectives of this paper are to: firstly, identify key issues related to
sustainable intelligent buildings (environmental, social, economic and technological factors);
develop a conceptual model for these selection of the appropriate KPIs; secondly, test
critically erceptions and values of selected KPIs intelligent buildings; and
thirdly develop a new model for measuring the level of sustainability for sustainable
intelligent buildings.
This paper uses a consensus-based model (Sustainable Built Environment Tool-

SuBETool), which is analysed using the analytical hierarchical process (AHP) for multi-
criteria decision-making. The use of the multi-attribute model for priority setting in the
sustainability assessment of intelligent buildings is introduced.
The paper commences by reviewing the literature on sustainable intelligent buildings

research and presents a pilot-study investigating the problems of complexity and subjectivity.
This study is based upon a survey perceptions held by selected stakeholders and the value
they attribute to selected KPIs. It is argued that the benefit of the new proposed model
(SuBETool) useful lessons from current sustainability assessment methods for strategic future
of sustainable
outcomes. Findings of this survey enrich the field of intelligent buildings in two ways.
Liyin Shen,Yuzhe Wu and Xiaoling Zhang, Ph.D. (2010): Has mentioned

Infrastructure projects have major effects on implementing the principles of sustainable
development. Infrastructure projects will continue to be developed in the coming years,
particularly in developing countries such as China and India; therefore, it is important to find
methods and solutions for improving the sustainability of them. Although existing studies
have suggested various methods for practicing sustainable development principles in the
process of implementing infrastructure projects, effective assessment indicators are
unavailable, which presents a barrier to the effective assessment of infrastructure project
sustainability.
This study introduces key assessment indicators (KAIs) for assessing the sustainability
performance of an infrastructure project. The research data used for analysis were collected
from a questionnaire survey given to three groups of experts, including government officials,
professionals, and clients in the Chinese construction industry. The fuzzy set theory was used
to establish KAIs. A procedure for using the KAIs is demonstrated by a case study. These
research findings provide an alternative solution to appraise the sustainability of infrastructure
projects
Infrastructure projects play major roles in economic, social, and environmental

activities, particularly in developing countries. Their sustainability performance should be
properly assessed when considering implementation. Because effective assessment indicators
are unavailable in practice, the sustainability of infrastructure projects usually are not assessed
effectively.
He, therefore, introduced a set of key assessment indicators (KAIs) for assessing the
sustainabilityofinfrastructureprojects.FuzzysettheorywasadoptedfordevelopingtheKAIs,
the analysis of the market supply and demand, financial risk, public safety, effects on local
development, effects on water quality, and effect on land pollution. By using KAIs, the
sustainability performance of an infrastructure project can be assessed by calculating a
weighted sustainability score.
2.4 SUSTAINABILITY RATINGSYSTEMS
Mr.IliyasIkbalSande,Prof.MrsN.S.Phadtare(2015):Has mentioned that with the

increasing awareness of sustainable development in the construction industry, implementation
of a green rating procedure to assess buildings is becoming more important. The rating
toolset benchmarks for green measures for constructing and using buildings to make them
sustainable and to reduce their negative impacts on environment. The most representative
building environment assessment schemes in India that are in use today are Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design(LEED) and Green Rating for Integrated Habitat
Assessment(GRIHA).
This paper aims to focus on the study of LEED and GRIHA rating system and compare both
with regards to the assessment methods; scopes, performance criteria and energy rating scales
are presented throughout his study, an attempt is made to make clear understanding of LEED
and GRIHA rating system assessment criteria that need to be considered during comparison.
From this Comparative study prepare a general checklist which will cover each and every
aspect required for assessment and certification for any small scale green building project.
Worldwide various rating systems have been developed. In 1996, The Building
developed. In year 1996, the Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method (HK-
BEAM) was introduced in Hong Kong.
In year 1998 the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green
building rating system was introduced in US. In year 2002 Green building council of
Australia introduced Green Star rating system. In year 2005 the building and Construction
Authority of Singapore introduced Green Mark rating system. And Green Rating for
Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA) in India[11].
2.4.1 An Overview of Green Building RatingSystems
2.4.1.1 LEED-2011 for India NC RatingSystem
The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating
System represents the
what con
LEED-
(USGBC) in 2007.This is purely a private initiative which is run by the Indian Green Building
Council (IGBC) in India. IGBC has set up the LEED 2011 for India Core Committee with the
objective of the LEED rating system for the Indian context. LEED provides guidelines and
specifications for building construction to achieve its sustainability goals and objectives. LEED
is similar to checklist of credits that can be achieved 7 major categories. Following are these
categories.
1) Sustainable Sites
2) Water Efficiency
3) Energy &Atmosphere
4) Materials &Resources
5) Indoor Environmental Quality
6) Innovation & Design Process
7) Regional Priority
Fig.2.0. LEED Weightage Distribution [15].
UCEOU/CEM/2018-20 10 | P a g e
Credit Points under Different Categories
1. 100 possible points under the fivecore categories SS, WE, EA, MR &IEQ
4. Total possible points achieved are 110.
Table.2.0.Credit Point for Different Levels of Certification.
Certified 40 - 49 points
Silver 50 - 59 points
Gold 60 - 79 points
Platinum 80 Points and above
2.4.1.2 GRIHA ratingsystem
GRIHA is a national rating system for Green buildings in India. Conceived by TERI
and developed jointly by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India, it
is based on nationally accepted energy and environmental principles. Over 300 projects across
India of varying scale and function are being built based on GRIHA guidelines.
Mostoftheinternationallydevisedratingsystemshavebeentailoredtosuitthebuilding
industryofthecountrywheretheyweredeveloped.TERI(TheEnergyandResourceInstitute),
being deeply committed to every aspect of sustainable development, took upon itself the
responsibilityofactingasadrivingforcetopopularizegreenbuildingsbydevelopingatoolfor
climateandbuildingpractices.Thistool,byitsqualitativeandquantitativeassessmentcriteria,
The guidelines/criteria appraisal may be revised every three years to take into account
thelatestscientificdevelopmentsduringthisperiod.Onabroaderscale,thissystem,alongwith the
activities and processes that lead up to it, will benefit the community at large with the
improvement in the environment by reducing GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions, improving
energysecurity,andreducingthestressonnaturalresources.Theratingappliestonewbuilding stock
commercial, institutional, and residential of variedfunctions.
Endorsed by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India as of

November 1 2007, GRIHA is a five star rating system for green buildings which emphasizes
on passive solar techniques for optimizing indoor visual and thermal comfort. In order to
address energy efficiency, GRIHA encourages optimization of building design to reduce
conventional energy demand and further optimize energy performance of the building within
specifiedcomfortlimits.Abuildingisassessedonitspredictedperformanceoveritsentirelife cycle
from inception through operation [6].
Fig.2.1. GRIHA Weightage Distribution [6].
Therearemanyfactorswhichhavetobeconsideredwhileconstructingagreenbuilding. It is
very necessary to know how effective a particular project is in term of its environment
friendliness. This brief comparison would check the building on various points so as to give a
fair idea of where it stands in being a greenbuilding.
Both rating systems are good enough to be used in certain part of the country but they
are not unique in nature. Since these two systems are based on different parameters, there is a
possibility of the both rating systems rate the same buildings differently.
As from above comparative study of LEED and GRIHA rating system some suitable
points for green building which is simple and effective is suggested for small contractors to
achieve green agenda simply and economically. This point is an integration of various points
such as it carries the advantages of both system where as it overcomes the individual
shortcomings.
Table.2.1.Points Achieved GRIHA Rating.
One star 50 60 points
Two stars 61 70 points
Three stars 71 80 points
Four stars 81 90 points
Five stars 91 points and above
2.5 AHP, FUZZY AHP AND ITSIMPLEMENTATION
Saaty (1980): Analytic Hierarchy Process, this is effective tool for solving complex
decision making problem and aid to decision makers to solve multiple criteria decision
problems by setting their priorities. AHP involves two main stages, in first stage hierarchy
design is done like goal, criteria are fixed and in second phase hierarchy evaluation is carried
outwhichinvolvescomputingvectorsofcriteriaweights,computingmatrixofoptionscoreand
finally ranking the options by performing consistency check[17].
The AHP is one of the extensively used MCDM methods. It has been successfully used in
environmental decision-making, conflict management, resources planning, and also been
employed for the risk assessment.
Rajiv Bhatt and J.E.M.Macwan (2015): Has done research on Fuzzy logic and
Analytical Hierarchy Process-based conceptual model for sustainable commercial building
assessment for India. In this literature author covered hundred sustainable criteria, and a
conceptual tool for assessment of commercial building through these sustainable criteria is
done.GlobalweightsofcriteriaisevaluatedusingAnalyticHierarchyProcessandperformance score
of criteria determined using Fuzzy logicapproach.
Ph.D.: Has discussed the evaluation of

transport projects has become increasingly complex. Different aspects have to be taken into
account and the consequences of the problems are usually far reaching and the differentpolicy
alternatives are numerous and difficult to predict. Various pressure have also emerged causing
more complex decision making process. The use of multi criteria analysis for the evaluationof
transport projects has increased due to this increasing complexity of the problem situation.
Researchesontransportissuesaregenerallycarriedouttoprovideinformationtopolicymakers
[18].
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is one of the Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision
Makingmethods.Duetoitswiderangeapplicationarea,ithasbeenanexcitingresearchsubject for
many different field researchers. Transportation, logistics, urban planning, public politics,
marketing, finance, education, economics are a part of this wide application area. The aim of
thispaperis,afterabriefintroducetoAHPmethod,toofferhowtobenefititforthepreference of
planners in transportproblems.
Fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making methods have been developed owing to the
imprecision in assessing the relative importance of attributes and the performance ratings of
alternatives with respect to attributes. Imprecision may arise from a variety of reasons:
unquantifiable information, incomplete information, unobtainable information and partial
ignorance. Conventional multiple attribute decision making methods cannot effectivelyhandle
problems with such imprecise information[18].
Debmallya Chatterjee, Bani Mukherjee (2013): Has researched about the numbers
ofprivatetechnicalinstitutionsinIndiaareincreasingrapidlyintherecentdecade.Todaythere are
thousands of private self-financed technical institutions most of which are compromising with
their quality of education. Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and its fuzzy extension
(FAHP) are two of the efficient tools by which one can evaluate such institutions. There are
ample numbers of studies in literature that discussed the efficiencies of the AHP and FAHP
separately.Thispresentpieceofworkmakesanattempttostudyandquantifythedifference,if any in
the applications of AHP and FAHP on the evaluation of self-financed private technical
institutions in India[2].
A detailed study about the institutions are done and Factors, sub-factors are identified
based on the study conducted and a hierarchy is establishment and Once the hierarchy is
established, the next step is to do pair wise comparisons between the factors and between the
sub-factorswithineachfactorconsideredinthestudy.Thispairwisecomparisonisdonebased on the
linguistic preference scale which can be non-fuzzy or fuzzy depending on the model of
choice. These steps of computation vary significantly across classical AHP and fuzzyAHP
In this present study an attempt has been made to capture the difference in results
obtained by using AHP and FAHP models respectively on the evaluation of private self-
financed technical institutions in India. The result of this comparative study shows that there
exists some differences in weights generated through non-fuzzy and fuzzy processes
corresponding to some individual sub factors, but in case of the weights corresponding to the
factors and sub factors in aggregate there is hardly any difference. Moreover the overallscores
of the alternatives also indicate convergence with respect to the non-fuzzy and fuzzy
evaluations.
2.6 SUMMARY
Theabovediscussionshighlightthenumerousstudiesthathavebeendonetodetermine the
performance indicators responsible for sustainability, scoring systems, and different
approaches to achieve sustainability and sustainable development in construction industry
through various approaches such as AHP and Fuzzy AHPapproaches.
Sustainablescoringsystems,andthecertificationpointscriteriaarebrieflydiscussedin this
chapter based on the practices that are implemented by a structure. Class/Category of a
structure is decided based on the rated points in a particular scoring system of a structure. This
rating methodology and various research papers gave rise to the identification of key
performance indicators that are considered in the present study. These indicators have been
figured out by extensive literature review that has been carried outabove.
VeryfewliteratureisavailableontheTechnologicalcriteriaanditsindicators,recently many
researchers have tried to include technological factors in their work, but due to lack of data,
they failed to calculate the impact and effect of such indicators accurately. In the present
study, these indicators and criteria are considered, and data determined through the discussion
and questionnaire feedback form with engineers, managers, research scholars, professors and
experts.
This chapter also highlights the approaches followed in the present study that is AHP,
Fuzzy AHP and its implementation. Basically AHP is a method of breaking down a complex,
unstructured situation into its components parts, arranging these parts, or variables, into a
hierarchic order, synthesize the judgments to determine which variables have the highest
priority, whereas the Fuzzy AHP approach refines the AHP approach by removing the
vaguenessoftherespondentbyfollowingcertainmethodologywhichisshowninthirdchapter.
3.
3.1 SURVEY
3.1.1 QuestionnaireDesign
To know the viewpoint of stakeholders and their preference among performance

indicators for sustainable construction, an explorative questionnaire based survey was
conducted through means of online based services. For quality, different variety of data and to
considerdatafromallthelevelsofconstructionindustryespeciallyContractors,anofflinedoor to
door survey was alsoconducted.
Response from offline based survey was also collected through online based service so
that all the responses can be recorded at one common platform, most popular and userfriendly
Thedatahasbeencollectedfromrespondentsinvolvedinconstructionindustryandare
working directly or indirectly on Sustainable Construction throughout the Nation. To have
better understanding of requirements of developing countries for sustainable construction few
experts from rest of the world are also approached and their responses wererecorded.
This data also consists of inputs from academician and researchers who are working in
thesustainableconstructionarea.Surveywasdesignedinsuch amannerthatitcancollecttwo data
simultaneously, first to collect their preference among listed factors (Performance Indicator)
of sustainable construction and second to evaluate each indicator given in survey based on
four criteria namely Economical, Environmental, Social, andTechnological.
Thequestionnairesurveywassketchedoutwith7-pointLikertscalesforthe60selected
factors(indicators).
To gather an extensive variety of perspectives for the selected performance indicators

inthequestionnaireoverview,sixnoteworthygatheringswerechosenasthetargetrespondents from
various public and private organizations, targeted professions are asfollows
1. Engineers
2. Academicians
3. Designers
4. Architects
5. Contractor
6. Consultants
Table.3.1.Likert scale selected for survey.
Likert Scale Importance
1 Not important
2 Low
3 Below moderate
4 Moderate
5 Above moderate
6 High
7 Very high
The purpose of this study is to find the Key Performance Indicators that will help to
develop the rating system and to suggest functional strategy to be adopted for Sustainable
Construction. A structured questionnaire survey is used in this study. The structured
questionnaire is probably the most widely used data collection technique for conducting
surveys. Questionnaire has been widely used for descriptive and analytical surveys in order to
find out facts, opinions and views.
Toinvestigatethesignificanceofeveryperformanceindicatorvariouspreviousresearch on
sustainability in construction, waste management during construction, onsite energy
management, material management, emission of greenhouse gases, pollution caused due to
construction industry, water efficiency, health and accident issues in construction has been
thoroughly reviewed, for distinguishing research gap from the literature review has been used.
Based on findings from literature review, questionnaire survey was developed andconducted.
3.1.2 DataAnalysis
Asnotedabove,datacollectedfromthequestionnaireswasrawdata.Thisdatawasthen
processed, analysed and interpreted by using statistical techniques, to extract therequired
information. Quantitative data analysis involves both looking at the general trends in the data
and fitting statistical models to the data. For all of the above stated factors and performance
indicators, inputs from industry people and academicians has been analysed using following
methods.
3.1.3
anextensionoftheKuderRichardsonFormula20(KR-20),whichisanequivalentmeasure
nKuderandRichardsonFormula20since
itcanbeusedforbothcontinuousandnon-dichotomousdata.Especially,itcanbeusedfor
measure of internal consistency, that is, how closely related a set of items are as a group.
-
correlation among the items.
(Eq.3.1)
Here, N is equal to the number of items, c-bar is the average inter-item covariance among the
items and v-bar equals the average variance.
One can see from this formula that if you increase the number of items, you increase
ageinter-itemcorrelationislow,alphawillbelow.Astheaverage
inter
-
items constant).
In increases.For
this reason, the coefficient measures the internal consistency of the test. Its maximum value is
always1,andgenerallyitsminimumis0,althoughitcangobeyond0andcanbenegative.The
Valuesabove0.7areoftenconsideredtobeacceptable.IfCronbach'salphaisquitelow(below
0.60),thenthisvaluesuggeststhequestionsdonotallmeasuremobility.GeorgeandMallery
reliabilitycoefficient
values.
Table.3.2. Cronbach's Alpha standard values.
Internal consistency
Excellent
Good
Acceptable
Questionable
Poor
Unacceptable
3.2 ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS(AHP)
Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) is one of the most important fields of
operations research and deals with the problems that involve multiple and conflicting
objectives.Itisobviousthatwhenmorethanobjectiveexistsintheproblem,makingadecision
becomes more complex. MCDM is both an approach and a set of techniques, with the aim of
providing an overall ordering of options, from the most preferred to the least preferred option
(TheLondonSchoolofEconomicsandPoliticalScience,2007).MCDMapproachesprovidea
systematic procedure to help decision makers choose the most desirable and satisfactory
alternative under uncertain situation (Cheng, 2000). MCDM provides a framework to evaluate
different transport options on severalcriteria.
AHP, was proposed by Saaty in 1980, is a multi-criteria decision making method for
complicated and unstructured problems and also it is an approach that uses a hierarchical model
having levels of goal, criteria, possible sub-criteria, and alternatives. The AHP, can be stated, a
decisionmaking and estimation method which gives the percentage distribution of decision points
accordingtofactorsaffectingdecision,thatisusedifthereisadefineddecisionhierarchy. Actually this
idea is a result of some former and successive studies or researches on different areas by
Saaty.Thesearesolvingaspecificproblemincontingencyplanningin1977,designalternative
features for a developing country, Sudan, in 1977, energy allocation in 1979, investment in
technologies under uncertainty, dealing with terrorism in 1977 and the other smaller
applications such as buying a car, choosing a job and selecting a school. Today various
applications of AHP have involved the participation of engineers, planners, lawyers, political
socialscientistsandmathematiciansorevenordinarycitizens.Itiseasyandusefulmethodology to be
able to provide pair wise comparisons in each area ofexpertise.
3.2.1 Computing the vector of criteriaweight
Decompose the problem into hierarchy of criteria, sub criteria and alternative. For
computation of weight for different criteria, pairwise comparison matrix is used. Consider the
matrix A which is m x m real matrix, where m stands for no of evaluation criteria, each entry
aij in matrix A shows importance of ith criteria relative to jth criteria.
th
Ifaij criteria is more important than jthcriteria
th
Ifaij criteria is less important than jth
criteria. Ifaij
aij . aji =1
Relative importance is measured on 1 to 9 scale, where it is assumed that ith criteria is equally
or more important than jth criteria.
Table.3.3. Scale of relative importance according to saaty (1980).
Relative
Definition Explanation
Intensity
Two requirements are of equal
1 Of equal importance
value
Experience slightly favours one
3 Slightly more value
requirement over another
Experience strongly favours one
5 Essential or strong value
requirement over another
A requirement is strongly favoured
7 Very strong value and its dominance is demonstrated
in practice
The evidence favouring one over
9 Extreme value another is of the highest possible
order of affirmation
The intermediate position between
2,4,6 Intermediate values
any two of above values
Table.3.4. Converted values as per importance level.
Difference Importance Level Saaty scale value Adopted

0 Equal importance 1
( 1 ),( -1 ) Moderate importance ( 3 ), ( 1/3 )
( 2,3 ),( -2,-3 ) Strong importance ( 5 ), ( 1/5 )
( 4 ),( -4 ) Very strong ( 7 ), ( 1/7 )
( 5,6 ),( -5,-6 ) Extreme importance ( 9 ), ( 1/9 )
3.2.2 Normalise thematrix
Consider each entry divide by column sum
(Eq.3.2)
Take overall row average which will determine ranking priority
(Eq.3.3)
3.2.3 Computing matrix of optionscore
The rating of each alternative is multiply by weight of criteria or sub criteria, then
aggregate to get global rating to get score of each for ranking the alternative.
3.2.4 Check forconsistency
To check how consistent judgments are we have to check consistency
ConsistencyRatio = (Eq.3.4)
Consistency index(C.I)= (Eq.3.5)
Where the max Eigen value and n is size of the matrix.
Random index = value empirically stated by saaty which are given below in table
Table.3.5. Scale of random index according to saaty (1977, 1980).
Size of
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
matrix
R.I 0 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.51
If consistency Ratio (C.R) < 0.1 Judgment is consistence.
IfconsistencyRatio(C.R)>0.1Judgmentisinconsistence,Revisepairwisecomparisonmatrix.
Example worked out for betterunderstanding
Step 1: Arrange the Likert scale values that are obtained from the questionnaire survey in a
table to form a decision matrix of the respondent in the present example the decision matrix of
the Respondent 13 of the survey is taken and shown as below table. Here in this example
Economical criterion is considered. The code ECO represents Economical and the number
beside the code represents the number of the indicator in the hierarchical order.
Table.3.6. Decision matrix of Respondent 13 of the survey.
Economical Criteria Respondent 13 (R13)

Indicators Criteria Code Survey
Reducing GHG Emissions ECO 1 4
Controlling Pollution ECO 2 6
Water reduction and conservation ECO 3 7
Reducing Construction Waste and
encourage recycling, re-usage and ECO 4 4
reduce.
Human Satisfaction ECO 5 4
Renewable energy resources ECO 6 7
Preserving Ecology ECO 7 5
Cost ECO 8 6
Profitability ECO 9 3
Social welfare ECO 10 2
Health and safety ECO 11 7
Cultural Heritage ECO 12 4
Design process ECO 13 5
Functional and usability ECO 14 6
Innovative Technology ECO 15 7
Step 2: Arrange the survey values in a table in order to find the difference with respect toeach
factor and then converting into Saaty scale values (This is to be done for 4 Criteria and 15
indicators same as shown below).
Table.3.7. Likert scale responses of survey converted to saaty scale for F1 indicator.
Likert Scale Difference Saaty scale

Sl.No Indicator
value w.r.t F1 value
F1 Reducing GHG Emissions 4 0 1
F2 Controlling Pollution 6 2 5
F3 Water reduction and conservation 7 3 5
Reducing Construction Waste and encourage
F4 4 0 1
recycling, re-usage and reduce.
F5 Human Satisfaction 4 0 1
F6 Renewable energy resources 7 3 5
F7 Preserving Ecology 5 1 3
F8 Cost 6 2 5
F9 Profitability 3 -1 1/3
F 10 Social welfare 2 -2 1/5
F 11 Health and safety 7 3 5
F 12 Cultural Heritage 4 0 1
F 13 Design process 5 1 3
F 14 Functional and usability 6 2 5
F 15 Innovative Technology 7 3 5
Step 3: Systematically arrange the factors saaty scale values of Factor 1 (i.e. F1) in an orderto
form an Economical criteria AHP Matrix of 15*15 as the survey above is taken from
Economicalcriteria,whichisdoneasshownbelowfromtheabovetabledataandthenpairwise
comparisons are done. Similarly other criteria survey is taken and the process is repeated for
the rest of 3 criteriamatrices.
Table.3.8. Formulation of pairwise comparison matrix for F1 indicator.

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15
F1 1.00 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.33 0.20 3.00 5.00 0.20 1.00 0.33 0.20 0.20
F2 5.00 1.00
F3 5.00 1.00
F4 1.00 1.00
F5 1.00 1.00
F6 5.00 1.00
F7 3.00 1.00
F8 5.00 1.00
F9 0.33 1.00
F10 0.20 1.00
F11 5.00 1.00
F12 1.00 1.00
F13 3.00 1.00
F14 5.00 1.00
F15 5.00 1.00
Similarly repeat the process for 15 Factors to fill the single criteria AHP matrix and it
should be done for the 4 criteria.
Table.3.9. Likert scale responses of survey converted to saaty scale for F2 indicator.
Likert Scale Difference Saaty scale

Sl.No Indicator
value w.r.t F1 value
F1 Reducing GHG Emissions 4 -2 1/5
F2 Controlling Pollution 6 0 1
F3 Water reduction and conservation 7 1 3
F4 4 -2 1/5
F5 Human Satisfaction 4 -2 1/5
F6 Renewable energy resources 7 1 3
F7 Preserving Ecology 5 -1 1/3
F8 Cost 6 0 1
F9 Profitability 3 -3 1/5
F 10 Social welfare 2 -4 1/7
F 11 Health and safety 7 1 3
F 12 Cultural Heritage 4 -2 1/5
F 13 Design process 5 -1 1/3
F 14 Functional and usability 6 0 1
F 15 Innovative Technology 7 1 3
Table.3.10. Formulation of pairwise comparison matrix for F2 indicator.
F1 1.00 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.33 0.20 3.00 5.00 0.20 1.00 0.33 0.20 0.20
F2 5.00 1.00 0.33 5.00 5.00 0.33 3.00 1.00 5.00 7.00 0.33 5.00 3.00 1.00 0.33
F3 5.00 3.00 1.00
F4 1.00 0.20 1.00
F5 1.00 0.20 1.00
F6 5.00 3.00 1.00
F7 3.00 0.33 1.00
F8 5.00 1.00 1.00
F9 0.33 0.20 1.00
F10 0.20 0.14 1.00
F11 5.00 3.00 1.00
F12 1.00 0.20 1.00
F13 3.00 0.33 1.00
F14 5.00 1.00 1.00
F15 5.00 3.00 1.00
Step 3: A fully developed pairwise comparison AHP matrix of a particular criteria looks like
thebelowTable.3.11,inthiscaseitisEconomicalcriteriaAHPmatrix.Similarlytheremaining three
criteria pairwise comparison matrix should be formed. After forming the matrix the sum of all
the respective columns should be found as shownbelow.
Table.3.11. Formulation of pairwise comparison matrix for all indicators.
F1 1.00 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.33 0.20 3.00 5.00 0.20 1.00 0.33 0.20 0.20
F2 5.00 1.00 0.33 5.00 5.00 0.33 3.00 1.00 5.00 7.00 0.33 5.00 3.00 1.00 0.33
F3 5.00 3.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 3.00 7.00 9.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 1.00
F4 1.00 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.33 0.20 3.00 5.00 0.20 1.00 0.33 0.20 0.20
F5 1.00 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.33 0.20 3.00 5.00 0.20 1.00 0.33 0.20 0.20
F6 5.00 3.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 3.00 7.00 9.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 1.00
F7 3.00 0.33 0.20 3.00 3.00 0.20 1.00 3.00 7.00 9.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 1.00
F8 5.00 1.00 0.33 5.00 5.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 5.00 7.00 0.33 5.00 3.00 1.00 0.33
F9 0.33 0.20 0.14 0.33 0.33 0.14 0.14 0.20 1.00 3.00 0.14 0.33 0.20 0.20 0.14
F10 0.20 0.14 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.33 1.00 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.14 0.11
F11 5.00 3.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 7.00 9.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 1.00
F12 1.00 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 3.00 5.00 0.20 1.00 0.33 0.20 0.20
F13 3.00 0.33 0.20 3.00 3.00 0.20 0.20 0.33 5.00 5.00 0.20 3.00 1.00 0.33 0.20
F14 5.00 1.00 0.33 5.00 5.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 5.00 7.00 0.33 5.00 3.00 1.00 0.33
F15 5.00 3.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 7.00 9.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 1.00
SUM 45.53 16.80 6.44 45.53 45.53 6.44 18.31 19.47 68.33 95.00 7.25 47.53 36.73 19.48 7.25
Step 4: Then from the above pairwise comparison matrix the Normalised comparison matrix is
derived as shown below.
For F1 indicator
Normalisedvalue= (from table.3.11)(Eq.3.6)
= 0.02.
For F2 indicator
Normalised value =
= 0.11.
Similarly normalised values are found for the remaining indicators (F3 F15) in the columns
aswellastherowsandnormalisedmatrixistobeformedasshownintheTable.3.12.Thesum of the
columns should be obtained as1.
Table.3.12 Formulation of normalised comparison matrix.
F1 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03
F2 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.17 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.05
F3 0.11 0.18 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.27 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.11 0.14 0.15 0.14
F4 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03
F5 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03
F6 0.11 0.18 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.27 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.11 0.14 0.15 0.14
F7 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.11 0.14 0.15 0.14
F8 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.05
F9 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
F10 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02
F11 0.11 0.18 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.05 0.15 0.10 0.09 0.14 0.11 0.14 0.15 0.14
F12 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03
F13 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.03
F14 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.05
F15 0.11 0.18 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.05 0.15 0.10 0.09 0.14 0.11 0.14 0.15 0.14
SUM 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Step 5: Then the percentages of each factor are known by finding the Eigen values and then
check for consistency of the data is to be done whether the data is consistent or not.
Eigen value for F1 indicator
Average percentage of F1 indicator from table 3.13 = 2.40%
Sum of the F1 column from table 3.11 pairwise comparison matrix = 45.53
Eigenvalue = (Eq.3.6)
= 1.093
Eigen value for F2 indicator
Average percentage of F2 indicator from Table 3.13 = 7.91%
Sum of the F1 column from Table 3.11 pairwise comparison matrix = 16.80
Eigen value =
= 1.329
Table.3.13 Formulation Eigen values and check for data consistency.
EIGEN
AVERAGE PERCENTAGE
VALUES
0.02 2.40 1.093
0.08 7.91 1.329
0.14 14.11 0.909
0.02 2.40 1.093
0.02 2.40 1.093
0.14 14.11 0.909
0.09 9.06 1.662
0.07 6.92 1.354
0.01 1.35 0.933
0.01 0.88 0.839
0.13 12.62 0.915
0.02 2.35 1.117
0.04 3.96 1.458
0.07 6.90 1.353
0.13 12.61 0.915
1.00 100.00 max ) 16.972
Size of Matrix 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.00 9 10.00 11 12.00 13 14.00 15
Random Index 0 0 0.52 0.89 1.11 1.25 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.49 1.51 1.48 1.56 1.57 1.59
Size of Matrix 15
max - n)/(n -1) = 0.14
Random index for 15x15 matrix = 1.59
Data
Consistency Ratio = Consistency Index/ Random Index = 0.14 /1.59 = 0.09 0 < C.R < 0.1
Consistent
Step6:Heretheconsistencyratiois0.09whichislessthan0.1sothedataisconsistent.Sothe weights
of the indicators that are obtained areaccepted.
AHP approach mainly does the pairwise comparisons, normalisation and finding of
Eigen values among the indicators, which gives the weight of the 15 indicators of a single
criterion. These weights are obtained using the above methodology and the data is checked for
consistency ratio which should be less than 0.1, that indicates the data is consistent. Hence the
above data is consistent (0.09 < 0.1) and the weights of the 15 indicators can be considered in
the analysis.
3.3 FUZZY ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS(F-AHP)

Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (F-AHP) embeds the fuzzy theory to basic Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP), which was developed by Saaty. AHP is a widely used decision
making tool in various multi-criteria decision making problems. It takes the pair-wise
comparisonsofdifferentalternativeswithrespectivetovariouscriteriaandprovidesadecision
support tool for multi criteria decision problems. In a general AHP model, the objective is in
thefirstlevel,thecriteriaandsubcriteriaareinthesecondandthirdlevelsrespectively.Finally the
alternatives are found in the fourth level. Since basic AHP does not include vagueness for
personal judgments, it has been improved by benefiting from fuzzy logicapproach.
MembershipFunction:AmembershipfunctionforafuzzysetAontheuniverseofdiscourse X is
definedasµA
between 0and
1. This value, called membership value or degree of membership, quantifies the grade of
membership of the element in X to the fuzzy set A.
Membership functions allow us to graphically represent a fuzzy set. The x axis

represents the universe of discourse, whereas the y axis represents the degrees of membership
in the [0, 1] interval.
Simple functions are used to build membership functions. Because we are defining
fuzzy concepts, using more complex functions does not add more precision.
Triangular Fuzzy Function: defined by a lower limit a, an upper limit b, and a value m,
where a < m < b.
µA(x)= (Eq.3.7)
,m<x<b
0,
Fig.3.1.Fuzzy Triangular membership function [16].
InF-AHP,thepairwisecomparisonsofbothcriteriaandthealternativesareperformedthrough the
linguistic variables, which are represented by triangular numbers. One of the first fuzzy AHP
applications was performed by van Laarhoven and Pedrycz. They defined the triangular
membership functions for the pair wise comparisons. Afterwards, Buckley has contributed to
the subject by determining the fuzzy priorities of comparison ratios having triangular
membership functions as shown in Fig.3.1. Chang also introduced a new method related with
the usage of triangular numbers in pair-wise comparisons. Although there are some more
techniques embedded in F-AHP, within the scope of this study, methods is
implemented to determine the relative importance weights for both the criteria and the
alternatives. The steps of the procedure are asfollows:
Table.3.14.Linguistic Terms and the Corresponding Triangular Fuzzy Numbers

Fuzzy Triangular
Saaty scale Definition
Scale
1 Equally important (Eq. Imp.) (1, 1, 1)
3 Weakly important (W. Imp.) (2, 3, 4)
5 Fairly important (F. Imp.) (4, 5, 6)
7 Strongly important (S. Imp.) (6, 7, 8)
9 Absolutely important (A. Imp.) (9, 9, 9)
2 (1, 2, 3)
4 The intermittent values between two (3, 4, 5)
6 adjacent scales (5, 6, 7)
8 (7, 8, 9)
According to the corresponding triangular fuzzy numbers of these linguistic terms, for
exampleif
takes the fuzzy triangular scale as (2, 3, 4). On the contrary, in the pair wise
contributionmatriceofthecriteria,comparisonofC2to C1willtakethefuzzytriangularscale as (1/4,
1/3,1/2).
Step 1: The pair wise contribution matrice is shown in Eq.3.8, where indicates the kth
decision preferenceofi criterion overj criterion, via fuzzytriangularnumbers. Here,
th th
thetriangularnumberdemonstrationandfortheexamplecase, represents
thefirstdecision preference of first criterion over second criterion, and equals to,
= (2, 3, 4).
(Eq.3.8)
Step 2: If there is more than one decision maker, preferences of each decision maker
( ) are averaged and is calculated as in theEq.3.9.
(Eq.3.9)
Step 3: According to averaged preferences, pair wise contribution matrice is updated as shown
in Eq.3.10.
(Eq.3.10)
Step 4: According to Buckley, the geometric mean of fuzzy comparison values ofeach
Criterion is calculated as shown in Eq.3.11. Here, still represents triangularvalues.

, . (Eq.3.11)
Step 5: The fuzzy weights of each criterion can be found with Eq.3.12, by incorporating next
3 sub steps.
Step 5a: Find the vector summation ofeach
Step 5b: Find the (-1) power of summation vector. Replace the fuzzy triangular number, to
make it in an increasing order.
Step5c:Tofindthefuzzyweightofcriterioni ( ) multiplyeach withthisreversevector.
= (Eq.3.12)
Step 6: Since are still fuzzy triangular numbers, they need to de-fuzzified by Centre ofarea
method proposed by Chou and Chang, via applying theEq.3.13.
(Eq.3.13)
Step 7: Mi is a non-fuzzy number. But it needs to be normalized by following Eq.3.14.
(Eq.3.14)
These 7 steps are performed to find the normalized weights of both criteria and the
alternatives. Then by multiplying each alternative weight with related criteria, the scores for
each alternative is calculated. According to these results, the alternative with the highest score
is suggested to the decision maker.
Example worked out for better understanding
ThesameRespondent13istakenforthisexampletoo.Thedecisionmatrixcanbeobtainedby referring
to thetable.3.6.
Step 1: Arrange the survey values in a table in order to find the difference with respect toeach
factor.ThenfirstlytheLikertscalevaluesareconvertedintoSaatyscalevaluesthenintoFuzzy
Triangular scale (This is to be done for 4 Criteria and 15 indicators same as shownbelow).
Table.3.15.Conversion of survey to Corresponding Triangular Fuzzy Numbers of F1 indicator.
Likert
Difference Saaty scale Fuzzy Triangular
Sl.No Indicator Scale
w.r.t F1 value Scale
value
F1 Reducing GHG Emissions 4 0 1 (1,1,1)

F2 Controlling Pollution 6 2 5 (4,5,6)
F3 Water reduction and conservation 7 3 5 (4,5,6)

F4 4 0 1 (1,1,1)
F5 Human Satisfaction 4 0 1 (1,1,1)
F6 Renewable energy resources 7 3 5 (4,5,6)
F7 Preserving Ecology 5 1 3 (2,3,4)
F8 Cost 6 2 5 (4,5,6)
F9 Profitability 3 -1 1/3 (1/4, 1/3, 1/2)
F 10 Social welfare 2 -2 1/5 (1/6, 1/5, 1/4)
F 11 Health and safety 7 3 5 (4,5,6)
F 12 Cultural Heritage 4 0 1 (1,1,1)
F 13 Design process 5 1 3 (2,3,4)
F 14 Functional and usability 6 2 5 (4,5,6)
F 15 Innovative Technology 7 3 5 (4,5,6)

indicator.
Likert
Difference Saaty scale Fuzzy Triangular
Sl.No Indicator Scale
w.r.t F1 value Scale
value
F1 Reducing GHG Emissions 4 -2 1/5 (0.167,0.2,0.25)
F2 Controlling Pollution 6 0 1 (1,1,1)
F3 Water reduction and conservation 7 1 3 (2,3,4)

F4 4 -2 1/5 (0.167,0.2,0.25)
F5 Human Satisfaction 4 -2 1/5 (0.167,0.2,0.25)
F6 Renewable energy resources 7 1 3 (2,3,4)
F7 Preserving Ecology 5 -1 1/3 (0.25,0.33,0.5)
F8 Cost 6 0 1 (1,1,1)
F9 Profitability 3 -3 1/5 (0.167,0.2,0.25)
F 10 Social welfare 2 -4 1/7 (0.125,0.14,0.167)
F 11 Health and safety 7 1 3 (2,3,4)
F 12 Cultural Heritage 4 -2 1/5 (0.167,0.2,0.25)
F 13 Design process 5 -1 1/3 (0.25,0.33,0.5)
F 14 Functional and usability 6 0 1 (1,1,1)
F 15 Innovative Technology 7 1 3 (2,3,4)

Table.3.17. Formulation of pairwise comparison matrix for all indicators.

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F 10 F 11 F 12 F 13 F 14 F 15
F1 (1,1,1) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (2,3,4) (4,5,6) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (1,1,1) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (6,7,8)
F2 (4,5,6) (1,1,1) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (4,5,6) (4,5,6) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (2,3,4) (1,1,1) (4,5,6) (6,7,8) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (1,1,1) (0.25,0.33,0.5)
F3 (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (1,1,1) (4,5,6) (4,5,6) (1,1,1) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (6,7,8) (9,9,9) (1,1,1) (4,5,6) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (1,1,1)
F4 (1,1,1) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (2,3,4) (4,5,6) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (1,1,1) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.167,0.2,0.25)
F5 (1,1,1) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (2,3,4) (4,5,6) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (1,1,1) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.167,0.2,0.25)
F6 (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (1,1,1) (4,5,6) (4,5,6) (1,1,1) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (6,7,8) (9,9,9) (1,1,1) (4,5,6) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (1,1,1)
F7 (2,3,4) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (2,3,4) (2,3,4) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (1,1,1) (2,3,4) (6,7,8) (9,9,9) (1,1,1) (4,5,6) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (1,1,1)
F8 (4,5,6) (1,1,1) (4,5,6) (4,5,6) (4,5,6) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (1,1,1) (4,5,6) (6,7,8) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (1,1,1) (0.25,0.33,0.5)
F9 (0.25,0.33,0.5) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.125,0.14,0.167) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (0.125,0.14,0.167) (0.125,0.14,0.167) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (1,1,1) (2,3,4) (0.125,0.14,0.167) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.125,0.14,0.167)
F 10 (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.125,0.14,0.167) (0.11,0.11,0.11) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.11,0.11,0.11) (0.11,0.11,0.11) (0.125,0.14,0.167) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (1,1,1) (0.11,0.11,0.11) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.125,0.14,0.167) (0.11,0.11,0.11)
F 11 (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (1,1,1) (4,5,6) (4,5,6) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (2,3,4) (6,7,8) (9,9,9) (1,1,1) (4,5,6) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (1,1,1)
F 12 (1,1,1) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (2,3,4) (4,5,6) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (1,1,1) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.167,0.2,0.25)
F 13 (2,3,4) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (2,3,4) (2,3,4) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (4,5,6) (4,5,6) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (2,3,4) (1,1,1) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (0.167,0.2,0.25)
F 14 (4,5,6) (1,1,1) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (4,5,6) (4,5,6) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (1,1,1) (4,5,6) (6,7,8) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (1,1,1) (0.25,0.33,0.5)
F 15 (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (1,1,1) (4,5,6) (4,5,6) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (2,3,4) (6,7,8) (9,9,9) (1,1,1) (4,5,6) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (1,1,1)
Step 2: After forming step 1 similar process to be carried out for 15 indicators respectively. Then the Fuzzy AHP comparison matrix looks like
the above one. In the same way process to be continued for four criteria’s.
Step 3: Later the geometric mean is calculated for the above triplets as shown below. In the similar way the remaining factors geometric mean are
to be calculated.
UCEOU/CEM/2018-20 34| P a g e
For F1
Geometric Mean = (2*0.167*0.167*1*1*0.167*0.25*0.167*2*4*0.167*1*0.25*0.167*6)1/15
= 0.551
Table.3.18. Formulation of normalisation matrix and weights determination for all indicators.
GEOMETRIC MEAN NORMALISATION AVERAGE PERCENTAGE
F1 0.551 0.665 0.815 0.0213 0.0305 0.0450 0.0323 3.09%

F2 1.356 1.677 2.087 0.0524 0.0768 0.1152 0.0815 7.82%
F3 2.609 3.126 3.593 0.1009 0.1432 0.1983 0.1475 14.14%
F4 0.414 0.488 0.590 0.0160 0.0223 0.0326 0.0236 2.27%
F5 0.414 0.488 0.590 0.0160 0.0223 0.0326 0.0236 2.27%
F6 2.609 3.126 3.593 0.1009 0.1432 0.1983 0.1475 14.14%
F7 1.420 1.766 2.128 0.0549 0.0809 0.1174 0.0844 8.10%
F8 1.420 1.735 2.145 0.0549 0.0795 0.1183 0.0842 8.08%
F9 0.224 0.271 0.347 0.0087 0.0124 0.0191 0.0134 1.29%
F 10 0.159 0.176 0.201 0.0061 0.0080 0.0111 0.0084 0.81%
F 11 2.379 2.808 3.189 0.0920 0.1286 0.1760 0.1322 12.68%
F 12 0.403 0.472 0.563 0.0156 0.0216 0.0311 0.0228 2.18%
F 13 0.604 0.778 1.008 0.0234 0.0357 0.0556 0.0382 3.67%
F 14 1.180 1.448 1.817 0.0456 0.0663 0.1003 0.0707 6.79%
F 15 2.379 2.808 3.189 0.0920 0.1286 0.1760 0.1322 12.68%
SUM 18.122 21.829 25.856
RECI 0.055 0.046 0.039 SUM 1.0426
ORDER 0.039 0.046 0.055
Step 4: After finding the geometric mean the sum of the respective columns to be found (i.e.
18.122, 21.829, and 25.856).
Step 5: Reciprocals of the sum are found (i.e. 0.039, 0.046 and 0.055).
Step 6: Reciprocals are arranged in the Ascending order, later on the Normalisation matrix
process is done as shown below.
For F1
0.551*0.039 = 0.0213
Step7:ThentheaverageofthethreecolumnsintheNormalisationmatrixistakenlateronthe
percentages of 15 indicators are found accordingly as shownbelow.
Fuzzy AHP methodology when compared with AHP, it fuzzifies the crisp survey
responsevalueintotriangularfuzzyvalue(i.e.triplet)andthengeometricmeanofthetripletis
found,laterthenormalisationprocessisdonebywhichtheweightof15indicatorsareobtained. This
process is called Defuzzification i.e. normalised triplet is again converted into an average
crisp value of the indicator and finally the weight of corresponding indicator is found. In the
same methodology explained above the example is worked out and the weight of the indicator
is determined. By following the above process of Fuzzy AHP the vagueness of the response is
eliminated.
3.4
In statistics, the Pearson correlation coefficient also referred to as Pearson's r, the

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (PPMCC) or the bivariate correlation, is a
measureofthelinearcorrelationbetweentwovariablesXandY.Ithasavaluebetween+1and
linear correlation. It is widely used in the sciences. It was developed by Karl Pearson from a
related idea introduced by Francis Galton in the 1880s.
and all the results are in the range of 0.95-1, which shows a strong relationship between the
AHP and Fuzzy AHP Indices and hence the results are reliable.
ficient=
Table.3.19
Strength of
Pearson's coefficient
relationship
-1.0 to -0.5 or 1.0 to 0.5 Strong
-0.5 to -0.3 or 0.3 to 0.5 Moderate
-0.3 to -0.1 or 0.1 to 0.3 Weak
-0.1 to 0.1 None or very weak
Table.3.20
Environmental Technological Economical

Social Criteria
Criteria Criteria Criteria
x y x y x y x y
2.35 3.17 1.69 1.98 1.44 1.42 1.00 1.17
2.65 3.06 1.76 1.68 1.98 1.66 1.24 1.20
2.23 2.59 1.54 1.48 1.85 1.55 1.52 1.48
2.33 2.71 1.86 1.79 1.64 1.38 1.68 1.63
1.86 2.15 1.70 1.64 1.80 1.50 1.41 1.36
2.24 2.60 1.93 1.87 1.42 1.20 1.69 1.66
2.13 2.38 1.62 1.43 1.51 1.18 1.47 1.32
1.29 1.65 1.86 1.91 1.60 1.46 2.14 2.19
1.29 1.49 1.52 1.47 1.37 1.16 1.74 1.70
1.36 1.57 1.34 1.30 1.99 1.68 1.19 1.15
1.77 2.04 1.56 1.50 2.17 1.83 1.41 1.38
1.10 1.27 1.05 1.01 1.58 1.33 1.13 1.09
1.49 1.72 2.00 1.93 1.50 1.26 1.66 1.62
1.55 1.80 1.74 1.68 1.46 1.23 1.48 1.45
1.56 1.80 2.42 2.33 1.39 1.16 1.65 1.61
correlation 0.979 0.948 0.949 0.972

coefficient
Here all thefourcriteria correlation coefficients values (i.e. Environmental -

0.979, Technological 0.948, Social 0.949, Economical 0.972) are above 0.9 which is in
therangeof0.5-1. HencethestrengthofrelationshipoftheAHPandFuzzyAHPindexvalues
arestrong.
of this chapter is shown in the below Fig.3.2 as a flowchart.

Literature Analysis Indicators Finalization Questionnaire Designing
(Social, Economical, Environmental, Technological) Assessment of Key Sustainable Performance Indicators UsingAHP
and Fuzzy AHPApproaches
Scale Selection Google Forms Collecting Responses

SURVEY
Cronbach’s Alpha
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
FUZZY AHP
AHP
Conversion of Survey data from Saaty Scale to Triangular Fuzzy Scale Formation of Hierarchica
mation of Hierarchical framework Formulation of Pairwise Comparison Matrix Perform Pairwise comparisons
Formulation of Pairwise Comparison Matrix Perform Pairwise comparisons
Formulation of Normalization Matrix Check for Consistency
Geometric Mean of the triplets of Indicators Normalization of the triplets of Indicators Averaging of tr
Weights of Indicators Weights of Indicators
Comparison & Correlation
PEARSON’S CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
UCEOU/CEM/2018-20 Fig.3.2.Methodology flow chart. 38 | P a g e

4.
4.1 GENERAL
This chapter describes the analysis and results of the questionnaire survey which was
carriedoutduringthedissertationwork.Themainobjectiveofthisstudyis tofindouttheKey
PerformanceIndicatorswhichcanbeusedtooptimizeperformanceofsustainableconstruction. The
factors (performance indicators) have been decided based on the literature review and are
analysed based on questionnaire survey. And survey data is analysed using AHP and Fuzzy
AHP approaches. In this chapter discussion on the following components is explained
DemographyofRespondents,ResultsofbothAHPandFuzzyAHPAnalysisanddiscussionof the
results based onanalysis.
4.2 DEMOGRAPHY OFRESPONDENTS
All the respondents which have been approached for questionnaire survey are working
ordoingresearchworkdirectlyorindirectlyonsustainableconstructionproject.Questionnaire was
responded by 85 respondents, comprises of 19 Academicians from various reputed
universities and colleges, 29 Engineers working in industry on sustainable projects, 10
Contractors, 10 Consultants, 7 Architects, 4 Designers and 6others.
For the meaningful results, it is much important that the respondents have a good work
experience in construction industry. Out of 85 responses collected 19 responses have been
collected from academicians who are having a research experience in construction, they work
for many consultancies, project research and have an updated knowledge of sustainable
construction. 38 respondents have experience of 0-3 years, 24 respondents are having
experienceof4-8years,9respondentshavingindustryexperienceof9-15years,6respondents
haveexperienceof15-20yearsand8respondentsarehavingmorethan20yearsofexperience. Thus,
the responses collected for this study are from different sector of construction industry and
have a good workexperience.
The views of the respondents were divided in 7 categories which includes responses of
Academicians, Engineers, Consultants, Designers, Contractors, Architects and Others.
4.3 RESULTS
The following results are determined from both the AHP and Fuzzy AHP approaches.
The weights of indicators and criteria have been worked out and arranged in the descending
order as shown in Table.4.1 & Table.4.2 respectively in case of AHP and in Table.4.4 &
Table.4.5respectivelyincaseofFuzzyAHP.Andtheseweightsoftheindicatorsobtainedfrom both
approaches arecompared.
Herethecodeinthebelowtablerepresentsthecriteriatowhichitbelongandthenumber after
that code represents the serial number of the indicatorhierarchically.
For example
ECO 3 means it is from Economical criteria with a serial number of 3.
Table.4.1. Weights of all criteria Indicators in descending order after AHP Analysis.
SL.NO CODE NAME OF INDICATOR PERCENTAGE

1 ENV 2 Pollution 9.74
2 ECO 8 Cost 9.54
3 TEC 15 Innovative Technology 9.47
4 SOC 11 Health and safety 8.80
5 ENV 1 Greenhouse gas Emissions 8.65
6 ENV 4 8.58
recycling, reusage
7 ENV 6 Renewable energy resources 8.22
8 ENV 3 Water reduction and conservation 8.19
9 SOC 10 Social welfare 8.05
10 SOC 2 Pollution 8.01
11 ENV 7 Preserving Ecology 7.84
12 TEC 13 Design process 7.83
13 ECO 9 Profitability 7.77
14 ECO 6 Renewable energy resources 7.57
15 TEC 6 Renewable energy resources 7.53
16 ECO 4 7.51
recycling, reusage
17 SOC 3 Water reduction and conservation 7.50
18 ECO 13 Design process 7.39
19 ECO 15 Innovative Technology 7.37
20 TEC 4 7.28
recycling, reusage
21 TEC 8 Cost 7.28
22 SOC 5 Human Satisfaction 7.27
23 TEC 2 Pollution 6.87
24 ENV 5 Human Satisfaction 6.84

25 ECO 3 Water reduction and conservation 6.79
26 TEC 14 Functional and usability 6.79
27 SOC 4 6.65
recycling, reusage
28 TEC 5 Human Satisfaction 6.64
29 TEC 1 Greenhouse gas Emissions 6.60
30 ECO 14 Functional and usability 6.59
31 ECO 7 Preserving Ecology 6.57
32 ENV 11 Health and safety 6.49
33 SOC 8 Cost 6.47
34 SOC 12 Cultural Heritage 6.38
35 TEC 7 Preserving Ecology 6.35
36 ECO 11 Health and safety 6.30
37 ECO 5 Human Satisfaction 6.29
38 SOC 7 Preserving Ecology 6.12
39 TEC 11 Health and safety 6.09
40 SOC 13 Design process 6.05
41 TEC 3 Water reduction and conservation 6.01
42 TEC 9 Profitability 5.94
43 SOC 14 Functional and usability 5.92
44 SOC 1 Greenhouse gas Emissions 5.84
45 SOC 6 Renewable energy resources 5.76
46 ENV 15 Innovative Technology 5.73
47 ENV 14 Functional and usability 5.70
48 SOC 15 Innovative Technology 5.61
49 SOC 9 Profitability 5.56
50 ECO 2 Pollution 5.54
51 ENV 13 Design process 5.48
52 ECO 10 Social welfare 5.30
53 TEC 10 Social welfare 5.25
54 ECO 12 Cultural Heritage 5.03
55 ENV 10 Social welfare 5.00
56 ENV 9 Profitability 4.75
57 ENV 8 Cost 4.74
58 ECO 1 Greenhouse gas Emissions 4.45

59 TEC 12 Cultural Heritage 4.08
60 ENV 12 Cultural Heritage 4.04
AHP analysis has been done for the 60 indicators inclusive of 4 criteria the pollution
indicator of Environmental criteria has topped with 9.74% and then followed by cost indicator
of Economical criteria, innovative technology indicator of Technological criteria with 9.54%
and 9.47% respectively.
IntheabovetableitisclearthatculturalheritageindicatorofTechnologicalcriteriaand
Environmental criteria are at the last with 4.08% and 4.04%respectively.
From the above table it is seen that from the top 10 indicators half of the indicators are
from Environmental criteria (i.e. 5) , 3 Social criteria indicators, 1 Technological criteria
indicator and 1 Economical criteria indicator.
The criteria percentages are taken from the previous work carried out and the index
values are found by multiplying the respective criteria percentages with the indicators
percentages which is shown below.
Table.4.2. Weights of Criteria after AHP Analysis.
CRITERIA PERCENTAGE
SOCIAL 24.7
ENVIRONMENTAL 27.2
ECONOMICAL 22.4
TECHNOLOGICAL 25.6
The following table indicate the index value of Indicators after multiplying AHP
percentages and criteria percentages.
Example:
Environmental criteria = 27.2% (from table 3.2)

Environmental Pollution = 9.74% (from table 3.1)
Index value for Environmental Pollution =
= 2.65.
Table.4.3. Index values of Indicators in descending order after AHP Analysis.
INDEX
SL.NO CODE NAME OF INDICATOR
VALUE
4 ENV 4 2.33
recycling, reusage
8 ECO 8 Cost 2.14
14 TEC 4 1.86
recycling, reusage
15 TEC 8 Cost 1.86
26 ECO 4 1.68
recycling, reusage
29 SOC 4 1.64
recycling, reusage
31 SOC 8 Cost 1.60

54 ENV 8 Cost 1.29
After finding the index values, the above table is formed in which the which the
pollution indicator of the Environmental criteria has topped with the index value of 2.65
followed by innovative technology indicator of Technological criteria, greenhouse gas
emissions of Environmental criteria with 2.42 and 2.35 as index values respectively.
Interestingly the least index valued indicators are greenhouse gas emissions of
Economical criteria and cultural heritage indicator of Technological, Environmental, and
Economical criteria with 1.00, 1.05, 1.1, and 1.13 respectively.
Fromtheindexvaluetableitisclearthatoutofthetop10indicatorsthemajorityofthe indicators
are from Environmental criteria (i.e. 6) where it is 5 indicators in weights of indicators table
and followed by 2 Technological criteria indicators while it is 1 indicator in weights of
indicators table, 1 Economical criteria indicator which is same in weights of
indicatorstabletooand1Socialcriteriaindicatorwhileitis3indicatorsinweightsofindicators table.
ThefollowingtableindicatethepercentagesofIndicatorsaftertheFuzzy-AHPprocess
according to the rank obtained byindicators.
Table.4.4. Weights of Indicators in descending order after Fuzzy AHP Analysis.
SL.NO CODE NAME OF INDICATOR PERCENTAGE

1 ECO 8 Cost 9.97
6 ENV 4 8.46
recycling, reusage
14 TEC 8 Cost 7.66
18 ECO 4 7.42
recycling, reusage

23 TEC 4 7.15
recycling, reusage
24 SOC 8 Cost 6.96
30 SOC 4 6.57
recycling, reusage

55 ENV 8 Cost 5.15
AftertheFuzzyAHPanalysistheaboveweightsofthe60indicatorswhichareinclusive
of4criteriaareobtainedandamongthisindicatorsthecostindicatoroftheEconomicalcriteria has
topped with 9.97% followed by greenhouse gas emissions, pollution of Environmental
criteria, and innovative technology of Technological criteria with 9.9%, 9.58%, and 9.33%
respectively.
Similarly the least weighted indicators are cultural heritage indicator from
Technological and Environmental criteria with 4.01% and 3.97% respectively.
It is observed that from the above table most of the indicators are again from
Environmental criteria i.e. 5 indicators which shows the importance of Environmental criteria
part in achieving sustainability later followed by 2 Technological indicators, 2 Social
indicators and 1 Economical Indicator.
The criteria percentages are taken from the expert decisions, formulating the Fuzzy
AHP process for the survey in the similar way done for indicators and the index values are
found by multiplying the respective criteria percentages with the indicators percentages which
is shown below.
Example:
Environmental criteria = 32% (from table 3.5)
Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions = 9.9% (from table 3.1)
Index value for Environmental Pollution =
= 3.17
Table.4.5. Percentages of Criteria after Fuzzy AHP Process.
CRITERIA PERCENTAGE
SOCIAL 21
ENVIRONMENTAL 32
ECONOMICAL 22
TECHNOLOGICAL 25
The following table indicate the index value of Indicators after multiplying Fuzzy-AHP
percentages and criteria percentages processed by Fuzzy-AHP.
Here the code represents the criteria to which it belong and the number after that code
represents the serial number of the indicator hierarchically.
For example
ECO 3 means it is from Economical criteria with a serial number of 3.
Table.4.6. Index values of Indicators in descending order after Fuzzy AHP Analysis.
INDEX
SL.NO CODE NAME OF INDICATOR
VALUE
3 ENV 4 2.71
recycling, reusage
8 ECO 8 Cost 2.19
13 TEC 8 Cost 1.91
18 TEC 4 1.79
recycling, reusage

26 ENV 8 Cost 1.65
28 ECO 4 1.63
recycling, reusage
39 SOC 8 Cost 1.46
43 SOC 4 1.38
recycling, reusage

Fromtheaboveresultstheindexvaluesareobtainedinwhichthetopmostindexvalued
indicator is greenhouse gas emissions from Environmental criteria with 3.17 as index value
followed by the pollution, reducing Construction Waste and encourage recycling, reusage
indicators with 3.06, 2.71 as index values. The top 6 indicators are purely from Environmental
criteria. This shows the importance of Environmental criteria part in impartingsustainability.
As usually cultural heritage indicator from the Economical and Technological criteria
are least index valued indicators with 1.09 and 1.01.
From the above results it is clear that 8 indicators from the top 10 indicators are from
Environmentalcriteria,followedby1Technologicalindicatorand1Economicalindicator.This
shows the importance of Environmental criteria that to be considered in achieving
sustainability.
Table.4.7.Ranking of key sustainable indicators from the analysis of AHP (left table)and
Fuzzy AHP (right table) based on indexvalues.
Criteria Criteria
Rank Indicator Rank Indicator
Code Code
1 ENV 2 Pollution 1 ENV 1 Greenhouse gas Emissions
2 TEC 15 Innovative Technology 2 ENV 2 Pollution

3 ENV 1 Greenhouse gas Emissions 3 ENV 4
encourage recycling, reusage

4 ENV 4 4 ENV 6 Renewable energy resources
encourage recycling, reusage
5 ENV 6 Renewable energy resources 5 ENV 3 Water reduction and conservation
6 ENV 3 Water reduction and conservation 6 ENV 7 Preserving Ecology
7 SOC 11 Health and safety 7 TEC 15 Innovative Technology
8 ECO 8 Cost 8 ECO 8 Cost
9 ENV 7 Preserving Ecology
10 TEC 13 Design process
9 ENV 5 Human Satisfaction
10 ENV 11 Health and safety
The above table represents the key sustainable indicators obtained from both the
analysis i.e. AHP and Fuzzy AHP based on the index values. From both the tables the we can
observe that pollution indicator topped in AHP whereas greenhouse gas emissions indicator
toppedinFuzzyAHPwithanindexvalueof2.65and3.17respectively.Thesearefollowedby
innovative technology in AHP with 2.42 and pollution in Fuzzy AHP with 3.06, greenhouse
gas emissions in AHP with 2.35 and Reducing Construction Waste and encourage recycling,
reusage in Fuzzy AHP with 2.71 as their indexvalues.
Fig.4.1. Graph showing the comparisons in index values of Economical Indicators.
Theabovegraphrepresentsthecomparisonsofindexvaluesof15indicatorsinthecase
ofEconomicalcriteria.Herethecostindicator(F8)toppedamongthe15indicatorswhoseindex
his particular criteria shows a minute
differences between the index values of AHP and Fuzzy AHP.
The only indicator whose index values are above 2 (index value) is cost indicator
irrespective of the analysis method this shows the importance of the cost indicator in this
particular criteria. Cost indicator is followed by profitability (F9) indicator whose differences
in index values is 0.04. And this indicator is the next important indicator that to be considered
in the Economical criteria.
In the above graph the only two indicators namely cost indicator and greenhouse gas
emissions indicator shows a higher index value in FAHP when compared to AHP and the rest
of the indicators show a higher index value vice versa. In both the analysis methods the cost
indicatortoppedamongthe15indicatorswiththeindexvaluesof2.14,2.19inAHPandFAHP
respectively.Buttheleastindexvaluedindicatordiffersi.e.greenhousegasemissionsindicator in
AHP with an index value of 1.0 whereas cultural heritage indicator in FAHP with an index
value of1.09.
Fig.4.2. Graph showing the comparisons in index values of Social Indicators.
The above graph represents the index value comparisons of 15 indicators in the case of
Socialcriteria.Herethehealthandsafetyindicator(F11)toppedamongthe15indicatorswhose index
values are 2.17 and 1.83 in AHP and FAHP respectively with a difference of 0.34. The graph
clearly shows that all the 15 indicators possess a higher index value in AHP when compared
toFAHP.
In both the methods the top index valued indicator is health and safety indicator with a
values of 2.17 in AHP, 1.83 in FAHP and the least valued indicator is profitability indicator
with a values of 1.37 in AHP, 1.16 in FAHP.
Health and safety indicator is followed by social welfare (F10) indicator in both the
methods with a value of 1.99 in AHP, 1.68 in FAHP which shows the importance of these
indicatorsinthisparticularcriteria.TheaveragedifferencesbetweentheAHPandFAHPindex values
of these 15 indicators in this particular criteria is0.25.
Theindicatorhealthandsafetyindicatesshowstheimportanceofsocialdimensionina
sustainable construction which is generally neglected in most of the studies but in this present
study, it proves that social dimension is considerable in sustainabledevelopment.
Fig.4.3. Graph showing the comparisons in index values of Technological Indicators.
Technological criteria. Here the innovative technology indicator (F15) topped among the 15
indicators in both the methods whose index value are 2.42 in AHP, 2.33 in FAHP respectively
with a difference of 0.09.
Theinnovativetechnologyindicatorisfollowedbydesignprocess(F13)indicatorwith a
value of 2.0 in AHP where as in FAHP it is greenhouse gas indicator with an index valueof
1.98. The least index valued indicator in the both approaches is cultural heritage indicatorwith
an index value of 1.05, 1.01 respectively. All the indicators except greenhouse emissions
indicator and cost indicator possess a higher value in AHP thanFAHP.
Fig.4.4. Graph showing the comparisons in index values of Environmental Indicators.

Environmental criteria. Here the greenhouse gas emission indicator (F1) topped among the 15
indicators in FAHP method whose index value is 3.17 where as in AHP, it is 2.35 with a
differenceof0.82andpollution(F2)indicatortoppedthe15indicatorsinAHPmethodwithan index
value of 2.65, where its value is 3.06 in FAHP with a difference of0.41.
WecanobservethattheindicatortoppedinAHPis followedbytheindicatortoppedin FAHP

and vice versa. This shows the priority of these indicators in this particular criteria. It is clear
from the graph that all the 15 indicators of this particular criteria possess a higher index
valueinFAHPmethodwhencomparedtoAHPmethod,andhigherindexvalueswhollyamong
4criteria.
Among all the 4 criteria this criteria has got the highest index values which shows the
mereimportanceofthiscriteriaindevelopingthesustainablefeaturesofastructurebythisitis clear
that Environmental criteria is the most important criteria in the sustainabilitytree.
The least index valued indicator is same in both the AHP and FAHP methods that is
cultural heritage indicator with an index value of 1.10, 1.27 respectively. All the indicators
except greenhouse emissions indicator and cost indicator possess a higher value in AHP than
FAHP.
The following graphs in Fig.4.5, Fig.4.6 represents the indicators of Economical

Criterion that have been sorted according to the importance level according to index values.

approach.
Fig.4.6.Environmental criterion Indicators sorted according to importance level in F-AHP
approach.
The following graphs in Fig.4.7, Fig.4.8 represents the indicators of Social

Criterion that have been sorted according to the importance level achieved according to their
index values obtained in AHP and Fuzzy AHP approaches respectively. Unlike Economical
there are considerable changes in importance level obtained by indicators. Fig.4.7 depicts that
under important group, least important group there are 2, 10 indicators in AHP whereas in F-
AHP it is 6, 6 indicators in Fig.4.8 respectively. And the remaining groups of very important
and slightly important remains the same.
Fig.4.7.Social criterion Indicators sorted according to importance level in AHP approach.

Fig.4.8.Social criterion Indicators sorted according to importance level in F-AHP approach.
The following graphs are shown in Fig.4.9, Fig.4.10 depicts the indicators which have
been sorted according to importance levels. Under slightly important, important group in AHP
there are 4, 8 indicators where as in F-AHP it is 8, 5 indicators respectively which can be
considered as major changes and very important group remains the same with the same
indicatori.e.F15.Howeverleastimportantgrouphas2indicatorsinAHPand1indicatorinF- AHP.
Fig.4.9.Technological criterion Indicators sorted according to importance level in AHP

approach.
Fig.4.10.Technological criterion Indicators sorted according to importance level in F-AHP
approach.
GraphsareshowninFig.4.11,Fig.4.12areoftheEnvironmentalcriterion,interestingly the
very important indicator is different in AHP, F-AHP i.e. F2 in AHP and F1, F2 in F-AHP,
which shows the importance of greenhouse gas emissions, pollution over the pollution which
is a reliable result. There are major considerable changes from the following graphs, under
slightly important, important, least important groups the number of indicators is 5, 2, and 7 in
AHP whereas it is 6, 6 and 1 inF-AHP.

approach.
approach.
All the above Figures are grouped according to the differences obtained in the index
values of consecutive indicators accordingly.
4.4 DISCUSSIONS
From the above results it is very clear that irrespective of approach sustainability is
majorly contributed by Environmental criterion if we consider AHP approach it is 27.2%,
followed by Technological, Social and Economical criteria 25.6%, 24.7% and 22.4%
respectively. In case of Fuzzy AHP the Environmental criterion has a weight of 32% followed
by Technological, Economical and Social criteria with weights 25%, 22% and 21%
respectively.
As the study mainly focusses to find the key sustainable performance indicators, the
weightsoftoptenperformanceindicatorsarepollutionwith9.74%,costwith9.54%,innovative
technology with 9.47%, Health and safety with 8.8%, greenhouse gas emissions with 8.65%,
reducing construction waste and encourage recycling, reusage with 8.58%, renewable energy
resourceswith8.22%,waterreductionandconservationwith8.19%,socialwelfarewith8.05% and
pollution with 8.01% in case of AHPapproach.
IncaseofFuzzyAHPtheweightsoftop10performanceindicatorsarecostwith9.97%,
greenhousegasemissionswith9.9%,pollutionwith9.58%,innovativetechnologywith9.33%,
healthandsafetywith8.71%,reducingconstructionwasteandencouragerecycling,reusage
with 8.46%, renewable energy resources with 8.13%, water reduction and conservation with
8.08%, social welfare with 7.99% and greenhouse gas emissions with 7.91% (Technological
criterion).
The weights of the criteria and the indicators are multiplied to get the index values of
the particular indicator. These index values are the key values in assessing the key sustainable
performance indicators. The key sustainable indicators are determined by the index values
obtained from the above results through two approaches (AHP and Fuzzy AHP) which are
shown in Table.4.3 & Table.4.6 respectively.
The top 10 key sustainable indicators (index values) in consideration with AHP
approach are pollution (2.65), innovative technology (2.42), greenhouse gas emissions (2.35),
reducing construction waste and encourage recycling, reusage (2.33), renewable energy
resources (2.24), water reduction and conservation (2.23), health and safety (2.17),cost (2.14),
preserving ecology (2.13) and design process (2.00). Here it conveys that from the above ten
performanceindicatorssixindicatorsarefromtheEnvironmentalcriterionwhichshowsadeep
relation with sustainability. And from the remaining four indicators, two are from
Technological criterion (i.e. innovative technology and design process), one from Social
criterion (i.e. health and safety) and one from Economical criterion (i.e.cost).
From the above results of Fuzzy AHP approach, the top 10 key sustainable indicators
(index values) are greenhouse gas emissions (3.17), pollution (3.06), reducing construction
waste and encourage recycling, reusage (2.71), renewable energy resources (2.60), water
reduction and conservation (2.59), preserving ecology (2.38), innovative technology (2.33),
cost (2.15), human satisfaction (2.15) and health and safety (2.04). From these indicators it is
clear out of ten performance indicators eight are from Environmental criterion which exhibits
a strong relationship with sustainability. And the remaining two indicators are from
Technological criterion (i.e. innovative technology) and Economical criterion (i.e. cost).
From the Fig.4.5 to Fig.4.12 the grouping of indicators are done according to the
importance levels based on index values and their consecutive indicator differences. The
Fig.4.5,Fig.4.6dealsabouttheEnvironmentalCriterioninwhichthepollutionindicatorisvery
important in case of AHP whereas it is greenhouse gas emissions and pollution are very
important in case of Fuzzy AHP in the range of 2.65, 3.17-3.06 respectively. Similarlyslightly
importantindicatorsincaseofAHParegreenhousegasemissions,reducingconstructionwaste and
encourage recycling, reusage, renewable energy resources, water reduction and
conservationandpreservingecologyoftherange2.35-2.13.HoweverFuzzyAHPalsoincludes
human satisfaction and health and safety in the range of 2.71-2.04. And least important group
has the range of 1.56-1.10, 1.80-1.27 in case of AHP and Fuzzy AHP respectively.
The reason by which the above indicators are grouped is the major difference that
occurred after a group, i.e. a difference of 0.30 occurred after the very important group and
similarly, a difference of 0.36 occurred after this particular division. So the groups have been
grouped according to the major differences between them.
From Fig.4.7, Fig.4.8 it is clear that the indicators are in the same importance group in
both AHP and Fuzzy AHP approaches but only the range varies. The very important group
consistsofcostindicatorwithanindexvalueof2.14,2.19inAHPandFuzzyAHPapproaches
respectively. Slightly important group consists of profitability, renewable energy resources,
reducing construction waste and encourage recycling, reusage, design process, innovative
technology with a range of 1.74-1.65, 1.7-1.61 in AHP and Fuzzy AHP approaches
respectively. Then important group has a range of 1.52-1.41, 1.48-1.32 and least important
group has a range of 1.24-1.00, 1.20-1.09 in case of AHP and FuzzyAHP.
From Fig.4.9, Fig.4.10 it can be observed that the indicators are not in the same group
consideringboththeapproaches.Hereinnovativetechnologyis theveryimportantindicatorin both
the approaches with an index value of 2.42 in AHP, 2.33 in Fuzzy AHP. There is a
differenceof0.09whencomparedveryimportantgroupofbothapproaches.Slightlyimportant group
ranges 2.00-1.86, 1.98-1.64, important group ranges 1.76-1.52, 1.50-1.30 and least important
group ranges 1.34-1.05, 1.01 in case of AHP and Fuzzy AHPrespectively.
From Fig.4.11, Fig.4.12 it is clear that very important group is same in both the approach
with health and safety as the indicator which has an index value of 2.17 in AHP, 1.83 inFuzzy
AHP. Similarly, slightly important group ranges 1.99-1.98, 1.68-1.66, important group ranges
1.85-1.80,1.55-1.33,andleastimportantgroupranges1.64-1.37,1.26-1.16incaseofAHPand Fuzzy
AHPrespectively.
5.
5.1 GENERAL
This chapter summarizes the conclusions of the research study. It summarizes the
significanceofthemajorfindingsinrelationtotheresearchaimandobjectives.Itthenpresents
summary and conclusions that are drawn from the results of both AHP and Fuzzy AHP
approaches.
5.2 SUMMARY
In this study, the most commonly recommended Indicators were identified using
content-analysis based literature review. A list of 15 Sustainability Indicators were collected,
modified,combinedandrefinedtoformfinalSustainablePerformanceIndicators.Performance
Indicators for measuring Sustainable Constriction are identified and are analysed using
statistical tools. The Performance Indicators are ranked based on the analysis of questionnaire
survey conducted, which was divided into 4 dimensions for sustainability i.e. Economic,
Environmental,SocialandTechnological.Giventhatdifferentinterestgroupscanimposetheir own
views on sustainability. Comparative study was done using AHP and Fuzzy AHP approaches
with an aim to establish if there were any significant differences.
ThemainobjectiveofthisstudyistoassesstheKeySustainablePerformanceIndicators for
measuring Sustainability in constriction and statistically rank the factors according to their
impactonSustainableConstruction.Theresultsofstudyareimportantfordevelopingcountries like
India to fill the gap between demand and supply and to achieve the vision of Overall
sustainability goal.
5.3 CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM THE RESULTS OF AHP AND

FUZZY AHPAPPROACHES
The conclusions made from the study are as follows:
Sustainable construction is achieved only by considering all the four criteria in proper
proportions.
KeysustainableperformanceindicatorsandcriteriaareidentifiedbasedontheAHPand
Fuzzy AHP approaches, which establishes an interrelationship between sustainable
performance indicators and criteria.
Environmental (27.2%), Technological (25.6%), Social (24.7%) and Economical
criteria (22.4%) is the order of sustainability dimensions that should be considered for
achievingsustainableconstructionconsideringAHPapproach.Howeverbyconsidering
Fuzzy AHP the order is Environmental(32%),Technological(25%),Economical(22%)
and Social criteria (21%).
Comparing Results Obtained by Both AHP and FAHP
AHP FAHP
1. Environmental (27.2%) 1. Environmental(32%)
2. Technological (25.6%) 2. Technological(25%)
3. Social (24.7%) 3. Economical(22%)
4. Economical criteria (22.4%) 4. Social criteria (21%)
Pollution, Innovative Technology, Greenhouse gas Emissions, Reducing Construction

WasteandEncourageRecycling,Reusage,RenewableEnergyresourcesarethetopfive
performance indicators considering AHP approach with an index values of 2.65, 2.42,
2.35, 2.33 and 2.24respectively.
Under Fuzzy AHP approach the top five performance indicators are Greenhouse gas
Emissions, Pollution, Reducing Construction Waste and Encourage Recycling,
Reusage, Renewable Energy resources and Water Reduction and Conservation with an
index values of 3.17, 3.06, 2.71, 2.60 and 2.59 respectively.
Performance Indicators Obtained using AHP and FAHP as per Index Values.
AHP FAHP
1. Pollution (2.65) 1. Greenhouse gas Emissions.
(3.17)
2. Innovative Technology (2.42) 2. Pollution (3.06)
3. Green House Gas Emissions 3. Reducing Construction
(2.35) Waste. (2.71)
4. Reducing Construction Waste 4. Encourage Recycling,
(2.33) Reusage, Renewable
Energy Resources. (2.60)
5. Encourage Recycling Reusage, 5. Water Reduction and
Renewable Energy Resources (2.24) Conservation. (2.59)
 Top Four Performance Indicators Under Environmental Criterion

 Pollution
 Green House Gas Emissions
 Reducing Construction Waste
 Encourage Recycling, Reusage of Renewable Energy Resources
Top Two Performance Indicators Under Technological Criterion.
 Innovative Technology.
 Design Process
Health and Safety is the only key sustainable performance indicator under Social
criterion.
Cost is the key performance indicator under Economical Criterion that should be
considered for attaining sustainability.
From the present study, it is proven that Fuzzy AHP approach is relatively prominent
due to its ability in the removal of vagueness, ambiguity and imprecision of the data
and obtaining very reliable and realistic results.
KeyPerformanceIndicatorsanalysedcanbeutilizedtodevelopvariousratingtoolsandcan help
to frame the guidelines, statutory rules and regulations and can assist in developing
methodology for selection of alternative materials, equipment and design methods.
From the study it is very clear that irrespective of the approach followed Environmental
Criterion is the most important dimension in imparting sustainability for a Structure. The
structure should be technically sound enough to acquire sustainability, by practicing new
technological methods an ample number of sustainable features can be improvised. The
technological aspects and innovative practices are the key to a sustainable construction. Then
Technological dimension is followed by Economical dimension which also plays an important
role to impart sustainability features for a structure which can be understood from the above
study. Because an uneconomical sustainable construction is not desired generally. Finally the
Social criterion to be considered in a proper proportion to achieve a sustainable construction.
This study provides better understanding of sustainable construction and performance
measurement, including rating tools. The findings can help construction industry and their
stakeholders such as decision makers, policy makers, client, contractors, architects, engineers
and designers to implement sustainability aspect in construction industry and optimizes output
for achieving sustainable construction.
6.
5. Cox, R. F., Issa, R. R., and Ahrens, D. (2003),

. Journal of construction engineeringand
management, 129(2), 142-151.
6. DEBMALLYA CHATTERJEE, BANIMUKHERJEE

AHP and Fuzzy
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH
Volume No. 1, Issue No. 4, June - July 2013, 283 - 291.
7. EmadS.BakhoumandDavidC, sustainable
, International journal on sustainable
engineering.10.1080/19397038.2014.906513.
8. FreselamMulubrhan,AinulAkmarMokhtarandMasdiMuhammad,
Analysis between Fuzzy and Traditional Analytical Hiera DOI:
10.1051/matecconf/20141301006, published by EDP Sciences,2014.
9. Gholamreza Heravi, Medya Fathi, ShivaFaeghi,
Journal ofcleaner
production, 2015.06.133.
10. GRIHA version 2015 guide (2015), G R I H A, New Delhi,India.
11. H.Alwaera,D.J.Clements- Keyperformanceindicators(KPIs)and priority

setting in using the multi-attribute approach for assessing sustainable intelligent
buildings , www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv, Building and Environment 45 (2010)
799 807.
12. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0270025587904738
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_correlation_coefficient
14. https://www.asce.org/sustainability-at-asce/
15. IGBC Green New Buildings rating system Abridged Reference Guide. (2017). Indian
Green Building Council, (3rd Ed.). NewDelhi.
16. I-Hsiang (Hank) Lin , Otto H. Chang & Chunchia (Amy) Chang,
Journal of Management and Sustainability, Vol. 4, No. 1; 2014 ISSN 1925-4725 E-
ISSN 1925-4733
17. Jong Jin Kim (1998). Sustainable architecture module: qualities, use, and examples of
sustainable material, 221, 365-382.
18. Liyin Shen, Yuzhe Wu and XiaolingZhang,Ph.D.,

Sustainability of Infrastructure Projects DOI: 10.1061/ (ASCE) CO.1943-
7862.0000315.2011 American Society of CivilEngineers.
19. Mr.Iliyas Ikbal Sande, Prof.Mrs N. S. Phadtare, Comparative Study of LEED and
GRIHA Rating System Journal of Information, Knowledge and Research In civil
Engineering.
20. Mustafa Batuhan AYHAN, Approach for Supplier selectionProblem:

International Journal of Managing Value
and Supply Chains (IJMVSC) Vol.4, No. 3, September 2013.
21. Saaty, T.L (1980): Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, NewYork.
22. Senay
Proceedingsof2007IEEEInternational
ConferenceonGreySystemsandIntelligentServices,November18-20,Nanjing,China.
23. T E R I. (2015). Green growth and buildings sector in India. New Delhi: The Energy
and Resources Institute. pp39.
24. Ying-Ming Wang, Kwai-SangChin,
International Journal of Approximate
Reasoning 52 (2011) 541 553, www.elsevier.com/locate/ijar.
7 APPENDIX-1
Questionnaire Survey
Sustainable construction Indicators
Sustainabilityismostlytalkedaboutbutleastunderstoodinconstructionindustry.Buildingshave the
capacity to make a major contribution towards sustainable future. Nowadays world is leading
towardsgreenconstructionandafter20-30yearsmostoftheprojectwillbetowardssustainability.
Keeping in view the sustainable principles Key performance indicators are to be measured. So,
accessingtheindicatorswhichareplayavitalroleinsustainableconstruction.
So, there is a need to evaluate the factors affecting sustainable indicators (i.e.., Economic,
Social, Environmental, Technological indicators)
* Required
1. Email address*
2. Name*
3. Occupation*
Mark only one oval.
Consultant
Designer
Architect Contr
actor
Client/Engineer
Academician
Others
4. How many years of work experience do youhave?
Mark only one oval.
0-3
4-8
9-15
15-20
More than20
Economical:
Market supply and demand, financial and investment, payback returns, valuation and life cycle cost.
Environmental:
Effects on ecology and atmosphere, Emissions, Material, Pollution, Environmental

protection measures, conservation of energy and water.
Social:
Effects of local development, employment opportunities, serviceability, Public safety and
sanitation, community development, cultural heritage.
Technological:
Innovative practices and materials, Specific design and tools.
Based on your experience please rate the following factors (in form of
questionnaire) with respect to sustainable indicators on the scale of 1-7
(where 1-not important and 7- Very High important)
5. ThelevelofsignificanceofReducingGreenhousegasEmissions.*
Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxideetc.
Mark only one oval per row.
1Not 2 3Below 4 5 Above 6 7 Very

importantLow Moderate Moderate Moderate High High
Economical Environmental Social

Technological
6. The level of significance of controlling Pollution.*
Air pollution, Noise Pollution, Water Pollution, Soil Pollution


Technological
7. ThelevelofsignificanceofWaterreductionandconservation*
Reduction, conservation and recycling ofwater


Technological
8. The level of significance of Reducing Construction Waste and encourage recycling, re-
usage and reduce.*
Recycled material, Waste generation and management
1Not 2 3Below 4 5Above 6 7Very


Technological
9. The Level of significance of Human Satisfaction*
Daylight, Ventilation, Indoor air quality, Thermal comfort. Orientation of building and
comfort


Technological
10. The level of significance of renewable energy resources.*
Solar energy, wind energy. Geo thermal energy, tidal power and Hydro power energy,


Technological
11. The level of significance of preserving Ecology.*
Preservation of Flora and Fauna, nature, natural habitat and liveability


Technological
12. The level of significance of Cost.*
Cost of Construction, materials, operation and maintenance


Technological
13. The level of significance of Profitability.*
Financial return, Payback period, use of energy efficient technology


Technological
14. The level of significance of Social welfare*
Community amenities, development of skill, knowledge and awareness


Technological
15. The level of significance of Health and safety*
Health and Safety of people, Reduction in toxicity level


Technological
16. The level of significance of Cultural Heritage.*
Tradition and cultural construction practice, Ancient heritage protection


Technological
17. The level of significance of Design process*
Architectural consideration and effective and innovative design considerations


Technological
18. The level of significance of Functional and usability.*
Specific usage, ease of use and repair,, user-friendliness, human satisfaction and demolition


Technological
19. The level of significance of innovative Technology*
Equipment, availability of technology, high performance innovative material


Technological
8 APPENDIX -2
NIRMALYA
Code Name Occupation R 29 Shravani Consultant R 58 Designer
CHOWDHURY
R1 subbarao y Academician R 30 Pete Halsall Consultant R 59 Faisal salamat Client/Engineer
R2 B Aneesha Satya Client/Engineer R 31 Divye Ruhela Client/Engineer R 60 Mridul Naidu Architect
R3 Rajumar Contractor R 32 K Sunil Client/Engineer R 61 Manvendra Singh Client/Engineer
R4 sridhar chukkala Academician R 33 Viswanadha kumar Architect R 62 Manu V Thampy Academician
R5 K Praveen Academician R 34 Dileep Geddam Architect R 63 Sachin jaiswal Client/Engineer
R6 Sanskrit Singh Contractor R 35 Shakeel abid Academician R 64 Akash Srivastava Client/Engineer
R7 Prlavya Katoch Client/Engineer R 36 SRIDHAR Client/Engineer R 65 Dharmendra Singh Client/Engineer
R8 Saket Gaurav Contractor R 37 Sree Lakshmi Pavani others R 66 Mohammad Sajid Client/Engineer
R9 Nitin Gupta Client/Engineer R 38 vasanth kumar Client/Engineer R 67 Nikhil malhotra Consultant
R 10 Ajeen Surendran Designer R 39 Simona Frone Academician R 68 Amulya Kansal Client/Engineer
R 11 swarna swetha k Academician R 40 ramesk Contractor R 69 Manjeet Singh Client/Engineer
R 12 NAINI SAHITHI REDDY Architect R 41 pvr.reddy86@gmail.com Client/Engineer R 70 Kumar siddartha others
R 13 P Swamy Naga Ratna Giri Academician R 42 ENAYATULLAH HEMAT Consultant R 71 Sunil Bishnoi Client/Engineer
KUNWAR
R 14 M. Sri Rama Chand Academician R 43 Autif Sayyed others R 72 Contractor
SHAILESH gupta
R 15 Spandana Architect R 44 AMULYA G Academician R 73 Rohit Padharia Client/Engineer
R 16 Rishi Paul Client/Engineer R 45 Akula kiran Client/Engineer R 74 Abhishek Swain Consultant
R 17 Akhil shah Client/Engineer R 46 N Srikanth Academician R 75 Reshma Menon Designer
R 18 Alok C Sapre Consultant R 47 Vanessa Massara Academician R 76 MK Client/Engineer
R 19 K S Bhargavi Academician R 48 Ram Chandra Murthy Contractor R 77 Leo Mazambani Architect
R 20 Prasad K V Contractor R 49 Shalima Client/Engineer R 78 Ashwin Sangare Consultant
R 21 Sravan kumar Contractor R 50 Rajender Nomula Client/Engineer R 79 Renu others
R 22 Manohar vanga Client/Engineer R 51 Kiran V Architect R 80 laxmikant walzade Client/Engineer
R 23 Suchith Academician R 52 K mounika Academician R 81 RAJ REDDY Consultant
R 24 Gagan Kaith Client/Engineer R 53 ravi teja Academician R 82 ashutosh gunjal Contractor
R 25 Scott Evans Contractor R 54 Praveen kumar deti Consultant R 83 G Mallikarjuna Rao others
R 26 mahesh Academician R 55 Phani Designer R 84 Ram Prakash Client/Engineer
R 27 Susheel Client/Engineer R 56 K.V.RAMANA Academician R 85 Abhishek Gautam Consultant
R 28 Sumateja reddy others R 57 A.Bhaskar Academician
73
Economical Criteria Environmental Criteria
Q.no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
R1 3 4 4 5 3 6 4 7 7 4 4 4 5 4 5 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 4 4 4 4 6 5 5 5
R2 4 3 3 3 5 5 3 3 4 5 2 5 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3
R3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
R4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 7 7 7 7 6 6 7 7
R5 2 4 5 6 3 1 4 6 6 5 5 3 5 4 5 6 6 6 7 4 4 5 6 7 6 6 4 4 5 6
R6 5 5 4 5 7 5 5 6 7 6 6 7 6 6 5 7 7 6 6 7 6 6 7 6 6 5 5 6 5 6
R7 4 5 4 4 6 5 6 6 6 5 4 4 5 6 5 6 7 4 5 6 5 7 4 2 5 5 5 4 6 4
R8 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 6 5 6 6 7 6 5 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5
R9 1 4 7 4 6 7 3 7 7 4 5 3 4 4 7 4 7 7 7 5 7 7 4 6 3 5 3 2 4 6
R10 7 7 7 7 7 4 4 7 7 7 4 4 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 4 3 5 7 4 7 7 4
R11 5 7 7 7 6 7 6 7 7 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 4 7 7 6 5 7 7 6 6 6 7
R12 6 5 7 7 5 6 6 7 7 6 5 6 6 6 5 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 5 6 5 7 6 6 6 6
R13 4 6 7 4 4 7 5 6 3 2 7 4 5 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 5 3 2 7 4 7 7 7
R14 5 5 7 7 5 7 5 7 7 6 7 4 7 5 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 4 5 4 7 4 4 3 5
R15 5 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 7
R16 5 5 6 7 5 6 5 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 5 5 6 5 6 7 7
R17 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7
R18 6 6 6 7 6 7 6 7 5 5 6 5 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 6 6 6 7 6 7 6 7
R19 6 3 2 4 4 2 2 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 2 5 4 2 4 5 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 2
R20 2 3 5 5 5 6 4 7 6 5 5 4 6 6 6 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 4 4 6 7 4 6 4 5
R21 4 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 4 4 4 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 7 7 6 7 4 4 4 7 7 7
R22 5 2 4 2 4 7 7 7 7 7 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 4 7 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 6 5
R23 2 6 5 4 4 6 6 7 7 5 2 4 6 5 5 7 7 4 5 5 7 5 6 6 6 4 3 5 7 4
R24 4 7 7 7 4 5 5 7 7 6 6 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 4 7 7 5 5 6 7 5 6 7 5
R25 5 6 5 7 6 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 4 7 6 5 6 6 6 5 7 7 7 6 6
R26 4 4 3 3 4 6 6 4 4 4 5 4 3 3 4 3 3 5 5 6 5 5 6 6 5 6 6 5 5 5
R27 6 6 7 7 7 7 4 7 4 4 7 6 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 1 6 4 4 6 4 6 4
R28 5 7 5 5 7 6 6 6 6 4 6 2 5 6 5 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 1 1 3 6 5 7 1 1
74
R29 5 7 5 5 4 7 6 7 6 5 5 4 6 6 5 6 7 6 7 5 7 6 5 4 6 6 4 4 4 4
R30 6 6 4 4 6 4 6 5 5 6 6 4 6 5 5 6 6 4 4 6 4 6 5 5 6 6 4 6 5 5
R31 3 4 6 7 4 7 5 7 7 6 5 4 7 7 5 7 7 7 7 5 7 7 5 6 5 6 5 7 7 6
R32 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 7 5 6
R33 4 1 4 7 4 1 1 1 6 7 6 4 5 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
R34 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
R35 2 2 3 7 6 5 6 7 7 4 7 4 4 5 5 7 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 5 7 5 5 5 7
R36 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 7
R37 6 7 6 7 7 5 6 7 7 7 6 7 5 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 6 7 6 6 7 6 7 6 7 6
R38 6 3 7 7 7 7 6 7 5 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
R39 3 5 5 6 5 6 4 7 7 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 5 6 6 4 4 6 6 5 5 6 7
R40 3 1 6 1 3 1 5 4 4 2 5 3 3 5 3 5 5 6 7 3 2 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3
R41 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 6 4 3 4 2 5 3 4 4 2 4 4 4 3 3 5 5 2 3 2 4 2 4
R42 5 5 6 7 6 6 5 6 6 5 6 5 7 6 6 7 7 6 7 7 6 6 5 7 6 7 6 5 6 5
R43 5 6 5 5 4 7 5 7 7 4 5 3 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 4 5 7 4 6 4 5 5 6 7 5
R44 4 5 4 5 5 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 3 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
R45 4 5 7 7 6 7 7 6 7 6 7 7 6 7 6 4 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7
R46 5 4 5 5 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 5 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3
R47 7 5 7 7 5 7 5 7 7 5 5 5 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 5 7 7 5 5 5 5
R48 5 5 6 6 6 7 4 7 7 5 6 4 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 3 2 4 5 5 6 6 5
R49 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 4 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 2 3 7 7 2 3 6 7
R50 4 6 4 5 2 2 3 4 6 6 6 2 3 4 3 6 7 6 6 4 6 4 5 6 7 7 4 4 6 4
R51 7 4 4 6 5 6 4 7 6 5 4 4 6 7 6 6 6 6 7 6 7 5 7 6 6 4 4 6 7 6
R52 6 7 7 5 7 5 5 4 5 5 6 6 5 4 5 7 7 7 5 6 6 5 4 4 4 6 6 5 6 6
R53 4 5 6 3 4 6 7 3 6 3 6 2 5 6 4 7 7 7 4 3 7 7 6 4 5 7 2 6 7 4
R54 1 7 5 6 7 5 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 2 7 5 6 7 7 4 7 5 7 7 7 4 4 7
R55 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 6 7 7 7 7 5 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 7 7 7
R56 4 1 5 6 4 5 4 6 5 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 4 7 6 3 4 4 5 4 3 6 7
R57 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 4
R58 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 6 5 5 6 5 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 5 5 6 5 5
75
R59 3 1 5 6 2 7 6 4 1 2 1 7 7 4 7 7 7 7 5 4 7 6 5 7 6 7 5 7 7 7
R60 3 3 7 5 5 3 6 7 3 5 6 3 6 6 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 2 7 5 1 5 6 6 6
R61 2 4 7 7 4 7 4 7 4 4 2 7 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 4 7 7 7 3 3 4 7 1 4 4
R62 5 6 5 4 5 5 5 7 7 4 5 4 6 6 6 7 7 6 6 6 6 7 5 4 6 6 5 5 5 6
R63 4 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 1 4 2 6 7 6 2 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 2 4 4 5 7 7 7 6
R64 5 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 1 7 7 5 3 5 4
R65 4 5 6 6 7 6 4 7 7 6 5 4 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 7 6 3 3 3 5 3 5 5 5
R66 5 6 4 5 4 7 4 6 6 4 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 6 5 7 6 4 4 5 6 4 6 4 5
R67 4 7 7 6 6 7 6 6 5 5 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 6
R68 6 6 7 6 7 5 6 5 6 5 6 6 4 4 5 7 7 6 7 6 7 7 5 6 6 7 6 4 5 6
R69 5 6 7 7 6 6 6 4 6 5 3 4 7 6 7 4 7 7 7 6 7 5 4 7 6 3 3 6 6 5
R70 2 4 2 7 7 6 5 4 4 6 5 5 6 6 6 3 4 4 7 6 5 5 4 6 5 5 6 7 6 5
R71 2 3 4 4 5 4 6 4 4 6 6 5 4 6 6 2 3 5 5 6 5 6 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
R72 6 3 3 3 5 3 3 6 2 3 3 3 2 3 4 5 4 3 3 5 3 3 6 2 3 3 3 2 3 4
R73 5 6 6 6 4 6 7 7 5 4 7 5 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 6 7 6 7
R74 7 7 7 5 7 7 7 5 6 6 7 6 6 7 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 6 5 7 7 5 5 7 4
R75 5 4 4 6 4 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 5 6 6 7 6 6 5 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 6 6
R76 4 4 4 5 6 6 6 7 6 5 5 5 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 4 4 5 5 4 6 5 6
R77 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 7
R78 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 6
R79 2 4 6 6 6 7 4 7 6 5 6 3 7 6 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 5 4 3 4 6 3 6 4 6
R80 4 1 7 7 4 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 4 1 4 7 7 7 7 7
R81 2 3 7 7 3 5 3 2 4 4 3 7 5 6 3 7 7 7 7 4 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7
R82 6 4 6 7 6 4 5 6 7 5 4 5 6 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 4 4 6 6 6 6 7 7
R83 6 6 7 7 4 7 3 6 4 4 7 2 4 4 6 6 5 7 7 4 7 4 7 3 5 7 3 6 4 6
R84 5 4 6 6 6 7 3 7 6 4 5 2 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 5 7 6 3 3 5 4 4 4 4 5
R85 5 6 5 6 6 5 5 7 7 6 5 3 6 5 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 5 5 6 5 3 5 5 5
76
Social Criteria Technological Criteria
Q.no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
R1 6 7 7 6 7 3 6 4 5 7 7 7 7 6 5 4 4 6 7 5 6 5 6 6 5 5 5 7 7 7
R2 5 5 5 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 6 6 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 2 5 3 4 4 3
R3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
R4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
R5 5 6 4 6 5 6 5 6 7 6 7 5 6 4 7 7 7 5 7 5 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7
R6 6 5 5 6 7 5 6 7 5 7 7 5 6 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 6 7 7 6 6 6 5 6 5 7
R7 4 3 4 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 5 6 4 2 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 4 5 5 6 6 6
R8 5 6 5 5 6 6 6 5 6 5 5 6 5 5 5 6 5 6 5 6 6 5 4 6 6 6 6 5 5 5
R9 4 7 7 6 4 5 5 7 5 6 7 7 6 4 5 4 7 5 7 6 7 5 6 5 2 4 3 5 5 7
R10 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 4 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 5 7 4 7 7 7
R11 7 7 7 7 6 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 6 7 7 6 7 7 6 6 7
R12 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 7 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 5 5 5 7 6 6
R13 7 7 7 7 5 7 7 5 2 3 6 4 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 6 2 2 6 4 6 6 7
R14 7 7 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 7 4 7 5 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 7 7 7 7 7
R15 5 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 5 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 7
R16 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 7 6 5 6 6 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 6 6 6 6 5 7 7 7
R17 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7
R18 6 7 7 7 7 6 7 6 5 6 6 7 6 6 6 7 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 6 7 6 7 7 7
R19 3 3 2 3 4 2 3 3 2 4 2 4 4 3 2 6 4 3 4 5 2 3 4 2 3 3 4 4 3 2
R20 7 7 5 5 5 5 4 4 6 6 5 4 4 4 5 7 5 5 7 7 6 4 6 5 5 7 4 6 6 7
R21 5 7 7 4 4 7 7 4 4 4 5 4 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 4 7 4 7 7 7
R22 2 4 5 5 5 5 5 7 5 7 5 6 6 6 6 4 3 4 4 3 5 4 7 5 5 5 5 6 6 5
R23 6 6 5 3 3 6 6 5 5 7 5 6 4 6 3 5 5 3 4 3 5 6 6 4 5 3 7 7 6 5
R24 5 7 7 7 7 5 7 5 5 7 7 7 5 7 7 7 7 6 7 5 7 7 7 6 7 7 5 7 7 7
R25 7 7 5 7 6 5 6 7 6 5 7 7 7 6 6 5 6 5 7 6 6 6 6 6 4 7 7 7 6 6
R26 2 5 3 6 6 5 6 7 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 6 4 6 4 6 6 4 5 5 6 4 4 6 5 3
R27 6 7 6 7 7 6 7 6 6 6 7 4 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7
R28 3 3 6 5 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 6 2 7 7 7 6 7 7 1 4 1 1 2 1 3 7 7
77
R29 6 7 5 7 5 5 5 7 7 7 4 6 5 7 6 7 7 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 3 7 7 7
R30 6 6 4 4 6 4 6 5 5 6 6 4 6 5 5 6 6 4 4 6 4 6 5 5 6 6 4 6 5 5
R31 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 3 5 6 6 6 7 7 6 5 5 6 6 7 7 7
R32 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 7 6 7 7 6 7 7 7
R33 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 6
R34 5 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
R35 6 7 6 7 6 6 7 7 7 5 7 4 5 4 6 3 5 4 7 6 6 6 7 7 4 7 4 5 5 7
R36 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 7
R37 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 6 7 4 7 7 6 7 4 7 6 7 6 7 7 7 6 7 4 7 7
R38 4 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
R39 4 5 6 4 6 5 4 5 5 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 6 5 7 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7
R40 3 6 5 6 3 2 7 3 3 5 5 4 3 4 3 4 4 7 4 1 7 6 7 6 4 6 4 6 5 5
R41 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 5 4 2 3 3 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 3 3 3 4 2 3
R42 6 7 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 7 7 7 5 5 5 6 6 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 5 7 7 6
R43 3 6 6 3 7 3 6 6 6 7 7 7 4 6 3 6 5 5 4 6 6 3 6 6 6 4 4 5 4 7
R44 5 5 2 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 2 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5
R45 7 5 7 7 6 7 7 6 7 6 7 7 6 7 6 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
R46 4 3 4 5 4 3 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 4
R47 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 7 5 7 7 7 7 6 7 5 7 7 5 5 5 7 7 7
R48 6 6 7 5 7 7 6 6 5 7 7 7 5 7 6 5 4 4 6 6 6 3 6 6 6 4 4 6 5 7
R49 7 7 5 6 7 7 7 7 3 7 7 7 7 6 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 3 7 7 2 7 6 7
R50 4 6 6 4 3 5 5 6 5 6 6 4 3 5 4 5 5 5 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 5 3 6 5
R51 6 7 6 7 3 6 3 7 6 3 2 5 4 3 4 6 6 6 5 6 7 6 7 5 6 6 5 6 6 7
R52 6 7 7 5 6 6 5 4 4 4 6 5 5 5 5 7 7 7 4 6 5 5 3 4 4 6 6 5 6 7
R53 6 7 5 4 5 7 7 6 4 7 7 2 7 7 4 5 7 6 7 4 6 5 5 6 6 7 2 7 7 7
R54 1 5 5 6 7 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 1 5 5 6 7 4 5 7 6 4 7 7 7 7 6
R55 7 5 6 5 6 6 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 6 6 7 6 7
R56 6 5 6 5 6 4 4 5 4 5 6 6 6 4 4 6 4 4 7 4 5 5 3 4 4 3 3 7 7 7
R57 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 4
R58 5 5 6 6 6 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 6
78
R59 2 6 7 5 5 7 4 3 6 5 6 5 7 7 7 5 5 4 4 2 6 3 4 6 5 6 4 7 6 4
R60 6 7 7 7 4 2 7 3 1 7 7 6 1 1 1 6 7 7 7 6 7 6 6 5 1 6 4 6 6 6
R61 7 6 7 7 4 7 4 7 7 7 7 7 4 4 2 7 6 7 7 4 7 4 7 4 4 7 7 7 7 7
R62 6 6 7 7 7 4 5 4 5 7 6 4 4 4 5 5 7 5 5 4 6 4 7 6 4 4 5 6 5 6
R63 5 7 7 6 5 5 5 7 5 4 4 6 7 6 4 2 7 6 6 6 4 6 6 4 4 5 2 2 6 5
R64 1 6 7 5 7 1 7 7 7 7 5 5 7 4 5 7 7 5 5 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 5 7 7 7
R65 6 6 7 6 7 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 2 5 6 6 3 3 5 5 7
R66 7 7 7 6 5 7 6 5 4 5 6 4 6 4 4 6 4 4 6 5 6 4 7 6 6 4 6 7 4 7
R67 7 6 6 5 5 6 5 6 5 4 6 6 5 6 5 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 6
R68 6 7 6 7 7 6 7 6 6 6 6 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 5 6 6 7 5 5 6 6 7
R69 4 6 6 6 7 6 4 4 6 6 3 3 7 6 6 5 7 7 5 5 7 5 3 7 3 2 3 6 6 7
R70 3 6 7 7 6 5 5 3 6 6 6 6 7 7 4 3 7 7 7 7 6 5 4 7 6 6 6 6 7 5
R71 2 4 4 4 5 5 6 5 5 6 6 5 4 6 6 3 3 5 5 6 5 6 5 5 6 5 5 5 6 6
R72 6 4 2 3 5 3 3 6 2 3 3 3 2 3 4 6 4 3 3 5 3 3 6 2 3 3 3 2 3 4
R73 5 6 6 5 6 4 6 4 6 5 7 7 6 6 5 7 6 5 7 6 5 7 7 6 6 5 4 7 6 7
R74 4 5 5 5 6 7 6 4 5 7 7 5 6 7 5 7 5 6 7 4 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 7
R75 4 5 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 4 6 3 4 5 6 5 5 6 6 4 5 6 6 6 5 4 4 6 5 6
R76 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 4 4 7 7 5 4 5 6 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 6 6 5 5 6 7 6 7
R77 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
R78 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 6
R79 6 6 6 6 7 7 5 6 7 6 6 6 7 7 6 3 6 6 6 7 6 4 6 7 6 6 4 6 5 7
R80 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 6 7 6 4 6 7 7 7
R81 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 7 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 4 3 7 4 6 5 7 7 6 4 6 7
R82 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 4 7 7 7 6 7 7 5 4 5 5 6 6 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 6
R83 5 7 7 7 4 7 3 7 5 5 7 2 6 4 7 7 7 7 7 4 7 3 7 7 2 7 2 7 7 7
R84 6 7 6 5 7 6 5 5 6 7 6 6 5 5 6 4 5 5 5 6 6 2 6 6 6 4 1 6 6 7
R85 6 6 7 6 6 5 5 6 6 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 5 6 5 4 7 5 6 4 1 4 5 7
79

Construction Industry Impacts on Environment and Sustainability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Construction Industry Impacts on Environment and Sustainability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abstract

1.5 ORGANISATION OFTHETHESIS.............................................................................5

2.3 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORSOFSUSTAINABILITY...............................7

2.4.1 An Overview of Green Building Rating Systems...........................................10

2.4.1.1 LEED-2011 for India NC Rating System................................10

2.4.1.2 GRIHA rating system...................................................................11

2.5 AHP, FUZZY AHP ANDITSIMPLEMENTATION...............................................13

3.1.1 Questionnaire Design......................................................................................17

3.1.2 Data Analysis..................................................................................................18

3.1.3 Cronbach’s Alpha...........................................................................................19

3.2 ANALYTIC HIERARCHYPROCESS(AHP)..........................................................20

3.2.1 Computing the vector of criteria weight.........................................................20

3.2.3 Computing matrix of options core..................................................................22

3.2.4 Check for consistency.....................................................................................22

3.3 FUZZY ANALYTIC HIERARCHYPROCESS(F-AHP)........................................29

Fig.1.0. Four Dimensions of Sustainability................................................................................2

Fig.2.0. LEED Weightage Distribution....................................................................................11

Fig.2.1. GRIHA Weightage Distribution.................................................................................12

Fig.3.1. Fuzzy Triangular membership function.....................................................................30

Fig.3.2. Methodology flowchart..............................................................................................38

Fig.4.1. Graph showing the comparisons in index values of Economical Indicators..............51

Fig.4.2. Graph showing the comparisons in index values of Social Indicators.......................52

Fig.4.3. Graph showing the comparisons in index values of Technological Indicators...........53

Fig.4.4. Graph showing the comparisons in index values of Environmental Indicators..........53

Fig.4.5.Environmental criterion Indicators sorted according to importance level in AHP

Fig.4.6.Environmental criterion Indicators sorted according to importance level in F-AHP

Fig.4.7.Social criterion Indicators sorted according to importance level in AHP approach....55

Fig.4.8.Social criterion Indicators sorted according to importance level in F-AHP approach.

Fig.4.9.Technological criterion Indicators sorted according to importance level in AHP

Fig.4.10.Technological criterion Indicators sorted according to importance level in F-AHP

Fig.4.11.Environmental criterion Indicators sorted according to importance level in AHP

Fig.4.12.Environmental criterion Indicators sorted according to importance level in AHP

Table.1.0. Worldwide Known Sustainability Rating System.....................................................3

Table.1.1. Identified Performance Indicators.............................................................................4

Table.2.0. Credit Point for Different Levels of Certification...................................................11

Table.2.1. Points Achieved GRIHA Rating.............................................................................13

Table.3.1. Likert scale selected for survey...............................................................................18

Table.3.2. Cronbach's Alpha standard values..........................................................................19

Table.3.3. Scale of relative importance according to saaty(1980)...........................................21

Table.3.4. Converted values as per importance level...............................................................21

Table.3.5. Scale of random index according to saaty(1977,1980)...........................................22

Table.3.6. Decision matrix of Respondent 13 of the survey....................................................23

Table.3.7. Likert scale responses of survey converted to saaty scale forF1indicator..............23

Table.3.8. Formulation of pairwise comparison matrix forF1indicator...................................24

Table.3.9. Likert scale responses of survey converted to saaty scale forF2indicator..............24

Table.3.10. Formulation of pairwise comparison matrix forF2indicator.................................25

Table.3.11. Formulation of pairwise comparison matrix for all indicators..............................26

Table.3.12 Formulation of normalized comparison matrix.....................................................27

Table.3.13 Formulation Eigen values and check for data consistency....................................28

Table.3.14. Linguistic Terms and the Corresponding Triangular Fuzzy Numbers..................30

Table.3.15. Conversion of survey to Corresponding Triangular Fuzzy Numbers of F1

Table.3.16. Conversion of survey to Corresponding Triangular Fuzzy Numbers of F2

Table.3.17. Formulation of pairwise comparison matrix for all indicators..............................34

Table.3.19. Pearson’s Correlation values and strength of relationship....................................37

Table.4.2. Weights of Criteria’s after AHP Analysis...............................................................42

Table.4.3. Index values of Indicators in descending order after AHP Analysis......................42

Table.4.4. Weights of Indicators in descending order after Fuzzy AHP Analysis...................45

Table.4.5. Percentages of Criteria’s after Fuzzy AHP Process................................................48

AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process Fuzzy

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) defines sustainability as a set of

Sustainable construction is considered as subset of sustainable development where

1.2 INDIAN CONSTRUCTIONINDUSTRY

The construction industry in India has contributed an estimated 7.8% of GDP,