uk

Article

AHP-based sustainability evaluation of global nanomaterial-enhanced residential buildings using regionally weighted criteria from Egyptian experts

Mona Hassan Soliman Abdullah Badawy Mohammed Asmaa Ali Zaki
Abstract

The rapid global urbanisation and the construction sector's critical environmental footprint necessitate innovative, sustainable solutions, with nanotechnology emerging as a key enabler. Despite this potential, current research lacked a holistic, systematic evaluation framework for nanomaterial-enhanced residential buildings that integrated the specific regional priorities of developing nations. This study addressed this knowledge gap by developing and applying a four-dimensional assessment model (environmental, economic, technical, and social) using the analytic hierarchy process. The model weights were derived from 55 Egyptian experts in architecture and sustainability, ensuring the results reflect crucial regional demands. The analysis revealed that the Environmental Criterion was deemed the most critical dimension, receiving the highest weight (0.3427), closely followed by the Economic Criterion (0.2774). The Technical Criterion ranked third (0.2337), while the Social Criterion was the least influential (0.1462). This priority setting confirmed that Operational Energy Cost Reduction (0.0916) and Maintenance Cost Reduction (0.0820) are the most decisive factors for sustainable performance in the regional context. The model was applied to four global case studies to determine their sustainable performance and ranking. The Sur Falveng building Phase Change Material Glass came in first place with a score of (73.85%) due to its comprehensive and balanced performance. The Seitzstrasse building Vacuum Insulation Panels followed in second place (71.51%). The Strucksbarg housing complex featuring self-cleaning Lotus-Effect paint ranked third (68.28%). Conversely, the Escala Condominiums tower utilising nano microcomposite rebar ranked last (57.86%), confirming that structural applications received lower overall priority as they did not directly contribute to the dominant operational metrics. This research provided a practical, evidence-based tool for architects and policymakers, highlighting the necessity of aligning nanotechnology selection with regional evaluation frameworks to guide future sustainable design decisions in emerging markets

Keywords

analytic hierarchy process; nanotechnology; regional priorities; building envelope; residential architecture

Download article

Received 02.05.2025, Revised 04.08.2025, Accepted 05.09.2025

Retrieved from Vol. 11, No. 3, 2025

Suggested citation

Soliman, M.H., Mohammed, A.B., & Zaki, A.A. (2025). AHP-based sustainability evaluation of global nanomaterial-enhanced residential buildings using regionally weighted criteria from Egyptian experts. Architectural Studies, 11(3), 61-72. https://doi.org/10.56318/as/3.2025.61

https://doi.org/10.56318/as/3.2025.61

Pages 61-72

References

  1. Aghazadeh, E., & Yildirim, H. (2024). A decision support framework to evaluate the main factors affecting the selection of sustainable materials in construction projects. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 47(4), 449-495. doi: 10.1504/IJSOM.2024.137992.
  2. Ahmad, A., Memon, S.A., Dang, H., Sari, A., & Gencel, O. (2025). Breaking new ground: A first-of-its-kind critical analysis of review articles on phase change materials for building applications. Applied Energy, 392, article number 125984. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.125984.
  3. Akadiri, P.O., Olomolaiye, P.O., & Chinyio, E.A. (2013). Multi-criteria evaluation model for the selection of sustainable materials for building projects. Automation in Construction, 30, 113-125. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2012.10.004.
  4. Aljenbaz, A.Z., & Çağnan, Ç. (2020). Evaluation of nanomaterials for building production within the context of sustainability. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 9(1), 53-65. doi: 10.14207/ejsd.2020.v9n1p53.
  5. Bhuiyan, M.M.A., & Hammad, A. (2023). A hybrid multi-criteria decision support system for selecting the most sustainable structural material for a multistory building construction. Sustainability, 15(4), article number 3128. doi: 10.3390/su15043128.
  6. Cabeza, L.F., Bai, Q., Bertoldi, P., Kihila, J.M., Lucena, A.F.P., Mata, É., Mirasgedis, S., Novikova, A., & Saheb, Y. (2022). Buildings. In P.R. Shukla et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2022 – mitigation of climate change (pp. 953-1048). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.011.
  7. Casini, M. (2020). Nanoinsulation materials for energy efficient buildings. In O. Kharissova, L. Martínez & B. Kharisov (Eds.), Handbook of nanomaterials and nanocomposites for energy and environmental applications (pp. 1-28). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-11155-7_49-1.
  8. Chen, L., Huang, L., Hua, J., Chen, Z., Wei, L., Osman, A.I., Fawzy, S., Rooney, D.W., Dong, L., & Yap, P.-S. (2023). Green construction for low-carbon cities: A review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 21, 1627-1657. doi: 10.1007/s10311-022-01544-4.
  9. CRSI. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.crsi.org.
  10. El-Alfy, K., El-Wazir, M., & Shalaby, A.M. (2021). Adaptive technologies of nano-architecture for the next generation of sustainable building applications. Mansoura Engineering Journal, 46(1), article number 12. doi: 10.21608/bfemu.2021.178034.
  11. European Commission. (2021). Ethics and data protection. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/ethics-and-data-protection_he_en.pdf.
  12. Goepel, K.D. (2024). Concepts, methods and tools to manage business performance. Retrieved from https://bpmsg.com/.
  13. Khanna, N.P. (2020). Urbanization and urban growth: Sustainable cities for safeguarding our future. In W.L. Filho, A.M. Azul, L. Brandli, P.G. Özuyar & T. Wall (Eds.), Sustainable cities and communities (pp. 953-965). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-95717-3_51.
  14. Khoshnava, S.M., Rostami, R., Valipour, A., Ismail, M., & Rahmat, A.R. (2018). Rank of green building material criteria based on the three pillars of sustainability using the hybrid multi criteria decision making method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 173, 82-99. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.066.
  15. Konbr, U., & Mamdouh, H. (2022). A proposed strategy to evaluate nanomaterials in construction to boost sustainable architecture. Civil Engineering and Architecture, 10(7), 3206-3226. doi: 10.13189/cea.2022.100732.
  16. Kylili, A., & Fokaides, P.A. (2016). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of phase change materials (PCMs) for building applications: A review. Journal of Building Engineering, 6, 133-143. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2016.02.008.
  17. Mavi, R.K., Gengatharen, D., Mavi, N.K., Hughes, R., Campbell, A., & Yates, R. (2021). Sustainability in construction projects: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 13(4), article number 1932. doi: 10.3390/su13041932.
  18. Oke, A.E., Aigbavboa, C.O., & Semenya, K. (2019). Impacts of nanotechnology adoption on sustainable construction. In B. Fatahi, A. Mwanza & D. Chang (Eds.), Sustainable design and construction for geomaterials and geostructures (pp. 286-293). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-95753-1_23.
  19. Rahim, A.A.A., Musa, S.N., Ramesh, S., & Lim, M.K. (2021). Development of a fuzzy-TOPSIS multi-criteria decision-making model for material selection with the integration of safety, health and environment risk assessment. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and Applications, 235(7), 1532-1550. doi: 10.1177/1464420721994269.
  20. Resalati, S., Okoroafor, T., Henshall, P., Simões, N., Gonçalves, M., & Mahmood, A. (2021). Comparative life cycle assessment of different vacuum insulation panel core materials using a cradle to gate approach. Building and Environment, 188, article number 107501. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107501.
  21. Soni, A., Chakraborty, S., Das, P.K., & Saha, A.K. (2022). Materials selection of reinforced sustainable composites by recycling waste plastics and agro-waste: An integrated multi-criteria decision making approach. Construction and Building Materials, 348, article number 128608. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.128608.
  22. Tohlob, A.A.H., & Morsi, H.E.E.-D. (2024). Nanotechnology and its impact on achieving sustainable architecture in Egypt. Journal of Umm Al-Qura University for Engineering and Architecture, 15, 138-161. doi: 10.1007/s43995-024-00048-2.
  23. Verma, S.K., Thappa, S., Sawhney, A., Anand, Y., & Anand, S. (2022). Nanotechnology: The future for green buildings. In D. Tripathi, R.K. Sharma & H.F. Öztop (Eds.), Advancements in nanotechnology for energy and environment (pp. 35-50). Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-5201-2_3.
  24. Wang, G., Luo, T., Luo, H., Liu, R., Liu, Y., & Liu, Z. (2024). A comprehensive review of building lifecycle carbon emissions and reduction approaches. City and Built Environment, 2, article number 12. doi: 10.1007/s44213-024-00036-1.
ISSN 2411-801X e-ISSN 2786-7374  UDC 71;72
DOI: 10.56318/as