The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.acme.2015.10.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A multi-attribute assessment using WASPAS for choosing an optimal indoor environment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
0
4

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
26
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…The combination of the two approaches, therefore, offers an intermediate case. The WASPAS technique has been applied for energy system management [77,78], third-party logistics providers [79] and indoor construction [80], among others. Jahan [81] extended the WASPAS technique for target-based normalization.…”
Section: Waspas-n Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The combination of the two approaches, therefore, offers an intermediate case. The WASPAS technique has been applied for energy system management [77,78], third-party logistics providers [79] and indoor construction [80], among others. Jahan [81] extended the WASPAS technique for target-based normalization.…”
Section: Waspas-n Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Various methods are available for supporting complex decisions in construction. Some of them are as follows: Kaklauskas et al (2012) proposed a Passive House model for quantitative and qualitative analyses; in Kuzman et al (2013) AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) was used to compare passive house construction types; Brown et al (2013) used decision making for assessing renovation; in the work of Bucoń and Sobotka (2015), the alternatives of residential building repair are evaluated, while Cannemi et al (2014), Bhanot and Jha (2012) used decision making as a support tool for policy making; in Kalibatas et al (2011Kalibatas et al ( , 2012, Zavadskas et al (2016) the indoor environment was evaluated from the perspective of an ideal alternative; in the work of Chen et al (2014) MADM was used for evaluating the impacts of VOC emissions in the US single-family houses; Hopfe et al (2013) assessed building performance; in Książek et al (2015) decision-making in construction project development was described; in Zagorskas et al (2014) MADM was used for evaluating thermal insulation alternatives of historical brick buildings in the Baltic Sea Region and Augutis et al (2014) used MADM for assessing energy infrastructure. The papers of Zavadskas et al (2014), Mardani et al (2015aMardani et al ( , 2015b presented the surveys of MADM methods.…”
Section: Using Madm Methods In Constructionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…where i D  and i D  represent the ideal and not-ideal distances for alternative i, respectively, i D represents the closeness coefficient of alternative i. Zavadskas et al (2016) introduced the concept of using the weighted sum model (WSM) and the weighted product model (WPM) results in evaluating alternatives. They termed this process a WASPAS method.…”
Section: Multi-criteria Toolsmentioning
confidence: 99%