Scenario-Based Evaluation of Sustainable High-Rise Housing for Refugee Communities under Resource Scarcity Using FAHP–TOPSIS: Evidence from Gaza
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22399/ijcesen.4573Keywords:
Sustainable High-rise Buildings, Refugee Communities, Resource Optimization, Resource Scarcity, Gaza, PalestineAbstract
The housing problem in conflict-affected areas, especially in Gaza City, is aggravated by a rapid urbanization process, land scarcity, and long periods of humanitarian crisis. Another possible spatial solution is high-rise housing, but its sustainability under extreme resource constraints has not been adequately assessed. This paper proposes a multi-criteria decision-making framework with a scenario-based approach to evaluate sustainable high-rise housing options for refugee communities in contexts with limited energy, water, and material resources. Four architectural situations were developed in accordance with site conditions, community needs, and resource availability. A systematic analysis of the criteria was conducted to assign weights and rank the scenarios using an integrated FAHP to assess environmental performance, resource optimization, indoor environmental quality, and community-centric criteria, and the Fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the scenarios. The outputs of the simulation were added to the decision framework to ensure quantitative rigor, namely, energy demand, CO2 emissions, thermal comfort (PMV), and natural ventilation performance. Findings indicate that the hybrid scenario achieves optimal performance, with substantial changes in operational energy requirements and carbon emissions, under realistic technological conditions and high social functionality.
References
[1] UNHCR, Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2024. Geneva: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2025.
[2] World Bank Group, Gaza and West Bank Interim Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2025.
[3] IEA, Annual Report 2023. Annex 49 Energy Efficient Communities, International Energy Agency, 2023.
[4] UN-Habitat, “Housing,” United Nations Human Settlements Programme, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://unhabitat.org/topic/housing
[5] A. Mardani, A. Jusoh, K. Md Nor, Z. Khalifah, N. Zakwan, and A. Valipour, “Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications – A review of the literature from 2000 to 2014,” Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraživanja, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 516–571, 2015, doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139.
[6] M. M. A. Bhuiyan and A. Hammad, “A hybrid multi-criteria decision support system for selecting the most sustainable structural material for a multi-storey building construction,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 4, p. 3128, 2023, doi: 10.3390/su15043128.
[7] R. Reitberger, N. Palm, H. Palm, and W. Lang, “Urban systems exploration: A generic process for multi-objective urban planning to support decision making in early design phases,” Build. Environ., vol. 254, p. 111360, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111360.
[8] G. Abou Jaoude, O. Mumm, and V. M. Carlow, “An overview of scenario approaches: A guide for urban design and planning,” J. Plan. Lit., vol. 37, no. 3, 2022, doi: 10.1177/08854122221083546.
[9] IEA, “Buildings – Analysis,” International Energy Agency, Sep. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/buildings
[10] ASHRAE, Standards and Guidelines. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 2009.
[11] ISO, ISO 7730:2025: Ergonomics of the thermal environment. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 2025.
[12] ISO, ISO 14044:2006: Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 2006.
[13] G. Elshafei, “Passive building model guidelines for Minia City based on psychometric chart & CBE tools,” J. Appl. Eng. Technol., vol. 43, no. 2, p. 384, 2024.
[14] D.-Y. Chang, “Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 649–655, 1996, doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2.
[15] N. Liladhar Rane and S. Choudhary, “Fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS as an effective and powerful multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method for subjective judgements in the selection process,” Int. Res. J. Mod. Eng. Technol. Sci., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 2582–5208, 2023, doi: 10.56726/IRJMETS36629.
[16] G. Demir and R. Arslan, “Sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision-making problems,” Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Univ. J. Econ. Adm. Sci., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1025–1056, 2022, doi: 10.26745/ahbvuibfd.1103531.
[17] M. A. Vaziri Rad, H. Forootan Fard, S. Tajedini, and D. Aghajani, “Integrating multi-criteria decision making and game theory approaches to identify sustainable power supply solutions grounded in economic optimization: A case study in the abundant climates of Iran,” Energy, vol. 338, p. 138909, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2025.138909.
[18] E. Triantaphyllou and A. Sánchez, “A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods,” Decis. Sci., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 151–194, 1997.
[19] UN, World Cities Report 2024: Cities and Climate Action. New York: United Nations, 2024.
[20] UN, Policy Briefs in Support of the High-Level Political Forum: Leveraging Energy Action for Advancing the Sustainable Development Goals. New York: United Nations, 2021.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Computational and Experimental Science and Engineering
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
