Evaluating Sustainability in Post-Conflict Reconstruction: A Case Study of Blast-Damaged Buildings Without Structural Collapse Risk in Syria

Abstract

In the context of post-war reconstruction, this study introduces a novel assessment model tailored for the preliminary management of blast-damaged reinforced concrete buildings without structural collapse risk. The model addresses the critical challenge of prioritizing reconstruction efforts within constraints of time and resources while integrating economic, environmental, and social dimensions. Developed using the Integrated Value Model for Sustainable Assessment and refined through the Delphi method, the model provides stakeholders with a practical tool to evaluate alternative reconstruction scenarios, including refurbishment, demolition, reconstruction with retained identity, and preservation for future work. Validation is carried out through a case study of a tourist hotel in the historic area of Damascus, where a report confirmed the building posed no structural collapse risk. The results indicate that “preservation for future work” is the most sustainable option environmentally, while “refurbishment” emerges as the most sustainable economically and socially. This study highlights the importance of comprehensive damage assessments and sustainability-oriented tools for resilient and sustainable post-war reconstruction strategies that respect heritage contexts.

1. Introduction

The assessment and reconstruction of blast-damaged buildings without structural collapse risk present critical challenges in the context of post-war recovery. Blasts, whether resulting from warfare or industrial accidents, significantly affect structural integrity and urban environments, causing extensive damage to buildings and infrastructure [1]. Understanding the mechanics of blasts, particularly their interaction with reinforced concrete (RC) structures, is essential for designing resilient reconstruction strategies. Blasts subject structures to rapid, high-intensity forces, leading to damage such as cracking, spalling, and partial collapses, as well as long-term degradation [2]. These impacts depend on factors like charge weight, standoff distance, and structural configuration, underscoring the importance of tailored evaluation methodologies [3,4].

Researchers have employed numerical [5,6], experimental [4,7], and analytical approaches [8] to investigate the effects of blasts on RC structures. Numerical simulations, such as finite element methods (FEMs), enable detailed analyses of blast–structure interactions, while experimental studies provide empirical evidence of structural behavior under controlled blast scenarios. Analytical models, including single degree of freedom (SDOF) systems, serve as efficient tools for initial assessments. Despite advancements in understanding blast–structure interactions, significant gaps remain in methodologies for evaluating and rehabilitating damaged structures in post-war contexts. Existing studies often focus on designing blast-resistant elements for new constructions, relying on precise parameters that are frequently unavailable in post-war scenarios. These approaches do not attend the problem of resilience and restoration of damaged buildings, underscoring the need for adaptable methods capable of addressing the uncertainties and context-specific challenges of damaged RC structures. Additionally, the unique challenges posed by resource-constrained, post-war environments further highlight the limitations of these approaches in such settings.

To address these limitations, researchers have turned to established international standards and frameworks for assessing damaged structures. Standards such as ISO TC-71/SC-7/WG-2 [9] and EN 1504 Part 9 [10] are widely recognized for their systematic procedures in documenting damage and recommending repair or demolition strategies. Similarly, ATC-20 provides guidance for post-earthquake safety assessments [11], FEMA 306 evaluates earthquake-damaged concrete and masonry wall structures [12], and UFC 3-340-02 assesses structures affected by accidental explosions [13]. Frameworks like the CONTECVET Manual [14] and the NORECON Framework [15] contribute to understanding residual service life and managing repair processes. However, a critical limitation of these methodologies is their reliance on extensive testing equipment and laboratory facilities, which are often unavailable in war-affected regions like Syria. For instance, conducting material property tests, such as compressive strength or ultrasonic pulse velocity tests, requires specialized machinery and skilled operators, both of which are scarce in post-war environments. Moreover, many of these standards presume access to stable power supplies and advanced facilities for laboratory analyses, further complicating their application in regions where infrastructure is severely depleted. These challenges underscore the impracticality of directly implementing such methodologies in resource-constrained, post-war contexts.

Recognizing these constraints, researchers have adapted assessment tools to post-blast contexts, particularly in Syria. Techniques developed by Abbas (2013) [16], Melhem and Hasan (2015) [17], and Kikhia (2015) [18] emphasize resource-efficient practices such as visual inspections and straightforward measurements. These tools enable rapid damage categorization and provide guidance on repair, strengthening, or demolition decisions. While these methodologies address immediate structural needs, they often lack integration with broader sustainability considerations, which are essential for long-term recovery.

Significant advancements have been made in sustainable post-war reconstruction, addressing economic, social, and environmental dimensions. However, the evaluation of damages to individual buildings without structural collapse risk—often the foundational units of urban recovery—remains underexplored. This gap underscores the necessity for tools that can assess sustainability comprehensively at the building scale.

Table 1. Literature review for related articles published in the last four years.

Article Name	Sustainability Aspect	Published Year	Authors
Post-War Sustainable Urban Planning in Kyiv: Integration of Smart Technologies and Environmental Recovery	Economic, Environmental	2024	I. N. Petrova et al. [19]
A New Model of a Spatial Structural Map for Re-Building Urban-Rural Links: A Case Study: Syrian coastal region	Environmental, Economic	2024	T. Rahmoun and W. Zhao [20]
Sustainability assessment of Syrian cities considering historical and cultural heritage	Socio-cultural, Environmental	2024	A. Salmo and E. V. Shcherbina [21]
Re) calibrating heritage: Al-Jdeideh (post-) conflict transformations in Aleppo, Syria	Socio-cultural	2024	D. Salahieh et al. [22]
Ukraine’s Post-War Reconstruction: Building Smart Cities and Governments Through a Sustainability-Based Reconstruction Plan	Environmental	2023	Cifuentes-Faura [23]
Multi-Criteria Sustainability Risk Management for Post-War Residential Re-Construction: The Case of Damascus	Economic, Environmental, Social	2023	L. A. Khaddour et al. [24]
Approaches For Complex and Integrated Refurbishment to Improve Energy Efficiency and Spatial Comfort of The Existing Post-War Mass Housing Stock in Serbia	Environmental	2023	B. Lević et al. [25]
Investment Management and Financial Development in Infrastructure Renovation of a Sustainable-Built Environment	Economic	2023	V.Koval et al. [26]
A Comprehensive Assessment of Buildings for Post-Disaster Sustainable Reconstruction: A Case Study of Beirut Port	Socio-economic	2023	J. El Hage et al. [27]
Sustainable Urban Space Strategies in The Reconstruction of Destroyed Cities After the Wars	Economic, Environmental, Social	2022	K. K. Kawther et al. [28]
Life-Cycle Sustainability Risk Management A Multi-Stakeholder Approach: The Case of Damascus Post-War Residential Projects	Economic, Environmental, Social	2022	L. A. Khaddour [29]
Sustainable Housing Concept for Post-War Syrian Reconstruction	Economic, Environmental, Social	2021	M. Altaema et al. [30]
Post-Syrian War Residential Heritage Transformations in The Old City of Aleppo: Socio-Cultural Sustainability Aspects	Socio-cultural	2021	C. Kousa et al. [31]
Post-War Sustainable Housing Design Strategies: The Case of Reconstruction in Iraq	Environmental	2021	H. Ali Abdulrazaq et al. [32]
Adopting Sustainable Development in Reconstruction Post War City of Mosul Architecture—Case Study	Economic, Environmental, Social	2021	A. Abdul Razzaq Mohsen Al-Samurai et al. [33]

presents a review of recent studies, which reveals variability in the integration of sustainability dimensions, demonstrating the lack of comprehensive frameworks tailored to individual structures.

The variability in these studies demonstrates the absence of systematic tools for evaluating economic, environmental, and social considerations, further complicating the prioritization of reconstruction strategies. This study aims to address these gaps by presenting a novel sustainability assessment model designed for the preliminary evaluation of reconstruction strategies for blast-damaged RC buildings without structural collapse risk. The proposed model evaluates the damage levels of individual elements while integrating comprehensive sustainability dimensions. Unlike existing methodologies, this model is designed to operate in resource-constrained environments, providing stakeholders with practical tools for decision-making. Validation of the model is achieved through its application to Syrian case studies, reflecting the extensive urban damage caused by the Syrian war.

Aligned with the “Build back better” (BBB) framework advocated at the third world conference on disaster risk reduction in 2015, this research emphasizes the importance of sustainable reconstruction strategies that balance immediate recovery goals with long-term resilience. The study systematically compares four reconstruction alternatives—refurbishment, demolition, reconstruction with retained identity, and preservation for future work—using economic, environmental, and social criteria.

This manuscript is structured as follows: Section 2 outlines the methodology, detailing the development of the sustainability assessment model. Section 3 presents the case study and alternative scenarios. Section 4 discusses the analysis results, while Section 5 explores the findings and their implications. Finally, Section 6 concludes the study with recommendations for future research directions.

2. Methodology

The present research project adopts the Integrated Value Model for Sustainable Assessment (MIVES) (Modelo Integrado de Valor para una Evaluación Sostenible—MIVES) [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57] for several reasons. Firstly, MIVES provides a scientifically rigorous framework for conducting sustainability assessments in post-disaster environments [40], with an established track record in similar studies within the building sector. Secondly, it enables agile, objective, and specific assessments of sustainability criteria for damaged RC buildings [37,39], ensuring decisions are based on robust and impartial analysis crucial for effective reconstruction planning. Additionally, MIVES’s hierarchical Decision Trees offer a structured approach for organizing the complex array of sustainability criteria, facilitating comprehension, communication, and implementation of sustainability models for RC buildings [39,41,47,48]. Based on the current literature, the application of MIVES to evaluate the sustainability of damaged structures without structural collapse risk is limited. While MIVES has been employed in various contexts within architecture and civil engineering, including the assessment of construction methods and materials, its specific use for sustainability assessment in damaged structures without collapse risk remains underexplored. A key advantage of the MIVES framework is its flexibility, which allows its application to diverse building types, including residential, historical, and commercial structures. Previous studies have demonstrated its adaptability and robustness across these contexts. For instance, MIVES has been effectively employed in assessing sustainability in residential buildings [37,40], as well as in evaluating the preservation and reuse of historical and commercial buildings [42,43]. This versatility ensures the model’s relevance across various scenarios and building typologies. By incorporating value functions into the assessment model [47], MIVES allows for measuring the satisfaction levels of various stakeholders involved in the decision-making process, enhancing the relevance and acceptability of evaluations and reconstruction plans. Furthermore, its adaptability is valuable in assessing sustainability across diverse scenarios of RC buildings [45], accommodating different levels of damage, geographical contexts, and stakeholder preferences. Integrating MIVES with other methods, such as the Delphi method [47,52], enhances the robustness and reliability of the sustainability assessment model, while its ability to calculate sustainability indices aids in identifying the most sustainable alternatives post-disaster [44], contributing to more resilient and sustainable communities.

The design of the new model has the following five steps: (1) defining the problems, objectives, and boundaries; (2) constructing the Requirements Tree (RT); (3) assigning weights to the RT components; (4) defining the value functions; and (5) obtaining the indicators’ values and the global sustainability index (GSI) calculation methods, as shown in Figure 1.

2.1. Defining the Problems, Objectives, and Boundaries

The proposed model is specifically tailored for reinforced concrete (RC) buildings affected by external war-related blasts but without structural collapse risk, addressing both structural and non-structural elements. The model emphasizes immediate reconstruction processes, focusing on duration and sustainability, without incorporating future maintenance, monitoring, or potential upgrades. Validation is grounded in case studies from Syria, ensuring relevance to similar post-conflict regions. However, adaptations may be required for application in different geographic or climatic contexts. The methodology prioritizes practicality through simplified damage assessments, manual data collection, and expert consultations, making it accessible in resource-constrained environments. While this enhances usability, the model does not yet integrate advanced numerical simulations or experimental studies, which could improve precision for complex or unique scenarios.

2.2. Constructing the Requirements Tree (RT)

In this stage, a Requirements Tree (RT) is formulated to systematically organize the key sustainability parameters—requirements, criteria, and indicators—about the focal subject. The RT is structured hierarchically to assess stakeholders’ satisfaction and the sustainability facets of a specific process, system, or product [41]. The primary objectives of the RT are (a) to guide decision-making through the utilization of acquired indicator values and weights; (b) to offer a comprehensive perspective on the issue; (c) to organize assessment-related concepts; (d) to enhance stakeholders’ understanding of the model within the decision-making process; and (e) to facilitate subsequent mathematical analyses [47]. The RT is delineated into three primary levels. The first two levels, namely, requirements (Ri) and criteria (Cj), comprise general and qualitative components, while the third level involves quantitative and measurable indicators (Ik) [51]. To establish a robust RT, the authors identify potential sustainability parameters for assessing damaged reinforced concrete buildings. This identification is based on a comprehensive review of the literature and expert knowledge, as detailed in

Table A1. Relevant and potential sustainability parameters for reconstruction projects.

R#	Requirements	C#	Criteria	I#	Indicators	References
R1	Economic	C1	Cost	I1	Initial reconstruction costs	Sadrolodabaee et al., 2022 [90]; Pons & de la Fuente, 2013 [39]; Hosseini et al., 2016 [40]
				I2	Long-term maintenance costs	Medrán et al., 2024 [91]; Rezaei, 2019 [44]; Rodríguez et al., 2017 [43]
				I3	Demolition costs	Hosseini et al., 2021 [92]; Boix-Cots et al., 2022 [53]
		C2	Time	I4	Reconstruction process duration	Martínez-Molina et al., 2016 [37]; Abdulrazaq et al., 2021 [32]; Kousa et al., 2021 [31]
				I5	Demolition time	Sánchez-Garrido et al., 2022 [50]; Majeed, 2020 [93]
		C3	Value	I6	Property-added value	Altaema et al., 2021 [30]; Lević et al., 2023 [25]; Kawther et al., 2022
R2	Environmental	C4	Carbon emissions	I7	Embodied CO2	Sadrolodabaee et al., 2022; Hosseini et al., 2016 [40]; Pons et al., 2016 [41]
				I8	Operational CO2 emissions	Hosseini et al., 2021 [92]; Lević et al., 2023 [25]
		C5	Waste management	I9	Percentage of rubble waste	Gómez et al., 2020 [42]; Medrán et al., 2024 [91]; Pons-Valladares & Nikolic, 2020 [48]
		C6	Energy	I10	Embodied energy	Ledesma et al., 2020 [49]; Boix-Cots et al., 2022 [53]
R3	Social	C7	Cultural and heritage	I11	Building historical significance	Cifuentes-Faura, 2023 [23]; Khalaf, 2020 [94]; Altaema et al., 2021 [30]
				I12	Architectural preservation	Kousa et al., 2021 [31]; Abdulrazaq et al., 2021 [32]
		C8	Safety	I13	Worker safety	Rodríguez et al., 2017 [43]; Medrán et al., 2024 [91]; Hosseini et al., 2016 [40]
				I14	Community health and safety	Fadhil et al., 2020 [95]; Kawther et al., 2022 [28]
		C9	Social impact	I15	Community engagement	Khaddour et al., 2021 [24]; Boix-Cots et al., 2022 [53]; Lević et al., 2023 [25]
				I16	Noise pollution	Majeed, 2020 [93]; Sánchez-Garrido et al., 2022 [50]
				I17	Ease of implementation	Pons et al., 2016 [41]; Zolfaghari et al., 2023 [52]
				I18	Knowledge and Implementation	Ashby et al., 2013 [96]; Ofori 2012 [97]

(Appendix A). The parameters were refined to align with the sustainability objectives and boundaries in Section 2.1, prioritizing relevance, clarity, and measurability for the immediate reconstruction phase. For economic indicators (R1), long-term maintenance costs were excluded, while initial reconstruction costs were retained as a broader cost-related parameter. Reconstruction process duration was streamlined by consolidating it with demolition time into a single time-related indicator. For environmental indicators (R2), operational CO₂ emissions were replaced with CO₂ emissions during implementation, while embodied energy was excluded due to its removal from the ICE database. Social indicators (R3) were adjusted to emphasize cultural and historical importance, replacing historical significance and architectural preservation with building importance and history. Community engagement was merged with other social indicators to obtain indicator 13, while safety indicators were maintained. These refinements resulted in a practical and concise RT with 3 requirements, 9 criteria, and 13 indicators, ensuring its relevance to sustainability assessments in post-war reconstruction.

Figure 2 illustrates the components of the RT, while

Table 2. The indicators of the proposed model.

#I	Indicators	Units
I1	Building cost	€/m2
I2	Property-added value	€/m2
I3	Execution time	month
I4	Embodied CO2	Kg/m2
I5	CO2 emission	Kg/m2
I6	% waste	Kg/m2
I7	Building history	Points
I8	Building importance	Points
I9	ORI (occupational risk index)	Weighted hour
I10	Knowledge of the technique	Points
I11	Ease of implementation	Points
I12	Noise pollution	dB
I13	Other inconveniences	Points

provides a detailed overview of the indicators along with their respective units.

As depicted in Figure 2, the sustainability assessment model is structured into three main requirements (R): economic (R1), environmental (R2), and social (R3), each divided into second-level criteria (C) and corresponding third-level indicators (I). The economic requirement (R1) evaluates financial and temporal aspects, including building cost (C1, I1: monetary cost per m²), property-added value (I2: value added per m²), and execution time (C2, I3: duration in months). The environmental requirement (R2) assesses environmental impacts through embodied CO₂ (C3, I4: emissions from materials and construction), CO₂ emissions (C4, I5: operational emissions), and rubble waste (C5, I6: waste generated during reconstruction). The social requirement (R3) captures cultural and societal dimensions through three criteria. Building importance (C6) includes two indicators: building history (I7: cultural and historical significance) and building importance (I8: structural significance and relevance). Occupational risk (C7) includes the I9: ORI. Participation (C8) also comprises two indicators: knowledge of implementation (I10: stakeholder understanding of reconstruction techniques) and ease of the technique (I11: simplicity of implementation). Finally, third-party effects (C9) include noise pollution (I12) and other inconveniences (I13: broader social issues caused by reconstruction activities such as community engagement). This hierarchical framework ensures a comprehensive assessment of sustainability across economic, environmental, and social dimensions.

2.3. Assignment of Weights to RT Components

In the project framework, the third stage involves employing the Delphi method to assign weights to the identified components within the Decision Tree (RT) [58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65]. Delphi, chosen for its accuracy and adaptability, integrates seamlessly with MIVES and gathers expert consensus efficiently [40,47]. Its systematic approach controls bias, ensuring reliable weighting of criteria.

2.3.1. Expert Panel Eligibility and Selection

Given the significant impact of expert opinions on the weighting process and the subsequent model outcomes, the Delphi method necessitates a meticulous and purposeful selection of the expert panel [58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65]. The Delphi method required a careful and structured process to ensure that the expert panel’s composition reflected the study’s objectives and constraints. Experts were required to meet at least three eligibility criteria detailed in Appendix (B). The selection began by identifying potential candidates through professional networks, academic institutions, industry associations, and recommendations from local government bodies. Invitations were sent to prospective participants, detailing the purpose of the study, the criteria for selection, and the expected contributions.

Interested candidates submitted their credentials, including their educational qualifications, professional experience, and areas of expertise. These submissions underwent preliminary screening to ensure alignment with the established criteria. Factors such as prior experience in post-war reconstruction, familiarity with sustainability assessment, and expertise in structural engineering, architecture, or project management were heavily weighted.

Out of the pool of applicants, 15 certified professionals were selected to form a diverse and representative panel. The panel included three distinguished academics, three architects and civil engineers with expertise in the tourism sector, two municipal planning professionals, two experienced project engineers, three reliable contractors, and two knowledgeable builders. This diverse composition ensured a comprehensive integration of theoretical insights, practical experience, and localized knowledge critical for the study’s focus on sustainability in post-war reconstruction.

2.3.2. Delphi Consensus Process

The primary objective of the Delphi method is to achieve consensus among a group of qualified experts, aiming to reduce variance in responses [58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65]. Following the recommendations of Dalkey et al. (1970) [58] and Hallowell and Gambatese (2010) [61], consensus is sought within one to three rounds. For quantitative investigations, consensus is determined when the median absolute deviation is <1/10 of the possible values, in line with the Delphi technique. Given that weights range from 0% to 100%, a median absolute deviation of less than 10% indicates unanimity. As suggested by Hallowell and Gambatese [61], the median absolute deviation (Equation (1)), which measures variability from the median and is less susceptible to skewed outcomes than the mean, is employed in place of the standard deviation.

$$Median Absolute deviation={\displaystyle \frac{\sum _{i=1}^n|xi-median|}{n}}$$

(1)

where n is the total number of data items and xi is the data i.

2.3.3. Techniques for Bias Reduction

The success of the Delphi method relies on the impartial opinions of objective specialists. To mitigate bias, the authors considered recommendations from previous research [47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65]: (a) arranging questions and RT components in a different order for each panelist and round to prevent the dominance effect; (b) maintaining anonymity of panelists; (c) requiring each panelist to provide a brief explanation of their response for review by other panelists; and (d) utilizing the median absolute deviation instead of the standard deviation.

2.3.4. Implementation of the Delphi Questionnaire and Outcome

The administration of the Delphi survey and the subsequent outcomes were facilitated through structured interviews as the chosen information-gathering strategy. This approach proved effective in capturing intricate viewpoints, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of crucial subjects. The Delphi process comprised two rounds.

In the first round of interviews, conducted in a closed manner, qualified experts received two materials: (a) a questionnaire with instructions on assigning weights to the designated components of the Requirements Tree (RT) and (b) a project summary. Experts were tasked with responding to the question: “If you had to assign weights for this assessment, what importance do you think should be ideally assigned in the context of a developed country?”. Following data collection, median absolute deviations were calculated to gauge the variability in experts’ responses.

Table A2. Median, mean, median absolute deviation, and consensus for Delphi’s first round.

Requirements	Criteria	Indicators	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	Expert Local Weights Average (%)	Median of the Local Weights	Median Absolute Deviation	Consensus (Median Absolute Deviation <10%)
R1, economic	-		25	60	35	50	60	60	40	25	25	55	50	45	20	60	60	45	50	12.7	NO
	C1, Cost	-	75	60	70	80	80	60	70	55	75	65	60	70	80	70	60	69	70	6.7	YES
		I1, Building cost	40	50	50	70	75	50	60	70	70	40	80	60	80	70	50	61	60	11.7	NO
		I2, Property-added value	60	50	50	30	25	50	40	30	30	60	20	40	20	30	50	39	40	11.7	NO
	C2, Time	I3, Execution time	25	40	30	20	20	40	30	45	25	35	40	30	20	30	40	31	30	6.7	YES
R2, Environmental			30	20	25	20	15	20	30	45	25	15	30	25	40	10	20	25	25	7	YES
	C3, Consumption	I4, Embodied CO2	25	40	50	70	70	40	30	30	30	25	10	50	35	80	40	42	40	14.3	NO
	C4, Emission	I5, CO2 emission	40	20	30	10	17	20	25	40	30	25	60	40	35	10	20	28	25	10.2	NO
	C5, Waste	I6, % Solid waste	35	40	20	20	13	40	45	30	40	50	30	10	30	10	40	30	30	10.5	NO
R3, Social			45	20	40	30	25	20	30	30	50	30	20	30	40	30	20	31	30	7.3	YES
	C6, Building history and importance	-	50	40	30	30	35	40	40	35	60	10	50	50	20	65	40	40	40	10	NO
		I7, Building history	40	70	40	60	55	70	60	60	60	35	50	50	50	50	70	55	55	9	YES
		I8, Building importance	60	30	60	40	45	30	40	40	40	65	50	50	50	50	30	45	45	9	YES
	C7, Occupational risk during construction	I9, ORI	25	20	25	20	25	20	25	25	15	30	20	20	25	20	20	22	20	3	YES
	C8, Participation	-	20	20	30	30	25	20	20	25	15	30	20	20	25	10	20	22	20	4	YES
		I10, Knowledge of the technique	50	60	70	65	70	60	50	60	60	25	50	50	50	50	60	55	60	7.3	YES
		I11, Ease of implementation	50	40	30	35	30	40	50	40	40	75	50	50	50	50	40	45	40	8	YES
	C9, Third-party effect	-	5	20	15	20	15	20	15	15	10	30	10	10	25	10	20	16	15	5	YES
		I12, Noise pollution	70	50	30	30	40	50	50	60	70	35	50	50	50	50	50	49	50	7.6	YES
		I13, Other inconveniences	30	50	70	70	60	50	50	40	30	65	50	50	50	50	50	51	50	7.6	YES

in the Appendix B presents the results obtained from the first round of the Delphi process. According to Table A2, seven out of thirty indicators did not meet the consensus requirement.

Divergences in the assigned weights among experts reflected differences in their preferences. Consequently, a second round of surveys was deemed necessary to allow experts to consider group feedback, reconsider their rationale, and adjust numerical weight assignments, ultimately striving for consensus. The second round adopted an open approach, where panelists were requested to reassess their weight allocations considering the average weights from the first round.

Table A3. Median, mean, median absolute deviation, and consensus for Delphi’s second round.

Requirements	Criteria	Indicators	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	Expert Local Weights Average (%)	Median of the Local Weights	Median Absolute Deviation	Consensus (Median Absolute Deviation <10%)
R1, economic	-		35	50	35	45	60	45	40	35	40	55	50	45	40	50	50	45%	45	6	YES
	C1, Cost	-	75	65	70	80	80	60	70	60	75	65	60	70	80	80	60	70%	70	6.7	YES
		I1, Building cost	60	50	50	50	70	50	60	70	70	60	60	60	70	70	50	60%	60	6.7	YES
		I2, Property-added value	40	50	50	50	30	50	40	30	30	40	40	40	30	30	50	40%	40	6.7	YES
	C2, Time	I3, Execution time	25	35	30	20	20	40	30	40	25	35	40	30	20	20	40	30%	30	6.7	YES
R2, Environmental			30	10	20	20	10	20	20	20	25	15	30	25	20	10	20	20%	20	4.3	YES
	C3, Consumption	I4, Embodied CO2	25	20	25	25	30	10	20	20	20	25	10	20	25	20	10	20%	20	4	YES
	C4, Emission	I5, CO2 emission	35	20	30	10	30	20	25	40	30	25	50	40	30	20	40	30%	30	7.6	YES
	C5, Waste	I6, % Solid waste	40	60	45	65	40	70	55	40	50	50	40	40	45	60	50	50%	50	8	YES
R3, Social			35	40	35	35	30	35	40	45	35	30	20	30	40	40	30	35%	35	4.3	YES
	C6, Building history and importance	-	50	40	30	30	35	40	40	35	60	40	50	50	20	35	40	40%	40	7	YES
		I7, Building history	40	70	40	60	55	70	60	60	60	35	50	50	50	50	70	55%	60	8	YES
		I8, Building importance	60	30	60	40	45	30	40	40	40	65	50	50	50	50	30	45%	40	8	YES
	C7, Occupational risk during construction	I9, ORI	20	20	20	20	25	20	25	40	30	30	30	30	35	20	15	25%	25	5.6	YES
	C8, Participation	-	20	20	25	20	20	20	20	25	10	20	25	15	25	10	25	20%	20	3.3	YES
		I10, Knowledge of the technique	50	60	70	65	70	60	50	60	60	25	50	50	50	50	60	55%	60	7.3	YES
		I11, Ease of implementation	50	40	30	35	30	40	50	40	40	75	50	50	50	50	40	45%	40	8	YES
	C9, Third-party effect	-	10	20	25	30	20	20	15	15	5	10	5	5	20	10	20	15%	15	6.3	YES
		I12, Noise pollution	70	50	30	40	40	50	50	60	70	35	50	50	50	50	50	50%	50	7.6	YES
		I13, Other inconveniences	30	50	70	60	60	50	50	40	30	65	50	50	50	50	50	50%	50	7.6	YES

in the Appendix B illustrates the second round, marking the point at which experts achieved consensus, and median absolute deviations were less than 10% for the RT’s components.

2.4. Value Function Definition

The fourth stage of this project methodology assigns a value function to each identified indicator. Notably, the value function in MIVES distinguishes itself from other multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques. This unique function utilizes a unitary scale from 0 to 1, amalgamating the units of the indicators, thereby indicating the range of sustainability satisfaction, from the minimum to the maximum degrees [55]. Lombera et al. (2010) [66] and Alarcon et al. (2011) [67] outline the processes involved in determining the value function, The process begins by determining the tendency of satisfaction for each indicator—whether satisfaction increases or decreases as the indicator value changes. Extremes are then established, defining the minimum (Xmin) and maximum (Xmax) values that correspond to the satisfaction boundaries (Smin, value 0, Smax, value 1). These parameters are derived from various sources, including the scientific literature, building codes, international guidelines, expert consultations, and case studies, ensuring context relevance and accuracy [16,17,18,68,69,70]. The shape of the value function is selected based on the relationship between the indicator value and satisfaction levels. Common shapes include concave functions, which show rapid satisfaction increases with smaller initial changes; convex functions, which reflect gradual satisfaction growth initially that accelerates with higher values; linear functions, which indicate uniform satisfaction increases across the range; and S-shaped functions, which combine convex and concave behaviors, reflecting dual tendencies in satisfaction changes. Once the shape of the value function is determined, its mathematical representation is applied to accurately quantify satisfaction levels. The value function formula is defined as shown in Equations (2) and (3), and additional details regarding value function definitions, parameters, and forms can be found elsewhere in the literature [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,59].

$$Vi=A+B·\left[1-e^{-ki.{\left[{\displaystyle \frac{|Xi-Xmin|}{Ci}}\right]}^{Pi}}\right]$$

(2)

$$B={\left[1-e^{-ki.{\left[{\displaystyle \frac{|Xmax-Xmin|}{Ci}}\right]}^{Pi}}\right]}^{-1}$$

(3)

where Vi = non-dimensional value of the evaluated indicator and Xi = the considered indicator abscissa, which generates Vi value. Moreover, the following seven parameters define the behavior of the value function:

A = the response value Xmin (indicator’s abscissa), generally A = 0;

Pi = a shape factor that determines whether the curve is concave, convex, linear, or S-shaped;

Ci = factor that establishes, in curves with Pi > 1, abscissa’s value for the inflection point;

Ki = factor that defines the response value to Ci;

Xmin = the corresponding point/s to the minimum satisfaction (Smin = 0);

Xmax = the corresponding point/s to the maximum satisfaction (Smax = 1);

B = the factor preventing the function from leaving the range (0.00, 1.00); obtained by Equation (3).

Illustrating the previous process, in Equation (2), A = 0 signifies the response value Xmax.; Xi represents the response to the evaluated indicator (I1, Building cost); ki = 1 approximates the ordinate of the inflection point; Xmax = 150 euro/m² denotes the maximum abscissa value within the range of alternatives for the assessed indicator; Ci = 80 euro/m² approximates the abscissa value of the inflection point; and Pi = 0.8 serves as the form factor for the curve. Factor B, defined in Equation (3), ensures that the function remains within the 0 to 1 range, where ki = 1; Xmax = 150 euro/m²; Xmin = 10 euro/m² denotes the minimum abscissa value within the range of alternatives for the assessed indicator; Ci = 80 euro/m²; and Pi = 0.8. Figure 3 graphically illustrates this value function.

Table 3. The indicators’ value functions for the proposed model.

#I	Indicators	Units	Shape	Xmax	Xmin	Ci	Ki	Pi	References
I1	Building cost	€/m2	DCv	150	10	80	1	0.8	[17,18,68]
I2	Property-added value	€/m2	ICv	330	0	175	0.01	0.8	[16,17,68]
I3	Execution time	month	DL	20	0	10	0.01	1	[17,18,68]
I4	Embodied CO2	Kg/m2	DCx	50	0	25	0.1	1.8	[69]
I5	CO2 emission	Kg/m2	DCx	10	0	5	0.1	1.8	[69]
I6	% waste	Kg/m2	DCx	1750	350	1050	0.1	1.5	[17]
I7	Building history	Points	ICx	5	1	3	0.1	1.8	[16,17,70]
I8	Building importance	Points	ICx	5	1	3	0.1	2	[16,17,70]
I9	ORI (the occupational risk index)	Weighted hour	DCv	18,792	0.56	4000	0.2	0.6	[57]
I10	Knowledge of the technique	Points	ICx	5	1	3	0.1	1.8	[16,70]
I11	Ease of implementation	Points	ICx	5	1	3	0.1	1.8	[16,70]
I12	Noise pollution	dB	DCv	120	70	80	0.01	0.5	[71]
I13	Other inconveniences	Points	ICx	5	1	3	0.1	1.8	[16,17]

DCx: decreasing convex; DL: decreasing lineal; DCv: decreasing concave; ICx: increasing convex; ICv: increasing concave.

outlines the key details of each indicator’s value function, reflecting deliberate choices based on the study’s context and objectives. Among the 13 value functions, 3 follow a convex decrease (DCx) pattern, 1 adheres to a linear decrease (DL), 3 exhibit concave decrease (DCv), 5 display convex increase (ICx), and 1 showcases concave increase (ICv). Convex functions are applied to indicators like environmental (e.g., CO₂ emissions) and social aspects (e.g., community safety), where incremental improvements result in progressively higher satisfaction. Concave functions are employed for indicators where maximum satisfaction is critical, such as costs, property-added value, risks, and noise pollution, reflecting diminishing returns as satisfaction nears maximum levels. A linear decrease function captures the proportional relationship between reconstruction duration and dissatisfaction, making it suitable for time assessments. Indicators such as I7, I8, I10, I11, and I13 are evaluated using a scale with Xmax = 5 and Xmin = 1, ensuring consistency across satisfaction levels. For I9 (waste management), parameters incorporate the number of hazardous activities, associated risks, and durations, with Xmin derived from minimum risk-weighted durations and Xmax from maximum risk-weighted durations. These function types and parameters are selected to align with the real-world dynamics of post-war reconstruction, ensuring that the model effectively addresses the priorities and challenges inherent in resource-constrained, conflict-affected environments.

2.5. Indicators’ Values and GSI Calculation Methods

The final stage of this project methodology, crucial for model application and validation in specified scenarios, encompasses two fundamental objectives: (i) the calculation of indicator values (Section 3.3) and the Global Sustainability Index (GSI) for defined alternatives to determine optimal sustainability and (ii) assisting decision-makers in discerning strengths and weaknesses across economic, environmental, and social dimensions.

GSI computation follows Equations (4)–(6), incorporating parameters from two key categories: (a) non-dimensional values, derived from the value functions, encompassing non-dimensional values for defined criteria (Cj), indicators (Ik), and requirements (Ri) and (b) weights: expert-assigned weights for indicators (ωIk), criteria (ωCj), and requirements (ωRi), obtained by means of the Delphi method.

$$Cj={\sum }_{K=1}^{0}IK.\omega Ik$$

(4)

$$Ri={\sum }_{j=1}^{n}Cj.\omega Cj$$

(5)

$$GSI={\sum }_{i=1}^{m}Ri.\omega Ri$$

(6)

where indicators’ non-dimensional value (Ik), criteria’s non-dimensional value (Cj), requirements’ non-dimensional value (Ri), indicators’ weights (ωIk), criteria’s weights (ωCj), and requirements’ weights (ωRi). Figure 4 presents the defined RT with its mentioned components and GSI’s equations.

3. Selected Case Study, Alternatives, and the Indicators’ Values for the Alternatives 1–4

This section comprises three fundamental phases: (1) case study selection and sampling, (2) alternative selection explained as follows, and (3) indicators’ value for the selected alternative.

3.1. Selected Case Study and Sample of Study

In alignment with numerous nations worldwide, Syria has confronted prolonged conflict since 2011, resulting in the degradation of more than 50% of its infrastructure, as evidenced by United Nations data from 2020 [72]. The ramifications of this conflict have been profound, significantly impacting Syria’s economy. Particularly, the tourism sector, a vital component of Syria’s economic landscape, has suffered a drastic decline since the conflict’s inception. In 2010, tourism revenues comprised 14% of the nation’s economy; however, post-war, these revenues plummeted by approximately 94%. The adverse effects of the conflict have extended to Syria’s cultural heritage, with five out of six World Heritage sites reportedly affected—including Maluola city—which contains the sample of the study, as highlighted by the Syrian Minister of Tourism [73].

As the conflict gradually localized to specific regions after 2019, discernible trends in reconstruction have surfaced. Since then, there has been emphasis on prioritizing reconstruction in the residential sector, as presented by L. Khadour et al. (2023, 2022) [24,29], J. El Hage et al. (2023) [27], H. Ali Abdulrazaq et al. (2021) [32], C. Kousa. (2021) [31], M. Altaema. (2021) [30], and others from Table 1. Nevertheless, the tourism sector, as previously highlighted, holds significance as the third tributary of the Syrian economy. Therefore, it necessitates attention in the reconstruction efforts, and, in consequence, this study selected the case studies focusing on buildings within Syria’s tourism sector.

The case study within this research project focuses on the Syrian capital, Damascus, renowned as the economic epicenter of the nation and distinguished as one of the world’s oldest continuously inhabited cities. Boasting profound historical and cultural heritage, Damascus has borne substantial impact from the Syrian conflict, resulting in severe damage to both its infrastructure and cultural sites. Once a thriving tourism hub, Damascus has experienced a significant reduction in tourism revenues attributed to the conflict. The findings derived from this comprehensive examination of Damascus contribute to an enriched scholarly comprehension of urban resilience, heritage preservation, and reconstruction strategies within conflict-affected regions.

The focal point of this case project is Al Safeer Hotel, a reinforced concrete structure located in Maloula, Syria. Al Safeer Hotel serves as an illustrative case study for several compelling reasons: (a) the city of Maloula holds paramount significance as the foremost Christian archaeological tourist landmark in Syria [74]; (b) the hotel’s prominent position atop a mountain distinguishes it in the Maloula skyline; and (c) since its establishment in 1982, it has remained the sole hotel in this pivotal tourist area.

Notably, the original design purpose of the Al Safeer Hotel as a as a hotel has remained unchanged, with no alterations to its intended use over time. This consistency ensures that the analysis reflects the structural and functional characteristics of the building as originally conceived, without the modifications that might arise from adaptive reuse or changes in operational demands.

The hotel underwent three visits for visual inspections, during which technical data were collected from various sources, including the Ministry of Tourism in Syria, Damascus Countryside Tourism Directorate, Technical Office, and the Syrian Company for Hotels and Tourism, which designed the Al Safeer Hotel. Original drawings were acquired and redrawn using open-source Libre CAD software [75] for analysis.

Building’s description: Comprising three blocks separated by two expansion joints, shown in Figure 5, each block features a partial basement floor and two additional floors. Predominantly constructed of reinforced concrete employing cement with a caliber of 350 kg/m³.

Table 4. Technical characteristics of the building elements.

The Elements		The Description
Structural elements	Columns	Plan dimensions between 20 × 50 to 20 × 165 reinforced with 6 to 20 rebar with 12 to 14 diameter and 8 mm diameter stirrups each 20 cm.
	Beams	Plan dimensions between 20 × 36 to 36 × 100 reinforced with 3 to 8 rebar with 14 to 20 diameters at the top and 2 to 6 rebar with 10 to 20 diameters on the bottom and 8 mm diameter stirrups each 20 cm.
	Slabs	Consisting of 25 cm thick hollow core slabs with 10 cm of concrete topping layer reinforced with 5 rebar in the perpendicular to the ribs and 4 in the rib’s direction 6 mm in diameter, each 50 cm hollow; there is a rib with width ranges between 18 to 28 cm reinforced with 6 to 8 rebar with 14 to 25 mm diameter.
Non-structural elements		The hotel contains five RC stairs and hollow block walls with thickness 10 cm for the interior walls and 20 cm for the exterior wall.

provides the technical characteristics of the building elements.

Damages’ description: The hotel has endured significant damages caused by external blasts and rocket-propelled shells, particularly affecting both its structural and non-structural elements. Detailed damage assessments reveal the extent of destruction, notably in columns, beams, slabs, and non-structural components across the three blocks of the hotel. Figure 6 depicts the facades of the hotel post-war damages.

Types of structural damages are as follows:

• Spalling—partial disintegration of concrete.
• Large cracks in several structural elements.
• Large number of crushed structural elements and connections, exposure and buckling of reinforcement in several locations, and disintegration of concrete.
• Deflection in some columns and beams.
• Extensive damage in some columns and beam and sliding of one slab.
• A break in the stirrups in the columns and compressed parts, a break in the stirrups near inclined fractures, a break in some working tensioned rebar, and denting or buckling in the rebar in the stress region.

Table A4. Al Safeer’s damages, block 1.

Ground floor, structural elements
Element photo	Element description
	C1, Length 50 cm, width 25 cm, height 400 cm Reinforcement in the column: 6T20 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	S1, hollow core slab: 25 cm concrete topping layer: 10 cm reinforced with 5T6 in the perpendicular to the ribs and 4T6 in the rib’s direction; the slab ribs with width 15 reinforced with 6T14
First floor, structural elements
Element photo	Element description
	C2, Length 70 cm, width 20 cm, height 320 cm Reinforcement in the column: 10T12 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	C3, Length 70 cm, width 20 cm, height 320 cm Reinforcement in the column: 8T12 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	C4, Length 70 cm, width 20 cm, height 320 cm Reinforcement in the column: 8T12 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	C5, Length 165 cm, width 20 cm, height 320 cm Reinforcement in the column: 10T12 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	B1, Length 640 cm, width 20 cm, height 50 cm Reinforcement in the beam: Longitudinal: 8H20, Transverse: 6H16 / and Stirrups: 2R8/20
Ground floor, non-structural elements All the non-structural elements were damaged
First floor, non-structural elements All the non-structural elements were damaged

,

Table A5. Al Safeer’s damages, block 2.

Ground floor, structural elements
Element photo	Element description
	B1, Length 660 cm, width 20 cm, height 50 cm Reinforcement in the beam: Longitudinal: 8H20, Transverse: 6H16 and Stirrups: 2R8/2
First floor, structural elements
Element photo	Element description
	C1, Length 30 cm, width 20 cm, height 320 cm Reinforcement in the column: 6T12 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	C2, Length 70 cm, width 25 cm, height 320 cm Reinforcement in the column: 8T16 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	C3, Length 70 cm, width 25 cm, height 320 cm Reinforcement in the column: 8T16 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	C4, Length 80 cm, width 25 cm, height 320 cm Reinforcement in the column: 8T16 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	B2, Length 660 cm, width 20 cm, height 50 cm Reinforcement in the beam: Longitudinal: 8H20, Transverse: 6H16 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	B3, Length 640 cm, width 20 cm, height 50 cm Reinforcement in the beam: Longitudinal: 8H20, Transverse: 6H16 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	B4, Length 280 cm, width 20 cm, height 50 cm Reinforcement in the beam: Longitudinal: 8H20, Transverse: 6H16 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	B5, Length 640 cm, width 20 cm, height 50 cm Reinforcement in the beam: Longitudinal: 8H20, Transverse: 6H16 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	B6, Length 660 cm, width 20 cm, height 50 cm Reinforcement in the beam: Longitudinal: 8H20, Transverse: 6H16 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
Roof floor, structural elements
Element photo	Element description
	C5, Length 90 cm, width 20 cm, height 320 cm Reinforcement in the column: 8T16 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	B7, Length 660 cm, width 20 cm, height 50 cm Reinforcement in the beam: Longitudinal: 8H20, Transverse: 6H16 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
Ground floor, non-structural elements All the non-structural elements were damaged
First floor, non-structural elements All the non-structural elements were damaged
Roof floor, non-structural elements All the non-structural elements were damaged

and

Table A6. Al Safeer’s damages, block 3.

Ground floor, structural elements
Element photo	Element description
	C1, Length 80 cm, width 25 cm, height 400 cm Reinforcement in the column: 10T20 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	C2, Length 50 cm, width 25 cm, height 400 cm Reinforcement in the column: 6T20 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	B1, Length 640 cm, width 20 cm, height 50 cm Reinforcement in the beam: Longitudinal: 8H20, Transverse: 6H16 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	S1, hollow core slab: 25 cm concrete topping layer: 10cm reinforced with 5T6 in the perpendicular to the ribs and 4T6 in the rib’s direction; the slab ribs with width 15 reinforced with 6T14
First floor, structural elements
Element photo	Element description
	C3, Length 165 cm, width 20 cm, height 320 cm Reinforcement in the column: 10T12 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	C4, Length 70 cm, width 20 cm, height 320 cm Reinforcement in the column: 8T12 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	C5, Length 50 cm, width 25 cm, height 320 cm Reinforcement in the column: 8T16 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	C6, Length 70 cm, width 20 cm, height 320 cm Reinforcement in the column: 8T12 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	B2, Length 660 cm, width 20 cm, height 50 cm Reinforcement in the beam: Longitudinal: 8H20, Transverse: 6H16 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	B3, Length 640 cm, width 20 cm, height 50 cm Reinforcement in the beam: Longitudinal: 8H20, Transverse: 6H16 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	B4, Length 640 cm, width 20 cm, height 50 cm Reinforcement in the beam: Longitudinal: 8H20, Transverse: 6H16 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	B5, Slab ribs with width 15, length 470, reinforced with 6T14
Basement floor, structural elements
Element photo	Element description
	B7, Length 640 cm, width 20 cm, height 50 cm Reinforcement in the beam: Longitudinal: 8H20, Transverse: 6H16 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
	B8, Length 640 cm, width 20 cm, height 50 cm Reinforcement in the beam: Longitudinal: 8H20, Transverse: 6H16 and Stirrups: 2R8/20
Ground floor, non-structural elements All the non-structural elements were damaged
First floor, non-structural elements All the non-structural elements were damaged

in Appendix B, present detailed descriptions of the damages, along with the characteristics of the damaged elements, accompanied by CAD plans and photos taken by the author during the hotel inspections.

3.2. Existing Structural Performance and Safety Considerations

When analyzing the properties of the existing building elements presented in Table 4, it is evident that the system does not fully meet the requirements of current regulations. However, a structural safety report provided by the Syrian Company for Hotels and Tourism, which designed the hotel, confirmed that although some parts of the structures had collapsed, the overall stability of the buildings remained sufficient to allow for safe entry, visual inspections, and basic measurements. This assessment has been critical for enabling further research and reconstruction planning without undertaking full structural re-evaluation.

Additionally, in 2015, the Damascus Countryside Tourism Directorate organized a workshop aimed at initiating rehabilitation works for Al Safeer Hotel. Despite its efforts, the workshop did not achieve its intended targets, leaving the structural performance of the building still under scrutiny. Furthermore, the implementation of structural testing in Syria is significantly constrained due to logistical challenges, high costs, and the lack of access to advanced testing technologies. These factors necessitated the adoption of alternative approaches for evaluating the structural performance of the hotel.

Given these constraints, the authors relied on manuals, techniques, and simplified measurement methods to assess the building’s performance. This approach is supported by the Technical Assessment Form (TAF), which was specifically developed for this study. The Technical Assessment Form (TAF) was meticulously crafted to align with established earthquake inspection protocols [16,17,18,76,77,78,79,80]. Both seismic events and blasts induce vibration and shock waves, resulting in akin stress concentrations and failure modes such as cracking and collapse. Consequently, dynamic loading from earthquakes and blasts exposed buildings to dynamic forces [81,82].

The developed form streamlines comprehensive on-site visual inspections, a critical consideration given the logistical challenges of conducting tests in Syria, which are encumbered by numerous restrictions. Structurally, the TAF comprises seven distinct sections. Section A is the building location and ID [76], while Section B is the building description, encompassing details from the original plans [76]. Section C is the building history state that involves ratings regarding the building’s historical context [16,17,18], as showed in Appendix B,

Table A7. State conditions for building history state.

Criteria	Classification	State Condition
Shape and usage change.	Very good (VG)	No change of shape and/or usage.
	Good (G)	Partial change of shape and/or usage with slight increase of load.
	Moderate (M)	Overall change of shape and/or usage with slight increase of load.
	Bad (B)	Partial change of shape and/or usage with large increase of load.
	Very bad (VB)	Overall change of shape and/or usage with large increase of load.
Alteration of structural members.	Very good (VG)	No alteration of structural members.
	Good (G)	Partial alteration of structural members with slight effect.
	Moderate (M)	Moderate effect due to alteration of structural member.
	Bad (B)	Severe effect due to alteration of structural member.
	Very bad (VB)	Overall alteration of structural members with extensive effect.
Accident history.	Very good (VG)	No records for accident history.
	Good (G)	Records of accident with slight structural effects.
	Moderate (M)	Records of accident with moderate structural effect.
	Bad (B)	Records of repeated accident with bad structural effects.
	Very bad (VB)	Records of repeated accident with extensive structural effect.
Service years.	Very good (VG)	Lifespan is less than 10 years.
	Good (G)	Lifespan ranges from 10 to 30 years.
	Moderate (M)	Lifespan ranges from 30 to 50 years.
	Bad (B)	Lifespan ranges from 50 to 70 years
	Very bad (VB)	Lifespan is more than 70 years.

. Section D is the current environmental condition, which evaluates the building based on pre- and post-blasting environmental conditions [18], as depicted in

Table A8. State conditions for environmental condition.

Criteria	Classification	State Condition
Exposure to salt damage.	Very good (VG)	No exposure to salt damage.
	Good (G)	Small concentrations of salt in the atmosphere, away from seacoast)
	Moderate (M)	Moderate connotation of salts (relatively close to the coast).
	Bad (B)	Exposed to large number of salts in atmosphere (close to the coast with sewage and water pipes problems).
	Very bad (VB)	Exposed to severe attack by salts and appearance of efflorescence.
Exposure to high temperature.	Very good (VG)	Exposed to natural temperature, atmospheric temperature.
	Good (G)	Exposed to high temperature above normal but less than 300 °C.(normal concrete color).
	Moderate (M)	Exposed temperature ranges from 300 to 600 °C (pink or red color).
	Bad (B)	Exposed temperature ranges from 600 to 1000 °C (gray color).
	Very bad (VB)	Exposed to temperature more than 1000 °C (buff color).
Neighbor constructions.	Very good (VG)	No neighbor constructions
	Good (G)	Neighbor constructions exposed to damage with no effects.
	Moderate (M)	Neighbor constructions exposed to a bombing with slight effect.
	Bad (B)	Neighbor constructions exposed to bombings with massive effects.
	Very bad (VB)	Very bad severe structural effects due to neighbor constructions.

in Appendix B. Section E details the damage severity and damage description [16,17,18,76,77], as presented in

Table A9. Typical damage severity for reinforced concrete buildings.

Damage Severity	Damage Description
1 = None	1. No signs of any distress. 2. Very light non-structural damage. 3. Fine cracks in a few infill walls and in mortar; light spalling of concrete.
2 = Slight	1. Small cracks (d ≤ 3.0 mm) in a few infill or partition walls. 2. Cracks and/or spalling of concrete in some structural elements. Indicative crack types: Beams: Width: ddiag ≤ ~ 0.5 mm, dvert ≤ ~2.0mm Length: hypothetical crack length ≤ Lb/50 Location: in the first or last 20% of the beam length (0–0.2 Lb or 0.8–1 Lb) Columns: Width: ddiag ≤ ~ 0.5 mm, dhoriz ≤ ~2.0 mm Length: hypothetical crack length ≤ Hc/50 Location: in the bottom or top 20% of the column height (0–0.2 Hc or 0.8–1 Hc) Shear walls: Width: ddiag ≤ ~ 0.5 mm, dhoriz ≤ ~1.0 mm Length: hypothetical crack length ≤ Hw/40 Location: in the lower third (0–0.33 Hw) or upper third (0.67–1 Hw) of the wall height Stairs: width: d ≤ ~ 0.3 mm, slabs: d ≤ ~1.0mm Length: if length of slab = L, hypothetical crack length ≤ L/40 Location: within 20% of any edge 3. Deflection: light deflection, maximum deflection ranges from L/240 to L/210. 4. Tilting of structure: story drift ranges from 0.005 hs to 0.007 hs. 5. Disturbance, partial sliding, or falling of roof tiles. 6. Cracking or partial failure of chimneys and parapets. 7. Inclination of building barely visible.
3 = Moderate-Heavy	1. Extended large diagonal or other cracking in partition or infill walls (d > 3.0 mm) in one or more stories. Detachment or partial failure of walls. 2. Spalling—partial disintegration of concrete. Larger cracks in several structural elements. Indicative crack types: Beams: Width: ddiag ≤ 2.0 mm, dvert ≤ 4.0 mm Length: hypothetical crack length ≤ Lb/20 Location: anywhere, but central regions (0.4-0.6 Lb) are of particular concern Columns: Width: ddiag ≤ 2.0 mm, dhoriz ≤ 5.0 mm Length: hypothetical crack length ≤ Hc/15 Location: mid-height regions (0.4–0.6 Hc) are especially concerning Shear walls: Width: ddiag ≤ 1.0 mm, dhoriz ≤ 3.0 mm Length: hypothetical crack length ≤ Hw/10 Location: central third of the wall (0.4–0.6 Hw) is of higher concern Stairs and slabs: Width: d ≤ ~ 10.0 mm for stairs and width: d ≤ ~ 2.0 mm for slabs. Length: hypothetical crack length ≤ Ls/10 for slabs Location: central regions (0.4–0.6 Ls) are of higher concern Joints: Width: d ≤ ~ 2.0mm 3. Deflection: maximum deflection ranges from L/200 to L/180. 4. Tilting of structure: moderate tilting, story drift ranges from 0.008 hs to 0.010 hs. 5. A break in the rebar in the beams, a dent or a bend in the reinforcing steel for the columns. 6. Dislocation and/or partial collapse of chimneys and parapets. Sliding and/or failure of roof tiles. 7. Visible inclination of building. Slight dislocation of structural elements. 8. Minor ground movement but no signs of foundation failure.
4 = Severe-Total	1. Partial or total collapse. 2. Widespread failure of infill walls or severe cracking visible from both sides in one or more stories. 3. Large number of crushed structural elements and connections, exposure and buckling of reinforcement in several locations, disintegration of concrete. Indicative crack types: Beams: Width: ddiag > 2.0 mm, dvert > 4.0 mm Columns: Width: ddiag > 2.0 mm, dhoriz > 5.0 mm Shear walls: Width: ddiag > 1.0 mm, dhoriz > 3.0 mm Stairs: Width: d >~ 10.0 mm Joints: Width: ddiag > 2.0 mm Crack length: any significant length Location: particularly critical are load-bearing regions and central segments, which cover the range from 40% to 60% of the total length or height (0.4–0.6 L or H). 4. Deflection: maximum deflection ranges from L/170 to L/160. 5. Severe deflection, maximum deflection greater L/150. 6. Tilting of structure: story drift ranges from 0.010 hs to 0.012 hs. 7. Severe tilting, story drift is greater than 0.012 hs. 8. A break in the stirrups in the columns and compressed parts, a break in the stirrups near inclined fractures, a break in some working tensioned rebar, and denting or buckling in the rebar in the stress region. 9. Collapse of chimneys and parapets. Extensive damage and/or sliding of roof. 10. Considerable dislocation of structural elements, residual drift in any story or dislocation of the whole building. 11. Substantial ground movement, uplift of footings or fracture of foundation.

Notation: ddiag—width of diagonal cracks (inclined to the axis of the element). dvert, dhoriz—width of vertical and horizontal cracks (to the element axis), respectively. Lb—length of beam. Hc—height of column. Hw—height of shear wall. Ls—length of slab. L—length of element. H—height of element. hs—story height.

, Appendix B. Section F determines the required actions to take for structural and non-structural elements [18,76,77]. Finally, Section G incorporates additional remarks regarding the damage assessment [76,77].

The finalized TAF encompasses the building description, historical context, and four tables categorically addressing (1) damage severity in structural elements; (2) damage severity in non-structural elements; (3) action plans for structural elements; and (4) action plans for non-structural elements. This comprehensive framework serves as the cornerstone for data collection, facilitating the calculation of most indicators. The derived steps, activities, and quantities are derived directly from this meticulously structured form. In the Appendix B provides a detailed presentation of the Technical Assessment Form (TAF).

3.3. Selected Alternatives

Concerning the selection of alternatives, various articles such as “Demolition-and-Reconstruction or Renovation? (2019)” [83], “Building rehabilitation versus demolition and new construction (2017)” [84], “Life cycle assessment of buildings and city quarters comparing demolition and reconstruction with refurbishment (2017)” [85], and “Economic and environmental savings of structural buildings refurbishment with demolition and reconstruction (2015)” [86] advocate for comparing refurbishment against demolition and reconstruction. However, considering the war-torn situation in the country, the selection process factored in the likelihood of property owners opting to sell their properties or to postpone its work due to migration or other reasons. Consequently, demolition and preservation of the building for future work were chosen as alternatives, alongside refurbishment and demolition and reconstruction of the building. The following part presents briefly describes the four alternatives:

-

(A1) Refurbishment of the building: The refurbishment process entails reinforcing the structural elements, typically achieved through the application of a Concrete Jacket, and reconstructing the damaged structural components to match their original properties. Regarding non-structural elements, refurbishment involves repair or reconstruction, with a specific focus on interventions utilizing cement and steel.

-

(A2) Demolition of the building: The demolition option entails a carefully planned collapse of the entire structure utilizing the “Top to Down” technique, consistent with the primary methodology employed in the case study scenario. Through earth fill and ground leveling, the demolition process restores the site to its initial state.

-

(A3) Demolition and reconstruction of the building with retained identity: This alternative involves demolishing the existing structure and erecting a new one with identical dimensions, purpose, and materials, albeit with different structural attributes.

-

(A4) Preservation of the damaged building for future work: This alternative entails safeguarding the structure and mitigating external hazards, such as potential debris hazards, by site preparation, installation of a metal mesh on the damaged side, and covering the building with Heavy-Duty Tarpaulin. Preservation efforts extend for one year, after which this study considers that planned activities commence.

3.4. Calculation of Indicators’ Values for Alternatives 1–4

In the realm of this project, the methodology employed to compute sustainability indicators for the selected alternatives is outlined as follows. Economic indicators (I1 and I2) were derived by calculating prices through an analysis of related project costs within the Syrian context. Microsoft Project Professional facilitated the computation of I3, factoring in an assumed 8 h workday. Environmental metrics (I4 and I5) to calculate indicator I4 (embodied carbon) and materials relevant to each reconstruction alternative were identified by consulting with construction industry experts and records of similar projects, including steel, concrete, and blocks for alternatives A1 and A3 and aluminum for alternative A4, while the demolition alternative (A2) did not involve new materials. The mass of each material, calculated in kilograms using indicator I1 data, was multiplied by the embodied carbon coefficients (kgCO₂/kg) from the ICE database to determine the total embodied carbon. For indicator I5 (carbon emissions), equipment working hours were derived from I1 operational data, and total diesel consumption was calculated by multiplying these hours by hourly diesel consumption rates, validated through contractor interviews. CO₂ emissions were then estimated using the standard emission factor of 2.6 kgCO₂ per liter of diesel, as provided by the Syrian Ministry of Electricity (2023). I6 was omitted from individual consideration, as it had already been encompassed in I1, with its weight distributed between I4 and I5 based on their respective weights (I4: 40% and I5: 60%).

Social indicators (I7, I8, I10, and I11) were determined using the Delphi survey method, while I9 (occupational risk index—ORI) was calculated based on an established methodology as per [57]. I12 relies on noise emission data from the FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook (2019) [71]. Additionally, for this specific case study, I13 was excluded due to the hotel’s unique location atop a mountain, isolated from urban infrastructure. As a result, the weight of I13 was reassigned to I12, giving I12 a total weight of 100%. The results of these calculations are presented in

Table 5. Indicators’ values for the alternatives.

Indicators	Units	A1	A2	A3	A4	References	Methods
I1, Building cost	€/m2	41	19	136	24.4	[16,17,18]	Literature review, interviews with contractors
I2, Property-added value	€/m2	264	33	250	0	[18]	Literature review, interviews with contractors
I3, Execution time	month	12	1.3	10	1.5	[17,18]	Literature review, interviews with contractors
I4, Embodied CO2	Kg/m2	20	0	40.3	3.65	[56]	Literature review
I5, CO2 emission	Kg/m2	3.8	5.5	9	2	[56]	Literature review
I7, Building history	Points	3.7	1.4	1.3	1.5	[17,18]	Delphi
I8, Building importance	Points	3.7	1.6	1.3	1.13	[17,18]	Delphi
I9, ORI (occupational risk index)	Weighted hour	1896	232	2700	711.4	[57]	Literature review
I10, Knowledge of the technique	Points	2.7	3.5	1.7	2	[16,17]	Delphi
I11, Ease of implementation	Points	1.6	3.4	1.9	2.1	[16,65]	Delphi
I12, Noise pollution	dB	90	85	90	85	[71]	Literature review

Legend: A1 is the first alternative, “Refurbishment of the building”; A2 is the second alternative, “Demolition of the building”; A3 is the third alternative, “Demolition and Reconstruction of the building with Retained Identity”; and A4 is the fourth alternative, “Preservation of the damaged building for future work”.

, offering insights into the sustainability indicators for the alternative scenarios.

4. Results

The resulting GSIs for the alternatives, denoted as GSI-refurbishment, GSI-demolition, GSI-reconstruction, and GSI-preservation, are 0.63, 0.59, 0.35, and 0.60, respectively. The outcomes of this evaluative process encompass GSIs, requirement values (VRi, i = 1 to 3), criterion values (VCj, j = 1 to 9), and indicator values (VIk, k = 1 to 13) for each alternative. Figure 7 presents a visual representation of these results, and

Table 6. GSIs for the alternatives.

	VI1	VI2	VC1	VI3	VC2	VR1	VI4	VC3	VI5	VC4	VR2	VI7	VI8	VC6	VI9	VC7	VI10	VI11	VC8	VI12	VC9	VR3	GSI
ω	0.6	0.4	0.7	1	0.3	0.45	1	0.4	1	0.6	0.2	0.55	0.45	0.4	1	0.25	0.55	0.45	0.2	1	0.15	0.35
Refurbishment	0.91	0.82	0.87	0.4	0.40	0.73	0.44	0.44	0.46	0.46	0.45	0.513	0.47	0.49	0.95	0.95	0.22	0.03	0.141	0.77	0.77	0.58	0.63
Demolition	0.97	0.07	0.61	0.95	0.95	0.71	0.99	0.99	0.26	0.26	0.55	0.01	0.02	0.014	0.99	0.99	0.44	0.41	0.42	0.83	0.83	0.46	0.59
Reconstruction	0.27	0.8	0.48	0.5	0.5	0.48	0.06	0.06	0.018	0.018	0.03	0.01	0.006	0.008	0.93	0.93	0.04	0.07	0.05	0.77	0.77	0.36	0.35
Preservation	0.96	0	0.57	0.92	0.92	0.67	0.89	0.89	0.7	0.7	0.77	0.02	0.001	0.01145	0.97	0.97	0.08	0.1	0.089	0.83	0.83	0.38	0.60

depicts a detailed tabulation.

5. Discussion

The results of this study demonstrate the successful application of the proposed model, which integrates the MIVES and Delphi methods, in assessing the sustainability of various reconstruction alternatives for blast-damaged buildings. This model incorporates the latest economic, environmental, and social criteria, achieving satisfactory sustainability index values across all alternatives. To contextualize these findings, a comparative analysis was conducted with the existing literature, using keywords such as sustainability assessment, reconstruction alternatives, MIVES methodology, post-war reconstruction, and post-disaster reconstruction. Most of the literature discussed earlier in this study was included in this review, ensuring a comprehensive comparison. The studies identified are presented in

Table 7. Comparative analysis of studies on sustainability in reconstruction projects.

Title	Method	Assessment Requirements	Assessment Results	Year	Location	Authors
Building Rehabilitation versus Demolition and New Construction: Economic and Environmental Assessment	Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC)	Economic: initial costs, operational costs, demolition costs; environmental: embodied energy, CO2 emissions	Rehabilitation reduced embodied energy and CO2 emissions by 30–40%, offering better cost efficiency compared to new construction.	2017	Spain	Alba-Rodríguez, M.D. et al. [84]
Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings and City Quarters Comparing Demolition and Reconstruction with Refurbishment	Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)	Economic: initial costs, operational costs; environmental: carbon footprint, embodied energy	Refurbishment demonstrated superior sustainability, reducing operational energy demand by 20–50% and embodied energy by 30–60%.	2017	Germany	Weiler, V. et al. [85]
Economic and Environmental Savings of Structural Buildings Refurbishment with Demolition and Reconstruction	Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)	Economic: direct costs, operational costs; environmental: carbon emissions, resource consumption	Refurbishment achieved 35% savings in direct costs and 40% reduction in carbon emissions compared to demolition and reconstruction.	2015	Portugal	Ferreira, J. et al. [86]
Environmental Consequences of Refurbishment versus Demolition and Reconstruction: A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of an Italian Case Study	Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)	Environmental: carbon footprint, waste generation, energy demand	Refurbishment reduced environmental impacts by 30–50% compared to demolition, primarily due to lower waste and embodied energy demands.	2020	Italy	Pittau, F. et al. [87]
Comparative Whole-Building Life Cycle Assessment of Renovation and New Construction	Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)	Economic: costs of renovation vs. new construction; environmental: carbon footprint, resource consumption	Renovation demonstrated lower CO2 emissions (25–45%) and resource consumption (30–50%) compared to new construction.	2019	Czech Republic	Hasik, V. et al. [88]
Sustainability Assessment of Refurbishment vs. New Constructions by Means of LCA and Durability-Based Estimations of Buildings Lifespans	Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Durability Analysis	Environmental: embodied energy, carbon emissions, building lifespan estimations	Refurbishment demonstrated significant sustainability benefits by extending building lifespans and reducing embodied energy.	2019	Spain	Palacios-Munoz, B. et al. [89]
Sustainability Assessment of Syrian Cities Considering Historical and Cultural Heritage	Sustainability Assessment	Socio-cultural: heritage preservation, community engagement; environmental: urban landscape impacts	Focused on cultural heritage preservation and reducing urban disruption.	2024	Syria	Salmo, A. and Shcherbina, E.V. [21]
(Re)calibrating Heritage: Al-Jdeideh (Post-)Conflict Transformations in Aleppo, Syria	Socio-cultural Analysis	Socio-cultural: heritage preservation, community identity	Highlighted heritage recalibration to strengthen community identity and cultural resilience.	2024	Aleppo, Syria	Salahieh, D.; Asaeed, S.; Zibar, L. [22]
A Comprehensive Assessment of Buildings for Post-Disaster Sustainable Reconstruction: Beirut Port	Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA)	Socio-economic: cost, resilience; environmental: emissions	Balanced cost efficiency and resilience, emphasizing waste management and reduced CO2 emissions during recovery.	2023	Lebanon	El Hage, J. et al. [27]
Assessment of Site Location of Post-Disaster Temporary Housing After Kermanshah Earthquake Applying MIVES	MIVES-Based Sustainability Assessment	Economic: site development cost; social: accessibility, community acceptance; environmental: impact on local ecosystems	Highlighted social criteria (50%) as the dominant factor, balancing economic (30%) and environmental (20%) considerations.	2019	Kermanshah, Iran	Rezaei, M. [44]
Sustainability Evaluation in Office Building Retrofits Using MIVES Methodology	MIVES-Based Sustainability Assessment	Economic: retrofit costs, operational savings; environmental: CO2 emissions, energy efficiency; social: comfort, safety	Demonstrated retrofitting as more sustainable, with a balance of economic (40%), environmental (35%), and social (25%) criteria.	2017	Spain	Rodríguez, E.; Jiménez, J.; Villena, [43]
Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method for Assessing the Sustainability of Post-Disaster Temporary Housing Unit Technologies	Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM)	Economic: construction costs, operational costs; environmental: CO2 emissions, energy consumption; social: user satisfaction, safety	Identified lightweight steel framing as the most sustainable option, balancing economic, environmental, and social requirements.	2016	Bam, Iran	Hosseini, S.A.; de la Fuente, A.; Pons, O. [40]

.

The comparative analysis, summarized in Table 7, reveals that refurbishment consistently emerges as the most sustainable option across various contexts. Studies by Alba-Rodríguez et al. (2017) [84], Weiler et al. (2017) [85], Ferreira et al. (2015) [86], Pittau et al. (2020) [87], Hasik et al. (2019) [88], and Palacios-Munoz et al. (2019) [89] unanimously confirm refurbishment’s advantages over demolition and reconstruction. Such findings strongly align with the current study’s results, where refurbishment demonstrates higher economic and environmental sustainability scores (0.73 and 0.45, respectively) compared to demolition and reconstruction (0.48 and 0.03). Moving beyond economic and environmental considerations, the integration of socio-cultural dimensions distinguishes this research from the aforementioned studies. Incorporating social indicators, such as community engagement, worker safety, and cultural heritage preservation, reflects the unique challenges of post-war contexts. Research by Salmo and Shcherbina (2024) [21] and Salahieh, Asaeed, and Zibar (2024) [22] emphasizes the significance of socio-cultural resilience in post-conflict reconstruction, aligning closely with the social weighting (35%) applied in this study.

Furthermore, methodologies capable of integrating all three sustainability dimensions—economic, environmental, and social—were identified in studies by El Hage et al. (2023) [27], Rezaei (2019) [44], Rodríguez et al. (2017) [43], and Hosseini et al. (2016) [40]. These studies, employing MCDM, MCDA, MCA, and MIVES methods, demonstrate how multi-criteria approaches allow for nuanced evaluations of diverse sustainability indicators. Notably, the weightings in these studies vary depending on the context: Rezaei (2019) [44] emphasizes social criteria (50%) in post-earthquake recovery, while Rodríguez et al. (2017) balances economic (40%), environmental (35%), and social (25%) dimensions in retrofit assessments. Similarly, Hosseini et al. (2016) [40] assigns 40% to economic and 35% to environmental dimensions, reflecting the immediate needs of post-disaster housing. In comparison, this research assigns weights of 45% to economic, 20% to environmental, and 35% to social dimensions, showcasing an alignment with post-war priorities where social requirements often take precedence.

An additional examination of the Global Sustainability Index (GSI) reveals that the initial value assigned to “preservation for future work” considered only preservation activities, omitting future refurbishment needs. Consequently, the authors recalculated this index by factoring in both preservation and refurbishment, aligning it with the performance metrics for refurbishment work (A1), since it ranked highest in independent evaluations. By combining the preservation (A4) and refurbishment (A1) indicators, updated values for the preservation-with-future-refurbishment alternative, presented as A5 in Appendix C, were derived.

The GSI for A5 was calculated to be 0.55. Upon comparison with other options, it becomes apparent that A5 ranks third as presented in Figure 8, with A1 refurbishment leading the list and A2 ranking second. Nevertheless, further investigation into A4 and A5 is warranted, encompassing preservation work and tasks slated for the subsequent year.

After completing the calculation of the Global Sustainability Index (GSI) for the alternatives, the subsequent phase will focus on analyzing confounding indicators, particularly I2 (property-added value concerning alternative 4) and I3 (execution time of the four alternatives).

In the analysis of I2, the property-added value (PAV) for alternative (A4) was initially reported as 0 in “Table 5”, but it is −16.41. However, it was recorded as 0 because this methodology does not work with negative values. The subsequent explanation will outline the calculation of this value and the implications for the GSI of alternative 4.

The property cost post-preservation (PC) is 55 EUR/m² [62], totaling EUR 165,000, while the cost of the existing damaged property (DPC) stands at 50 EUR/m² [62], totaling EUR 150,000. Additionally, gleaned from Table 5, the preservation cost (BPC) is noted as 24.4 EUR/m², amounting to EUR 64,225.

The property-added value (PAV) calculation for A4 yields a negative value of EUR −49,225 (−16.41 EUR/m²), derived as follows:

PAV = PC − (DPC + BPC)

(7)

165,000 − (150,000 + 64,225) = −49,225

PAV = −16.41 EUR/m²

This negative value suggests a reduction in property value post-preservation, indicating a cost exceeding potential gains. Subsequently, the GSI for A4 is recalculated to be 0.59, factoring in the latest value of I2.

Focusing on examining I3, execution time, across all alternatives as outlined in Table 5, the I3 values for A1, A2, A3, and A4 are as follows: A1 = 12 months, A2 = 1.3 months, A3 = 10 months, and A4 = 1.5 months. These values were determined by consulting reputable contractors and construction professionals in Syria. However, these values may not fully account for the potential risks inherent in the construction site and the associated time requirements. Therefore, it is crucial to reassess the Global Sustainability Index (GSI) after adjusting the I3 values by increasing each one by 2 month.

Table 8. GSIs of the alternatives after time modifying.

The Alternatives	A1	A2	A3	A4
I3, execution time (months)	14	3.3	12	3.5
GSIs	0.62	0.58	0.34	0.59

shows the new I3 values and the revised GSIs.

Observations reveal that for each alternative, an increase of 2 months in time leads to a 1% decrease in the GSI. Additionally, alterations in time will consequently impact various indicators, including I1 (building cost, concerning labor and equipment costs which will increase with prolonged duration), I5 (CO₂ emissions, related to emissions from equipment), and I9 (overall risk index which will escalate with prolonged duration). Further investigation is warranted to comprehensively analyze the execution time and its corresponding effects on these indicators.

Sensitivity Analysis

This sub-section focuses on establishing the model’s robustness. To study the model’s consistency and relative objectivity, it is essential to assess its performance under different weighing states (WSs), reflecting various situations and conditions. While the integration of Delphi and BIAS reduction techniques could enhance the model further, the application of sensitivity analysis by considering diverse probabilistic WSs contributes to assess its robustness.

This section undertakes a recalculation and assessment of GSIs for alternatives, adjusting the assigned weights for their requirements (ωRi) in four different scenarios [39]. As outlined in

Table 9. Variable scenarios used for sensitivity analyses.

Requirements	Scenario 1	Scenario 12	Scenario 3	Scenario 4
Economic	45%	33.3%	50%	25%
Environmental	20%	33.3%	25%	25%
Social	35%	33.3%	25%	50%

, Scenario 1 reflects the weights originally proposed by the panelists during Phase A.3, representing a balanced integration of economic (45%), environmental (20%), and social (35%) dimensions. Scenario 2 assumes a balanced distribution of weights, with equal emphasis on economic, environmental, and social aspects (33.3% each). This scenario is particularly relevant for projects where no single dimension is prioritized, ensuring an equitable approach to sustainability. Scenario 3 places greater emphasis on economic factors (50%), acknowledging situations in underdeveloped areas where cost efficiency and immediate affordability dominate decision-making due to limited resources. Scenario 4 assigns higher weight to social requirements (50%), representing scenarios where stakeholder engagement, cultural heritage preservation, and community well-being are prioritized. Such emphasis is common in post-conflict regions or heritage-sensitive urban recovery efforts.

The robustness of this study is validated when each requirement for each scenario in all alternatives exhibits a variation of less than ±10% from the initially proposed panelist scenario. The results depicted in Figure 9 and

Table 10. Variations of each weighing state for the alternatives.

Variation Scenario 1 to 2	Variation Scenario 1 to 3	Variation Scenario 1 to 4
−4	0	−4
−2	2	−4
−6	−1	−4
−1	5	8

affirm the dominance of A1 and A2 over other alternatives and demonstrate the stability of GSI values under different weighting states, with variations remaining below ±4%. Therefore, as the observed GSI variations are within the accepted range, the proposed MIVES–Delphi model can be considered robust in its performance.

The limited GSI variation across scenarios suggests a high degree of reliability, indicating that the MIVES–Delphi model produces consistent outcomes even under varying stakeholder preferences. This stability suggests that the model is resilient to shifts in weighting emphasis, maintaining its capacity to guide decision-making across diverse perspectives without compromising sustainability assessments. Consequently, the model demonstrates a capacity to accommodate a range of stakeholder priorities—whether they emphasize economic, social, or environmental dimensions—without substantial impact on its recommendations.

This robustness is particularly advantageous in the complex field of post-war reconstruction, where stakeholder priorities can vary significantly depending on local contexts and specific project goals. The model’s consistent performance across multiple scenarios demonstrates its practical value as a reliable decision-making tool that adapts effectively to a range of considerations, ensuring informed and balanced outcomes in sustainable reconstruction efforts.

6. Conclusions and Future Research

This research has introduced a novel preliminary sustainability assessment model for post-war reconstruction of blast-damaged reinforced concrete (RC) buildings without structural collapse risk, offering significant insights into the sustainability implications of various reconstruction alternatives. The MIVES–Delphi model offers a structured and flexible framework for assessing and prioritizing reconstruction alternatives. It enables stakeholders to weigh economic, environmental, and social factors according to project-specific priorities, making it particularly valuable in resource-constrained environments. Designers can leverage the model to evaluate repair and refurbishment scenarios with a focus on sustainability, while policymakers can utilize it to allocate funding and resources effectively across diverse reconstruction projects.

Nevertheless, certain limitations of the model must be acknowledged. It is specifically tailored to RC buildings without structural collapse risk and may require adaptation for other construction materials, such as masonry or steel. Additionally, its applicability across varying geographic and climatic contexts will necessitate modifications to address local environmental conditions, construction practices, and resource availability. The reliance on expert input through the Delphi process, while mitigated by structured methodologies and sensitivity analysis, also introduces a degree of subjectivity that should be considered.

The first application of the model results in significant practical implications for designers and decision-makers in post-war reconstruction projects. When applied to the case study, the General Sustainability Index (GSI) rankings revealed refurbishment as the most sustainable option (GSI: 0.63), followed by preservation for future work (GSI: 0.60), demolition (GSI: 0.59), and demolition and reconstruction with retained identity (GSI: 0.35).

Upon closer examination, the initial assessment identified preservation (Alternative 4) as the second most sustainable choice without considering future work. However, integrating future work into the preservation assessment shifts preservation to the third most sustainable, with demolition ranking second and refurbishment consistently remaining the most sustainable option.

Future research should aim to refine and validate the model across a broader range of contexts and building types, particularly focusing on tourism-related structures with varying levels of damage. Conducting additional case studies in diverse geographic and climatic conditions will strengthen the model’s robustness and reliability.

The integration of advanced technologies, such as Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS), represents a promising avenue for enhancing the precision and efficiency of sustainability assessments. BIM can facilitate detailed digital modeling while incorporating all data regarding the building, enabling the simulation of various repair scenarios and improving stakeholder collaboration. GIS can support spatial analysis by integrating geographic data, enabling the prioritization of reconstruction efforts based on regional needs, accessibility, and resource constraints. Incorporating these technologies into the MIVES–Delphi framework could significantly enhance decision-making and provide more comprehensive evaluations of reconstruction alternatives.

Finally, future efforts should explore the use of advanced materials and sustainable reconstruction practices while aligning the model with evolving economic, environmental, and social regulations. Additional research should also focus on analyzing the role of structural element hierarchy in collapse mechanisms and integrating advanced testing methods to improve the model’s precision and adaptability for diverse post-war reconstruction scenarios.