*3.2. Comparison Matrices*

A series of pairwise comparisons of individual elements was subsequently made at each decision-making level (Tables 4–6 show comparison matrices for groups of criteria developed by using three different scales).

**Table 4.** Comparison matrix for criteria groups (classic Saaty's scale).



**Table 5.** Comparison matrix for criteria groups (Fuzzy triangular scale—variant I).


**Table 6.** Comparison matrix for criteria groups (Fuzzy triangular scale—variant II).


### *3.3. Comparative Analysis*

Because of the volume of data, the next part of the work presents only the results of pairwise comparisons, i.e., the weight of all the elements at subsequent decision-making levels in three variants (Table 7 and Figures 4 and 5).


 **7.** Weights of groups of criteria, main criteria and sub-criteria calculated by the AHP and FAHP (Fuzzy AHP) methods.

**Table**

### *Buildings* **2019** , *9*, 244

**Figure 4.** Group weights criteria calculated using three scales. Source: author's own work.

**Figure 5.** Global weight criteria calculated using three scales. Source: author's own work.

Based on the calculations, it can be stated, that in the case of groups of criteria, regardless of the scale, the group of spatial criteria obtained the highest weight, followed by the group of criteria pertaining to the selected climatic parameters. Relatively lower weights were obtained successively by legal, technical, and environmental criteria. The differences between the weights of groups of decision criteria obtained using the classic scale and the first variant of the fuzzy triangular scale were not significant. In the case of group of spatial criteria, this difference was 0.0094, for group of climatic criteria: 0.051, group of legal criteria: 0.029, and for group of technical criteria: 0.0014. The weights of the group of environmental criteria were the same in the both scale (classic scale and the first variant of triangular scale). Slightly higher differences were noted between the weights obtained using the second fuzzy scale, for example in the case of a group of spatial criteria this difference was 0.0383. Similar properties can be observed at the lower levels of the hierarchical structure.
