A Survey-Based Multi-Criteria Framework for Sustainable Structural-System Selection in Saudi Residential Buildings

The choice of a structural system is an early design decision with implications for a building’s performance throughout its service life. For residential projects in Saudi Arabia, the selected system should balance structural safety and constructability with cost, energy consumption, occupant requirements, local supply conditions, and regulatory compliance. This study develops a survey-based, evidence-informed framework to support the evaluation of these competing requirements. A systematic literature review identified 152 records and retained a final set of 134 eligible studies, from which 29 sustainability-related decision indicators were organized into five literature-derived decision domains: four outcome-oriented sustainability domains and one digital/AI-enabled decision support domain. These indicators were assessed through a survey of relevant professionals and academics, yielding 267 valid responses. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, the Relative Importance Index, reliability and factorability testing, exploratory factor analysis, and hierarchical weighting. The questionnaire demonstrated strong internal consistency and factorability (Cronbach’s α = 0.960; KMO = 0.955; Bartlett’s test, p < 0.001). Although the responses supported three broader empirical factors explaining 61.09% of the total variance, the five a priori literature-derived decision domains were retained as formative decision categories for transparent hierarchical weighting rather than treated as five empirically confirmed latent constructs. Twenty-one indicators met the adopted critical-selection thresholds. Normalized domain weights ranged from 18.71% to 20.94%, providing limited numerical differentiation between domains within the surveyed sample. To demonstrate only the computational operation of the framework, a non-validated illustrative application was conducted using author-assigned performance scores rather than measured project data, structural simulations, or an independent expert assessment. Under these assumptions, the composite steel–concrete system produced the highest illustrative score, followed by the precast-concrete system. Within this hypothetical application, the two alternatives retained their respective positions in all 42 indicator-weight perturbation scenarios and in 146 of the 148 valid performance-score perturbation scenarios (98.65%). This sensitivity result demonstrates only internal stability under the tested assumptions and does not constitute external validation, empirical evidence of structural-system superiority, or a universally applicable design recommendation. The proposed framework provides a transparent basis for comparing structural-system alternatives during early design, subject to project-specific performance evidence and independent validation.