從1997年，國際標準組織對於建築營建方面，正式成立ISO T59/ SC17小組委員會，研擬建築物環境評估方法等任務。由此更明確表示標準化之建築物環境評估架構，已成為永續建築之趨勢，做為溝通不同領域、區域界面之橋樑。因此，本研究希冀透過國外具指標性意義的永續建築評估工具，運用層級程序分析法(AHP)，進行台灣地區各相關永續建築之產、官、學等領域專家之問卷調查，探討「產官學領域別」及「區位環境別」對評估指標群看法之差異性，並藉由案例操作與檢核，期能提出台灣地區之永續建築環境性能評價研究之參考。
本研究可歸納以下結論：
1. 從評估工具的文獻資料，對評估內容、範圍與規模、及國際會議的評估案例研究等綜合比較分析，GBTool2005的評估操作皆較為彈性、完整性及使用性高，故可做為探討台灣地區永續建築評估模型架構之展開基礎。
2. 台灣操作GBTool2005顯示：「A.基地選擇、開發與發展」、「E.機能性與操作性」與「F.耐久性」是可完全操作，有107項評估細項；在「B.能源與資源消耗」、「C.環境負荷」、「D.室內環境品質」及「G.社會經濟」之中，共有12項（10.1％）具困難操作之評估細項。故現階段則先執行可操作之107項；而操作困難之評估項目，則以基準值輸入及權重值輸入為0。
3. 台灣專家對GBTool2005第一層指標群分析，優先決策的前三者權重值：「C.環境負荷」0.211、「B.能源資源」0.186、「D.室內環境」0.162。
4. 台灣專家與國際專家（內定值）之檢定分析，「地理氣候區位別」為主要決策影響GBTool2005指標群權重值之關鍵因素；在第二層評估項目之檢定分析，不同地區或領域專家並無顯著差異，故以「台灣全區」為一個獨立樣本。
5. 以GBTool2005評估內容為基礎，依南、北區位，進行台灣永續建築評估模型初擬。第一層評估指標群的權重值：「A.基地選擇、開發與發展」、「C.環境負荷」與「D.室內環境」採用GBTool內定值；「B.能源與資源消耗」、「E.機能性與操作性」、「F.耐久性」與「G.社會經濟」則依據「北回歸線」分為「北區」、「南區」與「台灣全區」三組修正權重值。在「B.能源與資源消耗」、「C.環境負荷」與「D.室內環境品質」的第二層評估項目，採用台灣專家權重值；其他四個評估指標群之第二層評估項目，則採用GBTool2005內定值。
6. 透過案例評估結果，及對應於台灣綠建築標章分級之比較分析，GBTool2005評估權重值可調整為「A.基地選擇、開發與發展」、「B.能源與資源消耗」、「C.環境負荷」與「D.室內環境品質」等四項評估群等進行台灣地區之評估計算，且「調整後」權重值之GBTool評估結果，更接近於綠建築標章之評定。

　From the year 1997, the work for the assessment methods of building environmental performance was prepared by Technical Committee ISO T59/ SC17 of ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) on the building construction field. It's definite that the international standard of building environmental performance is a current trend in the overall sustainable buildings. Besides, it provides a reference as a common basis between stakeholders; building owners, design teams, contractors and suppliers et cetera. Therefore, this study will utilize the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) method to investigate the international demonstration sustainable building assessment tool, by compiling and completing an experts’ questionnaire of professionals, the Government, and professors, et cetera, in Taiwan, and explore the differences between ‘different professionals’ and ‘regional characteristics.’ Besides, through a test of case-study projects, this research hopes that results will be advantageously employed in sustainable building assessment studies in the future for Taiwan. Our major findings were as below:
1. Comparing the context, content, scope and showcase at the conferences between the assessment tools, GBTool2005 highlighted the ability of local users, the adaptability to suit regional issues and widespread use in the World Sustainable Building Conference. Thus, GBTool2005 was as a reference and basis for developing a domestic assessment framework. GBTool2005 consists of three levels of factors: the high-level ‘Issues’, the second-level ‘Categories’ and the third-level ‘Criteria.’ At the top level, there are 7 general performance issues. The second-level includes 28 categories, and the third-level covers 119 criteria.
2. From a pretest result, it shows that the issues of ‘A. Site Selection, Project Planning and Development,’ ‘E. Functionality and Controllability of Building Systems,’ ‘F. Long-Term Performance’ and ‘G. Social and Economic aspects’ can be “available” to assess. On the other hand, ‘B. Energy and Resource Consumption,’ ‘C. Environmental Loading,’ ‘D. Indoor Environmental Quality,’ and ‘G. Social and Economics’ have some “unavailable criteria” to assess. Therefore, this study carried out the 107 “available criteria” applied in case-study projects, and set the weighting value of the 12 “unavailable criteria” at 0, or set the ‘Acceptable performance’ of the Benchmark if the qualitative ‘criteria’.
3. The AHP result of experts’ opinions outlines the priority issues in Taiwan. There are: ‘C. Environmental Loadings,’ of which the weighting value is 21.1%, ‘B. Energy and Resource Consumption,’ of which the weighting value is 18.6%, and ‘D Indoor Environmental Quality,’ of which the weighting value is 16.2%.
4. Differentiating between the weighting value of Taiwan experts and Default weights (international experts) by the T-test, it shows that ‘regional characteristics’ is the critical factor to influence the weighting value of GBTool2005. Accordingly, this study was classified into three weighting value sets of ‘Issues’ by the North, the South and the whole Taiwan area. The second-level ‘Categories’ will be grouped into a weighting value set of the whole Taiwan area, by reason of no difference between ‘professionals’ and ‘regional characteristics’ in Taiwan area.
5. Based on the assessment framework of GBTool2005, the presented results can provide a regional customization of GBTool2005 in Taiwan, and furthermore be applied to evaluate the performance of buildings. The high-level ‘Issues’: ‘A. Site Selection, Project Planning and Development,’ ‘C. Environmental Loading’ and ‘D. Indoor Environmental Quality’ continue using the weighting value of GBTool2005; the weighting value of ‘B. Energy and Resource Consumption,’ ‘E. Functionality and Controllability of Building Systems,’ ‘F. Long-Term Performance’, and ‘G. Social and Economic aspects’ was adjusted to the experts’ questionnaire. These were classified into three weighting value sets of the North, the South and the whole Taiwan area by the demarcation of ‘the Tropic of Cancer.’ The second-level ‘Categories’ of ‘B. Energy and Resource Consumption,’ ‘C. Environmental Loading’ and ‘D. Indoor Environmental Quality’ select the average result of all experts’ questionnaire; others use the ‘Categories’ default value of GBTool2005.
6. Compared the assessed result of GBTool2005 with the classified result of the “Green Building Label” by the case study, the weighting value of the high-level ‘Issues’ of GBTool2005 could consists of ‘A. Site Selection, Project Planning and Development,’ ‘C. Environmental Loading’ and ‘D. Indoor Environmental Quality’ that used in Taiwan. Furthermore, using the adjusted weighting value that the assessed result of GBTool2005 to be close to the classified result of the “Green Building Label”.

中文部份
1. 施柏宇，“應用AHP法探討GBTool於台灣地區適用性之研究”，成功大學建築系碩士論文，台灣，2005.
2. 郭怡君，“GBTool於台灣地區在建築物設計階段適用性之研究”，樹德科技大學應用設計系碩士論文，台灣，2005.
3. 黃輝雄，“高層集合住宅綠建築設計可行性評估”，成功大學建築系碩士論文，台灣，2005.
4. 江哲銘，“永續建築導論”，建築情報，台灣，2004.
5. 張桂鳳、江哲銘、周伯丞與郭怡君，GBTool 2005永續建築評估系統在台灣操作適用性之探討-以南部集合住宅案為例，“中華民國建築學會第十六屆第二次建築研究成果發表會論文集”，中華民國建築學會第十六屆第二次建築研究成果發表會，G13，pp. 1-4，苗栗，台灣，2004.
6. 張桂鳳、江哲銘、周伯丞與郭怡君，國外永續建築評估系統GBTOOL與CASBEE的比較 A Comparative Analysis of International Sustainable Building Assessment between GBTOOL and CASBEE，“中華民國建築學會第十六屆建築研究成果發表會論文集”，中華民國建築學會第十六屆建築研究成果發表會，E56，pp. 286-289，台北，台灣，2004.
7. 江哲銘、張桂鳳、周伯丞與施柏宇，GB-Tool整體建築環境評估工具本土化應用之初探—以2002永續建築國際會議之案例分析 A Study on GB-Tool Assessment for Local Adaptation of the Sustainable Building in Taiwan—Taking the Assessed Cases in SB2002，“中華民國建築學會第十六屆建築研究成果發表會論文集”，中華民國建築學會第十六屆建築研究成果發表會，E54，pp. 278-281，台北，台灣，2004.
8. 周伯丞、江哲銘、張桂鳳與郭怡君，國外永續建築評估系統GBTOOL 2002版與2005版評估模式比較之探討，“2004綠環境技術學術研討會”，2004綠環境技術學術研討會，2-02，pp. 1-12，高雄，台灣，2004.
9. 周伯丞、張桂鳳與林世峰，電腦數值解析應用於空間細部環境設計之探討 Applications on the Numerical Simulation for the Detailed Design of the Indoor Environment，“第一屆空間設計學術論文及設計作品發表研討會論文集”，第一屆空間設計學術論文及設計作品發表研討會，3-1，pp. 1-6，台中，台灣，2004.
10. 鄭元良、江哲銘、賴榮平、周伯丞與張桂鳳，不同構造類型歷史建築於室內溫熱環境分佈之比較 Differences of the Indoor Thermal Stratification from the Various Construction Types of Historical Buildings，“中華民國建築學會第十六屆建築研究成果發表會論文集”，中華民國建築學會第十六屆建築研究成果發表會，E65，pp. 332-335，台北，台灣，2004.
11. 江哲銘、張桂鳳等人，“GB-Tool整體建築環境評估工具本土化應用之初探—以2002永續建築國際會議之案例分析”，中華民國建築學會第十六屆建築研究成果發表會論文集，台灣，2004.
12. 張桂鳳、江哲銘等人，“國外永續建築評估系統GBTOOL 與CASBEE的比較”，中華民國建築學會第十六屆建築研究成果發表會論文集，台灣. 周伯丞、張桂鳳、江哲銘與廖崇文，2003，不同空調通風路徑對室內污染物移除效果之比較，“中華民國建築學會第十五屆建築研究成果發表會論文集”，中華民國建築學會第十五屆建築研究成果發表會，E37，pp. 1-6，台中，台灣，2004.
13. 林政賢，“綠建築評估指標適用性之研究”，成功大學建築系碩士論文，台灣，2004.
14. 周伯丞、張桂鳳、江哲銘與劉家銘，單邊採光教室附加導光遮陽板對室內光環境品質改善效益之研究，“中華民國建築學會第十五屆建築研究成果發表會論文集”，中華民國建築學會第十五屆建築研究成果發表會，E38，pp. 1-6，台中，台灣，2003.
15. 江哲銘、周伯丞、鄭元良與張桂鳳，以永續健康觀點探討舊建築溫熱環境管理之因應策略—以幾個宜蘭地區已登錄歷史建築為例，“第一屆台灣環境管理研討會”，台灣環境管理學會92年度年會暨第一次台灣環境管理研討會，EM05，pp. 1-18，台南，台灣，2003.
16. 江哲銘、鄭元良、賴榮平、周伯丞與張桂鳳等，從永續健康的觀點探討歷史建築再利用之室內溫熱環境因應課題，“中華民國建築學會第十五屆建築研究成果發表會論文集”，中華民國建築學會第十五屆建築研究成果發表會，E25，pp. 1-6，台中，台灣，2003.
17. 內政部建築研究所，“綠建築在台灣__第一屆優良綠建築設計獎作品專輯”，台灣，2003.
18. 許卜仁，“永續運輸指標與策略之整合模式”，國立交通大學交通運輸研究所碩士論文，台灣，2003.
19. 郭彥宏，“環境永續性指數之計算分析與在台灣之應用”，暨南國際大學土木工程學系碩士論文，台灣，2003.
20. 劉兆漢，“「永續台灣的願景與策略」整合計畫：辦公室計畫”，2003永續發展科技與政策研討會，台灣，2003.
21. 葉俊榮，“永續台灣評估系統—永續指標與政策檢討”，2003永續發展科技與政策研討會，台灣，2003.
22. 陳家豪、李育明等人，“本土化生命週期評估技術及其應用之研究”，2003永續發展科技與政策研討會，台灣，2003.
23. 馮正民、吳玉珍、曾國雄，“台灣永續運輸的願景與發展策略”，2003永續發展科技與政策研討會，台灣，2003.
24. 陳育甄，“模糊層級分析法應用於城際運具選擇模式之研究”，國立成功大學都市計畫研究所碩士論文，台灣，2002.
25. 柳雅瀞，“模糊德菲層級分析法應用於岩體分類之研究”，國立成功大學資源工程學系碩士論文，台灣，2002.
26. 楊志良，“生物統計學新論”，藝軒圖書出版社，台灣，2002.
27. 吳萬益、林清河，“企業研究方法”，華泰文化事業，台灣，2002.
28. 張益誠，“應用因子分析法為台灣地區建構永續發展趨勢評估指標系統”，國立台灣大學環境工程學研究所博士論文，台灣，2001.
29. 林青蓉，“利用模糊理論建構永續性都市競爭力評估架構”，中華大學建築與都市計畫研究所碩士論文，台灣，2001.
30. 謝玉玲，“文化展演設施建設需求評估指標之研究”，成功大學建築研究所碩士論文，台灣，2001.
31. 李卓偉，“統計學(上) ”，智勝文化事業有限公司，台灣，2000.
32. 郭信霖、許淑卿，“初等統計學”，華立圖書股份有限公司，台灣，2000.
33. 樓邦儒、賈立人，“柯本氣候分類與模糊氣候分類之比較—以台灣為例”，國立臺北師範學院學報，第十三期（八十九年六月）p.293~310，台灣，2000.
34. 賴啟銘，“建築物理環境DSR指標之研究”，國立成功大學建築系博士論文，台灣，1999.
35. 王秀芳，“永續都市建築物理環境因子之研究—以亞熱帶氣候台灣地區為例”，國立成功大學建築系碩士論文，台灣，1998.
36. 涂玉峰，“室內空氣環境綜合評估指標之探討—以台灣南部工業區辦公大樓為例”，成功大學建築系碩士論文，台灣，1999.
37. 張紹勳、林秀娟，“SPSS FOR WINDOWS統計分析-初等統計與高等統計（上、下冊）”，松崗電腦圖書資料股份有限公司，台灣，1999.
38. 李公哲等，“永續發展導論”，教育部環境保護小組策劃，台灣，1998.
39. 李建成等編，“泛亞熱帶地區建築設計與技術”，華南理工大學出版社，p.140，中國，1998.
40. 江哲銘等，“辦公建築室內空氣品質與空調設備之診斷研究”，內政部建築研究所，台灣，1998.
41. 江哲銘，“建築物理”，三民書局，台灣，1997.
42. 江哲銘等，“建築技術規則有關通風條文增修訂之研究”，內政部建築研究所，台灣，1997.
43. 葉晉嘉，“應用模糊理論於公共政策研究”，國立中興大學公共行政及政策研究所碩士論文，台灣，1997.
44. 江哲銘、張桂鳳、王文安與周伯丞，台灣地區公私立高齡者安養中心室內物理環境用後評估，“中華民國住宅學會第四屆年會論文專集”，中華民國住宅學會第四屆年會暨論文發表會，pp. 165-186，台北，台灣，1995.
45. 周伯丞，“生活行為模式為變因探討住宅室內空氣環境之研究”，成功大學建築系碩士論文，台灣，1994.
46. 張桂鳳，“高齡者住居室內物理環境用後評估檢討—以台灣地區公私立安養中心為例”，中原大學建築研究所碩士論文，台灣，1994.
47. 李沛良，“社會研究的統計分析”，巨流圖書公司，台灣，1988.
48. 陳國彥，“溫濕圖與柯本氣候分類”，師大學報，二十九期p.517~536，台灣，1984.
日文部份
49. 日本（財）建築環境・省エネルギー機構, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC ), “CASBEE-新築(簡易版), 建築物の総合的環境性能評価システム”, 2004.
50. 小野寛也、村上周三等，AHP法による「CASBEE:新築」の評価項目の重み係数の算定（その２）アンケート結果の回答者属性別の分析と整合性の検討，空気調和・衛生工学会大会学術講演論文集，2004.9.8～10（名古屋）, 2004.
51. 日本（財）建築環境・省エネルギー機構, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC ), “CASBEE MANUAL 1, 建築物の総合的環境性能評価システム”, 日本, 2003.
52. 環境工學教科書研究會，“環境工學教科書”，彰國社，1996.
英文部份
53. GBC Green Building Tool 2005, International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment, iiSBE, 2005.
54. Chang, K.F.; Chou, P.C.; Chiang, C.M. & Kuo, Y.C, A Study of the Local Adaptation Utilizing GBTool 2005 for Subs tropical Taiwan by the AHP method，“ICSCC 2005 International Conference on Sustainable Culture and Creation”， SHU-TE University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 2005.
55. Raymond J. Cole, “Changing context for environmental knowledge”, BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION (2004) 32(2), March–April, 91–109, 2004.
56. Chang, K.F.; Chou, P.C. & Chiang, C.M., A Study on the Sustainable Approaches for the Building Renovation in the Subtropical Region: taking Kaohsiung City Hall as a demonstration project on the Energy-saving and Occupant-healthy Benefits, “PLEA 2004”, The 21th Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Vol. 2, pp. 713-718, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2004.
57. Chou, P.C.; Chang, K.F. & Chiang, C.M, Performances on Indoor Air Quality and Energy Consumption in the Working Spaces using Under-floor Air Distribution (UFAD) System., “ROOMVENT 2004”, The 8th International Conference on Air Distribution in Rooms, Session 44-4, pp. 1-4, Coimbra, Portugal, 2004.
58. Chou, P.C.; Chiang, C.M. & Chang, K.F., Predicted Simulation on the Lighting Energy Saving in a Classroom Using the Sun Shading as the Daylight-introducing Device, “PLEA 2004”, The 21th Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Vol. 2, pp. 1105-1108, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2004.
59. Chiang, C.M.; Cheng, Y.L.; Chou, P.C. & Chang, K.F., A Study on the Assessment of the Indoor Environment Quality for the Renewal of Historical Buildings: Taking Some Registered Cases in Northern Taiwan as Illustration, “ROOMVENT 2004”, The 8th International Conference on Air Distribution in Rooms, Session 36-4, pp. 1-4, Coimbra, Portugal, 2004.
60. Chiang, C.M.; Chang, K.F.; & Chou, P.C.; et al., Sustainable Approaches for the Renovation of the Existing Building: taking Kaohsiung City Hall as a demonstration project on the Energy-saving and Occupant-healthy Benefits, “2003 International Conference on Planning and Design”, College of Planning and Design, NCKU, pp. c1-1-12, Tainan, Taiwan, 2003.
61. Chou, P.C.; Chiang, C.M. & Chang, K.F.; et al., Criteria for Design of Indoor Environment in Sustainable Buildings, “Healthy Building 2003”, The 7th International Conference on Healthy Buildings, Vol. 3, pp. 597-602, SINGAPORE, 2003.
62. Cheng, Y.L.; Chiang, C.M.; Chang, K.F. & Chou, P.C.; et al., The Post-Occupancy Evaluation on the Indoor Environment Quality of Historical Buildings: Taking Some Cases from I-Lan County as Illustration, “2003 International Conference on Planning and Design”, College of Planning and Design, NCKU, pp. 1-8, Tainan, Taiwan, 2003.
63. Architecture and Building Research Institute, Ministry of the Interior, Taiwan, “Evaluation Manual for Green Building in Taiwan 2003 English Edition” , 2003.
64. Georgios E. Pavlikakis, Vassilios A. Tsihrintzis, “A quantitative method for accounting human opinion, preferences and perceptions in ecosystem management”, Journal of Environmental Management, 68, 193–205, 2003.
65. Proceedings of Sustainable Building 2002 Conference, Oslo, Norway, 2002.
66. Nils Larsson, “Review of GB-Tool and Analysis of GBC 2002 Case-Study Projects”, 2002.
67. Deakin, M., Huovila, P., Rao, S., Sunikka, M. and Vreeker, R., “The Assessment of Sustainable Urban Development”, Building Research & Information, 30 (2), 95-108, 2002.
68. Che-Ming Chiang, Chi-Ming Lai, “A study on the comprehensive indicator of indoor environment assessment for occupants’ health in Taiwan, Building and Environmen”t, 37, 387–392, 2002.
69. Maggie C.Y. Tama, V.M. Rao Tummala, “An application of the AHP in vendor selection of a telecommunications system”, Omega 29,171-182, 2001.
70. Nils K. Larsson and Raymond J. Cole, “Green Building Challenge: the development of an idea”, Building Research & Information (2001) 29(5), 336–345, 2001.
71. Chiang, C.M., Chou, P.C., Lai, C.M. and Li, Y.Y., “A Methodology to Assess the Indoor Environment in Care Centers for Senior Citizens”, Building and Environment, 36, 561-568, 2001.
72. IEA Annex 31 Energy-Related Environmental Impacts of Buildings, “DIRECTORY OF TOOLS BY COUNTRY AND TYPE”, IEA Annex 31. , 2001.
73. R. Ramanathan, “A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment”, Journal of Environmental Management 63, 27–35, 2001.
74. Kamal M. Al-Subhi Al-Harbi, “Application of the AHP in project management”, International Journal of Project Management, 19, 19-27, 2001.
75. Todd, J.A., Crawley, D., Geissler, S. and Lindsey, G., “Comparative Assessment of Environmental Performance Tools and the Role of the Green Building Challenge”, Building Research & Information, 29(5), 324-335, 2001.
76. Asa Jonsson, “Tools and methods for environmental assessment of building products -methodological analysis of six selected approaches”, Building and Environment, 35(3), 223-238, 2000.
77. Saaty, T. L., “Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Pittsburg: RWS Publications, 2000.
78. Raymond J. Cole and Nils K. Larsson, “GBC’98 and GBTool：background”, Building Research & Information, 1999.
79. Cole, R.J., “Building Environmental Assessment Methods: Clarifying Intentions”, Building Research & Information, 27(4/5), 230-246, 1999.
80. Nils K. Larsson, “Development of a building performance rating and labeling system in Canada”, Building Research & Information (1999) 27(4/5), 332–341, 1999.
81. Crawley, D. and Aho, I., “Building Environmental Assessment Methods: Applications and Development Trends”, Building Research & Information, 27(4/5), 300-308., 1999
82. Larsson, N.K. and Cole, R.J., “GBC ’98: context, history and structure, in Conference Proceedings”, Green Building Challenge ’98, Vancouver, Canada, 1998.
83. Raymond J. Cole, “Emerging trends in building environmental assessment methods”, BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION (1998) 26(1), 3–16, 1998.
84. Hardi, P. and Zdan, T. (ed.), “Assessing Sustainable Development, Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development”, 1997.
85. Beetstra F., “Beyond LCA: Building related environmental decisions, in: Proceedings of CIB TG8”, Second International Conference on Buildings and the Environment, Paris, France, 9± 12 June, Vol. 2, pp. 565 ± 73, 1997.
86. Basak, I., Saaty, T.L., “Group decision making using the analytic hierarchy process” , Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 17, 101±109, 1993.
87. Shim, J. P., “Bibliographical research on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP)”, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 23, 161–167, 1989.
88. Paul Peter& Gilbert A. Churchill, Journal of Marketing Research, 23(February), p.1-10, 1986.
89. ASTM Designation E 1765-95：Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Multi attribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building Systems, 1984.
90. Aczel, J., Saaty, T.L., “Procedures for synthesising ratio judgements”, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 27, 93± 102, 1983.
91. Saaty, T. L., “The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting and Resource Allocation”, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980.
92. Satty TL, Erdener E., “A new approach to performance measurement the analytic hierarchy process”, Design Methods and Theories, 13(2):62–68, 1979.