### Results and Discussion of the Weighted Analysis  
Table 12 displays the scores achieved by the five ventilation operating systems in each of the analyzed scenarios of the weighted analysis. In addition, Figure 2 graphically illustrates the same results in a radar chart format, presenting them collectively and succinctly for optimal visual comprehension. For Case Scenario 1, wherein economic, social, and environmental aspects carry equal weight, the system yielding the most favorable outcomes is the natural ventilation system with atriums and courtyards (N-AAC). This phenomenon can be elucidated by the fact that, in terms of initial costs, maintenance expenditures, and energy consumption (constituting 66% of the overall score), natural systems exhibit superior performance. Furthermore, with regard to air quality and thermal comfort during the summer (comprising 25% of the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Initial** \\ **Investment** \\ **Cost** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Maintenance** \\ **Cost** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Classroom** \\ **Air** \\ **Quality** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Thermal** \\ **Comfort in** \\ **Summer** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Thermal** \\ **Comfort in** \\ **Winter** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Energy** \\ **Consumption** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**N-SSV** & 0.29 & 0.28 & 0.05 & 0.04 & 0.20 & 0.28 \\ \hline
**N-CRV** & 0.29 & 0.28 & 0.16 & 0.12 & 0.07 & 0.28 \\ \hline
**N-AAC** & 0.29 & 0.28 & 0.16 & 0.18 & 0.07 & 0.28 \\ \hline
**H-NMR** & 0.10 & 0.14 & 0.16 & 0.25 & 0.07 & 0.13 \\ \hline
**M-CVS** & 0.03 & 0.03 & 0.47 & 0.42 & 0.60 & 0.03 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Summary of the AHP matrixes for the 6 criteria considered. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Initial** \\ **Investment** \\ **Cost** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Maintenance** \\ **Cost** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Classroom** \\ **Air** \\ **Quality** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Thermal** \\ **Comfort in** \\ **Summer** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Thermal** \\ **Comfort in** \\ **Winter** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Thermal** \\ **Comfort in** \\ **Consumption** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**Consistency** & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.026 & 0.000 & 0.006 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: Consistency Index of AHP Matrices. overall assessment), this system is only equaled or surpassed by the mechanical and hybrid systems, respectively. In Case Scenario 2, social criteria clearly exert the most significant influence, constituting 60% of the overall score. Meanwhile, economic and environmental aspects equally share the remaining 40%. Consequently, the mechanically operated central ventilation system (M-CVS) emerges as the highest-rated option, as it attains superior scores in air quality and thermal comfort during both summer and winter. In other words, when the significance of economic expenditure and energy consumption is minimal, the ideal choice is to install a mechanical system that provides filtered and temperature-controlled air to the classrooms. In Case Scenario 3, social factors also predominate, contributing 50% to the total score, albeit with environmental aspects carrying more weight than economic ones, with 35% and 15%, respectively. Once again, the mechanical system garners the highest rating, excelling in all social criteria, though closely followed by the natural system with atriums and courtyards (N-AAC). Case Scenario 4 represents a scenario in which social and environmental considerations hold twice the weight of economic ones (40%, 40%, and 20%, respectively). This leads to the natural system with atriums and courtyards being the top-rated choice, while the mechanical system ranks third due to its inability to compensate for its weakest performance in environmental aspects among the five options.