## 4 Conclusions  
This study focuses on evaluating ventilation systems in educational buildings, combining sustainability and student well-being to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how different ventilation strategies are selected. To achieve this, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used, as it offers a clear and structured approach to comparing and assessing various ventilation systems based on multiple criteria. It is important to note that while this analysis is based on general knowledge of ventilation systems in educational settings, the study specifically targets buildings in Barcelona. Although the results are tailored to Barcelona's context, the principles and methods used can be adapted to other regions with similar conditions. In this comprehensive evaluation of ventilation systems within educational settings, we have amalgamated the realms of sustainable development and the well-being of students to illuminate a nuanced perspective on the selection of ventilation methodologies. The application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology has provided us with a structured framework for assessing and comparing various ventilation systems across multiple criteria. Our findings underscore the intricate interplay between economic, social, and environmental factors when evaluating ventilation options. The choice of ventilation system is not a one-size-fits-all decision but rather a complex calculus that demands careful consideration of multiple dimensions. In this regard, we have noted that natural ventilation systems, particularly those with atriums and courtyards (N-AAC), offer a compelling balance between economic efficiency, social comfort, and environmental sustainability in certain contexts. Moreover, the significance of these findings extends beyond the realm of academic discourse. Educational institutions play a pivotal role in shaping the future of societies by nurturing young minds. The selection of an appropriate ventilation system goes beyond mere infrastructure; it affects the physical and cognitive well-being of students. Hence, our study underscores the importance of integrating sustainability principles into educational facilities, fostering a conducive environment for both learning and sustainable living. It is important to acknowledge the inherent limitations of our study, including simplifications in the assumed operating conditions. Furthermore, the weightings assigned to different criteria are contingent on the specific context and preferences of decision-makers. Therefore, there is no universally optimal ventilation system, and each case should be evaluated with due consideration to its unique circumstances. In conclusion, this research bridges the gap between sustainability and educational outcomes, providing a valuable foundation for decision-makers in educational institutions as they navigate the challenging task of selecting ventilation systems. As we move forward, it is imperative that our educational facilities prioritize the well-being of students, environmental stewardship, and economic efficiency in tandem, ensuring a holistic and sustainable learning environment for generations to come. Conceptualization, R.-D.L.-C., P.P. and F.P.-B. ; methodology, R.-D.L.-C. and F.P.-B. ; software, R.-D.L.-C. and F.P.-B. ; validation, P.P. and F.P.-B. ; formal analysis, R.-D.L.-C., P.P. and F.P.-B. ; investigation, R.-D.L.-C., P.P. and F.P.-B. ; writing--original draft preparation, R.-D.L.-C., P.P. and F.P.-B. ; writing--review and editing, R.-D.L.-C.; visualization, R.-D.L.-C. and F.P.-B. ; supervision, R.-D.L.-C., P.P. and F.P.-B. ; project administration, P.P. and F.P.-B. ; funding acquisition, P.P. and F.P.-B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.