#### 3.1.4 Thermal Comfort  
The second factor to consider within the social component of the sustainability framework is thermal comfort in classrooms. In this case, two scenarios have been distinguished. The first scenario pertains to a summer situation (Table 7), in which the objective is to maximize air circulation using natural and hybrid systems to mitigate the sensation of heat within the classroom. The second scenario involves a winter situation (Table 8), where the opposite objective is pursued, aiming to minimize the exchange of air with the external environment.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Classroom Air Quality**} \\ \hline  & **N-SSV** & **N-CRV** & **N-AAC** & **H-NMR** & **M-CVS** & **Results** \\ \hline
**N-SSV** & 1 & 1/3 & 1/3 & 1/3 & 1/9 & 0.053 \\ \hline
**N-CRV** & 3 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1/3 & 0.158 \\ \hline
**N-AAC** & 3 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1/3 & 0.158 \\ \hline
**H-NMR** & 3 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1/3 & 0.158 \\ \hline
**M-CVS** & 9 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 1 & 0.474 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: AHP Matrix for Indoor Air Quality.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **N-SSV** & **N-CRV** & **N-AAC** & **H-NMR** & **M-CVS** & **Results** \\ \hline
**N-SSV** & 1 & 1/3 & 1/6 & 1/6 & 1/9 & 0.039 \\ \hline
**N-CRV** & 3 & 1 & 1 & 1/2 & 1/3 & 0.116 \\ \hline
**N-AAC** & 6 & 1 & 1 & 1/2 & 1/3 & 0.179 \\ \hline
**H-NMR** & 6 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1/2 & 0.248 \\ \hline
**M-CVS** & 9 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 0.418 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: AHP Matrix for Thermal Comfort in Classrooms in Summer.  
In the summer scenario, centralized mechanical ventilation once again scores the highest, as it allows for precise control of air temperature, while natural ventilation is rated the lowest since it minimizes outdoor air circulation. Consequently, the score for the former is 1, and the latter is rated 9 in comparison.  
In the intermediate range, we find the other two natural ventilation systems and the hybrid system. As previously mentioned in the context of air quality, cross-ventilation generates a higher airflow than single-sided natural ventilation. Likewise, natural ventilation with atriums or courtyards and the hybrid system yield an even higher airflow, which is comparable among them. Therefore, when compared to single-sided natural ventilation, the relative scores are 3 for cross-ventilation and 6 for atriums/courtyards and the hybrid system.  
In the winter season, the centralized mechanical ventilation system receives the highest rating due to its notable capacity for air temperature control and its capacity to function as a heating system. Conversely, the lowest ratings are assigned to natural cross-ventilation systems, atrium and courtyard-based systems, and the hybrid system in this particular scenario. This discrepancy arises from the fact that, in these three cases, the classroom would almost instantaneously exchange its entire volume of air with the exterior environment. Consequently, the relative rating for the mechanical system in comparison to these three systems is 9.  
Natural ventilation, on the other hand, falls into an intermediate scenario, albeit closer to other natural and hybrid systems than to the mechanical system. In this context, it is important to note that the temperature of the exchanged air cannot be regulated, although its flow rate would be lower than that of cross-ventilation and the airflow generated when atriums, courtyards, or mechanical recirculation with fans are in use. Thus, its rating relative to these systems is 3, but when compared to centralized mechanical ventilation, it is rated at 1/3.