## 4 Results and Discussion
### Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Model Results
Finally, the probabilistic response models representing the overall non-null responses of the experts for the positive SWOT factors (denoted by \(\bar{p}(\bar{z}_{m}^{(S,O)})\) in the proposed methodology, Equation (8)) are shown in the fifth columns of Tables 5-7. The models for the negative SWOT factors (denoted by \(\bar{p}(\bar{z}_{m}^{(W,T)})\), Equation (12)) are shown in the last columns of Tables 5-7 for rammed earth, hempcrete, and ferrock, respectively. Finally, the normalized probabilistic response models representing the run-null responses of the experts for the positive \(\left(\bar{p}(z_{m}^{(S,O)})\right)\) and negative \(\left(\bar{p}(z_{m}^{(W,T)})\right)\) SWOT factors are used to obtain samples from the uninorm aggregation function (Equation (21)) through Monte Carlo simulation using 100,000 samples. By doing so, samples of the quantitative scores representing the different candidates eco-materials are obtained. The resulting PDFs of the uninorm aggregation samples are represented in Figure 5 for each eco-material. In view of the results, rammed earth provides the highest median value (0.655), followed by hempcrete (0.564) and ferrok (0.522). To consider the uncertainty in the assessment, the relationship between the median score (\(\bar{U}_{m}\)) over the median absolute deviation of the score (\(MAD=median(|\bar{U}_{i}-\bar{U}_{m}|)\), where \(\bar{U}_{i}\) denotes the samples from the corresponding uninorm aggregation function) is obtained. It can be seen that, for this particular case study, rammed earth provides again the highest score (\(\bar{U}_{m_{1}}/MAD=4.516\)), followed by hempcrete (\(\bar{U}_{m_{2}}/MAD=3.644\)) and ferrok (\(\bar{U}_{m_{3}}/MAD=3.463\)). The larger distance between rammed earth and the other candidates using the median over the MAD \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**SWOT Factor** & **SWOT Item** & \(\mathbf{p(z_{i*}^{(k)})}\) & \(\mathbf{p(z_{m}^{(k)})}\) & \(\bar{p}(z_{m}^{(S,O)})\) & \(\bar{p}(z_{m}^{(W,T)})\) \\ \hline S & \(x_{1}^{(S)}\) & \(\mathcal{N}(6.96,1.22)\) & & & \\ \(x_{2}^{(S)}\) & \(x_{2}^{(S)}\) & \(\mathcal{N}(6.78,1.21)\) & \(\mathcal{N}(6.96,0.83)\) & & \\  & \(x_{3}^{(S)}\) & \(\mathcal{N}(7.12,1.68)\) & & & \\ \hline O & \(x_{1}^{(O)}\) & \(\mathcal{N}(5.9,2.34)\) & & & \\  & \(x_{2}^{(O)}\) & \(\mathcal{N}(6.7,2.6)\) & \(\mathcal{N}(6.34,1.28)\) & & \\  & \(x_{3}^{(O)}\) & \(\mathcal{N}(6.5,1.82)\) & & & \\ \hline W & \(x_{2}^{(W)}\) & \(\mathcal{N}(5.88,1.75)\) & & & \\  & \(x_{2}^{(W)}\) & \(\mathcal{N}(6.83,1.11)\) & \(\mathcal{N}(6.28,0.94)\) & & \\  & \(x_{3}^{(W)}\) & \(\mathcal{N}(5.03,2.46)\) & & & \\  & \(x_{4}^{(W)}\) & \(\mathcal{N}(7.22,1.83)\) & & & \\ \hline T & \(x_{1}^{(T)}\) & \(\mathcal{N}(6.3,2.24)\) & \(\mathcal{N}(6.13,1.52)\) & & \\  & \(x_{2}^{(T)}\) & \(\mathcal{N}(5.9,2.05)\) & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Response models from the SWOT analysis for hempcrete. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**SWOT Factor** & **SWOT Item** & \(\mathbf{p(\bar{x}_{i*}^{(k)})}\) & \(\mathbf{p(\bar{x}_{m}^{(k)})}\) & \(\bar{p}(z_{m}^{(S,O)})\) & \(\bar{p}(z_{m}^{(W,T)})\) \\ \hline S & \(x_{1}^{(S)}\) & \(\mathcal{N}(6.67,2.17)\) & & & \\ \(x_{2}^{(S)}\) & \(\mathcal{N}(6.37,2.22)\) & \(\mathcal{N}(6.18,1.05)\) & &score reflects that the respondents not only provide relatively higher scores for rammed earth, but also with less uncertainty.