Assessment of priority alternatives for preservation of historic buildings using model based on ARAS and AHP methods

• Autorzy: Kutut V. , Zavadskas E. K. , Lazauskas M.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1016/j.acme.2013.10.007

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Numerous countries are trying to find the best method for suitable management of real estate objects that encompass both material value and cultural property. Cultural property can be defined as historical heritage in the form of volumetric and planned spaces of buildings. Yet another problem lurks in utilization and maintenance of such buildings, which are usually regulated by national legislation thus aggravating certain decision-making processes related to their adjustment to the needs of the public or investors. This article addresses the status of some buildings located in the historic city centre of Vilnius and analyses indicators, on the basis of which such buildings could be assessed in order to identify their need for reconstruction, considering archaeological, historical, architectural, economic, social and other arguments. As experience in reconstruction suggests, such decisions demand for well-reasoned and precise concepts as each hasty conclusion usually results in mistakes that demand for additional work and funds. AHP and ARAS methods, which are well-known in decision-making, have been chosen to design the algorithm for priority setting.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

cultural heritage building; analytical hierarchy process; ARAS; decision methods

PL

zabytek architektury; konserwacja budynku; dobro kultury

• Wydawca: Springer ; Wrocław University of Science and Technology
• Czasopismo: Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering
• Rocznik: 2014
• Tom: Vol. 14, no. 2
• Strony: 287--294
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 33 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Kutut V.

• Department of Construction Technology and Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Saulėtekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania

autor

Zavadskas E. K.

• Department of Construction Technology and Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Saulėtekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania

autor

Lazauskas M.

• Department of Construction Technology and Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Saulėtekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania

Bibliografia

• [1] T. Nyseth, J. Sognnaes, Preservation of old towns in Norway: heritage discourses, community processes and the new cultural economy, Cities 31 (2012) 69–75.
• [2] T. Sirisrisak, Conservation of Bangkok old town, Habitat International 33 (2009) 405–411.
• [3] J.Ch. Kim, W.S. Yoo, U.K. Lee, K.J. Song, K.I. Kang, H. Cho, An experience curve-based decision support model for prioritizing restoration needs of cultural heritage, Journal of Cultural Heritage 11 (2010) 430–437.
• [4] C. Kahraman, T. Kaya, A fuzzy multiple attribute utility model for intelligent building assessment, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 18 (6) (2012) 811–820.
• [5] S. Jakucionis, L. Ustinovicius, Multicriteria analysis of the variants of the old town building renovation in marketing aspect, Statyba 6 (6) (2000) 469–475.
• [6] N. Cohen, Urban Conservation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999.
• [7] D.A. Elsorady, Heritage conservation in Rosetta (Rashid): a tool for community improvement and development, Cities 29 (2012) 379–388.
• [8] A. Srdic ˇ, J. Selih, Integrated quality and sustainability assessment in construction: a conceptual model, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 17 (4) (2011) 611–626.
• [9] R. Kliukas, R. Kacianauskas, A. Jaras, A monument of historical heritage – Vilnius Archcathedral belfry: the dynamic investigation, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 14 (2) (2008) 139–146.
• [10] D. Fuente, J. Vega, F. Viejo, I. Diaz, M. Morcillo, Mapping air pollution effects on atmospheric degradation of cultural heritage, Journal of Cultural Heritage 14 (2) (2012) 138–145.
• [11] Z. Turskis, M. Gajzler, A. Dziadosz, Reliability risk management, and contingency of construction processes and projects, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 18 (2) (2012) 290–298.
• [12] T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
• [13] V. Podvezko, S. Mitkus, E. Trinkuniene, Complex evaluation of contracts for construction, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 16 (2) (2010) 287–297.
• [14] Z. Turskis, E.K. Zavadskas, A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision-making, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 16 (2) (2010) 159–172.
• [15] M. Al-Mukhtar, Editorial: built heritage, European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 16 (5) (2012) 525–526.
• [16] M. Burinskiene, V. Rudzkiene, J. Venckauskaite, Effects of quality of life on the price of real estate in Vilnius city, International Journal of Strategic Property Management 15 (3) (2011) 295–311.
• [17] M. Murzyn-Kupisz, The socio-economic impact of built heritage projects conducted by private investors, Journal of Cultural Heritage 14 (2) (2012) 156–162.
• [18] W.T. Chen, T.T. Chen, C.S. Lu, S.S. Liu, Analyzing relationships among success variables of construction partnering using structural equation modeling: a case study of Taiwans construction industry, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 18 (6) (2012) 783–794.
• [19] J. Wong, H. Li, Application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in multi-criteria analysis of the selection of intelligent building systems, Building and Environment 43 (2008) 108–125.
• [20] Y.Ch. Kuo, S. Lu, Using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making approach to enhance risk assessment for metropolitan construction projects, International Journal of Project Management 31 (4) (2012) 602–614.
• [21] A. Ishizaka, A. Labib, Review of the main developments of the analytic hierarchy process, Expert Systems with Applications 39 (11) (2011) 14336–14345.
• [22] T.L. Saaty, Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 1st edition, RWS Publications, 4922 Ellsworth Avenue, Pittsburg, PA 15413477.
• [23] T.L. Saaty, Decision-making with the AHP: why is the principal eigenvector necessary, European Journal of Operational Research 145 (1) (2003) 85–91.
• [24] M. Piltan, E. Mehmanchi, S.F. Ghaderi, Proposing a decision-making model using analytical hierarchy process and fuzzy expert system for prioritizing industries in installation of combined heat and power systems, Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 1124–1133.
• [25] E. Heo, J. Kim, K.J. Boo, Analysis of the assessment factors for renewable energy dissemination program evaluation using fuzzy AHP, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (8) (2010) 2214–2220.
• [26] K.D. Brucker, C. Macharis, A. Verbeke, Multi-criteria analysis and the resolution of sustainable development dilemmas: a stakeholder management approach, European Journal of Operational Research 224 (2013) 122–131.
• [27] J. Curiel-Esparza, J. Canto-Perello, Selecting utilities placement techniques in urban underground engineering, Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering 13 (2013) 276–285.
• [28] K.L. Lin, Determining key ecological indicators for urban land consolidation, International Journal of Strategic Property Management 14 (2) (2010) 89–103.
• [29] H. Sivilevicius, Modelling the interaction of transport system elements, Transport 26 (1) (2011) 20–34.
• [30] Z. Turskis, M. Lazauskas, E.K. Zavadskas, Fuzzy multiple criteria assessment of construction site alternatives for non-hazardous waste incineration plant in Vilnius city, applying ARAS-F and AHP methods, Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management 20 (2) (2012) 110–120.
• [31] P. Jaskowski, S. Biruk, R. Bucon, Assessing contractor selection criteria weights with fuzzy AHP method application in group decision environment, Automation in Construction 19 (2) (2010) 120–126.
• [32] V. Podvezko, Application of the AHP technique, Journal of Business Economics and Management 10 (2) (2009) 181–189.
• [33] E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, T. Vilutiene, Multiple criteria analysis of foundation instalment alternatives by applying Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) method, Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering 10 (3) (2010) 123–141.