IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i17p4526-d259449.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Analysis of Multi-Criteria Methods for the Enhancement of Historical Buildings

Author

Listed:
  • Antonio Nesticò

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano (SA), Italy)

  • Piera Somma

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano (SA), Italy)

Abstract

The protection of cultural heritage is essential to preserve the memory of the territory and its communities, but its enhancement is also important. In this perspective, the theme of choosing the best use for historic buildings, which often make up a substantial and widespread part of real estate and which can become a driving force for the sustainable development of cities, is important. These decision-making processes find effective support tools in Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods, able to consider the multiple financial, social, cultural, and environmental effects that the enhancement project generates. In order to identify the most appropriate evaluation approach to select the best use of the building, this paper proposes a comparison between some of the best-known MCDM methods: Analitic Hierarchy Process (AHP), ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité (ELECTRE), Tecnique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and the Compromise Ranking Method (VIKOR). The comparative analysis gives rise to the validity of the AHP, which is useful for reducing the problem into its essential components, so as to make a rational comparison among the design alternatives based on different criteria. The novelty of the research is the characterization of the hierarchical structure of the model, as well as the selection of criteria and indicators of economic evaluation. The application of the model to a real case of recovery and enhancement of a former convent in the province of Salerno (Italy) verifies the effectiveness of the tool and its adaptability to the specificities of the case study.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonio Nesticò & Piera Somma, 2019. "Comparative Analysis of Multi-Criteria Methods for the Enhancement of Historical Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-19, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:17:p:4526-:d:259449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/17/4526/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/17/4526/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antonio Nesticò & Maria Rosaria Guarini & Pierluigi Morano & Francesco Sica, 2019. "An Economic Analysis Algorithm for Urban Forestry Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, January.
    2. JosÉ Figueira & Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrogott, 2005. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-23081-8, March.
    3. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2007. "Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 514-529, April.
    4. Antonio Nesticò & Francesco Sica, 2017. "The sustainability of urban renewal projects: a model for economic multi-criteria analysis," Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 35(4), pages 397-409, July.
    5. Antonio Nesticò & Shuquan He & Gianluigi De Mare & Renato Benintendi & Gabriella Maselli, 2018. "The ALARP Principle in the Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Acceptability of Investment Risk," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    6. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    7. Peter C. Fishburn, 1967. "Additive utilities with finite sets: Applications in the management sciences," Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13.
    8. Peter C. Fishburn, 1967. "Letter to the Editor—Additive Utilities with Incomplete Product Sets: Application to Priorities and Assignments," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 537-542, June.
    9. Vishakha Maskey & Cheryl Brown & Ge Lin, 2009. "Assessing Factors Associated With Listing a Historic Resource in the National Register of Historic Places," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 23(4), pages 342-350, November.
    10. Antonio Nesticò & Maria Macchiaroli & Ornella Pipolo, 2015. "Costs and Benefits in the Recovery of Historic Buildings: The Application of an Economic Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-16, November.
    11. Giacomo Di Ruocco & Antonio Nesticò, 2018. "Archaeological Site Conservation and Enhancement: An Economic Evaluation Model for the Selection of Investment Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-13, October.
    12. Rhonda Phillips & Jay Stein, 2013. "An Indicator Framework for Linking Historic Preservation and Community Economic Development," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 113(1), pages 1-15, August.
    13. Oriol Pons & Albert De la Fuente & Antonio Aguado, 2016. "The Use of MIVES as a Sustainability Assessment MCDM Method for Architecture and Civil Engineering Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-15, May.
    14. Gianluigi De Mare & Maria Fiorella Granata & Antonio Nesticò, 2015. "Weak and Strong Compensation for the Prioritization of Public Investments: Multidimensional Analysis for Pools," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-17, December.
    15. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elena Dieckmann & Leila Sheldrick & Mike Tennant & Rupert Myers & Christopher Cheeseman, 2020. "Analysis of Barriers to Transitioning from a Linear to a Circular Economy for End of Life Materials: A Case Study for Waste Feathers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-23, February.
    2. Jangwon Suh & Yonghae Jang & Yosoon Choi, 2019. "Comparison of Electric Power Output Observed and Estimated from Floating Photovoltaic Systems: A Case Study on the Hapcheon Dam, Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Roberto Gerundo & Antonio Nesticò & Alessandra Marra & Maria Carotenuto, 2020. "Peripheralization Risk Mitigation: A Decision Support Model to Evaluate Urban Regeneration Programs Effectiveness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-19, September.
    4. Junpai Chen & Yue Chen & Yitong Zhu & Mingyan Xiao & Hongfei Yang & Huaming Huang & Linli Li, 2023. "Assessing the Sustainability of Urban Community Renewal Projects in Southern China Based on a Hybrid MADM Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-33, February.
    5. Paweł Ziemba & Marta Szaja, 2023. "Fuzzy Decision-Making Model for Solar Photovoltaic Panel Evaluation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-19, July.
    6. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Huang, Xianjin & Fu, Guole & Chen, Jia-Tsong & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "Evaluating the sustainability of urban renewal projects based on a model of hybrid multiple-attribute decision-making," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    7. A S M Monjurul Hasan & Andrea Trianni, 2020. "A Review of Energy Management Assessment Models for Industrial Energy Efficiency," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-21, November.
    8. Oluwasola O. Ademulegun & Paul MacArtain & Bukola Oni & Neil J. Hewitt, 2022. "Multi-Stage Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Siting Electric Vehicle Charging Stations within and across Border Regions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-28, December.
    9. Wei Jiang & Wentao Lu Qiu & Sheng-Hau Lin & Huiming Lv & Xiaofeng Zhao & Hao Cong, 2023. "A New Hybrid Decision-Making Model for Promoting Sustainable Social Rental Housing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-29, April.
    10. Nesticò, Antonio & Elia, Cristina & Naddeo, Vincenzo, 2020. "Sustainability of urban regeneration projects: Novel selection model based on analytic network process and zero-one goal programming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    11. Marta Dell’Ovo & Federico Dell’Anna & Raffaella Simonelli & Leopoldo Sdino, 2021. "Enhancing the Cultural Heritage through Adaptive Reuse. A Multicriteria Approach to Evaluate the Castello Visconteo in Cusago (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-29, April.
    12. Agnese Amato & Maria Andreoli & Massimo Rovai, 2021. "Adaptive Reuse of a Historic Building by Introducing New Functions: A Scenario Evaluation Based on Participatory MCA Applied to a Former Carthusian Monastery in Tuscany, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-22, February.
    13. Alfonso Valero, 2024. "Diversification strategies for indirect real estate. Intersection of business, economics, and society in shanghai mixed-use developments," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 4(10), pages 1-26, October.
    14. Antonio Nesticò & Pierfrancesco Fiore & Emanuela D’Andria, 2020. "Enhancement of Small Towns in Inland Areas. A Novel Indicators Dataset to Evaluate Sustainable Plans," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-21, August.
    15. Fumin Deng & Yanjie Li & Huirong Lin & Jinrui Miao & Xuedong Liang, 2020. "A BWM-TOPSIS Hazardous Waste Inventory Safety Risk Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-18, August.
    16. Aleksandra Bączkiewicz & Bartłomiej Kizielewicz & Andrii Shekhovtsov & Mykhailo Yelmikheiev & Volodymyr Kozlov & Wojciech Sałabun, 2021. "Comparative Analysis of Solar Panels with Determination of Local Significance Levels of Criteria Using the MCDM Methods Resistant to the Rank Reversal Phenomenon," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-21, September.
    17. Ejeng Bassey Ukabi & Ayten Özsavaş Akçay, 2024. "New Additions in North Nicosia’s Walled City Through the Lens of Reflective Design Schemes and Continuity," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(3), pages 21582440241, August.
    18. Ngoc Uyen Phuong Nguyen & Martin G. Moehrle, 2019. "Technological Drivers of Urban Innovation: A T-DNA Analysis Based on US Patent Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-26, December.
    19. Xiuguo Wu & Yibai Meng, 2022. "Evaluation and Selection of Cement Suppliers under the Background of New and Old Driving Energy Conversion in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-21, September.
    20. Xiahui Che & Minxing Jiang, 2021. "Economic Policy Uncertainty, Financial Expenditure and Energy Poverty: Evidence Based on a Panel Threshold Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-12, October.
    21. Weixiang Kong & Haizhi Luo & Zhechen Yu & Yingyue Li & Chenyang Wang & Xiangzhao Meng, 2025. "Economic evaluation of retrofitting existing buildings from a sustainability perspective: global trends and bibliometric analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 27(7), pages 17451-17467, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.
    2. Antonio Nesticò & Pierfrancesco Fiore & Emanuela D’Andria, 2020. "Enhancement of Small Towns in Inland Areas. A Novel Indicators Dataset to Evaluate Sustainable Plans," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-21, August.
    3. Ioannis Sitaridis & Fotis Kitsios, 2020. "Competitiveness analysis and evaluation of entrepreneurial ecosystems: a multi-criteria approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 377-399, November.
    4. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    5. Sward, Jeffrey A. & Nilson, Roberta S. & Katkar, Venktesh V. & Stedman, Richard C. & Kay, David L. & Ifft, Jennifer E. & Zhang, K. Max, 2021. "Integrating social considerations in multicriteria decision analysis for utility-scale solar photovoltaic siting," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 288(C).
    6. Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Bert De Reyck & Zeger Degraeve, 2008. "An Integrated Decision-Making Approach for Improving European Air Traffic Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(8), pages 1395-1409, August.
    7. Rafael Lizarralde & Jaione Ganzarain & Mikel Zubizarreta, 2020. "Assessment and Selection of Technologies for the Sustainable Development of an R&D Center," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, December.
    8. Mumtaz Karatas, 2017. "Multiattribute Decision Making Using Multiperiod Probabilistic Weighted Fuzzy Axiomatic Design," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 318-334, July.
    9. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    10. Muhammad Ikram & Qingyu Zhang & Robert Sroufe, 2020. "Developing integrated management systems using an AHP‐Fuzzy VIKOR approach," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 2265-2283, September.
    11. Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2016. "Combining analytical hierarchy process and Choquet integral within non-additive robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 2-18.
    12. Roberto Gerundo & Antonio Nesticò & Alessandra Marra & Maria Carotenuto, 2020. "Peripheralization Risk Mitigation: A Decision Support Model to Evaluate Urban Regeneration Programs Effectiveness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-19, September.
    13. Mališa Žižović & Dragan Pamučar & Goran Ćirović & Miodrag M. Žižović & Boža D. Miljković, 2020. "A Model for Determining Weight Coefficients by Forming a Non-Decreasing Series at Criteria Significance Levels (NDSL)," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, May.
    14. Höfer, Tim & Sunak, Yasin & Siddique, Hafiz & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Wind farm siting using a spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process approach: A case study of the Städteregion Aachen," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 222-243.
    15. Hatami-Marbini, Adel & Tavana, Madjid, 2011. "An extension of the Electre I method for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 373-386, August.
    16. Pawel Tadeusz Kazibudzki, 2023. "The uncertainty related to the inexactitude of prioritization based on consistent pairwise comparisons," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(9), pages 1-30, September.
    17. Tavares, L. Valadares, 2012. "An acyclic outranking model to support group decision making within organizations," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 782-790.
    18. Emanuele Salerno, 2020. "Identifying Value-Increasing Actions for Cultural Heritage Assets through Sensitivity Analysis of Multicriteria Evaluation Results," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-13, November.
    19. Fernanda F. Moraes & Virgílio José M. Ferreira Filho & Carlos Eduardo Durange de C. Infante & Luan Santos & Edilson F. Arruda, 2022. "A Markov Chain Approach to Multicriteria Decision Analysis with an Application to Offshore Decommissioning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-15, September.
    20. PrasannaVenkatesan, S. & Goh, M., 2016. "Multi-objective supplier selection and order allocation under disruption risk," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 124-142.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:17:p:4526-:d:259449. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.