IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i21p9238-d440999.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying Value-Increasing Actions for Cultural Heritage Assets through Sensitivity Analysis of Multicriteria Evaluation Results

Author

Listed:
  • Emanuele Salerno

    (National Research Council of Italy, Institute of Information Science and Technologies, Via Moruzzi 1, 56124 Pisa, Italy)

Abstract

This paper presents a brief overview of multicriteria decision making (MCDM) as applied to the evaluation of adaptive reuse projects for cultural heritage assets and proposes a strategy to plan interventions to increase their value. The value of an object can be defined from its fitness to fulfil specified objectives, its significance to the people who own or use it, its potential to produce revenues, and a host of other criteria depending on its nature. These criteria are often subjective, relying on judgements issued by several experts, stakeholders and decision makers. This is why the MCDM methods need to formalize the problem so as to make it suitable to be treated quantitatively. Moreover, its sensitivity to variable opinions must be studied to check the stability of the result. We propose to leverage sensitivity analysis to identify the lines of intervention that promise to be the most effective to increase the value of the asset. A simulated example illustrates this strategy. This approach promises to be useful when assessing the sustainability of a reuse or redevelopment project in the cases where the final destination of the asset is still under examination.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:21:p:9238-:d:440999
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/9238/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/9238/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ardalan Bafahm & Minghe Sun, 2019. "Some Conflicting Results in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 465-486, March.
    2. Lucia Della Spina, 2020. "Adaptive Sustainable Reuse for Cultural Heritage: A Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding Approach Supporting Urban Development Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, February.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. C M Brugha, 2004. "Structure of multi-criteria decision-making," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 55(11), pages 1156-1168, November.
    6. Chen, Hongyi & Kocaoglu, Dundar F., 2008. "A sensitivity analysis algorithm for hierarchical decision models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 185(1), pages 266-288, February.
    7. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    8. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    9. Beynon, Malcolm & Curry, Bruce & Morgan, Peter, 2000. "The Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence: an alternative approach to multicriteria decision modelling," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 37-50, February.
    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. AbdulHafeez Muhammad & Ansar Siddique & Quadri Noorulhasan Naveed & Uzma Khaliq & Ali M. Aseere & Mohd Abul Hasan & Mohamed Rafik N. Qureshi & Basit Shahzad, 2021. "Evaluating Usability of Academic Websites through a Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchical Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-22, February.
    2. Oluwatobi Mary Owojori & Chioma Sylvia Okoro & Nicholas Chileshe, 2021. "Current Status and Emerging Trends on the Adaptive Reuse of Buildings: A Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, October.
    3. Patricia Hernández-Lamas & Beatriz Cabau-Anchuelo & Óscar de Castro-Cuartero & Jorge Bernabéu-Larena, 2021. "Mobile Applications, Geolocation and Information Technologies for the Study and Communication of the Heritage Value of Public Works," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-25, February.
    4. 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.

    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. Mladen Krstić & Giulio Paolo Agnusdei & Pier Paolo Miglietta & Snežana Tadić & Violeta Roso, 2022. "Applicability of Industry 4.0 Technologies in the Reverse Logistics: A Circular Economy Approach Based on COmprehensive Distance Based RAnking (COBRA) Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-30, May.
    2. Zheng Yuan & Baohua Wen & Cheng He & Jin Zhou & Zhonghua Zhou & Feng Xu, 2022. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-31, May.
    3. Máximo Méndez & Mariano Frutos & Fabio Miguel & Ricardo Aguasca-Colomo, 2020. "TOPSIS Decision on Approximate Pareto Fronts by Using Evolutionary Algorithms: Application to an Engineering Design Problem," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, November.
    4. Ferenc Bognár & Balázs Szentes & Petra Benedek, 2022. "Development of the PRISM Risk Assessment Method Based on a Multiple AHP-TOPSIS Approach," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Mehdi KESHAVARZ GHORABAEE & Edmundas Kazimieras ZAVADSKAS & Zenonas TURSKIS & Jurgita ANTUCHEVICIENE, 2016. "A New Combinative Distance-Based Assessment(Codas) Method For Multi-Criteria Decision-Making," ECONOMIC COMPUTATION AND ECONOMIC CYBERNETICS STUDIES AND RESEARCH, Faculty of Economic Cybernetics, Statistics and Informatics, vol. 50(3), pages 25-44.
    7. Misbah Anjum & Vernika Agarwal & P. K. Kapur & Sunil Kumar Khatri, 2020. "Two-phase methodology for prioritization and utility assessment of software vulnerabilities," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 11(2), pages 289-300, July.
    8. Marina Polykarpou & Flora Karathanasi & Takvor Soukissian & Vasiliki Loukaidi & Ioannis Kyriakides, 2023. "A Novel Data-Driven Tool Based on Non-Linear Optimization for Offshore Wind Farm Siting," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, February.
    9. Ardalan Bafahm & Minghe Sun, 2019. "Some Conflicting Results in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 465-486, March.
    10. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    11. Huseyin Kocak & Atalay Caglar & Gulin Zeynep Oztas, 2018. "Euclidean Best–Worst Method and Its Application," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(05), pages 1587-1605, September.
    12. Shih-Chia Chang & Ming-Tsang Lu & Mei-Jen Chen & Li-Hua Huang, 2021. "Evaluating the Application of CSR in the High-Tech Industry during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(15), pages 1-16, July.
    13. Jen-Jen Yang & Huai-Wei Lo & Chen-Shen Chao & Chih-Chien Shen & Chin-Cheng Yang, 2020. "Establishing a Sustainable Sports Tourism Evaluation Framework with a Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model to Explore Potential Sports Tourism Attractions in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, February.
    14. Aijun Liu & Taoning Liu & Xiaohui Ji & Hui Lu & Feng Li, 2019. "The Evaluation Method of Low-Carbon Scenic Spots by Combining IBWM with B-DST and VIKOR in Fuzzy Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-30, December.
    15. Song, Yongming & Li, Yanhong & Zhu, Hongli & Li, Guangxu, 2023. "A decision support model for buying battery electric vehicles considering consumer learning and psychological behavior," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    16. Mustafa Hamurcu & Tamer Eren, 2020. "Strategic Planning Based on Sustainability for Urban Transportation: An Application to Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-24, April.
    17. Jahangoshai Rezaee, Mustafa & Yousefi, Samuel, 2018. "An intelligent decision making approach for identifying and analyzing airport risks," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 14-27.
    18. Shojaei, Payam & Seyed Haeri, Seyed Amin & Mohammadi, Sahar, 2018. "Airports evaluation and ranking model using Taguchi loss function, best-worst method and VIKOR technique," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 4-13.
    19. Aziz Naghizadeh Vardin & Ramin Ansari & Mohammad Khalilzadeh & Jurgita Antucheviciene & Romualdas Bausys, 2021. "An Integrated Decision Support Model Based on BWM and Fuzzy-VIKOR Techniques for Contractor Selection in Construction Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-28, June.
    20. Amel Ennaceur & Zied Elouedi & Eric Lefevre, 2016. "Belief AHP Method — AHP Method with the Belief Function Framework," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(03), pages 553-573, May.

    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:12:y:2020:i:21:p:9238-:d:440999. 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.