Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101814

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

A comprehensive literature review of Multi-Criteria Decision Making

methods in heritage buildings
Rohit R. Nadkarni *, Bimal Puthuvayi
Department of Architecture and Planning, National Institute of Technology Calicut, NITC Campus, Kozhikode, Kerala, 673601, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The conservation of heritage buildings is a challenging task for conservation architects, urban planners, city
Heritage buildings managers and stakeholders as it involves complex decision making. Heritage buildings are limited resource with
Multi-criteria decision making unique values which cannot be replaced, but if they are not conserved with timely interventions, they would be
Literature review
lost permanently. Over the years many researchers have attempted to test the application of Multi-criteria De­
MCDM
Bibliometric
cision Making methods for aiding the decision-makers in deciding adaptive-reuse strategy, prioritising renova­
Biblimetrix tion projects, assessing building significance, evaluating alternative solutions for renovations, assessing
functional service life, assessing building condition, contractor selection, suitability for tourism, budget alloca­
tions, cost estimation, etc. This paper presents a comprehensive literature review of all the relevant articles from
Web of Science (WoS) academic database on applications of MCDM methods in Heritage buildings. The review
includes a state of the art bibliometric analysis to understand the research publication trend and trajectory,
followed by a comprehensive review classifying the articles as per the application categories, identification of
MCDM methods used for criteria weight determination, MCDM methods employed for ranking and methods used
for validation. The review also presents the summary of common criteria applied under each application cate­
gory. The opportunities available for further research in the domain are also discussed. The 42 relevant articles
reviewed and summarised in this paper would provide an important reference for future decision-makers and
researchers involved in developing MCDM methods based models for heritage buildings.

1. Introduction application of Multi-Criteria Decision Making methods in the heritage

building domain to aid the decision-makers.
1.1. Background The Multi/Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) is an essential
scientific method used by experts to effectively and efficiently choose
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organiza­ the best alternative, classify alternatives or rank alternatives in a pref­
tion (UNESCO) defines heritage as “our legacy from the past, what we erence order [5,6]. The literature on MCDM interchangeably uses the
live with today, and what we pass on to future generations” [1]. Built term Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and Multi-Attribute
heritage is limited resources inherited from the past, and their conser­ Decision Making (MADM); therefore, this term should be regarded as
vation is essential for the sustainable development of cities and com­ synonyms to MCDM [7]. The term MCDM is used for all methods and
munities [2]. The United Nations (2015) Sustainable Development Goals techniques involving more than one conflicting criterion used by
(SDG), under the 11th goal, sets out a target under 11.4 to “strengthen decision-makers to arrive at preferences [6]. The methods involve
efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heri­ structuring and solving decision problems with diverse and multiple
tage” [3]. Conservation of heritage building involves dealing with criteria. The MCDM methods have a wide application and are currently
multiple stakeholders and multiple values associated with the building being applied in many engineering, planning and management-related
during decision making. The multiple values include tangible values like fields; for example, energy, environment, sustainability, tourism, con­
architecture, aesthetic, scientific and intangible value like cultural, so­ servation and others [8,9]. As per Saaty and Ergu currently, there are
cial etc. [4]. Decision making associated with heritage building is a more than 100 MCDM methods in practice, this includes the original
complicated task. During the last two decades, we saw the emergence of methods, its extensions, variation and combinations [10]. Only a few

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.R. Nadkarni), [email protected] (B. Puthuvayi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101814
Received 13 August 2020; Received in revised form 11 September 2020; Accepted 13 September 2020
Available online 17 September 2020
2352-7102/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R.R. Nadkarni and B. Puthuvayi Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101814

MCDM methods have found its application in the domain of heritage (1) What is the year-wise publication trend?
buildings. This research is an attempt to present a comprehensive review (2) From which countries and institutes are this research originating?
of the literature published on the application of MCDM methods in the (3) Who are the most prominent authors and which leading journals
domain of heritage buildings, which would help the researchers and are publishing the research in the domain?
practitioners to get a detailed insight into the area. (4) Which are the area of applications and what methods are used for
criteria weights, ranking and validation?
1.2. Existing literature (5) What criteria do these research articles employ for decision
making?
The bibliometric analysis in the domain carried out by Morkūnaitė, (6) How has the research domain evolved over the years?
Kalibatas and Kalibatienė [11] titled “A bibliometric data analysis of
multi-criteria decision-making methods in heritage buildings” presents a 2. Material and method
descriptive analysis of the database identified through Web of Science
(WoS) academic database maintained by Clarivate Analytics The methodology for the study was derived from Lazar and Chithra
(1994–2018). This bibliometric study performed a bibliometric analysis [18,19], Zavadskas, Antuchevičienė and Kapliński [12,13], Morkūnaitė,
of the 180 scientific articles published in English. The bibliometric Kalibatas, and Kalibatienė [11], and Aria and Cuccurullo [20]. This
analysis includes categorisation as per WoS, number of papers published research limits itself to the Web of Science (WoS) academic database
during the period 1994–2018, number of publications according to maintained by Clarivate Analytics. The initial phase of the research
countries and citation count, number of publications according to involved the identification of published literature reviews and research
organisation and citation count, number of publications according to articles in the area of MCDM in heritage buildings. The review paper by
author and citation count and overview of the most cited 25 articles and Morkūnaitė, Kalibatas, and Kalibatienė [11] was submitted to the
their citation over the years. After conducting the majority of the bib­ Journal in November 2018. Since its publication, nine new relevant
liometric analysis using 180 scientific articles, Morkūnaitė et al. have articles were published in the domain until the end of 2019.
later screened 52 relevant scientific articles (28.89% of the total articles) Multi-attribute value theory (MAVT) is part of the MCDM family [21,22]
which fall under the area of MCDM methods for cultural heritage and during the search, we found few articles which have used MAVT as a
buildings. The inclusion of 128 articles from the non-core domain of keyword rather then MCDM; hence articles under MAVT did not feature
MCDM in heritage buildings1 for the bibliometric analysis is a cause of in the searched database. So the search string was revised with an
concern as it would produce skewed results. For example, the overview additional keyword “MAVT” and a revised search was carried out for
of the most cited 25 articles presented in the paper includes 17 articles identification of relevant research articles published in the domain till
(which accounts to 68% of the total 25 articles) which Morkūnaitė et al. the end of December 2019. The revised search string is presented below:
have found not to be relevant; hence they have not included them in the “(((“multi* criteria decision? making” OR MCDM OR MAVT OR
52 relevant articles list presented in the latter part of the paper. The “multi* criteria analysis” OR “decision support” OR “multiple
paper further presents the keyword mapping, count of MCDM method criteria decision-making” OR AHP OR ANP OR TOPSIS OR fuzzy)
applied and a brief descriptive list of the 52 relevant articles in a tabular AND (heritag* OR “histor* building*”)))”
form listing the aim of the research, MCDM methods used and evalu­
ating criteria employed. It also presents a very limited discussion on The WoS search query identified 201 research articles related to the
these 52 articles. string. Among the 201 articles, 196 articles were published in the En­
After reviewing the above paper, a need was felt to undertake a glish language. The articles published only in the English language were
comprehensive review of only the relevant articles to provide a detailed considered for further review. An attempt was also made to identify the
insight into the subject of inquiry. Most of the existing literature reviews 52 articles used by 2019 review paper [11]; upon analyses, it was found
published in the domain of heritage and the area of MCDM has been that ten articles did not appear in the search result2 A detailed review of
summed up by Morkūnaitė, Kalibatas and Kalibatienė [11] in their the remaining 42 articles of the 2019 study was conducted, and only 31
paper, hence the same is not repeated here in this research. Zavadskas, articles content were found to be relevant for a comprehensive review3.
Antuchevičienė and Kapliński [12,13] have published a state of the art After reading, abstracts and full text of the articles, additional 11 rele­
survey in two parts on MCDM in civil engineering. Prior to the publi­ vant articles were identified and added to the final list (this includes the
cation of the above-mentioned state of the art survey by Zavadskas et al., recent publications and also articles related to MAVT; details of the ar­
Zavadskas had authored four research articles on various applications of ticles are presented in Table 1).
MCDM methods in heritage buildings [14–17], these articles were not Discussion, conclusion and scope for further research.
included in their state of the art survey reviews, and the heritage The database of the identified 42 articles was exported from the WoS
building domain was also not addressed in it [12,13]. in plain text file format, and it was initially analysed using the R-tool for
comprehensive science mapping analysis called Bibliometrix
2. Research aim (https://www.bibliometrix.org) [20]. The tools helped to identify the
trends of publication over the years, authors, institution, originating
The aim of this research is to conduct a comprehensive review of countries, journals and keywords in the research domain.
relevant articles on the application of MCDM methods in heritage These 42 articles were further classified manually based on the area
buildings. The study would help us to understand the trend in the of application and the MCDM methods employed. After analysing the
application of MCDM methods in heritage buildings. The comprehensive area of application, the papers were categorised into 15 topics/theme
review would provide the fellow researcher with a detailed under­ based on the field of application. The MCDM methods used for weight
standing of the domain and would provide them with the necessary calculation and ranking were identified and classified based on the field
information for developing further applications in the domain. The
research would address to answer the following questions:
2
Even with the original string used in 2019 paper the 10 articles did not
appear in the search result.
1 3
The articles from the non-core areas usually feature in WoS search as it The articles which were not considered for this review includes articles on
might include the words from the search strings. Words like MCDM, building, micro-issue like damp proofing and wear & tear, natural heritage, environ­
and heritage are common words which could features in the non-core articles mental heritage, urban tourism papers which does not include heritage
and hence they feature in the search result. building.

2
R.R. Nadkarni and B. Puthuvayi Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101814

Table 1
Details of the articles for the review.
No. Description No. of References
Articles

1 Relevant articles form [11] +31 [14–17,

23–49]
2 Additional Articles Identified +11 [4,8,50–58]
3 Articles not found from Morkūnaitė et al. [11] − 10 [59–68]
in the WoS search (excluded for this research)
4 Total relevant articles selected for reviewa = 42
a
The bibliometric paper by Morkūnaitė et al. is the only review paper
featuring in the WoS search and is not included in the relevant articles list as this
research is mainly dealing with application based articles.

of application. The common criteria employed under each application

area were also identified. The methods used for validation of the
research articles were summarised, and a detailed discussion on all the
above aspect is presented to get a detailed insight on how the research in
the area has progressed over the years. Based on the current state of
research, the scope for further research and application areas in the
domain were identified. The overall methodology for the research is
presented in Fig. 1.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive bibliometric analysis

4.1.1. Annual publication trends

The annual publication trend presents the overall progress of the
research in the domain. The overall WoS search string result is compared
with the identified relevant articles from the search string and is pre­
sented below in Fig. 2. The publication of relevant articles spans within
the period of 2006–2019. The trend shows a gradual increase in the
number of articles, with a sudden drop in the year 2011 and 2012. The
drop in the year 2011 and 2012 is not limited to only the relevant ar­
ticles but can be observed in the overall publications. During the last five
years, the research area has seen a steady increase in the number of
publications which is a positive sign for the research domain.

4.1.2. Countries scientific production

The number of articles published based on countries scientific pro­
duction is presented in Fig. 3. There are a total of 19 countries
contributing to the research domain. Majority of the research is origi­
nating from Lithuania, which is led by the Vilnius Gediminas Technical
University. After Lithuania we see Italy, Spain and China leading the
tally. Majority of the research is originating from European countries,
and together they contribute to 67% of the total research, followed by
Asian countries contributing only 22%.

4.1.3. Authors and affiliations

The 42 relevant articles selected for this review has been contributed
by 108 authors. Only a total of 17 authors have published more than one Fig. 1. Methodology.
paper, and their details are presented below in Table 2. Out of these 17
authors, seven authors are affiliated with Vilnius Gediminas Technical human environment renovation” is the most globally cited article with
University, Lithuania. The top three authors based on the number of the highest total citation per year. This article carried out multiple
articles publish and citations are affiliated Vilnius Gediminas Technical criteria assessment of five Bulgarian cultural heritage renovation pro­
University, Lithuania. Zadvadskas E. is the most prominent author in the jects. The second most cited article is by Wang & Zeng [45] titled “A
area with consistent production of six articles from the year 2010 till multi-objective decision-making process for reuse selection of historic
2019, followed by Kutut V. with five articles from the year 2013 till buildings” which focuses on the selection of reuse alternatives for two
2019. Author Turskis Z. has co-authored most of his articles with Zad­ buildings in Taiwan. The third most cited article is by Zagorskas et al.
vadskas E. and has published four articles from the year 2010 till 2019. [14] titled “Thermal insulation alternatives of historic brick buildings in
Baltic Sea Region” is having the second most total citation per year.
4.1.4. Most cited article Edmund Zadvadskas four articles [14–17] features in the top 10 most
The articles which were cited at least 20 times globally are shown in cited articles.
Table 3. Tupenaite, Zavadskas, Kaklauskas, Turskis and Seniut [17],
article titled “Multiple criteria assessment of alternatives for built and

3
R.R. Nadkarni and B. Puthuvayi Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101814

Fig. 2. Comparing the annual publications- Identified relevant articles Vs Overall search string result on WoS.

Fig. 3. Countries scientific production.

4.1.5. Most relevant journal bibliometrix package, displaying authors on the left, author’s keywords
The 42 relevant articles selected for this review were published in 21 in the centre and journals in the right. Each node was limited to fifteen
different journals. The most pertinent journal for the research domain is fields, refer Fig. 6. From the three fields plot, one can observe that
‘Journal of cultural heritage’ followed by ‘Sustainability’. The first Zadvaskas E. the most prominent authors have articles in five keywords
article in the domain was published in the journal ‘Building and envi­ area, while Kutut Z., Turskis Z., Morkunaite Z. and Bausys R. each have
ronment’ in 2006. The journal ‘Sustainability’ is the fastest-growing articles in four keywords area. The journal titled ‘Sustainability’ has
publication in the domain with six published articles within the last publication across the keywords area, followed by the ‘Journal of cul­
three years, while there is a drop in the publication of articles in the tural heritage’. The author’s keywords used in these two journals are
‘Journal of cultural heritage’ during the same period. The other journals presented below in Table 6.
which have published at least two articles in the domain are shown in
Table 4. The growth of the articles in journals over the years is repre­ 4.2. MCDM methods in heritage buildings
sented in Fig. 4.
4.2.1. Application based classification of articles
4.1.6. Most relevant keywords The 42 articles selected on MCDM methods in Heritage buildings for
The most relevant author’s keywords and keywords plus were ana­ comprehensive review were varying in their focus and theme. Hence
lysed based on their frequency of occurrences in the 42 articles, and the these 42 papers were manually categorised based on the type of appli­
top ten author’s keywords and keywords-plus are presented in Table 5. cation into 16 categories (refer Table 7). Majority of the articles pub­
The most occurring author’s keywords are ‘cultural heritage’ and ‘AHP’, lished in the domain belong to category ‘alternate use/adaptive reuse
while the most occurring keywords plus are ‘Model’ and ‘Selection’. selection’ followed by ‘priority order for renovation/restoration/reha­
‘AHP’ or ‘Analytic Hierarchy Process’ is the most dominant keyword bilitation’ and ‘building significance/value assessment’ category. There
with a total of 14 occurrences across the keywords. The author’s key­ are specific categories like ‘assessment of functional service life’,
words, like ‘Cultural heritage’, ‘Analytic Hierarchy Process’ and ‘Heri­ ‘contractor selection’ and ‘ranking suitability for tourism’ were all ar­
tage buildings’, have seen consistent growth from the year 2013. The ticles in the respective categories are first-authored by the same person.
growth of the author’s keywords over the years is represented in the Fig. 7 presents the evolution of the number of articles under each
graph shown in Fig. 5. category over the years. The top three most cited articles belong to
category ‘building significance/value assessment’ [17], ‘alternate
4.1.7. Author’s, keywords and journals use/adaptive reuse selection’ [45] and ‘evaluation of alternative solu­
The understanding of the association of author’s, keyword and tion for renovation’ [14].
journal are important to understanding the author’s area of research and
journals area of publication. A three fields plot was generated on the

4
R.R. Nadkarni and B. Puthuvayi Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101814

Table 2 Table 3
Details about most productive authors and its affiliations. Most cited articles.
Author Affiliations TC NP Publication year Articles-Authors Journal Local Global TC per
(No. of articles) Citations Citations year
Zavadskas E. K. Vilnius Gediminas 248 6 2010, 2013,
Tupenaite, Zavadskas, Journal of Civil 3 108 10.8
Technical University, 2014(2), 2019(2)
Kaklauskas, Turskis Engineering and
Lithuania
and Seniut (2010) Management
Kutut V. Vilnius Gediminas 131 5 2013, 2014 (2),
Wang, & Zeng (2010) Expert Systems with 8 67 6.7
Technical University, 2017 2019 (1)
Applications
Lithuania
Zagorskas et al. Energy and 2 64 10.67
Turskis Z. Vilnius Gediminas 220 4 2010, 2013,
(2014) Buildings
Technical University, 2014, 2017
Ferretti, Bottero, and Journal of Cultural 6 54 9
Lithuania
Mondini (2014) Heritage
Ferretti V. Politecnico di Torino, Italy 100 4 2014, 2015 (2),
Kutut, Zavadskas and Archives of Civil and 9 42 7
2018
Lazauskas (2014) Mechanical
Macias Bernal J. Universidad de Sevilla, 38 4 2016, 2017 (2),
Engineering
M. Spain 2019
Šiožinytė, Journal of Civil 6 40 6.67
Prieto A. J. Universidad de Sevilla, 38 4 2016, 2017 (2),
Antuchevičienė and Engineering and
Spain 2019
Kutut (2014) Management
Bottero M. Politecnico di Torino, Italy 81 3 2014, 2015,
Dutta and Husain Journal of Cultural 9 32 2.91
2018
(2009) Heritage
Morkunaite Z. Vilnius Gediminas 20 3a 2017, 2019 (2)
Turskis, Zavadskas, International 4 31 4.43
Technical University,
and Kutut (2013) Journal of
Lithuania
Information
Technology &
Wang H. J. National Taiwan 87 2 2008, 2010
Decision Making
University of Science and
Ipekoglu (2006) Building and 3 28 2
Technology, Taiwan Environment
Lazauskas M. Vilnius Gediminas 62 2 2014 (2) Radziszewska- Automation in 1 20 6.68
Technical University, Zielina, Śladowski, Construction
Lithuania and Sibielak (2017)
Antucheviciene J. Vilnius Gediminas 41 2 2014, 2019 Vodopivec, Žarnić, International 4 20 3.33
Technical University, Tamošaitienė, Journal of Strategic
Lithuania
Lazauskas, and Property
Radziszewska Cracow University of 38 2 2017 (2) Šelih (2014) Management
Zielina E. Technology, Poland Wang, Chiou, and Expert Systems with 1 20 1.67
Alejandre F. J. Universidad de Sevilla, 19 2 2017 (2) Juan (2008) Applications
Spain
Sladowski G. Cracow University of 38 2 2017 (2) TC – Total Citations.
Technology, Poland
Juan Y. K. National Taiwan 37 2 2007, 2008
University of Science and
Table 4
Technology, Taiwan
Most relevant journal.
Silva A. Universidade de Lisboa, 12 2 2017, 2019
Portugal Sources Articles % of TC PY
Bausys R. Vilnius Gediminas 3 2 2019 (2) Articles Start
Technical University,
Journal of cultural heritage 11 26.19 214 2008
Lithuania
Sustainability 6 14.29 13 2017
TC– Total citation, NP– No. of articles/papers. Archives of civil and mechanical 2 4.76 45 2014
a engineering
Does not include a bibliometric paper by Morkūnaitė et al. [11].
Building and environment 2 4.76 45 2006
Energy and buildings 2 4.76 82 2014
4.2.2. MCDM methods Expert systems with applications 2 4.76 87 2008
The MCDM method can broadly be classified into two parts: 1) International journal of strategic 2 4.76 37 2014
Method for assessing criteria weights, 2) Method for ranking/selection property management
Journal of civil engineering and 2 4.76 148 2010
of alternatives. There are some methods like AHP, ANP [70,71] and
management
MACBETH [72] which are equipped to evaluate criteria weights as well
as ranking/selection of alternatives, while the other methods use a TC- Total citations, PY Start – The starting year of the appearance of an article in
combination of two different methods for each operation. The details of the journal.
the MCDM methods used as per the application category are presented
in Table 8 (the database of the 42 articles is available at Appendix A). Assessment’ (WASPAS) has been used twice. The frequency of the
The most prominent and one of the earliest methods used for ranking ranking methods used across the categories is represented in Fig. 8. The
is Fuzzy and Fuzzy combinations having nine occurrences across seven ranking methods which were recently introduced in the domain in 2019
application categories. All the articles under the category ‘assessment of are WASPAS and Regime. The evolution of the use of the type of ranking
functional service life’ have used fuzzy method. The second most methods over time is presented in Fig. 94
prominent method used during the decade is the ‘Analytical Hierarchy
Process’ (AHP), having seven occurrences across five application cate­ 4.2.2.1. Weight determination methods. The AHP pair-wise comparison
gories. ‘Technique of Order Preference Similarity to the Ideal Solution’ method is the most dominant method used for weight determination
(TOPSIS) method has been used four times and is mostly used in com­ across the period. AHP method has been used 21 times (including Fuzzy
bination like ‘Fuzzy TOPSIS’ and ‘TOPSIS Grey’. ‘Multi-Attribute Value AHP, Stochastic AHP) across nine application categories for weight
Theory’ (MAVT), ‘Analytic Network Proces’ (ANP), and ‘Additive Ratio
Assessment’ (ARAS) methods have three occurrences each, while
‘Preference Ranking Organisation METHod for Enrichment of Evalua­ 4
Ranking method and its combination with more than one appearance is
tions’ (PROMETHEE) and ‘Weighted Aggregated Sum Product
presented in the graph.

5
R.R. Nadkarni and B. Puthuvayi Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101814

Fig. 4. Growth of articles, journal wise over the years.

4.2.3. Criteria used for MCDM

Table 5
The identification of valid criteria is very critical for designing an
Most relevant keywords.
effective and efficient MCDM model. Criteria used in the 42 identified
Author’s keywords Occurrences Keywords plus Occurrences articles were analysed, and the common criteria within the common
Cultural heritage 6 Model 11 theme identified were compiled. There were few papers which had some
AHP 5 Selection 9 unique criteria which the other papers had not considered, and those
Analytic hierarchy process 4 Decision making 8 were also noted. Only six categories had articles which could be
Decision support 4 Cultural heritage 7
Historical buildings 4 Conservation 6
compared, the remaining paper focus differed, and hence no common
MCDM 4 Heritage 6 criteria could be established. The common criteria and their source as
Multi criteria decision making 4 AHP 5 per category are presented in Table 9 (for individual article criteria refer
Heritage buildings 3 Alternatives 5 to Annexure A). Criteria like social, economic, cultural value, architec­
Multicriteria decision analysis 3 Performance 4
ture/aesthetic, historical, functional/continuity, environmental and
Reuse 3 Support 3
technology are common across most of the categories.

determination. The second most popular method used is ‘Swing’ weight 5. Discussion
technique appeared in the domain in 2014 and is used four times across
three application categories. The methods like ANP and Expert deter­ The foundation of the discipline of MCDM methods was laid in the
mination has three occurrences each, while other dedicated methods 1950s and 1960s, and from then on, many researchers have worked
employed for weight determination are ‘Step-wise Weight Assessment towards developing new models and techniques. In, 1972 Cochrane and
Ratio Analysis’ (SWARA) and ‘Rank Order Centroid’ (ROC). SWARA is Zeleny at Columbia University in South Carolina organised a conference
the latest method introduced in the domain introduced in the year 2019. on “Multiple-Criteria Decision Making”; hence the decade of the 1970s is
The frequency of methods used for weight determination across the considered the starting point of MCDM [73]. The earliest application of
categories is shown in Fig. 10. The evolution of the use of the type of MCDM in heritage buildings as per the WoS database was found in 2006.
weight determining methods over time is presented in Fig. 11. In 2006, Ipekoglu B. published an article in the journal ‘Building and
Environment’ on developing a linear model for evaluating the archi­
4.2.2.2. Validation methods. Validation of MCDM model is an essential tecture of traditional dwellings for conservation [58]. This is the only
requirement for its acceptability by the stakeholders and peers. The article published under the ‘architecture evaluation’ category, although
MCDM models employed for any decision is expected to be objective, architecture as a criterion featured in 12 articles across application
logical and meaningful [10]. The best way to validate any models would categories like ‘alternate use selection’, ‘priority order for reno­
involve comparing the result with the known result. The 42 articles vation/restoration/rehabilitation’ and ‘building significance/value
reviewed for this research employs varies validation methods for their assessment’ (refer Table 9). Perng, Juan, and Hsu published the second
study. The most common method applied is sensitivity analysis. The article in the domain under the application category ‘financial resource
other methods employed are expert validation, comparing the results allocation’ in 2007. The article dealt with restoration budget allocation
with other MCDM method, comparing the results with the actuals and for historic buildings, where they employed the AHP method for
consistency ratio. Fourteen research articles have not provided any de­ determining the weights and Fuzzy TOPSIS for priority ranking [49].
tails with respect to validation; hence it is assumed that they have not In 2008 we saw one article each featuring under the category ‘cost
conducted any validation procedure. The frequency of methods used for estimation concept’ and ‘project option selection for a building’. The
validation across the categories is shown in Fig. 12. only article under the category ‘cost estimation concept’ was authored
by Wang, Chiou, and Juan, which was an attempt to develop a case-

6
R.R. Nadkarni and B. Puthuvayi Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101814

Fig. 5. Author’s keywords growth over the years.

Fig. 6. Three fields plot of Authors-Author’s keywords-Journals.

based reasoning approach based model for estimating the restoration category ‘priority order for renovation/restoration/rehabilitation’ is the
budget for historical buildings [47]. Sanna, At-zeni, and Spanu pub­ most globally cited article authored by Tupenaite, Zavadskas, Kaklaus­
lished the first article under the category ‘project option selection for a kas, Turskis and Seniut [17]. This article carries out a multiple criteria
building’ on project selection for cultural heritage sites based on a fuzzy assessment of cultural heritage renovation projects alternatives in
model. The article by Dutta and Husain [46] was the first article pub­ Bulgaria using SAW, TOPSIS, COPRAS and ARAS. The article by Wang,
lished under the category ‘building significance/value assessment’ in & Zeng [45] is the second most globally cited article and the first article
2009 and is among the most locally cited5 article. This article attempted published under the category ‘alternate use/adaptive reuse selection’
to grade heritage buildings in Calcutta using ROC and SAW method. which uses the ANP method for reuse selection of historic buildings in
The articles under the category ‘priority order for renovation/ Taiwan.
restoration/rehabilitation’ and ‘alternate use/adaptive reuse selection’ In 2014 we saw the emergence of articles under the categories
made its first appearance in 2010. Majority of the articles published in ‘evaluation of alternative solution for renovation’ and ‘ranking suit­
the domain belongs to these two categories. The first article in the under ability for tourism’. The 2014 article under the category ‘evaluation of
alternative solution for renovation’ was authored by Zagorskas et al.
[14] is the third most cited article. The article focuses on the application
5
Local citation measure the citation frequency of an article from selected of AHP and TOPSIS grey method for deciding thermal insulation alter­
relevant database by other articles within the selected relevant database (Cross- natives for historic brick buildings in Baltic Sea Region. The article
citation within database).

7
R.R. Nadkarni and B. Puthuvayi Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101814

Table 6 under category ‘ranking suitability for tourism’ authored by Ferretti,

Journal and Author’s keywords. Bottero, and Mondini [57], addressed the problem of ranking the suit­
Journal Author’s keywords ability of the heritage buildings for touristic purposes using the SWING
and MAVT method. In the year 2015, we saw the only article published
Journal of Cultural Multicriteria Decision Analysis [41,56,57]; Multi-criteria
Heritage decision making (MCDM) [46]; Multi-Attribute Value [56]; under the category ‘spatial decision support system’ by Oppio et al. [41].
Decision support model [44]; Analytic hierarchy process This article uses the ANP method for MultiCriteria-Spatial Decision
(AHP) [25,36]; Stochastic analytic hierarchy process [44]; Support Systems (MC-SDSS) to define enhancement strategies for castles
MIVES [36]; Swing method [57]; Fuzzy Weighted Influence in the Valle D’Aosta region, Italy.
Non-linear Gauge System (FWINGS) [35]; Fuzzy logic [40];
Fuzzy theory [25]; Fuzzy inference system [33]; Fuzzy sets
In 2016, the domain saw articles in the category of ‘assessment of
[35]; Fuzzy numbers ordering [48]; Fuzzy arithmetic [48]; functional service life’ and ‘urban conservation’. Ibáñez, Bernal, de
Dempster–Shafer theory [25]; Knowledge-based experience Diego, and Sánchez [40] have authored all the articles in the category of
curve [44]; Value function [57]; Value evaluation system ‘assessment of functional service life’ using the fuzzy model. Chen, Yoo
[25]; Multiple linear regression analysis [33]; GIS [41];
and Hwang [37] authored the only article under the category ‘urban
Hierarchy [36]; Index [36]; Value [36]; Weight [36]; Expert
system [40]; Industrial heritage [25]; Built heritage [33]; conservation’, which identified criteria for improvement of urban con­
Historical buildings [35]; Architectural heritage [40]; servation projects using Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy SAW method. The article
Cultural built heritage [41]; Built heritage [46]; under the category ‘project planning’ and ‘urban planning’ appeared in
Conservation [46,48]; Heritage management [56]; Urban the year 2017. The article by Radziszewska- Zielina, Śladowski, and
planning [46]; Archaeological sites [48]; Tangible and
intangible values [41]; Economic Value [57]; Service life
Sibielak [30] under the category of ‘project planning’ applied the Fuzzy
prediction [33]; Service life [40]; Preventive maintenance model for planning the reconstruction of a historical building. Özdemir
[33]; Change the function of a building [35]; Risk Işık and Demir [31] authored the first article under the ‘urban planning’
management [40]; Prediction [40]; Restoration priorities category and applied AHP and ELECTRE method for identification and
[44]; Project selection [48]; Ranking [48]; Territorial
ranking of criteria for sustainability of historical-cultural coast struc­
transformations [57]; Natural parks Public policy [56];
Theory [56]; Intangible assets [56]; Participation [56]; tures. The articles under the category of ‘contractor selection’ and
Roman amphitheatre [48]; Mountainous areas [41]; Asia ‘building condition assessment’ were published in 2019. Two articles
[46]; India [46]; were published by Morkunaite et al. [50,54] in the area of ‘contractor
Sustainability Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) [31,50,53]; selection’. One article addressed the selection of the contractor for the
Multicriteria analysis [51]; Decision-support system [4];
renovation of heritage building using AHP and PROMETHEE method,
AHP [50]; SWARA [50]; WASPAS–SVNS [50]; Fuzzy logic
[4]; Factor analysis [31]; Integrated evaluation [51]; while the other article used SWARA and WASPAS-SVNS method for
Cultural heritage [50]; Historical building [53]; Heritage selecting contractors for Sgraffito decoration of heritage buildings.
buildings [4]; Heritage preservation [29]; Architectural The top three authors in the domain of MCDM in Heritage buildings
Heritage [29]; Heritage planning [29]; Heritage
are Zavadskas E., Kutut V. and Turskis Z., are all affiliated to Vilnius
management [29]; Heritage tourism [29];
Historical–cultural structure [31]; Cultural heritage and Gediminas Technical University, Lithuania. Zadvaskas E. has authored
circular economy [51]; Built heritage sustainable reuse articles under categories ‘priority order for renovation/restoration/
[51]; Economic evaluation of projects [53]; Economic rehabilitation’ [15,16], ‘building significance/value assessment’ [17],
enhancement [53]; Financial sustainability [51]; ‘evaluation of alternative solution for renovation’ [14] and ‘contractor
Recreation–tourism [31]; Functionality [4]; Reuse [29];
selection’ [50,54]. He is also the co-author of the most cited article in the
Sgraffito decoration [50]; Contractor selection [50]; Ritiro
del Carmine [51]; Portugal [29]; Trabzon-Turkey [31]; domain [17]. Zavadskas E. is a prominent author in the MCDM field, and
he is credited to have co-authored eight MCDM methods [74]. Amongst
these methods, Zavadskas E. has applied ARAS [15,16] COPRAS [17],
WASPAS [50] and SWARA [50] in the domain of Heritage buildings.
Table 7
Articles categorised as per area of application.
Author Turskis Z. has co-authored ARAS [15,16], WASPAS [55],
SWARA and EDAS [34] methods with Zavadskas E. [74] and authored
S. Topic theme/category No. of References
most of his articles with him. The top three authors have collaborated
No. Papers
together for one article titled “A model based on Aras-G and AHP
1 Alternate use/adaptive reuse selection 9a [8,24,28, methods for multiple criteria prioritising of heritage value” [16]. The
35,45,
51–53,55]
articles by Kutut, Zavadskas and Lazauskas [15] titled “Assessment of
2 Priority order for renovation/restoration/ 7a [15–17, priority alternatives for preservation of historic buildings using model
rehabilitation 34,36,43, based on ARAS and AHP methods” is also among the most locally cited
44] article.
3 Building significance/value assessment 4 [25,26,29,
The most relevant journal in the domain is ‘Journal of cultural her­
46]
4 Evaluation of alternative solution for 3 [14,39, itage’ followed by ‘Sustainability’. ‘Journal of cultural heritage’ has
renovation 42] published 11 articles in the domain with a total of 214 citations. The
5 Assessment of functional service life 3 [32,33, earliest article to be published in the journal was by Dutta and Husain
40] [46] in 2008, and till 2018 they have published articles across seven
6 Contractor selection 2 [50,54]
7 Building condition assessment 2 [8,23]
application categories. The second most relevant journal ‘Sustainability’
8 Project option selection for a building 2 [27,48] has published six articles in the research domain across five application
9 Ranking suitability for tourism 2 [56,57] categories within a span of three years. The ‘Journal of civil engineering
10 Financial resource allocation 2 [38,49] and management’ has published only two articles [17,42] in the domain
11 Architecture evaluation 1 [58]
and has the second-highest total citations due to the presence of the
12 Cost estimation concept 1 [47]
13 Project Planning 1 [30] article by Tupenaite, Zavadskas, Kaklauskas, Turskis and Seniut [17].
14 Spatial decision support system 1 [41] The other journals which have published articles in the domain in the
15 Urban conservation 1a [69] year 2019 are ‘Measurement’, ‘Alexandria engineering journal’, ‘Sym­
16 Urban planning 1a [31] metry’ ‘Achieves of civil and mechanical engineering’ and ‘Sustainable
Total 42
cities and society’.
a
Includes one article each which limits the article to criteria identification The most prominent MCDM method featuring in author’s keywords
and weight determination stage. Ranking of alternatives not conducted. and keywords-plus is ‘AHP’, an MCDM method developed by Saaty T.

8
R.R. Nadkarni and B. Puthuvayi Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101814

Fig. 7. Number of articles under each category year-wise.

[75]. AHP method can calculate the criteria weights as well as rank the
Table 8
alternatives, and due to the hierarchical structure, pair-wise comparison
Application category, No. of articles and MCDM methods.
and ease of use it is the most widely used method in MCDM field [6]. In
S. Topic theme/category Number of MCDM Methods – count the domain of heritage buildings, the AHP is again the most widely used
No. Papers [source] (Ranking method +
method, and around 50% of the articles used the AHP method for
weight method)
criteria weight determination. Fuzzy and AHP method is the most
1 Alternate-use/adaptive- 9 AHP – 3 [8,28,53], ANP -1
commonly used method for ranking alternative in the domain. Majority
reuse selection [45],
ANP + FUZZY DELPHI -1 [24], of the articles in the domain are published in ‘alternate use/adaptive
FWINGS – 1 [35], REGIME + reuse selection’ application category and ‘ANP’ is the earliest MCDM
Expert – 1 [51], method employed for ranking reuse selection by Wang and Zeng in 2010
WASPAS + Expert – 1 [55], [45]. The next article in the category was published in 2017, which
FUZZY DEMATEL – 1a [52]
2 Priority order for 7 SAHP – 1 [44], ARAS + AHP –
employed the FWINGS method [35]. AHP was introduced in the cate­
renovation/restoration/ 1 [15], gory in 2018 [28] and was again used twice in 2019 [8,53]. Methods like
rehabilitation ARAS-G + AHP – 1 [16], EDAS WASPAS, REGIME and Fuzzy DEMATEL were introduced in the category
+ AHP – 1 [34] in the year 2019.
AHP – 1a [43], MIVES + AHP –
The second most prominent application category is ‘priority order for
1 [36]
SAW/TOPSIS/COPRAS/ARAS renovation/restoration/rehabilitation’. In 2010, the first article in the
+ AHP – 1 [17] category applied AHP method for weight determination and conducted a
3 Building significance/ 4 AHP – 1 [26], FUZZY -1 [29], comparative study of methods like SAW, TOPSIS, COPRAS and ARAS for
value assessment SAW + ROC- 1 [46] ranking renovation alternative [17]. The other article in the same year
DEMPSTER-SHAFER THEORY
tested ‘Stochastic AHP’ method for prioritising restoration needs [44]. In
+ FAHP – 1 [25]
4 Evaluation of alternative 3 TOPSIS GREY + AHP – 2 [14, 2013 AHP method was again used for weight determination, while
solution for renovation 42], ARAS-Grey method was applied for ranking restoration urgency [16].
PROMETHEE + SWING -1 [39] The combination of AHP and ARAS method was yet again applied in
5 Assessment of functional 3 FUZZY -3 [32,33,40]
2014 for prioritising heritage buildings for preservation [15] and
service life
6 Building condition 2 AHP – 1 [23], FUZZY -1 [4] another article used AHP for criteria identification and weight deter­
assessment mination for renovation priority [43]. Two articles in 2017 applied AHP
7 Contractor selection 2 PROMETHEE + AHP – 1 [54] method for weight determination while using MIVIES [36] and EDAS
WASPAS-SVNS + SWARA -1 [34] methods for ranking. Based on all the articles, it is found that AHP
[50]
is the most consistent method used for weight determination across most
8 Project option selection 2 FUZZY – 1 [48], MAVT +
for a building SWING – 1 [27] of the categories.
9 Ranking suitability for 2 MAVT + SWING – 2 [56,57] AHP has been used in combination with methods Fuzzy, SAW,
tourism TOPSIS, COPRAS, ARAS, CBR, EDAS, MIVES and PROMETHEE in the
10 Financial resource 2 AHP – 1 [38],
domain. AHP is also the most studied and criticised method in MCDM
allocation FTOPSIS + AHP – 1 [49]
11 Architecture evaluation 1 OTHERS -1 [58]
literature. The method is often criticised for the subjective approach
12 Cost estimation concept 1 CBR + AHP – 1 [47] used for deriving weights from the stakeholders’ preferences [76]. The
13 Project Planning 1 FUZZY -1 [30] fuzzy AHP has also been employed in many MCDM fields, including the
14 Spatial decision support 1 ANP – 1 [41] heritage buildings domain [25,37]. Still, most scholars, including Saaty,
system
did not sustain the fuzzy variation as the very nature of AHP method was
15 Urban conservation 1 FAHP– 1a [37]
16 Urban Planning 1 ELECTRE + AHP – 1a [31] fuzzy by itself [76]. Stochastic AHP procedure was applied in the heri­
tage building domain in 2010 [44]. The Stochastic AHP equation for
Note: where the same method is utilised for both ranking and weight determi­
weight calculation helps in dealing with the uncertainty and reduces the
nation, the method is mentioned only once, and the “+” sign is avoided.
a subjectivity of the process [77].
Article which limits to criteria identification and weight determination
stage. Ranking of alternatives not conducted. The articles in the domain have used various methods for validation

9
R.R. Nadkarni and B. Puthuvayi Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101814

Fig. 8. Ranking methods used across the application categories.

Fig. 9. Growth of the ranking methods over the years.

Fig. 10. Weight determination methods used across the application categories.

10
R.R. Nadkarni and B. Puthuvayi Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101814

Fig. 11. Growth of the weight determination methods over the years.

Fig. 12. Validation methods used across the application categories.

which includes sensitivity analysis, expert validation, comparing the criteria like economic/cost aspects, energy savings, construction as­
results with other MCDM method, comparing the results with the actuals pects, buildings historic aesthetic features, loss of space and heat
and consistency ratio. The 14 research articles which have not provided transfer coefficient. All the articles under the category “Assessment of
any details with respect to validation belong to the following methods; functional service life” have common authors, and they have uniformly
Fuzzy [4,30,48], Fuzzy DEMATEL [52], FWINGS [35], AHP [8,26,53], used 17 criteria for the assessment in all the articles. Criteria like social,
EDAS + AHP [34], TOPSIS Grey + AHP [14], ARAS + AHP [15,16] and economic, cultural value, architecture/aesthetic, historical, functional/
ANP [45]. While the other articles which have employed the same continuity, environmental and technology are common across the first
methods have used the following methods for validation: Fuzzy – three categories.
sensitivity analysis [29], expert validation [32,33,40]; AHP – sensitivity
analysis [38], comparing the results with other MCDM method [23], 6. Conclusion
comparing the results with the actuals [28] and consistency ratio [43];
TOPSIS Grey + AHP – expert validation [42]; ARAS + AHP – comparison The comprehensive review of the research articles on the application
with other methods [17]. The methods like Fuzzy DEMATEL, FWINGS of MCDM methods in the heritage buildings provides the future
and EDAS have no precedent in the domain. decision-makers with a systematic summarised database, which they
The most common criteria under the category ‘alternate-use/adap­ could readily refer to identify the research trends, understand the
tive-reuse selection’ are social value, economic value, environmental existing application areas, the MCDM methods and the criteria
impact, cultural value and architectural value; while cultural value, employed under each application area. In the last five years, we have
economic criteria, aesthetic/architectural significance, social value and seen an increasing trend in the research publications in the domian.
state of the building are most common criteria under the ‘priority order Majority of the articles published in the domain belong to category
for renovation/restoration/rehabilitation’ category. The ‘building value ‘alternate use/adaptive reuse selection’ followed by ‘priority order for
assessment’ category features common criteria like historical value, renovation/restoration/rehabilitation’ and ‘building significance/value
artistic/aesthetic/architectural value and social values. The category assessment’. The category ‘alternate-use/adaptive-reuse selection’ is the
‘evaluation of alternative solution for renovation’ gives importance to most rapidly evolving area of application with consistent growth of

11
R.R. Nadkarni and B. Puthuvayi Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101814

Table 9 witnessed the introduction and rise of topics focusing on Industrial

Criteria used for MCDM models across categories. heritage, and they are published under the application categories like
S. Topic Theme No. of Criteria Summary and [Source] ‘alternate-use/adaptive-reuse selection’ [28,52], ‘project option selec­
No. Papers tion for a building’ [27] and ‘building significance/value assessment’
1 Alternate-use/ 9 Social value [8,24,35,45,51–53,55], [25].
adaptive-reuse Economic value [8,24,35,45,51–53, The domain has seen significant growth of authors keywords like
selection 55], Environmental impact [8,24,35, ‘Cultural heritage’, ‘Analytical Hierarchy Process’, and ‘Heritage build­
45,52,55], Cultural value [35,45,52, ings’. The AHP method for ranking alternatives has witnessed a sudden
53,55], Architectural value [8,24,28,
45,55], Heritage value [8,52,55],
rise in its application in the last two years. In the case of weight deter­
Historical [24,28], mination, the AHP method has been the most dominant and consistent
Functional/Continuity aspect [28,45], methods to be applied in the domain. The second most common method
Construction feasibility [28,35,55], used in the domain is Fuzzy. WASPAS, WASPAS- SVNS ranking method
Technological [28,52] Urban
and SWARA, Fuzzy DEMATEL method for weight calculation were
development [51,52]
2 Priority order for 7 Cultural value [16,34,36,43], [15], introduced to the domain recently in the last two years. In the current
renovation/ Economic value [15,17,34,43], ongoing year 2020, the domain continues to witness publications in the
restoration/ Historical value [16,34,43,44], top five application categories mentioned in this review [78–82] and
rehabilitation Aesthetic/Architectural significance introduction of new MCDM method like MACBETH and ‘Evaluation of
[16,43,44], Social value [34,36,43],
State of the building [15,43,44],
Mixed data’ (EVAMIX) [83].
Remains of periods [15,16], This review has limited itself to WoS academic database maintained
Technology [93] [16], Authenticity by Clarivate Analytics. The authors have tried their best to include all
[15,43], Archaeological [34,43], the relevant keywords to get the accurate search result, but there is a
Educational [43,44], Management
minor possibility of some journal article being left out due to some
[43,44], Technical factors [17,36],
Building functionality/use [15,16] unique keywords. Many a time, the common keywords used for search
Integrity [43], Construction period string might also include an article from other domain not related to the
[16], Risk control [17], actual subject of inquiry. So bibliometric analysis which considers the
Environmental significance [43], entire search string generated database could produce a misleading
Accessibility & adjustment for
result, hence manually screening of relevant articles is an essential step.
disabled [15], Parking places in
building surroundings [15], Distance Some studies, including the paper by Morkūnaitė, Kalibatas and
from the centre of the old town zone Kalibatienė [11] considers the entire search string generated database
[15], Use [43], for bibliometric analysis as it is easier to generate network analysis using
3 Building significance/ 4 Historical value [25,26,29,46],
the extensive database. Since this review includes only screened relevant
value assessment Artistic/Aesthetic value/Architectural
[25,26,29,46], Social value [25,26,29, articles, the network analysis operations produce fragmented network
46], Cultural value [29,46], diagram, as there are very limited local co-citation and collaboration
Authenticity/integrity [25,29,46], network in the database and hence network analysis is not presented in
Economic value [25,29], this review. This study does not include articles on micro-issue like
Technological value [25,29], Physical
damp proofing and wears & tear of material. The articles on natural
condition/Signs of deterioration [29,
46], Functional/usability value [29, heritage, environmental heritage, urban tourism papers which do not
46], address the domain of heritage building were also excluded from this
Historic events [25], Rarity [29], study.
visual value [29], environmental
Based on the comprehensive literature review conducted in this
value [29], political value [29],
accessibility [46], year of construction
study, the following future research opportunities were identified:
[26], Archival [29], Group value [25],
Community Value [29] • Fig. 3 indicates that the majority of the articles are originating from
4 Evaluation of 4 Economic/cost aspects [14,39,69], the European region, followed by Asia. A few articles are originating
alternative solution for Energy savings [39,42], Construction
from South America, while only a single article was originating from
renovation aspects [14,69], building historic
aesthetic features [39,42], Loss of North America and the Middle East region. Currently, the domain
space [14,42], Heat transfer has no representation from Australian and Southern African regions.
coefficient [14,42] Social aspects [69] Hence there is an opportunity for developing contextual MCDM
5 Assessment of 3 Geological location, roof design,
based applications for heritage buildings for these regions and the
functional service life environmental conditions,
constructive system, preservation,
regions with limited representation.
load state modification, live loads, • Around 50% of the articles in the domain relies on AHP method for
ventilation, facilities, fire, inner weight determination. Considering the criticism on the AHP method,
environment, rainfall, temperature, it would be necessary for future researchers to explore other new
population growth, heritage value,
methods and variations which are being developed and used in the
furniture value, occupancy [32,33,
40], MCDM field.
6 Contractor selection 2 Financial strength Contractors’ value, • Most of the articles in the domain are published in the category of
Subcontractors, Management ‘alternate use/adaptive reuse selection’ and ‘priority order for
capability, Risk, Reputation [50,54], renovation/restoration/rehabilitation’. Due to the changing life­
Personnel management [54]
style, climate, use and regulations, the heritage buildings have to
adapt and undergo renovation. In the review, we have come across
publications in the last three years. The other application categories only three publication in the application categories like ‘evaluation
which were introduced in the domain during the last three years are of alternative solution for renovation’ which deals with evaluating
‘assessment of functional service life’ [32,33,40], ‘urban planning’ [31], renovation solution, which is a promising area for further research.
‘project planning’ [30], ‘building condition assessment’ [8,23] and • This study limits itself to reviewing articles on the application of
‘contractor selection’ [50,54]. In the recent years, the domain has MCDM methods in heritage buildings. At the same time, the search
strings result obtained during this study from the WoS database

12
R.R. Nadkarni and B. Puthuvayi Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101814

featured many articles on the application of MCDM methods in [18] N. Lazar, K. Chithra, A comprehensive literature review on development of
Building Sustainability Assessment Systems, J. Build. Eng. 32 (2020) 101450,
‘Cultural landscape’ which is could possible future area for review.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101450.
[19] N. Lazar, K. Chithra, Comprehensive bibliometric mapping of publication trends in
the development of Building Sustainability Assessment Systems, Environ. Dev.
Declaration of competing interest Sustain. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00796-w.
[20] M. Aria, C. Cuccurullo, Bibliometrix : an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping
analysis, J. Informetr. 11 (2017) 959–975, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial joi.2017.08.007.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence [21] V. Belton, T.J. Stewart, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, Springer US, Boston,
the work reported in this paper. MA, 2002, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4.
[22] S. Greco, M. Ehrgott, J.R. Figueira (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis,
Second, Springer New York, New York, NY, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
Acknowledgement 4939-3094-4.
[23] G. Uva, V. Sangiorgio, S. Ruggieri, F. Fatiguso, Structural vulnerability assessment
of masonry churches supported by user-reported data and modern Internet of
We would like to thank Mr. Vishnu Rajan and Mr. M. Sreenivasan for Things (IoT), Meas. J. Int. Meas. Confed. 131 (2019) 183–192, https://doi.org/
introducing us to bibliometric analysis and R-tool Bibliometrix. The 10.1016/j.measurement.2018.08.014.
authors also would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers [24] C.S. Chen, Y.H. Chiu, L. Tsai, Evaluating the adaptive reuse of historic buildings
through multicriteria decision-making, Habitat Int. 81 (2018) 12–23, https://doi.
for their constructive comments and inputs. org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2018.09.003.
[25] F. Liu, Q. Zhao, Y. Yang, An approach to assess the value of industrial heritage
based on Dempster–Shafer theory, J. Cult. Herit. 32 (2018) 210–220, https://doi.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
org/10.1016/j.culher.2018.01.011.
[26] H. Ma, S. Li, C.S. Chan, Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)-based assessment of the
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. value of non-world heritage tulou: a case study of pinghe county, fujian province,
org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101814. tour, Manag. Perspect. 26 (2018) 67–77, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tmp.2018.01.001.
[27] M. Berta, M. Bottero, V. Ferretti, A mixed methods approach for the integration of
References urban design and economic evaluation: industrial heritage and urban regeneration
in China, Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 45 (2018) 208–232, https://doi.
org/10.1177/0265813516669139.
[1] Unesco World Heritage Centre, UNESCO world heritage centre - world heritage, n.
[28] J. Claver, A. García-Domínguez, M.A. Sebastián, Decision-making methodologies
d. https://whc.unesco.org/en/about/. (Accessed 15 March 2020).
for reuse of industrial assets, Complexity (2018) 2018, https://doi.org/10.1155/
[2] P.C. Guzmán, A.R.P. Roders, B.J.F. Colenbrander, Measuring links between cultural
2018/4070496.
heritage management and sustainable urban development: an overview of global
[29] S. Gholitabar, H. Alipour, C.M.M. da Costa, An empirical investigation of
monitoring tools, Cities 60 (2017) 192–201, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
architectural heritage management implications for tourism: the case of Portugal,
cities.2016.09.005.
Sustainability 10 (2018), https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010093.
[3] United Nations General Assembly, Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for
[30] E. Radziszewska-Zielina, G. Śladowski, M. Sibielak, Planning the reconstruction of
sustainable development - A/RES/70/1. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.
a historical building by using a fuzzy stochastic network, Autom. Constr. 84 (2017)
org/content/documents/21252030 Agenda for Sustainable Development web.pdf,
242–257, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.08.003.
2015. (Accessed 12 November 2019).
[31] B. Özdemir Işık, S. Demir, Integrated multi-criteria decision-making methods for
[4] A.J. Prieto, J.M. Macías-Bernal, A. Silva, P. Ortiz, Fuzzy decision-support system
the sustainability of historical–cultural structures on the trabzon coastline,
for safeguarding tangible and intangible cultural heritage, Sustain 11 (2019) 1–12,
Sustainability 9 (2017) 2114, https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112114.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143953.
[32] A.J. Prieto, J.M. Macías-Bernal, M.J. Chávez, F.J. Alejandre, Fuzzy modeling of the
[5] A. Guitouni, J.M. Martel, Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate
functional service life of architectural heritage buildings, J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
MCDA method, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 109 (1998) 501–521, https://doi.org/10.1016/
31 (2017) 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001021.
S0377-2217(98)00073-3.
[33] A.J. Prieto, A. Silva, J. de Brito, J.M. Macías-Bernal, F.J. Alejandre, Multiple linear
[6] A. Mardani, A. Jusoh, K.M.D. Nor, Z. Khalifah, N. Zakwan, A. Valipour, Multiple
regression and fuzzy logic models applied to the functional service life prediction
criteria decision-making techniques and their applications - a review of the
of cultural heritage, J. Cult. Herit. 27 (2017) 20–35, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
literature from 2000 to 2014, Econ. Res. Istraz. 28 (2015) 516–571, https://doi.
culher.2017.03.004.
org/10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139.
[34] Z. Turskis, Z. Morkunaite, V. Kutut, A hybrid multiple criteria evaluation method of
[7] E. Triantaphyllou, Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study,
ranking of cultural heritage structures for renovation projects, Int. J. Strateg. Prop.
Springer US, Boston, MA, 2000, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3157-6.
Manag. 21 (2017) 318–329, https://doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2017.1325782.
[8] H.A.A.F. Haroun, A.F. Bakr, A.E.S. Hasan, Multi-criteria decision making for
[35] E. Radziszewska-Zielina, G. Śladowski, Supporting the selection of a variant of the
adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: aziza Fahmy Palace, Alexandria, Egypt,
adaptation of a historical building with the use of fuzzy modelling and structural
Alexandria Eng. J. 58 (2019) 467–478, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
analysis, J. Cult. Herit. 26 (2017) 53–63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aej.2019.04.003.
culher.2017.02.008.
[9] A. Moffett, S. Sarkar, Incorporating multiple criteria into the design of conservation
[36] I. Piñero, J.T. San-José, P. Rodríguez, M.M. Losáñez, Multi-criteria decision-
area networks: a minireview with recommendations, Divers. Distrib. 12 (2006)
making for grading the rehabilitation of heritage sites. Application in the historic
125–137, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1366-9516.2005.00202.x.
center of La Habana, J. Cult. Herit. 26 (2017) 144–152, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[10] T.L. Saaty, D. Ergu, When is a decision-making method trustworthy? Criteria for
culher.2017.01.012.
evaluating multi-criteria decision-making methods, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak.
[37] Y. Chen, S. Yoo, J. Hwang, Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making assessment of
14 (2015) 1171–1187, https://doi.org/10.1142/S021962201550025X.
urban conservation in historic districts: case study of wenming historic block in
[11] Ž. Morkūnaitė, D. Kalibatas, D. Kalibatienė, A bibliometric data analysis of multi-
kunming city, China, J. Urban Plan. Dev. 143 (2017), 05016008, https://doi.org/
criteria decision making methods in heritage buildings, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 25
10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000334.
(2019) 76–99, https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2019.8315.
[38] I.A. Naziris, N.D. Lagaros, K. Papaioannou, Optimized fire protection of cultural
[12] E.K. Zavadskas, J. Antuchevičienė, O. Kapliński, Multi-criteria decision making in
heritage structures based on the analytic hierarchy process, J. Build. Eng. 8 (2016)
civil engineering: Part I – a state-of-the-art survey, Eng. Struct. Technol. 7 (2016)
292–304, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.08.007.
103–113, https://doi.org/10.3846/2029882x.2015.1143204.
[39] M. Seddiki, K. Anouche, A. Bennadji, P. Boateng, A multi-criteria group decision-
[13] E.K. Zavadskas, J. Antuchevičienė, O. Kaplinski, Multi-criteria decision making in
making method for the thermal renovation of masonry buildings: the case of
civil engineering. Part II – applications, Eng. Struct. Technol. 7 (2016) 151–167,
Algeria, Energy Build. 129 (2016) 471–483, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/10.3846/2029882x.2016.1139664.
enbuild.2016.08.023.
[14] J. Zagorskas, E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, M. Burinskiene, A. Blumberga,
[40] A.J. Prieto Ibáñez, J.M. Macías Bernal, M.J. Chávez de Diego, F.J. Alejandre
D. Blumberga, Thermal insulation alternatives of historic brick buildings in Baltic
Sánchez, Expert system for predicting buildings service life under ISO 31000
Sea Region, Energy Build. 78 (2014) 35–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
standard. Application in architectural heritage, J. Cult. Herit. 18 (2016) 209–218,
enbuild.2014.04.010.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2015.10.006.
[15] V. Kutut, E.K. Zavadskas, M. Lazauskas, Assessment of priority alternatives for
[41] A. Oppio, M. Bottero, V. Ferretti, U. Fratesi, D. Ponzini, V. Pracchi, Giving space to
preservation of historic buildings using model based on ARAS and AHP methods,
multicriteria analysis for complex cultural heritage systems: the case of the castles
Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 14 (2014) 287–294, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
in Valle D’Aosta Region, Italy, J. Cult. Herit. 16 (2015) 779–789, https://doi.org/
acme.2013.10.007.
10.1016/j.culher.2015.03.003.
[16] Z. Turskis, E.K. Zavadskas, V. Kutut, A model based on Aras-G and AHP methods
[42] E. Šiožinytė, J. Antuchevičienė, V. Kutut, Upgrading the old vernacular building to
for multiple criteria prioritizing of heritage value, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak.
contemporary norms: multiple criteria approach, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 20 (2014)
12 (2013) 45–73, https://doi.org/10.1142/S021962201350003X.
291–298, https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2014.904814.
[17] L. Tupenaite, E.K. Zavadskas, A. Kaklauskas, Z. Turskis, M. Seniut, Multiple criteria
[43] B. Vodopivec, R. Žarnić, J. Tamošaitienė, M. Lazauskas, J. Šelih, Renovation
assessment of alternatives for built and human environment renovation, J. Civ.
priority ranking by multi-criteria assessment of architectural heritage: the case of
Eng. Manag. 16 (2010) 257–266, https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2010.30.

13
R.R. Nadkarni and B. Puthuvayi Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101814

castles, Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 18 (2014) 88–100, https://doi.org/10.3846/ [63] J. Rosłon, M. Seroka, Multicriteria selection of water insulation technology for
1648715X.2014.889771. foundation walls in an existing building, Arch. Civ. Eng. 62 (2016) 167–176,
[44] C.J. Kim, W.S. Yoo, U.K. Lee, K.J. Song, K.I. Kang, H. Cho, An experience curve- https://doi.org/10.1515/ace-2015-0090.
based decision support model for prioritizing restoration needs of cultural heritage, [64] M. Danielová, H. Kumke, S. Peters, 3D reconstruction and uncertainty modelling
J. Cult. Herit. 11 (2010) 430–437, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2010.03.004. using fuzzy logic of archaeological structures: applied to the temple of Diana in
[45] H.J. Wang, Z.T. Zeng, A multi-objective decision-making process for reuse selection Nemi, Italy, Cartographica. 51 (2016) 137–146, https://doi.org/10.3138/
of historic buildings, Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (2010) 1241–1249, https://doi.org/ cart.51.3.3160.
10.1016/j.eswa.2009.06.034. [65] P.F. Rocha, R.C. Rodrigues, Maintenance as a guarantee for roofing performance in
[46] M. Dutta, Z. Husain, An application of Multicriteria Decision Making to built buildings with heritage value, Buildings 6 (2016), https://doi.org/10.3390/
heritage. The case of Calcutta, J. Cult. Herit. 10 (2009) 237–243, https://doi.org/ buildings6020015.
10.1016/j.culher.2008.09.007. [66] O.E. Hapciuc, G. Romanescu, I. Minea, M. Iosub, A. Enea, I. Sandu, Flood
[47] H.-J. Wang, C.-W. Chiou, Y.-K. Juan, Decision support model based on case-based susceptibility analysis of the cultural heritage in the Sucevita catchment
reasoning approach for estimating the restoration budget of historical buildings, (Romania), Int. J. Conserv. Sci. 7 (2016) 501–510.
Expert Syst. Appl. 35 (2008) 1601–1610, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [67] Y.C. Lee, Y.C. Shiau, W.L. Hsu, Applying interpretive structure modeling on the
eswa.2007.08.095. interactive correlations on factor analysis in natural and cultural scenic area at
[48] U. Sanna, C. Atzeni, N. Spanu, A fuzzy number ranking in project selection for Taiwan, Artif. Life Robot. 21 (2016) 37–42, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10015-015-
cultural heritage sites, J. Cult. Herit. 9 (2008) 311–316, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 0245-6.
culher.2007.12.004. [68] Z.M.M. Shehada, Y. Bin Ahmad, N.M. Yaacob, N.I.M. Keumala, Developing
[49] Y.-H. Perng, Y.-K. Juan, H.-S. Hsu, Genetic algorithm-based decision support for methodology for adaptive re-use: case study of heritage buildings in Palestine,
the restoration budget allocation of historical buildings, Build. Environ. 42 (2007) Archnet-IJAR 9 (2015) 216–229, https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v9i2.486.
770–778, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.09.009. [69] N. Jajac, K. Rogulj, J. Radnić, Selection of the method for rehabilitation of historic
[50] Z. Morkunaite, R. Bausys, E.K. Zavadskas, Contractor selection for Sgraffito bridges—a decision support concept for the planning of rehabilitation projects, Int.
decoration of cultural heritage buildings using the WASPAS-SVNS method, Sustain J. Archit. Herit. 11 (2017) 261–277, https://doi.org/10.1080/
(2019) 1–25. 15583058.2016.1207113.
[51] F. Torrieri, M. Fumo, M. Sarnataro, G. Ausiello, An integrated decision support [70] T.L. Saaty, Decision making — the analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/
system for the sustainable reuse of the former monastery of “ritiro del carmine” in ANP), J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 13 (2004) 1–35, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-
campania region, Sustain 11 (2019), https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195244. 006-0151-5.
[52] I. Vardopoulos, Critical sustainable development factors in the adaptive reuse of [71] T.L. Saaty, Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 2008, p. 1.
urban industrial buildings. A fuzzy DEMATEL approach, Sustain. Cities Soc. 50 [72] C.A. Bana E Costa, J.M. De Corte, J.C. Vansnick, Macbeth, Int. J. Inf. Technol.
(2019) 101684, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101684. Decis. Mak. 11 (2012) 359–387, https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622012400068.
[53] A. Nesticò, P. Somma, Comparative analysis of multi-criteria methods for the [73] E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, S. Kildienė, State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/
enhancement of historical buildings, Sustain 11 (2019), https://doi.org/10.3390/ MADM methods, Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 20 (2014) 165–179, https://doi.org/
su11174526. 10.3846/20294913.2014.892037.
[54] Z. Morkunaite, V. Podvezko, E.K. Zavadskas, R. Bausys, Contractor selection for [74] A. Alinezhad, J. Khalili, New Methods and Applications in Multiple Attribute
renovation of cultural heritage buildings by PROMETHEE method, Arch. Civ. Decision Making (MADM), Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019, https://
Mech. Eng. 19 (2019) 1056–1071, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2019.05.008. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15009-9.
[55] M. Pavlovskis, D. Migilinskas, J. Antucheviciene, V. Kutut, Ranking of heritage [75] T.L. Saaty, How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process, Eur. J. Oper.
building conversion alternatives by applying BIM and MCDM: a case of Sapieha Res. 48 (1990) 9–26, https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I.
Palace in Vilnius, Symmetry (Basel) 11 (2019), https://doi.org/10.3390/ [76] N. Munier, E. Hontoria, F. Jiménez-Saez, Strategic Approach in Multi-Criteria
sym11080973. Decision Making, 2019.
[56] V. Ferretti, E. Comino, An integrated framework to assess complex cultural and [77] P. Benítez, E. Rocha, H. Varum, F. Rodrigues, A dynamic multi-criteria decision-
natural heritage systems with Multi-Attribute Value Theory, J. Cult. Herit. 16 making model for the maintenance planning of reinforced concrete structures,
(2015) 688–697, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2015.01.007. J. Build. Eng. 27 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100971.
[57] V. Ferretti, M. Bottero, G. Mondini, Decision making and cultural heritage: an [78] A. Kioussi, K. Kirytopoulos, M. Karoglou, A. Bakolas, A risk-based approach for
application of the Multi-Attribute Value Theory for the reuse of historical assessing social sustainability performance of cultural heritage construction works,
buildings, J. Cult. Herit. 15 (2014) 644–655, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Int. J. Archit. Herit. (2020) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1080/
culher.2013.12.007. 15583058.2020.1714097, 00.
[58] B. Ipekoǧlu, An architectural evaluation method for conservation of traditional [79] F. Fabiana, D.G. Vincenzo, P. De Paola, T. Federica, Valuation of the vocationality
dwellings, Build. Environ. 41 (2006) 386–394, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. of cultural heritage: the Vesuvian villas, Sustain 12 (2020) 1–20, https://doi.org/
buildenv.2005.02.009. 10.3390/su12030943.
[59] S. Božić, M. Vujičić, J. Kennell, S. Besermenji, M. Solarević, Sun, sea and shrines: [80] C. D’Alpaos, M.R. Valluzzi, Protection of cultural heritage buildings and artistic
application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to assess the attractiveness of six assets from seismic hazard: a hierarchical approach, Sustain 12 (2020) 1–14,
cultural heritage sites in Phuket: Thailand, Geogr. Pannonica. 22 (2018) 121–138, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041608.
https://doi.org/10.5937/22-16983. [81] A.J. Prieto, K. Verichev, M. Carpio, Heritage, resilience and climate change: a fuzzy
[60] F. Giuliani, A. De Falco, S. Landi, M. Giorgio Bevilacqua, L. Santini, S. Pecori, logic application in timber-framed masonry buildings in Valparaíso, Chile, Build,
Reusing grain silos from the 1930s in Italy. A multi-criteria decision analysis for the Environ 174 (2020) 106657, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106657.
case of Arezzo, J. Cult. Herit. 29 (2018) 145–159, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [82] A.J. Prieto, I. Turbay, R. Ortiz, M.J. Chávez, J.M. Macías-Bernal, P. Ortiz, A fuzzy
culher.2017.07.009. logic approach to preventive conservation of cultural heritage churches in
[61] G. Śladowski, R. Paruch, Expert cause and effect analysis of the failure of historical Popayán, Colombia, Int. J. Archit. Herit. (2020) 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1080/
structures taking into account factors that are difficult to measure, Arch. Civ. Eng. 15583058.2020.1737892, 00.
63 (2017) 165–186, https://doi.org/10.1515/ace-2017-0023. [83] L. Della Spina, Adaptive sustainable reuse for cultural heritage: a multiple criteria
[62] S. Malian, J. A.Mahdinejad, S. Aslani, Detection and documentation of the red decision aiding approach supporting urban development processes, Sustain 12
snake by means of remote sensing techniques, Ad Alta –, J. Interdiscip. Res. 7 (2) (2020) 1–20, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041363.
(2017) 125–138.

14