IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i4p1608-d323344.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Protection of Cultural Heritage Buildings and Artistic Assets from Seismic Hazard: A Hierarchical Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Chiara D’Alpaos

    (Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Padova, 35131 Padova PD, Italy)

  • Maria Rosa Valluzzi

    (Department of Cultural Heritage, University of Padova, 35139 Padova PD, Italy)

Abstract

The occurrence of natural disasters such as earthquakes represent a worldwide challenge in the conservation of cultural heritage (CH), which suffer from damage due to high vulnerability conditions. Therefore, the protection of CH from seismic hazard is of paramount importance. Damage and vulnerability assessment of CH and artistic assets play a key role in the identification of conservation strategies. Effective strategies require the stabilization of severely damaged buildings and the preventive improvement of constructions structural response to seismic actions. Although the operation of emergency inspections is meant to classify buildings on the basis of buildings residual seismic capacity, investment decisions in restoration and conservation strategies of such vulnerable structures must take into consideration tangible and intangible values of both building structures and artistic goods as well as must combine objectives of verifying structural safety standards and preserving cultural heritage significance. Damage and vulnerability assessment depend on different criteria, which, on the one hand, are related to buildings structural characteristics, materials, and geometrical properties. On the other hand, to the peculiarities and uniqueness of artworks and artistic goods present on structural elements. In this paper, an AHP (absolute) model is proposed to rank multi-criteria prioritization of protection and restoration interventions on a set of 15 churches, which were damaged by earthquakes, occurring in Italy in the last decades. In detail, in order to structure the decision problem, identify key factors, and define the hierarchy, we conducted an extensive literature review and interviewed a pool of experts. Focus groups were organized to develop the set of criteria and sub-criteria and validate the hierarchy by dynamic discussion.

Suggested Citation

  • Chiara D’Alpaos & Maria Rosa Valluzzi, 2020. "Protection of Cultural Heritage Buildings and Artistic Assets from Seismic Hazard: A Hierarchical Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-14, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:4:p:1608-:d:323344
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/4/1608/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/4/1608/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marta Bottero & Chiara D’Alpaos & Alessandra Oppio, 2019. "Ranking of Adaptive Reuse Strategies for Abandoned Industrial Heritage in Vulnerable Contexts: A Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, February.
    2. Saaty, Thomas L., 2003. "Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 85-91, February.
    3. Saaty, Thomas L. & Vargas, Luis G. & Dellmann, Klaus, 2003. "The allocation of intangible resources: the analytic hierarchy process and linear programming," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 169-184, September.
    4. Vargas, Luis G., 1990. "An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 2-8, September.
    5. Saaty, Thomas L., 2006. "Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 168(2), pages 557-570, January.
    6. Grošelj, Petra & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2012. "Acceptable consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 417-420.
    7. Dias, Luis C. & Antunes, Carlos Henggeler & Dantas, Guilherme & de Castro, Nivalde & Zamboni, Lucca, 2018. "A multi-criteria approach to sort and rank policies based on Delphi qualitative assessments and ELECTRE TRI: The case of smart grids in Brazil," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 100-111.
    8. Marta Bottero & Chiara D’Alpaos & Alessia Marello, 2020. "An Application of the A’WOT Analysis for the Management of Cultural Heritage Assets: The Case of the Historical Farmhouses in the Aglié Castle (Turin)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, February.
    9. Xu, Z., 2000. "On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgement matrix in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 126(3), pages 683-687, November.
    10. Saaty, Thomas L., 1986. "Absolute and relative measurement with the AHP. The most livable cities in the United States," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 327-331.
    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. Pierfrancesco Fiore & Enrico Sicignano & Giuseppe Donnarumma, 2020. "An AHP-Based Methodology for the Evaluation and Choice of Integrated Interventions on Historic Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-19, July.
    2. Mimica R. Milošević & Dušan M. Milošević & Ana D. Stanojević & Dragan M. Stević & Dušan J. Simjanović, 2021. "Fuzzy and Interval AHP Approaches in Sustainable Management for the Architectural Heritage in Smart Cities," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-29, February.
    3. Chiara D’Alpaos & Andrea D’Alpaos, 2021. "The Valuation of Ecosystem Services in the Venice Lagoon: A Multicriteria Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-15, August.

    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. Vizzarri, Corrado & Sangiorgio, Valentino & Fatiguso, Fabio & Calderazzi, Antonella, 2021. "A holistic approach for the adaptive reuse project selection: The case of the former Enel power station in Bari," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    2. Rubina Canesi & Chiara D’Alpaos, 2024. "The Evaluation of Sustainable Development Projects in Marginal Areas: An A’WOT Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-15, April.
    3. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.
    4. Xu, Zeshui & Chen, Jian, 2008. "Some models for deriving the priority weights from interval fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 266-280, January.
    5. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    6. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    7. Virgilio López-Morales & Joel Suárez-Cansino, 2017. "Reliable Intervals Method in Decision-Based Support Models for Group Decision-Making," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(01), pages 183-204, January.
    8. Alessio Ishizaka & Sajid Siraj, 2020. "Interactive consistency correction in the analytic hierarchy process to preserve ranks," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(2), pages 443-464, December.
    9. Kirytopoulos, Konstantinos & Voulgaridou, Dimitra & Platis, Agapios & Leopoulos, Vrassidas, 2011. "An effective Markov based approach for calculating the Limit Matrix in the analytic network process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(1), pages 85-90, October.
    10. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(10), pages 1801-1812, October.
    11. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    12. Gomez-Limon, J.A. & Atance, I., 2004. "Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(8-9), pages 1045-1071, December.
    13. Saaty, Thomas L. & Shang, Jennifer S., 2011. "An innovative orders-of-magnitude approach to AHP-based mutli-criteria decision making: Prioritizing divergent intangible humane acts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(3), pages 703-715, November.
    14. José A. Gómez-Limón & Ignacio Atance, 2004. "Identification of Public Objectives Related to Agricultural Sector Support," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2004/57, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    15. Garbuzova-Schlifter, Maria & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "AHP-based risk analysis of energy performance contracting projects in Russia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 559-581.
    16. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    17. 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.
    18. L. N. Pradeep Kumar Rallabandi & Ravindranath Vandrangi & Subba Rao Rachakonda, 2016. "Improved Consistency Ratio for Pairwise Comparison Matrix in Analytic Hierarchy Processes," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 33(03), pages 1-19, June.
    19. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 2008. "A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(3), pages 1422-1428, June.
    20. Marta Bottero & Chiara D’Alpaos & Alessia Marello, 2020. "An Application of the A’WOT Analysis for the Management of Cultural Heritage Assets: The Case of the Historical Farmhouses in the Aglié Castle (Turin)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, February.

    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:4:p:1608-:d:323344. 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.