Journal of Cultural Heritage 52 (2021) 134–145

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cultural Heritage

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/culher

Original article

Adaptability evaluation of historic buildings as an approach to propose

adaptive reuse strategies based on complex adaptive system theory
Guoqiang Wang a,b,∗, Songfu Liu a,b
a
School of Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology, China
b
Key Laboratory of Cold Region Urban and Rural Human Settlement Environment Science and Technology, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology,
China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the urban complex system, historic buildings can no longer focus on the original use, proposing a new
Received 23 December 2020 reuse approach is inevitable to adapt the needs of urban development, which involves the tangible and
Accepted 27 September 2021
intangible factors like spatial environment, economic policy and numerous interest groups. The paper
Available online 16 October 2021
aims to establish an evaluation method and propose the adaptive reuse strategies for historic buildings
Keywords: based on complex adaptive system (CAS) theory. Firstly, a CAS framework of historic buildings is con-
Historic building structed based on the analysis based on CAS theory, which guided the evaluation factor selection by using
Complex urban system the literature review and mutli-agent discussion. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to construct
Adaptability mechanism the adaptability evaluation index, and evaluation rules are determined using comprehensive evaluation
Adaptive reuse method. Then, the structural equation model (SEM) is used to reveal the adaptability mechanism, thus
Complex adaptive system theory proposing the suitable reuse strategies by adaptability category classification. Finally, 32 historic build-
ings are taking as evaluation samples to calculate the adaptability evaluation results. The results obtain
revealed that 62.5% of the historic buildings have moderate or poor adaptability, which are mainly af-
fected by the impacts of consciousness and the activities of multiple agents. The 32 historic buildings are
divided into three categories at a proportion of 9:11:12 to propose adaptive reuse strategies. The estab-
lishment of the adaptability evaluation system can find out the main problems of historic building reuse,
and provide a scientific decision-making basis for multiple agents to improve the adaptability of historic
buildings in a complex urban context.
© 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Historic buildings are potential resources in urban sustainable
development, which is a critical issue in the UN 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development [47]. With the continuous improvement
of urbanization, the direction urban construction has changed to
optimizing spatial resources, improving human settlement quality
and inheriting historical culture [2]. This means that historic build-
ings undertake important social functions to express the diversity
and uniqueness of the urban history and culture, and the research
scope has expanded from protecting historic buildings to adaptive
reuse in a complex urban system, tending to focus on the people
and human settlement environment (Paolo [40]). The contributions
of the issues of what constitutes adaptive reuse, how to evaluate
adaptability, and the historic building importance assigned seem
to be more critical in sustainable development than ever.
∗
Corrsponding author at. No. 66, Xidazhi Street, Nangang District, Harbin, China.
E-mail addresses: 16B934026@hit.edu.cn (G. Wang), 344626169@qq.com (S. Liu).
The adaptive reuse of historic buildings poses challenges for re-
searches to decide the new use with appropriate functions, consid-
ering the different dimensions of heritage values, spatial character-
istics, socioeconomic impact and policy guidance [8]. A successful
adaptive reuse is one that respects the existing building and its en-
vironment context, adding a contemporary requirement and appro-
priate future to the historic building [13]. During 1960s and 1970s,
adaptive reuse of historic buildings has been started to discuss, to
improve the architectural harmony with environment [10]. Though
scholars have defined adaptive reuse from different perspectives,
they generally agreed that adaptive reuse can transform historic
buildings into useable status, and provide social and economic val-
ues by revitalizing historic landmarks rather than heritage and cul-
tural symbols [14]. Recently, adaptive reuse has a tend to trigger
a dialog mechanism in complex urban system, considering factors
from different dimensions [1].
Several designers or researchers have highlighted adaptive
reuse projects, which focused on economic impact, social rela-
tionship, cultural heritage and energy saving, etc. ([16]; Mitoula
R.&Karaki B., 2013[33]; New Into Old, 2017). The main difficult is

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2021.09.009
1296-2074/© 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
G. Wang and S. Liu
the random decision and appropriate strategy of the new func-
tion without analytic and scientific method approach (Mısırlısoy,
D.&Günce, K., 2016[34]). To identify the factors or criteria for the
reuse selection or decision-making, scholars generally used litera-
ture review, which mainly contained multi-dimension of heritage
value, architectural value, economic performance and environment
impact [12].
To quantitatively discuss the adaptive reuse approaches, evalua-
tion methods or models have been deployed to support the multi-
criteria decision making, for example, Langston by constructing an
adaptive reuse potential model (Yildirim M. ,2012[52]; Langston,
C.& Chan, E., 2013[27]), and Tan by using a fuzzy adaptive reuse se-
lection model (Tan, Y.& Langston, C., 2014[45]), and Ioannis through
the decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (Vardopoulos,
I., 2019[48]). The current evaluation researches mostly focus on
architectural values, physical environment and social-cultural as-
pects, and there is confined to the decision-making of a single
entity such as the government, a property holder or indigenous
people, lacking attention to the participation of multi-agents (Liu
J et al., 2020[28]; Bullen L., 2011[7]). It is difficult to interpret and
evaluate the adaptability of historic buildings (AHB) in complex ur-
ban systems using the traditional linear scientific paradigm.
In 1994, Holland originally proposed the Complex Adaptive Sys-
tem (CAS), which provided a new perspective for the study of
the evolutionary mechanism of complex systems [20]. CAS theory
holds that the root of the complex evolution of a dynamic system
is determined by the adaptability of the active individuals in the
system, where the agent interacts with the system environment or
other agents in accordance with the stimulus feedback mode [24].
This theory has been broadly accepted and rapidly applied in the
field of urban research, including complex urban theories such as
Cell City and Sandpile City (Manesh, S.& Tadi, M., 2011[29]). Com-
pared with traditional theory, complexity science focuses on the
internal complexity of the research object and the understanding
of the functional relationship, which can provide a new perspec-
tive for analyzing the complex relationship of heritage buildings in
urban systems (Zhang, D. & Fang, L. 2016[53]). It provides a new
perspective for the study of the evolutionary mechanism of com-
plex systems.
This study establishes a method for evaluating the adaptability
of historic building (AHB) in the complex urban system, and pro-
poses the appropriate reuse strategies based on CAS Theory. Since
each historic building has unique architectural feature, geographic
condition and multi-participant, applying the decision-making for
adaptive reuse needs different evaluation criteria. Therefore, the
study discusses the complex characteristics and constructs a CAS
framework for historic buildings, which guides the factor selection
through the literature review and interview discussion. To explore
the reuse adaptability of each historic building, the evaluation in-
dex is constructed based on AHP, by using comprehensive evalua-
tion method. Furthermore, SEM is used to reveal the reuse adapt-
ability mechanism, which can effectively analyze the complex re-
lationship impacted by multi-dimension factors (Wong, J. & Li, H.,
2010[50]). The mechanism will help decision makers in classifying
the adaptability types, and developing the most appropriate strat-
egy for reuse of historic buildings.
2. Research aim
This study focuses on three objectives. The first objective is
to construct a CAS framework, which helps to identify the com-
plex characteristics and display the adaptive mechanism of historic
buildings in urban system. Accordingly, the relevant indicators have
been selected through literature review and multi-participant in-
terview.
135
Journal of Cultural Heritage 52 (2021) 134–145
The second objective is to propose an evaluation method to as-
sess the adaptability of historic buildings, quantitively analyzing
the adaptability mechanism and exploring the most crucial indi-
cators that affect adaptive reuse decision making.
The third objective is to develop a classification method for
proposing the appropriate adaptive reuse strategies for historic
buildings according to the identified indicators, which combines
with the holistic adaptability characteristics based on the proposed
mechanism.
The study will help decision makers in urban sustainable
construction, proposing adaptability improvement alternatives to
achieve the maximum adaptive reuse effect and the minimum
multiagent opinion conflict, increasing scientific choices and reduc-
ing the time expenses.
3. Material and methods
To achieve the research aim, the paper uses multiply methods
to evaluate the AHB and proposes the appropriate reuse strategies
of historic buildings for decision makers. The research process and
methods can be obtained as shown in Fig. 1.
3.1. Constructing CAS framework of historic building
3.1.1. Conceptualizing complex system based on CAS theory
It is widely accepted that a system “is made up of components,
linkages between the components, and dynamics.” Holland pro-
posed the notion of a complex system in terms of agents, activi-
ties, and interactions between them (Aston J. & Cohen J., 2005[3]).
In CAS theory, an “agent”, which is the dynamic root of a system’s
evolution, is the generalized notion of an individual with an adap-
tive capability in a complex system (Miller, J. & Page, S. , 2009[31]).
According to this core idea, Holland (1996) proposed seven basic
characteristics of a CAS, namely, aggregation, nonlinearity, flow, di-
versity, identification, internal model and building blocks. Among
them, the first four are the basic characteristics of complex adap-
tive systems that promote adaptation and evolution, and the last
three are the interaction mechanisms between individuals and the
environment.
CAS theory mainly studies the complexity mechanism of the
system from macro and micro aspects. On the macro level, CAS
emphasizes the interaction between the agents and the external
environment, promoting evolution through the exchange of infor-
mation, energy and material. At the microspatial scale, CAS em-
phasizes the initiative and adaptability of agents using nonlinear
interactions, which adapt to the environment by constantly modi-
fying and optimizing agents’ behavior.
3.1.2. Complex characteristics of historic buildings
As an important part of urban systems, historic buildings inter-
act with their surrounding land use, traffic conditions, constructed
infrastructure and architectural landscapes on the micro level; and
their function and value affect the evolution of urban systems
(Miller, J. & Page, S., 2009). At the macro level, they are influenced
by policy, the economy and other factors guiding the aggregation
and reorganization of urban spatial patterns [22]. From the per-
spective of the CAS, historic buildings construct a complex system
integrating multidimensional objectives, multiple agents and sub-
systems with 7 basic characteristics (Miller, J. & Page, S., 2009)
(Fig. 2).
3.1.3. CAS framework of historic buildings
Combined with the complex characteristics, historic buildings
can be regarded as a complex system formed by the interaction of
multiple adaptive agents (Lawrenz, F. et al., 2018[26]). The adaptive
behavior of the agents are the core driving force that promotes the
G. Wang and S. Liu
Fig. 1. Research process with relative research methods.
Fig. 2. 7 characteristics of CAS and the interpretation in complex system of historic buildings.
self-organization development of a complex system (Teresa [46]).
Based on CAS theory, the paper constructs the CAS framework of
historic buildings included adaptive agents, adaptive objects and
adaptive approaches (Fig. 3).
In the system, the adaptive agents include the direct interest
group and the indirect influence group. The former group includes
the property owner, the government, the developer and other di-
rect benefit agents; and the latter group combines urban residents,
tourists, experts, the media and other related people (Poudyal, B.
et al., 2020[41]). The adaptive object is the architectural heritage
noumenon including the current situation regarding the architec-
tural preservation, architectural function and internal construction.
It also includes the spatial environment, including the surround-
ing environment, block environment and regional environment.
Through the exchanges of material, energy and information, the
complex system of historic buildings generates an orderly trans-
formation, correspondingly forming the adaptive approach that has
different influences on agents with time and spatial analyses (Kee,
T., 2020[25]). In space, agents conform to the evolution of the spa-
tial environment’s development, which is mainly affected by the
136
Journal of Cultural Heritage 52 (2021) 134–145
architectural ontology and environmental factors. Relatively, agents
need to account for long-term urban development and gradu-
ally adjust their buildings’ architectural functions and utilization
modes, which are mainly affected by the influences of socioeco-
nomic factors and human behaviours.
3.2. Constructing AHB Evaluation index system
Based on the CAS framework, the analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) is used to construct AHB evaluation index system, due to
its hierarchical structure which can define the factors in multiple
target level (Mardani, M. et al., 2015[35]; Rodrigues, J. & Grossi, A.,
2007[44]), as shown in Table 1. To select the indicators, this paper
uses literature survey and multi-agent discussion.
(1) Literature survey. The current literatures mostly focus
on the indicators, which involve the target level of architectural
noumenon and spatial environment. The paper collects the typi-
cal literatures including 348 papers, 12 books, and 10 standards.
The indicators extracted from these literatures are calculated the
frequency of occurrences, and multiplied by the weights defined
G. Wang and S. Liu Journal of Cultural Heritage 52 (2021) 134–145

Table 1
AHB evaluation index, including target level, subtarget level, factor level, description and data resources.

Data Source or
Target Level Subtarget Level Factor Level Description Reference

Architectural C1 Architectural F01 Building Elevation Integrity of the historic building’s elevation Architectural detection
Noumenon Style
([11,21,30];Radziszewska
,2015[42]; Harrestrup
M, 2015[15];
Rodrigues C, 2017[43];
Zihua, 2019[55]; Nagy
,2019[36]; Wang,
2020[49])
F02 Building Structure Structural integrity of historic buildings Architectural detection
F03 Building Material Preservation of building materials Architectural detection
F04 Building Decoration Preservation of the historic building’s decoration Architectural detection
C2 Architectural F05 Functional Adaptability potential of architectural function Mutli-agent interview
Fuction Adaptation
F06 Functional Flexibility Flexibility of changeable architectural functions Mutli-agent interview
F07 Spatial Efficiency The rationality of spatial layout of historic Mutli-agent interview
buildings
F08 Functional Safety Functional security of historic buildings Architectural detection
F09 Facility Update The frequency of facility updated in historic Statistics data
buildings
F10 Architectural Value History value and protection level of historic Statistics data
buildings
C3 Architectural F11 Energy Consumption Importing the building model in the Energy Plus Statistics data
Renovation Software and setting the relative parameters
F12 Eco-Friendly Material The proportion of the utilization of eco-friendly Architectural detection
material
F13 Remedy Technology Maturity of architectural remedy technology Architectural detection
F14 Life Cycle Life cycle carbon emissions of building materials Statistics data
Spatial Environment C4 Spatial Feature F15 Public Space Efficiency of the public space around the historic Spatial data
(Ashworth,1995[4]; building
Nicholas , 2009[39];
[52]; Bandarin,
2014[5]; Xu ,
2016[51];
Hou,2019[19])
F16 Spatial Proportional Efficiency of the inner space of the historic Spatial data
Relation building
F17 Spatial Identity Identifiability of the spatial marking system Spatial data
F18 Coordination of Old Coordination between the historic building and Mutli-agent interview
and New Space the surrounding environment
C5 Spatial Quality F19 spatial Awareness Satisfaction with the space and feelings regarding Mutli-agent interview
the atmosphere
F20 Landscape Quality Satisfaction with the landscape quality of the Mutli-agent interview
historic buildings and the historic block
environment
F21 Human Comfort Satisfaction with the environmental comfort in Mutli-agent interview
the historic building and the surrounding
environment
F22 Infrastructure Quality Integrity of the infrastructure of the historic Mutli-agent interview
building
C6 Spatial F23 Spatial Accessibility The distance of urban residents to the nearest Spatial data
Efficiency historic building
F24 Spatial Function Influence of the architectural function on the Mutli-agent interview
surrounding space
F25 Spatial Management Efficiency of the spatial management for the Mutli-agent interview
historic building
Multi- agent C7 Emotional F26 Original Architectural Adaptability of the original architectural function Mutli-agent interview
(Multi-agent Identification Function to the current situation
discussion)
F27 Memory Information The preservation of the original memory of the Mutli-agent interview
historic building
F28 Architectural Acceptance of the architectural styles of historic Mutli-agent interview
Aesthetics buildings in different periods
C8 Historical F29 Regional The degree of preservation of the regional Mutli-agent interview
Culture Characteristics characteristics of historic buildings
F30 Traditional Culture The degree of preservation of cultural the Mutli-agent interview
characteristics of historic buildings
F31 Historic Context The degree of correlation between historic Mutli-agent interview
buildings with regional historic-cultural events
C9 Economic F32 Protection and Annual maintenance or repair costs of historic Statistics data
Benefit Renovation Costs buildings
F33 Operating Costs Costs of building rental, labor, facilities’ Statistics data
maintenance, etc.
F34 Rental or Operating Ticket revenue, government funds, rental fees, etc. Statistics data
Income

137
G. Wang and S. Liu
Fig. 3. CAS framework of historic buildings.
by expert discussion. The indicators of architectural ontology are
mainly selected from guidelines and laws, including the “Law of
Cultural Relic Protection”, “Technical Testing Standards for Build-
ing Structure”, and “Fire Protection of Historic building”. In con-
trast, the research on the spatial environment tends to focus on
the coordinated protection of historic buildings and the urban en-
vironment and adaptive reuse according to the surrounding envi-
ronment. Therefore, the indicators are mainly selected from jour-
nal papers and books that address historical blocks, centres, cities
and cultural-historical landscapes. The weights are as follows: 1)
the weight of literatures involving adaptive reuse assessment of
historic buildings was 1, that of single dimension was 0.6; 2) the
weight of SCI/SSCI journal papers was 0.8, that of journal papers
was 0.4, that of master’s theses was 0.3, that of doctoral disser-
tations was 0.6, and that of laws and standards was 1. Using fre-
quency analysis, 25 high-frequency indicators are selected as the
adaptability evaluation index.
(2) Multi-agent discussion. The multi-agent of participants for
factor screening and supplementation are selected based on the
target level of multi-agent. The interviewers are included: 10 ex-
perts from Housing and Urban Rural Development Bureau (respon-
sible for historic building protection and reuse), 10 researchers in
architecture colleges and universities (focused on adaptive reuse or
CAS theory), 32 property owners, and 362 urban residents. With
multi-agent discussion, 9 meaningful indicators are supplemented
in AHB evaluation index.
It is worth noting that some indicators can be directly ob-
tained through statistics and spatial calculation, while some indi-
cators can only be qualitatively analyzed, like emotional identifi-
cation and historical experience of multi agents. Qualitative data
are analyzed by descriptive statistics using QSR Nvivo 11.0 soft-
ware(Niedbalski, J. & Lzak, I., 2018[38]), and convert into a 5-level
hierarchical quantification. Level 5 represents the degree ranged
from 90% to 100%, Level 4 represents 80–90%, …, and Level 1 indi-
cates that the degree is less than 50%.
138
Journal of Cultural Heritage 52 (2021) 134–145
3.3. Measuring method of AHB
According to the jurisdiction degree theory in fuzzy mathe-
matics, the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, which is ap-
plicable to objects restricted by many indicators, can be used to
measure the uncertainty of complex systems (Zihua W. & Ying
H.,2019[55]; Wang N. et al., 2020[49]). In this paper, the method
is used to measure the AHB, and the 6 evaluation steps are given
as follows.
1. Set up the factor set. The evaluation factor set U is composed
of 34 indicators, which are arranged in order (Eq. (1)). ui repre-
sented the indicators.
U = {u1 , u2 , . . . u34 } (1)
2. Establish the weight set. The weights of indicators represent
the different influences on the adaptability of historic buildings.
The weight set W is composed of the weights of 34 indicators,

34
where wi refers to the weight of factor i, and wi = 1 (Eq. (2)).
i−1
W = {ω1 , ω2 , ω3 , ω4 , ω5 , ω6 , . . . , ω34 } (2)
3. Establish the evaluation description set. To describe the AHB,
evaluation description set V is established with 4 levels from ex-
cellent to poor (Eq. (3)).
V ={Excellent, Good, Moderate, Poor} (3)
4. Establish the single factor fuzzy evaluation set. For each fac-
tor in the factor set U, the subordinative degree of the factor is
calculated according to the evaluation description set. When the
evaluation object is judged by the factor ui in the factor set, the
subordinative degree of the factor in evaluation description vj is rij .
Then, the fuzzy evaluation set Ri can be expressed below (Eq. (4)).
ri1 ri2 ri3 ri4
Ri = + + + (4)
v1 v2 v3 v4
5. Establish the judgement matrix. The judgement matrix of the
adaptability evaluation of historic buildings represents the corre-
G. Wang and S. Liu Journal of Cultural Heritage 52 (2021) 134–145

Table 2
Evaluation grades and descriptions of the AHB.

Level Description of the level Score

A Excellent. Most of the indicators extremely meet the requirements of 100–85

fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, and the historic buildings have high
adaptability in the complex urban system.
B Good. Most of the indicators meet the requirements of fuzzy 84–70
comprehensive evaluation, and the historic buildings have good
adaptability in the complex urban system.
C Moderate. Some of the indicators meet the requirements of fuzzy 69–55
comprehensive evaluation, and the historic buildings have general
adaptability in the complex urban system.
D Poor. Most of the indicators of historic building could not meet the 54–0
general requirements of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, and the
historic buildings have low adaptability in the complex urban system.

sponding relationship of the evaluation factor set U and evalua-
tion description set V. The judgement matrix B refers to the ma-
trix with 4 columns and 34 rows, where each column value cor-
responds to the indicators in U; and the first, second, third and
fourth elements in each row represent the subordination degrees
of Excellent, Good, Medium and Poor in V, respectively. In this
paper, the sum of the thresholds of each factor and its weight
product is used to form the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation set
B. Fuzzy transformation is carried out between the weighting set
W and the fuzzy evaluation set R (Eq. (5)).r
⎡ ⎤
r 1,1 r 1,2 ··· r 1,4
⎢ r 2,1 r 2,2 ··· r 2,4 ⎥
B = W · R = ( ω1 , ω2 . . . , ω 3,4 ) · ⎢ ⎥ timate the parameters of the model and then obtain the results
.. ⎦ = b1 , b2 , b3 b4
⎣ ... ..
.
..
. .
r34,1 r34,2 · · · r34,4
(5)
6. Assess the adaptability. Taking bi as the weight, the evalua-
tion factor vj is the weighted average, and then v is the result of
fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (Eq. (6)).
m m
v= b jv j ÷ bj
j=1 j=1
After the above six steps of fuzzy calculation process, the eval-
uation score B of the adaptability of the historic building corre-
sponds to the evaluation grade interval V, according to the prin-
ciple of maximum membership degree. The detailed descriptions
and score ranges of the AHB are shown in Table 2.
3.4. Analyzing method of the adaptive mechanism for historic
building
In order to further analyze the dynamic mechanism affecting
the AHB, this paper constructs a structural equation model (SEM)
based on evaluation index and uses it to assess the interactional
relations (Niu, Y. & Wang, D., 2015[37]). SEM has a priority of an-
alyze the relationships between the construct (system) and its in-
dicators, particularly in the evaluation of indicators affecting the
multiply targets (Bagozzi, R. & Yi, Y.,1988[6]; Hauashdh, A. et al.,
2021[17]). Based on the CAS, this paper establishes the SEM in
4 hypotheses to analyze the adaptability mechanism of historic
building. The hypothesis model is as shown in Fig. 4.
The hypothesis model includes observation variables and la-
tent variables. In SEM, latent variables cannot be directly observed,
which were represented by observed variables combined through
Principle Component Analysis (Brooks, S. & Stevens, J., 1994[9]). In
this paper, the endogenous latent variables include the "adaptabil-
ity of architectural noumenon", the "adaptability of spatial environ-
ment", and the endogenous latent variable refers to the "adaptabil-
ity of multi-agent". Each latent variable corresponds to its observa-
tion variables, that is, the principle components influencing each
latent variable. The model can be expressed in Eq. (7), η refers
to vector matrix for endogenous latent variable, ξ refers to vec-
tor matrix for exogenous latent variable, β refers to the estimated
coefficient of the endogenous latent variable η, τ refers to the es-
timated coefficient of the exogenous latent variable ξ , and ζ refers
to the residual error.
η = βη + τ ξ + ζ (7)
To quantitatively analyze the adaptability mechanism, AMOS
21.0 software is used to perform reliability and validity analyses
of the evaluation results (Rodrigues, C. & Freire, F., 2017). Further-
more, we use the maximum likelihood estimation method to es-
of the parameter estimation and standardized path coefficient. The
standardized path coefficient shows the relationship between the
variables and reflects their degree of influence. The t-tests and p
values can be used to judge whether the path coefficients between
the variables is significant according to t > 1.96 or p < 0.05 [23].
3.5. Classifying method of AHB
(6) To propose classified and stratified adaptive reuse strategies, the
paper uses cluster analysis to calculate the similarity statistics of
the adaptability degrees of architectural noumenon, spatial envi-
ronment and multi-agent for historic buildings, with the Square-
Euclidean distance as the distance measure ([18]; Mitra, D. &
Cetin, K., 2021[32]). Thus, the nearest historic buildings are merged
into one category with similar AHB characteristics. In the Square-
Euclidean distance calculation (Eq.. (8)), X refers to historic build-
ings, d refers to the covariance matrix, and the sample of historic
buildings contains Xi = (xi1 , xi2 , ..., xid )T and X j = (x j1 , x j2 , ..., x jd )T .
1/2
p
2
di j = xi − x j = xi1 − x j1 , ∀xi , x j ∈ X (8)
2
i=1
4. Results and discussions
4.1. Site information
Harbin (latitude from 46.5° to 53.5°, longitude from 121.2 to
135°) is a megacity with the largest land jurisdiction area and the
third largest household registration population in China, and it is
also a special city filled with Western culture. It has preserved pre-
cious historic buildings such as those with baroque, classicism, Re-
naissance and eclecticism influences. Since 1997, 415 historic build-
ings have been identified as architectural heritage buildings in four
batches in Harbin.
To select the historic buildings, we set the selection principles
with comprehensive consideration of the architectural type, con-
struction time, historic value and preservation status. The screen-

139
G. Wang and S. Liu Journal of Cultural Heritage 52 (2021) 134–145

Fig. 4. Hypothesis model of the adaptability mechanism of historic buildings.

Table 3
32 historic buildings and their selection conditions.

Architect-ural Type Historic Building Constr-uction time Conserv-ation Rating Preservation

Industrial Heritage X01: Warehouse of the Harbin Cigarette Factory 1920 Grade I Moderate
X02: The Workshop of the Acheng Sugar Factory 1905 Grade III Poor
Cultural Heritage X03: Harbin Architectural Art Museum 1907 Grade I Moderate
X04: Cultural Park Electronic Entertainment Hall 1908 Grade I Moderate
X05: Mosque 1837 Grade I Moderate
X06: Heilongjiang Provincial Museum 1906 Grade I Good
X07: Heilongjiang Postal Museum 1922 Grade I Moderate
X08: Revolutionary Leaders Memorial Hall 1914 Grade I Good
Commercial Heritage X09: Moden Hotel 1906 Grade I Moderate
X10: Duo Business 1930 Grade III Poor
X11: Old Ding Feng 1915 Grade III Good
X12: Peace Cinema 1908 Grade II Moderate
X13: Asia Cinema 1908 Grade III Moderate
X14: Matsumura Cinema 1926 Grade III Poor
X15: Harbin Railway Bureau 1902 Grade I Moderate
X16: Canteen of the Heilongjiang Electric Power Bureau 1924 Grade III Poor
X17: Heilongjiang Federation of Industry and Commerce 1908 Grade II Moderate
X18: Real Estate Department of Education Bureau 1902 Grade I Moderate
X19: Heilongjiang Pharmaceutical Company 1926 Grade III Poor
X20: Harbin No.1 Middle School 1912 Grade III Moderate
X21: Harbin Education Committee 1914 Grade I Good
X22: Harbin No.3 Middle School 1923 Grade II Moderate
X23: Kindergarten of the CPC Heilongjiang Provincial Committee 1914 Grade I Good
Residential Heritage X24: Heilongjiang Provincial Veteran Cadre Activity Center 1923 Grade II Moderate
X25: Building 1, Heping Village Hotel 1920 Grade I Good
X26: Commercial and Residential Building No. 22–32 1928 Grade III Poor
X27: Commercial and Residential Building 324–328, Jingyu Street 1935 Grade II Poor
X28: Former Residence Site of Zhou Enlai 1919 Grade III Poor
X29: Building 65, Xidazhi Street 1905 Grade III Poor
X30: Xiangfang District Old Cadre Activity Center 1927 Grade II Poor
Construction Heritage X31: Tomb Tower in Dazhi Street 1923 Grade I Moderate
X32: Water Supply Tower of Xiangfang Railway Station 1915 Grade II Moderate

ing principles are as follows: 1 Architectural Type: we select the
historic buildings according to their architectural function, includ-
ing industrial heritage, cultural heritage, commercial heritage, res-
idential heritage and construction heritage;  2 Construction Time:
we select the historic buildings according to the principal histor-
ical periods, including the Qing government (1636–1897), tsarist
Russia (1898–1931), the Japanese puppet rule (1932–1945) and the
new China period (1946–1977);  3 Historic Value: we select typ-
ical buildings according to their conservation ratings, including
Grade I, Grade II and Grade III; and  4 Preservation: we select his-
toric buildings according to the preservation situation and classi-
fied them as good (structure unchanged and facade not damaged),
moderate (structure changed a little and facade less damaged) and
poor (structure changed a lot and facade damaged a lot). The re-
sults for the 32 historic buildings are shown in Table 3, and the
spatial distribution is shown in Fig. 5.
4.2. Data acquistion and processing
The quantitative data of indicators are based on statistical data,
spatial data and interview data, which are collected as follows:
(1) Statistic data mainly reflect the function and renovation of ar-
chitectural noumenon, and economic benefit of adaptive agent.
Data are mainly obtained from Harbin Housing and Construc-
tion Bureau, including facility update, architectural value, oper-
ating costs and income. Data of energy consumption is obtained
from Harbin Electric Power Bureau.
(2) Spatial data are used to describe objects to represent architec-
tural style and renovation of architectural noumenon, and fea-
ture of spatial environment, including building elevation, struc-
ture, material decoration and spatial accessibility. The data in-
volved architectural noumenon are obtained from regular archi-
tectural detection which managed by government (2020). Spa-

140
G. Wang and S. Liu
Fig. 5. Spatial distribution of the 32 historic buildings in Harbin.
tial environment data are calculated through the ArcGIS 10.3
based on the distribution map of Harbin, containing the spatial
accessibility, efficiency and identifiability.
(3) Interview data are used to express the emotional identifica-
tion and historical experience of multi-agents. The data are ob-
tained by questionnaires and semi-structured interview, which
are conducted in May 2020 for 10 experts from Harbin Hous-
ing and Urban Rural Development Bureau, 10 researchers from
Harbin Institute of Technology, 32 property owners and 362 ur-
ban residents. The data from experts, researchers and property
owners are totally recovered, and that from 351 urban residents
are effectively collected, with a recovery rate of 96.9%.
4.3. Evaluation results of AHB
Using the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, we calculate the
AHB and the adaptability values of Architectural Noumenon (AN),
Spatial Environment (SE) and Multi-agent (MA) for 32 historic
buildings.
The adaptability values of the historic buildings are mostly from
55 to 75, and 68.8% of the historic buildings are good or moder-
ate according to the score range. According to the weight calcula-
tion results of the factor layer, the architectural function has more
influence on the AHB. Combined with the analysis of the archi-
tectural type, the adaptability of commercial heritage buildings is
significantly polarized. All excellent historic buildings belonged to
this type, and poor historic buildings also accounted for 20%. The
adaptability of residential heritage buildings is generally low, with
57.14% of the historic buildings being moderate and poor. Regard-
ing cultural heritage buildings, 83.3% of the historic buildings are
moderate, and they have not been given full play to the function
of cultural networks in complex urban systems (Fig. 6). Conversely,
the construction time and historical value of historic buildings has
no significant impact on the adaptability evaluation results, and
preservation is positively correlated with the evaluation results.
141
Journal of Cultural Heritage 52 (2021) 134–145
4.4. Adaptabiilty mechansim analysis
The AHB evaluation results are brought into AMOS 21.0 statisti-
cal software for reliability and validity analysis, taking maximum
likelihood estimation method to estimate the parameters of the
model, and then we obtain the parameter estimation results and
standardized path coefficient (Fig. 7).
In viewing of the hypothesis model, the standardized path coef-
ficients of adaptability of AN, SE and MA to AHB are 0.29, 0.32 and
0.69 respectively, and the effect of MA are the most significant. It
is assumed that e32 → e11, e32 → e12, e32 → e31, e33 → e11,
e33 → e12 and e33 → e12 are verified, which means the adapt-
ability of MA has a positive effect on improving the AHB. From the
comparison of impact effects, the standardized path coefficients
of emotional identification, historical culture and economic benefit
are 0.62, 0.67 and 0.54 respectively. In the influence of MA adapt-
ability on AHB, the importance of historical culture is the largest,
followed by emotional identification, and the impact of economic
benefit is the least.
It is assumed that the test results of e1 → e4, e2 → e4, e3 → e4
are verified, which means the adaptability of AN and SE has a pos-
itive effect on improving the AHB. In MA, the standardized path
coefficients of architectural style, architectural function and archi-
tectural renovation are 0.51, 0.53 and 0.42 respectively. The impor-
tance of architectural function is the largest, followed by architec-
tural style, and the impact of architectural renovation is the least.
In SE, the standardized path coefficients of spatial feature, spatial
quality and spatial efficiency are 0.47, 0.51 and 0.56, respectively.
Spatial efficiency is the most important factor, followed by spatial
quality and spatial feature.
5. Adaptive reuse strategies
To improve the AHB, it is critical to propose appropriate strate-
gies for local decision makers, combined with the interpretation of
G. Wang and S. Liu
Fig. 6. Analysis of evaluation results of the AHB.
Fig. 7. Path map of standardized parameter estimation of hypothesis model of AHB.
the principle components and variables according to the adaptabil-
ity mechanism analysis. Whereas, the principle components and
variables which have the greatest impact should be defined first in
a historic building. Using the aforementioned classification method,
32 historic buildings are divided into three categories, calculating
the similarity statistics of AN, SE and MA of each historic build-
ing, to merge into the category with the nearest Square-Euclidean
distance, which are defined as adaptability type: Repair protection
type, Open protection type and Adaptive utilization type, respec-
tively. Further, the historic buildings are classified into six Sub-
types to clarify the principle component and variables in different
AHB levels (Table 4).
The adaptive reuse strategies for the historic buildings should
be proposed with the principle component and variables in each
type, based on the general requirements of historic building pro-
tection. Therefore, the decision of the adaptive reuse for historic
building should be thought together with the General strategies
(G) and Principle strategies (P), as shown in Table 4, Fig. 8. General
strategies fit for each type, which mainly comply with the local re-
quirements of historic building protection, renovation and manage-
ment. By comparison, Principle strategies are proposed to improve
the AHB for different types, with targeted strategies based on the
adaptability level of AN, SE and MA.
142
Journal of Cultural Heritage 52 (2021) 134–145
(1) Repair protection type. It refers to scruffy, damaged and
low-accessible historic buildings, that are moderate or low adapt-
ability because of poor AN and MA, mainly commercial or residen-
tial heritage buildings. Combined with the adaptability mechanism
analysis, historic buildings belonging to this type are affected by
multiple adverse factors, especially for the improper application of
remedying and renovation technique. Based on the General strate-
gies, the adaptive reuse strategies for this type include Principle
strategies to improve the adaptability of AN and MA, which mainly
include the followings.
Combined with the spatial functional requirements, the deci-
sion of the adaptive function should be based on public partici-
pation, which help to realize the adaptive reuse with the support
of appropriate technology and funds from multi agents. For exam-
ple, X18 can be transformed into an important urban museum by
means of functional replacement or reconstruction, with the adap-
tive cooperation among developers, property owners and residents.
To extend the life cycle of historic buildings, advanced technologies
for renovation or energy saving should be introduced, such as im-
proving the thermal insulation performance of building envelopes
and coping with the freezing damage caused by extremely cold
climates. X27 has the lowest adaptability because of the seriously
damaged facade and structure, which should apply for the special
G. Wang and S. Liu Journal of Cultural Heritage 52 (2021) 134–145

Table 4
Adaptability types of historic buildings based on cluster analysis.

Adaptability Level of Adaptive Reuse

Type AHB Level Number AN, SE and MA Historic Buildings Strategies

Repair protection R1 Moderate 6 AN (Moderate), SE X06, X16, X21 X28, G

(Moderate), and MA X29, and X30
(Moderate)
R2 Poor 3 AN (Poor), SE X18, X26, and X27 G P1–3, P7–9
(Moderate), and MA
(Poor)
Open protection O1 Excellent or Good 4 AN (Moderate), SE X03, X09, X11, and G P1, P2, P7
(Excellent), and MA X22
(Good)
O2 Good or Moderate 7 AN (Excellent), SE X01, X05, X15, X20, G P4, P5, P7, P8, P9
(Moderate), and MA X23, X24, and X25
(Poor)
Adaptive A1 Moderate 8 AN (Good), SE (Poor), X02, X04, X06, X07, G P4, P5, P6, P7, P8
utilization and MA (Moderate) X08, X12, X13, X17,
and X19
A2 Moderate or Poor 4 AN (Moderate), SE X10, X14, X31, and G P1–9
(Moderate), and MA X32
(Poor)

Fig. 8. Adaptive reuse strategies for historic buildings.

renovation technology support. Combined with modern aesthetics,
property owners should renovate and transform the architectural
structure, facade and decoration, inheriting the original architec-
tural characteristic with historical-cultural elements of Harbin. X26
can use new techniques to reproduce the historic scenes and atmo-
sphere, like VR.
(2) Open protection type. It refers to the historic buildings
with good preservation situation and high conversation value,
which show good or excellent adaptability due to high values of
adaptability of AN and SE, mainly cultural or commercial heritage
buildings. Adaptive reuse strategies should be focused on the in-
depth exploration of the historical and cultural values of historic
buildings, to inherit historical culture, improve emotional identi-
fication and economic benefit, which can increase the adaptabil-
ity values of MA, fitting for X03, X09, X11, and X22. Considering
the accessibility and functional efficiency, Principle strategies for
SE should also be proposed for this type. For historic buildings
with low reuse efficiency, such as X18, spatial adaptability could be
improved by optimizing the traffic flow and establishing a parking
system, enhancing the integration of new and old functional spaces
combined with building function regulation and spatial manage-
ment. Further, it is effective to improve the spatial quality and
comfortability, by optimizing the traffic system, public service and
infrastructure, thereby enhancing spatial vitality and forming land-
marks, which is suitable for X01, X05 and X20.
(3) Adaptive utilization type. It refers to the historic buildings
with regular renovation, while they have moderate or low adapt-
ability because of poor SE and MA, mainly industrial, cultural or
construction heritage buildings. The limited factors affected adap-
tive reuse for this type focus on adverse spatial influence and
single-agent management. The former is reflected by the poor spa-
tial efficiency, quality and accessibility, and the latter embodies
mainly in indefinite responsibility of agents, resulting in the in-
sufficiency of renovation investment, economic benefits and emo-
tional identification.
Apart from General strategies, the Principle strategies for this
type aim to increase the adaptability of SE and MA, with the
following strategies. For SE, it is critical to develop the adaptive

143
G. Wang and S. Liu
reuse system of historic buildings through constructing cultural
corridor or district with equipped public service and transporta-
tion facilities, which can promote spatial quality, identity and com-
fort. Meanwhile, the decision makers need to optimize the spatial
management related with the adaptive reuse, especially for cul-
tural heritage, X02, X04 and X06. For MA, the adaptive coopera-
tion mode could be developed with multi agents, to enhance the
investment value of historic buildings, which fits for X10, X14, X17
and X19. Through the introduction of commercial investment or
government special funds, it connects private property owners, en-
terprises, the cultural and tourism industry and other direct stake-
holders and indirectly influences the group through media public-
ity and urban residents’ participation. In addition, to improve the
emotional identification, adaptive reuse should retain the original
architectural layout and spatial texture with historic characteristic,
or reproduce the history scenes with photos, graffiti and 3D build-
ing models.
6. Conclusions
Adaptive reuse of historic buildings is one of the aspects of ur-
ban sustainable construction. It is not only enough to give new
functions to the historic buildings, appropriate strategies should be
proposed for decision makers to achieve the maximum effect of
cultural continuity and spatial improvement. Considering the var-
ied relevant factors, this paper proposes an adaptability evalua-
tion methodology for urban historic buildings based on CAS theory.
With the adaptability mechanism analysis based on the evaluation
results, better understanding of AHB helps identify the weaknesses
that threaten the reuse applicability of historic buildings. Further,
adaptive reuse strategies are proposed for each adaptability type,
which can help the government systematically plan historic build-
ings, including general strategies and principle strategies.
The adaptability evaluation methodology is a useful tool for the
government, which can quantitatively analyze the best alternatives
of adaptive reuse of historic buildings, given the complexity and
duration of its application under the impacts of multi-agents. In
view of the government-oriented intervention in the existing ar-
chitectural heritage work, it is suggested to establish an institu-
tional system integrating multiple subjects, which can attract pub-
lic participation and stimulate the economic vitality. The institu-
tional system should contain a series of policies, including the im-
provement of the laws and regulations, the restraint and incen-
tive of private investors, the evaluation and guidance of experts,
the participation and feedback of urban residents, etc. Based on
the improvement orientation of adaptability types of historic build-
ings, the government can form a specific group composed of reg-
ulators, private investors, experts and residents, discussing the ef-
fective reuse routes with a minimum size of interventions.
It should be noted that the limitations of the study, which are
as follows. 1) the indicators selected through multi-agent discus-
sion reflect the characteristics of AHB in Harbin, and the evalu-
ation method is limited on urban historic buildings with similar
conditions. 2) It is not applicable for the historic buildings with-
out adequate data for 34 indicators, and the AHB evaluation in-
dex needs be reasonably simplified to improve the scope of ap-
plication. 3) Facing the different urban development scenarios, the
adaptive reuse of historic buildings will have corresponding strate-
gies or approaches, while this paper focus on the evaluation for the
current situation, which needs persistent research accumulation in
the future studies. Meanwhile, although the evaluation index sys-
tem may need some changes, the research process and methodol-
ogy can be effectively extended to other urban historic buildings.
144
Journal of Cultural Heritage 52 (2021) 134–145
Funding
This research is funded by the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China (Project No. 52078154).
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.culher.2021.09.009.
References
[1] Abastante F., Lami I.M., Mecca B. (2020). How to revitalise a historic district: a
stakeholders-oriented assessment framework of adaptive reuse. In: Mondini G.,
Oppio A., Stanghellini S., Bottero M., Abastante F. (eds) Values and Functions
for Future Cities. Green Energy and Technology, pp. 3–20.
[2] I.E. Aigwi, T. Egbelakin, J. Ingham, R. Phipps, J. Rotimi, O. Filippova, A per-
formance-based framework to prioritise underutilised historical buildings for
adaptive reuse interventions in new zealand, Sustain. Cities Soc. 48 (2019)
54–67.
[3] J.G. Aston, J.D. Cohen, An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine
function: adaptive gain and optimal performance, Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 28 (1)
(2005) 403–450.
[4] G.J. Ashworth, P.J. Larkham, Building a new heritage: tourism, culture and
identity in the new europe, Geografiska Annaler 78 (2) (1995) 121.
[5] F. Bandarin, R.V. Oers, in: The Historic Urban Landscape: Managing Heritage in
an Urban Century, Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey, 2014, pp. 175–193.
[6] R.P. Bagozzi, Y. Yi, On the evaluation of structural equation models, J. Acad.
Mark. Sci. 16 (1) (1988) 74–94.
[7] L. Bullen, A new future for the past: a model for adaptive reuse decision-mak-
ing, Built Environ. Project Asset Manage. 1 (1) (2011) 32–44.
[8] E. Berte, T. Panagopoulos, B. Zanon, An interpretative model for the manage-
ment of contemporary cultural landscapes in linear infrastructure projects, J.
Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manage. 21 (4) (2013) 248–262.
[9] S. Brooks, J. Stevens, Applied Multivariate Statistics For the Social Sciences,
Press: Routledge, 1994.
[10] S.F. Cantell, Unpublished Master Thesis, Polytechnic Institute and State Univer-
sity, Virginia, 2005.
[11] C. Clark, Degrees of physical adaptation: current uses of historic naval building
types, Separ. Sci. Technol. 19 (2) (2001) 899–915.
[12] 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.
[13] DEH, in: Adaptive reuse: Preserving Our past, Building Our Future, ACT: De-
partment of Environment and Heritage. Commonwealth of Australia, 2004,
p. 17.
[14] D.A. Elsorady, Assessment of the compatibility of new uses for heritage build-
ings: the example of Alexandria National Museum, Alexandria, Egypt, J. Cult.
Herit. 15 (2014) 511–521.
[15] M. Harrestrup, S. Svendsen, Full-scale test of an old heritage multi-storey
building undergoing energy retrofitting with focus on internal insulation and
moisture, Build. Environ. 85 (02) (2015) 123–133.
[16] L.A. Haidar, A. Talib, Adaptive reuse in the traditional neighbourhood of the
Old City Sana’a -Yemen, Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 105 (2013) 811–822.
[17] A. Hauashdha, J. Jailania, I. Abdul, A. Najib, Structural equation model for as-
sessing factors affecting building maintenance success, J. Build. Eng. 44 (12)
(2021) 102680.
[18] M.G. Hladnik, Interpreting the age of the ruins of ST. John the Baptist’s church
with multivariate analysis, J. Cult. Herit. 14 (4) (2013) 354–358.
[19] H. Hou, H. Wu, A case study of facilities management for heritage building
revitalisation, Facilities 38 (3/4) (2019) 201–217.
[20] J.H. Holland, in: Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity, Addison
Wesley, America, 1995, pp. 6–12.
[21] M. Jenner, in: London Heritage: the Changing Style of a City, Michael Joseph,
London, 1988, pp. 21–29.
[22] N. Jing, Characteristics of the complex-system-control model of implicit learn-
ing, Psychol. Sci. 22 (03) (2007) 647–649.
[23] T. Johansson, Testing for control system interdependence with structural equa-
tion modeling: conceptual developments and evidence on the levers of control
framework, J. Account. Liter. 41 (2018) 47–62.
[24] J. Karakiewicz, Perturbanism in future cities: enhancing sustainability in the
galapagos islands through complex adaptive systems, Architect. Des. 90 (3)
(2020) 38–43.
[25] T. Kee, K.W. Chau, Economic sustainability of heritage conservation in Hong
Kong: the impact of heritage buildings on adjacent property prices, Sustain.
Dev. 43 (10) (2020) 1709–1718.
[26] F. Lawrenz, E.K. Kollmann, J.A. King, et al., Promoting evaluation capacity build-
ing in a complex adaptive system, Evaluat. Program Plann. 69 (2018) 53–60.
[27] C. Langston, E.H.K. Yung, E.H.W. Chan, The application of ARP modelling to
adaptive reuse projects in Hong Kong, Habitat Int. 40 (2013) 233–243.
[28] J. Liu, T.W. Tong, J.V. Sinfield, Toward a resilient complex adaptive system view
of business models, Long. Range. Plann. (2020) 102030.
[29] S.V. Manesh, M. Tadi, Sustainable urban morphology emergence via complex
adaptive system analysis: sustainable design in existing context, Procedia Eng.
21 (2011) 89–97.
G. Wang and S. Liu
[30] Ivo. Macek, The biggest museum project in Czech History: the new permanent
natural history exhibitions in the national museum Prague, Biodiver. Inf. Sci.
Standards 2 (2018) 26–37.
[31] J.H. Miller, S.E. Page, in: Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Com-
putational Models of Social Life, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 2009,
pp. 31–36.
[32] D. Mitra, Y. Chu, K. Cetin, Cluster analysis of occupancy schedules in residential
buildings in the united states, Energy Build 236 (2021) 110791.
[33] R. Mitoula, E. Theodoropoulou, B. Karaki, Sustainable development in the city
of volos through reuse of industrial buildings, Sustain. Dev. Cult. Tradit. J. 2
(2013) 154–167.
[34] D. Mısırlısoy, K. Günce, Adaptive reuse strategies for heritage buildings: a
holistic approach, Sustain. Cities Soc. (2016) 91–98.
[35] M. Mardani, A. Jusoh, et al., Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and
their applications – a review of the literature from 20 0 0 to 2014, Econ.
Res.-EkonomskaIstrazˇivanja 28 (1) (2015) 516–571.
[36] R. Nagy, udmila Meiarová, Silvia Vileková, et al., Investigation of a ventila-
tion system for energy efficiency and indoor environmental quality in a ren-
ovated historical building: a case study, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16
(21) (2019) 4133.
[37] Y. Niu, D. Wang, Influence mechanism and innovation of tourism develop-
ment pattern of historic streets based on the perspective of tourists: a case
of Pingjiang Road of Suzhou, Geograph. Res. 34 (1) (2015) 181–196.
[38] J. Niedbalski, I. Lzak, The main features of Nvivo Software and the procedures
of the grounded theory methodology: how to implement studies based on
GT using CAQDAS, World Conference on Qualitative Research, Springer, Cham,
2018.
[39] L.N. Nicholas, B. Thapa, Y.J. Ko, Residents’ perspectives of a world heritage site:
the Pitions Management Area St. Lucia, Ann. Tour. Res. 36 (3) (2009) 390–412.
[40] Paolo Salonia, Tourism, migration, heritage, culture, inclusion: recovering the
memory of ourselves for the sustainable cities and the society of the XXI cen-
tury, Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 223 (2016) 668–675.
[41] B.H. Poudyal, T. Maraseni, G. Cockfield, B. Bhattarai, Recognition of histori-
cal contribution of indigenous peoples and local communities through benefit
sharing plans (bsps) in redd+, Environ. Sci. Policy 106 (2020) 111–114.
[42] E. Radziszewskazielina, G. Śladowski, Evaluation of historic building conversion
options in the context of sustainable development, J. Compar. Neurol. 73 (3)
(2015) 469–488.
145
Journal of Cultural Heritage 52 (2021) 134–145
[43] C. Rodrigues, F. Freire, Adaptive reuse of buildings: eco-efficiency assessment
of retrofit strategies for alternative uses of an historic building, J. Clean. Prod.
157 (2017) 94–105.
[44] J.D. Rodrigues, A. Grossi, Indicators and ratings for the compatibility assess-
ment of conservation actions, J. Cult. Herit. 8 (1) (2007) 32–43.
[45] Y. Tan, L. Shen, C. Langston, A fuzzy approach for adaptive reuse selection of
industrial buildings in Hong Kong, Int. J. Strategic Property Manage. 18 (1)
(2014) 66–76.
[46] Teresa Oteíza, Evaluative patterns in the official discourse of human rights in
chile: giving value to the past and building historical memories in society,
Delta Documentao De Estudos Em Lingüística Teórica E Aplicada 25 (9) (2009)
609–640.
[47] United Nation. (2014). The Conclusions on Cultural Heritage as a Strategic Re-
source for a Sustainable Europe. Brussels. Access in 20 May 2014.
[48] I. Vardopoulos, Critical sustainable development factors in the adaptive reuse
of urban industrial buildings. A fuzzy DEMATEL approach, Sustain. Cities Soc.
50 (2019) 101684.
[49] N. Wang, X. Zhao, Z. Zou, et al., Autonomous damage segmentation and mea-
surement of glazed tiles in historic buildings via deep learning, Comput.-Aided
Civil Infrastruct. Eng. 35 (3) (2020) 277–291.
[50] J. Wong, H. Li, Construction, application and validation of selection evalua-
tion model (SEM) for intelligent HVAC control system, Autom. Construct. 19
(2) (2010) 261–269.
[51] J. Xu, M. Zhang, L. Shao, J. Kang, Subjective evaluation of the environmental
quality in China’s industrial corridors, J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manage. 24 (1)
(2016) 21–36.
[52] M. Yildirim, Assessment of the decision-making process for re-use of a histor-
ical asset: the example of Diyarbakir Hasan Pasha Khan, Turkey, J. Cult. Herit.
13 (4) (2012) 379–388.
[53] D. Zhang, C.P. Zhang, D.P. Yang, L.R. Fang, The application of fuzzy-topsis in
multi-attribute optimization—based on projects’ selection of field exploration,
Math. Pract. Theory 46 (08) (2016) 132–139.
[55] W. Zihua, H. Ying, The value analysis of building heritage in osto of hohhot
based on the grounded theory, Architect. Cult. 32 (04) (2019) 219–220.