Fuzzy Decision-Support System for Safeguarding Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Art-Risk Project
2.2. Case Studies Analyzed
2.2.1. Temple of Cruz del Campo
- Intangible features. Historical value
- Tangible features. Constructive characterisation
2.2.2. Temple of San Onofre
- Intangible features. Historical value
- Tangible features. Constructive characterisation
2.3. Functional Service Life Model Adapted to a Specific Urban Context (ART-RISK2.5)
3. Results and Discussions
4. Conclusions and Future Research Lines
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ibrahim, F.; Harun, S.H.; Samad, A.; Hanim, M.; Harun, W.; Mariah, W. Interior Semantics Of The Lobby/Waiting Area In General Hospitals; A Preliminary Study. Presented at the 2nd International Conference on Built Environment in Developing Countries 2008, Penang, Malaysia, 3–4 December 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Wai-Yin, C.; Shu-Yun, M. Heritage preservation and sustainability of China’s development. Sustain. Dev. 2004, 12, 15–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ipekoglu, B. An architectural evaluation method for conservation of traditional dwellings. Build. Environ. 2006, 41, 386–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Amit-Cohen, I.; Sofer, M. Cultural heritage and its economic potential in rural society: The case of the kibbutzim in Israel. Land Use Policy 2016, 57, 368–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicu, I.C.; Stoleriu, C.C. Land use changes and dynamics over the last century around churches of Moldavia, Bukovina, Northern Romania—Challenges and future perspectives. Habitat Int. 2019, 88, 101979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godfrey, A.; Ciurean, R.L.; Van Westen, C.J.; Kingma, N.C.; Glade, T. Assessing vulnerability of buildings to hydro-meteorological hazards using an expert based approach—An application in Nehoiu Valley, Romania. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2015, 13, 229–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuchs, S. Susceptibility versus resilience to mountain hazards in Austria—Paradigms of vulnerability revisited. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2009, 9, 337–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicu, I.C. Tracking natural and anthropic risks from historical maps as a tool for cultural heritage assessment: A case study. Environ. Earth Sci. 2017, 76, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadegui, N.; Fayek, A.R.; Seresht, N.G. Queue performance measures in construction simulation models containing subjective uncertainty. Autom. Constr. 2015, 60, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vicente, R.; Ferreira, T.M.; Mendes da Silva, J.A.R. Supporting urban regeneration and building refurbishment, strategies for building appraisal and inspection of old building stock in city centres. J. Cult. Herit. 2015, 16, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucchi, E. Review of preventive conservation in museum buildings. J. Cult. Heritage 2018, 29, 180–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agapiou, A.; Lysandrou, V.; Alexakis, D.; Themistocleous, K.; Cuca, B.; Argyriou, A.; Sarris, A.; Hadjimitsis, D. Cultural heritage management and monitoring using remote sensing data and GIS: The case study of Paphos area, Cyprus. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2015, 54, 230–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hadjimitsis, D.; Agapiou, A.; Alexakis, D.; Sarris, A. Exploring natural and anthropogenic risk for cultural heritage in Cyprus using remote sensing and GIS. Int. J. Digit. Earth 2013, 6, 115–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cebron Lipovec, N.; Van Balen, K. Preventive conservation and maintenance of architectural heritage as means of preservation of the spirit of place. In 16th ICOMOS General Assembly and International Symposium: Finding the Spirit of Place—Between the Tangible and the Intangible; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Jones, S. Experiencing authenticity at heritage sites: Some implications for heritage management and conservation. Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites 2009, 11, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Truscott, M.; Young, D. Revising the burra charter: Australia ICOMOS updates its guidelines for conservation practice. Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites 2000, 4, 101–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prieto, A.J. Modelado de la Vida Útil de Edificios Patrimoniales Analizando Variables de Vulnerabilidad y Riesgos en Edificios Patrimoniales. Master’s Thesis, University of Seville, Sevilla, Spain, 2013. (In Spanish). [Google Scholar]
- González-Moreno, J. Vía Crucis a la Cruz del Campo; Editorial Castillejo: Sevilla, Spain, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- De Mena, J.M. Historia de Sevilla; Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial España: Barcelona, Spain, 2011; ISBN1 8401347645. ISBN2 9788401347641. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
- IAPH. Instituto Andaluz de Patrimonio Histórico (Andalusian Movable Heritage). 2017. Available online: http://www.iaph.es/patrimonio-mueble-andalucia/resumen.do?id=186154 (accessed on 20 June 2019).
- Zadeh, L. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control. 1965, 8, 338–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Silva, A.; de Brito, J.; Gaspar, P.L. Methodologies for service life prediction of buildings. With a focus on façade claddings. In Green Energy and Technology; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibáñez, A.J.P.; Bernal, J.M.M.; Chávez-De-Diego, M.-J.; Sánchez, F.J.A.; Prieto, A. Expert system for predicting buildings service life under ISO 31000 standard. Application in architectural heritage. J. Cult. Heritage 2016, 18, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prieto, A.J.; Macías-Bernal, J.M.; Chávez, M.-J.; Alejandre, F.J. Fuzzy modeling of the functional service life of architectural heritage buildings. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2017, 31, 4017041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prieto, A.J.; Silva, A.; de Brito, J.; Macías-Bernal, J.M. Serviceability of facade claddings. Build. Res. Inf. 2018, 46, 179–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernal, J.M.M.; Calama-Rodríguez, J.M.; Chávez-De-Diego, M.-J. Modelo de predicción de la vida útil de la edificación patrimonial a partir de la lógica difusa. Informes de la Construcción 2014, 66, 006. [Google Scholar]
- Ortiz, P.; Antunez, V.; Martín, J.M.; Ortiz, R.; Vázquez, M.A.; Galán, E. Approach to environmental risk analysis for the main monuments in a historical city. J. Cult. Heritage 2014, 15, 432–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ortiz, R.; Ortiz, P. Vulnerability Index: A new approach for preventive conservation of monuments. Int. J. Arch. Heritage 2016, 10, 1078–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romão, X.; Paupério, E.; Pereira, N. A framework for the simplified risk analysis of cultural heritage assets. J. Cult. Heritage 2016, 20, 696–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Revez, M.J.; Rodrigues, J.D. Incompatibility risk assessment procedure for the cleaning of built heritage. J. Cult. Heritage 2016, 18, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prieto, A.J.; Vásquez, V.; Silva, A.; Horn, A.; Alejandre, F.J.; Macías-Bernal, J.M. Protection value and functional service life of heritage timber buildings. Build. Res. Inf. 2017, 47, 567–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicu, I.C. Cultural heritage assessment and vulnerability using analytic hierarchy process and geographic information systems (Valea Oii catchment, North-eastern Romania). An approach to historical maps. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2016, 20, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carter, R.W.; Bramle, R. Defining heritage values and significance for improved resource management: An application to Australian tourism. Int. J. Heritage Stud. 2002, 8, 175–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tweed, C.; Sutherland, M. Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 83, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
ID | Input Variables | Quantitative Value (Bad/Regular/Good) | Description of the Variables Valuation OF The Functional Service Life Model Adapted (ART-RISK2.5) |
---|---|---|---|
iv1 | Roof design | (1.0/3.5/5.0) | Complex and slow/normal/fast evacuation of rainfall water |
iv2 | Preservation | (1.0/3.5/5.0) | Neglected/normal/optimal state of conservation |
iv3 | Built context | (1.0/3.5/5.0) | Building between complex or without constructions around it |
iv4 | Constructive system | (1.0/3.5/5.0) | Heterogeneous or uniform characteristics of the constructive system |
ir5 | Load state modification | (1.0/3.5/5.0) | Symmetrical/apparently and disorderly/balanced modification |
ir6 | Overloads | (1.0/3.5/5.0) | Live load higher/equal/below than the original level |
ir7 | Risk of fire | (1.0/3.5/5.0) | High/medium/low fire load in relation with a combustible structure |
ir8 | Inner environment | (1.0/3.5/5.0) | Maximum/medium/low level of health, cleanliness and hygiene of the building’s spaces |
ir9 | Heritage value | (1.0/3.5/5.0) | Properties with low/average/great historical value |
ir10 | Occupancy | (1.0/3.5/5.0) | Low/media/high occupancy in the building |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Prieto, A.J.; Macías-Bernal, J.M.; Silva, A.; Ortiz, P. Fuzzy Decision-Support System for Safeguarding Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3953. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143953
Prieto AJ, Macías-Bernal JM, Silva A, Ortiz P. Fuzzy Decision-Support System for Safeguarding Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage. Sustainability. 2019; 11(14):3953. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143953
Chicago/Turabian StylePrieto, Andrés José, Juan Manuel Macías-Bernal, Ana Silva, and Pilar Ortiz. 2019. "Fuzzy Decision-Support System for Safeguarding Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage" Sustainability 11, no. 14: 3953. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143953