Enhancing the Cultural Heritage through Adaptive Reuse. A Multicriteria Approach to Evaluate the Castello Visconteo in Cusago (Italy)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Assessment of Cultural Heritage
3. Methodological Approach
3.1. Intelligence Phase
3.2. Design Phase
- Evaluation of the performances of the alternatives measured by considering the unit of measurement defined and the description provided with the aim of obtaining a performance matrix.
- Standardization of the scores in order to make all the criteria comparable. Performances are standardized considering an a-dimensional scale (0–1) where 1 represents the best value, while 0 the worst, and the method applied is the maximum one which takes as references the Equations (1) and (2):
- Criteria weight elicitations, which allow users to assign a different level of importance to the criteria defined within the evaluation framework. Within the design phase, it has been carried out by performing a neutral scenario where all the criteria involved were weighted with the same importance in order to avoid assigning a higher influence on some of the aspects defined in the framework.
- Aggregation of procedure results in the final suitability ranks, where alternatives are evaluated by considering their level of satisfaction with the objectives stated. The Weighted Sum Model (WSM) has been selected, which consists of summing up the yield values obtained by multiplying the score standardized of each criterion by the related weight assigned. The final value obtained represents the suitability of the alternative in the final rank [53].
3.3. Decision Phase
4. Case Study
5. Assessing the Adaptive Reuse
5.1. Alternative Scenarios
5.1.1. Nursing Home
5.1.2. University Research Center
5.1.3. Food District
5.1.4. Cultural Center
5.2. MCDA
5.2.1. Performance Matrix
5.2.2. Neutral Scenario
5.3. NAIADE Application
6. Results
6.1. Conflicts and Coalitions between the Actors
6.2. Sensitivity Analysis
Criteria Weights
7. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Literature Review
Author | Aim | Criteria | Sub-Criteria |
Yau (2009) [34] | to present an MCDM model on the criteria for decision making, which can have many applications in heritage conservation decision making | Land use | Compatibility |
Congruity | |||
Historical integrity | |||
Design and landscape | Visual quality | ||
Development scale | |||
Barrier-free access | |||
Infrastructural impacts | Transport system | ||
Plumbing and drainage | |||
Electricity and gas | |||
Environmental impacts | Tree protection | ||
Pollutions | |||
Nuisances | |||
Engineering concerns | Structural conditions | ||
Maintenance viability | |||
Geotechnical concerns | |||
Financial performance | Initial costs | ||
Recurrent costs | |||
Economic benefits | |||
Turskis et al. (2013) [43] | multiple criteria assessment of alternatives of the cultural heritage renovation projects in Vilnius city. | Historical, cultural, and memorial | |
Remains of different eras of construction | |||
Stylistic epochs remain inside | |||
Stylistic epoch’s remains of the building facades | |||
Architectural—composite value of facades | |||
Building functionality in old town area | |||
Building’s construction technology and quality | |||
Construction periods of building’s evolution | |||
Ferretti et al. (2014) [45] | sustainability assessment in cultural heritage projects using the Multi-Attribute Value Theory (MAVT) approach | Quality of the context | |
Economic activities | |||
Flexibility of the building | |||
Accessibility | |||
Conservation level | |||
Oppio & Bottero (2017) [33] | the use of a multi methodological approach based on choice experiments and social multicriteria evaluation to support the adaptive reuse | Flexibility | |
Promotion | |||
Accessibility | |||
Public spaces | |||
Cost | |||
Events | |||
Invasiveness | |||
Target | |||
Della Spina (2019) [44] | integrated evaluation model based on the combined use of multi-criteria techniques, which helps to classify adaptive reuse strategies of unused cultural heritage assets and supports decision-makers in the implementation of development strategies in vulnerable contexts | Economic | Attractiveness |
Permanent jobs | |||
Investment costs | |||
Payback period (PBP) | |||
Social and Culture | Sociocultural associations | ||
Cultural and recreational services | |||
Potential for cultural initiatives | |||
Accessibility | Pedestrian connections | ||
Proximity to public transport | |||
Urban landscape quality | Permeable surface area | ||
Traffic restriction | |||
Quality of landscape | |||
Mixed Functionality | |||
Haroun et al. (2019) [38] | to introduce an appropriate evaluation tool to support the efficiency in selecting the optimum solution for adaptive reuse of heritage buildings | Heritage value | Protection and enhancement heritage significant |
Architectural value | Compatibility | ||
Recognizability of heritage and new function | |||
The respectability of building’s system | |||
Building’s physical stability | |||
Economic performance | Economic benefits | ||
Adaptation costs | |||
Social value | Effect on society | ||
Environmental impact | Congruity with land uses | ||
Accessibility | |||
Nesticò & Somma (2019) [39] | to identify an effective approach to establish the best use of a historic building | Social | Community involvement |
New workers | |||
Cultural | Cultural effects | ||
Historical- architectural compatibility | |||
Financial | Return On Investment (ROI) | ||
Pavlovskis et al. (2019) [40] | application of the multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) method under uncertainty, namely the rough weighted aggregated sum product assessment (WASPAS), for ranking alternatives according to multiple criteria. | Economic benefit/expenses of changes | Investment to investigation and research |
Investment in design; | |||
Investment in reconstruction works | |||
Generating income for the municipality/city | |||
Influence on social environment | Job creation for municipal/city residents | ||
Benefits for city/country society | |||
Benefits for private business | |||
Benefits for heritage preservation | |||
Impact on natural environment | Preserving the surrounding landscape | ||
Possibilities of park use for public needs and recreation | |||
Pollution during reconstruction works | |||
Pollution during operation of the facility | |||
Historical—cultural value preservation | Preserving the building’s authenticity | ||
Activities that help propagate history, culture | |||
Public access to heritage and history | |||
Technical–economic value of an object | |||
Architectural–compositional value of an object | |||
Technological—architectural possibilities | Volume of reconstruction works | ||
Suitability of the internal layout for the purpose of conversion | |||
Infrastructure adaptation possibilities | |||
Lifetime of the building after reconstruction | |||
Stević et al. (2019) [41] | to evaluate the attractiveness of some of the main cultural sites/tourism attractions in Porto, Portugal | Historic value | |
Aesthetic/artistic value | |||
Representativeness | |||
State of preservation | |||
Infrastructure and accessibility | |||
Social significance | |||
Abastante et al. (2020) [27] | combination of different analyses on the territory and a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to pick out crucial decisions related to the final destination of some spaces involving the community. | Tourism | |
Didactic/Recreational | |||
Sport | |||
Socio/cultural | |||
Della Spina (2020) [9] Salerno (2020) [13] | a multicriteria analysis to decision support, starting with a multistakeholder decision analysis (M-SDA), in order to assist decision-makers in choosing suitable scenarios to trigger circular development processes, taking into account the role of cultural heritage in a systemic landscape perspective | Urban sustainability | Presence of historical–cultural places within 1 km |
Quality of the urban landscape | |||
Accessibility by private car | |||
Presence of commercial activities nearby | |||
Presence of accommodation and hospitality services | |||
Project sustainability | Total property availability | ||
Flexibility of spaces to new functions | |||
Degradation level | |||
Economic sustainability | Investment costs | ||
Payback period | |||
Financial appeal for private investors | |||
Ribera et al. (2020) [17] | to define an economic evaluation model useful for the public decision-maker in choosing the new uses for the historic buildings, compatible with the historical tradition | Social | |
Cultural | |||
Financial | |||
Involvement of the community | |||
Level of the employment | |||
Cultural repercussions on the community | |||
Compatibility of the function with the historical-architectural characteristics of the property | |||
Representativeness of the function | |||
Housing impact | |||
Respect of the criterion of minimum intervention | |||
Della Spina (2021) [42] | experimenting an innovative approach to the design and evaluation of complex processes concerning the rehabilitation of the abandoned railway cultural heritage | Strengths | Cultural historical value |
Current state of conservation | |||
Level of accessibility to asset | |||
Weaknesses | Current destination and use | ||
Current property | |||
Operating and maintenance costs | |||
Opportunities | Landscape quality of the context | ||
Flexibility and transformative potential | |||
Connection to public infrastructures/services | |||
Threats | Regulatory risks in the use of the property | ||
Lack of funding and potential investors | |||
Degradation of the built environment |
References
- Cerreta, M.; Elefante, A.; La Rocca, L. A creative living lab for the adaptive reuse of the morticelli church: The ssmoll project. Sustainability 2020, 12, 561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bottero, M.C.; Dell’Anna, F.; Gobbo, G.L. A PROMETHEE-Based Approach for Designing the Reuse of an Abandoned Railway in the Monferrato Region, Italy. Int. J. Multicriteria Decis. Mak. 2019, 8, 60–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerreta, M.; Daldanise, G. Community branding (Co-bra): A collaborative decision making process for urban regeneration. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications, Trieste, Italy, 3–6 July 2017; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 730–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bottero, M.; Caprioli, C.; Berta, M. Urban Problems and Patterns of Change: The Analysis of a Downgraded Industrial Area in Turin. In Values and Functions for Future Cities; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 385–401. [Google Scholar]
- Yoon, J.; Lee, J. Adaptive reuse of apartments as heritage assets in the Seoul station urban regeneration area. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Torrieri, F.; Fumo, M.; Sarnataro, M.; Ausiello, G. An integrated decision support system for the sustainable reuse of the former monastery of “ritiro del carmine” in campania region. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bottero, M.; D’Alpaos, C.; Oppio, A. Ranking of adaptive reuse strategies for abandoned industrial heritage in vulnerable contexts: A multiple criteria decision aiding approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Medici, S.; De Toro, P.; Nocca, F. Cultural heritage and sustainable development: Impact assessment of two adaptive reuse projects in Siracusa, Sicily. Sustainability 2020, 12, 311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Della Spina, L. Adaptive sustainable reuse for cultural heritage: A multiple criteria decision aiding approach supporting urban development processes. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stival, C.A.; Berto, R.; Morano, P.; Rosato, P. Reuse of Vernacular Architecture in Minor Alpine Settlements: A Multi-Attribute Model for Sustainability Appraisal. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oppio, A.; Bottero, M.; Ferretti, V. Designing Adaptive Reuse Strategies for Cultural Heritage with Choice Experiments. In Appraisal: From Theory to Practice; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 303–315. [Google Scholar]
- Department of the Environment and Heritage. Adaptive Reuse: Preserving our Past, Building our Future; Department of the Environment and Heritage: Camberra, Australia, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Salerno, E. Identifying value-increasing actions for cultural heritage assets through sensitivity analysis of multicriteria evaluation results. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vehbi, B.O.; Günçe, K.; Iranmanesh, A. Multi-Criteria Assessment for Defining Compatible New Use: Old Administrative Hospital, Kyrenia, Cyprus. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tu, H.-M. Sustainable Heritage Management: Exploring Dimensions of Pull and Push Factors. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aigwi, I.E.; Egbelakin, T.; Ingham, J.; Phipps, R.; Rotimi, J.; Filippova, O. A performance-based framework to prioritise underutilised historical buildings for adaptive reuse interventions in New Zealand. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ribera, F.; Nesticò, A.; Cucco, P.; Maselli, G. A multicriteria approach to identify the Highest and Best Use for historical buildings. J. Cult. Herit. 2020, 41, 166–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daldanise, G. From place-branding to community-branding: A collaborative decision-making process for cultural heritage enhancement. Sustainability 2020, 12, 399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015; Millennium Development Goals Report; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2016; ISBN 9789210574662. [Google Scholar]
- De Gregorio, S.; De Vita, M.; De Berardinis, P.; Palmero, L.; Risdonne, A. Designing the sustainable adaptive reuse of industrial heritage to enhance the local context. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foster, G.; Kreinin, H.; Stagl, S. The future of circular environmental impact indicators for cultural heritage buildings in Europe. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2020, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dell’Ovo, M.; Bassani, S.; Stefanina, G.; Oppio, A. Memories at risk. How to support decisions about abandoned industrial heritage regeneration. Valori e Valutazioni 2020, 2020, 107–115. [Google Scholar]
- Assumma, V.; Bottero, M.; Monaco, R. Landscape Economic Attractiveness: An Integrated Methodology for Exploring the Rural Landscapes in Piedmont (Italy). Land 2019, 8, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mangialardo, A.; Micelli, E. Reconstruction or Reuse? How Real Estate Values and Planning Choices Impact Urban Redevelopment. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fabbri, R.; Gabrielli, L.; Ruggeri, A.G. Interactions between restoration and financial analysis: The case of Cuneo War Wounded House. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 8, 145–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bottero, M.; Dell’Anna, F.; Nappo, M. Evaluating Tangible and Intangible Aspects of Cultural Heritage: An Application of the PROMETHEE Method for the Reuse Project of the Ceva–Ormea Railway. In Integrated Evaluation for the Management of Contemporary Cities; Mondini, G., Fattinnanzi, E., Oppio, A., Bottero, M., Stanghellini, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 285–295. [Google Scholar]
- Abastante, F.; Lami, I.M.; Mecca, B. How to revitalise a historic district: A stakeholders-oriented assessment framework of adaptive reuse. Green Energy Technol. 2020, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bottero, M.; Datola, G. Addressing social sustainability in urban regeneration processes. An application of the social multi-criteria evaluation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7579. [Google Scholar]
- Napoli, G.; Leone, M. The urban park as a “social island”. the ANP in the participatory project of Parco Uditore in Palermo. In Green Energy and Technology; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2020; pp. 229–248. [Google Scholar]
- Giuliani, F.; De Falco, A.; Santini, L. A Stakeholder Analysis for the Adaptive Reuse Assessment of Architectural Heritage: Towards an Integrated Approach; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 311–333. [Google Scholar]
- Munda, G. Multicriteria Evaluation in a Fuzzy Environment: The Naiade Method. In Multicriteria Evaluation in a Fuzzy Environment. Contributions to Economics; Physica-Verlag HD: Berlin, Germany, 1995; pp. 131–148. [Google Scholar]
- Munda, G. A NAIADE based approach for sustainability benchmarking. Int. J. Environ. Technol. Manag. 2006, 6, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oppio, A.; Bottero, M. Conflicting values in designing adaptive reuse for cultural heritage. A case study of social multicriteria evaluation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications, Trieste, Italy, 3–6 July 2017; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 607–623. [Google Scholar]
- Nadkarni, R.R.; Puthuvayi, B. A comprehensive literature review of Multi-Criteria Decision Making methods in heritage buildings. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 32, 101814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bottero, M.; Bragaglia, F.; Caruso, N.; Datola, G.; Dell’Anna, F. Experimenting community impact evaluation (CIE) for assessing urban regeneration programmes: The case study of the area 22@ Barcelona. Cities 2020, 99, 102464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Capolongo, S.; Sdino, L.; Dell’Ovo, M.; Moioli, R.; Della Torre, S. How to assess urban regeneration proposals by considering conflicting values. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yau, Y. Multi-criteria decision making for urban built heritage conservation: Application of the analytic hierarchy process. J. Build. Apprais. 2009, 4, 191–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haroun, H.A.A.F.; Bakr, A.F.; Hasan, A.E.S. Multi-criteria decision making for adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: Aziza Fahmy Palace, Alexandria, Egypt. Alex. Eng. J. 2019, 58, 467–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nesticò, A.; Somma, P. Comparative analysis of multi-criteria methods for the enhancement of historical buildings. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pavlovskis, M.; Migilinskas, D.; Antucheviciene, J.; Kutut, V. Ranking of heritage building conversion alternatives by applying BIM and MCDM: A case of Sapieha Palace in Vilnius. Symmetry 2019, 11, 973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stević, I.; Stević, S.R.; de Jesus Breda, Z.M. Application of MCDM methods to tourism evaluation of cultural sites. In Cultural Urban Heritage; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 357–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Della Spina, L. Strategic planning and decision making: A case study for the integrated management of cultural heritage assets in southern italy. Smart Innov. Syst. Technol. 2021, 178 SIST, 1116–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turskis, Z.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Kutut, V. A model based on ARAS-G and AHP methods for multiple criteria prioritizing of heritage value. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 2013, 12, 45–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Della Spina, L. Multidimensional assessment for “culture-led” and “community-driven” urban regeneration as driver for trigger economic vitality in urban historic centers. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ferretti, V.; Bottero, M.; Mondini, G. Decision making and cultural heritage: An application of the Multi-Attribute Value Theory for the reuse of historical buildings. J. Cult. Herit. 2014, 15, 644–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simon, H.A. Information Processing Models of Cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1979, 30, 363–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Korhonen, J.; Honkasalo, A.; Seppälä, J. Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 143, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cadrien; Messaadia, M.; Majumdar, A.; Eynard, B. STEEP analysis as a tool for building technology roadmaps. In Proceedings of the Internationale Challenges e-2011 Conference, Florence, Italy, 26–28 October 2011; pp. 26–28. [Google Scholar]
- Teo, E.A.L.; Lin, G. Determination of strategic adaptation actions for public housing in Singapore. Build. Environ. 2011, 46, 1480–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dell’Anna, F. Green jobs and energy efficiency as strategies for economic growth and the reduction of environmental impacts. Energy Policy 2020, 112031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roy, B. Decision-aid and decision-making. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990, 45, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roy, B. Paradigms and challenges. In International Series in Operations Research and Management Science; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2005; Volume 78, pp. 3–24. [Google Scholar]
- Fishburn, P.C. Additive utilities with finite sets: Applications in the management sciences. Nav. Res. Logist. Q. 1967, 14, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polatidis, H.; Haralambopoulos, D.A.; Munda, G.; Vreeker, R. Selecting an Appropriate Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Technique for Renewable Energy Planning. Energy Sources Part B Econ. Plan. Policy 2006, 1, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Geer, J.P. Some Aspects of Minkowski Distance; Leiden University: Leiden, The Neitherlands, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Roberts, R.; Goodwin, P. Weight approximations in multi-attribute decision models. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 2002, 11, 291–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, W. How to Use Multiattribute Utility Measurement for Social Decisionmaking. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 1977, 7, 326–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stella, G.A. Il castello in rovina dimenticato da Milano. Corr. Della Sera 2011. Available online: https://milano.corriere.it/milano/notizie/cronaca/11_ottobre_17/stella-castello-1901843477011.shtml (accessed on 18 March 2021).
- Bellini, A. Conservazione e fruizione del patrimonio architettonico: Un problema etico. Territorio 2013, 64, 9–17. [Google Scholar]
- Fiorani, D.; Kealy, L.; Musso, S.F. Conservation/Adaptation. Keeping Alive the Spirit of the place. Adaptive reuse of Heritage with Symbolic Value; Fiorani, D.K., Loughlin, M., Stefano, P., Bie, H., Claudine Van Cleempoel, K., Eds.; EAAE: Hasselt, Belgium, 2017; ISBN 9782930301655. [Google Scholar]
- Torsello, B.P. Che cos’ è il restauro? In Che cos’ è il Restauro? Nove Studiosi a Confronto; Marsilio, Ed.; Marsilio: Venezia, Italy, 2005; pp. 9–17, 53 –56. ISBN 978-88-317-8645-4. [Google Scholar]
- Borgatti, S. Castelli Fratelli. Un Curioso Tentativo di Salvataggio; La Memoria del Mondo: Milan, Italy, 2011; ISBN 8895898575. [Google Scholar]
- Del Tredici, F.; Rossetti, E. Percorsi Castellani: Da Milano a Bellinzona: Guida ai Castelli del Ducato; Edizioni, N., Ed.; Castelli del ducato: Parma, Italy, 2012; ISBN 8896451027, 9788896451021. [Google Scholar]
- Della Torre, S. A coevolutionary approach to the reuse of built cultural heritage. In Proceedings of the in Atti del XXXV Convegno internazionale “Il Patrimonio Culturale in mutamento. Le sfide dell’uso”, Bressanone, Italy, 7–9 July 2019; pp. 25–34. [Google Scholar]
- Musso, S. Recupero e Restauro Degli Edifici Storici. Guida Pratica al Rilievo e alla Diagnostica; EPC Libri: Rome, Italy, 2004; ISBN 8881843285. [Google Scholar]
- Sulfaro, N. L’Architettura Come Opera Aperta. Il tema dell’uso nel Progetto di Conservazione; ArcHistoR extra 2: Reggio Calabria, Italy, 2018; ISBN 978-88-85479-02-9. [Google Scholar]
- Istituto Superiore di Sanità Conclusa L’indagine Sulle Rsa—ISS. Available online: https://www.iss.it/covid-19-primo-piano/-/asset_publisher/yX1afjCDBkWH/content/conclusa-l-indagine-sulle-rsa (accessed on 18 March 2021).
- Rollino, L. Progettare e Adeguare le RSA in Epoca Post Covid: Aspetti Architettonici e Impiantistici per Assicurare Salubrità. Available online: https://www.ingenio-web.it/27184-progettare-e-adeguare-le-rsa-in-epoca-post-covid-19 (accessed on 18 March 2021).
- Anderson, D.C.; Grey, T.; Kennelly, S.; O’Neill, D. Nursing Home Design and COVID-19: Balancing Infection Control, Quality of Life, and Resilience. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2020, 21, 1519–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministero Dell’istruzione Didattica a Distanza. Available online: https://www.istruzione.it/coronavirus/didattica-a-distanza_rai.html (accessed on 19 March 2021).
- Università dEgli Studi di Milano Facoltà di Scienze Agrarie e Alimentari. Available online: https://www.unimi.it/it/corsi/facolta-e-scuole/scienze-agrarie-e-alimentari (accessed on 19 March 2021).
- Federazione Italiana dei Pubblici Esercizi Crolla L’occupazione nei Pubblici Esercizi, Persi 243mila Posti di Lavoro. Fipe-Confcommercio: “Colpiti Soprattutto i Giovani”. Available online: https://www.fipe.it/comunicazione/note-per-la-stampa/item/7685-crolla-l-occupazione-nei-pubblici-esercizi-persi-243mila-posti-di-lavoro-fipe-confcommercio-colpiti-soprattutto-i-giovani.html (accessed on 19 March 2021).
- il Sole 24 Focus di Settore per far Ripartire L’italia PMI, la Ripresa Post Covid. Available online: https://minisiti.ilsole24ore.com/focuspmi/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Focus%20PMI-Report%20complessivo.pdf (accessed on 19 March 2021).
- Dell’Anna, F.; Vergerio, G.; Corgnati, S.P.; Mondini, G. A new price list for retrofit intervention evaluation on some archetypical buildings. Valori e Valutazioni 2019, 22, 3–17. [Google Scholar]
- Genio Civile Prezziari Tipologici; DEI: Rome, Italy, 2019; ISBN 9788831284035.
- Riabacke, M.; Danielson, M.; Ekenberg, L. State-of-the-Art Prescriptive Criteria Weight Elicitation. Adv. Decis. Sci. 2012, 2012, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gamboa, G.; Munda, G. The problem of windfarm location: A social multi-criteria evaluation framework. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 1564–1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barron, F.H.; Barrett, B.E. The efficacy of SMARTER—Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique Extended to Ranking. Acta Psychol. (Amst). 1996, 93, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roy, B. Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding. In Nonconvex Optimization and Its Applications; Springer US: Boston, MA, USA, 1996; Volume 12, ISBN 978-1-4419-4761-1. [Google Scholar]
Impacts | Criteria | U.M | (B/C) | Description | Source | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ON-SITE | S | Design of public recreational spaces | sqm | B | Creation of public space to promote the social inclusion | [27,33,40,44] |
T | Compatibility of the function with the property | scale (1–5) | B | How the new function will change the internal layout and the image of the asset [49] (5) conservation and refurbishment (4) rehabilitation and refurbishment (3) renovations and refurbishment (2) remodeling and refurbishment (1) restoration and refurbishment | [9,13,17,33,37,38,39,40,41,42,45] | |
E | Initial cost | €/sqm | C | Investment value for the restoration and the installation of the new function | [9,13,33,37,38,40,42,44] | |
E | Construction periods of building’s adaptation | months | C | Months needed for the implementation of the adaptive reuse project | [40,43] | |
P | Involvement of local associations | binary | B | Creation of spaces to assign to local associations that work in the territory | [17,27,39,44] | |
OFF-SITE | S | Catchment area | scale (1–3) | B | Relevance of the project on the local (1), regional (2), or national scale (3) | [17,38,40,41] |
T | Improvement of the accessibility | binary | B | Integration of new transport systems | [9,13,33,37,38,40,41,42,44,45] | |
E | Mixed new job opportunities | No | B | Diversification of job opportunities | [17,39,40,44,45,50] | |
E | Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) | No | B | SDGs satisfied from the development of the adaptive reuse project | [9,13,37,38,40,42,44,45] | |
P | Involvement of the community | scale (1–3) | B | Age groups satisfied by the adaptive reuse project | [17,27,33,39,40,44] |
Alternatives | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Impacts | Criteria | U.M | Nursing Home | University Research Center | Food District | Cultural Center | |
ON-SITE | S | Design of public recreational spaces | sqm | 0 | 1100 | 2850 | 2850 |
T | Compatibility of the function with the property | scale (1–5) | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
E | Initial cost | €/sqm | 2372.28 € | 2870.61 € | 2369.02 € | 1775.72 € | |
E | Construction periods of building’s adaptation | months | 25,5 | 28 | 22,5 | 23,5 | |
P | Involvement of local associations | binary | no | yes | yes | yes | |
OFF-SITE | S | Catchment area | scale (1–3) | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
T | Improvement of the accessibility | binary | no | yes | no | no | |
E | Mixed new job opportunities | No | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
E | Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) | No | 4 | 6 | 5 | 4 | |
P | Involvement of the community | scale (1–3) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
Alternatives | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Nursing Home | University Research Center | Food District | Cultural Center | |
Public administration (G1) | Very Bad | Moderate | Good | Very Good |
Cultural heritage expert (G2) | More or Less Bad | More or Less Good | Good | Good |
Food and Beverage sector expert (G3) | Good | Good | Very Good | Very Good |
University expert (G4) | Bad | Very Good | Good | Moderate |
Healthcare sector expert (G5) | Moderate | Good | More or Less Bad | Good |
Economy expert (G6) | Bad | Good | Moderate | Perfect |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Dell’Ovo, M.; Dell’Anna, F.; Simonelli, R.; Sdino, L. Enhancing the Cultural Heritage through Adaptive Reuse. A Multicriteria Approach to Evaluate the Castello Visconteo in Cusago (Italy). Sustainability 2021, 13, 4440. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084440
Dell’Ovo M, Dell’Anna F, Simonelli R, Sdino L. Enhancing the Cultural Heritage through Adaptive Reuse. A Multicriteria Approach to Evaluate the Castello Visconteo in Cusago (Italy). Sustainability. 2021; 13(8):4440. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084440
Chicago/Turabian StyleDell’Ovo, Marta, Federico Dell’Anna, Raffaella Simonelli, and Leopoldo Sdino. 2021. "Enhancing the Cultural Heritage through Adaptive Reuse. A Multicriteria Approach to Evaluate the Castello Visconteo in Cusago (Italy)" Sustainability 13, no. 8: 4440. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084440