Cultural Heritage Evaluation Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process and Fuzzy Control: Case Study of the South Manchuria Railway in China

Abstract

The South Manchuria Railway, being the earliest constructed railway in Northeast China, has preserved a vast array of modern architectural heritage along its route, which holds significant research value. This study takes the urban agglomerations along the Shenyang–Yingkou section of the South Manchuria Railway as the research object, convening scholars from various fields to construct a hierarchy analysis model for heritage value and using fuzzy control tools to mitigate the impact of subjective cognition on the experimental results, thereby determining the weight values of the influencing factors of modern architectural heritage along the South Manchuria Railway. We invited professional scholars and stakeholders to score the modern architectural heritage, and after combining the weight values derived from the hierarchy analysis model and calculating the weighted average, the heritage value scores were determined for each piece of modern architectural heritage. This study utilizes heritage value scores to measure the degree of danger and the extent of protection required for these architectural heritages, identifies the current shortcomings and insufficiencies in the protection and renewal of these heritages, and compares the effectiveness of heritage conservation efforts in various cities and towns.

1. Introduction

1.1. Research Background

The South Manchuria Railway, marking the inception of railway construction in Northeast China and among the pioneering railways nationwide, extends over 5000 km, traversing from Changchun in Jilin Province to Dalian in Liaoning Province. This railway has been substantially integrated into the regional railway network of Northeast China and remains operational [1]. Initially, the South Manchuria Railway constituted a segment of the Middle East Railway, constructed under the auspices of the Tsarist Russian government. After the Russo-Japanese War, Japan secured managerial prerogatives south of Changchun City, subsequently establishing settlements along the railway, culminating in a linear urban agglomeration [2,3,4]. Presently, these settlements preserve a plethora of modern architectural heritages from that period. These heritages are both numerous and varied, encompassing railway-related heritages such as stations, bureaus, and rolling stock, alongside significant public edifices, including banks, post offices, foreign financial institutions, and commercial centers, as well as residential and industrial structures in fragmented preservation. These remnants hold considerable historical and scholarly significance [5,6].

1.2. Research Significance

Due to the fact that the South Manchuria Railway and its associated modern architectural heritage were constructed during the Japanese colonial period, and given that China’s system for the protection of modern heritage began relatively late, there has been a lack of attention toward the South Manchuria Railway. This has resulted in varying degrees of damage and destruction to many modern architectural heritages. Our field research revealed that although the majority of the modern architectural heritages along the South Manchuria Railway have been categorized as protected structures, numerous buildings remain severely damaged or abandoned, with their surrounding environments undergoing significant changes. To ascertain the current state of preservation and the challenges faced by these modern architectural heritages, this study conducted a comprehensive survey and a quantifiable value assessment of these heritages. The research findings provide a measure of the severity of damage to these modern architectural heritages and establish a data reference for determining the priority order of heritage protection and renewal, and it is hoped that these results will encourage relevant departments to pay greater attention to modern architectural heritages, offering some assistance to stakeholders of the modern architectural heritages along the South Manchuria Railway.

Given the complexity and richness of the modern architectural heritage of the South Manchuria Railway, an efficient evaluation methodology is imperative for the oversight and management of the conservation and revitalization efforts, ensuring the maintenance of architectural integrity and enhancing utilization efficiency. This study attempts to employ a combined qualitative and quantitative evaluation approach to analyze the modern architectural heritage along the South Manchuria Railway, assessing the value indicators of various types of modern architectural heritage in different cities along the railway based on the analysis results. The evaluation model is based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and incorporates fuzzy control to mitigate the impact of subjective cognitive differences among scholars on the judgment results within the AHP. This method allows for a more objective and accurate assessment of the influence of various indicators on the value of modern architecture. Ultimately, volunteers will be convened to score each building’s indicators, with the weighted results constituting the total value score of the modern architectural heritage. This evaluation method is suitable for assessing the mathematical indicators of individual elements within complex systems. The methodology and results of this study can provide references and recommendations for the conservation and development of the modern architectural heritage cluster along the South Manchuria Railway and also offer a certain degree of assistance to other related heritage evaluation studies.

1.3. Research Subjects

To conduct a more nuanced and precise examination of the conservation status of the modern architectural heritage along the South Manchuria Railway and to discern disparities in heritage preservation and revitalization across cities and towns of varying scales and categories within China, this research has elected to focus on the urban agglomeration segment between Shenyang and Yingkou, hereinafter denoted as the “Shen-Ying Section”, as the subject of analysis. While the Shen-Ying section does not encompass the entire expanse of the South Manchuria Railway, the modern architectural heritage preserved within the cities along the route is, to a significant extent, emblematic and adept at encapsulating the quintessential attributes of the South Manchuria Railway’s modern railway heritage [7]. The Shen-Ying section encompasses one large city (provincial-level city: Shenyang), three medium-sized cities (prefecture-level cities: Liaoyang, Anshan, Yingkou), several small cities (county-level cities: Dengta, Haicheng, Dashiqiao, Gaizhou), and five towns with extant modern architectural heritage (Lingshan, Tanggangzi, Shagang, Lutun, Xiongyue).

Survey data indicate that Shenyang is among the leading cities along the South Manchuria Railway in terms of scale, with the most substantial number of preserved heritages and the highest quality of conservation. Presently, the Shen-Ying section of the railway has managed to preserve 135 modern architectural heritages linked to it, including a diverse range of building types such as public, industrial, residential, and commercial structures (Figure 1). This makes Shenyang not only a significant city but also one of the foremost in the study of the modern architectural history of the South Manchuria Railway. Cities such as Liaoyang, Anshan, and Yingkou, despite their lower urban hierarchy, maintain a significant number of modern architectural heritages related to the railway, with 14, 17, and 23, respectively. Dengta, Haicheng, Dashiqiao, Gaizhou, and other municipalities, due to their strategic geographical positions, have constructed and preserved numerous buildings pertinent to the South Manchuria Railway, which are essential for a holistic study of the railway’s architectural form and reflect the conservation status of modern architectural heritages within China’s South Manchuria Railway context.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The South Manchuria Railway Heritage

In the 1950s, the concept of railway heritage emerged in the United Kingdom [8]. The perception of this heritage is influenced by a multitude of factors, including global socio-economic development and urbanization processes. Concurrently, research interests and concerns are continually evolving [9]. In 2003, the International Federation for the Protection of Industrial Heritage adopted the Nizhni Tagil Charter, marking a widespread recognition of the value of industrial heritage. As a significant component of industrial heritage, the study of railway heritage has seen a gradual increase in research interest. Presently, three primary aspects dominate the study of railway heritage. The first pertains to strategic research on the protection and renewal of railway heritage, with outcomes closely tied to urban revitalization and the development of the tourism industry. For instance, Peira et al. [10] have detailed the evolution of railway tourism in Europe, conducted extensive investigations and interviews with stakeholders regarding railway tourism projects in Italy, and identified the most critical factors influencing the development and operation of railway tourism. Kao et al. [11] delve into the social emotions associated with railway heritage and the strategies to enhance urban quality for local inhabitants, addressing the complex, contradictory relation between heritage conservation and urban development. The second is the technical research concerning railway heritage conservation and development. Yazar et al. [12] deliberate on the revitalization of Istanbul’s railway heritage to align with modernization demands and its continued utilization in the high-speed rail era. Crapper et al. investigate preventive measures against earthwork collapse during the development of railway tourism in Britain. The third strand of research pertains to the value evaluation of railway heritage; for instance, Sang et al. [13] integrate the Analytic Hierarchy Process, the Delphi method, and GIS to assess the landscape quality of railway heritage and its influence on tourist attraction. Employing a values-based approach (VBA), de Oliveira et al. [14] reassess the social value of railway heritage on the Jundiai–Campinas route in Brazil, contemplating the efficacy of current conservation and management practices. It is evident that a substantial portion of railway heritage research is intertwined with protection, development, and value assessment. This paper aspires to evaluate the value of the modern architectural heritage of the South Manchuria Railway, offering a reference for its future protection and development.

The South Manchurian Railway, initially a segment of the Middle East Railway, underwent a significant transition after the Russo-Japanese War. The northern section remained under Russian control, while the southern segment was renamed and came under Japanese administration, becoming the South Manchurian Railway. Presently, scholarly discourse on both the Middle East and South Manchurian Railways is sparse globally, with the majority of research being conducted within China. Much of the existing literature focuses on the northern section of the Middle East Railway, often from the aspects of architectural culture, tourism, and landscape characteristics. For instance, Zhangjun et al. [15] employed a quantitative semantic differential method to evaluate the reconstruction of the Hengdaohezi Town historical block within the Middle East Railway context, while Tangyuexing et al. [16] conducted quantitative analyses to assess the comprehensive tourism development potential of cities and towns along the Middle East Railway. Zhangluchen [17] examined the railway industrial heritage in the Middle East from a landscape perspective. However, research on the structural, typological, and value assessment aspects of the South Manchurian Railway is lacking, and no cohesive research framework has been established. Consequently, this paper adopts the South Manchu Railway as its subject, evaluating the value of all modern architectural heritage along its route and ascertaining their current conservation status as well as the challenges they confront.

2.2. The Analytic Hierarchy Process

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a structured decision-making approach that hierarchically organizes elements associated with decision-making into levels such as objectives, criteria, and alternatives, facilitating both qualitative and quantitative analyses [18]. This method provides a systematic framework that decomposes complex, multi-criteria decision-making problems into a structured hierarchical model, quantifying the relative importance of factors through pairwise comparisons. AHP is particularly well suited for decision-making problems where the target system possesses hierarchical and tiered evaluation indicators and the target values are not easily quantifiable [19]. Given the multidimensional and multi-criteria nature of cultural heritage value assessment, AHP has been employed in several studies to conduct quantitative analyses of cultural heritage value both domestically and internationally. For instance, Hang Ma et al. [20] utilized AHP to evaluate the value of non-world heritage tulou, thereby providing a basis for their reuse. Yijun Liu et al. [21] combined the Delphi method with AHP to study 106 industrial site restoration projects in China, establishing a comprehensive value assessment model consisting of five components. Federica Ribera et al. [22] employed AHP to construct an economic model for evaluating the highest and best use (HBU) for historical buildings, assessing the value of Genoa Palace in Salerno, Italy, from social, cultural, and financial perspectives to maximize economic benefits while preserving its historical and architectural value. These applications underscore the adaptability and efficacy of AHP in evaluating and managing cultural heritage.

The traditional Analytic Hierarchy Process is lauded for its simplicity and clear hierarchical structure, yet it is heavily contingent upon the subjective insights and empirical knowledge of decision-makers, potentially obscuring the true intent of decision criteria due to varying interpretations of fuzzy language [23]. This method, when tasked with assessing the relative significance of a set of alternatives, may not fully capture the nuances and uncertainties in priority weights that arise from individual subjectivity, thereby impacting the analytical efficacy of AHP [24]. To address these limitations, Yumin Du et al. refined the conventional AHP in 2020, employing Fuzzy-AHP and AHP-TOPSIS methodologies to assess the damage levels of 18 earth-moving sites in Qinghai Province. A comparative analysis of the outcomes substantiated the applicability of the AHP-TOPSIS method to such assessments. Concurrently, Dutch scholars Van and Pedrycog [25] introduced fuzzy set theory into the AHP, thereby devising the AHP-fuzzy comprehensive evaluation approach, enhancing the capacity to handle the inherent imprecision in decision-making processes. The approach in question is founded on the principles of fuzzy mathematics and employs the synthesis of fuzzy relations to translate ambiguous linguistic expressions, which are inherently difficult to quantify, into tangible numerical data. The resultant data, obtained through the inverse process of membership function ambiguity, significantly mitigate the impact of decision-makers’ subjective sentiments. It is evident that the integration of AHP with other scientific methodologies has become a prevailing trend in the establishment of value evaluation systems for cultural heritage. Nevertheless, the enhancements made to AHP in these studies still exhibit certain limitations. For instance, the Delphi-AHP method remains overly subjective, TOPSIS increases computational complexity, and Fuzzy-AHP only ensures the consistency of thought when confronted with an excessive number of evaluation indicators [26]. In light of the shortcomings identified in previous methodologies and the practical requirements of heritage assessment for the South Manchuria Railway, this study introduces a fusion of fuzzy control and the analytic hierarchy method. The fuzzy processing of the relative importance scales provided by each index within the fuzzy control enhances the precision of the quantification process. Furthermore, the accuracy of the evaluation model is bolstered by the analysis of a substantial dataset.

2.3. Fuzzy Control

Fuzzy control theory originates from the fuzzy mathematical concept [27] introduced by Lotfi Zadeh in 1965, which has since led to the comprehensive theoretical development and diverse applications of fuzzy sets and fuzzy systems [28]. A quintessential aspect of fuzzy control is its emulation of human cognitive processes, transcending the binary constraints of membership and non-membership. Building on this attribute, Oscar Camacho et al. [29] have delineated the evolution of fuzzy control, encompassing model formulation to the practical application of controller design, thereby substantiating the broad utility of fuzzy control. Within the architectural domain, fuzzy control technology is capable of establishing fuzzy rules and mathematical models based on data processing, facilitating intelligent control mechanisms [30].

In the academic exploration of cultural heritage, fuzzy control theory has been extensively deployed as a complementary tool. Elżbieta Radziszewska-Zielina et al. [31] employed fuzzy logic to simulate the uncertain values within model parameters, constructing a fuzzy random network to assess the feasibility of historical building transformations. Moreno, M et al. [32] developed software predicated on fuzzy logic to evaluate the timeliness of preventive conservation and restoration monitoring for heritage structures. C. Cabello-Briones et al. [33] established a digital fuzzy control system for the safeguarding of cultural heritage at the Complutum archaeological site in Spain, providing predictions to counteract uncertain information and to implement more effective preventive conservation measures. These applications underscore the utility of fuzzy control in the field of cultural heritage, leveraging its ability to handle uncertainty and enhance decision-making processes.

It is evident that fuzzy control is increasingly being integrated as an application system in the preservation and restoration of cultural heritage, with a certain degree of gap in the field of cultural heritage value assessment. Jin Tao et al. [34] conducted an analysis and comparison of the quantitative evaluation methods commonly utilized in China for assessing cultural heritage value, elucidating the characteristics of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, Analytic Hierarchy Process, factor analysis, and so forth. The study synthesizes various methods based on existing empirical research, further explicating their applicability and inherent limitations. Piotr Obracaj et al. [35] employed Extent Analysis Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (EA FAHP) to innovate the traditional approach and evaluate the applicability of spatial form selection in the renovation of historical buildings. Mostefa Lallama et al. [36] applied the fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) in their study of damage assessment of historical buildings. FAHP demonstrates commendable flexibility and efficacy in addressing uncertain issues by establishing a fuzzy consistent judgment matrix and employing fuzzy mathematical methods to calculate weight results. Our research draws inspiration from these methods yet diverges from the traditional fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. Specifically for the domain of cultural heritage value assessment, we introduce similar enhancements, including the fuzzy processing of data such as the relative importance scale and weight values assigned by experts, thereby mitigating the inaccuracy arising from the subjective input of experts in value assessment.

3. Materials and Methods

This project employs a combination of online surveys, literature research, and field investigations to collect and organize information on all modern architectural heritage along the Shen-Ying section of the South Manchuria Railway. Concurrently, we will construct a hierarchical analysis model through expert interviews to determine the types of factors influencing the value of architectural heritage and their respective weights. To mitigate the impact of the experimenter’s subjective cognition on the experimental results, we have incorporated fuzzy control to optimize the data obtained from the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Subsequently, we invited two groups of volunteers, one from the field of architecture and the other from non-architecture fields, to score each influencing factor of all modern architectural heritage along the Shen-Ying section based on the heritage information we collected. The scores are then weighted using the weights derived from the AHP to calculate the total heritage value score for each modern architectural heritage. This score is used to assess the current preservation status and the threats and challenges faced by these buildings.

3.1. Data Acquisition

Initially, we compiled the heritage lists of cultural relics protection units (architecture heritage listed in the protection catalog) of various levels in Liaoning Province from the official websites of relevant departments [37] and selected those related to the South Manchuria Railway. Combining previous studies on the South Manchuria Railway [38,39,40,41,42,43], we identified a total of 190 modern architectural heritages along the railway within the jurisdictions of Shenyang, Liaoyang, Anshan, and Yingkou. Given that information about these architectural heritages available online is not entirely accurate and that the condition of some buildings has changed over time, we organized a research team to conduct field investigations to reconfirm the basic information of these cultural heritages, including their geographical locations, exterior appearances, interior decoration, surrounding environments, and current functions, and to store corresponding visual records. Finally, after further screening of these modern architectural heritages and excluding those that could not be located or had been demolished, we confirmed a total of 135 modern architectural heritages along the Shenyang-Yingkou section of the South Manchuria Railway.

3.2. Construction of Analytic Hierarchy Process

The assessment of the protection and development of the South Manchuria Railway, which encompasses various fields such as architecture, history, landscape studies, and economics, necessitates a multidisciplinary approach [44]. Consequently, we have established a comprehensive evaluation team comprising scholars from twelve universities in Liaoning Province, specializing in architecture, history, landscape studies, and economics, with three scholars in each field, to help construct the hierarchical analysis model of the value evaluation of modern architectural heritage of South Manchuria Railway. Given the varying degrees of influence that different fields hold in the preservation and development of modern architectural heritage, it is imperative to acknowledge the distinct levels of authority that scholars from these fields possess in the application of the AHP. Through a series of collaborative discussions and voting procedures, we have assigned varying weights (denoted by the letter “g”) to the evaluative power of scholars from these disciplines. The outcomes are detailed in

Table 1. Weight evaluation values of scholars in various fields.

Specialist Discipline (k)	Weighted Value (g)
Architect (ar1, ar2, ar3)	0.38
Historian (hi1, hi2, hi3)	0.27
Landscape architect (la1, la2, la3)	0.14
Economist (ec1, ec2, ec3)	0.21

.

The deliberations of the comprehensive evaluation team also encompassed the components that should constitute the AHP model. In accordance with the recommendations provided by the comprehensive evaluation team, we have identified sixteen influential factors that influence the heritage value of the South Manchuria Railway. These factors have been systematically categorized into four distinct groups based on their inherent characteristics. Adhering to the foundational principles of the AHP, these four groups are established as the criterion level, while the sixteen influential factors are designated as the sub-criterion level. The detailed content is presented in Figure 2 and

Table 2. Connotation of each factor of the analytic hierarchy model.

Criterion Level	Sub-Criterion Level	Implication
Architectural Feature	Original Look	The degree of difference in the exterior facade compared to the original.
	Structural Integrity	The degree of difference in architectural structure and form compared to the original.
	Unique Style	The extent to which it reflects a certain design style or era’s characteristics.
	Effective Activation	The effectiveness of maintaining the original functions or transforming them into new ones.
	Architectural Scale	The size of the building volume.
Surrounding Environment	Volume Harmony	The degree of volume difference between surrounding buildings and the building in question.
	Style Consistency	The degree of stylistic difference between surrounding buildings and the building in question.
	Environmental Fit	The degree of harmony between the surrounding environment and the building.
	Neat Sanitation	The level of cleanliness and hygiene of the surrounding environment.
Social Contribution	Resident Service	The extent to which it serves the surrounding residents.
	Urban Branding	The ability to enhance the city’s image.
	Tourist Attraction	The ability to attract tourists to visit for sightseeing.
	Economic Worth	The ability to provide economic benefits to the city or its surroundings.
Educational Outreach	Presentation Role	The ability to promote and display various historical information.
	Cultural Outreach	The ability to provide related products and promote a certain culture.
	Transit Ease	The convenience level of public transportation in the surrounding area.

.

The traditional AHP requires participants to evaluate the relative importance of two factors by using descriptive terms such as “Equal”, “Moderate”, “Strong”, “Very strong”, and “Extreme” to express their judgments. However, due to the subjective interpretation of these descriptive terms, which can vary among individuals, the results may not effectively reflect the actual situation. To address this issue, we have introduced fuzzy control tools to improve the process. Fuzzy control tools can process data sets composed of fuzzy semantics, such as “very”, “extremely”, and “quite”, through fuzzy reasoning to obtain a more balanced set of data. The advantage of these data is that they can mitigate the differences in understanding these fuzzy semantics among individuals.

Fuzzy reasoning typically requires the establishment of membership functions, and the most critical step is defining fuzzy numbers, which is also an important means to balance the differences in understanding of fuzzy semantics among individuals. For different research subjects, fuzzy numbers often vary. To determine the fuzzy numbers suitable for the comprehensive evaluation team, we asked scholars to match the fuzzy semantics “Equal”, “Moderate”, “Strong”, “Very strong”, and “Extreme” with scores from 1 to 9. Assuming there are $m$ scholars, the difference value $D_k=\left[u_k,v_k\right]$ for the k-th scholar’s matching of a certain fuzzy semantic (Equation (1)), then the fuzzy number $\left(L,M,U\right)$ (Equation (2)) corresponding to this fuzzy semantic is $L=\mathit{min}\left(u_1,u_2,u_3,\dots ,u_m\right)$ (Equation (3)), $M$ is calculated by Equation (4), and $U=\mathit{max}\left(v_1,v_2,\cdots ,v_m\right)$ (Equation (5)). Here, $L$ represents the lower bound of the fuzzy number, $M$ is the average score of all scholars’ matching to the fuzzy semantic, and $U$ represents the upper bound value of the fuzzy number. We can finally obtain all scholars’ matching scores for the fuzzy semantics (Figure 3), calculate the total fuzzy number (

Table 3. Fuzzy numbers corresponding to words of different degrees.

Degree	L	M	U
Equal (Eq)	1	1.8	3
Moderate (M)	2	3.9	5
Strong (S)	4	5.6	6
Very strong (Vs)	5	7.1	8
Extreme (Ex)	7	8.6	9

), the corresponding membership function (Equation (6)), and the image of the membership function (Figure 4).

$$D_k=\left[u_k,v_k\right],D_k\in Z$$

(1)

$$\left(L,M,U\right)$$

(2)

$$L=\min \left(u_1,u_2,u_3,\dots ,u_m\right)$$

(3)

$$M={\displaystyle \frac{{\sum }_{k=1}^m{D}_k-3·max\left(v_1,v_2,\cdots ,v_m\right)-3·min\left(u_1,u_2,\cdots ,u_m\right)}{{\sum }_{k=1}^m{D}_k-6}}$$

(4)

$$U=\max \left(v_1,v_2,\cdots ,v_m\right)$$

(5)

$${\mu }_A\left(x\right)=\left\{\begin{array}{c}0 x\le a or x\ge c\\ {\displaystyle \frac{x-a}{b-a}} a<x<b\\ {\displaystyle \frac{c-x}{c-b}} b<x<c\end{array}\right.$$

(6)

We required each scholar within the comprehensive evaluation team to conduct pairwise comparisons of the factors at the criterion level as well as sub-criterion-level factors within the same criterion level. The scholars were asked to directly employ the seventeen scores of [1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, …, 8.5, 9] to evaluate the degree of importance. A score of 1 signifies “Equal”, while a score of 9 denotes “Extreme”, establishing a relatively smooth scoring system ranging from 1 to 9. The outcomes are presented in

Table A1. The results of AHP.

B1	Architect									Historian									Landscape architect									Economist
	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR
		C1	1.00	1.00	3.00	3.00	8.00	0.37	0.00		C1	1.00	4.00	7.00	2.00	8.00	0.48	0.001		C1	1.00	4.00	2.00	3.00	4.50	0.40	0.001		C1	1.00	5.00	3.00	1.00	6.00	0.36	0.00
		C2	1.00	1.00	1.50	3.00	7.00	0.31			C2	0.25	1.00	4.00	2.00	5.00	0.22			C2	0.25	1.00	0.50	2.00	3.00	0.15			C2	0.20	1.00	0.33	0.25	2.00	0.07
		C3	0.33	0.67	1.00	1.20	5.00	0.16			C3	0.14	0.25	1.00	0.33	2.00	0.07			C3	0.50	2.00	1.00	4.00	5.00	0.29			C3	0.33	3.00	1.00	0.33	3.00	0.15
		C4	0.33	0.33	0.83	1.00	3.00	0.12			C4	0.50	0.50	3.00	1.00	6.00	0.19			C4	0.33	0.50	0.25	1.00	3.00	0.10			C4	1.00	4.00	3.00	1.00	8.00	0.37
		C5	0.13	0.14	0.20	0.33	1.00	0.04			C5	0.13	0.20	0.50	0.17	1.00	0.04			C5	0.22	0.33	0.20	0.33	1.00	0.05			C5	0.17	0.50	0.33	0.13	1.00	0.05
	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR
		C1	1.00	2.00	1.00	2.00	7.00	0.32	0.00		C1	1.00	1.00	2.00	1.00	7.00	0.28	0.00		C1	1.00	4.00	1.00	3.00	6.00	0.37	0.00		C1	1.00	2.00	2.00	0.33	5.00	0.21	0.01
		C2	0.50	1.00	0.50	1.00	4.00	0.16			C2	1.00	1.00	2.00	1.00	6.00	0.27			C2	0.25	1.00	0.50	1.00	3.00	0.13			C2	0.50	1.00	2.00	0.20	4.00	0.14
		C3	1.00	2.00	1.00	2.00	7.00	0.32			C3	0.50	0.50	1.00	0.50	4.00	0.14			C3	1.00	2.00	1.00	3.00	7.00	0.33			C3	0.50	0.50	1.00	0.33	4.00	0.12
		C4	0.50	1.00	0.50	1.00	3.00	0.15			C4	1.00	1.00	2.00	1.00	5.00	0.26			C4	0.33	1.00	0.33	1.00	3.00	0.13			C4	3.00	5.00	3.00	1.00	9.00	0.49
		C5	0.14	0.25	0.14	0.33	1.00	0.05			C5	0.14	0.17	0.25	0.20	1.00	0.04			C5	0.17	0.33	0.14	0.33	1.00	0.05			C5	0.20	0.20	0.25	0.11	1.00	0.04
	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR
		C1	1.00	3.00	5.00	4.00	8.00	0.49	0.02		C1	1.00	4.00	5.00	2.00	7.00	0.48	0.02		C1	1.00	2.00	0.50	4.00	9.00	0.31	0.06		C1	1.00	3.00	5.00	7.00	8.00	0.52	0.03
		C2	0.33	1.00	2.00	3.00	9.00	0.25			C2	0.25	1.00	2.00	4.00	3.00	0.22			C2	0.50	1.00	6.00	5.00	7.50	0.38			C2	0.33	1.00	4.00	3.50	6.00	0.26
		C3	0.20	0.50	1.00	0.33	0.50	0.06			C3	0.20	0.50	1.00	0.50	3.00	0.11			C3	2.00	0.17	1.00	3.00	2.00	0.17			C3	0.20	0.25	1.00	0.50	0.20	0.05
		C4	0.25	0.33	3.00	1.00	5.00	0.15			C4	0.50	0.25	2.00	1.00	3.00	0.15			C4	0.25	0.20	0.33	1.00	9.00	0.10			C4	0.14	0.29	2.00	1.00	7.00	0.12
		C5	0.13	0.11	2.00	0.20	1.00	0.05			C5	0.14	0.33	0.33	0.33	1.00	0.05			C5	0.11	0.13	0.50	0.11	1.00	0.04			C5	0.13	0.17	5.00	0.14	1.00	0.06
B2	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR
		C1	1.00	4.50	3.00	4.00		0.53	0.01		C1	1.00	3.50	1.00	6.00		0.45	0.02		C1	1.00	0.25	0.17	3.00		0.11	0.02		C1	1.00	2.50	1.50	0.20		0.18	0.02
		C2	0.22	1.00	0.33	0.33		0.08			C2	0.29	1.00	0.67	3.00		0.18			C2	4.00	1.00	2.00	5.00		0.47			C2	0.40	1.00	0.29	0.20		0.07
		C3	0.33	3.00	1.00	2.00		0.23			C3	1.00	1.50	1.00	2.00		0.28			C3	6.00	0.50	1.00	4.00		0.35			C3	0.67	3.50	1.00	0.33		0.18
		C4	0.25	3.00	0.50	1.00		0.15			C4	0.17	0.33	0.50	1.00		0.09			C4	0.33	0.20	0.25	1.00		0.07			C4	5.00	5.00	3.00	1.00		0.57
	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR
		C1	1.00	0.33	1.00	4.00		0.20	0.00		C1	1.00	2.00	1.00	6.00		0.37	0.00		C1	1.00	0.50	0.25	2.00		0.13	0.01		C1	1.00	1.00	0.33	2.00		0.18	0.00
		C2	3.00	1.00	3.00	9.00		0.55			C2	0.50	1.00	0.50	4.00		0.20			C2	2.00	1.00	0.33	4.00		0.24			C2	1.00	1.00	0.33	2.00		0.18
		C3	1.00	0.33	1.00	4.00		0.20			C3	1.00	2.00	1.00	7.00		0.38			C3	4.00	3.00	1.00	6.00		0.55			C3	3.00	3.00	1.00	6.00		0.55
		C4	0.25	0.11	0.25	1.00		0.05			C4	0.17	0.25	0.14	1.00		0.05			C4	0.50	0.25	0.17	1.00		0.07			C4	0.50	0.50	0.17	1.00		0.09
	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR
		C1	1.00	6.00	3.00	9.00		0.58	0.01		C1	1.00	4.00	6.00	9.00		0.62	0.07		C1	1.00	5.00	2.00	8.00		0.55	0.02		C1	1.00	5.00	3.00	8.00		0.59	0.01
		C2	0.17	1.00	0.25	2.50		0.09			C2	0.25	1.00	0.22	0.50		0.07			C2	0.20	1.00	0.25	4.50		0.13			C2	0.20	1.00	0.40	4.50		0.14
		C3	0.33	4.00	1.00	6.00		0.28			C3	0.17	4.50	1.00	7.00		0.25			C3	0.50	4.00	1.00	2.00		0.26			C3	0.33	2.50	1.00	2.00		0.20
		C4	0.11	0.40	0.17	1.00		0.05			C4	0.11	2.00	0.14	1.00		0.07			C4	0.13	0.22	0.50	1.00		0.06			C4	0.13	0.22	0.50	1.00		0.06
B3	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR
		C1	1.00	6.00	8.00	4.00		0.64	0.03		C1	1.00	0.33	5.00	0.50		0.19	0.02		C1	1.00	2.00	4.00	0.33		0.25	0.02		C1	1.00	8.00	6.50	2.00		0.54	0.02
		C2	0.17	1.00	0.25	0.50		0.06			C2	3.00	1.00	4.00	3.00		0.49			C2	0.50	1.00	0.33	0.20		0.08			C2	0.13	1.00	3.50	0.25		0.10
		C3	0.13	4.00	1.00	0.33		0.11			C3	0.20	0.25	1.00	0.25		0.07			C3	0.25	3.00	1.00	0.25		0.13			C3	0.15	0.29	1.00	0.17		0.05
		C4	0.25	2.00	3.00	1.00		0.19			C4	2.00	0.33	4.00	1.00		0.25			C4	3.00	5.00	4.00	1.00		0.54			C4	0.50	4.00	6.00	1.00		0.31
	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR
		C1	1.00	2.00	4.00	4.00		0.49	0.00		C1	1.00	2.00	4.00	2.00		0.44	0.00		C1	1.00	0.33	0.50	4.00		0.17	0.00		C1	1.00	2.00	1.00	0.50		0.25	0.11
		C2	0.50	1.00	3.00	2.00		0.27			C2	0.50	1.00	3.00	1.00		0.24			C2	3.00	1.00	2.00	8.00		0.50			C2	0.50	1.00	0.33	4.00		0.23
		C3	0.25	0.33	1.00	1.00		0.11			C3	0.25	0.33	1.00	0.50		0.10			C3	2.00	0.50	1.00	5.00		0.28			C3	1.00	3.00	1.00	0.50		0.28
		C4	0.25	0.50	1.00	1.00		0.12			C4	0.50	1.00	2.00	1.00		0.22			C4	0.25	0.13	0.20	1.00		0.05			C4	2.00	0.25	2.00	1.00		0.25
	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR
		C1	1.00	0.17	5.00	0.13		0.09	0.04		C1	1.00	0.50	3.00	0.14		0.12	0.08		C1	1.00	0.18	7.00	0.17		0.12	0.07		C1	1.00	0.15	3.00	0.25		0.09	0.03
		C2	6.00	1.00	3.00	0.25		0.23			C2	2.00	1.00	8.00	4.50		0.52			C2	5.50	1.00	3.00	0.25		0.26			C2	6.50	1.00	9.00	5.00		0.63
		C3	0.20	0.33	1.00	0.14		0.05			C3	0.33	0.13	1.00	0.20		0.05			C3	0.14	0.33	1.00	0.25		0.06			C3	0.33	0.11	1.00	0.14		0.04
		C4	8.00	4.00	7.00	1.00		0.62			C4	7.00	0.22	5.00	1.00		0.30			C4	6.00	4.00	4.00	1.00		0.56			C4	4.00	0.20	7.00	1.00		0.24
B4	1	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR
		C1	1.00	7.00	8.00			0.78	0.05		C1	1.00	5.00	7.00			0.72	0.04		C1	1.00	0.50	3.00			0.33	0.02		C1	1.00	2.00	1.50			0.46	0.03
		C2	0.14	1.00	0.33			0.07			C2	0.20	1.00	4.00			0.20			C2	2.00	1.00	3.00			0.53			C2	0.50	1.00	2.00			0.32
		C3	0.13	3.00	1.00			0.15			C3	0.14	0.25	1.00			0.07			C3	0.33	0.33	1.00			0.14			C3	0.67	0.50	1.00			0.22
	2	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR
		C1	1.00	4.00	7.00			0.70	0.01		C1	1.00	2.00	2.00			0.50	0.00		C1	1.00	3.00	8.00			0.67	0.01		C1	1.00	0.50	2.00			0.28	0.00
		C2	0.25	1.00	3.00			0.21			C2	0.50	1.00	1.00			0.25			C2	0.33	1.00	4.00			0.26			C2	2.00	1.00	5.00			0.60
		C3	0.14	0.33	1.00			0.08			C3	0.50	1.00	1.00			0.25			C3	0.13	0.25	1.00			0.07			C3	0.50	0.20	1.00			0.13
	3	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR
		C1	1.00	0.25	2.00			0.18	0.00		C1	1.00	0.20	0.33			0.09	0.06		C1	1.00	0.33	4.00			0.25	0.00		C1	1.00	0.33	3.00			0.24	0.00
		C2	4.00	1.00	7.50			0.72			C2	5.00	1.00	6.00			0.72			C2	3.00	1.00	9.00			0.68			C2	3.00	1.00	8.00			0.68
		C3	0.50	0.13	1.00			0.09			C3	3.00	0.17	1.00			0.18			C3	0.25	0.11	1.00			0.07			C3	0.33	0.13	1.00			0.08
A1	1	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR	1	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR	1	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR	1	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR
		B1	1.00	8.00	6.00	6.00		0.67	0.01		B1	1.00	4.00	2.00	4.00		0.45	0.02		B1	1.00	2.00	1.00	3.00		0.33	0.01		B1	1.00	3.50	2.00	3.00		0.45	0.01
		B2	0.13	1.00	0.33	0.67		0.07			B2	0.25	1.00	0.17	0.33		0.07			B2	0.50	1.00	0.33	3.00		0.18			B2	0.29	1.00	0.33	2.00		0.14
		B3	0.17	3.00	1.00	2.00		0.16			B3	0.50	6.00	1.00	4.00		0.36			B3	1.00	3.00	1.00	4.00		0.40			B3	0.50	3.00	1.00	3.00		0.31
		B4	0.17	1.50	0.50	1.00		0.10			B4	0.25	3.00	0.25	1.00		0.13			B4	0.33	0.33	0.25	1.00		0.09			B4	0.33	0.50	0.33	1.00		0.10
	2	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR	2	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR	2	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR	2	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR
		B1	1.00	5.00	2.00	4.00		0.53	0.03		B1	1.00	7.00	1.50	2.00		0.44	0.00		B1	1.00	1.00	6.00	8.00		0.45	0.00		B1	1.00	3.00	0.50	2.00		0.27	0.00
		B2	0.20	1.00	2.00	0.67		0.15			B2	0.14	1.00	0.25	0.50		0.08			B2	1.00	1.00	4.00	8.00		0.41			B2	0.33	1.00	0.20	0.50		0.09
		B3	0.50	0.50	1.00	2.00		0.18			B3	0.67	4.00	1.00	2.00		0.31			B3	0.17	0.25	1.00	2.00		0.09			B3	2.00	5.00	1.00	4.00		0.51
		B4	0.25	1.50	0.50	1.00		0.14			B4	0.50	2.00	0.50	1.00		0.17			B4	0.13	0.13	0.50	1.00		0.05			B4	0.50	2.00	0.25	1.00		0.14
	3	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR	3	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR	3	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR	3	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR
		B1	1.00	9.00	7.00	4.00		0.63	0.07		B1	1.00	8.00	2.00	4.00		0.53	0.01		B1	1.00	7.00	4.00	2.00		0.54	0.04		B1	1.00	6.00	3.00	2.00		0.48	0.03
		B2	0.11	1.00	0.15	0.33		0.04			B2	0.13	1.00	0.33	0.29		0.06			B2	0.14	1.00	0.50	0.25		0.07			B2	0.17	1.00	0.20	0.50		0.07
		B3	0.14	6.50	1.00	5.00		0.23			B3	0.50	3.00	1.00	3.00		0.27			B3	0.25	2.00	1.00	3.00		0.22			B3	0.33	5.00	1.00	3.00		0.30
		B4	0.25	3.00	0.20	1.00		0.10			B4	0.25	3.50	0.33	1.00		0.14			B4	0.50	4.00	0.33	1.00		0.18			B4	0.50	2.00	0.33	1.00		0.15

. After consistency testing, all CR values were found to be less than 0.01, confirming the rationality and effectiveness of the results. Utilizing fuzzy control tools, we processed the results from Table A1 through fuzzy transformation and applied the membership function derived from the aforementioned calculations to defuzzify each datum in Table A1 using the centroid method. The results are displayed in

Table A2. The results of AHP with fuzzy control.

B1	Architect									Historian									Landscape architect									Economist
	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR
		C1	1.00	1.63	3.61	3.61	8.25	0.42	0.00		C1	1.00	3.68	6.79	1.75	8.25	0.46	0.01		C1	1.00	3.68	1.75	3.61	4.04	0.39	0.01		C1	1.00	5.19	3.61	1.63	6.64	0.41	0.01
		C2	0.61	1.00	1.63	3.61	6.79	0.28			C2	0.27	1.00	3.68	1.75	5.19	0.22			C2	0.27	1.00	0.57	1.75	3.61	0.16			C2	0.19	1.00	0.28	0.27	1.75	0.07
		C3	0.28	0.61	1.00	1.63	5.19	0.16			C3	0.15	0.27	1.00	0.28	1.75	0.06			C3	0.57	1.75	1.00	3.68	5.19	0.29			C3	0.28	3.61	1.00	0.28	3.61	0.14
		C4	0.28	0.28	0.61	1.00	3.61	0.10			C4	0.57	0.57	3.61	1.00	6.64	0.21			C4	0.28	0.57	0.27	1.00	3.61	0.11			C4	0.61	3.68	3.61	1.00	8.25	0.33
		C5	0.12	0.15	0.19	0.28	1.00	0.04			C5	0.12	0.19	0.57	0.15	1.00	0.04			C5	0.25	0.28	0.19	0.28	1.00	0.05			C5	0.15	0.57	0.28	0.12	1.00	0.04
	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR
		C1	1.00	1.75	1.63	1.75	6.79	0.34	0.00		C1	1.00	1.63	1.75	1.63	6.79	0.33	0.00		C1	1.00	3.68	1.63	3.61	6.64	0.42	0.01		C1	1.00	1.75	1.75	0.28	5.19	0.20	0.00
		C2	0.57	1.00	1.63	1.63	3.68	0.24			C2	0.61	1.00	1.75	1.63	6.64	0.27			C2	0.27	1.00	1.63	1.63	3.61	0.19			C2	0.57	1.00	1.75	0.19	3.68	0.14
		C3	0.61	0.61	1.00	1.75	6.79	0.22			C3	0.57	0.57	1.00	1.63	3.68	0.19			C3	0.61	0.61	1.00	3.61	6.79	0.24			C3	0.57	0.57	1.00	0.28	3.68	0.12
		C4	0.57	0.61	0.57	1.00	3.61	0.16			C4	0.61	0.61	0.61	1.00	5.19	0.17			C4	0.28	0.61	0.28	1.00	3.61	0.11			C4	3.61	5.19	3.61	1.00	8.40	0.52
		C5	0.15	0.27	0.15	0.28	1.00	0.05			C5	0.15	0.15	0.27	0.19	1.00	0.04			C5	0.15	0.28	0.15	0.28	1.00	0.04			C5	0.19	0.19	0.27	0.12	1.00	0.04
	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	W	CR
		C1	1.00	3.61	5.19	3.68	8.25	0.50	0.02		C1	1.00	3.68	5.19	1.75	6.79	0.46	0.02		C1	1.00	1.75	0.57	3.68	8.40	0.30	0.06		C1	1.00	3.61	5.19	6.79	8.25	0.53	0.03
		C2	0.28	1.00	1.75	3.61	8.40	0.24			C2	0.27	1.00	2.00	3.68	3.61	0.23			C2	0.57	1.00	6.64	5.19	7.08	0.40			C2	0.28	1.00	3.68	3.66	6.64	0.25
		C3	0.19	0.57	1.00	0.28	0.57	0.06			C3	0.19	0.50	1.00	0.57	3.61	0.11			C3	1.75	0.15	1.00	3.61	1.75	0.17			C3	0.19	0.27	1.00	0.57	0.19	0.05
		C4	0.27	0.28	3.61	1.00	5.19	0.15			C4	0.57	0.27	1.75	1.00	3.61	0.15			C4	0.27	0.19	0.28	1.00	8.40	0.10			C4	0.15	0.27	1.75	1.00	6.79	0.11
		C5	0.12	0.12	1.75	0.19	1.00	0.05			C5	0.15	0.28	0.28	0.28	1.00	0.05			C5	0.12	0.14	0.57	0.12	1.00	0.04			C5	0.12	0.15	5.19	0.15	1.00	0.06
B2	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR
		C1	1.00	4.04	3.61	3.68		0.53	0.02		C1	1.00	3.66	1.63	6.64		0.51	0.01		C1	1.00	0.27	0.15	3.61		0.12	0.03		C1	1.00	2.82	1.63	0.19		0.18	0.02
		C2	0.25	1.00	0.28	0.28		0.07			C2	0.27	1.00	0.61	3.61		0.18			C2	3.68	1.00	1.75	5.19		0.45			C2	0.35	1.00	0.27	0.19		0.07
		C3	0.28	3.61	1.00	2.00		0.23			C3	0.61	1.63	1.00	1.75		0.23			C3	6.64	0.57	1.00	3.68		0.36			C3	0.61	3.66	1.00	0.28		0.17
		C4	0.27	3.61	0.50	1.00		0.16			C4	0.15	0.28	0.57	1.00		0.08			C4	0.28	0.19	0.27	1.00		0.07			C4	5.19	5.19	3.61	1.00		0.58
	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR
		C1	1.00	0.28	0.61	3.68		0.16	0.01		C1	1.00	1.75	1.63	6.64		0.42	0.01		C1	1.00	0.57	0.27	1.75		0.14	0.01		C1	1.00	0.61	0.28	1.75		0.14	0.00
		C2	3.61	1.00	3.61	8.40		0.58			C2	0.57	1.00	1.63	3.68		0.27			C2	1.75	1.00	0.28	3.68		0.22			C2	1.63	1.00	0.28	1.75		0.18
		C3	1.63	0.28	1.00	3.68		0.20			C3	0.61	0.61	1.00	6.79		0.25			C3	3.68	3.61	1.00	6.64		0.57			C3	3.61	3.61	1.00	6.64		0.59
		C4	0.27	0.12	0.27	1.00		0.06			C4	0.15	0.27	0.15	1.00		0.06			C4	0.57	0.27	0.15	1.00		0.07			C4	0.57	0.57	0.15	1.00		0.09
	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR
		C1	1.00	6.64	3.61	8.40		0.60	0.02		C1	1.00	3.68	6.64	8.40		0.62	0.07		C1	1.00	5.19	1.75	8.25		0.55	0.02		C1	1.00	5.19	3.61	8.25		0.62	0.02
		C2	0.15	1.00	0.27	2.82		0.09			C2	0.27	1.00	0.25	0.57		0.07			C2	0.19	1.00	0.27	4.04		0.13			C2	0.19	1.00	0.35	4.04		0.13
		C3	0.28	3.68	1.00	6.64		0.26			C3	0.15	4.04	1.00	6.79		0.23			C3	0.57	3.68	1.00	1.75		0.26			C3	0.28	2.82	1.00	1.75		0.19
		C4	0.12	0.35	0.15	1.00		0.05			C4	0.12	1.75	0.15	1.00		0.07			C4	0.12	0.25	0.57	1.00		0.07			C4	0.12	0.25	0.57	1.00		0.06
B3	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR
		C1	1.00	6.64	8.25	3.68		0.64	0.02		C1	1.00	0.28	5.19	0.57		0.19	0.03		C1	1.00	1.75	3.68	0.28		0.22	0.03		C1	1.00	8.25	6.72	1.75		0.53	0.02
		C2	0.15	1.00	0.27	0.57		0.07			C2	3.61	1.00	3.68	3.61		0.52			C2	0.57	1.00	0.28	0.19		0.08			C2	0.12	1.00	3.66	0.27		0.10
		C3	0.12	3.68	1.00	0.28		0.10			C3	0.19	0.27	1.00	0.27		0.07			C3	0.27	3.61	1.00	0.27		0.14			C3	0.15	0.27	1.00	0.15		0.05
		C4	0.27	1.75	3.61	1.00		0.19			C4	1.75	0.28	3.68	1.00		0.23			C4	3.61	5.19	3.68	1.00		0.56			C4	0.57	3.68	6.64	1.00		0.33
	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR
		C1	1.00	1.75	3.68	3.68		0.47	0.01		C1	1.00	1.75	3.68	1.75		0.41	0.02		C1	1.00	0.28	0.57	3.68		0.17	0.00		C1	1.00	1.75	1.63	1.63		0.34	0.05
		C2	0.57	1.00	3.61	1.75		0.29			C2	0.57	1.00	3.61	1.63		0.30			C2	3.61	1.00	1.75	8.25		0.51			C2	0.57	1.00	0.28	3.68		0.20
		C3	0.27	0.28	1.00	1.63		0.13			C3	0.27	0.28	1.00	1.63		0.13			C3	1.75	0.57	1.00	3.68		0.26			C3	0.61	3.61	1.00	1.63		0.32
		C4	0.27	0.57	0.61	1.00		0.12			C4	0.57	0.61	0.61	1.00		0.15			C4	0.27	0.12	0.27	1.00		0.06			C4	0.61	0.27	0.61	1.00		0.13
	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3	C4		W	CR
		C1	1.00	0.15	5.19	0.12		0.09	0.04		C1	1.00	0.57	3.61	0.15		0.13	0.08		C1	1.00	0.17	6.79	0.15		0.12	0.07		C1	1.00	0.15	3.61	0.27		0.10	0.03
		C2	6.64	1.00	3.61	0.27		0.26			C2	1.75	1.00	8.25	4.04		0.50			C2	5.80	1.00	3.61	0.27		0.28			C2	6.72	1.00	8.40	5.19		0.64
		C3	0.19	0.28	1.00	0.15		0.05			C3	0.28	0.12	1.00	0.19		0.05			C3	0.15	0.28	1.00	0.27		0.06			C3	0.28	0.12	1.00	0.15		0.04
		C4	8.25	3.68	6.79	1.00		0.61			C4	6.79	0.25	5.19	1.00		0.31			C4	6.64	3.68	3.68	1.00		0.55			C4	3.68	0.19	6.79	1.00		0.23
B4	1	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR	1	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR
		C1	1.00	6.79	8.25			0.78	0.08		C1	1.00	5.19	6.79			0.73	0.04		C1	1.00	0.57	3.61			0.36	0.01		C1	1.00	1.75	1.63			0.45	0.01
		C2	0.15	1.00	0.28			0.07			C2	0.19	1.00	3.68			0.20			C2	1.75	1.00	3.61			0.52			C2	0.57	1.00	1.75			0.32
		C3	0.12	3.61	1.00			0.15			C3	0.15	0.27	1.00			0.08			C3	0.28	0.28	1.00			0.12			C3	0.61	0.57	1.00			0.23
	2	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR	2	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR
		C1	1.00	3.68	6.79			0.69	0.02		C1	1.00	1.75	1.75			0.46	0.01		C1	1.00	3.61	8.25			0.70	0.01		C1	1.00	1.63	1.75			0.42	0.09
		C2	0.27	1.00	3.61			0.23			C2	0.57	1.00	1.63			0.31			C2	0.28	1.00	3.68			0.23			C2	0.61	1.00	5.19			0.44
		C3	0.15	0.28	1.00			0.08			C3	0.57	0.61	1.00			0.22			C3	0.12	0.27	1.00			0.07			C3	0.57	0.19	1.00			0.14
	3	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR	3	Item	C1	C2	C3			W	CR
		C1	1.00	0.27	1.75			0.19	0.00		C1	1.00	0.19	0.28			0.08	0.09		C1	1.00	0.28	3.68			0.23	0.01		C1	1.00	0.28	3.61			0.23	0.01
		C2	3.68	1.00	7.08			0.71			C2	5.19	1.00	6.64			0.73			C2	3.61	1.00	8.40			0.70			C2	3.61	1.00	8.25			0.70
		C3	0.57	0.14	1.00			0.10			C3	3.61	0.15	1.00			0.18			C3	0.27	0.12	1.00			0.07			C3	0.28	0.12	1.00			0.07
A1	1	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR	1	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR	1	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR	1	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR
		B1	1.00	8.25	6.64	6.64		1.00	0.01		B1	1.00	3.68	1.75	3.68		0.43	0.02		B1	1.00	1.75	1.63	3.61		0.38	0.02		B1	1.00	3.66	1.75	3.61		0.45	0.01
		B2	0.12	1.00	0.28	0.61		0.12			B2	0.27	1.00	0.15	0.28		0.06			B2	0.57	1.00	0.28	3.61		0.18			B2	0.27	1.00	0.28	1.75		0.12
		B3	0.15	3.61	1.00	1.75		0.15			B3	0.57	6.64	1.00	3.68		0.37			B3	0.61	3.61	1.00	3.68		0.36			B3	0.57	3.61	1.00	3.61		0.34
		B4	0.15	1.63	0.57	1.00		0.15			B4	0.27	3.61	0.27	1.00		0.14			B4	0.28	0.28	0.27	1.00		0.08			B4	0.28	0.57	0.28	1.00		0.09
	2	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR	2	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR	2	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR	2	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR
		B1	1.00	5.19	1.75	3.68		0.52	0.03		B1	1.00	6.79	1.63	1.75		0.44	0.00		B1	1.00	1.63	6.64	8.25		0.51	0.00		B1	1.00	3.61	0.57	1.75		0.28	0.00
		B2	0.19	1.00	1.75	0.61		0.14			B2	0.15	1.00	0.25	0.50		0.08			B2	0.61	1.00	3.68	8.25		0.35			B2	0.28	1.00	0.19	0.57		0.08
		B3	0.57	0.57	1.00	1.75		0.19			B3	0.61	3.68	1.00	1.75		0.30			B3	0.15	0.27	1.00	1.75		0.09			B3	1.75	5.19	1.00	3.68		0.49
		B4	0.27	1.63	0.57	1.00		0.15			B4	0.57	1.75	0.57	1.00		0.18			B4	0.12	0.12	0.57	1.00		0.05			B4	0.57	1.75	0.27	1.00		0.15
	3	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR	3	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR	3	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR	3	Item	B1	B2	B3	B4		W	CR
		B1	1.00	8.40	6.79	3.68		0.61			B1	1.00	8.25	1.75	3.68		0.50	0.01		B1	1.00	6.79	3.68	1.75		0.52	0.05		B1	1.00	6.64	3.61	1.75		0.50	0.04
		B2	0.12	1.00	0.15	0.28		0.04			B2	0.12	1.00	0.28	0.27		0.06			B2	0.15	1.00	0.57	0.27		0.08			B2	0.15	1.00	0.19	0.57		0.07
		B3	0.15	6.72	1.00	5.19		0.24			B3	0.57	3.61	1.00	3.61		0.31			B3	0.27	1.75	1.00	3.61		0.23			B3	0.28	5.19	1.00	3.61		0.29
		B4	0.27	3.61	0.19	1.00		0.11			B4	0.27	3.66	0.28	1.00		0.13			B4	0.57	3.68	0.28	1.00		0.18			B4	0.57	1.75	0.28	1.00		0.14

. In accordance with the fundamental principles of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, these results enable us to compute the weight value $w_{pk}$ for the p-th influential factors given by the k-th scholar. Given the varying assessment authorities $g_k$ (as shown in Table 1) for each scholar, the ultimate weight value $W_p$ for the p-th influential factor can be calculated using Equation (7), with the results presented in

Table A3. Weight value of each factor.

	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	C8	C9	C10	C11	C12	C13	C14	C15	C16	Sum
ar1	0.290	0.193	0.110	0.069	0.028	0.032	0.004	0.014	0.010	0.102	0.011	0.016	0.030	0.078	0.007	0.015	1.009
ar2	0.177	0.125	0.114	0.083	0.026	0.022	0.081	0.028	0.008	0.089	0.055	0.025	0.023	0.104	0.035	0.012	1.007
ar3	0.305	0.146	0.037	0.092	0.031	0.024	0.004	0.010	0.002	0.022	0.062	0.012	0.146	0.021	0.078	0.011	1.002
hi1	0.198	0.095	0.026	0.090	0.017	0.031	0.011	0.014	0.005	0.070	0.192	0.026	0.085	0.102	0.028	0.011	1.001
hi2	0.145	0.119	0.084	0.075	0.018	0.034	0.022	0.020	0.005	0.123	0.090	0.039	0.045	0.083	0.056	0.040	0.995
hi3	0.230	0.115	0.055	0.075	0.025	0.037	0.004	0.014	0.004	0.040	0.155	0.016	0.096	0.010	0.095	0.023	0.995
la1	0.148	0.061	0.110	0.042	0.019	0.022	0.081	0.065	0.013	0.079	0.029	0.050	0.202	0.029	0.042	0.010	1.000
la2	0.214	0.097	0.122	0.056	0.020	0.049	0.077	0.200	0.025	0.015	0.046	0.023	0.005	0.035	0.012	0.004	1.000
la3	0.156	0.208	0.088	0.052	0.021	0.044	0.010	0.021	0.006	0.028	0.064	0.014	0.127	0.041	0.126	0.013	1.018
ec1	0.185	0.032	0.063	0.149	0.018	0.022	0.008	0.020	0.070	0.180	0.034	0.017	0.112	0.041	0.029	0.021	0.999
ec2	0.056	0.039	0.034	0.146	0.011	0.011	0.014	0.047	0.007	0.167	0.098	0.157	0.064	0.063	0.066	0.021	1.001
ec3	0.265	0.125	0.025	0.055	0.030	0.043	0.009	0.013	0.004	0.029	0.186	0.012	0.067	0.032	0.098	0.010	1.003
Wp	0.209	0.119	0.071	0.084	0.023	0.030	0.025	0.030	0.011	0.080	0.084	0.031	0.078	0.058	0.053	0.016	1.003

.

$$W_p={\sum }_{k=1}^m{g}_k·w_{pk}$$

(7)

3.3. Value Evaluation of the South Manchuria Railway Heritage

We convened 48 volunteers, including 24 experts and graduate students from the field of architecture, as well as 24 community administrators and residents who are stakeholders of the modern architectural heritage along the Shen-Ying section of the South Manchuria Railway. We believe that individuals from the field of heritage conservation can provide a more professional evaluation of conservation outcomes and that the perspectives and considerations of stakeholders regarding these buildings are also essential. Therefore, we selected these two groups as volunteers. We conducted a lecture for these volunteers on the methods of heritage assessment and led them to the sites of the modern architectural heritage that needed evaluation for on-site investigation. We introduced them to the basic information of these buildings, allowing the volunteers to observe more meticulously the structure, materials, design features, and relationship with the surrounding environment, thereby establishing a fundamental understanding of the research topic. Subsequently, they were asked to score each influencing factor of these modern architectural heritages.

During the scoring phase, we prepared a dossier card (Figure 5) for each modern architectural heritage site, which included basic information such as panoramic photographs from various perspectives, block plans, surrounding landscapes, internal functionality, and results of renovation and renewal. The 48 volunteers were divided into two groups, A and B, based on whether they possessed professional knowledge in architecture, with 24 people in each group, and their scores were recorded separately. Finally, the final scores for the influencing factors were determined by averaging the scores provided by all volunteers within each group, yielding data for both Group A and Group B (

Table A4. Average score of the influence factors of each modern architectural heritage.

Location		No.	Name	Type	Group	B1					B2				B3				B4
						C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	C8	C9	C10	C11	C12	C13	C14	C15	C16
						0.21	0.12	0.07	0.08	0.02	0.03	0.03	0.03	0.01	0.08	0.08	0.03	0.08	0.06	0.05	0.02
Shenyang City	Intra-city	1	Fengtian Station	I	A	8.0	8.3	9.8	9.5	9.5	9.0	8.5	9.5	8.5	9.8	9.8	9.8	9.8	9.5	9.3	9.8
					B	8.8	8.0	9.5	9.8	9.5	9.5	9.0	9.5	8.0	10.0	10.0	10.0	9.8	10.0	8.8	10.0
		2	Yue Lai Stack	II	A	6.8	8.0	8.0	8.3	8.0	7.8	7.3	9.0	8.5	8.5	9.0	8.5	8.8	8.0	7.5	9.8
					B	6.3	7.5	7.8	8.3	7.8	8.3	8.3	9.3	8.5	7.5	8.8	8.8	8.8	7.8	7.0	9.8
		3	Mantetsu Fengtian Local Office	II	A	8.0	8.0	8.5	8.3	8.3	8.5	7.5	9.3	7.5	8.5	8.8	8.3	9.3	7.8	7.5	9.8
					B	7.5	7.0	8.3	8.3	8.0	9.0	9.0	9.5	8.0	7.5	8.8	8.8	8.8	7.5	7.3	10.0
		4	Japanese Style Building on Zhongshan Road (I)	IV	A	6.5	7.8	5.8	4.8	6.0	8.3	6.0	7.0	7.5	8.8	7.0	6.0	6.8	6.0	4.8	8.3
					B	7.0	7.3	6.5	5.0	6.0	8.3	8.0	6.8	7.5	8.0	7.3	7.3	7.0	5.3	5.3	7.5
		5	Japanese Style Building on Zhongshan Road (II)	IV	A	5.3	7.3	5.5	4.8	5.5	8.5	8.8	7.0	7.5	8.5	7.0	6.0	6.8	6.0	5.0	8.3
					B	6.0	6.8	5.3	5.0	5.5	8.3	9.0	7.5	7.8	8.0	7.0	6.8	7.3	5.0	5.8	7.5
		6	Japanese Style Building on Zhongshan Road (III)	IV	A	6.8	7.3	6.0	4.8	5.5	8.0	8.8	7.0	7.5	8.5	7.0	6.0	6.8	6.0	5.5	8.3
					B	6.0	6.8	6.3	5.3	5.0	8.0	9.0	7.5	7.8	8.0	7.3	7.0	7.3	5.3	6.3	7.5
		7	Hongwendang	IV	A	7.3	6.5	6.0	4.5	6.0	8.5	8.0	7.5	7.5	8.5	6.3	5.8	7.0	6.0	5.5	9.0
					B	5.0	5.5	5.0	6.0	6.0	9.0	8.3	7.8	7.8	8.5	6.8	7.3	8.0	4.8	6.5	8.5
		8	Kimura Western Firm	IV	A	5.5	6.0	6.3	5.3	4.8	9.0	8.0	7.5	7.3	8.5	6.0	6.0	7.0	6.0	5.5	9.0
					B	6.0	5.3	5.5	4.8	5.0	9.0	8.5	7.8	7.3	8.0	6.5	7.3	7.3	5.3	6.3	8.5
		9	Kujiun Western Firm	IV	A	5.8	6.3	6.3	4.8	4.8	9.0	8.0	7.5	7.8	8.5	6.5	6.0	7.0	6.0	5.5	9.0
					B	6.0	5.3	5.8	5.0	5.0	9.0	8.5	7.8	7.8	8.0	6.8	7.5	7.5	5.3	6.0	8.5
		10	Iwama Chamber of Commerce	IV	A	5.5	6.3	6.5	4.8	4.8	9.0	8.0	7.5	7.8	8.5	6.5	6.0	7.0	6.0	5.5	9.0
					B	6.0	5.3	6.0	5.0	5.0	9.0	8.5	8.0	7.8	8.0	6.8	7.5	7.5	5.0	6.0	8.5
		11	Kyushu Hall	IV	A	5.5	5.3	5.8	4.3	5.3	7.0	8.0	7.8	7.8	8.5	7.0	6.0	7.0	6.0	5.5	9.0
					B	5.5	4.8	5.3	4.8	5.0	7.5	7.5	8.0	7.5	8.0	7.0	7.5	7.5	5.0	6.3	8.5
		12	Fengtian Station Japanese Garrison	II	A	7.8	8.0	6.8	8.5	6.8	6.0	8.0	8.0	9.3	8.8	8.5	8.0	8.3	7.3	7.5	9.5
					B	7.0	7.8	6.5	8.0	7.0	7.3	7.8	8.0	9.5	8.0	8.0	8.3	8.0	7.0	6.5	9.0
		13	Mantetsu Residential	II	A	7.3	8.0	5.0	4.8	7.3	7.5	8.0	8.0	8.8	8.5	8.3	7.5	7.0	6.0	6.8	9.5
					B	6.8	7.0	6.0	5.0	7.0	7.8	8.5	8.3	9.0	8.3	7.3	7.8	7.5	5.0	6.0	9.0
		14	Japanese Dairy Station	IV	A	6.3	7.3	5.0	4.3	4.5	8.0	8.0	6.8	7.8	8.0	6.5	6.5	7.0	6.0	6.0	9.0
					B	6.0	6.3	5.5	4.8	5.0	7.5	8.3	7.5	8.3	7.5	6.8	7.8	7.3	5.3	6.0	8.5
		15	Fengtian Trust Company	IV	A	4.8	6.5	3.5	3.5	3.3	7.5	8.0	6.8	6.5	8.0	6.0	6.0	7.0	6.0	5.0	9.0
					B	4.8	6.0	3.0	3.5	3.5	7.0	7.8	6.5	7.3	6.3	4.5	5.0	6.0	4.0	5.0	8.5
Shenyang City	Intra-city	16	Kyoda Store	IV	A	5.3	7.0	5.3	4.0	4.0	8.5	8.0	7.3	6.5	8.0	6.0	6.5	7.0	6.0	6.0	9.0
					B	5.8	6.3	5.8	4.8	4.8	8.0	8.5	8.0	7.3	7.3	6.8	7.5	7.0	5.3	6.0	8.5
		17	Showa Auto Garage	IV	A	5.0	7.0	5.3	4.0	4.0	8.5	8.0	7.3	6.5	8.0	6.0	6.5	7.0	6.0	6.0	9.0
					B	5.0	6.3	5.8	4.8	4.8	8.0	8.5	7.8	7.3	7.0	6.5	7.5	7.0	5.3	6.0	8.5
		18	Japanese Style Building on Zhongshan Road (No. 17A)	IV	A	6.3	7.3	6.0	4.8	6.5	7.5	8.3	7.5	7.0	8.0	7.0	6.5	7.0	6.0	6.0	9.0
					B	6.0	6.8	7.0	5.0	6.3	6.3	9.0	7.8	7.8	7.3	7.5	8.0	7.5	5.5	6.3	8.5
		19	Qixing Department Store	II	A	7.5	7.5	8.8	7.0	7.0	7.0	8.0	8.5	6.8	8.8	7.0	7.8	9.0	7.0	6.5	8.8
					B	7.3	7.0	7.8	6.8	7.0	7.3	8.0	8.3	8.0	7.8	7.5	8.0	8.5	6.3	6.5	8.3
		20	Fengtian Post Office	I	A	8.3	9.0	8.3	9.3	9.0	7.0	8.0	8.5	9.0	7.8	8.0	7.5	9.3	9.0	9.0	9.3
					B	8.0	8.8	8.0	9.8	8.5	7.8	9.0	8.0	8.5	7.5	8.3	8.3	9.0	9.5	9.3	9.3
		21	Fengtian Automatic Telephone Exchange	II	A	7.8	9.0	6.0	7.0	8.5	7.5	8.3	7.0	7.0	9.3	5.5	5.5	8.8	8.0	6.5	9.0
					B	7.3	8.5	7.3	8.3	8.5	7.5	8.5	6.3	7.0	8.8	7.0	7.8	8.0	7.8	6.5	9.0
		22	Ando Trading Company	IV	A	5.0	5.5	6.3	3.8	4.5	6.5	4.5	4.0	3.5	2.8	2.0	3.5	1.0	1.5	2.0	8.5
					B	4.0	3.8	5.3	4.8	4.0	6.3	6.8	6.0	5.0	4.8	4.0	5.8	2.8	3.0	3.3	8.5
		23	Takeda Pharmaceutical Company	II	A	7.0	9.0	6.3	8.0	6.3	8.5	7.5	8.0	7.0	5.8	8.3	6.8	6.3	6.3	5.5	8.0
					B	7.8	8.5	7.3	7.8	6.5	8.5	8.8	7.8	7.3	4.5	7.3	6.8	6.5	6.0	6.3	8.0
		24	Nankai Hall	II	A	7.8	8.5	7.5	5.0	6.3	8.8	8.0	7.0	7.8	8.3	7.0	6.8	7.0	6.0	6.5	8.5
					B	8.5	9.3	6.8	5.0	7.0	8.8	8.5	6.5	7.8	7.3	6.3	7.0	7.3	7.0	7.8	8.5
		25	East Asia Industrial Encouragement Society	II	A	6.5	7.5	7.0	2.5	4.8	8.5	7.8	6.0	7.0	4.0	7.0	6.5	3.5	4.3	5.0	9.0
					B	8.0	8.0	7.5	3.5	4.0	9.0	8.5	7.5	7.3	3.5	6.3	6.5	3.5	5.3	5.0	8.8
		26	Yamato Hotel	II	A	9.5	9.3	9.5	6.0	8.5	8.0	8.3	9.5	8.5	8.8	9.8	9.8	9.8	9.0	9.8	9.3
					B	9.0	9.0	9.3	8.8	8.3	7.8	9.0	9.8	9.0	7.8	9.0	8.5	8.5	8.3	8.0	9.0
		27	Mitsubishi Bank Fengtian Branch	II	A	9.5	9.3	9.3	9.5	7.8	9.0	8.5	9.5	9.0	8.8	9.8	9.8	9.8	8.0	9.5	9.3
					B	8.8	9.3	8.5	9.8	7.8	9.3	9.5	9.8	9.8	8.3	8.8	8.5	9.3	7.0	8.0	9.0
		28	Tianjing Police Station	II	A	8.8	9.3	9.3	9.5	7.3	9.5	8.8	9.5	9.0	8.8	9.8	9.8	9.8	8.0	9.5	9.3
					B	8.8	9.5	8.5	9.8	7.3	10.0	9.5	10.0	10.0	8.0	9.0	8.3	8.0	7.5	8.3	9.0
		29	Mitsui Bank	II	A	8.0	8.5	5.5	9.3	7.3	9.0	7.5	8.8	9.0	8.3	9.5	8.8	9.5	8.0	8.8	9.0
					B	6.5	8.0	6.5	7.5	7.5	9.3	8.5	8.8	9.8	7.5	8.5	7.5	8.8	6.8	6.8	8.8
		30	Red Cross Branch	II	A	9.3	8.8	8.3	8.3	7.3	6.5	9.5	9.8	8.8	5.5	9.5	9.8	8.3	9.8	9.8	7.5
					B	9.0	9.0	8.8	8.5	7.8	8.0	10.0	10.0	8.8	6.5	9.5	9.5	7.8	10.0	9.5	7.8
		31	Joseon Bank	II	A	9.0	9.3	9.0	9.5	7.8	9.0	8.5	9.5	8.5	8.8	9.8	9.8	9.8	8.0	9.5	9.3
					B	8.8	9.3	8.0	9.8	7.5	9.0	9.0	9.3	9.0	8.3	8.8	8.3	9.0	7.3	8.0	9.0
		32	Toyo Colonization Corporation Fengtian Branch	II	A	9.3	9.3	9.5	9.5	7.5	8.8	8.5	9.5	9.0	8.8	9.8	9.8	9.8	8.0	9.5	9.3
					B	9.5	9.8	9.5	9.3	7.5	9.3	9.3	9.8	9.8	8.3	9.0	8.8	8.8	7.5	8.8	9.0
Shenyang City	Intra-city	33	Nan Man Medical School	II	A	6.8	8.8	8.0	9.5	9.0	8.8	8.5	9.3	9.0	9.3	8.0	8.8	9.8	8.0	9.3	9.5
					B	7.5	8.0	8.3	9.8	10.0	9.3	9.3	8.8	9.8	9.0	8.8	8.8	9.0	8.3	9.5	9.0
		34	Sato Dental Clinic	II	A	6.5	7.5	6.0	8.0	4.0	5.0	5.0	6.5	6.3	8.8	6.3	6.5	8.5	5.0	6.0	8.5
					B	7.0	7.5	6.8	8.3	4.0	7.0	8.0	7.5	7.3	8.0	8.3	7.8	7.0	6.5	7.0	8.8
		35	Japanese Style Building on Guangzhou Street (I)	IV	A	6.8	8.0	6.0	7.0	6.0	8.5	6.5	7.8	7.0	9.3	7.5	6.8	7.5	6.0	6.0	8.5
					B	6.8	7.8	8.0	7.5	6.5	9.8	8.8	9.3	7.8	8.5	9.0	9.5	8.5	7.3	8.5	8.8
		36	Japanese Style Building on Guangzhou Street (II)	IV	A	7.0	7.8	6.5	7.0	5.3	9.5	8.0	7.8	7.0	8.5	8.5	6.8	7.0	6.0	6.0	8.5
					B	7.3	7.8	8.0	7.0	5.8	9.8	9.0	9.0	7.3	8.5	8.5	8.5	7.8	6.5	7.0	8.8
		37	Japanese Style Building on Guangzhou Street (III)	IV	A	7.0	8.3	6.5	6.0	5.3	9.5	8.0	7.0	7.0	8.5	8.5	6.8	7.0	6.0	6.0	8.5
					B	7.3	8.0	7.8	7.0	5.8	9.8	9.0	8.0	7.3	8.8	8.5	8.3	7.8	6.0	6.5	8.8
		38	Japanese Style Building on Zhongshan Road (I)	IV	A	8.3	8.5	7.8	7.3	5.5	9.0	8.8	8.0	7.0	8.0	8.5	7.8	7.5	6.5	7.0	8.3
					B	8.0	7.8	8.5	7.3	6.8	9.5	9.3	8.8	7.5	7.8	8.8	8.8	8.0	6.8	7.0	8.5
		39	Japanese Style Building on Zhongshan Road (II)	IV	A	8.0	8.8	8.8	7.3	5.5	8.0	8.8	9.0	7.0	8.0	8.5	6.8	7.0	6.5	7.0	8.3
					B	8.0	8.5	8.3	6.8	6.8	8.3	9.3	8.0	7.5	7.5	8.3	8.3	7.3	6.0	6.8	8.5
		40	Japanese Style Building on Zhongshan Road (III)	IV	A	8.0	8.8	7.8	8.3	5.3	8.0	8.8	8.5	7.0	8.0	8.5	6.8	7.0	6.0	7.0	8.3
					B	7.5	8.3	8.3	6.3	6.3	9.0	9.0	8.3	7.5	7.3	8.0	8.0	7.3	6.0	6.8	8.5
		41	Japanese Style Building on Zhongshan Road (I)	IV	A	6.5	8.8	7.5	4.5	5.3	8.3	8.3	8.3	7.3	8.5	7.5	7.5	7.0	6.0	6.0	7.0
					B	6.3	8.5	8.0	6.3	5.0	8.3	9.3	8.3	7.3	8.3	8.0	8.5	7.8	6.8	6.8	7.8
		42	Japanese Style Building on Zhongshan Road (II)	IV	A	7.0	8.5	7.5	4.5	5.0	8.8	8.3	8.5	7.3	8.5	7.5	6.5	7.0	6.0	6.0	7.0
					B	7.0	8.0	7.8	5.0	5.3	8.8	9.3	8.5	7.3	8.3	7.8	8.5	7.8	6.5	6.5	7.8
		43	Japanese Style Building on Zhongshan Road (III)	IV	A	7.8	7.5	8.3	6.3	6.8	7.8	7.5	8.3	8.0	8.0	7.8	7.8	7.3	6.5	7.5	7.3
					B	7.0	7.5	8.3	6.5	6.5	8.3	9.5	9.3	9.0	8.0	8.8	9.3	8.3	6.5	6.5	7.8
		44	Japanese Style Building on Suzhou Street (I)	IV	A	6.8	8.3	7.0	5.8	5.8	8.5	7.8	7.5	7.3	8.5	8.5	6.8	7.0	6.0	6.5	8.0
					B	7.0	8.3	8.3	6.8	6.0	8.3	8.8	8.0	7.3	8.8	8.3	8.3	8.0	6.0	6.3	8.5
		45	Japanese Style Building on Suzhou Street (II)	IV	A	6.8	8.5	7.0	5.8	4.8	8.5	7.5	7.5	7.3	8.5	8.5	6.8	7.5	6.0	6.0	8.0
					B	7.3	8.3	8.0	6.3	6.0	9.3	9.3	8.0	8.0	8.5	8.3	8.3	7.5	6.3	6.5	8.5
		46	Fengtian Hotel	II	A	6.5	7.5	7.3	7.5	7.8	7.8	7.8	7.5	8.0	7.5	7.3	7.8	7.8	6.0	5.0	7.3
					B	6.5	7.5	7.3	6.8	7.0	7.5	8.0	7.0	8.0	7.0	7.3	7.5	8.3	5.3	5.5	7.0
		47	Building No. 152 on Zhongshan Road	IV	A	7.5	7.3	7.5	5.0	6.0	7.3	6.5	8.0	8.8	8.0	7.5	6.5	7.5	7.0	6.0	7.3
					B	7.0	8.3	7.3	5.8	6.5	8.0	6.5	8.3	8.8	7.3	7.3	6.5	7.3	6.3	5.5	7.5
		48	Building No. 136 on Zhongshan Road	IV	A	8.0	8.0	7.3	4.8	5.8	7.0	7.3	8.0	7.0	7.8	6.8	6.3	7.0	6.0	6.5	7.0
					B	8.0	8.8	7.8	6.5	5.8	7.5	7.3	8.0	7.8	7.3	6.8	7.3	7.0	6.0	6.0	7.5
		49	Fengtian Okura Building	II	A	6.8	6.8	6.3	5.3	6.8	8.3	6.5	6.5	7.0	8.0	7.3	6.3	6.8	6.0	6.5	6.8
					B	5.8	6.0	6.8	6.3	7.0	9.0	7.0	6.8	8.3	7.3	6.8	7.0	7.3	6.3	6.0	7.3
Shenyang City	Intra-city	50	Ichiryokan Hotel	II	A	5.3	6.8	6.8	4.5	5.0	7.5	8.5	7.8	7.3	8.5	7.0	6.8	7.3	6.3	5.5	9.0
					B	5.8	5.8	6.3	5.3	5.5	7.5	9.0	7.5	7.8	8.0	7.3	7.8	7.8	5.5	6.3	8.5
		51	Japanese Consulate General in Fengtian	II	A	6.0	6.3	6.3	6.3	5.5	8.0	7.0	8.0	8.5	7.0	8.0	6.8	6.0	8.0	6.0	6.0
					B	8.3	8.8	9.3	7.0	6.5	8.5	7.8	8.3	8.3	6.5	7.8	6.8	5.8	8.8	6.0	6.0
		52	Mantetsu Fengtian Public Office	III	A	8.5	9.0	9.3	5.0	7.8	3.8	4.5	5.5	5.0	5.0	5.5	7.0	5.0	4.5	6.0	6.0
					B	8.0	9.0	9.3	7.3	7.5	7.8	8.5	9.3	8.3	6.5	7.8	6.8	6.3	7.3	8.8	5.3
		53	Fengtian Nankai Higher Girls’ School	II	A	8.8	8.8	7.5	9.3	6.3	9.0	8.0	7.8	8.8	8.3	7.0	7.5	8.3	6.5	8.0	9.3
					B	7.3	7.0	6.8	9.5	7.5	10.0	8.5	8.5	8.8	8.0	7.8	7.5	7.5	6.8	9.3	8.5
		54	South Manchuria Railway Company Headquarters (I)	III	A	8.5	8.5	8.5	9.5	8.8	9.3	9.0	8.8	9.8	5.3	8.5	6.0	7.8	5.5	8.5	7.5
					B	8.5	8.8	9.3	9.3	8.8	9.3	9.5	8.5	9.8	4.0	7.8	7.8	6.3	5.5	8.0	7.8
		55	South Manchuria Railway Company Headquarters (II)	III	A	8.0	8.3	7.5	9.3	9.0	9.0	9.0	8.3	9.8	5.3	8.3	5.5	9.3	7.5	7.0	7.8
					B	7.0	8.3	7.0	9.0	9.0	8.8	9.5	7.8	9.5	4.0	7.0	7.0	7.8	7.0	6.5	8.0
		56	Japanese Special Envoy Office	II	A	9.3	9.8	7.8	8.3	7.5	6.0	8.0	8.8	9.8	6.8	7.8	8.0	8.8	8.0	8.0	8.0
					B	8.8	9.3	8.3	8.0	7.3	8.0	9.0	8.5	8.8	5.8	6.8	7.5	7.8	7.3	7.0	8.3
		57	Manchurian Input Corporation	II	A	7.5	8.5	6.8	8.3	7.0	6.0	7.0	8.0	8.5	5.8	6.8	6.0	7.8	4.0	4.5	7.3
					B	7.3	8.0	7.8	8.0	7.3	5.5	8.5	7.5	8.5	5.0	7.8	7.0	5.3	4.5	4.5	7.8
		58	Ping’an Seat	II	A	6.5	7.5	5.0	9.3	8.5	7.5	8.0	8.5	8.3	9.0	7.0	6.8	8.3	8.0	8.5	7.5
					B	6.8	7.0	6.3	8.8	8.5	8.3	9.0	8.5	8.8	8.8	8.3	8.5	7.8	9.0	9.3	8.0
		59	Japanese Style Building on Zhongshan Road (IV)	IV	A	5.0	7.5	5.3	6.8	5.0	7.5	6.0	7.0	7.8	9.3	7.5	6.5	6.8	6.0	4.5	7.0
					B	6.3	7.3	6.3	5.3	5.8	7.0	7.8	7.0	8.3	8.3	7.3	7.3	7.0	5.5	5.3	7.5
		60	Japanese Style Building Complex on Nan’er Road	IV	A	5.3	7.0	7.0	5.8	7.5	6.0	4.0	7.5	6.0	8.5	5.5	5.3	8.0	4.0	5.5	7.0
					B	4.5	7.0	6.3	5.3	6.0	7.3	4.5	6.8	7.5	7.5	5.5	6.8	8.3	6.8	6.0	8.0
		61	Zhicheng Bank	II	A	8.8	9.3	9.5	9.5	7.8	8.3	7.8	9.5	9.0	8.8	9.8	9.8	9.8	8.0	9.5	8.8
					B	8.5	9.3	8.8	9.5	7.8	7.8	8.5	9.3	9.3	8.3	8.8	8.3	9.3	7.5	8.3	9.0
		62	Shengjing Times Newspaper Office	II	A	6.5	8.0	7.5	8.0	6.5	7.5	7.0	8.3	8.0	8.3	7.5	7.5	8.0	5.8	6.5	7.0
					B	7.0	7.8	7.5	5.8	6.3	8.5	8.5	8.5	8.5	7.0	7.8	7.0	7.3	5.5	6.0	6.5
		63	Manchuria Central Bank Chiyoda Branch	II	A	8.3	8.8	8.5	9.0	7.5	8.0	7.0	9.0	8.0	9.3	8.8	8.0	9.0	7.8	8.5	7.8
					B	8.3	9.0	8.0	8.5	7.8	7.5	7.5	9.3	8.5	8.5	8.5	8.8	8.5	7.5	7.5	8.3
		64	Fengtian Middle School Public School	II	A	7.8	8.5	7.0	9.0	8.8	9.3	8.3	8.8	8.0	8.3	8.3	7.5	7.8	6.0	4.0	7.3
					B	7.8	8.5	7.5	9.0	8.5	9.8	9.0	8.8	8.8	7.5	8.3	7.3	6.3	5.8	6.5	6.8
		65	Japan-Manchuria Trade Hall	II	A	6.0	6.5	6.0	7.8	7.5	8.0	7.5	7.5	7.5	7.3	7.5	7.0	8.0	6.0	4.8	6.5
					B	5.0	6.5	4.5	6.8	7.5	7.0	7.8	7.8	8.0	6.0	6.0	5.5	7.8	5.0	5.0	6.5
		66	Affiliated Primary School of Manchurian Special Education School	II	A	8.5	9.0	9.3	9.5	8.5	7.0	8.8	9.8	9.8	8.3	8.8	8.0	7.8	5.5	9.8	7.5
					B	8.8	9.0	9.0	9.5	8.5	7.3	9.0	9.5	9.3	8.0	8.3	7.0	7.0	5.3	9.8	7.5
Shenyang city	Intra-city	67	Japanese Army Police Station on North Second Road	II	A	4.5	7.8	5.0	6.8	2.0	5.0	4.8	6.5	8.0	9.3	4.5	7.5	6.0	6.3	7.0	7.0
					B	5.5	7.8	6.3	5.8	4.8	6.8	7.5	7.5	7.8	7.8	6.5	7.0	7.3	3.8	5.8	7.0
		68	Residence of Che Xiangpin	V	A	9.5	9.8	7.3	7.5	5.5	5.5	7.8	8.3	9.3	8.8	7.8	9.3	7.8	6.8	8.3	7.0
					B	9.5	9.8	8.5	6.3	4.8	8.0	9.0	8.5	9.0	7.0	7.3	9.3	6.8	7.0	8.0	7.5
		69	Chiyoda Park Water Tower	VI	A	9.3	9.8	5.5	2.5	2.0	2.0	1.5	3.0	4.5	1.5	5.5	6.5	2.5	6.8	7.0	6.3
					B	9.5	9.8	7.5	4.0	3.0	5.0	4.5	5.5	4.5	2.5	7.8	7.0	2.0	7.0	7.3	6.3
		70	Japanese Agricultural Cooperative	III	A	8.5	9.5	7.3	8.3	7.0	7.5	7.8	8.0	8.8	7.3	7.0	7.0	8.8	5.5	6.3	5.8
					B	8.0	8.8	8.0	8.5	7.5	8.0	8.5	7.8	8.5	6.0	6.8	6.8	7.5	5.3	5.5	5.8
		71	Japanese Military Residence	IV	A	6.5	7.5	6.0	3.5	4.3	4.5	3.3	3.0	5.5	2.5	2.0	3.3	2.5	1.8	2.5	5.5
					B	5.5	6.0	3.5	4.0	5.0	7.5	6.8	5.0	8.5	5.0	2.5	3.0	3.5	2.0	1.0	5.5
		72	Fengtian Ping’an Primary School	II	A	8.5	8.0	7.3	9.3	7.8	7.3	6.5	8.3	8.0	8.3	7.0	6.8	8.8	7.3	6.3	6.3
					B	8.5	9.0	7.5	9.3	7.5	9.0	7.0	8.8	8.5	7.5	6.8	6.5	7.8	6.3	6.8	7.0
		73	Japanese Style Building on Tianjin Street	IV	A	2.5	5.0	3.0	2.0	2.0	4.5	5.5	3.3	3.5	3.0	2.0	2.0	1.5	2.0	1.0	5.5
					B	2.5	4.5	2.5	1.8	2.5	4.8	3.5	3.3	6.0	3.3	1.5	1.8	1.5	2.0	0.5	5.8
		74	Railway Apartment Complex	IV	A	9.0	9.5	9.0	6.8	8.8	8.8	8.0	8.0	5.5	8.8	8.5	9.5	9.5	8.8	8.8	6.0
					B	8.8	9.3	8.8	6.8	7.8	9.3	9.8	9.0	6.8	8.0	8.8	8.5	8.3	8.3	7.3	6.0
		75	Japanese General’s Building	IV	A	9.0	9.0	8.8	7.5	7.3	8.5	8.0	8.3	8.0	8.8	8.5	9.0	9.3	8.5	8.5	6.0
					B	8.8	9.3	8.8	8.0	6.8	8.5	10.0	8.8	9.0	8.8	9.0	9.0	9.3	8.3	7.5	6.0
		76	Meteorological Bureau	II	A	7.0	7.5	5.8	5.0	7.3	6.5	8.0	8.5	7.3	8.0	6.5	6.0	6.8	6.0	6.5	8.8
					B	5.5	6.5	5.5	5.5	6.8	7.5	9.0	8.8	8.8	7.0	7.8	6.0	6.5	5.3	6.0	5.3
		77	Sumitomo Metal Corporation Workshop	II	A	7.3	8.0	9.3	9.5	8.8	6.5	8.0	8.5	9.3	9.8	9.8	9.8	9.3	9.5	9.5	4.5
					B	7.5	6.8	8.3	10.0	8.5	7.5	7.5	9.3	8.8	9.3	9.5	10.0	9.5	9.8	10.0	4.0
		78	Japanese Takasago Manufacturing	II	A	7.8	7.8	7.8	9.3	6.5	8.8	8.8	8.5	9.3	9.5	9.5	9.8	9.5	9.8	9.8	5.5
					B	7.0	7.8	8.5	9.8	8.3	8.5	8.5	9.3	9.3	8.3	8.5	9.5	9.0	10.0	9.8	5.0
		79	Manchuria Agricultural and Chemical Industrial Corporation Fengtian Factory	II	A	6.3	5.8	5.0	6.5	8.5	9.3	8.0	8.3	8.5	9.5	9.3	9.3	9.5	9.8	9.8	4.5
					B	5.8	7.0	7.0	5.3	8.0	9.0	7.5	7.5	7.5	7.8	7.5	7.3	7.8	8.8	8.8	4.5
		80	Mantetsu Single Employee Dormitory	V	A	6.8	7.0	6.3	2.5	5.5	4.8	4.8	5.5	3.0	3.0	2.5	5.0	2.5	3.0	2.0	4.3
					B	7.8	7.0	6.3	5.5	6.3	7.0	6.0	6.3	5.5	4.5	3.8	5.5	4.0	3.8	3.0	3.8
		81	724 Cho Nest	VI	A	8.3	8.3	5.5	1.5	1.0	1.5	5.0	5.8	2.0	1.0	1.5	1.0	1.0	1.5	2.0	2.5
					B	8.0	9.8	8.5	3.5	1.5	3.5	7.5	6.5	4.0	1.5	3.3	3.8	1.5	4.5	2.0	2.0
Liaoyang City	Dengta County	82	Northern Side Japanese Architecture at Lighthouse Railway Station	VI	A	6.5	6.3	5.0	2.8	9.0	7.0	5.0	2.0	2.5	5.3	2.5	2.0	2.0	3.0	3.5	5.5
					B	5.8	6.0	5.5	3.3	8.5	8.3	6.8	3.8	3.5	5.0	3.0	2.8	3.3	4.0	4.0	4.8
	Intra-city	83	Uji Bridge	VI	A	9.5	9.5	5.5	5.0	3.0	9.0	8.5	8.0	7.5	6.5	6.5	5.0	2.5	6.5	5.0	6.5
					B	10.0	10.0	6.8	7.5	3.0	8.0	8.3	7.8	8.0	5.3	6.0	4.8	2.0	5.8	3.8	6.0
Liaoyang City	Intra-city	84	Red Star Street Japanese Architecture	V	A	5.3	4.3	7.5	1.0	9.5	7.0	5.5	5.0	2.0	2.5	2.0	1.5	1.0	1.5	2.5	6.0
					B	6.5	5.5	8.5	3.0	8.8	7.8	7.5	6.5	2.8	3.8	3.0	2.5	2.3	3.8	3.0	6.0
		85	Takishi Tobacco Company	II	A	9.5	9.8	9.5	9.0	6.3	9.0	9.5	8.5	9.5	7.0	9.8	9.8	9.3	9.8	9.8	8.0
					B	10.0	10.0	9.8	8.8	8.3	9.0	9.0	8.3	8.8	7.0	8.8	8.0	7.5	9.5	9.0	8.0
		86	Liuyiwei Japanese Architectural Complex	V	A	9.0	9.0	8.0	8.5	9.5	9.0	7.8	7.0	9.8	7.0	8.8	9.8	8.5	9.8	9.0	8.0
					B	8.8	9.0	7.5	7.8	9.0	8.5	7.5	7.0	8.3	6.0	7.8	8.0	6.5	9.0	6.8	8.0
		87	Mantetsu Library	II	A	9.5	9.3	8.5	9.5	6.5	9.5	9.5	9.0	9.3	7.8	8.5	9.8	9.3	9.5	9.3	9.3
					B	9.8	9.8	9.3	9.8	7.3	8.8	9.0	8.5	8.0	6.8	8.8	9.0	8.0	9.0	8.3	9.0
		88	Army Officers’ Club	II	A	5.0	6.0	2.5	2.8	7.8	8.5	5.0	5.5	5.0	7.5	3.0	4.0	4.5	5.0	3.0	8.3
					B	3.5	7.5	3.0	3.8	6.5	8.0	4.0	4.5	4.8	6.8	3.0	3.0	5.3	4.8	3.0	8.0
		89	Chinese Avenue Japanese Architectural	V	A	6.5	6.5	4.3	2.3	8.5	6.0	6.0	3.3	2.5	2.8	1.5	1.5	2.0	1.8	2.3	6.8
					B	7.0	7.0	5.8	4.8	7.5	7.0	6.5	3.5	3.3	4.0	2.3	2.0	3.0	2.8	2.5	6.8
		90	Xuwangzi Water Tower	VI	A	9.3	9.3	8.0	5.0	2.0	2.8	4.0	2.0	2.0	1.5	6.5	6.5	2.5	5.0	3.5	6.5
					B	8.8	9.5	8.5	7.5	3.0	5.8	7.3	5.5	5.0	2.0	6.5	6.8	2.5	6.0	3.8	6.0
		91	Japanese Architecture within the 19th Bureau Courtyard	II	A	9.0	7.5	6.8	8.0	8.5	8.3	7.8	6.5	9.0	6.5	6.5	7.5	9.3	5.5	6.5	7.3
					B	9.0	9.5	7.8	9.0	9.3	9.3	8.3	7.0	9.0	5.8	6.8	6.8	8.0	7.3	6.3	6.5
		92	Xinhua Bookstore	II	A	8.0	8.0	8.3	9.0	7.8	9.3	7.8	8.0	9.0	9.0	8.3	8.5	9.3	8.5	8.0	5.5
					B	8.0	9.0	8.5	9.5	8.3	9.0	7.8	8.0	8.5	9.0	7.8	8.8	8.8	8.0	8.0	7.3
		93	Emei Sanatorium	II	A	7.0	7.3	6.8	6.0	9.5	7.5	8.3	6.5	7.8	6.8	4.0	4.5	5.8	5.5	5.5	4.0
					B	7.5	8.3	8.3	6.8	8.8	7.8	8.5	7.0	7.5	6.0	4.3	5.5	6.8	6.8	4.5	3.8
		94	Manchurian Cotton Corporation	II	A	7.5	8.3	5.5	2.0	4.5	7.0	4.8	4.0	4.3	2.5	1.5	3.5	4.3	3.0	3.0	3.0
					B	8.0	8.8	7.5	3.5	6.0	6.8	4.3	3.8	4.5	3.3	3.5	4.5	4.8	3.8	3.0	2.8
	Lingshan Village	95	Shoushanzhan Village Original Japanese Architecture	VI	A	7.3	8.3	5.0	4.5	7.0	6.5	4.8	5.5	4.3	5.5	3.5	3.5	2.0	3.5	2.5	4.3
					B	7.3	8.5	6.8	6.5	6.0	8.0	5.8	5.3	4.8	5.5	4.0	3.5	3.0	4.8	3.0	4.3
Anshan City	Mountain Village	96	Nanman Railway Lingshan Water Tower	VI	A	9.3	9.0	7.5	2.5	2.0	2.5	2.0	2.0	5.0	2.5	4.5	2.5	2.5	4.0	4.5	2.0
					B	9.5	9.3	6.5	4.8	3.0	4.5	4.3	3.0	3.5	3.5	4.5	4.0	2.0	5.8	3.0	2.3
		97	Lingshan Station Anshan Engineering Section	V	A	8.5	9.0	8.8	8.5	7.0	9.0	7.5	7.5	8.5	6.3	8.0	7.8	7.8	7.0	8.0	3.0
					B	8.5	9.3	8.5	8.3	8.0	8.8	7.5	8.0	7.8	6.0	7.8	7.3	7.5	6.5	7.0	3.3
	Mountain Village	98	Lingshan Railway Residential Architectural Complex	II	A	5.8	6.5	6.3	1.8	9.0	8.0	7.0	5.0	4.5	3.0	2.0	3.5	1.3	2.5	2.5	2.5
					B	6.0	7.0	6.3	4.0	8.0	8.5	7.3	4.3	3.5	3.0	2.5	3.5	1.5	3.0	2.8	2.8
	Shahe Town	99	Shahe Railway Bridge	VI	A	8.3	8.0	4.5	5.3	7.3	8.5	5.5	5.3	3.8	5.5	4.5	5.0	7.0	2.5	3.5	3.0
					B	8.5	8.5	6.8	6.8	6.5	7.5	4.5	3.5	2.0	4.0	5.0	3.0	4.5	3.5	3.0	3.3
Anshan City	Intra-city	100	Lishan Railway Station Roundabout	VI	A	3.5	2.5	3.0	1.3	4.0	4.0	3.5	5.0	2.5	2.0	1.5	2.5	1.0	1.0	2.5	2.5
					B	4.5	4.5	2.5	1.5	4.0	3.5	3.5	3.5	2.0	2.0	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.0	1.5	2.8
		101	Showa Steel Works Steel Rope Factory Drawing Workshop	II	A	6.5	8.0	6.8	3.5	5.8	5.3	4.0	3.5	4.5	2.3	2.5	3.0	2.5	2.0	3.0	3.0
					B	7.5	9.0	8.3	5.3	6.0	6.8	4.8	4.8	6.5	4.0	4.5	4.8	5.0	3.8	4.0	3.3
		102	DuiluShan Water Tower	VI	A	9.3	9.3	7.5	2.0	3.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	5.0	1.5	4.0	4.5	2.0	3.5	3.0	5.5
					B	9.5	9.5	7.5	4.8	4.0	4.0	4.8	5.0	5.0	2.0	4.0	4.0	1.5	4.3	2.8	5.0
		103	Ansteel White Building	II	A	8.5	7.3	5.8	8.5	7.0	9.0	8.5	8.0	8.8	6.8	8.0	7.5	9.8	4.0	7.5	7.0
					B	9.5	9.8	7.5	8.5	8.5	9.0	8.3	8.3	8.5	5.0	7.3	7.0	8.3	4.5	7.3	7.0
		104	Anshan Iron Institute No.1 Blast Furnace	VI	A	8.3	7.0	5.5	9.0	5.8	9.0	9.0	8.8	9.0	6.5	9.3	8.8	8.0	8.0	8.5	7.0
					B	8.5	7.5	8.5	9.8	6.8	9.0	8.5	9.0	8.5	7.8	9.3	9.5	8.3	9.5	7.8	7.0
		105	Showa Steel Works Hospital	II	A	8.3	7.8	7.3	8.3	5.0	7.8	7.5	5.5	6.0	8.5	6.3	5.3	9.3	5.3	6.0	7.5
					B	8.5	9.3	7.3	8.8	7.0	8.5	8.3	7.5	6.3	8.0	6.5	5.0	8.5	6.5	5.0	6.0
		106	Former Puppet Police Dormitory	II	A	5.8	6.0	5.3	7.0	4.3	6.0	7.5	7.3	8.5	5.5	4.5	3.3	3.8	3.0	4.0	6.5
					B	7.8	9.0	7.8	7.3	6.0	6.3	7.5	7.5	8.0	3.5	4.0	3.8	4.5	4.0	5.0	6.0
		107	Showa Steel Works Research Institute	II	A	8.8	8.5	7.3	9.0	7.3	8.8	7.8	7.5	9.0	7.8	8.0	6.5	9.5	7.0	6.0	8.0
					B	9.3	9.0	8.0	8.8	8.3	9.3	8.3	8.0	8.8	6.8	7.8	6.8	8.3	6.8	5.0	7.8
		108	Jingjing House	II	A	8.8	9.0	7.5	4.5	8.5	8.0	7.5	6.5	7.0	4.0	8.0	5.8	4.0	4.5	5.5	7.3
					B	9.0	9.5	8.3	7.5	8.5	9.0	8.3	8.3	8.3	7.0	7.8	7.3	6.3	6.8	6.8	7.3
		109	Taimachi Residence	V	A	8.5	9.3	8.3	8.5	9.5	9.0	9.0	9.3	9.8	7.8	9.8	9.5	7.8	9.3	9.8	7.5
					B	9.5	9.5	8.8	8.3	8.8	9.5	9.5	9.0	9.5	6.0	8.8	8.3	5.5	8.3	8.0	7.8
		110	Baiqi Fortress First Substation	II	A	7.8	7.8	6.5	4.5	4.5	7.0	4.5	5.0	8.8	2.5	5.3	4.0	5.5	3.5	4.5	3.0
					B	8.8	8.8	7.5	6.5	6.0	6.8	6.3	5.5	7.5	3.3	5.3	4.3	6.0	5.0	5.0	3.0
	Tanggangzi Village	111	Tanggangzi Water Tower	VI	A	7.3	7.0	6.3	1.3	2.5	4.5	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.0	1.5	1.0	1.5	2.3	2.0
					B	8.0	7.5	7.0	3.8	5.3	5.0	3.5	2.5	2.3	3.0	2.0	3.5	3.8	3.0	3.3	2.0
		112	Fengtian Garrison Hospital Tanggangzi Branch	II	A	6.8	6.5	6.8	1.0	7.0	6.0	7.0	2.5	2.5	1.8	3.0	2.0	1.0	2.5	2.5	2.5
					B	7.0	7.0	7.5	3.3	7.3	7.0	7.0	3.0	3.3	3.3	4.8	3.0	2.5	3.8	3.3	2.5
Yingkou City	Dashiqiao City	113	Shenyang Workshop Mechanical Section Command Japanese Style Building	II	A	8.5	8.0	7.5	6.0	5.8	6.5	6.5	5.5	8.0	3.8	7.0	5.8	5.0	5.8	5.5	8.0
					B	8.5	8.5	8.3	6.8	7.0	7.8	7.0	6.5	8.3	5.0	6.5	5.3	7.0	7.0	5.5	7.8
	Dashiqiao City	114	Junsui House	II	A	5.8	8.3	7.8	1.3	6.0	7.5	5.5	4.5	4.0	1.0	2.5	2.5	1.5	2.5	3.5	8.5
					B	5.3	8.5	8.0	3.8	6.8	7.5	5.5	3.0	4.5	2.8	3.0	3.8	3.5	3.3	4.3	8.3
Yingkou City	Intra-city	115	Yingkou Railway Station	II	A	9.0	8.8	9.0	9.0	8.0	9.5	8.0	8.0	8.8	8.8	9.5	9.8	9.8	9.0	9.3	9.8
					B	9.0	9.0	9.3	9.0	8.0	9.5	7.5	7.8	8.3	8.8	9.5	9.5	9.5	8.8	8.0	8.5
		116	Niuzhuang Club	II	A	9.0	9.3	9.8	9.0	7.8	9.3	8.0	9.0	8.5	6.8	9.0	9.0	9.3	9.0	8.8	9.0
					B	9.3	9.5	9.8	8.5	7.8	8.5	7.8	8.0	8.0	5.3	7.3	6.5	7.8	8.3	7.0	7.8
		117	Niuzhuang Resident Community Office	II	A	8.3	8.0	9.0	7.5	7.8	8.5	8.0	8.0	7.5	8.0	8.0	7.8	8.5	7.5	7.0	9.0
					B	8.5	8.5	9.0	7.0	8.3	8.5	8.0	7.5	7.5	7.5	6.8	7.0	7.5	6.8	5.8	8.0
		118	Manchuria Bank Yingkou Branch	II	A	8.8	9.0	8.5	9.0	7.0	9.3	7.8	7.8	8.5	8.8	8.3	8.5	9.8	8.3	6.5	8.3
					B	8.8	9.5	9.0	9.0	7.5	9.0	7.5	8.0	8.8	8.3	7.0	7.3	9.5	7.5	5.5	6.8
		119	Niuzhuang Post Office	II	A	8.8	9.0	8.8	9.3	7.3	9.3	9.3	8.5	9.3	8.5	9.5	8.5	9.0	8.5	9.0	8.8
					B	9.0	9.5	9.3	8.8	7.8	9.0	9.0	9.0	9.3	7.5	8.8	7.5	7.8	8.0	8.3	7.8
		120	Russian Consulate	II	A	8.5	8.5	8.0	6.5	6.8	8.0	7.0	8.3	8.8	5.0	8.3	8.8	9.0	7.5	8.5	8.8
					B	8.5	9.5	9.3	7.0	7.0	8.0	6.8	8.5	9.3	7.0	7.8	8.5	7.5	7.0	7.8	7.8
		121	Mitsubishi Bank Dormitory	II	A	8.5	8.3	7.8	6.3	6.8	8.3	8.0	7.0	7.5	5.3	6.5	8.0	6.5	8.8	8.8	8.8
					B	8.5	8.8	8.3	7.8	7.3	8.5	7.8	8.0	7.5	6.8	7.0	6.3	6.5	8.0	7.0	7.8
		122	Niuzhuang Telephone Bureau	II	A	9.3	8.5	9.0	7.5	7.0	8.5	8.0	7.5	8.0	8.8	8.8	8.3	8.3	7.5	7.8	8.8
					B	9.3	9.0	9.0	7.8	7.5	9.0	8.3	8.3	8.3	7.5	7.8	7.0	7.5	7.3	6.5	7.8
		123	Niuzhuang Customs	II	A	8.0	8.3	7.3	7.5	7.3	9.0	8.3	7.8	9.0	6.5	7.5	7.0	9.3	7.0	7.0	9.0
					B	8.3	8.3	8.0	8.3	7.8	8.5	7.8	8.0	9.0	6.8	7.0	6.8	9.0	7.0	6.0	8.0
		124	Mitsubishi Company	II	A	8.5	8.5	9.3	8.3	8.8	9.5	9.5	9.0	8.3	8.5	9.8	9.0	9.8	9.3	9.3	8.8
					B	9.0	9.5	9.5	8.3	8.3	9.5	9.8	9.5	8.3	8.8	9.5	9.5	9.3	9.0	8.8	7.8
		125	Zhenglong Bank Yingkou Branch	II	A	8.8	9.0	9.0	9.0	7.0	9.0	8.8	8.5	9.0	8.8	9.5	8.5	9.8	8.5	9.0	8.8
					B	9.0	9.8	9.3	9.0	7.5	8.8	8.8	9.0	9.3	8.3	8.8	7.8	9.3	7.8	8.3	7.8
		126	Kanto Observatory Yingkou Branch	II	A	9.5	9.3	8.8	9.0	6.3	7.3	6.5	7.8	9.3	8.3	8.3	8.3	8.3	8.3	8.5	7.8
					B	9.8	9.8	8.8	9.3	6.5	8.3	8.0	8.8	9.5	7.3	8.0	7.5	8.5	8.3	7.5	6.8
	TaipingshanVillage	127	Taiping Mountain Puppet Police Station	II	A	5.3	5.8	7.0	1.0	4.5	6.8	4.5	5.0	3.0	1.5	3.0	2.5	1.0	2.0	4.0	7.5
					B	5.0	6.8	7.8	3.5	6.0	7.5	3.8	3.0	3.3	2.8	3.5	2.5	1.5	2.5	4.8	6.3
		128	Taiping Mountain Sino-Russian Architectural Complex	V	A	7.0	7.5	5.8	3.0	9.5	7.8	6.0	6.0	4.0	3.5	4.0	2.0	1.5	2.0	3.0	4.5
					B	6.5	7.8	6.5	5.0	7.5	7.8	7.0	5.3	5.0	5.5	5.0	2.5	2.8	3.3	3.5	3.3
	Gaizhou County	129	Gaizhou Japanese Style Architectural Complex	V	A	5.5	8.0	5.8	3.0	9.5	7.8	6.0	6.0	3.5	3.5	3.5	2.0	1.5	2.0	3.0	4.8
					B	5.5	7.8	6.0	5.0	8.5	8.0	6.3	4.5	4.3	5.5	5.0	2.5	3.0	3.0	3.5	4.0
	Shagang Town	130	Shagang Japanese Style Architectural Complex	V	A	7.8	7.0	6.0	3.5	9.5	7.8	6.0	6.0	3.8	4.0	4.0	2.5	1.5	2.0	3.0	4.8
					B	7.5	8.0	6.3	5.8	8.5	8.3	7.3	4.8	5.0	5.5	5.0	3.5	3.0	3.3	3.5	3.3
Yingkou City	Lutun Town	131	Lutan Japanese Style Architectural Complex	V	A	5.5	6.8	6.8	3.0	9.0	7.0	6.0	5.5	4.0	3.5	3.5	3.0	1.5	1.5	2.5	4.8
					B	6.0	8.3	7.5	6.0	8.0	7.5	7.0	4.5	4.5	5.8	5.0	3.5	3.0	3.3	3.5	3.5
	Xiongyue Town	132	Xiongyu Railway Station Japanese Style Architectural	V	A	7.0	7.3	6.8	3.5	9.5	7.8	6.0	6.0	4.8	4.0	4.5	2.0	1.5	2.0	3.0	4.5
					B	8.0	8.0	6.8	5.8	8.0	7.8	7.3	5.0	5.3	5.5	5.3	3.3	2.5	3.3	3.3	4.5
		133	Japanese Dairy Farm	V	A	6.0	7.0	5.5	1.0	3.0	7.0	3.0	5.0	3.0	2.5	1.5	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.8	5.0
					B	5.8	6.5	7.5	3.0	4.8	6.5	3.0	3.0	3.3	3.0	2.5	1.5	2.3	1.5	3.3	3.3
		134	Japanese Style Blockhouse of Fruit Tree Research Institute	II	A	8.8	7.5	7.8	4.5	5.5	5.5	3.3	7.5	8.3	2.0	7.0	5.5	5.0	6.5	6.5	3.5
					B	8.3	8.3	8.3	7.3	7.5	6.8	5.0	7.0	8.3	3.8	7.0	6.3	6.8	7.8	7.3	2.3
		135	Xiongyu Town Water Tower	VI	A	9.3	9.3	8.0	2.5	2.0	3.0	2.0	2.0	2.5	3.5	2.5	2.5	1.5	3.5	5.0	6.3
					B	9.0	9.5	7.0	4.5	3.0	3.5	3.0	2.3	4.0	4.0	4.3	4.0	1.5	5.3	3.5	5.0

).

Prior to the volunteers’ scoring, we conducted a new round of training, informing them on how to use the information cards, how to operate the computers, and how to focus their attention. Each volunteer was provided with a scoring sheet to manually record their answers. To prevent fatigue or negligence during the scoring process, we regulated the volunteers’ daily working hours and scoring pace, instructing them to read and observe the content of the information cards carefully before scoring each indicator for every modern architectural heritage. The average scoring time for each indicator of each building was about 10 s, with a mandatory 10 min break every 30 min. The volunteers were required to score for two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon, totaling four hours per day, allowing each volunteer to complete the scoring for 65 buildings in one day. The entire experiment was completed within two days.

The final heritage value score S for the modern architectural heritage sites along the South Manchuria Railway is calculated using Equation (8), where ${\overline{x}}_p$ represents the average score given by the volunteers for the p-th influential factor. This score result quantitatively evaluates the heritage value of these modern buildings along the South Manchuria Railway, and the distribution characteristics of the Score result can reflect the effectiveness and issues in the preservation and development of architectural heritage along the Railway. These scores also provide a quantitative basis for comparison among various cities along the Shen-Ying section of the South Manchuria Railway.

$$S={\sum }_{p=1}^{16}{W}_p·{\overline{x}}_p$$

(8)

4. Results

4.1. Overview of the South Manchuria Railway

Following the investigation and statistical analysis of 135 modern architectural heritages, we categorized them into six distinct types based on architectural style, functionality, volume, and other pertinent information (Figure 6). The I category, Western Classical Style, predominantly comprises large-scale financial, administrative, commercial, medical, and educational buildings, totaling 44 edifices and representing the most numerous group of modern architectural heritages. These buildings are often influenced by Western neo-classical, eclectic, and Baroque design styles, exhibiting strong expressiveness and era-specific characteristics. Due to their quintessential stylistic features and elevated design standards, these buildings typically receive a higher degree of conservation and restoration efforts, resulting in not only a greater quantity but also a comparatively higher quality of preservation. The II category, Modern Style, aligns closely with the functional aspects of Western Classical Style architectural heritage, and its form is often dictated by the design principles of Art Nouveau, Expressionism, and Modernism. These buildings eschew traditional classical ornamentation in favor of natural curves or pure geometric shapes. The count of such structures is relatively modest, with only 28 examples, yet the quality of their conservation is also high. The III category, Eastern Classical Style, is the least numerous, comprising only four buildings, yet these structures boast relatively good preservation quality and exhibit highly characteristic architectural features. They integrate the traditional Chinese roof design with Western stone wall styles, resulting in a hybrid design that reflects a synthesis of Chinese and Western influences. The IV category, Commercial Townhouse, is characterized by a large quantity but a smaller scale, with a total of 33 buildings. These encompass a range of commercial entities such as shops, restaurants, markets, and hotels. Typically preserved in the form of townhouses, they often adopt a classical architectural style, contributing significantly to the streetscape and becoming a vital factor of the historic district. The V category, Residential Unit, most of which possess a multi-story unit architectural form, primarily caters to the fundamental living requirements of railway workers and their families, reflecting the influence of early railway development and population influx on residential architecture. These buildings are simplistic in design and singular in function, predominantly constructed from red brick, indicating influences from Japanese and Soviet Union cluster housing. The VI category, Structure, predominantly consists of water towers, bridges, and other specialized structures that serve specific functional needs, mostly serving as ancillary facilities to industrial buildings.

Overall, the I and II categories of buildings, characterized by their distinctive silhouette, robust construction, and functional layout, have facilitated the comprehensive and authentic preservation of many structures, with their original functions often being perpetuated. For instance, the Fengtian Station has evolved into the present-day Shenyang Station, and the Fengtian Post Office now houses the China Post. The IV and V categories of architectural heritages, being of smaller scale, common in design, and structurally simplistic, generally receive a lower level of conservation. Consequently, despite their relatively high number, the quality of their preservation is comparatively poor, with numerous instances of neglect and repurposing. The III and VI categories, being less numerous, present challenges in distilling their typical characteristics due to their limited representation.

4.2. Evaluation Index of the South Manchuria Railway

Based on the AHP calculations, we derived the weight values for each factor influencing the modern architectural heritage of the South Manchuria Railway, with the outcomes detailed in Figure 7. Within the criterion level, over 90% of the surveyed academics deem “B1 Architectural Feature” as the paramount factor, with nearly half assigning a weight value exceeding 0.5. This underscores the significance accorded to the ontological aspects of architectural heritage by scholars across various disciplines. The second-highest weight is attributed to “B3 Social Contribution”, with nearly half of the respondents allotting a weight value above 0.3. The majority consensus is that there exists an intimate synergistic relationship between the social contribution of modern architectural heritage and the development of society, economy, and culture. Conversely, the weights for “B2 Surrounding Environment” and “B4 Educational Outreach” are comparatively lower, with only a subset of landscape architects placing significant emphasis on the environment. “B4 Educational Outreach” is perceived as a supplementary factor in the broader recognition of architectural heritage by scholars, thus not constituting a core evaluative value for the modern architectural heritage of the South Manchuria Railway. Nevertheless, it retains a significant role in heritage conservation.

Within the criterion level “B1 Architectural Feature”, the factor “C1 Original Look” holds the highest weight value (0.40), succeeded by “C2 Structural Integrity” (0.23). This indicates a scholarly emphasis on the authenticity and integrity of architectural heritage. “C5 Architectural Scale” is accorded the lowest weight value (0.05), reflecting the academic consensus that a building’s heritage value is not solely determined by its volumetric scale. Among the constituents of “B2 Surrounding Environment”, “C6 Volume Harmony” is deemed most critical with a weight value of 0.41, suggesting that scholars perceive disharmony in surrounding volumes as most detrimental to the reflection of architectural heritage. “C7 Style Consistency” and “C8 Environmental Fit” follow with weights of 0.20 and 0.27, respectively, indicating a negligible difference between them, while “C9 Neat Sanitation” is the least prioritized with a weight of only 0.11, as scholars posit that sanitary conditions can be addressed through comprehensive urban management. Within “B3 Social Contribution”, the weight values for “C10 Resident Service”, “C11 Urban Branding”, and “C13 Economic Worth” are 0.31, 0.30, and 0.28, respectively, suggesting a similar influence on the heritage value of a building. However, “C12 Tourist Attraction” is assigned a weight value of only 0.11, indicating a lack of scholarly recognition. “B4 Educational Outreach”, “C14 Presentation Role”, and “C15 Cultural Outreach” are weighted at 0.46 and 0.41, respectively, with scholars contending that these factors more substantially reflect the educational role of heritage. Conversely, “C16 Transit Ease” receives a weight of 0.13, implying that while transportation convenience affects visitation intentions, it holds an insignificant role in the intrinsic value of architectural heritage.

Broadly speaking, within the sub-criterion level’s 16 influential factors, only “C1 Original Look” and “C2 Structural Integrity” surpass a weight value of 0.1, with 0.21 and 0.12, respectively, thereby confirming that authenticity and integrity are the paramount attributes of modern architectural heritage. Seven other factors have weights exceeding 0.05, namely: “C3 Unique Style”, “C4 Effective Activation”, “C10 Resident Service”, “C11 Urban Branding”, “C13 Economic Worth”, “C14 Presentation Role”, and “C15 Cultural Outreach”. The AHP delineates these nine factors as the pivotal determinants influencing the value of the modern architectural heritage of the Shen-Ying section of the South Manchuria Railway.

4.3. The South Manchurian Railway Heritage Scores

The scoring results provided by Groups A and B of volunteers showed a high degree of similarity (Figure 8). Based on the scoring results of the 135 modern architectural heritages by both groups, 12 out of the top 15 highest-scoring buildings were identical: Mitsubishi Bank Fengtian Branch (9.3, 8.8), Toyo Colonization Corporation Fengtian Branch (9.2, 9.1), Takishi Tobacco Company (9.2, 9.0), Joseon Bank (9.2, 8.7), Tianjing Police Station (9.1, 8.8), Zhicheng Bank (9.1, 8.7), Fengtian Station (9.1, 9.3), Mantetsu Library (9.1, 9.0), Yamato Hotel (9.1, 8.7), Yingkou Railway Station (9.1, 8.9), Zhen-glong Bank Yingkou Branch (8.9, 8.8), and Mitsubishi Company (8.9, 9.1). It is evident that regardless of the identity of the volunteers from Groups A and B, these buildings are considered to be well preserved and developed. Among these 12 modern architectural heritages, 7 are located in Shenyang, 2 in Liaoyang, and 3 in Yingkou, all concentrated in megacity and medium-sized cities. In terms of architectural typology, all these buildings are Western Classical Style architectural heritages. This suggests a significant presence of high-quality, large-scale classical public buildings constructed along the South Manchuria Railway during the modern era, which are now also a focus for urban conservation and revitalization efforts. In contrast, among the 30 lowest-scoring modern architectural heritages by both Groups A and B, 12 are Residential Unit architectural heritages. Some of these structures have ceased to be in use and have been abandoned, while those still in use have suffered severe damage and lack adequate preservation and restoration. Additionally, the other low-scoring architectural heritages are predominantly abandoned structures.

Upon reviewing the scoring results of Groups A and B for these modern architectural heritages, we found that the buildings scoring above 8 points showed a high degree of similarity, with the respective proportions being 29.6% for Group A and 28.9% for Group B. However, there was a significant difference in the buildings scoring below 5 points; Group A’s proportion was 17%, while Group B’s was only 8.9%, nearly half that of Group A. This indicates that the stakeholders of the modern architectural heritage along the South Manchuria Railway exhibited more negative sentiments, believing that a greater number of buildings have not met the standards for protection and utilization. In terms of typology, the majority of Western Classical Style, Modern Style, and Eastern Classical Style have garnered high scores, whereas Residential Unit, Commercial Townhouse, and Structure generally exhibit lower scores. Upon analysis, the Western Classical Style, Modern Style, and Eastern Classical Style edifices along the South Manchuria Railway, predominantly large public buildings characterized by distinctive style, advanced technology, and comprehensive functionality, maintain high aesthetic and practical value in contemporary urban settings. These structures continue to fulfill architectural roles effectively; for instance, Shenyang Fengtian Station and Yingkou Railway Station remain operational as stations or railway institutions, while the Affiliated Primary School of Manchurian Special Education School and Manchuria Bank Yingkou Branch are well preserved and utilized as government-operated facilities. Conversely, the functional utility of residential, commercial, and structural buildings along the railway has become obsolete with the passage of time. Due to stringent governmental regulations on protected structures and financial constraints, the majority of these architectural heritages have not been timely restored or adequately repurposed, leading to their increasing obsolescence relative to the surrounding urban development. This accelerates the erosion of their heritage value, underscoring the urgency and necessity for enhanced conservation and revitalization efforts for these structures, which warrant increased scholarly and practical attention.

Focusing on the 16 influencing factors, we found that the proportion of buildings scoring high on “C2 Structural Integrity” was the highest, with 62% of Group A and 67% of Group B scoring above 8 points on this factor. There were very few instances where the original structure of the buildings had been altered through additions or modifications. Factors such as “C6 Volume Harmony” and “C7 Style Consistency” also had over 55% of buildings in both Group A and Group B scoring above 8 points. The four indicator-level elements under the criterion-level element “B2 Surrounding Environment” also had relatively high scores, with over 50% of buildings scoring above 8 points, showing little difference. This reflects that the majority of buildings have good coordination with their environment. However, given the scholarly consensus that these factors have a marginal impact on the assessment of heritage value, their influence on the overall score of architectural heritage is subdued. It is noteworthy that the majority of the architectural heritage along the South Manchuria Railway is utilized by government entities, corporations, or residents, with only a minority being repurposed as museums or exhibition spaces. Consequently, the “C14 Presentation Role” and “C15 Cultural Outreach” factors received lower scores, with only 20% of the buildings in both groups scoring above 8 points.

4.4. Differences Between Cities

Upon analyzing the distribution of South Manchu Railway architectural heritage across individual cities, we determined a total of 81, 14, 17, and 23 modern architectural heritages in Shenyang, Liaoyang, Anshan, and Yingkou, respectively (inclusive of administrative divisions such as county-level cities, counties, towns, and villages under their governance). As Shenyang serves not only as the capital of Liaoning Province but also as a principal hub of the South Manchuria Railway, it experienced significant urban development during modern times and currently boasts a relatively comprehensive heritage preservation system, resulting in the richest array of preserved modern architectural heritage and encompassing all categories within our statistical framework. Conversely, the smaller scale of Liaoyang, Anshan, and Yingkou has led to a belated establishment and enforcement of heritage protection mechanisms. While a number of high-quality modern architectural heritages have been preserved, many with smaller scales, simpler structures, and non-descript designs have been neglected or razed amidst urban development, leaving a relatively scant intact legacy. In Liaoyang, Anshan, Yingkou’s subordinate small cities and towns, the preservation of modern architectural heritage is sparse and dispersed, yet some areas still exhibit concentrations of residential buildings and structures that embody the quintessential characteristics of their residential settings. Despite considerable damage, these structures retain the potential for restoration and revitalization.

Based on the aggregated scores of modern architectural heritages in each city, our analysis revealed that the scores for large and medium-sized cities Shenyang, Liaoyang, Anshan, and Yingkou were not markedly disparate, all maintaining a relatively elevated level, with scores of 7.17, 6.87, 7.09, and 8.41, respectively. Shenyang did not secure the highest average score, primarily due to the presence of numerous modern architectural heritages, some with low scores that diluted the mean, yet this also underscores Shenyang’s commitment to preserving modern architectural heritage. Yingkou City boasts the highest average score for preserved modern architectural heritage and ranks second in quantity after Shenyang, indicating that Yingkou has the most effective conservation efforts among medium-sized cities. The average score for modern architectural heritage in the small cities and villages under the jurisdiction of Liaoyang, Anshan, and Yingkou falls between 5 and 6, which is considerably low. However, the majority of residential group architectural heritages within our study are located in these smaller urban areas, conferring significant value upon them. Conversely, despite the subdued average scores for preserved modern architectural heritage in these municipalities, they exhibit high marks in “C2 Structural Integrity”, “C5 Architectural Scale”, and “C6 Volume Harmony”.

5. Conclusions

This study focuses on the modern architectural heritage along the Shen-Ying section of the South Manchuria Railway, employing the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) combined with fuzzy control tools to construct a heritage value evaluation method. This method not only conducts an in-depth qualitative analysis of the architectural heritage, clarifying the specific content of the evaluation indicators but also performs a quantitative analysis to accurately calculate the weight values of each indicator, thereby achieving a comprehensive assessment of the value of these historical architectural heritages. Through this research, we have successfully measured the degree of damage to the architectural heritage, provided data support for the conservation and renewal of cultural heritage, and explored the actual needs of stakeholders. As these buildings were constructed in a unique era, they display a diversity of unique architectural styles and forms and are very typical and essential materials for studying the architecture of foreigners’ residences in East Asia. These buildings were classified into six basic types based on their style, function, and volume and are summarized and analyzed separately.

In our study, through qualitative analysis, we delved into the value composition of modern architectural heritage. Based on the hierarchical analysis model constructed by the evaluation cluster, we invited “B1 Architectural Feature” and “B3 Social Contribution” in the criterion level to be given higher evaluation weights among the 16 influencing factors of modern architectural heritage, “C1 Original Look” and “C2 Structural Integrity” have the highest weighting values, reflecting that authenticity and integrity are the most important principles that should be observed in the process of cultural heritage preservation. These elements are the most important value indicators of architectural heritage, but in the scoring by volunteers, it is noted that among the indicators under “B1 Architectural Feature” and “B3 Social Contribution”, only the indicator “C2 Structural Integrity” received relatively high scores from a significant number of buildings. This suggests that there is some misalignment in the process of heritage conservation, where the benefits and outcomes of heritage protection are not being optimally realized.

According to the scoring results of 48 volunteers on 135 architectural heritages, we found that the scores of large public buildings represented by Western Classical Style, Modern Style, and Eastern Classical Style are relatively high. Among them, Western Classical Style buildings are the most numerous. Most modern commercial townhouses were now mostly used by small businesses, and the buildings themselves were often blocked by advertisements and underwent large-scale renovation. Therefore, these modern architectural heritages have not received high scores in the criterion levels included in “B1 Architectural Feature”, “B3 Social Contribution”, and “B4 Educational Outreach”. Residential Unit architectural heritage faces the greatest risk. Due to their simple style, structure, and backward functions, these architectural heritages have not acquired enough attention from relevant local departments. At the same time, due to the lack of local finances, these architectural heritages lack sufficient motivation in terms of transformation and repair. Because many of the modern architectural heritage structures have lost their functions and the surrounding land has begun to be redeveloped and rebuilt, the scores of these modern architectural heritages are generally low. In summary, the preservation and renewal of public buildings among these modern architectural heritages have been relatively successful. However, residential buildings that are closely related to local residents face more serious issues. The condition of these buildings fails to meet the objective needs of the users, who also exhibit a negative and powerless attitude toward the protection of heritage buildings. This has resulted in a negative interaction between the buildings and their users.

In summary, the preservation and renewal of public buildings among these modern architectural heritages have been relatively successful. However, residential buildings that are closely related to local residents face more serious issues. The condition of these buildings fails to meet the objective needs of the users, who also exhibit a negative and powerless attitude toward the protection of heritage buildings. This has resulted in a negative interaction between the buildings and their users. Upon comparing different cities, we found that Shenyang, as the most important urban node along the South Manchuria Railway, has a relatively higher number and quality of modern architectural heritages. Although medium-sized cities such as Liaoyang, Anshan, and Yingkou have fewer modern architectural heritages than Shenyang, their levels of preservation and restoration are not significantly different from those in Shenyang. Additionally, small cities and towns have preserved modern architectural heritages that are relatively inferior in type and quality, resulting in lower scores. However, these areas have concentrated preservation of many Residential Units, which are lacking in large and medium-sized cities and hold significant research value for studying the development of modern cities and architecture along the South Manchuria Railway. Moreover, the preservation quality of Residential Units in towns and villages is generally better than in small cities. Through interviews with residents, we learned that urban residents are more accustomed to their current living conditions and take better care of these architectural heritages. In contrast, residents of small cities face greater pressures, with those who have the means seeking more comfortable living environments, leading to a large number of idle and damaged buildings. The remaining residents lack the resources to maintain and restore the buildings, creating a vicious cycle.