AHP-Based Evaluation Framework for Rural Architectural Heritage: A Case Study of Buyeo, Korea

Abstract

Rural architectural heritage sites in Korea, such as rice mills, breweries, and granaries, face increasing risks of neglect, deterioration, and demolition. Most of these structures are not recognized within formal heritage designation systems, and no established evaluation framework exists. Consequently, their conservation and management remain challenging. This study proposes a comprehensive evaluation framework for the preservation and utilization of rural architectural heritage. Based on a literature review and expert consultation, 18 evaluation indicators were derived and grouped into six value criteria: historical, architectural/artistic, social/cultural, landscape, economic, and utilitarian values. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was employed to determine the relative importance and priority of these indicators. Historical value received the highest weight, followed by architectural/artistic and social/cultural values. Among the 18 indicators, “representativeness of the period” ranked highest, followed by “rarity,” “historicity,” “local identity,” and “architectural excellence.” However, the indicators associated with economic and utilitarian values had relatively low weights. The framework was validated by applying it to 17 rural architectural heritage sites in Buyeo, South Korea. This study presents a systematic and value-based evaluation framework that reflects the regional and industrial characteristics of rural architectural heritage and provides both policy and practical implications for sustainable conservation and adaptive reuse.

1. Introduction

Since modernization, agricultural facilities such as rice mills, breweries, and granaries, as well as rural community facilities including village halls and village communal workshops, have been established and widely distributed across rural areas in Korea. These facilities not only reflect the local history of rural areas and the socio-economic transformation of Korea’s rural regions but also embody their identity and sense of place. Furthermore, reflecting the industrial characteristics of agriculture, they constitute rural architectural heritage with diverse values, including historical, architectural, and social significance [1,2,3].

In the late 20th century, Korea’s industrial structure shifted from a primary-sector-based economy, such as agriculture, forestry, and livestock farming, to one dominated by secondary (manufacturing) and tertiary (service) industries. Since the 2000s, rural areas have experienced population decline driven by multiple factors, including low birth rates, rapid population aging, and rural-to-urban migration. Under these structural transformations and the ongoing population decline, agriculture and related industries, which are representative in rural Korea, have steadily declined. Consequently, many rural facilities constructed during the modernization period have been abandoned and underutilized, and some buildings face the imminent threat of damage or demolition due to development projects [4,5].

Buyeo County, a representative rural region in Korea, has a high concentration of rural architectural heritage sites, including rice mills, breweries, factories, warehouses, and community facilities. Buyeo is a historically significant region, as it encompasses the Baekje Historic Areas, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. However, in contrast to Baekje-era heritage sites, which are systematically protected and managed at the national level through World Heritage listings, rural architectural heritage sites of modern and contemporary periods have been largely overlooked, leaving a blind spot in institutional heritage management. Although the Korean government designates a limited number of modern and contemporary architectural heritage sites as “National Registered Cultural Heritage” or “Exceptional Architectural Assets,” most rural architectural heritage sites are not included in official heritage registers, leaving them without systematic management [6,7].

To systematically preserve, manage, and utilize rural architectural heritage, an evaluation system comprising clear criteria and indicators for identifying and assessing valuable cultural heritage is essential. At the international level, UNESCO has established the Criteria for Selection of World Heritage Sites [8], while the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage (TICCIH) developed Principles for the Conservation of Industrial Heritage [9]. In addition, organizations such as Historic England and the Australian Heritage Council provide specific guidelines for cultural heritage conservation [10,11].

In South Korea, institutional standards exist under the Act on Conservation and Utilization of Modern and Contemporary Cultural Heritage [12] and the Act on Value Enhancement of Hanok and Other Architectural Assets [13]. However, the existing cultural heritage principles and guidelines in Korea do not include evaluation criteria or indicators tailored to rural architectural heritage sites [14]. Moreover, the evaluation indicators presented in previous studies concentrate on preservation-oriented values, such as historical and artistic values, which limit their ability to adequately assess architectural heritage in terms of utilization and adaptive reuse. Therefore, a more comprehensive evaluation framework for rural architectural heritage that integrates preservation and utilization values is imperative.

This study aims to develop a systematic and comprehensive evaluation framework for the conservation and adaptive reuse of rural architectural heritage by identifying evaluation indicators and analyzing their relative importance. Specifically, it seeks to establish integrated evaluation indicators that reflect the regional and industrial characteristics of rural architectural heritage and encompass both preservation and utilization values. It further analyzes the relative importance and priority of the proposed indicators and incorporates indicator-specific weights to support value-based and rational decision-making in heritage selection. Finally, the proposed framework is empirically validated through its application to rural architectural heritage sites in Korea.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Rural Architectural Heritage

Recent research and international discourse on cultural heritage have increasingly expanded to include rural areas. Studies on cultural heritage in rural areas have primarily focused on architectural heritage, industrial heritage, agricultural heritage, rural landscapes, and vernacular architecture [15,16,17]. However, a precise academic definition of “rural architectural heritage” remains elusive. This study seeks to clarify the concept of “rural architectural heritage” by examining the respective definitions of “rural” and “architectural heritage.” Furthermore, based on a literature review of the concepts and scope of related terms, such as architectural assets, rural industrial heritage, and agricultural heritage, this study analyzes the distinctions between rural architectural heritage and these related concepts and explores their characteristics and scope.

First, the dictionary definition of “rural” refers to non-urban or countryside areas characterized by lower population density and more dispersed settlement patterns than cities. The concept of “rural” refers to both administrative districts or regional divisions and the lives, lifestyles, and economic activities of people living in rural areas, which are distinct from the urban context [18,19]. From a Korean perspective, “rural” refers to socio-geographical spaces primarily inhabited by those engaged in agriculture. Following modernization and industrialization, these areas have experienced a continuous population decline driven by rural-to-urban migration. Low birth rates and rapid population aging have exacerbated concerns regarding the sustainability of rural communities [20,21].

Second, “architectural heritage” is broadly defined as buildings and structures that are inherited from the past and have historical importance [22]. According to the World Heritage Convention (1972), UNESCO defines cultural heritage as monuments, buildings, or sites with Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) from historical, artistic, or scientific perspectives [23]. In addition, through the Venice Charter (1964), ICOMOS defines the concept of historic monuments as including not only individual architectural works but also urban or rural settings. This definition extends to both great masterpieces and more modest works that have acquired cultural significance over time [24].

In Korea, the term “architectural assets” is common, and the Act on Value Enhancement of Hanok and Other Architectural Assets [13] addresses architectural assets. This Act defines architectural assets as buildings, spatial environments, and infrastructure that possess social, economic, and scenic value valid in the present and future, which either have unique historical and cultural value or contribute to promoting national architectural culture and the formation of local identity. In this sense, the concept of architectural assets encompasses not only buildings, but also spatial environments and infrastructure, placing emphasis on their potential as resources for active utilization.

In the study on rural architectural heritage, Olğun and Karatosun [25] defined rural architectural heritage as “a heritage with unique characteristics of rural areas,” and stated, “its importance in terms of conservation is increasing.” They included traditional buildings (houses, warehouses, workshops, and barns), gardens and courtyards, and village squares as examples of rural architectural heritage. Kahraman and Arpacıoğlu [26] explained that rural architecture “involves the structures and environments built by settled societies in rural areas, and rural architecture has different characteristics in each region depending on local materials, climate, geographical features, and lifestyle.” Soykök et al. [27] defined rural architectural heritage as “a repository of agricultural activities, traditional crafts, and rural lifestyles that imparts significant value and meaning to rural areas.”

Terms conceptually related to rural architectural heritage include industrial heritage in rural areas, agricultural heritage, rural landscapes, rural vernacular heritage, and vernacular architecture. Industrial heritage is defined in the Nizhny Tagil Charter (2003) as “the heritage of industrial culture with historical, technological, social, architectural, scientific value” [28]. It broadly refers to industrial products, technologies, and infrastructure that have contributed to modernization, and includes not only tangible buildings and structures but also social and engineering achievements resulting from new technologies [29]. Within this category, rural industrial heritage refers specifically to industrial heritage located in rural areas and is associated primarily with the agriculture, forestry, and livestock industries, including rice mills, sawmills, dairy facilities, agricultural warehouses, and wineries [4].

Agricultural heritage, comprising “agriculture” and “heritage,” is broadly understood as agricultural wisdom and customs, as well as physical buildings and structures transmitted over a long period [30]. It is defined as “the totality of elements that influence sustainable life in rural areas,” including land and facilities, equipment and tools, agricultural technology, farmers’ activities and culture, rural living spaces, and regional landscapes [31]. In addition, modern agricultural heritage focuses on agricultural built structures rather than general agricultural heritage and is defined as “agricultural heritage that combines with the historical, technological aspects related to agriculture in the modern era” [31,32].

According to the ICOMOS-IFLA Principles [16], rural landscapes encompass both tangible and intangible heritage in rural areas, including land, landforms, water resources, infrastructure, vegetation, settlements, rural buildings, vernacular architecture, and the physical, cultural, and environmental settings in a broader sense. In addition, rural landscapes include cultural values and meanings attributed to landscapes such as cultural knowledge, traditions, customs, community identity, and a sense of belonging.

Vernacular architecture is generally defined as indigenous and traditional buildings constructed in a specific region using local materials, typically by residents without professional intervention [33,34]. Rural vernacular heritage refers to vernacular architecture with heritage value in a rural context. Examples include rural dwellings, barns, rice mills, breweries, granaries, foundries, blacksmith shops, wells, washing places, stone walls, and fences [35,36]. In 1999, ICOMOS established principles for protecting vernacular cultural heritage through the Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage [17].

Based on a comparative review of these related concepts, this study defines rural architectural heritage as cultural heritage consisting of buildings, spatial environments, and structures that possess historical, artistic, social, landscape, and economic values in rural areas. Rural architectural heritage reflects both the regional characteristics and the agricultural and industrial context of rural areas, thereby distinguishing it from architectural heritage in urban contexts.

2.2. The Value of Architectural Heritage

Since the Athens Charter [37] and the Venice Charter [24], the value of cultural heritage has been discussed primarily in terms of historical, artistic, and scientific values. Depending on the type and characteristics of cultural heritage, additional value dimensions, such as architectural, social, cultural, technological, environmental, and economic values, have been incorporated into heritage discourse [15,38].

Following the UNESCO World Heritage Convention [23], authenticity and integrity have been recognized as core values and essential criteria for heritage assessment. International discussions on architectural heritage have been led mainly by ICOMOS and TICCIH. Early research focused on designated heritage sites such as monuments and buildings with historical traditions. Since the late 20th century, the scope of architectural heritage has expanded to include built heritage, architectural assets, industrial heritage, cultural landscapes, rural landscapes, vernacular architecture, and indigenous heritage.

Table 1. Types of cultural heritage values in international organization documents.

Year	Organization	Types of Value
1931	ICATHM [37]	Historical, artistic, scientific
1964	ICOMOS [24]	Historical, artistic, aesthetic, archaeological, authenticity, integrity
1972	UNESCO [23]	OUV (Outstanding Universal Value), authenticity, integrity
1979	ICOMOS [39]	Cultural significance (aesthetic, historic, scientific, social)
1994	ICOMOS [40]	Authenticity, artistic, historic, social, scientific
1999	ICOMOS [17]	Cultural, vernacular
2003	TICCIH [28]	Historical, technological, social, architectural, scientific, aesthetic, rarity, archaeological, ecological, integrity, authenticity
2005	ICOMOS [41]	Social, spiritual, historic, artistic, aesthetic, natural, scientific, cultural
2008	Historic England [10]	Evidential, historical, aesthetic, communal
2011	ICOMOS [9]	Historical, technological, socio-economic, authenticity, completeness, functional integrity
2013	ICOMOS [42]	Cultural significance (aesthetic, historic, scientific, social, spiritual)
2017	ICOMOS [16]	Economic, social, environmental, cultural, spiritual, spatial
2018	UK DCMS [43]	Architectural, historical, group, age, rarity, aesthetic merits, selectivity, national interest, state of repair
2021	Historic England [44]	Age, rarity, architectural/artistic, group, archaeological, historic, landmark status
2025	UNESCO [8]	OUV (Outstanding Universal Value), authenticity, integrity

summarizes the principles and guidelines related to cultural heritage values established by international organizations such as UNESCO, ICOMOS, and TICCIH, as well as heritage organizations in the UK.

In early theoretical studies on heritage value, Riegl (1902) [45] classified the value of heritage as monuments into commemorative and contemporary values; the former includes age and historical value, whereas the latter comprises use-value and newness. From the perspective of cultural resources, Lipe (1984) [46] identified four categories of value: associative/symbolic, informational, aesthetic, and economic values. Throsby (2001) [47] distinguished cultural and economic values into two overarching categories. Cultural value encompasses aesthetic, spiritual, social, historical, symbolic, authentic, and locational values. Economic value is subdivided into use value, non-use value, and beneficial externalities. Similarly, Mason (2002) [48] classified heritage values into socio-cultural and economic values. The former includes historical, cultural/symbolic, social, spiritual/religious, and aesthetic values, while the latter includes use and non-use values. The non-use value was further divided into existence, option, and bequest values [49].

Since the 2000s, scholars such as Throsby [47] and Mason [48] have broadly divided heritage values into two categories: socio-cultural and economic values. Other researchers proposed frameworks such as preservation vs. utilization values [50,51] and intrinsic vs. extrinsic values [52,53].

A notable characteristic of recent research on architectural heritage value is the increasing emphasis on economic and utilitarian dimensions, which are now regarded as more significant evaluation criteria than those in earlier studies. Accordingly, the literature contains a wide range of value concepts related to the economic and practical aspects of architectural heritage, such as utilitarian value, use value, utility value, availability, economic feasibility, real estate value, and functional usefulness.

Table 2. Types of architectural heritage values in previous research literature.

Year	Author	Types of Value
1902	Riegl [45]	Age, historical, commemorative, use, newness
1977	Falkner [54]	Historical, architectural, practical
1984	Lipe [46]	Associative/symbolic, informational, aesthetic, economic
1996	Lee [55]	Historical, social, economic
1997	Frey [56]	Monetary, option, existence, bequest, prestige, educational
2001	Throsby [47]	Cultural value (aesthetic, spiritual, social, historical, symbolic, authenticity, locational), economic value (use, non-use, beneficial externalities)
2002	Mason [48]	Socio-cultural value (historical, cultural/symbolic, social, spiritual/religious, aesthetic), economic value (use, non-use, existence, option, bequest)
2005	Jung [57]	Historical, architectural, symbolic, locality, academic, economic, use
2012	Kim and Kim [58]	Historical, architectural, social, economic, urban context
2013	Choi [59]	Historical, academic, artistic, landscape, utilization, symbolic, rarity, locality, uniqueness, context
2013	Park and Sung [50]	Historical, aesthetic, socio-cultural, academic, educational, economic
2014	Song et al. [60]	Historical, scientific, artistic, emotional/cultural, environmental, real estate
2017	Lee and Lee [14]	Historical, artistic, technical, landscape, social, cultural
2019	Nam and Jo [51]	Historical, architectural excellence, local utilization, collectivity
2021	Nguyen et al. [52]	Internal criteria (historic, chronological, cultural, social, architectural, technology, construction condition), external criteria (on-site, off-site), feasibility for preservation, originality, new usage
2024	Uhm et al. [61]	Historical, landscape, artistic, socio-cultural, rarity, selectivity/excellence, integrity, authenticity
2024	Chen et al. [62]	Historical, artistic, social, cultural, technological, economic, environmental, functional
2025	Qiao et al. [63]	Architectural features, surrounding environment, social contribution, educational outreach
2025	Huang et al. [64]	Historic, local/place, artistic/aesthetic, scientific/technical
2025	Qiao et al. [65]	Historical, artistic, scientific, social, cultural
2025	Hu et al. [53]	Ontological value (historical, artistic, scientific), extrinsic value (cultural, social, environmental), functional utility

provides a summary of the architectural heritage values identified in previous studies.

2.3. Evaluating Architectural Heritage Value

The purpose of assessing the value of cultural heritage is to facilitate value-based and rational decision-making for its preservation and utilization by recognizing its significance. Specifically, the cultural heritage value assessment provides a basis for determining why heritage assets are important, what should be preserved, and how they should be utilized. Based on value assessments, governments designate or register heritage assets for protection and establish priorities for their repair, restoration, and revitalization. Similarly, the assessment of architectural heritage value is crucial because it provides a key reference for decision-making related to the conservation, management, and adaptive reuse of heritage assets.

Research on the assessment of architectural heritage value has primarily focused on modern architectural heritage, architectural assets, and industrial heritage. These studies derive evaluation criteria or indicators from inherent values, such as historical and architectural values, and employ scientific and analytical methods, such as expert surveys, to analyze the relative importance of these criteria or indicators [50,51,58,59]. Recent studies adopted mixed method approaches that combine qualitative methods, such as focus group interviews (FGI) and grounded theory, with quantitative techniques, including the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Delphi method, to enhance objectivity and rationality in evaluation model development. These models were validated through their application to architectural heritage cases [53,62,63,64,65].

In summary, previous studies generally assign greater importance to preservation-oriented criteria, such as historical and artistic values, whereas utilization-oriented criteria, including economic, functional, and landscape values, tend to receive lower importance. Nevertheless, studies examining utilization-oriented indicators have identified a wide range of criteria reflecting the characteristics of the modern period, regional architectural and cultural attributes, and the surrounding environmental and landscape context. These include representativeness of the period, historical significance, regional architectural characteristics, local culture, cultural identity, regional and environmental contexts, collective memory, and community solidarity. Despite these advances, few studies have developed evaluation indicators tailored to rural architectural heritage. Moreover, limited research has established a comprehensive evaluation framework that integrates indicator derivation, importance analysis, and empirical validation.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area and Research Subjects

The case study area is Buyeo County (gun), which is located in the central–western region of South Korea. Buyeo County covers an area of 624.62 km² and is administratively divided into one town (eup) and 15 townships (myeon) [66]. As a representative rural area in Korea, Buyeo County contains a substantial number of rural architectural heritage sites, including rice mills, breweries, and granaries. Buyeo County was selected as the study area because it exhibits distinct rural characteristics as defined by Korea’s Framework Act on Agriculture, Rural Community, and Food Industry [67]. In addition, the county retains a large number of rural architectural heritage assets, and baseline survey data documenting the current status of these assets are available, providing a reliable empirical foundation for this study. The map of the case study area is shown in Figure 1.

Buyeo County is a historically significant region containing the Archaeological Site in Songguk-ri, dating back approximately 2500 years to the Bronze Age. The county also served as the final capital of the Baekje Kingdom (538–660 CE) during the Three Kingdoms period in the Korean Peninsula [66]. As the Baekje capital, Buyeo County preserves numerous Baekje historical remains, including the Gwanbuk-ri Site, Busosanseong Fortress, the Jeongnimsa Temple Site, the Royal Tombs of Baekje, and the Naseong City Wall. These sites were collectively inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2015 under the name “Baekje Historic Areas” [68,69]. In Buyeo-eup (town), where the Baekje Historic Areas are located, the Korean government has designated “Ancient City Preservation Districts” to administer and protect cultural heritage. However, most rural architectural heritage sites are in outlying townships, beyond the boundaries of these districts, resulting in gaps in heritage conservation and management. Moreover, many rural architectural heritage sites in Buyeo County are excluded from national and local government heritage registries, which creates an urgent need for systematic management.

This study examines rural architectural heritage sites in Buyeo County. In the process of selecting case study sites, relevant documentary records were reviewed, including the Chungcheongnam-do Modern Cultural Heritage Inventory Project Report [70], the Chungcheongnam-do Architectural Assets Survey and Promotion Implementation Plan Report [71], and the Survey and Utilization Plans of Regional Resources in Buyeo County [7]. Based on this review, 26 potential rural architectural heritage sites were identified initially. Field investigations were conducted to verify the site addresses, physical integrity, and the state of conservation and management of each building. In total, 17 buildings were selected for heritage value assessment and in-depth analysis.

The selected buildings are distributed across six townships in Buyeo County, Kuryong, Gyuam, Seokseong, Oesan, Imcheon, and Chochon, and have diverse functions such as rice mills, breweries, granaries, village warehouses, village halls, residential houses, and commercial buildings. For identification, each building was assigned a unique ID following a regional initial number format. Figure 2 illustrates the names and locations of the 17 rural architectural heritage sites in Buyeo County.

3.2. Research Methodology

This study employed a three-step methodological approach: (1) identification of evaluation indicators through a literature review, (2) AHP analysis based on an expert survey, and (3) application and assessment of the indicators through on-site surveys.

First, evaluation indicators were identified from a comprehensive review of previous studies on architectural heritage values and heritage value assessments. The indicators were validated through expert consultations and internal research deliberations. Next, to analyze the relative importance of the evaluation indicators for rural architectural heritage, the AHP framework was established. A survey was conducted with experts in architecture and cultural heritage.

The AHP was employed as the primary method for relative importance and priority analysis. According to the analytical framework, the indicators were structured into two levels: the first consisting of evaluation criteria and the second comprising evaluation indicators to analyze the relative importance and priority of rural architectural heritage evaluation indicators. The developed evaluation framework was applied to 17 rural architectural heritage sites in Buyeo County for empirical assessment.

3.2.1. Identification of the Evaluation Indicators Based on Literature Review

An initial set of evaluation-related keywords was identified through a comprehensive review of the literature on rural architectural heritage, architectural heritage values, and architectural heritage value assessments. First, 24 keywords were identified: historicity, representativeness of the period, historical events and figures, year of construction, architectural design and style, construction techniques and methods, rarity, integrity, regionality, sense of place, community value, cultural value, sustainability, distinctive landscape, amenity, landmark, surrounding resources, clustering, planning conditions, cost, benefit, location and accessibility, utilization, and ease of management. Figure 3 presents the evaluation indicators derivation process.

To develop comprehensive and balanced evaluation indicators that encompass both preservation and utilization values, these keywords were refined through expert consultations and research deliberations. During this process, redundant indicators were consolidated, unsuitable indicators for rural contexts were screened out, and other indicators were repositioned to fit the AHP hierarchical structure. Consequently, a final set of 18 evaluation indicators was established: historicity, representativeness of the period, historical events and figures, architectural excellence, rarity, integrity, local identity, sense of place, cultural significance, distinctive landscape, surrounding resources, clustering, planning conditions, cost, benefit, location and accessibility, potential for utilization, and ease of management. The 18 evaluation indicators were reclassified into 6 value criteria according to their characteristics and conceptual attributes: historical value, architectural/artistic value, social/cultural value, landscape value, economic value, and utilitarian value.

Table 3. Value evaluation framework of rural architectural heritage.

Criteria	Indicators	Description
Historical value	Historicity	This indicator assesses whether the architectural heritage site is associated with historical records or reflects the historical characteristics of the region.
	Representativeness of the Period	This indicator assesses whether the original function or external appearance represents historical changes in rural areas and possesses the symbolic value of a particular period.
	Historical Events and Figures	This indicator assesses whether the architectural heritage is associated with significant historical events or notable historical figures.
Architectural/Artistic value	Architectural Excellence	This indicator assesses architectural quality or aesthetic value, including significant characteristics related to form, materials, style, construction techniques, craftsmanship, and structural systems.
	Rarity	This indicator assesses the rarity of the architectural heritage. Heritage is considered rare when it was once common in the past but has largely disappeared due to damage or demolition, leaving very few surviving examples today.
	Integrity	This indicator assesses the integrity of preservation. High integrity indicates that the original form is well preserved or that significant elements remain in good condition.
Social/ Cultural value	Local Identity	This indicator assesses whether the architectural heritage reflects local identity and distinctiveness, or contributes to understanding the social and cultural characteristics of the region.
	Sense of Place	This indicator assesses whether a sense of place has been formed through the shared experiences and collective memories of the local community in relation to the building and its site.
	Cultural Significance	This indicator assesses whether the heritage embodies tangible or intangible heritage related to local culture, traditional practices, rituals, or community festivals.
Landscape value	Distinctive Landscape	This indicator assesses whether the architectural heritage harmonizes with its surrounding environment to form a distinctive local landscape or functions as a landmark within the area.
	Surrounding Resources	This indicator assesses whether historical, cultural, tourism, or ecological resources in the surrounding area can be linked and utilized in conjunction with the architectural heritage.
	Clustering	This indicator assesses whether individual architectural heritage forms a cluster, exhibits spatial or functional relationships with others, or generates landscape value through collective presence.
Economic value	Planning Conditions	This indicator assesses planning conditions affecting heritage utilization, including zoning, land-use, building use, building coverage ratio, floor area ratio, and height restrictions.
	Cost	This indicator assesses expected costs associated with utilization, such as acquisition costs, rent, renovation, maintenance, and operational expenses. Lower anticipated costs may enhance economic value.
	Benefit	This indicator assesses potential economic benefits derived from utilization, including project revenue and benefits to residents. Higher expected benefits and returns indicate greater economic value.
Utilitarian value	Location and Accessibility	This indicator assesses location and accessibility, including ease of access by public transport, private vehicles, and pedestrians, as well as travel time.
	Potential for Utilization	This indicator assesses whether the architectural heritage is suitable and useful for continued use of its original function or for adaptive reuse with new functions or purposes.
	Ease of Management	This indicator assesses how easily the architectural heritage can be managed by owners, residents, and public authorities, considering factors such as physical condition, aging, and current maintenance status.

presents the value evaluation framework of rural architectural heritage.

3.2.2. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Expert Survey

As the evaluation framework for rural architectural heritage, 6 criteria and 18 evaluation indicators were derived through literature reviews, expert consultations, and internal research deliberations: historical value, architectural/artistic value, social/cultural value, landscape value, economic value, and utilitarian value. The AHP was employed to analyze the relative importance and priority of the evaluation indicators.

AHP is a multi-criteria decision-making method that decomposes complex problems into a hierarchical structure and derives relative importance and priorities through pairwise comparisons among evaluation elements at each level [72,73,74]. By transforming complex decision-making processes into quantitative forms, AHP offers advantages in terms of clarity, simplicity, and analytical utility. Additionally, because the method relies on expert judgment, it enables the derivation of reliable and specialized results with a limited number of respondents [75].

AHP typically consists of six sequential steps: conceptualizing, structuring, weighting, consistency testing, synthesizing, and feedback [76,77,78].

• Conceptualizing: This step involves defining the decision problem and setting the evaluation goal, thereby establishing the conceptual framework for assessment.
• Structuring: All relevant factors related to the decision problem are organized into a hierarchical structure, starting with the overall goal at the highest level, followed by the evaluation criteria at the intermediate level, and the sub-criteria or evaluation indicators at the lower level.
• Weighting: Relative importance is assessed using a questionnaire designed using pairwise comparisons among the evaluation elements. The results of these comparisons are synthesized to calculate the weight of each element.
• Consistency Testing: The consistency of the respondents’ judgments is verified using the Consistency Index (CI) and Consistency Ratio (CR).
• Synthesizing: The weights of the evaluation criteria are multiplied by the scores of the corresponding sub-criteria or evaluation indicators to calculate the composite scores for each indicator.
• Feedback: Providing information on inconsistencies to respondents with low consistency scores and requesting a re-evaluation to improve the model’s robustness.

AHP measures the relative importance of evaluation factors through pairwise comparisons. Let $A_1,A_2,\dots ,A_n$ represent the evaluation factors and let $w_i$ represent the relative weight of factor $A_i$. The relative importance of these factors can be estimated through pairwise comparisons. When an evaluator compares $n$ evaluation factors at the same level, $n(n-1)/2$ pairwise comparisons are required. Therefore, we can construct a pairwise comparison matrix $A_{n\times n}$, as in Equation (1):

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& a_{12}& \dots & a_{1n}\\ a_{21}& 1& \dots & a_{2n}\\ ⋮& ⋮& \ddots & ⋮\\ a_{n1}& a_{n2}& \dots & 1\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}{w}_1/w_1& w_1/w_2& \dots & w_1/w_n\\ w_2/w_1& w_2/w_2& \dots & w_2/w_n\\ ⋮& ⋮& \ddots & ⋮\\ w_n/w_1& w_n/w_2& \dots & w_n/w_n\end{array}\right).$$

(1)

Each element $a_{ij}$ in matrix $A$ represents an estimate of the relative importance ${\displaystyle \frac{w_i}{w_j}}$ of element $i$ with respect to element $j$. Matrix $A$ is a reciprocal matrix satisfying the conditions $a_{ji}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_{ij}}}$ and $a_{ii}=1$, implying that all diagonal elements are equal to 1.

When matrix $A$ is multiplied by the weight vector $w=(w_1,w_2,\dots ,w_n{)}^{\mathrm{T}},$ which represents the relative importance of the evaluation factors, we obtain the relationship shown in Equation (2):

$$A \cdot w = {\lambda }_{\left\{max\right\}}\cdot w.$$

(2)

If matrix $A$ is perfectly consistent, then the maximum eigenvalue ${\lambda }_{\left\{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{x}\right\}}$ is equal to $n$; that is, the number of evaluation factors. Under this assumption, we can rewrite Equation (2) as Equation (3):

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}{w}_1/w_1& w_1/w_2& \dots & w_1/w_n\\ w_2/w_1& w_2/w_2& \dots & w_2/w_n\\ ⋮& ⋮& \ddots & ⋮\\ w_n/w_1& w_n/w_2& \dots & w_n/w_n\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}{w}_1\\ w_2\\ ⋮\\ w_n\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}n{w}_1\\ n{w}_2\\ ⋮\\ n{w}_n\end{array}\right).$$

(3)

Consistency testing is the process of evaluating the degree of inconsistency in the judgments provided by respondents. As previously noted, if the pairwise comparison matrix $A$ is perfectly consistent, then the relationship ${\lambda }_{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{x}}=n$ holds. The CI measures the degree of the maximum eigenvalue ${\lambda }_{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{x}}$ deviation from $n$, defined as in Equation (4):

$$CI={\displaystyle \frac{{\lambda }_{max}-n}{n-1}}$$

(4)

To assess whether the level of inconsistency is acceptable, the CI is compared with the Random Index (RI). The RI represents the average CI values obtained from randomly generated reciprocal matrices of the same order $n$. As the number of evaluation elements increases, the probability of achieving perfect consistency decreases. The ratio of the CI to the corresponding RI is the Consistency Ratio (CR), as shown in Equation (5):

$$CR={\displaystyle \frac{CI}{RI}}.$$

(5)

The consistency test was conducted by calculating the CR using Datain, a Python-based AHP analysis program. In general, a CR value of 0.1 or lower is considered to indicate that respondents have provided consistent judgments. However, many previous studies suggested that a CR value of 0.2 or lower may still provide an acceptable consistency [76,77,78,79,80,81]. Accordingly, responses with a CR value of 0.2 or lower were regarded as consistent and included in the subsequent analysis.

Following the AHP analysis described above, we established a hierarchical structure for the 18 evaluation indicators derived from prior studies and designed a questionnaire to analyze their relative importance. The questionnaire design process was carried out over approximately one month, from June to July 2025. The initial draft of the questionnaire was designed through discussions among the research team. The draft was subsequently revised after two rounds of expert review, followed by pre-testing and final revisions. Specifically, expert consultations conducted between 23 and 27 June reviewed the appropriateness and clarity of the evaluation indicators and examined the validity of the AHP hierarchical structure. Overlapping indicators were integrated, and indicators that did not fit the AHP importance analysis hierarchy were rearranged or refined. The hierarchical structure, consisting of six value criteria at the first level and 18 evaluation indicators at the second level, was finalized. After pre-testing from 1 to 4 July, further refinements to the questionnaire’s structure and content were made. To enhance the respondents’ understanding, the definition, scope, and typologies of rural architectural heritage were added to the questionnaire. Through this comprehensive process, which included a literature review, expert validation, and pre-testing, the construct validity of the evaluation framework was ensured.

The survey method involved an expert survey using AHP analysis. The substantive scope of the survey focused on the development of evaluation indicators for rural architectural heritage. Its spatial scope covered rural areas in South Korea. Given the nature of this study, which involved an expert survey for the AHP analysis, respondents were selected using purposive sampling. The survey participants consisted of experts in architecture or cultural heritage. To ensure objectivity and minimize selection bias, respondents were selected based on their qualification criteria, including academic background and professional experience. The minimum qualification requirements were a master’s degree or higher and at least three years of professional experience. Priority was given to those with experience in the survey and evaluation of architectural heritage. To ensure respondent diversity, recruitment was conducted across various institutions and organizations, including universities, research institutes, architectural and urban planning firms, public institutions, and intermediary support organizations. The survey was conducted after individual applications by interested experts.

The survey targeted experts in architecture or cultural heritage, including professors, researchers, private-sector professionals, and public officials with substantial knowledge and experience in rural areas and architectural heritage. A total of 53 experts participated in the survey. The survey was conducted between 16 July and 4 August 2025, using a mixed-mode approach that combined face-to-face surveys and online questionnaires distributed via email. Of the 53 responses, 8 were excluded because of an incomplete response rate (below 95%) or failure of the consistency test (CR > 0.2). A final sample of 45 valid responses was used for the importance analysis.

Table 4. Survey scope and sampling strategy.

Category	Description
Survey Scope	Rural area in Korea,
Survey Method	Expert survey for AHP
Survey Period	From 16 July 2025 to 4 August 2025
Sample Selection	Purposive sampling
Sample Size	53 experts
Sampling Method (Inclusion Criteria)	Experts in architecture or cultural heritage with a master’s degree or higher and at least three years of professional experience. Priority was given to experts with experience in the investigation and evaluation of architectural heritage.
Exclusion Criteria	Incomplete questionnaires, response rates below 95%, or responses exceeding the acceptable consistency ratio threshold

provides the survey scope and sampling strategy.

Next, we summarized the general characteristics of the 45 respondents. Of the respondents, 33 were male (73.3%) and 12 were female (26.7%). In terms of age, 5 respondents (11.1%) were in their 30s, 17 (37.8%) were in their 40s, 17 (37.8%) were in their 50s, and 6 (13.3%) were 60 years or older. Respondents in their 40s and 50s accounted for the majority. Regarding regional distribution, 17 respondents (37.8%) were from Seoul, 9 (20.0%) from Incheon and Gyeonggi, 9 (20.0%) from Daejeon and Chungnam, and 10 (22.2%) from Jeonbuk and Jeonnam. Overall, 57.8% of respondents were from the Seoul metropolitan area, while 42.2% were from non-metropolitan regions. In terms of affiliation, the sample comprised 8 professors (17.8%), 13 researchers (28.9%), 16 private-sector experts (35.6%), and 8 public-sector experts (17.8%). The majority of respondents were affiliated with academia. Regarding fields of expertise, architecture was the most common (33 respondents, 73.3%), followed by urban planning (7 respondents, 15.6%), and others (5 respondents, 11.1%). With respect to professional experience, the largest proportion had more than 20 years of experience (21 respondents, 46.7%), followed by those with 10–19 years (14 respondents, 31.1%), and those with fewer than 10 years (10 respondents, 22.2%). Most respondents (77.8%) had more than 10 years of experience. Of the 45 respondents, 34 (75.6%) reported prior experience with architectural heritage surveys and evaluations.

Table 5. Characteristics of the expert survey respondents.

Category	Sub-Category	Number of Respondents	Percentage (%)	Remark
Gender	Male	33	73.3	The majority of respondents Male (73.3%)
	Female	12	26.7
Age	30–39 years	5	11.1	The majority of respondents 40–59 years (75.6%)
	40–49 years	17	37.8
	50–59 years	17	37.8
	60 years or more	6	13.3
Region	Seoul	17	37.8	The majority of respondents Seoul metropolitan area (57.8%)
	Incheon–Gyeonggi	9	20.0
	Daejeon–Chungnam	9	20.0
	Jeonbuk–Jeonnam	10	22.2
Affiliations	Professor	8	17.8	The majority of respondents academia (46.7%)
	Researcher	13	28.9
	Private-sector expert	16	35.6
	Public-sector expert	8	17.8
Field of Expertise	Architecture	33	73.3	The majority of respondents architecture experts (73.3%)
	Urban Planning	7	15.6
	Others	5	11.1
Years of Professional Experience	Less than 10 years	10	22.2	The majority with 10 years or more professional experience (77.8%)
	10–19 years	14	31.1
	20 years or more	21	46.7

Note: 1. Affiliations: Private-sector experts include architects and urban planners. Public-sector experts include public officers, cultural heritage curators, and intermediate support organization managers. Note: 2. Field of Expertise: The “Others” includes experts in humanities, culture, and economics.

provides details on the survey respondents’ characteristics.

3.2.3. Application and Assessment of Evaluation Indicators Based on Field Surveys

We applied the developed evaluation framework to 17 rural architectural heritage sites in Buyeo County, Chungcheongnam-do, South Korea. The assessment was conducted from 27 August to 3 September 2025, by a panel of five experts, including the research team, with extensive experience in architectural and cultural heritage surveys and assessments.

The evaluation drew on field survey findings and supporting documentary and spatial data, including baseline site information, GIS data, land register records, building register records, and land-use planning documents. During the site visits, detailed investigations were carried out using a field survey sheet. The form recorded general building information (ID, name, use, address, location information, building owner, year of construction, architect/builder, site area, gross floor area, and building footprint area) along with qualitative attributes such as heritage characteristics and values, conservation status, management status, and structural alterations to exterior walls and roofs.

Table 6. List of rural architectural heritage sites in Buyeo County.

ID	Name	Building Information	Photos
K-01	Former Hair Salon in Nonti-ri	This two-story building at an intersection has a distinctive form, combining commercial and residential functions. The preservation of the original beauty salon and teahouse interiors showcases the practical local culture of the time.
K-02	Former Community Hall in Nonti-ri	Reflecting the needs and architectural techniques of rural communities in the 1980s, this village hall was designed as a central hub for the community, providing dedicated spaces for meetings and social gatherings. It serves as a physical testament to the changing realities of rural areas.
K-03	Former Factory in Nonti-ri	This factory, built in the late 1970s, consists of multiple buildings. The structures feature a practical design, combining masonry walls with wooden king-post trusses. The facade displays architectural details rarely seen in rural areas, and its naturally weathered appearance creates a distinctive local landscape.
K-04	Former Rice Mill in Geumsa-ri	This rice mill, built in the 1970s, has undergone some damage. Key features include high ceilings and windows for milling machinery, along with a simple roof truss supported by masonry walls. The building serves as a significant resource that reflects the village industry while contributing to the rural landscape.
K-05	Two-Story Shop in Nonti-ri	Constructed between the 1930s and 1940s, this street-side two-story wooden structure features a dual-purpose layout with a storefront and a residence. As a significant historical resource, it demonstrates the building’s role as a hub of local economic activity within the local market.
G-01	Former Rice Mill in Bansan-ri	Originally constructed as a sawmill, this building utilizes a wooden framework with steel-plate walls to create a large-span interior, topped with roof windows. Although later converted into a rice mill, it remains well-preserved. It holds significant value as industrial heritage, reflecting the history of the area.
G-02	Won Family Hanok in Bansan-ri	Estimated to have been built between the late 19th and early 20th centuries, this modern Hanok residence reflects the village’s evolution into a prosperous agricultural community. This house provides insight into the local socio-economic transitions and the architectural changes over different periods.
S-01	Former Brewery in Seokseong-ri	Established in the 1930s, this site was a local brewery operated under Japanese management. Its functional layout, including the brewing room and the original liquor vats, clearly demonstrates the facility’s operation. It remains a significant industrial heritage site that illustrates the local transition.
S-02	Former Post Office and Official Residence in Seokseong-ri	Constructed in the 1930s, this post office is an example of a rural administrative facility, featuring a unique integrated layout where the office and residence are connected. While the office interior has undergone modifications, the residence remains in its original state, offering architectural and historical value.
S-03	Agricultural Cooperative Warehouse in Seokseong-ri	This 1970s warehouse exemplifies a utilitarian design focused on practicality, featuring a masonry structure and double-leaf steel doors for equipment access. The exterior walls preserve historical inscriptions that reflect the evolving rural conditions of the time.
O-01	Former Store in Bangyo-ri	Situated at the entrance of a rural village, this 1980s structure serves as a community hub due to its accessibility near the main road’s bus stop. By housing essential services such as a retail store and a beauty salon, it functions as a local social node, reflecting the evolving reality of rural communities.
O-02	Former Brewery in Mansu-ri	Established in the 1980s, this brewery is an example of the small-scale cottage industry in Buyeo-gun. The building provides valuable insight into the region’s socio-economic history and brewing traditions, featuring a functional interior layout specifically partitioned according to each stage of the brewing process.
I-01	Former Tobacco Cooperative Warehouse in Gugyo-ri	This 1970s tobacco warehouse features a lightweight steel frame finished with corrugated steel siding. It specializes in a large-span open interior, high ceilings, and roof clerestories. Although currently vacant, the building maintains its structural form and integrity, serving as a testament to the industrial heritage.
I-02	Former Rice Mill and Warehouse in Gunsa-ri	Established in the 1970s, this large-scale rice milling complex reflects the substantial volume of regional rice production through its machinery and expansive warehouses. It illustrates the modernization of rice cultivation and processing within Buyeo-gun’s economy.
C-01	Rice Mill and Warehouse in Chuyang-ri	This 1970s village warehouse features a column-free masonry structure with corrugated metal roofing supported by king-post trusses. By linking two separate warehouse units to a rice mill, the complex illustrates the functional adaptation and transformation of rural storage facilities.
C-02	Village Warehouse in Chuyang-ri	This 1970s structure is a representative village warehouse, featuring a column-free masonry structure and corrugated metal roofing supported by king-post trusses. Although modest in scale, it serves as a significant example of how village storage was constructed and managed at the community level.
C-03	Agricultural Cooperative Warehouse in Eungpyeong-ri	This structure exemplifies the typical architectural style of a 1970s National Agricultural Cooperative warehouse. Key features include a large-span, column-free interior, red brick masonry construction, and double-leaf steel doors. It serves as a significant model of functional agricultural industrial design from the era.

summarizes the building information, heritage characteristics and values, and on-site photographs of the 17 rural architectural heritage sites in Buyeo County.

4. Results

4.1. Weighting Results of the Evaluation Indicators

4.1.1. Weights of the First-Level Criteria

The analysis of the first-level importance weights based on responses from 45 experts indicated that the historical value (0.239) was the most important criterion. This was followed by architectural/artistic value (0.207), social/cultural value (0.206), landscape value (0.144), utilitarian value (0.109), and economic value (0.096). At the first level, the results revealed that preservation-oriented criteria, such as historical value and architectural/artistic value, were prioritized over utilization-oriented criteria, including economic and utilitarian value. A consistency test for the first-level criteria yielded a consistency ratio (CR) of 0.003. Because the CR value was well below the acceptable threshold of 0.10, the pairwise comparison matrix demonstrated satisfactory consistency.

Table 7. Weights and rankings of first-level criteria.

First-Level Criteria	Weight	Rank
Historical value	0.239	1
Architectural/Artistic value	0.207	2
Social/Cultural value	0.206	3
Landscape value	0.144	4
Economic value	0.096	6
Utilitarian value	0.109	5

Note: CR = 0.003; a CR < 0.10 indicates acceptable consistency.

presents the results of the first-level importance analysis.

4.1.2. Weights of the Second-Level Indicators

The results of the second-level importance analysis of the rural architectural heritage evaluation indicators are summarized as follows. First, among the indicators related to historical value, the representativeness of the period (0.433) ranked highest, followed by historicity (0.315), and historical events and figures (0.252). This result indicates that the extent to which a heritage asset embodies the characteristics and transformations of specific historical periods at the national or regional level is more important than its association with documented historical records, specific events, and figures. Second, for architectural/artistic value, the indicators were rarity (0.392), architectural excellence (0.342), and integrity (0.266). This outcome suggests that the rarity of an architectural heritage asset was regarded as more significant than its architectural or aesthetic excellence or the degree of physical integrity. Third, regarding social/cultural value, the importance of the indicators was ranked as follows: local identity (0.346), sense of place (0.339), and cultural significance (0.315). This result indicates that the extent to which an asset reflects local identity and distinctiveness is valued more than its association with a sense of place formed through collective experiences and memories or its relevance to local culture, traditional practices, rituals, and community festivals. Fourth, among the indicators related to landscape value, distinctive landscape (0.417) ranked highest, followed by clustering (0.311) and surrounding resources (0.272). This finding shows that the degree to which architectural heritage harmonizes with its surrounding environment to form a distinctive landscape is considered more significant than the collective characteristics of clustered heritage assets or the availability of nearby resources that can be utilized in conjunction with the site. Fifth, for economic value, the indicators were ranked as benefit (0.446), cost (0.280), and planning conditions (0.274). This result suggests that the expected economic profits or community benefits from the utilization of architectural heritage were prioritized over expected costs, such as repair expenses, rent, operation, and management costs, or external planning conditions. Finally, with respect to utilitarian value, potential for utilization (0.489) ranked highest, followed by location and accessibility (0.313) and ease of management (0.199). This finding demonstrates that the suitability of architectural heritage for existing or new functions is more significant than locational accessibility or maintenance convenience. The consistency test for the second-level indicators showed that CR values ranged from 0.000 to 0.006, all well below the acceptable threshold of 0.10.

Table 8. Weights and rankings of second-level indicators.

First-Level Criteria	Second-Level Indicators	Weight	Rank
Historical value	Historicity	0.315	2
	Representativeness of the Period	0.433	1
	Historical Events and Figures	0.252	3
Architectural/Artistic value	Architectural Excellence	0.342	2
	Rarity	0.392	1
	Integrity	0.266	3
Social/Cultural value	Local Identity	0.346	1
	Sense of Place	0.339	2
	Cultural Significance	0.315	3
Landscape value	Distinctive Landscape	0.417	1
	Surrounding Resources	0.272	3
	Clustering	0.311	2
Economic value	Planning Conditions	0.274	3
	Cost	0.280	2
	Benefit	0.446	1
Utilitarian value	Location and Accessibility	0.313	2
	Potential for Utilization	0.489	1
	Ease of Management	0.199	3

Note: The consistency ratios (CR) for all pairwise comparison matrices range from 0.000 to 0.006; all values are below 0.10, indicating acceptable consistency.

presents the results of the second-level importance analysis.

4.1.3. Integrated Weights and Priority Rankings

The integrated weights and priority rankings of the 18 evaluation indicators were derived by synthesizing the results of the first-level and second-level importance analyses of the rural architectural heritage evaluation framework. The results indicate that the representativeness of the period (0.103) had the highest integrated weight and priority among all the indicators. Other highly ranked indicators include rarity (0.081), historicity (0.075), local identity (0.071), architectural excellence (0.071), sense of place (0.070), cultural significance (0.065), historical events and figures (0.060), distinctive landscape (0.060), and integrity (0.055). Among the 18 evaluation indicators, most of those ranked within the top ten were associated with historical value, architectural/artistic value, and social/cultural value criteria. Among the remaining value criteria, only distinctive landscape, which falls under the landscape value, is included among the top-ranked indicators. These findings suggest that experts place a higher value on the intrinsic or socio-cultural aspects of rural architectural heritage than on its extrinsic or economic aspects. The integrated weights and priority rankings of all 18 evaluation indicators are presented in

Table 9. Integrated weights and priority rankings of the indicator level.

Second-Level Indicators	Integrated Weight	Rank
Historicity	0.075	3
Representativeness of the Period	0.103	1
Historical Events and Figures	0.060	8
Architectural Excellence	0.071	5
Rarity	0.081	2
Integrity	0.055	10
Local Identity	0.071	4
Sense of Place	0.070	6
Cultural Significance	0.065	7
Distinctive Landscape	0.060	9
Surrounding Resources	0.039	14
Clustering	0.045	12
Planning Conditions	0.026	17
Cost	0.027	16
Benefit	0.043	13
Location and Accessibility	0.034	15
Potential for Utilization	0.053	11
Ease of Management	0.022	18

and Figure 4.

4.1.4. Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance and Sensitivity Analysis

Kendall’s coefficient of concordance and a sensitivity analysis were conducted to verify the statistical significance and robustness of the AHP results. First, Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) was used to examine the degree of consensus among the experts, and p-values were employed to determine the statistical significance of this agreement. Based on the respective weights and rankings assigned by the 45 experts to the six value criteria at the first level, the results indicate a moderate level of agreement ($W=0.319, p<0.001$), confirming that the agreement is statistically significant. Additionally, based on the integrated weights and overall rankings of the 18 evaluation indicators at the second level, the analysis showed a slightly lower level of agreement, albeit still statistically significant ($W=0.261, p<0.001$). These findings suggest that the expert judgments exhibit a statistically meaningful degree of consensus.

A sensitivity analysis was conducted to verify the stability and robustness of the evaluation results. The weights of historical value and architectural/artistic value, which ranked highest at the first level, were adjusted by ±10% from their original values to examine subsequent changes in indicator rankings. Consequently, the sensitivity analysis demonstrated that moderate changes in the criteria weights did not significantly affect the overall ranking structure, validating the robustness of the results. Furthermore, the findings indicate that the framework is reliable and stable as an evaluation system for rural architectural heritage.

4.2. Value Assessment of Rural Architectural Heritage Sites in Buyeo

The value assessment of the 17 rural architectural heritage sites in Buyeo County was conducted through detailed site investigations using field survey sheets. Each of the 18 evaluation indicators was rated on a five-point Likert scale (1–5). These raw scores were multiplied by the integrated weights derived from the importance analysis. The final comprehensive evaluation score for each site was calculated by aggregating the scores assigned by the five experts participating in the assessment.

The results of the assessment indicate that the Former Brewery in Seokseong-ri (S-01) achieved the highest overall score, with a total of 20.356, followed by the Former Post Office and Official Residence in Seokseong-ri (S-02) with 19.840. The third-ranked site was the Two-Story Shop in Nonti-ri (K-05) with 17.546, followed by the Won Family Hanok in Bansan-ri (G-02) with 16.856, and the Former Tobacco Cooperative Warehouse in Gugyo-ri (I-01) with 15.981. These findings suggest that sites S-01, S-02, K-05, G-02, and I-01 should be prioritized for the conservation and adaptive reuse of rural architectural heritage in Buyeo. The results of the assessment and the composite scores are presented in Appendix A, and detailed scores for each site are provided in Appendix B.

5. Discussion

5.1. Weighting Results

5.1.1. First-Level Criteria Weights

The first-level importance analysis results revealed that historical value ranked highest among the six value criteria, followed by architectural/artistic value, social/cultural value, landscape value, utilitarian value, and economic value. The weight of historical value was more than 10% greater than that of architectural/artistic value. There was almost no difference in weight between architectural/artistic value and social/cultural value. Furthermore, the weights of historical and architectural/artistic values, which are associated with preservation, were more than double those of economic and utilitarian values, which are related to the utilization. These results indicate a clear preference for preservation-oriented value criteria over utilization-oriented criteria. This pattern is consistent with the emphasis of numerous previous studies on the primacy of preservation-related values in architectural and cultural heritage assessments [50,59,62,82].

A particularly noteworthy finding from the first-level analysis is the relatively high importance assigned to social/cultural value (0.206). Many previous studies tended to rank social/cultural value lower than historical or architectural/artistic value. However, several international guidelines and recent studies highlighted the significance of the social and cultural values of heritage. For example, the ICOMOS-IFLA Principles on rural landscapes [16] and Historic England [44] focus on local heritage, underscoring the significance of social and community-related dimensions. In addition, researchers focusing on modern cultural and architectural heritage in Korea have increasingly recognized social and cultural values as key evaluation dimensions [50,58,61]. In this regard, the relatively high importance of social and cultural values identified in this study reflects both the distinct regional characteristics of rural areas and the role of architectural heritage as a socio-cultural asset embedded within rural communities. These findings suggest that evaluations of rural architectural heritage should encompass not only historical and architectural significance but also regional and social contexts, alongside community-based meanings and cultural dimensions such as traditions and customs.

In recent years, international heritage discourse, particularly led by ICOMOS and TICCIH, has increasingly emphasized sustainable use and socio-economic contributions in heritage conservation. Similarly, there has been a growing theoretical and practical interest in the utilization and adaptive reuse of architectural heritage [9,49,83,84]. Nevertheless, the findings suggest that economic and utilitarian values, which are utilization-oriented values, ranked lowest in both weight and priority. The combined weight of economic and utilitarian values is 0.205, which falls short of the architectural value of 0.207. These results demonstrate that the experts who participated in the evaluation still prioritize preservation-oriented values over utilization-oriented values.

Synthesizing the results of this study with existing academic discussions, preservation-oriented values are found to be more significant than utilization-oriented values for rural architectural heritage, as is the case with cultural heritage in general. Compared to preservation values, the influence of utilization values remains limited. Nevertheless, the significance of this study lies in highlighting that while preservation value is paramount, it should not function as the absolute or sole criterion. Instead, utilization value must also be considered. Furthermore, these findings suggest that an integrated value judgment and the evaluation framework, which encompasses both preservation and utilization values, is essential for a comprehensive assessment of rural architectural heritage.

5.1.2. Second-Level Indicators Weights

The second-level importance analysis revealed several results. First, within the historical value criterion, the representativeness of the period (0.433) was more significant than historicity (0.315) and historical events and figures (0.252). Rural architectural heritage, including rice mills, breweries, and granaries, primarily comprises buildings constructed during the modern and contemporary periods of rural Korea. These structures serve as symbols reflecting epochal shifts in rural society, such as the rapid industrialization and rural-to-urban migration from the 1960s to the 1990s, as well as the decline of agriculture and rural areas since the 2000s. Furthermore, official historical records for such heritage are often scarce, making it difficult to identify clear associations with specific historical events or figures. In this context, the findings suggest that rural architectural heritage can possess significant value and meaning even in the absence of historical records or despite its relatively recent construction. In particular, these results highlight the need to recognize the value of rural architectural heritage as a symbol reflecting the historical and social transformations of rural areas.

Second, regarding the architectural/artistic value criterion, rarity (0.392) emerged as more significant than architectural excellence (0.342) and integrity (0.266). This finding differs from those of previous studies on architectural heritage, which have typically emphasized architectural excellence and integrity as key value criteria. Rarity signifies the scarcity of heritage remaining within a specific region, which imbues it with rare value. In rural Korea, numerous architectural heritage sites, such as rice mills, are frequently damaged or demolished due to development and redevelopment projects; as a result, extant examples have become increasingly rare. Consequently, evaluators likely recognized the urgent value of the remaining rural architectural heritage sites. This result is consistent with previous studies that highlighted rarity as an important heritage value, including TICCIH [28], Historic England [44], Choi [59], and Uhm et al. [61]. Based on these findings and previous studies, it can be interpreted that for rural architectural heritage, rarity should be prioritized in value judgments even if the structures lack architectural excellence or significant aesthetic/artistic value. Furthermore, if the remaining quantity of such heritage is scarce, the importance of its conservation and management becomes even more critical.

Third, the rankings assigned to the relative importance of social/cultural value indicators were local identity (0.346), sense of place (0.339), and cultural significance (0.315). Although local identity ranked highest, the three indicators showed only marginal numerical disparities. Local identity evaluates whether a heritage site reflects or contributes to the understanding of the identity and characteristics of a region. Sense of place measures the meaning of a site as shaped by the shared experiences and memories of the local community, while cultural significance relates to local culture, traditional practices and rituals, and community festivals. The absence of substantial differences among these indicators suggests that all three components of social/cultural value are comparably important. Furthermore, the results suggest that the evaluation indicators considered important by experts within the social/cultural value criterion are relatively dispersed. This reflects the multifaceted nature of social and cultural values, which can be interpreted differently by experts.

Fourth, regarding the landscape value criterion, respondents ranked distinctive landscape highest (0.417), followed by clustering (0.311) and surrounding resources (0.272). A distinctive landscape describes how architectural heritage harmonizes with the surrounding environment to form a characteristic rural landscape. Rural landscape encompasses rural scenery, the natural environment, the agricultural production environment, cultural landscapes, and amenities. Clustering assesses whether individual architectural heritage sites collectively form a landscape and maintain interconnected relationships. The high priority placed on the clustering indicator implies that for rural architectural heritage, collective value should be considered alongside individual value. In many rural areas, multiple heritage sites are concentrated within specific streets or villages; in such contexts, the clustering indicator serves as a crucial evaluation criterion.

Fifth, within the economic value criterion, evaluators rated benefits (0.446) as more significant than costs (0.280). Benefits are the potential economic returns generated through the utilization of architectural heritage, including business revenue and community benefits. Higher expected benefits indicate that utilization and adaptive reuse projects have greater economic value. In contrast, costs include anticipated expenditures, such as acquisition, repair, restoration, rental, and operational maintenance. The prioritization of benefits over costs suggests that people perceive architectural heritage as economically valuable when it generates substantial returns or community benefits, even when significant costs are incurred.

Finally, regarding the utilitarian value criterion, the respondents assigned relative weightings to potential for utilization (0.489), location and accessibility (0.313), and ease of management (0.199). Potential for utilization, which assesses whether architectural heritage can maintain its original functions or be repurposed for new uses, was the most critical indicator for practical utilization. Although location/accessibility and ease of management are also important considerations, evaluators prioritized potential for utilization as the primary determinant within the utilitarian value criterion. The relatively higher weight assigned to the potential for utilization indicator suggests that many experts consider this indicator to be a key priority for utilitarian value. Previous studies, including Lee et al. [85], Hwang and Chang [82], Nam and Jo [51], Qiao et al. [63], and Hu et al. [53], consistently emphasized potential for utilization.

5.1.3. Integrated Weights and Priority Rankings

The integrated analysis of importance and priority across all 18 evaluation indicators identified “representativeness of the period” (0.103) as having the highest priority. This was followed by “rarity” (0.081), “historicity” (0.075), “local identity” (0.071), “architectural excellence” (0.071), “sense of place” (0.070), “cultural significance” (0.065), “historical events and figures” (0.060), “distinctive landscape” (0.060), and “integrity” (0.055).

Among the 18 evaluation indicators, “representativeness of the period” ranked first, followed by “rarity” in second place. It is unusual for these indicators to receive such high priority in the evaluation of cultural heritage. According to previous studies, such indicators as “historical significance,” “architectural excellence,” and “integrity” generally received high ratings when evaluating architectural or cultural heritage. By comparison, in this study, the high priority assigned to such indicators as “representativeness of the period” and “rarity” may reflect the regional characteristics of rural architectural heritage and the historical attributes associated with modern heritage. Among the top 10 indicators, 9, excluding only distinctive landscape, are related to preservation-oriented values, such as historical, architectural/artistic, and social/cultural dimensions. By contrast, indicators associated with utilization-oriented values, including economic, utilitarian, and landscape value criteria, had relatively lower importance and priority than those related to preservation value. This predominance of preservation-oriented values over utilization-oriented values is consistent with the findings and discussions of numerous previous studies [46,48,50,57,58,59,60,62,86].

Furthermore, the integrated weights and overall rankings of the 18 evaluation indicators were tested using Kendall’s coefficient of concordance, confirming a small-to-moderate level of consensus among the experts and statistical significance. These results demonstrate that the proposed evaluation framework is robust to variations in key weights. Additionally, the sensitivity analysis confirmed that altering the weights of the primary evaluation criteria, such as historical and architectural values, did not significantly affect the overall ranking structure of the 18 indicators, thereby validating the robustness of the importance analysis results. Ultimately, the degree of expert consensus and the results confirmed the reliability and stability of this framework as an evaluation system for rural architectural heritage.

5.2. Value Assessment of Rural Architectural Heritage Sites

Based on the results of the importance analysis, a value assessment was conducted on 17 rural architectural heritage sites within Buyeo County. The results indicate that S-01 (Former Brewery), S-02 (Former Post Office and Official Residence), K-05 (Two-Story Shop), and G-02 (Won Family Hanok) achieved relatively high composite scores. These findings suggest that sites with strong historical (such as historicity and representativeness of the period), architectural/artistic (such as architectural excellence, rarity, and integrity), and social/cultural values (such as local identity and sense of place) consistently received higher scores in the comprehensive assessment.

However, several buildings, including I-01 (Former Tobacco Cooperative Warehouse), G-01 (Former Rice Mill), I-02 (Former Rice Mill and Warehouse), and K-03 (Former Factory), were also identified as important rural architectural heritage sites because of their relatively high scores in economic value (such as benefits and costs), utilitarian value (such as location and accessibility, potential for utilization, and ease of management), and landscape value (such as distinctive landscape and clustering). These results demonstrate that the evaluation framework developed in this study emphasizes preservation-oriented value indicators, including historical, architectural/artistic, and social/cultural values, in determining overall evaluation outcomes. While the assessment partially reflects utilization-oriented value indicators, such as economic, utilitarian, and landscape values, their relatively lower weighting suggests that they are complementary rather than primary determinants in the overall heritage assessment.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Research Summary and Contribution

This study developed a framework to evaluate rural architectural heritage by deriving indicators and analyzing their relative importance. Through an extensive literature review and expert consultations, 18 evaluation indicators were categorized under six value criteria: historical, architectural/artistic, social/cultural, landscape, economic, and utilitarian values. Using an expert survey and AHP analysis, this study quantified the weight and priority of these indicators. The practical applicability of the developed framework was validated through empirical application to 17 rural architectural heritage sites in Buyeo County, Chungcheongnam-do, South Korea.

This study contributes to the field by facilitating value-based decision-making and fostering rational judgments in the conservation and adaptive reuse of rural architectural heritage by providing a systematic evaluation framework. In developing the indicators, the framework reflects the regional and industrial characteristics of rural areas and incorporates both preservation-oriented and utilization-oriented values. While prior studies have focused predominantly on historical and architectural significance, this study expands the evaluation scope to include utilization-related criteria, such as economic and utilitarian values, thereby offering a more comprehensive set of indicators. Furthermore, many previous studies only proposed indicator sets. This study extended the methodology by developing the indicators, quantifying their relative importance and assigned weights, and empirically applying them to case study sites in Buyeo County. In this way the applicability of the framework was demonstrated.

The policy implications of this study are as follows. Most rural architectural heritage consists of non-designated assets, which are often marginalized by Korea’s current legal and management frameworks that primarily focus on designated cultural heritage. Although institutional frameworks in Korea, such as Architectural Assets and Preliminary Cultural Heritage systems, exist to manage significant non-designated assets, their reliance on registration that relies on owner applications and complex selection procedures limits their applicability to typical rural architectural heritage. In this context, it is necessary to consider adopting a local heritage registering system similar to the UK’s Local Heritage Listing in Korea. The UK system targets non-designated heritage assets that are identified and managed by local governments based on their local significance. By implementing a local heritage listing system in Korea and utilizing the evaluation framework developed in this study, rural architectural heritage can be systematically assessed and registered, ensuring integration into local government preservation and management systems. These systems and frameworks can contribute to protecting rural architectural heritage from indiscriminate development and demolition.

The practical implications of this study lie in addressing the lack of systematic evaluation in the survey and listing of rural architectural heritage. The evaluation framework established in this study can be directly applied to such survey and listing processes. Notably, this study formulates a comprehensive set of indicators that encompasses not only preservation-oriented values, but also utilization-oriented values. Unlike traditional cultural heritage evaluation standards, this framework is particularly effective for the strategic utilization of architectural heritage from a future-oriented perspective. Furthermore, various stakeholders, including local governments, owners, and residents, can use this evaluation framework for the practical conservation, management, and utilization of rural assets. In particular, when local governments establish a comprehensive plan or a master plan related to architecture and urban planning, they can utilize the evaluation framework to identify and assess rural architectural heritage. Moreover, as demonstrated in the case study of Buyeo, prioritizing buildings with high scores through this value assessment can facilitate the sustainable conservation and adaptive reuse of rural architectural heritage.

6.2. Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study has several limitations that warrant future research. First, the evaluation framework was developed based primarily on qualitative indicators. To enhance the objectivity and precision of heritage assessment, future studies should incorporate both quantitative and qualitative indicators to establish a more integrated and balanced evaluation framework. Second, because the indicators were assessed using an expert-centered methodology, the framework might not fully account for the perspectives of residents and other stakeholders.

Third, the findings of this study might have been influenced by the specific characteristics of the Korean rural context and the regional specificities of Buyeo County. Consequently, direct transferability of the proposed evaluation indicators to rural areas in other countries may be limited. Therefore, future studies should adapt and refine the indicators to reflect the specific characteristics of different regional contexts and types of architectural heritage sites to further validate their suitability and applicability.