Next Article in Journal
Initiating HERMÓPOLIS Collaborative Design: Local Definitions for Building a Global Smart City Platform to Improve the Quality of Life of the Elderly
Previous Article in Journal
Time Wealth as a Determinant of Public Transport Behavior: Empirical Evidence from Japan
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Urban Science
Volume 9
Issue 5
10.3390/urbansci9050173
urbansci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Protection Boundary Development in Historical–Cultural Built Environments Using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Geographic Information System (GIS)

by
Can Kara
1,* and
Aminreza Iranmanesh
2
1
Faculty of Architecture, Near East University, Via Mersin 10, Nicosia 99138, North Cyprus, Turkey
2
Faculty of Architecture and Fine Arts, Final International University, Via Mersin 10, Girne 99370, North Cyprus, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Urban Sci. 2025, 9(5), 173; https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9050173
Submission received: 23 February 2025 / Revised: 10 May 2025 / Accepted: 12 May 2025 / Published: 19 May 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Contemporary urban environments continuously transform and evolve due to rapid urbanisation and development pressures, putting historical and cultural heritage sites at risk. To cope with this, it is essential to frequently re-evaluate and redefine protective boundaries and strategies for developing them to reflect current and emerging urban patterns. Defining protection boundaries is an inherently complex task consisting of intricate and interrelated spatial, social, and cultural networks and elements. What is more, the data layers used to represent different dimensions of cities are diverse and generated by various sources. In order to make any decision capable of addressing this multifaceted problem, it is essential to employ a thorough decision-making framework capable of accounting for multiple criteria. In this study, a combination of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) integrated with Geographic Information System (GIS) offers a structured approach to managing the complexities of setting these protective zones. Despite their extensive use in diverse site selection contexts, applying AHP and GIS to determine urban protection boundaries remains underexplored. The method was explored and tested in a case study in North Cyprus. The proposed method systematically includes economic, architectural, environmental, social, and legal data layers, aiming to generate a more comprehensive model for developing protection boundaries tied to multidimensional and contextual complexities, as well as considering rapid urbanisation patterns. The study contributes to the ongoing discourse on heritage preservation and sustainable urban development by providing an evidence-based analytical method for managing the evolving challenges of urban heritage protection. The results indicate that experts see social and environmental factors as the most significant, emphasising the significance of community engagement and ecological considerations in heritage conservation. Additionally, the study highlighted regulatory gaps, particularly in maintaining architectural compatibility within the historical context. These findings underscore the importance of integrating stakeholder perspectives and adjusting local regulations to enhance the resilience and effectiveness of heritage protection strategies.

1. Introduction

Built heritage involves cultural and historical architectural components and elements as well as urban tissue, social, cultural, economic, and legal. Protecting urban or rural building environments with historical and cultural elements is a challenging process in urban planning and architecture fields [1,2,3]. Economically viable protection areas and sustaining social and cultural relations in these environments requires efficient administrative management [4].
Protection boundaries are critical tools for safeguarding historical and cultural sites from the pressures of urban development and environmental degradation [5]. These boundaries are defined zones around heritage sites where specific regulations are implemented to maintain the integrity, authenticity, and sustainability of the cultural landscape [6]. The allocation of protection boundaries for historical and cultural sites is a multifaceted challenge that intertwines heritage conservation with urban development [7]. The spatial and structural characteristics of urban forms are continuously evolving and expanding. In many corners of the world, the rapid urbanisation process makes defining these boundaries and their characteristics critical in preserving urban and architectural heritage [8,9,10]. Moreover, the intrinsic complexity of urban structure makes defining protection boundaries a challenging and multifaceted endeavour.
Defining protection boundaries, at its core, is a problem of decision making, where the diversity of different interconnected layers must be accounted for. Therefore, there is a need for updated methodologies that account for both tangible and intangible heritage elements in defining protection zones [10]. As contradictory as they might seem, protection and urban development in this light cannot be explored independently. For instance, Zhu et al. [11] examined the spatial structure’s influence on recreational business districts in historic areas, emphasising the necessity of maintaining a balance between heritage conservation and development pressures. Chitsazzadeh et al. [12] explore the significance of adaptive and responsive protection zones, capable of addressing the evolving urban context while preserving heritage sites’ ecological, historical, and socio-economic values. Lv et al. [13] argue that the limitations of traditional buffer zones around heritage sites often rely on rigid boundaries that may overlook key cultural and environmental factors [14].
To address these complexities, participatory processes in boundary definition have also been highlighted in the literature; for instance, Liu [15] argues for the importance of community involvement in sustaining World Heritage Sites. Although protection boundaries often seem like a tangible phenomenon (or protection of immovable objects), cultural heritage that is embedded into urban fabric must be considered in the decision-making process [16]. Similarly, Wei and Bin [17] highlighted the importance of understanding historical space elements, such as boundaries and street layouts, in the conservation of Tibetan historic cities. Accordingly, the active engagement of local stakeholders can enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of heritage protection efforts, a critical consideration when defining protection areas influenced by diverse and often conflicting interests [15,18,19]. The involvement of local communities is also vital in developing robust and meaningful protection boundaries for heritage sites [20]. Osadchai et al. [21] explore the formation of public spaces within cultural heritage areas, stressing the influence of legislative frameworks and urban planning policies on the development and regulation of such spaces. Protecting cultural heritage through urban fabric can maintain and enhance the sense of identity and belonging, leading to a more resilient and sustainable city [14]. Therefore, the importance of aligning spatial planning with heritage protection regulations to foster coherent and contextually appropriate conservation outcomes must be emphasised.
Defining protection boundaries in historical/cultural built environments presents a significant challenge for planners, architects, and managers [13,22]. While various approaches exist, the decision-making process often lacks a systematic and objective framework, leading to potentially subjective and inconsistent outcomes. This challenge is particularly pronounced in regions where planning documents often lack a preceding architectural evaluation process. For instance, in island states like Malta and Cyprus, the rapid development pressures frequently clash with the need to preserve valuable architectural heritage [23,24,25]. This highlights a critical gap in current practises: the need for a robust and transparent methodology for determining protection boundaries.
To address the complexities of developing a robust and contextual protection boundary plan, different layers of spatial data and local experts’ input were addressed at once using a combination of the AHP and Geographic Information System (GIS). The AHP allows for a structured decision-making approach that considers multiple criteria, including economic, architectural, environmental, social, and legal aspects, each of which plays a critical role in the sustainable management of heritage sites. By breaking down these broad criteria into specific sub-criteria, the model ensures a comprehensive evaluation of all factors that influence the conservation and development of these areas. This method enhances the precision and relevance of boundary delineation and aligns with best practises in sustainable heritage management, as the literature emphasises.
While the AHP and GIS have been used in site selection and spatial planning (for instance, see [26,27,28]), their combined application in urban protection boundary development remains a novelty. What is more, the explored case study, despite its rich heritage and cultural significance, has not been adequately explored, and its sites are being threatened by rapid urbanisation. Accordingly, this paper aims to contribute to the existing literature by examining the specificities of developing historical and cultural heritage protection in dynamically transforming urban areas. The study addresses five distinct yet interrelated layers: economic, architectural, environmental, social, and legal. Integrating AHP and GIS thus provides a robust framework for creating adaptable and effective protection plans, supporting the long-term preservation of cultural heritage within dynamic urban environments.

2. Materials and Methods

Integrating multi-criteria decision-making methods, such as the AHP, with GIS can enhance the process of defining meaningful protection boundaries capable of representing the evolving contextual dynamics [29,30]. For instance, Lv et al.’s [13] study employed multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) to better account for a comprehensive range of influences, including architectural features and landscape elements, which are crucial in forming effective buffer zones for historic urban landscapes.
These tools enable the systematic evaluation of various criteria, providing a more robust framework for decision-making processes [31,32,33]. This approach not only supports the conservation of heritage sites but also promotes sustainable urban development by aligning protection efforts with the needs of contemporary urban development [34].
AHP, as a multi-criteria decision-making tool, has been widely recognised for its potential to address the complexities inherent in heritage conservation [29,35,36]. By incorporating GIS into the analysis, studies can propose and evaluate multilayer protective zones that not only preserve the ecological, historical, and socio-economic characteristics of the urban context but also provide a dynamic framework for future urban planning (see [12]).

2.1. Study Area

The case study of this paper is located in the northern part of Cyprus. The area covers approximately 406 hectares (Figure 1). The study focuses on the Lapta and Alsancak (also known as Lapethos and Karavas) regions, rich in historical and culturally traditional urban environments [37]. These areas are significant for their well-preserved architectural heritage, which can be considered a reflection of the cultural and historical heritage of the region. The historical urban environments of Lapethos and Karavas are particularly notable for their cultural and social significance, as they were once home to diverse communities, including Greek Orthodox, Maronite, and Turkish Cypriot populations, who coexisted in relative harmony for centuries [38,39]. The architecture and urban layout of these areas showcase the complex social and cultural history shaped by various influences over time. Additionally, the historical environments of Lapethos and Karavas hold potential as tourist destinations [40]. However, rapid—and often unplanned—urban development in the past decade has put the integrity of the historic fabric and its valuable characteristics at risk (Figure 2).

2.2. Methodology

To systematically develop protection boundaries in the study area, a four-step methodological framework was adopted: (1) architectural and urban evaluation, (2) expert-based weighting using the AHP, (3) GIS-based spatial zoning, and (4) synthesis of spatial data layers through weighted overlay analysis (Figure 3). Field data collection was conducted between April and July 2023 through surveys and existing GIS data related to the urban tissue of the case study, architectural features, and environmental conditions in Lapta and Alsancak. The surveys captured key building characteristics, including typology, material condition, contextual compatibility, and structural integrity.
The first step included a detailed architectural assessment through a field survey with regard to improvement in building elements, urban layout, and the historical value of the buildings in the regions of Lapta and Alsancak. This evaluation helps identify important heritage assets and their present condition and provides a basic understanding necessary for subsequent analyses. Field surveys backed up the GIS analysis for mapping and documenting these architectural elements, allowing the complete visualisation of the selected urban fabrics.
The second step focuses on building an AHP framework to prioritise the criteria and sub-criteria for defining protection boundaries. The selection of the main criteria and sub-criteria used in the AHP model (Figure 4) followed a two-phase process. First, the relevant literature on AHP applications in heritage conservation, urban planning, and environmental assessment was reviewed to identify commonly used dimensions such as economic, architectural, environmental, social, and legal aspects (e.g., [29,35,36,41,42]). This provided a theoretical basis for the hierarchy. Second, the extracted criteria from the literature were refined and contextualised through preliminary discussions with experts with extensive knowledge of the study area. This step ensured that the selected dimensions were contextually relevant and meaningful. Accordingly, the AHP framework integrates Economic, Architectonic, Environmental, Social, and Legal factors, each weighted according to their relative importance in preserving the area’s cultural heritage (see Figure 4).
The 10 experts who voluntarily participated in weighing the criteria included professionals with backgrounds in architecture (3), urban planning (2), restoration and conservation (2), archaeology (1), civil engineering (1), and local heritage management (1). Experts were selected based on their familiarity with the study area and experience in heritage conservation or spatial planning. The study only targeted experts with a minimum of 10 years of professional experience and familiarity with the region. The statistical significance of responses was checked using the Consistency Ratio (CR) method, with acceptable CR values kept under 0.1 in all final matrices [43,44,45]. Using relatively small expert panels is common and well-documented in AHP studies, particularly when the evaluation requires domain-specific knowledge [46,47,48,49]. Previous research emphasises that smaller samples can produce reliable and consistent results when participants are selected based on their expertise rather than as representatives of a general population [45,47,50]. In heritage conservation and spatial planning contexts, deep contextual understanding is critical, and the expert pool is inherently limited, particularly when limiting the pool to experts with more than 10 years of experience.
Expert opinions were collected via a structured questionnaire based on the AHP pairwise comparison matrix. In this method, all criteria were placed as pairs, and the experts evaluated them against each other; the same comparison was then repeated for each sub-criterion. The questionnaire was distributed both online and in person, depending on expert availability. Respondents were asked to rate the relative importance of the main criteria (Economic, Architectonic, Environmental, Social, Legal) and their respective sub-criteria using a nine-point Saaty scale [46,51,52]. The questionnaire included guiding definitions and examples to improve consistency in responses. This step ensures that the decision-making process is systematic and considers all relevant dimensions influencing the conservation strategy.
The third step focused on the development of protection area zones. In this part, protection area zones were outlined based on the insights from the AHP model. This step involved applying the weighted criteria to define zones that balance conservation needs with urban development pressures. The aim was to create distinct protection zones that reflect the historical, cultural, and social values, as well as legal and legislative parameters identified in the earlier analyses, aligning with best practises in heritage management as noted in the literature.
Finally, GIS analysis was used to differentiate the protection zones based on spatial data layers generated during the architectural evaluation and AHP. GIS tools facilitate the visualisation and comparison of these zones, allowing for precise adjustments and refinements to the boundaries. This spatial differentiation ensures that protection zones are not only theoretically sound but also practically implementable, enhancing the overall effectiveness of the conservation plan.

2.3. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

The AHP is a structured decision-making method that helps evaluate and prioritise multiple criteria in complex decision scenarios. Developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s, AHP is widely used in various fields, including urban planning, resource management, and heritage conservation, to systematically compare and weigh factors influencing a decision [46,51,53,54]. The process involves breaking down a decision problem into a hierarchy of criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives [51]. By conducting pairwise comparisons of the criteria, AHP quantifies their relative importance using a scale of judgments, allowing for the synthesis of these comparisons into numerical weights that reflect the priority of each criterion. These weights are then used to rank the alternatives and support informed decision making [47,55].
Conducting AHP involves several key steps: first, the problem is defined, and a hierarchical structure is developed, starting with the overall goal at the top, followed by the main criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives at the bottom. Next, decision makers perform pairwise comparisons of the criteria at each level of the hierarchy, asking questions such as “How much more important is Criterion A than Criterion B?” These comparisons are typically performed using a scale from 1 (equal importance) to 9 (extreme importance). The pairwise comparison matrices are then used to calculate weights for each criterion, which are normalised and checked for consistency. The final step involves aggregating the weights across the hierarchy to determine a ranking of the alternatives, allowing decision makers to identify the most suitable option based on the criteria evaluated. The AHP’s systematic and quantitative approach makes it particularly useful for handling the intrinsic complexities of decisions involving multiple, often conflicting, criteria.
The AHP model applied in this study integrates five main criteria—Economic, Architectonic, Environmental, Social, and Legal—each with corresponding sub-criteria (see Figure 4). This multi-criteria decision-making framework is employed to systematically evaluate and prioritise factors influencing the development of protection boundaries in historical–cultural building environments. Below, each criterion and sub-criterion is justified, and the table is interpreted in the context of the literature.
The protection goal has been primarily determined using the AHP method, and based on this goal, criteria have been established. As seen in Figure 4, within the framework of the multi-criteria decision-making method, which is one of the complex problem decision support methods, it has been organised to encompass five criteria. This organisation was carried out by examining conservation efforts in a historical and cultural environment to determine sub-criteria. Subsequently, the spatial data availability of the criteria and sub-criteria was examined. In the final step, all criteria and sub-criteria weights were determined using the pairwise comparison method.
After the hierarchical structure was determined within the framework of the AHP, the weights of each criterion and sub-criteria were determined by asking 10 experts on the subject. Consistency checks [50,54] were also applied during this determination, and all inputs were below the acceptable threshold (<0.1). The final ranking of the main criteria, based on their aggregated weights, is as follows: Social (0.308), Environmental (0.241), Architectonic (0.205), Legal (0.136), and Economic (0.109). This ranking indicates that social and environmental dimensions were considered most important by the experts in determining protection boundaries.
Table 1 presents the results of the AHP analysis based on the expert opinions of individuals closely familiar with the study area. The table outlines the criteria and sub-criteria weights used to evaluate different aspects relevant to the development of protection boundaries. Economic and Social criteria are given considerable importance to highlight aspects such as function change and public participation in the decision making process. Importance is also placed on structural condition, where consideration is made of how structurally intact buildings are (good, ruin, bad). The Architectonic criterion comprises the aspects of buildings that depend on their aesthetic importance and the ability to fit into the surroundings, which is also important in saving the culture. Environmental factors include preserving plants and wildlife and limiting the extent of pollution. On the Legal side, the evaluation is based on the level of enforcement of the laws, the type of ownership, and the occupiers of the buildings, with emphasis on the presence of the city laws. This framework enables an evaluation of several factors and quantitatively mitigates the chances of biassed informed choices. A consistency check is also performed to verify the computations derived from the assessments drawn from the AHP model.

2.4. Spatial Data Development

After completing the AHP analysis and to explore the criteria’s spatial dimensions, data were collected from various sources and represented on the map using GIS. In this context, existing buildings were digitised using satellite imagery. Subsequently, maps showing land parcels were coordinated and digitised. As outlined in the methodology, architectural evaluation data for each building were collected during field surveys and integrated into the GIS database. These data were then matched with parcel boundaries and combined with economic, social, and environmental data to form a unified database. The weight data determined for each criterion in the AHP were also added to this database. Based on these weights, classifications were made on a parcel basis, and criterion maps were generated (see Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10). It must be noted that instead of classifying the weights as “high” or “very high” in absolute terms, our interpretation is based on relative interpretation and intra-group comparisons and their proportion of total influence within the category.

2.5. Developing a Spatial-Based Decision-Making Process

Subsequently, all the data were converted to raster format. The data transformed into raster format were adjusted for use in the analysis stages. This process allowed for a detailed examination of the interactions between different criteria and enabled a comprehensive evaluation. The relevant layers were integrated into the geographic database to facilitate the analysis process and strengthen the decision-making process.
In the following stage, efforts were made to effectively use the geographical distribution of each criterion in the decision-making process by utilising spatial analysis techniques such as weighted overlay analysis (WOA) (see [56,57]).
Accordingly, detailed analyses were conducted on the obtained spatial datasets, creating a decision support system that allows decision makers to make objective and knowledge-based decisions. This system aims to compare alternatives and make the most effective and efficient decisions by reaching an optimal solution.

3. Results

3.1. Economic Criterion (Weight: 0.109)

The economic dimensions are important in planning the protection of historical–cultural sites because they often determine their feasibility and sustainability [41,58]. This main criterion consists of two sub-criteria: function Change and structural condition.
The first sub-criterion function change (Weight: 0.626) seems to be highly weighted by the experts because adaptive reuse of historical sites, such as converting them into commercial or touristic spaces, can be considered a significant contribution to their preservation and generate economic benefits (also see [59,60]). This also aligns with Zhu et al. [11], who emphasise the need for a balance between conservation and economic development in historical areas (Main). Under the function change sub-criterion, three alternative land use types were evaluated: Housing (Weight: 0.18), Commercial (Weight: 0.19), and Touristic (Weight: 0.63). The prioritisation of touristic use seems to reflect its potential to generate higher economic returns, which can be reinvested into maintenance and protection efforts. Reflected on the map, the significant impact of function change becomes evident. This is particularly noticeable in functions that are tourism-oriented. While this is arguably economically beneficial for the region, it might put local residents at a disadvantage.
The sub-criterion of structural condition (Weight: 0.374) evaluates the physical state of buildings. This is critical for determining the suitability of existing urban tissue for conservation or adaptive reuse. A higher weight for ‘Good’ condition indicates that well-preserved structures are more viable for sustainable conservation. All buildings’ structural conditions were obtained and converted according to the criteria weights. This is also significant considering the aforementioned importance of touristic functions by the experts (Figure 5).
Urbansci 09 00173 g005
Figure 5. (Left): structural condition sub-criteria analysis; (right): functional change criteria.
Figure 5. (Left): structural condition sub-criteria analysis; (right): functional change criteria.
Urbansci 09 00173 g005

3.2. Architectonic Criterion (Weight: 0.205)

The Architectonic criterion (weighed 0.205 by the experts) can be considered an essential dimension for the preservation of the heritage, aesthetic appeal, and contextual compatibility, particularly in areas where new development is prevalent. Under the umbrella of Architectonic qualities, four sub-criteria were considered in the pairwise comparison. First, the significance of buildings as monumental was addressed (Weight: 0.377). The monumental quality emphasises the importance of conserving structures with significant architectural or historical value. These values can have a social, cultural, or tectonic nature. Accordingly, these buildings can be considered key points in developing successful protection boundaries of heritage sites. This can be due to the fact that these buildings are more at the forefront of media and public attention; therefore, they can be used as anchors for the preservation of the larger urban tissue.
Among the architectonic sub-criteria, contextual compatibility (Weight: 0.405) received the highest weight, followed by monumental significance (0.377). These criteria account for nearly 80% of the total weight under this criterion. This can be interpreted as the expert’s strong preference for visual harmony and cultural importance in architectural conservation. In contrast, aesthetic value (0.147) and contrary building (0.071) were comparatively less emphasised. This outcome—within the limitation of the case study—suggests that experts put more emphasis on urban coherence and historical identity compared to individual design characteristics. It can be argued that approaches such as juxtaposition or contrast are less favourable to contextual harmony [61,62]. This weighting aligns with the findings of Morano et al. [35], where values above 0.35 are often interpreted as leading factors in decision making; thus, it could be argued that leaning toward more compatibility and contextual harmony must be considered with more emphasis in planning and policymaking.
This finding can be further supported by the study of Osadchai et al. [21], who argue that compatibility with the cultural context is significant for conservation planning. Contrary building (Weight: 0.071) refers to the presence of structures that detract from the historic character, necessitating careful management or removal. This is a common architectural practice in historical areas that aims for contrast as opposed to contextual compatibility, which was not favoured by the experts (Figure 6).
Urbansci 09 00173 g006
Figure 6. Architectonic criteria analysis.
Figure 6. Architectonic criteria analysis.
Urbansci 09 00173 g006

3.3. Social Criterion (Weight: 0.308)

The Social criterion was evaluated as the most important by the experts. It can be argued that social factors are integral to the sustainable management of heritage sites. The engagement and involvement of local communities are key drivers of any successful conservation attempt [15]. Accordingly, under the umbrella of social, two subcategories of public interest and local community engagement were addressed. Both were considered of equal importance by the experts. In this regard, public interest (weight: 0.473) addresses the level of general public recognition of the heritage site’s value. Generating public interest is essential for garnering funding and political backing. What is more, local community engagement (weight: 0.527) is slightly more weighted, highlighting the importance of involving local stakeholders in decision-making processes (Figure 7) (also see [63]).
Urbansci 09 00173 g007
Figure 7. Social criteria analysis.
Figure 7. Social criteria analysis.
Urbansci 09 00173 g007

3.4. Environmental Criterion (Weight: 0.241)

Environmental factors play a significant role in the long-term protection of urban tissue. Moreover, many of the natural dimensions of any site can be considered an integral part of its image and heritage. The environmental criterion considerations evaluate the natural context of heritage sites and their preservation alongside other physical and cultural elements, aiming for a more holistic conservation approach. In this regard, and aligned with the conditions of the case study, three sub-criteria of protected greenery/trees, protected wildlife zones, and pollution effects were considered for expert evaluation. Protected greenery/trees (weight: 0.475) reflects the importance of maintaining natural features that contribute to the site’s character and ecological balance. The NDVI values of the study area were obtained from the Google Earth Engine platform. Protected wildlife zones (weight: 0.307) and pollution effects (weight: 0.217) account for the broader ecological impacts, aligning with Lv et al. [13], who advocate for comprehensive protection that includes both natural and cultural elements (Figure 8).
If not carefully managed, new developments may encroach upon green spaces that are essential components of the region’s landscape characteristics. These gardens, part of a holistic approach to conservation, are vital for maintaining the visual and ecological balance. From this perspective, urban sceneries (vistas) play a significant yet less explored role in protecting urban heritage. Protecting these spaces ensures that new developments do not disrupt the harmony between the built environment and natural elements, contributing to more sustainable and sensitive urban growth.
Urbansci 09 00173 g008
Figure 8. Environmental criteria analysis for the study area.
Figure 8. Environmental criteria analysis for the study area.
Urbansci 09 00173 g008

3.5. Legal Criterion (Weight: 0.136)

Legal frameworks can be considered the regulatory backbone for heritage conservation [63]. Without a robust legal framework, long-term resiliency and the sustainability of protection boundaries cannot be realistically achieved. The legal dimension ensures that protective measures are enforceable and aligned with local and national policies. One of the most significant manifestations of legal frameworks in urban settings is the master plan, which deals with local regulations and development limitations. In this case, Local regulation is highly valued by the experts (Master Plan: weight: 0.687), highlighting the influence of local planning guidelines on the conservation process, which can either facilitate or hinder protection efforts. Moreover, clear territorial definitions and property ownership provide a framework for the protection of public interest. In this regard, Ownership (Weight: 0.151) differentiates between governmental and private ownership, which can affect access to funding and legal protections (Figure 9).
Urbansci 09 00173 g009
Figure 9. Regulation criteria.
Figure 9. Regulation criteria.
Urbansci 09 00173 g009

4. Discussion

It is essential to highlight the partiality of the implementation and potential utilisation of the proposed methods for developing protection boundaries using a comprehensive approach. Beyond the explored layers in this case, the method provides flexibility for adding more layers of primary and secondary data, creating a window of possibility for a more holistic approach toward defining protection boundaries for urban heritage. Thus, while the proposed method has many limitations in its present form and extent of data collection, it presents a nuanced approach toward establishing protection boundaries that are reflective of urban complexities. This approach integrates both expert opinions and layered, evidence-based data from primary and secondary sources. A central question that was explored here is how and where to draw a protection boundary in an urban environment that is always in a state of becoming. Urban spaces, as demonstrated in this case study, are continuously evolving [64,65]. Therefore, protection boundaries must be flexible to accommodate future development while safeguarding the existing heritage from deterioration and decay [5,42]. In most cases, monumental biddings and parts of the physical setting that are in the centre of attention (due to media, tourism, or symbolic representation of local or national identity in most cases) are well protected; however, the urban fabric as a whole is seldom protected with that level of care and attention. This study calls for a more holistic approach toward the protection of urban heritage. The methodological innovation of this study—albeit within its scope and while acknowledging its limitations—lies in the systematic and integrative use of AHP and GIS to assess protection boundaries while including input from local experts. These tools are not utilised in isolation here; rather, they are used to address a specific gap in heritage planning by operationalising expert-based weightings across multiple urban layers. This allows for a contextual, locally informed, and adaptable tool that can be replicated in similar heritage contexts under development pressure.
Looking at each layer of data independently, one can suggest specific protection boundaries for distinct aspects, such as social, cultural, and environmental heritage. Clear-cut boundaries can be defined for individual elements, as noted by Chitsazzadeh et al. [12], who advocate for a comprehensive approach that considers a wide range of cultural and environmental factors. However, the urban form’s intrinsic complexities necessitate a more interconnected approach [12,65,66,67]. Though only a few have been explored in this study, the data layers are interwoven and interdependent. The long-term protection of one aspect cannot be fully adequate without considering the others. Urban complexity, both existing and emerging, must be taken into account when developing any proposal aiming to protect urban heritage in all its forms.
A crucial question arises about how to weigh these layers to create a more realistic and resilient protection boundary. The study employs the AHP to establish a weighted table for the various layers. The AHP results indicate that local experts place significant importance on social and environmental parameters for boundary development. This aligns with Rosetti et al. [18], who underscore the importance of stakeholder participation in decision making to enhance heritage conservation, safeguarding, and sustainable management. Nevertheless, a clear tension is evident from the function changes in the area: a significant portion of new development serves the tourism industry. While experts recognise the economic benefits of tourism, they also view it as a potential threat to the region’s social and cultural heritage. This reflects Aftabi and Bahramjerdi's [19] assertion that sustainable heritage management must balance economic development with cultural preservation [18,68,69], requiring careful stakeholder involvement and structured decision-making strategies.
The integration of spatial data layers also reveals the multidimensional areas of importance for developing resilient protection boundaries. However, new developments, which contribute significantly to the area’s future (see Figure 10, Light Blue), introduce new population centres and land uses. These developments, unfortunately, occupy historically green gardens and contribute to increased environmental pollution. Current legislative regulations are not sensitive to these issues and often favour the economic benefits that construction brings. In this case, this can be observed in the legal boundary map, where municipalities apply uniform regulations across the entire region, regardless of the area’s historical and cultural significance. A lack of attention to this issue might damage the urban image’s vistas and sceneries, which are a significant part of its identity [70]. Without a clear future-oriented plan, these regulations fail to adequately address the urban fabric’s complexity. As noted by Wei and Bin [17], this lack of granularity in spatial regulation undermines efforts to maintain the integrity of historical spaces and requires immediate attention. What is more, solid top–down regulatory approaches better be avoided; in this regard, the involvement of local communities in the definition of the legal framework ensures a long-lasting attachment between people and urban heritage (also see [63]).
Urbansci 09 00173 g010
Figure 10. Combining spatial criteria layers.
Figure 10. Combining spatial criteria layers.
Urbansci 09 00173 g010
Architectonic qualities also reflect these regulatory shortcomings. While local experts strongly support contextual compatibility, regulations beyond height limits are lacking. The governing legislative body approves new constructions if they meet basic local by-law requirements, which do not adequately address contextual compatibility. As a result, many new buildings lack harmony with the surrounding historical context (See [71,72]). This misalignment leads to the emergence of visually and architecturally incongruous structures that disrupt the cohesion of the urban tissue. It must be noted that this is not limited to the sites themselves but the areas around them, which can potentially leave visual marks on the urban landscape [42,70].
The findings of this study emphasise that developing protection boundaries for heritage sites requires an integrated approach that acknowledges the interdependencies of social, cultural, environmental, and legal factors—to name a few. The AHP method, combined with GIS analysis, has proven effective in identifying key areas for protection, but greater attention must be given to the regulatory framework. Legal regulations must be spatially adjusted and aligned with urban heritage conservation efforts, ensuring that new developments support rather than undermine the region’s historical and cultural integrity. Finally, encouraging stakeholder participation in decision making, as advocated by Rosetti et al. [18], is essential for ensuring that future developments balance heritage conservation with sustainable growth.

5. Conclusions

Defining protection boundaries is complex and multifaceted, reflecting the nature of cities, which consist of intricate and interrelated systems, elements and patterns. This study highlights the necessity for innovative methods that blend traditional heritage conservation practises with modern analytical tools. Accordingly, the study utilised the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Geographic Information System (GIS) to address the multilayered complexities of urban heritage and the definition of protection boundaries. While both methods are established tools well presented in the existing literature, their combined application in heritage protection boundary planning remains underutilised. This is particularly evident in context-sensitive and multilayered urban settings. This approach offers a structured yet adaptable/flexible strategy to balance the preservation efforts of historical and cultural integrity with the pressures of urbanisation and development. The proposed framework was applied in the Lapta and Alsancak regions of North Cyprus, showing how diverse and dynamic data layers—including economic, architectural, environmental, social, and legal dimensions—can be integrated to guide decision making in heritage conservation.
New developments can threaten the historic urban tissue; however, they are economic engines that—if appropriately conducted—could help conservation efforts. These areas introduce new population centres and, consequently, new land uses that are required to service them are gradually formed. These gradual transformations must be considered in adaptive reuse planning, which is significant in preserving urban heritage.
One of the key findings highlights that the consulted experts assigned social and environmental criteria the highest weights. This indicates a strong preference for approaches that prioritise community engagement and ecological integrity. At the same time, the analysis highlights the significance of regulatory inconsistencies, particularly in maintaining contextual architectural compatibility, which is currently lacking enforcement beyond basic height restrictions. Thus, it is argued that the method and ways of approaching protection boundaries must be dynamic and open to revision to address the urban environment’s emerging circumstances. Looking through the lens of this gap, it can be argued that more granular, adaptive, and spatially responsive legal frameworks capable of addressing the complexity of urban heritage fabrics and their emerging conditions are needed.
In this case, another argument can be drawn from the AHP, indicating the presence of latent tensions between economic development—especially tourism-driven growth—and the preservation of social and cultural identity. Addressing such tensions requires a participatory planning process involving local stakeholders and heritage professionals in shaping legal and design frameworks.
The role of natural and environmental heritage was also emphasised in the study, which is usually an underrepresented dimension in heritage preservation discourse. In this case, olive gardens are a meaningful or urban scenery embedded in the image of the historic urban tissue. Nevertheless, the new development fills many historically green gardens, adding more environmental pollution. The current legislative regulations are not sensitive to many of these issues in favour of the economic benefit these constructions bring to the area. This is visible in the legal boundary map, as the municipality applies the same regulation to the entire region regardless of historical and cultural significance and without a clear plan for the future of the region. The spatial manifestation of this regulatory plan lacks any granularity capable of addressing the complexities of urban fabric. The integration of such evidence-based and multilayer approaches can prevent conservation measures from being implemented without considering the complex contextual settings.

Limitations of the Study

In the end, it must be noted that this study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the analysis was based on a limited set of criteria and sub-criteria; other potential influences may have been overlooked. Additionally, the reliance on expert opinion for the AHP analysis introduces a degree of subjectivity, which could affect the weighting of the criteria. The GIS data used for spatial analysis were gathered from existing sources, which may not fully reflect recent changes or ongoing developments in the study area. Finally, the scope of the study is geographically limited to the Lapta and Alsancak regions, meaning that the findings may not be fully generalisable to other areas with different urban or cultural characteristics.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.K. and A.I.; methodology, C.K. and A.I.; software, C.K.; formal analysis, C.K.; investigation, C.K. and A.I.; resources, C.K.; data curation, C.K.; writing—original draft preparation, A.I. and C.K.; writing—review and editing, A.I. and C.K.; visualization, C.K.; supervision, C.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Dataset available on request from the authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Lapta–Alsancak Municipality for their generous support in providing data. We are also grateful to the experts for their valuable time and assistance with the pairwise comparisons.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Guo, L.; Zeng, Z.; He, H.; Yang, W. Research on the application of Mobile GIS in the intelligent protection of historical buildings. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1550, 022042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alana, H.A.; Al-hagla, K.S.; Hasan, A.E. A framework for architects’ role in attaining sustainable community development in heritage areas: Al-Darb AL-Ahmar, Islamic Cairo, Egypt as a case. Alex. Eng. J. 2019, 58, 333–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Adamopoulos, E.; Rinaudo, F.; Volinia, M.; Girotto, M. Multispectral Sensing and Data Integration for the Study of Heritage Architecture. Eng. Proc. 2020, 2, 64. [Google Scholar]
  4. Lockwood, M. Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: A framework, principles and performance outcomes. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 754–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Bandarin, F.; Van Oers, R. The Historic Urban Landscape: Managing Heritage in an Urban Century; John Wiley & Sons: Oxford, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  6. Sadowski, M.M. Urban Cultural Heritage: Managing and Preserving a Local Global Common in the Twenty-first Century. J. Herit. Manag. 2017, 2, 125–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Colavitti, A.M. Urban Heritage Management: Planning with History; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cheng, S.; Yu, Y.; Li, K. Historic conservation in rapid urbanization: A case study of the Hankow historic concession area. J. Urban Des. 2017, 22, 433–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. al-Houdalieh, S.H.; Sauders, R.R. Building Destruction: The Consequences of Rising Urbanization on Cultural Heritage in the Ramallah Province. Int. J. Cult. Prop. 2009, 16, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chetverikov, B.; Hlotov, V.; Bakuła, K. Clarification of the Boundaries of Lands of Historical and Cultural Heritage and Determination of Their Protection Zones by Remote Sensing Methods. Land 2024, 13, 923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhu, H.; Liu, J.M.; Liu, H.X.; Wang, X.B.; Ma, Y.F. Recreational Business District boundary identifying and spatial structure influence in historic area development: A case study of Qianmen area, China. Habitat Int. 2017, 63, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chitsazzadeh, E.; Daneshmandian, M.C.; Jahani, N.; Tahsildoost, M. Delineating protective boundaries using the HUL approach a case study: Heritage waterways of Isfahan. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2023. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lv, R.B.; Liu, Y.P.; Zhang, L.; Kong, D.Z. Urban historic heritage buffer zone delineation: The case of Shedian. Herit. Sci. 2022, 10, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Spennemann, D.H.R. What Actually Is a Heritage Conservation Area? A Management Critique Based on a Systematic Review of New South Wales (Australia) Planning Documents. Heritage 2023, 6, 5270–5304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Liu, O.P. Community Involvement for Sustainable World Heritage Sites: The Melaka Case. Kaji. Malays. J. Malays. Stud. 2017, 35, 59–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sánchez, M.L.; Cabrera, A.T.; Del Pulgar, M.L.G. Guidelines from the heritage field for the integration of landscape and heritage planning: A systematic literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 204, 103931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wei, W.; Bin, W. Analysis of Cultural Value and Protection Strategies of the Spatial Elements of Tibetan Historic Cities. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Economics, Social Science, Arts, Education and Management Engineering, Xi’an, China, 12–13 December 2015; pp. 561–569. [Google Scholar]
  18. Rosetti, I.; Bertrand Cabral, C.; Pereira Roders, A.; Jacobs, M.; Albuquerque, R. Heritage and Sustainability: Regulating Participation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Aftabi, P.; Bahramjerdi, S.F.N. Developing a decision-making framework within the management of historical cities: Towards integrated conservation and development of the Roudaki neighbourhood. Land Use Policy 2023, 129, 106653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Aas, C.; Ladkin, A.; Fletcher, J. Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management. Ann. Tour. Res. 2005, 32, 28–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Osadchai, I.V.; Saveliev, M.V.; Unagaeva, N.A. Peculiarities of karl marx street formation in the historic center of krasnoyarsk city. Vestn. Tomsk. Gos. Univ.-Kult. I Iskusstv.-Tomsk State Univ. J. Cult. Stud. Art Hist. 2022, 46, 211–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Konstantinidou, E. Architectural Heritage Management Issues: Identification-Protection–Integration-Sustainability. In Proceedings of the Bio-Cultural 2015: Sustainability in Architectural Heritage, Limassol, Cyprus, 11–12 December 2015. [Google Scholar]
  23. Constantinides, G. Sub-regional study: Malta and Cyprus. In Proceedings of the Mediterranean Meeting on Urban Management and Sustainable Development, Barcelona, Spain, 3–5 September 2001. [Google Scholar]
  24. Oktay, D. Cyprus: The South and the North. In Urban Issues and Urban Policies in The New EU Countries; Van Kempen, M.V., Baan, A., Eds.; Ashgate: Aldershot, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  25. Benoit, G.; Comeau, A. (Eds.) A Sustainable Future for the Mediterranean: The Blue Plan's Environment and Development Outlook; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  26. Mosadeghi, R.; Warnken, J.; Tomlinson, R.; Mirfenderesk, H. Comparison of Fuzzy-AHP and AHP in a spatial multi-criteria decision making model for urban land-use planning. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2015, 49, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Girard, L.F.; Cerreta, M.; De Toro, P. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and geographical information systems (GIS): An integrated spatial assessment for planning strategic choices. Int. J. Anal. Hierarchy Process 2012, 4, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Anugya, S.; Kumar, V.; Jain, K. Site Suitability Evaluation for Urban Development Using Remote Sensing, GIS and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision and Image Processing, Singapore, 27–29 December 2017; pp. 377–388. [Google Scholar]
  29. Yau, Y. Multi-criteria decision making for urban built heritage conservation: Application of the analytic hierarchy process. J. Build. Apprais. 2009, 4, 191–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nadkarni, R.R.; Puthuvayi, B. A comprehensive literature review of Multi-Criteria Decision Making methods in heritage buildings. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 32, 101814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Piñero, I.; San-José, J.T.; Rodríguez, P.; Losáñez, M.M. Multi-criteria decision-making for grading the rehabilitation of heritage sites. Application in the historic center of La Habana. J. Cult. Herit. 2017, 26, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, H.; Shen, Q.; Tang, B.-S.; Lu, C.; Peng, Y.; Tang, L. A framework of decision-making factors and supporting information for facilitating sustainable site planning in urban renewal projects. Cities 2014, 40, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Steiner, F.R.; Butler, K. Planning and Urban Design Standards; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  34. Haghighi Fard, S.M.; Doratli, N. Evaluation of Resilience in Historic Urban Areas by Combining Multi-Criteria Decision-Making System and GIS, with Sustainability and Regeneration Approach: The Case Study of Tehran (IRAN). Sustainability 2022, 14, 2495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Morano, P.; Locurcio, M.; Tajani, F. Cultural Heritage Valorization: An application of AHP for the Choice of the Highest and Best Use. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 223, 952–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ma, H.; Li, S.; Chan, C.-S. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)-based assessment of the value of non-World Heritage Tulou: A case study of Pinghe County, Fujian Province. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2018, 26, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kara, C. Architectural evaluation analysis by using GIS: Case study Karavas. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Remote Sensing and Geoinformation of the Environment (RSCy2020), Paphos, Cyprus, 16–18 March 2020; pp. 440–446. [Google Scholar]
  38. Dietzel, I.; Makrides, V.N. Ethno-Religious Coexistence and Plurality in Cyprus under British Rule (1878–1960). Soc. Compass 2009, 56, 69–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kara, C.; Akçit, N. Monitoring urban growth and detection of land use with GIS and remote sensing: A case study of the Kyrenia region. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Remote Sensing and Geoinformation of the Environment (RSCy2016), Paphos, Cyprus, 4–8 April 2016; pp. 484–492. [Google Scholar]
  40. Nicolaou, D. Liturgical Structures of the Early Christian Basilicas of Cyprus. In Church Building in Cyprus (Fourth to Seventh Centuries): A Mirror of Intercultural Contacts in the Eastern Mediterranean; Horster, M., Nicolaou, D., Rogge, S., Eds.; Waxmann Verlag GmbH: Münster, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  41. Bykowa, E.; Dyachkova, I. Modeling the Size of Protection Zones of Cultural Heritage Sites Based on Factors of the Historical and Cultural Assessment of Lands. Land 2021, 10, 1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kozlowski, J.; Vass-Bowen, N. Buffering external threats to heritage conservation areas: A planner’s perspective. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1997, 37, 245–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Aguarón, J.; Escobar, M.T.; Moreno-Jiménez, J.M. Reducing inconsistency measured by the geometric consistency index in the analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2021, 288, 576–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lotfabadi, P.; Iranmanesh, A. Evaluation of learning methods in architecture design studio via analytic hierarchy process: A case study. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2023, 20, 47–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Vehbi, B.O.; Günçe, K.; Iranmanesh, A. Multi-Criteria Assessment for Defining Compatible New Use: Old Administrative Hospital, Kyrenia, Cyprus. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Saaty, T.L. Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting Resource Allocation, 2nd ed.; RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  47. Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C.; Ameyaw, E.E.; Owusu, E.K.; Pärn, E.; Edwards, D.J. Review of application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2019, 19, 436–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Haggag, A.G.; Zaki, S.H.; Selim, A.M. Emergency camps design using analytical hierarchy process to promote the response plan for the natural disasters. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2023, 19, 305–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Abudayyeh, O.; Zidan, S.J.; Yehia, S.; Randolph, D. Hybrid Prequalification-Based, Innovative Contracting Model Using AHP. J. Manag. Eng. 2007, 23, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Franek, J.; Kresta, A. Judgment Scales and Consistency Measure in AHP. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2014, 12, 164–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Saaty, T.L. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990, 48, 9–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Saaty, T.L. Making and validating complex decisions with the AHP/ANP. J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 2005, 14, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Saaty, T.L. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 1977, 15, 234–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Saaty, T.L. What is the Analytic Hierarchy Process? In Mathematical Models for Decision Support; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1988; pp. 109–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kara, C.; Iranmanesh, A. Modelling and Assessing Sustainable Urban Regeneration for Historic Urban Quarters via Analytical Hierarchy Process. Land 2023, 12, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kuru, A.; Terzi, F. Determination of New Development Area in Kırklareli by GIS Based Weighted Overlay Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Geoinform. 2018, 5, 244–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Al-Anbari, M.A.; Thameer, M.Y.; Al-Ansari, N. Landfill Site Selection by Weighted Overlay Technique: Case Study of Al-Kufa, Iraq. Sustainability 2018, 10, 999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Niković, A.; Manić, B.; Čolić Marković, N.; Krunić, N. A Contribution to the Integration of International, National and Local Cultural Heritage Protection in Planning Methodology: A Case Study of the Djerdap Area. Land 2024, 13, 1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kee, T. Sustainable adaptive reuse–economic impact of cultural heritage. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 9, 165–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mohamed, R.; Boyle, R.; Yang, A.Y.; Tangari, J. Adaptive reuse: A review and analysis of its relationship to the 3 Es of sustainability. Facilities 2017, 35, 138–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Riza, M.; Doratli, N. The Critical Lacuna Between New Contextually Juxtaposed and Freestyle Buildings in Historic Settings. J. Archit. Plan. Res. 2015, 32, 234–257. [Google Scholar]
  62. Jin, T.; Chen, Y.; Li, G.; Xiao, D.; Chen, H.; Jiaping, H. Juxtaposition or integration: The formation mechanism of architectural form in a cultural transition zone. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2023, 22, 2690–2703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wells, J.C.; Lixinski, L. Heritage values and legal rules. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 7, 345–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Dovey, K. Becoming Places: Urbanism/Architecture/Identity/Power; Routledge: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  65. Carmona, M. The Place-shaping Continuum: A Theory of Urban Design Process. J. Urban Des. 2014, 19, 2–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Batty, M. Complexity in city systems: Understanding, evolution, and design. In A Planner's Encounter with Complexity; Gert de Roo, E.A.S., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 99–122. [Google Scholar]
  67. Friedmann, J. Thinking about complexity and planning. Int. Plan. Stud. 2019, 24, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Nocca, F. The Role of Cultural Heritage in Sustainable Development: Multidimensional Indicators as Decision-Making Tool. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pereira Roders, A.; van Oers, R. Editorial: Bridging cultural heritage and sustainable development. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 1, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lopes, A.S.; Macedo, D.V.; Brito, A.Y.S.; Furtado, V. Assessment of urban cultural-heritage protection zones using a co-visibility-analysis tool. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2019, 76, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Yang, R.; Deng, X.; Shi, H.; Wang, Z.; He, H.; Xu, J.; Xiao, Y. A novel approach for assessing color harmony of historical buildings via street view image. Front. Archit. Res. 2024, 13, 764–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Semes, S.W. “Differentiated” and “Compatible”: Four Strategies for Additions to Historic Settings. Forum J. 2007, 21, 14–25. [Google Scholar]
Urbansci 09 00173 g001
Figure 1. The study area is located in the Lapta and Alsancak regions (also known as Lapethos and Karavas: The boundary of the case study area is shown with a blue line).
Figure 1. The study area is located in the Lapta and Alsancak regions (also known as Lapethos and Karavas: The boundary of the case study area is shown with a blue line).
Urbansci 09 00173 g001
Urbansci 09 00173 g002
Figure 2. Urban change from 2000 to 2023: The boundary of the case study area is shown with a blue line.
Figure 2. Urban change from 2000 to 2023: The boundary of the case study area is shown with a blue line.
Urbansci 09 00173 g002
Urbansci 09 00173 g003
Figure 3. Main steps for the methodology.
Figure 3. Main steps for the methodology.
Urbansci 09 00173 g003
Urbansci 09 00173 g004
Figure 4. Development of AHP hierarchies and criteria set.
Figure 4. Development of AHP hierarchies and criteria set.
Urbansci 09 00173 g004
Table 1. Main criteria and sub-criteria weights for the AHP model.
Table 1. Main criteria and sub-criteria weights for the AHP model.
CriteriaWeightSub-CriteriaWeightCriterionWeightTotals
Economic0.109Function change0.626Housing0.180.012474
Commercial0.190.013167
Touristic0.630.043659
Structural condition0.374Ruin0.370.015059
Good0.470.019129
Bad0.160.006512
Architectonic0.205Monumental0.377
Aesthetic0.147
Contextual compatibility0.405
Contrary building0.071
Social0.308Public Interest0.473
Local community engagement0.527
Environmental0.241Protected greenery/trees0.475
Protected wildlife zones0.307
Pollution effects0.217
Legal0.136Local regulation (master plan)0.687
Ownership0.151Governmental0.690.012285
Private0.310.006045
Vacancy0.161Occupied0.440.009152
Vacant0.560.011648
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kara, C.; Iranmanesh, A. Protection Boundary Development in Historical–Cultural Built Environments Using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Geographic Information System (GIS). Urban Sci. 2025, 9, 173. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9050173

AMA Style

Kara C, Iranmanesh A. Protection Boundary Development in Historical–Cultural Built Environments Using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Geographic Information System (GIS). Urban Science. 2025; 9(5):173. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9050173

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kara, Can, and Aminreza Iranmanesh. 2025. "Protection Boundary Development in Historical–Cultural Built Environments Using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Geographic Information System (GIS)" Urban Science 9, no. 5: 173. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9050173

APA Style

Kara, C., & Iranmanesh, A. (2025). Protection Boundary Development in Historical–Cultural Built Environments Using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Geographic Information System (GIS). Urban Science, 9(5), 173. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9050173

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop