Heritage buildings often become obsolete in their original functions, leading to vacancy and deterioration. Adaptive reuse emerges as a vital strategy for conserving these structures, providing new life and utility while preventing their demolition. This approach supports sustainable heritage conservation by preserving both the tangible and intangible values of the original buildings, enhancing the resilience of building materials, and minimizing waste and time. The decision-making criteria for adaptive reuse encompass several factors critical to sustainable development, including economic, environmental, social, architectural, ownership structure, and structural considerations. Various Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods have been developed to facilitate cultural heritage conservation processes. This research presents an assessment model designed to assist in determining appropriate new uses through the application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The decision-making software utilized in this study was Expert Choice 11. Ojo Fagbewesa’s Family House serves as the case study for this research. By employing AHP with input from diverse stakeholders, including experts and residents, a compatible use of the building as a community hub is proposed and substantiated by the research methodology.

Keywords: Adaptive reuse, heritage building, multiple criteria decision-making, AHP

🔒 This is a subscription article

Full text is available to subscribers and institutional members. Please choose an option below to access it.

1. Osasona CO. Heritage Architecture as Domestic Space: A Tale of Three Buildings in Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Int J Sustainable Dev Plann. 2015;10(1):42–65. doi: 10.2495/SDP-V10-N1-42-65.
2. Saaty TL. Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting Resource Allocation. 2nd ed. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications; 1990.
3. De Santoli L, Mariotti M. Energy efficiency in historic buildings. Int J Sci Res Eng Manag. 2023;7(12):1–10. doi: 10.1234/ijsrem.v7i12.12345.
4. Hoursan F, Mofidi M. Revitalizing Golshan and Sharifieh caravanserais: A study in adaptive reuse and urban preservation. Discover Geoscience. 2024. doi: 10.1007/s44288-024-00041-1
5. Onyima BN. Nigerian Cultural Heritage: Preservation, Challenges and Prospects. New J Afr Stud. 2016;12(1). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/og.v12i1.15.
6. Li Y, Zhao L, Huang J, Law A. Research frameworks, methodologies, and assessment methods concerning the adaptive reuse of architectural heritage: A review. Built Heritage. 2021;5:Article 6.
7. Bottero M, Datola G, Fazzari D, Ingaramo R. Re-Thinking Detroit: A Multicriteria-Based Approach for Adaptive Reuse for the Corktown District. Sustainability. 2022;14:8343. doi: 10.3390/su14148343.
8. Cantell SF. The Adaptive Reuse of Historic Industrial Buildings: Regulation Barriers, Best Practices and Case Studies. Master of Urban and Regional Planning Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; 2005.
9. Lobna AE, Azize EL. Use multi-criteria analysis (MCDM) to determine the most appropriate funding for the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: A case study of the Champollion Palace. Int J Multidiscip Stud Archit Cult Heritage. 2022. doi: 10.21608/ijmsac.2022.267672.
10. Nadkarni B, Rohit R, Puthuvayi B. A comprehensive literature review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods in heritage buildings. J Build Eng. 2020;101814. doi: 10.1016/J.JOBE.2020.101814.
11. Nocca F, Bosone M, Orabona ML. Multicriteria evaluation framework for industrial heritage adaptive reuse: The role of the ‘intrinsic value’. Land. 2024. doi: 10.3390/land13081266.
12. Pierfrancesco F, Sicignano E, Donnarumma G. An AHP-Based Methodology for the Evaluation and Choice of Integrated Interventions on Historic Buildings. Sustainability. 2020. doi: 10.3390/SU12145795.
13. Yaolin, Z. An application of the AHP in cultural heritage conservation strategy for China. Can Soc Sci. 2006;2(3):32–36. doi: 10.3968/j.css.1923669720060203.002.
14. Hebatu-Allah AF, Fattah H, Ali F, Bakr A, Hasan AE. Multi-criteria decision making for adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: Aziza Fahmy Palace, Alexandria, Egypt. Alex Eng J. 2019. doi: 10.1016/J.AEJ.2019.04.003.
15. Morkunait EŽ, Kalibatas D, Kalibatien D. A bibliometric data analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods in heritage buildings. J Civ Eng Manag. 2019;25:76–99.
16. Oktay BV, Günçe K, Iranmanesh A. Multi-criteria assessment for defining compatible new use: Old Administrative Hospital, Kyrenia, Cyprus. Sustainability. 2021;13(4):1922. doi: 10.3390/su13041922.
17. Calabrò F, Della Spina L. Innovative tools for the effectiveness and efficiency of administrative action of the metropolitan cities: The strategic operational programme. Adv Eng Forum. 2014;11:3–10.
18. Yau Y. Multi-criteria decision making for urban built heritage conservation: Application of the analytic hierarchy process. J Build Appr. 2009;4:191–205.
19. Cremades L, Ponsich A. A novel technique for computing criteria weights for evaluating alternatives using the AHP method. SSRN. 2023. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4585258.
20. Saaty TL. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res. 1990;48:9–26.
21. Tian-Lu Z, Ya-jun L, Ceng-Juan W, Han Y, Yi-qian Z. Research on the design of surgical auxiliary equipment based on AHP, QFD, and Pugh Decision Matrix. Math Problems Eng. 2022. doi: 10.1155/2022/4327390.
22. Saaty TL. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci. 2008;1:83–98.
23. Dinçer H, Gorener A. Performance evaluation using AHP-VIKOR and AHP-TOPSIS approaches: The case of service sector. Sigma J Eng Nat Sci. 2011;29:244–60.
24. Cheng EW, Li H. Analytic hierarchy process: An approach to determine measures for business performance. Meas Bus Excellence. 2001;5:30–7.

Heritage buildings often become obsolete in their original functions, leading to vacancy and deterioration. Adaptive reuse emerges as a vital strategy for conserving these structures, providing new life and utility while preventing their demolition. This approach supports sustainable heritage conservation by preserving both the tangible and intangible values of the original buildings, enhancing the resilience of building materials, and minimizing waste and time. The decision-making criteria for adaptive reuse encompass several factors critical to sustainable development, including economic, environmental, social, architectural, ownership structure, and structural considerations. Various Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods have been developed to facilitate cultural heritage conservation processes. This research presents an assessment model designed to assist in determining appropriate new uses through the application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The decision-making software utilized in this study was Expert Choice 11. Ojo Fagbewesa’s Family House serves as the case study for this research. By employing AHP with input from diverse stakeholders, including experts and residents, a compatible use of the building as a community hub is proposed and substantiated by the research methodology.

Keywords: Adaptive reuse, heritage building, multiple criteria decision-making, AHP

🔒 This is a subscription article

Full text is available to subscribers and institutional members. Please choose an option below to access it.

1. Osasona CO. Heritage Architecture as Domestic Space: A Tale of Three Buildings in Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Int J Sustainable Dev Plann. 2015;10(1):42–65. doi: 10.2495/SDP-V10-N1-42-65.
2. Saaty TL. Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting Resource Allocation. 2nd ed. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications; 1990.
3. De Santoli L, Mariotti M. Energy efficiency in historic buildings. Int J Sci Res Eng Manag. 2023;7(12):1–10. doi: 10.1234/ijsrem.v7i12.12345.
4. Hoursan F, Mofidi M. Revitalizing Golshan and Sharifieh caravanserais: A study in adaptive reuse and urban preservation. Discover Geoscience. 2024. doi: 10.1007/s44288-024-00041-1
5. Onyima BN. Nigerian Cultural Heritage: Preservation, Challenges and Prospects. New J Afr Stud. 2016;12(1). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/og.v12i1.15.
6. Li Y, Zhao L, Huang J, Law A. Research frameworks, methodologies, and assessment methods concerning the adaptive reuse of architectural heritage: A review. Built Heritage. 2021;5:Article 6.
7. Bottero M, Datola G, Fazzari D, Ingaramo R. Re-Thinking Detroit: A Multicriteria-Based Approach for Adaptive Reuse for the Corktown District. Sustainability. 2022;14:8343. doi: 10.3390/su14148343.
8. Cantell SF. The Adaptive Reuse of Historic Industrial Buildings: Regulation Barriers, Best Practices and Case Studies. Master of Urban and Regional Planning Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; 2005.
9. Lobna AE, Azize EL. Use multi-criteria analysis (MCDM) to determine the most appropriate funding for the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: A case study of the Champollion Palace. Int J Multidiscip Stud Archit Cult Heritage. 2022. doi: 10.21608/ijmsac.2022.267672.
10. Nadkarni B, Rohit R, Puthuvayi B. A comprehensive literature review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods in heritage buildings. J Build Eng. 2020;101814. doi: 10.1016/J.JOBE.2020.101814.
11. Nocca F, Bosone M, Orabona ML. Multicriteria evaluation framework for industrial heritage adaptive reuse: The role of the ‘intrinsic value’. Land. 2024. doi: 10.3390/land13081266.
12. Pierfrancesco F, Sicignano E, Donnarumma G. An AHP-Based Methodology for the Evaluation and Choice of Integrated Interventions on Historic Buildings. Sustainability. 2020. doi: 10.3390/SU12145795.
13. Yaolin, Z. An application of the AHP in cultural heritage conservation strategy for China. Can Soc Sci. 2006;2(3):32–36. doi: 10.3968/j.css.1923669720060203.002.
14. Hebatu-Allah AF, Fattah H, Ali F, Bakr A, Hasan AE. Multi-criteria decision making for adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: Aziza Fahmy Palace, Alexandria, Egypt. Alex Eng J. 2019. doi: 10.1016/J.AEJ.2019.04.003.
15. Morkunait EŽ, Kalibatas D, Kalibatien D. A bibliometric data analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods in heritage buildings. J Civ Eng Manag. 2019;25:76–99.
16. Oktay BV, Günçe K, Iranmanesh A. Multi-criteria assessment for defining compatible new use: Old Administrative Hospital, Kyrenia, Cyprus. Sustainability. 2021;13(4):1922. doi: 10.3390/su13041922.
17. Calabrò F, Della Spina L. Innovative tools for the effectiveness and efficiency of administrative action of the metropolitan cities: The strategic operational programme. Adv Eng Forum. 2014;11:3–10.
18. Yau Y. Multi-criteria decision making for urban built heritage conservation: Application of the analytic hierarchy process. J Build Appr. 2009;4:191–205.
19. Cremades L, Ponsich A. A novel technique for computing criteria weights for evaluating alternatives using the AHP method. SSRN. 2023. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4585258.
20. Saaty TL. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res. 1990;48:9–26.
21. Tian-Lu Z, Ya-jun L, Ceng-Juan W, Han Y, Yi-qian Z. Research on the design of surgical auxiliary equipment based on AHP, QFD, and Pugh Decision Matrix. Math Problems Eng. 2022. doi: 10.1155/2022/4327390.
22. Saaty TL. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci. 2008;1:83–98.
23. Dinçer H, Gorener A. Performance evaluation using AHP-VIKOR and AHP-TOPSIS approaches: The case of service sector. Sigma J Eng Nat Sci. 2011;29:244–60.
24. Cheng EW, Li H. Analytic hierarchy process: An approach to determine measures for business performance. Meas Bus Excellence. 2001;5:30–7.