International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 12, Issue 2 (February 2025), Pages: 230-242

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Comparative analysis of AHP and SWARA methods for prioritizing conservation projects supported by heritage funds: A case study from Turkey

 Author(s): 

 Öncü Başoğlan Avşar 1, *, Kerem Ekinci 2, Ali İkram Söker 3

 Affiliation(s):

 1Department of Architecture, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Kötekli, Turkey
 2City Planner, Department of City Planning, Dr. Muğla Metropolitan Municipality, Muğla, Turkey
 3Department of Architecture, Izmir Institute of Technology, İzmir, Turkey

 Full text

  Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7331-9192

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.02.025

 Abstract

Effective budget allocation and financial management are vital for preserving cultural heritage, particularly in countries with limited resources. This study focuses on Turkey’s Contribution to the Conservation of Built Heritage (CCBH) fund, which supports heritage preservation through government funding. Despite the fund’s importance, a structured method for prioritizing project applications is lacking. This research proposes a decision-making framework for assessing and ranking conservation funding requests using Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods. The study applies and compares the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA) to assign weights to assessment criteria. The findings demonstrate that SWARA provides a more efficient and practical approach to prioritizing conservation projects. The proposed framework aims to assist decision-makers and conservation practitioners in optimizing the allocation of funds to safeguard cultural heritage effectively.

 © 2025 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Cultural heritage preservation, Budget allocation, Decision-making framework, Project prioritization, Conservation funding

 Article history

 Received 29 August 2024, Received in revised form 8 January 2025, Accepted 10 February 2025

 Acknowledgment

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

Expert participation in this study was voluntary, with informed consent obtained. No personal or sensitive data were collected, and confidentiality was ensured.

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Avşar ÖB, Ekinci K, and Söker Aİ (2025). Comparative analysis of AHP and SWARA methods for prioritizing conservation projects supported by heritage funds: A case study from Turkey. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 12(2): 230-242

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7

----------------------------------------------   

 References (42)

  1. Boniotti C (2023). The public–private–people partnership (P4) for cultural heritage management purposes. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 13(1): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-12-2020-0186   [Google Scholar]
  2. Chen CS, Chiu YH, and Tsai L (2018). Evaluating the adaptive reuse of historic buildings through multicriteria decision-making. Habitat International, 81: 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2018.09.003   [Google Scholar]
  3. Deacon H and Smeets R (2013). Authenticity, value and community involvement in heritage management under the world heritage and intangible heritage conventions. Heritage and Society, 6(2): 129-143. https://doi.org/10.1179/2159032X13Z.0000000009   [Google Scholar]
  4. Dutta M and Husain Z (2009). An application of multicriteria decision making to built heritage: The case of Calcutta. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 10(2): 237-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2008.09.007   [Google Scholar]
  5. Eroğlu Ö and Gencer C (2021). Classification on SWARA method and an application with SMAA-2. Politeknik Dergisi, 24(4): 1707-1718. https://doi.org/10.2339/politeknik.907712   [Google Scholar]
  6. Feilden BM and Jokilehto J (1998). Management guidelines for world cultural heritage sites. 2nd Edition, ICCROM, Rome, Italy.   [Google Scholar]
  7. Guitouni A and Martel JM (1998). Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. European Journal of Operational Research, 109(2): 501-521. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00073-3   [Google Scholar]
  8. Gyani J, Ahmed A, and Haq MA (2022). MCDM and various prioritization methods in AHP for CSS: A comprehensive review. IEEE Access, 10: 33492-33511. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3161742   [Google Scholar]
  9. Havinga L, Colenbrander B, and Schellen H (2020). Heritage significance and the identification of attributes to preserve in a sustainable refurbishment. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 43: 282-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2019.08.011   [Google Scholar]
  10. Işık BO and Demir S (2017). Integrated multi-criteria decision-making methods for the sustainability of historical–cultural structures on the Trabzon Coastline. Sustainability, 9(11): 2114. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112114   [Google Scholar]
  11. Jajac N, Rogulj K, and Radnić J (2017). Selection of the method for rehabilitation of historic bridges: A decision support concept for the planning of rehabilitation projects. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 11(2): 261-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2016.1207113   [Google Scholar]
  12. Keršuliene V, Zavadskas EK, and Turskis Z (2010). Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step‐wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2): 243-258. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.12   [Google Scholar]
  13. Khan AU and Ali Y (2020). Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and analytic network process methods and their applications: A twenty-year review from 2000-2019: AHP and ANP techniques and their applications: Twenty years review from 2000 to 2019. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 12(3): 369-459. https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v12i3.822   [Google Scholar]
  14. Kim CJ, Yoo WS, Lee UK, Song KJ, Kang KI, and Cho H (2010). An experience curve-based decision support model for prioritizing restoration needs of cultural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 11(4): 430-437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2010.03.004   [Google Scholar]
  15. Labadi S, Giliberto F, Rosetti I, Shetabi L, and Yildirim E (2021). Heritage and the sustainable development goals: Policy guidance for heritage and development actors. International Council on Monuments and Sites, Paris, France.   [Google Scholar]
  16. Li J, Krishnamurthy S, Roders AP, and Van Wesemael P (2020). Community participation in cultural heritage management: A systematic literature review comparing Chinese and international practices. Cities, 96: 102476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102476   [Google Scholar]
  17. Liu F, Zhao Q, and Yang Y (2018). An approach to assess the value of industrial heritage based on Dempster–Shafer theory. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 32: 210-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2018.01.011   [Google Scholar]
  18. Liu Y, Eckert CM, and Earl C (2020). A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements. Expert Systems with Applications, 161: 113738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113738   [Google Scholar]
  19. Mardani A, Jusoh A, Nor K, Khalifah Z, Zakwan N, and Valipour A (2015). Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications: A review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Economic Research, 28(1): 516-571. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139   [Google Scholar]
  20. Mardani A, Nilashi M, Zakuan N, Loganathan N, Soheilirad S, Saman MZM, and Ibrahim O (2017). A systematic review and meta-analysis of SWARA and WASPAS methods: Theory and applications with recent fuzzy developments. Applied Soft Computing, 57: 265-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.03.045   [Google Scholar]
  21. Morkunaite Z, Bausys R, and Zavadskas EK (2019). Contractor selection for sgraffito decoration of cultural heritage buildings using the WASPAS-SVNS method. Sustainability, 11(22): 6444. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226444   [Google Scholar]
  22. Nadkarni RR and Puthuvayi B (2020). A comprehensive literature review of multi-criteria decision making methods in heritage buildings. Journal of Building Engineering, 32: 101814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101814   [Google Scholar]
  23. Nesticò A and Somma P (2019). Comparative analysis of multi-criteria methods for the enhancement of historical buildings. Sustainability, 11(17): 4526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174526   [Google Scholar]
  24. Pendlebury J, Townshend TG, and Gilroy RT (2004). The conservation of English cultural built heritage: A force for social inclusion? International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10(1): 11-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/1352725032000194222   [Google Scholar]
  25. Piñero I, San-José JT, Rodríguez P, and Losáñez MM (2017). Multi-criteria decision-making for grading the rehabilitation of heritage sites: Application in the historic center of La Habana. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 26: 144-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2017.01.012   [Google Scholar]
  26. Prieto AJ, Macías-Bernal JM, Silva A, and Ortiz P (2019). Fuzzy decision-support system for safeguarding tangible and intangible cultural heritage. Sustainability, 11(14): 3953. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143953   [Google Scholar]
  27. Saaty TL (2004). Decision making: The analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP). Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 13: 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-006-0151-5   [Google Scholar]
  28. Saaty TL and Özdemir MS (2014). How many judges should there be in a group? Annals of Data Science, 1: 359-368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40745-014-0026-4   [Google Scholar]
  29. Sahoo SK and Goswami SS (2023). A comprehensive review of multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods: Advancements, applications, and future directions. Decision Making Advances, 1(1): 25-48. https://doi.org/10.31181/dma1120237   [Google Scholar]
  30. Sanna U, Atzeni C, and Spanu N (2008). A fuzzy number ranking in project selection for cultural heritage sites. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 9(3): 311-316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2007.12.004   [Google Scholar]
  31. Šiožinytė E, Antuchevičienė J, and Kutut V (2014). Upgrading the old vernacular building to contemporary norms: Multiple criteria approach. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 20(2): 291-298. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2014.904814   [Google Scholar]
  32. Taherdoost H (2017). Decision making using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP); A step by step approach. International Journal of Economics and Management Systems, 2: 244-246.   [Google Scholar]
  33. Torre MDL (2013). Values and heritage conservation. Heritage and Society, 6(2): 155-166. https://doi.org/10.1179/2159032X13Z.00000000011   [Google Scholar]
  34. Tupenaite L, Zavadskas EK, Kaklauskas A, Turskis Z, and Seniut M (2010). Multiple criteria assessment of alternatives for built and human environment renovation. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 16(2): 257-266. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2010.30   [Google Scholar]
  35. Turskis Z, Morkunaite Z, and Kutut V (2017). A hybrid multiple criteria evaluation method of ranking of cultural heritage structures for renovation projects. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 21(3): 318-329. https://doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2017.1325782   [Google Scholar]
  36. Ulusan E and Ersoy M (2018). Financing the preservation of historical buildings in Turkey. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 35(2): 251-268.   [Google Scholar]
  37. Urosevic S, Karabasevic D, Stanujkic D, and Maksimovic M (2017). An approach to personnel selection in the tourism industry based on the SWARA and the WASPAS methods. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 51(1): 75-88.   [Google Scholar]
  38. Vecco M (2010). A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 11(3): 321-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2010.01.006   [Google Scholar]
  39. Vodopivec B, Žarnić R, Tamošaitienė J, Lazauskas M, and Šelih J (2014). Renovation priority ranking by multi-criteria assessment of architectural heritage: The case of castles. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 18(1): 88-100. https://doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2014.889771   [Google Scholar]
  40. Wijesuriya G, Thompson J, and Young C (2013). Managing cultural world heritage. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, France.   [Google Scholar]
  41. Zavadskas EK, Antuchevičienė J, and Kapliński O (2015). Multi-criteria decision making in civil engineering: Part I–A state-of-the-art survey. Engineering Structures and Technologies, 7(3): 103-113. https://doi.org/10.3846/2029882X.2015.1143204   [Google Scholar]
  42. Zolfani SH, Salimi J, Maknoon R, and Kildiene S (2015). Technology foresight about R&D projects selection; Application of SWARA method at the policy making level. Engineering Economics, 26(5): 571-580. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.26.5.9571   [Google Scholar]