TELKOM
NIKA Indonesia
n
Journal of
Electrical En
gineering
Vol. 12, No. 12, Decembe
r
2014, pp. 83
1
2
~ 831
8
DOI: 10.115
9
1
/telkomni
ka.
v
12i12.49
43
8312
Re
cei
v
ed O
c
t
ober 2
5
, 201
3; Revi
se
d Augu
st 6, 2014
; Accepte
d
Augu
st 28, 201
4
Application of Value Assessment Weights in
Conservation of Modern Architectural Heritage
Song Gang*,
Yang Chang
m
ing, Hao Chen, Ran Ya
nping
Coll
eg
e of Architecture a
nd C
i
vil En
gin
eeri
n
g
,
Beijin
g Un
iv
er
sit
y
of T
e
chnol
og
y, Beij
ing, P.
R.Chin
a, 10
00
22
Coll
eg
e of Appl
ied Sci
ence, B
e
iji
ng U
n
ivers
i
ty
of T
e
chnolo
g
y
, Beij
in
g, P.R.Chin
a,10
00
22
*Corres
p
o
ndi
n
g
author, e-ma
i
l
: songg
an
g_b
ut@16
3
.com
A
b
st
r
a
ct
T
h
is study pres
ents the w
e
ight
s of various ind
i
ca
tors in the in
tegrated co
nse
r
vation of our
mo
der
n
architectural heritage. In the
AH
P (Ana
lytic Hierarc
hy Proc
ess), the De
lp
hi
meth
od a
n
d
Entropy
meth
o
d
are int
egra
lly a
dopte
d
to set u
p
the ev
alu
a
tio
n
in
dica
tor syst
em
of the co
ns
ervatio
n
efforts, and the w
e
i
g
ht
coefficie
n
t of e
v
alu
a
tion
ind
i
c
a
tors. T
h
roug
h
the an
al
ysis,
w
e
can find th
at mo
der
n arc
h
itectura
l her
itages
not o
n
ly
hav
e
the thr
e
e
bas
ic val
ues
histo
r
ical, artist
ic
a
nd sc
ientific
v
a
lu
es, but
als
o
h
a
ve s
i
g
n
ific
an
t
envir
on
me
ntal
，
cultural emotional
and real estate values. In the ass
e
ss
ment system
, artistic and histor
ical
valu
es are the
prioriti
es a
m
o
n
g
those first-lev
e
l in
dica
tors, a
nd the rea
l
estate valu
e is the
last one. Amo
n
g
the secon
d
-lev
el ind
i
cators, repres
ent
ativ
e architectur
a
l ar
t is the most
imp
o
rtant factor
. Conseq
ue
ntly
, the
emph
ases sh
o
u
ld b
e
pl
aced o
n
the artistic an
d hist
oric
al val
ues of moder
n
architectur
a
l h
e
ritag
e
s.
Ke
y
w
ords
:
architectur
a
l hi
story, historic
conserv
a
tion, a
nalytic h
i
erarc
h
y process, Del
phi
meth
od, val
ue
assess
m
e
nt
Copy
right
©
2014 In
stitu
t
e o
f
Ad
van
ced
En
g
i
n
eerin
g and
Scien
ce. All
rig
h
t
s reser
ve
d
.
1. Introduc
tion
No
wad
a
ys, in
the comm
on
pro
c
e
ss of a
s
sessin
g and
con
s
e
r
ving
mode
rn a
r
chi
t
ectural
heritag
es,
the
value
s
of mo
dern
a
r
chitect
u
ral
he
ri
tage
s are n
o
t reall
y
disting
u
ishe
d from
a
n
ci
en
t
architectu
ral
heritag
es, as
the spe
c
ialti
e
s of
mod
e
rn
archite
c
tural
herita
g
e
s
h
a
ve not b
een
fully
reali
z
ed. The
r
efore, peopl
e tend to apply conc
epts and techn
o
l
ogie
s
derive
d
from anci
e
nt
heritag
e con
s
ervation to m
odern archite
c
tural
herit
a
g
e
con
s
e
r
vatio
n
proj
ect
s
, thus an i
n
a
c
curate
value asse
ssment sy
ste
m
is formed
in the
integrated
con
s
ervation [1, 2]. It's definitely
necessa
ry to recon
s
ide
r
th
e value com
p
osit
ion of the
mode
rn archit
ectural he
rita
ges.
In the prote
c
ting o
r
re
storing
mod
e
rn arch
ite
c
tural he
ritage
s,
we
sh
ould
carefully
evaluate the architectu
ral
values, so a
s
to det
ermine
which valu
e
s
must be p
r
ese
r
ved, whi
c
h
one
s ca
n be adju
s
ted or a
band
oned [3,
4]. So in order to reali
z
e t
he purpo
se o
f
prese
r
ving
and
reu
s
ing a
r
chi
t
ectural h
e
rit
age
s by approp
ri
ate technical pro
p
o
s
al
s, a thorough stu
d
y and
unde
rsta
ndin
g
of the values, weig
hts
of assessme
nt indicato
rs,
and their interrelation
s
hip
s
is
necess
a
ry [5, 6].
2. Rese
arch
Purpose an
d
Methorolgy
Purpo
s
e an
d signifi
can
c
e: as an inte
rdisciplin
ary re
se
arch focu
sin
g
on applicatio
n, this
study attemp
ts to esta
blish an initial
a
s
sessme
nt system for th
e integrated
con
s
e
r
vation
of
mode
rn a
r
chi
t
ectural
he
ritage
s. A new
architec
tu
ral
perspe
c
tive, togethe
r with
a uniqu
e, mu
lti-
disciplina
r
y m
e
thod will pla
y
an importa
nt role in
the
integrate
d
co
nse
r
vation of these h
e
ritag
e
s
and their e
n
vironm
ents, wh
ile at the sam
e
time ma
ximizing the a
ddi
tional values
of the heritag
es
[7, 8].
Re
sea
r
ch me
thodolo
g
y: using interdisci
plinary
research meth
od
s, this pap
er int
egrate
d
AHP, the Del
phi Metho
d
a
nd Entropy M
e
thod to
e
s
ta
blish a hi
erarchy mod
e
l of the evaluatio
n
system
in
int
egrate
d
con
s
ervation of mode
rn
archi
t
ectural
he
rit
age, a
nd th
e
n
calculated
the
variou
s wei
g
h
t
s of the value asse
ssm
en
t indicators [9
, 10].
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
TELKOM
NIKA
ISSN:
2302-4
046
Applicatio
n of Value Assessm
ent Weight
s
in Co
nserva
tion of Modern… (Son
g Ga
ng)
8313
3. Multople Values of M
odern Architectur
e He
rita
ges
Thre
e b
a
si
c v
a
lue
s
of
mod
e
rn
archite
c
tu
ral h
e
rita
ge
s:
Princi
ple
s
for
the Con
s
erva
tion of
Herita
ge Site
s in
China"
(i
ssued
by Chi
na IC
OM
OS1
,
Octobe
r 20
0
0
, Che
ngde,
approved by t
h
e
State Administration of Cultural Herita
ge) state
d
in
Article 3: The herita
ge
values of a site
comp
ri
se its
histori
c
al, a
r
tistic, and
sci
e
n
tific values.
Integrating
related
re
sea
r
ch
es, th
e t
h
ree
ba
si
c
values of a
r
chite
c
tural
h
e
ritage
s
histori
c
al, a
r
tistic an
d scien
t
ific
values ca
n be de
scribe
d as follo
ws:
1)
Hi
stori
c
al
value:
arch
itectural
h
e
rit
age
s a
r
e
e
m
bodie
d
wit
h
spe
c
ific,
clear an
d
authenti
c
historical info
rm
ation due to
their uni
q
u
e
dimensi
o
n
s
, pattern, layout, details
and
spatial inte
rre
l
ationship
s
(o
r relatio
n
ship
s with the env
ironm
ent).
2) Arti
stic val
ue: that refers to th
e ae
st
hetic
valu
e of
an a
r
chite
c
tu
ral h
e
ritag
e
d
ue to its
spatial
comp
osition, color and plan p
a
tterns, facad
e
s an
d de
coration style, material texture
s
,
land
scape a
n
d
sculptural a
r
ts, fine
detail
s
, and the st
ructure rhythm
.
3) Sci
entific v
a
lue: the
sp
e
c
if
ic
b
u
ildin
g stru
ctures, co
nstru
c
tion
s, material
s,
techniqu
es,
architectu
re
and co
nstruction
con
c
ept
s
of archit
e
c
tural h
e
rita
ge
s a
r
e
in
spi
r
ing for mo
de
rn
architect
s
an
d engin
eers.
The additio
n
a
l values: the De
claratio
n of
Amsterdam (Cong
ress on the Europ
ean
Archite
c
tural Herita
ge, Oct
ober 2
1
-25, 1975
) pr
opo
sed: "The co
n
s
ervatio
n
effort to be ma
de
must be me
a
s
ured not onl
y against the
cultural valu
e
of the buildings but al
so a
gain
s
t their u
s
e-
value. The
so
cial p
r
obl
e
m
s of inte
grated
con
s
e
r
vation ca
n
be p
r
ope
rly
posed o
n
ly by
simultan
eou
s refere
nce to both those scales of value
s
."
"Principl
e
s fo
r the
Con
s
e
r
vation of
Herit
age Site
s i
n
Chin
a" al
so
stated in
Com
m
entary
2.3: "Recogn
ition of a sit
e's h
e
rita
ge
values
i
s
a
contin
uou
s a
nd op
en-end
ed process t
hat
deep
en
s as
society develo
p
s an
d its sci
ent
ific and
cul
t
ural awarene
ss in
crea
se
s."
Con
s
id
erin
g the uniq
ue archite
c
tural fu
nction
s,
buildi
ng si
ze an
d speci
a
l po
sitio
n
in the
urba
n contex
t,
modern architectural heri
t
ages
not
onl
y have the
th
ree
ba
si
c val
ues sha
r
ed
b
y
other
comm
on cultu
r
al
heritag
es,
but also
have more addition
al
values, in
cludi
ng
environ
menta
l
，
cultural/em
o
tional and re
al
e
s
tate
valu
es.
Mo
re
over, sin
c
e m
o
st
of them a
r
e
still
in u
s
e, mo
de
rn a
r
chite
c
tural he
ritage
s
are
gen
erally insepa
rabl
e
from the
u
r
b
an
spa
c
e
s
a
nd
urba
n lives.
As a
summ
a
r
y of pri
o
r
rese
arch
outcomes, th
e th
ree
addition
a
l
values of
mode
rn
architectu
ral
heritag
es
can
be defined a
s
:
1)
Cultural/e
motional valu
e: the ability
of an a
r
chit
ectural h
e
rita
ge to influ
e
n
c
e/ lea
d
/
rep
r
e
s
ent/
symbolize/
re
stri
ct spe
c
ific
conte
m
po
rary p
ubli
c
culture
an
d v
a
lue
ori
entat
ion
(incl
udin
g
rel
i
giou
s b
e
liefs and
corp
orate cultur
e
)
, or
to
serve as spi
r
itual susten
an
ce a
nd
edu
cation
al material
s.
2) Environmental value: the ability of an arch
itectural heritage
to
make urban space and
land
scape, or to form the city image.
3)
Real
e
s
tate value: the
architectu
ral
herit
ag
es' abi
lity to provid
e suitable i
n
terio
r
o
r
exterior
spa
c
es for
spe
c
ific soci
al activities.
4. Asse
ssme
n
t Ss
y
s
tem
of Moder
n
Achitec
t
ural
Heritage
4.1. Principles of se
t up
the Asse
ss
ment Sy
stem
In ord
e
r to
establi
s
h
an
accu
rate
a
nd
sci
entific asse
ssment
index syste
m
,
these
prin
ciple
s
sho
u
ld be taken i
n
to accou
n
t during the p
r
o
c
ess:
1) Integrity an
d rep
r
e
s
entati
v
eness; \
2) Co
mpa
r
abi
lity and opera
b
ility;
3) Scie
ntificity and system
aticne
ss;
4) Ope
nne
ss and scal
ability;
5) Qualitative
and qua
ntitative methods
4.2. Steps to
Calculate Ev
a
l
uation Indicator
s Wei
ghts
In this
s
t
udy,
the following s
t
eps
to calc
ul
ate the
evaluation in
dicato
r weigh
t
s we
re
taken:
1) Establi
s
h a
hiera
r
chy model of mode
rn
archite
c
tu
ral
heritag
e valu
es.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
ISSN: 23
02-4
046
TELKOM
NI
KA
Vol. 12, No. 12, Decem
ber 20
14 : 8312 – 83
18
8314
2) Ap
ply Del
p
hi Metho
d
to
desi
gn the
qu
estion
naire "
T
he im
porta
n
c
e
of indi
cato
rs i
n
the
value asse
ssment of mode
rn archite
c
tural heritag
es ".
3) Analyze the re
sult of the que
stion
n
a
ire;
compa
r
e one with
e
a
ch oth
e
r to
get the
origin
al data i
nput. The sca
l
es of AHP co
mpari
s
o
n
rati
o in this study
are listed in
Table 1:
4) Ba
sed
on
the re
sult
of step
3, a
matr
ix of p
a
irwi
se
com
pari
s
on
ratio
can
be
c
o
ns
tr
uc
te
d
as
fo
llo
ws
:
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
ij
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
A
2
1
2
22
21
1
12
11
(1)
Table 1. AHP
compa
r
i
s
on ratio scale
s
Scale
Meaning
Comparison Cat
egor
y
1
i
-factor has the i
m
portance equ
al to
j
-factor I
3
i
-factor is slightly
more importa
nt t
han
j
-
factor
（）
reciprocal other
w
i
se
II
5
i
-factor is obviously
mo
re importa
nt than
j
-
factor
（）
reciprocal other
w
i
se
II
I
7
i
-factor is much more importa
nt t
han
j
-
factor
（）
reciprocal other
w
i
se
I
V
9
i
-factor is absolutely
more impo
rta
n
t than
j
-fac
tor,
and
j
-factor migh
t be ignored
（）
reciprocal other
w
i
se
V
Element
ij
a
is set
as th
e im
port
ance
comp
ari
s
on
ratio
of
i
-f
ac
tor to
j
-fa
c
t
o
r. U
s
e
s
o
ftw
are
s
u
c
h
as
EXCEL or SPSS t
o
c
a
lc
ulate the matrix
es
to get eac
h ev
aluati
on indicator weights
on
the basi
s
of p
r
eviou
s
step.
5) Hi
era
r
chical so
rting an
d con
s
i
s
ten
c
y verification
(inclu
ding
singl
e level so
rt and tota
l
sort
).
Pick the large
s
t eige
nvalue of judgm
ent
matrix normali
ze
d eigenve
c
tors
1
1
n
i
i
w
as
evaluatio
n index
wei
g
h
t
s.Whe
r
e i
n
i
s
the weight of
a facto
r
o
n
lo
wer
level with respec
t to the
s
u
pers
t
ratum. A
fter t
hat, the consi
s
ten
c
y m
u
st be ve
rifie
d
. Usually wh
en
the co
nsi
s
ten
c
y ratio
0.1
CR
CI
R
I
, the inco
nsi
s
ten
cy of matrix
A
will be
admi
tted and its
norm
a
lized ei
genve
c
tors will be con
s
id
e
r
ed a
s
the
weight vectors.
Otherwise, a
new ro
und
of
questionnaire su
rvey will
be conducted
to
construct
a new m
a
trix
of
the pairwi
s
e compari
s
on
ratio and
re
ca
lculate the
we
ights.
Formul
a of co
nsi
s
ten
c
y ind
e
x
CI
:
1
n
n
CI
(2)
N
is the sum
of the diagon
al factors in
matrix
A
.Num
erical ra
ndom
con
s
iste
ncy i
ndex
valuesare
sh
own in Ta
ble
2:
Table 2.
Nu
m
e
rical ra
ndom
con
s
iste
ncy i
ndex value
n
1
2 3 4
5
RI
0 0
0.58
0.9
1.12
n
6
7 8 9
10
RI
1.24
1.32 1.41 1.45
1.49
n
w
w
w
,
,
,
2
1
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
TELKOM
NIKA
ISSN:
2302-4
046
Applicatio
n of Value Assessm
ent Weight
s
in Co
nserva
tion of Modern… (Son
g Ga
ng)
8315
6) Revi
se the
weight
s from
AHP with the
Entropy method. The ba
si
c step
s of Entropy
method a
r
e descri
bed b
e
l
o
w:
a. The origi
n
a
l
data of the matrix are no
rmali
z
ed to b
e
:
()
ij
m
n
Rr
(3)
b.Cal
c
ulate th
e prop
ortio
n
of the indicat
o
rs
ij
r
;
1
ij
ij
n
ij
j
r
H
r
(4)
c
.
With
n
be the numbe
r of the su
perstrata on upp
er
le
vel, calcul
ate
d
the entropy
of
indicator
i
-th (from the 1
s
t to
m
-th indicato
rs
).
1
ln
n
ii
j
i
j
j
E
kH
H
，
1/
l
n
kn
；
(5)
d. Calculate the entro
py
weights of indi
cators:
1
1
1
(0
1
,
1
)
m
i
ii
i
m
i
i
E
ww
w
mE
(6)
e. Finally,
ca
lculate
weigh
t
avera
ges a
t
t
he corre
s
p
ondin
g
p
r
op
o
r
tion
of 3:1
with the
data from bot
h AHP and Entropy metho
d
.
4.3. Hierarch
y
Model of the Ev
aluation Sy
stem
The hie
r
a
r
ch
y model of the evaluation
system
in the
integrate
d
conservation o
f
modern
architectu
ral
heritag
e is sh
own in Ta
ble
3.
Table 3. The
hiera
r
chy mo
del of the evaluat
ion sy
ste
m
of modern
architectu
ral
heritag
e
First le
v
e
l
Secon
d
le
v
e
l
historical value
empirical valid
ity
and completeness
uniqueness of the historical information
importance of th
e historical information
scientifi
c
value
ingenuit
y
of the
a
r
chitectural techs
economical efficienc
y
and
reason
ableness
practical technical reference valu
e
ar
tistic value
representative ar
chitectural art
fame of the a
r
chitect
completeness of the artistic featur
es
practical artistic r
e
ference value
emotional
/cultural value
as a site for important state affairs
as a memorial site
as a religion site
as a site for folk/minorities festiva
l
s
as a leisure site f
o
r common peop
le
as a Stadium or
Museum
environm-ental v
a
lue
importance in the
urban planning
being as the cit
y
's sy
mbol o
r
not
landscape value
real estate value
the safet
y
/
r
eliability
of the structu
r
e
integrit
y
of suppo
rting facilities
integrit
y
of deco
r
ation
superiorit
y
of th
e
location
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
ISSN: 23
02-4
046
TELKOM
NI
KA
Vol. 12, No. 12, Decem
ber 20
14 : 8312 – 83
18
8316
5. Indicators
’ Weights in
Value Ass
e
s
s
ment
5.1. Questio
nnaire of
Ind
i
cators
' importan
ce:
1) The prin
cipl
e
s
of sele
cti
ng
the que
stionn
aire respon
de
nts
a.
The qu
estio
nnaire
re
spo
ndent
s a
r
e
e
x
pected
to b
e
professio
n
a
ls
with th
e f
o
llowin
g
qualifications:
Relevant
ed
ucatio
n ba
ckgrou
nd;
Practi
cal exp
e
rien
ce a
nd a
bund
ant expe
rtise of mod
e
rn architectu
ra
l heritage
con
s
e
r
vation/
displayin
g
/ rebuildin
g;
Having b
een i
n
the relevant
fields for a lo
ng time;
Senior p
r
ofe
s
sion
al titles, or first grade
st
ate regi
stered
qualific
atio
n, or rel
e
vant
profe
ssi
onal docto
rate.
b.In additio
n
, consi
deri
ng th
e cost
and
eff
i
cien
cy of th
e
que
stion
naire, the n
u
mb
e
r
of th
e
respon
dent
s has b
een limi
t
ed to 10.
2) De
sig
n
of the que
stion
n
a
ire
s
The 7 que
stio
nnaires u
s
e
d
in this study h
a
ve been omi
tted due to limited spa
c
e.
3)
The statisti
cs of the first
-
level indi
ca
t
o
rs i
s
sho
w
n
in Table.4 (in next page
)
. The
results of the
se
co
nd
-level
indi
cato
rs h
a
ve
be
en
om
itted for
sp
ace con
s
ide
r
ati
on. It shoul
d
be
noted that "
I
1
～
I
10
"
are th
e comp
ari
s
o
n
ratios give
n by10 resp
onde
n
ts; whil
e "Total ratio
of
pairwise indi
cators" a
r
e the
ratios of total
numer
ators divided by total denomi
n
at
ors in e
a
ch ro
w.
Table 4. Total
importan
c
e ratio of pairwi
s
e indicators for mod
e
rn a
r
chite
c
tural h
e
ritage valu
e
as
se
ssm
ent
Figure 1. Wei
ghts of first-l
e
vel indicato
rs
（
CR=0.036
8
）
5.2. Results
Based
on
th
e stati
s
tical
result
s
sho
w
n
in Se
ction
4.1, and
in
accordan
ce
with the
cal
c
ulatio
n st
eps in
se
ction 3.2, the final we
ig
hts of modern
architectu
ral
heritag
e valu
e
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
TELKOM
NIKA
ISSN:
2302-4
046
Applicatio
n of Value Assessm
ent Weight
s
in Co
nserva
tion of Modern… (Son
g Ga
ng)
8317
asse
ssm
ent indicators we
re obtaine
d (li
s
ted in Figu
re 1 and Tabl
e 5) with con
s
iste
ncy verifi
ed
(incl
udin
g
sin
g
le level so
rt and total so
rt, details omitted for limited
spa
c
e
)
.
Table 5. Weights of se
co
n
d
-level indi
cat
o
rs
（
CR=0.0
368
）
Indicators
Weights
empirical valid
ity
and completeness
0.0814
uniqueness of the historical information
0.0783
importance of th
e historical information
0.0872
ingenuit
y
of the
a
r
chitectural techs
0.0583
economical efficienc
y
and
reason
ableness
0.0193
Practical technical reference valu
e
0.0123
representative ar
chitectural art
0.2035
fame of the a
r
chitect
0.0504
completeness of the artistic featur
es
0.0896
Practical artistic reference value
0.0338
as a site for important state affairs
0.0328
as a memorial site
0.0364
as a religion site
0.0164
as a site for folk/minorities festiva
l
s
0.0135
as a leisure site f
o
r common peop
le
0.0072
as a stadiums or museums
0.0108
importance in the
urban planning
0.0155
being as the cit
y
's sy
mbol o
r
not
0.0894
landscape value
0.0148
safet
y
of structu
r
e
0.0234
integrit
y
of suppo
rting facilities
0.0033
integrit
y
of deco
r
ation
0.0054
superiorit
y
of th
e
location
0.0071
applicability
reb
u
ilding/reconstruction
0.0100
6. Conclusio
n
The follo
wing
con
c
lu
sion
s
can
be d
r
a
w
n from the
calcul
ation results liste
d in
Figure 1
and Ta
ble 5 t
he majo
rity of the sele
cted
experts
belie
ve that artisti
c
an
d histo
r
i
c
al values
are the
mos
t
important firs
t-level indicators
in
the
mode
rn architectu
ral heritag
e
valu
e
asse
ssme
nt,
while real e
s
tate value is the lea
s
t impo
rtant one.
Be
side
s, rep
r
e
s
entative archi
t
ectural a
r
t is
the
most impo
rta
n
t second
-le
v
el indicato
r. In this
case
, the artistic and histo
r
i
c
al
values sh
ou
ld
receive more
attention in modern a
r
chitectu
ral heritage value asse
ssm
ents,
as well as
the
rep
r
e
s
entativ
e architectu
ra
l art.
Ackn
o
w
l
e
dg
ements
Found
ation: Nation
al Nat
u
ral
S
c
ie
nc
e
Foun
dation
of China
(5077
8123/
51
1780
16)
Appro
p
riate
n
e
ss a
s
se
ssm
ent of resto
r
ation te
ch
n
o
logy strategy
ba
sed
on t
he d
e
terio
r
ati
on
mech
ani
sm a
nalysi
s
of excellent mode
rn
archite
c
tu
re
Referen
ces
[1]
Somek P. Basi
c t
y
pes
of rural
settlem
ents, e
n
clos
ures a
nd
hous
es in P
odr
avin
a.
Podrav
i
na: Scie
ntific
Multidisc
i
pl
in
ar
y Researc
h
Jo
urna
l.
201
0; 9(18): 127-
14
9.
[2]
Huerta
H. T
he
ana
l
y
sis
of ma
sonr
y
architect
u
re: a
h
i
storica
l
a
ppro
a
ch.
Architectura
l Sci
ence
Rev
i
e
w
.
200
8; 51(4): 29
7-32
8.
[3]
Forster AM .Vettese-Forster
S,
Borlan
d J.
Evalu
a
tin
g
th
e cultur
al s
i
gn
ificanc
e of h
i
s
t
oric graffiti.
Structural Surv
ey. 2012;
3
0
(1)
:
43-64.
[4]
Z
hang F
a
n. A
stud
y o
n
tec
hno
log
i
es
an
d
eval
uati
on for
conserv
a
tio
n
and r
e
storati
o
n of mo
dern
historic b
u
il
din
g
s.
T
i
anji
n
: T
i
a
n
jin U
n
iv
ersit
y
(in Chi
nes
e). 2010.
[5]
Che
n
W
e
i, Hu
Bin.
T
he "Mutuall
y
S
upp
ort Me
thod
olo
g
y
"
and the c
onse
r
vati
on of the
cit
y
her
itag
e.
Journ
a
l of Ch
o
ngq
ing Arc
h
ite
c
ture Univ
ersit
y
. 2005; (05): 3
3
-36 (i
n Chi
nes
e ).
[6]
Sousa
a
V, Nu
no Alm
e
id
aa,
et al. An
omal
i
e
s in
w
a
l
l
re
n
ders: overv
i
e
w
of the ma
in
causes
of
degr
adati
on.
In
ternatio
nal J
o
u
r
nal of Archit
e
c
tural Her
i
t
age
: Conservati
on,
Analysis, a
nd
Restorati
o
n
.
201
1; 5(2): 198
-218.
[7]
Lah
ou
d AL. T
he ro
le
of cult
ural (
a
rchitectu
r
e) factors in
forgi
ng i
d
e
n
tit
y
.
National Identities. 2008;
10(4): 38
9-3
9
8
.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
ISSN: 23
02-4
046
TELKOM
NI
KA
Vol. 12, No. 12, Decem
ber 20
14 : 8312 – 83
18
8318
[8]
Don
agh
e
y
S. W
hat is au
ght, but as '
t
is val
u
ed, An
a
nal
ys
i
s
of strategies
for
the assess
ment of cultur
a
l
herita
ge sig
n
ifi
c
ance i
n
Ne
w
Z
eala
nd.
Intern
ation
a
l Jo
urna
l of Heritag
e
Stu
d
ies.
20
01; 7(4
)
: 365-38
0.
[9]
Kian
ickaa S, K
nab
a L, Buch
e
ckera M. Maie
nsä
ss – S
w
i
ss
Alpi
ne summ
er farms an el
em
ent of cultur
al
herita
ge bet
w
een
c
ons
ervat
i
on an
d
furthe
r
deve
l
o
p
ment
: a qu
alitativ
e
case stu
d
y
.
Internatio
na
l
Journ
a
l of Herit
age Stud
ies
. 2
010; 16(
6): 486
-507.
[10]
Yang Y
u
l
an, T
a
i Hu
i
x
i
n
, SHI T
ao. W
e
ighting
indi
c
a
tors of b
u
ild
in
g en
erg
y
efficienc
y
asse
ssment taki
n
g
accou
n
t of exp
e
rts’ priorit
y
.
Jo
urna
l of Centra
l South Un
ivers
i
ty.
2012; 19(
3)
: 803-80
8.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.