1. Introduction In the 21st century, smart environments have become an integral part of people’s everyday lives in urban areas. The smart city concept, based on the idea of an urban system that uses ICT—Information and Communications Technology in a sustainable, reversible, and rational way for self-improvement, is a strategic goal at the local and national levels of many countries around the world. There is a discourse in defining a smart city. On the one hand, a movement that promotes the concept of the smart city as a system full dependent on technological progress, caused by the fourth industrial revolution, has been developed. In this regard, the evolution of smart cities represents a direct product of the Internet of Things (IoT) platforms and the incorporation of technologies into every segment of urban space. On the other hand, studies focused on spatial planning and urban development define a smart city as a sustainable environment created by responsible citizens through sustainable mechanisms of action and management. Thus, innovative technologies can significantly improve people’s quality of life, simplify production and construction processes, transport, waste, water, and energy management, and enhance health and education services, but are only one of the factors in creating healthy and living surroundings.
Cities are getting smarter, and moving to more sustainable and intelligent cities are helping to improve living standards in urban and suburban communities around the world. Energy savings, more efficient traffic flow, upgrade public safety, and a healthier environment are just some of the many benefits that smart cities can offer. A considerable range of possible solutions for smart cities can affect almost every aspect of urban life. In that sense, a large number of researches, scientific projects, and workshops have been conducted so far, the results of which provide qualitative guidelines for defining a smart city and transforming existing urban areas into more efficient entities. As part of the previous researches, the authors have viewed smart cities from different perspectives. Some authors have explored the smart city holistically, not going deeper into its segments and mechanisms of functioning but looking at the relationship of the concept to current urban theories and paradigms of sustainability [1,2,3]. Further, one group of authors dealt in published studies with the development, transformations, and characteristics of its urban subsystems—mobility, infrastructure, environmental management, livability, sustainable areas, planning, institutional frameworks, and citizenship. Many papers analyze the ecological dimension of a smart city, through the paradigm of a smart environment, focused on the recycling of abandoned brownfield areas [4,5], conservation of natural resources and water [6,7], waste management [8,9], use of renewable energy sources, and reducing CO2 [10,11], as well as building energy-efficient and smart facilities [12]. A certain number of studies discuss the use of modern technologies in different segments of social life, improving healthcare systems [13,14], education [15,16], housing [17], culture, and tourism sectors [18] while spreading the knowledge across the borders. Some researchers have addressed smart urban governance with a focus on the institutional framework in spatial planning, the cooperation of various stakeholders, and sustainable management models that combine centrally defined regulation with actions and citizen participation [19,20,21]. Smart economy including market growth, self-employment fostering, entrepreneurship, e-commerce, and strategic investment, is the subject of several pieces of research [22,23]. A large amount of scientific papers is dedicated to infrastructure development of urban areas through mobility systems [24,25] but also innovative improvement of energy systems [26].
Big data, crowdsourcing, IoT, 5G networks, and other smart technologies have reshaped the existing image of cities that was familiar to us. Adapting to the needs of people, global problems, and technological innovations, cities undergo numerous changes that transform their urban morphology on a macro and micro spatial level. All these challenges can be recognized in urban structure, disturbing existing urban identity and questioning its future preservation. The identity and integrity of an area depend on cultural heritage as an urban subsystem and a reflection of the social development throughout history. In addition to the cultural-sociological dimension, cultural heritage consists of individual or grouped buildings that are part of the architectural heritage of a place. Architectural heritage largely determines the environment in which people live, visually, formally, and spatially. It consists of various types of buildings as well as historic-cultural areas, that are protected as cultural assets or recognized as architectural and cultural valuable facilities from different epochs including contemporary movements [27,28].
To preserve the identity of urban areas and their existing values, sustainable urban development initiatives, including the smart city movement, are oriented towards architectural heritage management. The management of architectural heritage is multi-dimensional and can be seen from several perspectives. It is significant for recognizing, defining, and affirming cultural identity. Some organizations around the world are committed to the active protection of cultural heritage, including UNESCO, which pays special attention to the cultural and natural heritage of extraordinary characteristics. There are several international heritage charters, conventions, and recommendations regarding standards of heritage documentation, including the UNESCO World Heritage Convention from 1972, 2001, to 2003, the UNESCO recommendations concerning the protection from 1972, 1976, to 1978, Council of Europe Charter and Conventions from 2000, the ICOMOS principles for the recording of monuments, groups of buildings, and cities from 1996 [29,30]. Developing awareness of managing cultural and architectural heritage is an essential part of the concept of sustainability, which is confirmed by the directives 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the New Urban Agenda [31,32].
Despite the existence of cultural heritage issues in strategies regarding smart city development, many studies on the positioning of cultural heritage in smart cities reveal fragmented approaches. Given that the process of protection and renewal of architectural heritage consists of several steps defined as determining a set of attributes that affect the construction and renewal of the human environment; collecting and analyzing information, modeling decisions, and selecting solutions to advance the state of the natural and built environment, applying effective decision-making in heritage reconstruction and protection with the support of multiple attribute assessment seems to be of great help [33]. In recent decades, there has been rapid development and popularity of methods of MCDM—multi-criteria decision-making and their application in various fields of scientific research. MCDM is increasingly used in cases where it is desirable to restructure a multi-criteria problem and break it down into separate subunits or when it is necessary to select the most optimal choice of an alternative. MCDM provides a formal framework for modeling multidimensional decision-making problems, especially those that require systems analysis, including analysis of decision complexity, the relevance of consequences, and the need for accountability of decisions made.
Regarding architectural heritage, many papers deal with abandoned historical, cultural, industrial, military, and other types of buildings and the problem of their redevelopment possibilities through reuse into new contents and purposes. In that sense, MCDM techniques rank previously defined redevelopment alternatives to choose the most sustainable and most optimal option [34]. Decision-making methodologies related to architectural heritage and the reuse of historic buildings are investigated in [35,36]. In terms of choosing alternatives, some papers used AHP—analytical hierarchical process to select the most optimal new purpose in the process of restoration and revitalization of historic buildings [37,38], while others used AHP for the most suitable historical buildings for protection [39]. On the other hand, AHP is often used to prioritize relevant risk issues or indicators regarding possible interventions and implementation of constructive measures [40,41]. Talking about the smart city framework, some authors have recognized AHP as a suitable MCDM technique for ranking criteria to provide qualitative guidelines for the development of smart cities or to identify the crucial barriers for smart strategies implementation [42,43,44,45].
The paper examines the issue of architectural heritage management in smart cities to identify the most crucial indicators that are a priority to ensure sustainable protection, preservation, and maintenance of architectural buildings. The research refers to all constructed buildings that possess values of built heritage, where they are or not placed under the protection regime. The management of architectural heritage in smart cities is considered in the paper from the aspect of multi-criteria decision making, applying different approaches of the AHP in the process of ranking priority indicators. The aim is to compare the final order of indicators, previously defined by experts in the field of management and protection of architectural heritage and experts in smart city development for different methods. The task of the paper is to compare the fuzzy AHP (based on trapezoidal and triangular fuzzy numbers) with interval grey AHP (based on interval grey numbers) to identify, assess and single out priority indicators for the architectural heritage in the smart city. The paper is structured into five sections. After a brief research introduction, a theoretical background regarding an overview of previous researches in the field of management of architectural heritage from the aspect of the smart city paradigm and multi-criteria decision-making is provided. Additionally, the second section determines indicators (criteria) within six different groups that affect sustainable management of architectural heritage. The third section presents the research methodology defining applied algorithms of the fuzzy and interval grey AHP methods, while the fourth section gives obtained rankings, comparing results from different algorithms. Conclusion remarks and future research goals are presented in the fifth section. 2. Theoretical Background 2.1. Architectural Heritage in Smart Cities: Defining Indicators for Sustainable Management Many global problems and challenges, including an increased urban population, societal needs, political and economic change, and technological innovation, significantly impede the preservation of existing architectural heritage and identity. In addition to human, technological, organizational, and natural resources, architectural heritage represents an urban reflection of civilization development. Looking for new patterns for architectural heritage management, the concept of smart city has developed as a framework for the integration of sustainable solutions that could meet global challenges.
Architectural heritage determines the landscapes in urban areas, reflecting their past and shaping unique silhouettes and urban structures. As physical evidence of historical and cultural development, architectural heritage obtains various architectural facilities which often indicate specific principles of construction of the historical period, as well as forms and features of authentic styles and architectural movements. It represents evidence of the past, an urban resource of the present for the foundation of future activities. Managing architectural heritage can be a significant driver of social and economic development in urban areas. Given that architecture resources are part of the cultural pillar of sustainability [46], protecting, preserving, and managing architectural heritage is one segment of sustainable urban redevelopment. Management of architectural heritage encompasses a wide range of activities and measures covered by many pieces of research. Some of the scientific studies have been so far related to the different technical procedures regarding the refurbishment of existing construction of facilities [47,48] as well as various treatments for the restoration of aesthetic values of the buildings, archeological ruins, and historical monument in term of applied materials and plastics [49,50]. There are different types of principles for the preservation of architectural heritage. Many papers analyze the various aspects of revitalization, which in addition to the protection of original forms and materials, often involves the adaptive re-use of existing abandoned facilities and upgrading spatial capacities [51,52,53]. One group of authors dealt with vernacular architecture, examining traditional materials, traditional culture, patterns, and habits of construction [54,55]. A certain number of studies is dedicated to the formation of new cultural routes or inclusion of a facility in defined ones [56] while promoting facilities and culture through tourism development [57,58]. Some researchers have addressed the improvement of architectural heritage in terms of energy retrofitting [59,60]. In a large number of researches concerning the management of architectural heritage, the authors have dealt with concrete case studies of historically significant units, city centers, or buildings of cultural significance [61,62,63].
As sustainability is one of the crucial preconditions for the formation of smart cities, management of architectural heritage in smart environments include various urban operations and tools related to the main aspects of current spatial sustainable development strategies. All instruments for the management of architectural heritage can be classified through the system of appropriate groups of indicators refer to the conceivable aspects of the sustainability paradigm [64,65,66]—economic, environmental, social (three primary dimensions), institutional [67], and cultural [68,69] (included later), with the introduction of the technological framework that corresponds to smart development [70,71]. Given that architectural heritage is one type of cultural heritage and the focus of this paper, the cultural dimension of sustainable smart management is recognized as an architectural aspect of influencing factors. The economic aspect includes investment and its financial analysis in the restoration and management of architectural heritage as well as financial returns. For this research, they are divided into three sub-criteria groups—the rate of income, investment costs, and external funding support. The second dimension of sustainability, the social aspect, means the social influence on the architectural heritage perception as well as preferences towards its protection and preservation. The most significant social side is the creation of job opportunities for citizens through heritage management and heritage tourism development, which has become the crucial sector in the economic policies of many countries [72,73]. The environmental aspect concerns if existing architectural heritage harms the environment and pollution degree control during its restoration. In that sense, urban recycling has become part of sustainable urban redevelopment plans and, is closely related to adaptive reuse and conversion of different types of architectural heritage. It enhances the reduction in new material use in construction, direct influences the reduction of energy use, and decreases the emission of harmful gases [74]. The institutional aspect means management of architectural heritage at different levels of hierarchy, including various stakeholders, and legislative, legal, and planning frameworks for the implementation of management procedures. In that sense, the smart city concept often promotes community participation in decision making and the development of a participatory approach as support to urban governance [75]. Current architectural heritage management practice shows the importance of community involvement and shifts from a centralized governing process to a more holistic approach that meets the preferences of the residents [76,77]. The architectural indicators include the possibilities for the protection and restoration of existing architectural heritage facilities. They cover all specificities regarding the unique character of the building, its aesthetic significance, state of conservation, but also capacities regarding space, functional layout, and construction stability and durability.
With the development of the smart city, the notion of architectural heritage management is increasingly moving towards the application of innovative technologies in the process of its renewal, protection, and promotion. Technological aspect obtains mobile and internet communications that enabled the digital connection of architectural heritage with different actors and institutions. ICT allows the valorization of urban heritage resources of historical areas and architectural elements of built heritage. Using augmented reality (AR) is possible to examine the characteristics of architectural monuments that have long been demolished, destroyed, and whose ruins are hard to search the past and authentic construction processes [78,79]. ICTs have been integrated on various scales to improve the tourist experience of cultural and architectural heritage. With the heritage digitalization, it is possible to virtually walk through all known world museums and other public buildings, which proved to be extremely attractive, but also useful during the COVID pandemic when free walking is disabled or restricted. It also increases the awareness of citizens about architectural heritage and new opportunities for active participation at a distance, by expressing views within the survey, giving proposals for the reconstruction of buildings by participating in numerous international calls. The use of IoT platforms and services opens up opportunities for the application of smart cities in the architectural heritage sector [80,81]. Some of the techniques used to preserve the architectural heritage are GIS (geographic information system) platforms for the formation of different spatial databases related to updating analysis properties [82], digital photogrammetry techniques, BIM (building information modeling) software that enables the classification of built heritage through modeling systems facilities, automation of documents related to heritage management, application of materials and interventions, as well as numerous software and methods for diagnosing the state of structures and detecting problems.
Denotation and description of the main groups of criteria and corresponding sub-criteria have represented in Table 1. The table points to the most significant researches which examines different perspectives of architectural heritage management, from which the classification criteria system has arisen.
2.2. MCDM and Architectural Heritage Management
In the last few decades, the application of MCDM methods has increased, as well as the number of techniques for evaluating alternatives and selecting the best of them. Multi-criteria decision making is widely used in solving many of today’s problems. These methods can divide into two categories: The ordinal, in which the information about criteria has a qualitative nature and require decision-makers to assign grades to each alternative, and the cardinal, where information on choices is quantitative and can be used directly in the decision-making process [95]. The MCDM is an efficient method used to address complex choice issues, including multiple criteria and options, especially for qualitative variables. Recent literature notes many typical applications of different MCDM methods. The MCDM method quantifies qualitative criteria and helps decision-makers have a robust and more accurate basis on which to make decisions. The growing complexity of the decision-making context and the ever-present uncertainty about the consequences of the decision-making process have conditioned the appropriate changes in the observation, modeling, and solving real problems. Models become multi-complex in the mathematical sense, and to overcome this for some categories are developed and formalized methods of solving problems. Scientists agreed that the ranks of the alternatives differ when various MCDM methods are used for their determination [96]. Decision-making in complex problems, including business and real-life decisions, implies an appropriate and relevant decision support system. Everyday problems include multiple data sets, some of them are accurate or objective, while others are uncertain or subjective. The theory of fuzzy sets laid the foundation for significant modeling uncertainty, imprecision, and vagueness. The methodology of fuzzy sets has made significant progress in both theoretical and practical studies.
Decision-making in the field of cultural heritage is facilitated by applying multi-criteria decision-making. For example, Turkis et al. discuss the significance and nature of cultural heritage and the existing methods for its valuation from the perspective of sustainable development in cities [97]. As new methods and numerous modifications of existing ones are continuously developing that include various techniques and mathematical tools, MCDM is a universal means of support in decision-making processes in urban planning, construction, and architecture [98,99,100].
In the field of architectural heritage with application MCDM, a review of the literature was presented by Morkūnaitė et al. [101]. Special attention is pay to the consideration of various indicators related to selected social, economic, spatial, cultural, ecological, and historical-architectural aspects in the secondary use of historic buildings [33]. In the process of carrying out construction works or building maintenance works, questions of evaluation of alternatives using even contradictory criteria regularly arise. Restoration and preservation of architectural buildings as being a part of cultural and historical heritage, adapting them to contemporary demands require a large-scale effort reflecting economic significance and developing the city, making a smart city more recommendable, appealing, and imposing. There is a considerable number of papers dealing with MCDM in architecture and civil engineering, among which papers Zavadskas et al. [102,103,104,105] stand out.
The decision-maker often faces many challenges of MCDM in the process of solving the accurate response selection problem for planning in the field of construction or architectural management, when sustainable environment requirements are crucial [106,107]. The MCDM is applied in various fields and disciplines. These methods can solve the issues related to decision-making for a particular everyday problem with several conflicting criteria. Some of the recently developed researches have raised the issue of selecting appropriate methods and attempt to perform benchmarking of various MCDM approaches. For this purpose, it is necessary to single out a set of feasible methods that should support the decision-makers to find the best solution following the given. In addition to different individual approaches and modifications, the whole MCDM schools have been developed.
Methods developed within American schools have based on a functional approach. They use two types of relationships between alternatives—indifference and preference while excluding the incompatibility of variances. The most used methods from this group are AHP—Analytical Hierarchy Process, introduced by Saaty [108,109], ANP—Analytical Network Process [110], UTA—Utility Theory Additive [111], TOPSIS—a Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution [112,113,114], SMART—Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique [115]. The American school is also recognizable by VIKOR—VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija i kompromisno Resenje [116] and COPRAS—The COmplex PRoportional ASsessment [117] methods. Nevertheless, as the main disadvantage, the American school methods do not take into account the variability and uncertainty of expert opinion. This shortcoming can be overcome using European school methods based on a relational model. Namely, they use the outranking relation in the preference aggregation process. ELECTRE—ELimination Et Choice Translating REality [118,119] and PROMETHEE—Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment of Evaluations [120] belong to the European school. A mixed approach to decision-making, which combines elements of the American and European schools, is advocated by members of the third group of researchers [121,122,123]. This approach gives methods from the PCCA group—Pairwise Criterion Comparison Approach which it belongs IDRA—Intercriteria Decision Rule Approach. The most used method from the IDRA group is COMET—Characteristic Object METhod [124] uses fuzzy sets theory, and the DRSA—Dominance-based Rough Set Approach method [125,126] uses the rough set theory. The COMET is useful in problem-solving because it allows the decision-maker to organize the structure of the problem, and analyze, compare, and rank alternatives when the complexity of the algorithm is entirely independent of the number of alternatives.
In their research, Salabun et al. pointed out that when choosing the MCDM method, it is significant to take care of the selected method and the method of normalization. Nearly any combination of methods and their parameters can bring different results that they confirmed by comparing TOPSIS, VIKOR, COPRAS, and PROMETHEE II methods [127].
When solving a particular decision-making problem [128], it is difficult to determine which method is the most appropriate to use. Most of the authors agree there is no perfect method suitable for application in different decision-making fields [129]. When various MCDM methods give contradictory results, the correctness of the method choice arises [130,131]. If the selection is made following the decision-makers’ priority, a satisfactory answer can be obtained [132]. On the other side, many MCDM methods meet the formal requirements of a particular decision-making problem and can be chosen regardless of the problem specificity [133]. Various approaches can provide different solutions to the same problem [134]. Differences in results, originating from various calculation methodologies, can be influenced by several factors, and the assessment of the accuracy and reliability of the results is current in many pieces of research. Some of the authors deal with the assessment benchmarking of MCDM comparison of methods, Zanakis et al. [128], Chang et al. [125].
Apart from deterministic, stochastic methods are used in the process of optimization in decision making. Deterministic methods use mathematical formulas, and unlike them, stochastic methods use random processes [135]. The stochasticity of the criteria is considered using stochastic dominance, perspective theory, and regret theory.
The lack of MCDM methods of the American school to disregard data uncertainty can be remedied using granular mathematics, for example, fuzzy sets theory or interval mathematics [136]. In this paper, improvements in American school AHP methods regarding the failure to take into account the uncertainty of expert opinion by introducing granular mathematics, specifically by applying fuzzy AHP methods with triangular and trapezoidal membership function and applying interval grey methods, are considered.
The process of selecting new uses for buildings needs to consider several criteria to preserve its value. Ranking of the alternatives, recognized by a different type of purpose for future use, is done according to defined criteria related to spatial capacities of the existing building(s), their historical and architectural values, protection regime, urban context, and different external social and economic factors. Sometimes the value of heritage buildings is examined to determine the level of protection to be implemented [137]. Further, MCDM is used in combination with other methodological tools such as BIM—Building Information Modeling, and GIS—Geographic Information System [138,139]. In some papers, one can see the concept of integrated analysis of the built and renewed human environment as a whole, as well as multiple criteria assessment of alternatives to the projects of restoration of heritage with SAW—Simple Additive Weighting, TOPSIS, COPRAS, and ARAS—Additive Ratio ASsessment [140].
3. Materials and Methods It seems that there is a gap between the integration of comprehensive smart city solutions and applications for the preservation and promotion of architectural heritage. Research at the intersection of smart cities and architectural heritage could be more useful if it focuses on different types of cases and methods. This paper is an attempt to approach the research with several methods. AHP (fuzzy or interval approach) is suitable for MCDM problems where it is not possible to accurately quantify the impact of criteria on decision problems. The introduction and implementation of AHP are to minimize the subjective factors that prevail in the decision-making process and increase the transparency of the prioritization process. 3.1. Trapezoidal and Triangular Fuzzy Numbers
A fuzzy number is a fuzzy set F = {(x, µF(x)), x ∈ R}, where x ∈ R, and µF(x): R → [0,1] is a continuous function. In this paper, trapezoidal and triangular fuzzy numbers are used. A trapezoidal fuzzy number can be denoted asa¯=(l,ml,mu,u) and the membership function is [141].
μF(x)={x−lml−l, x∈(l,ml)1, x∈(ml,mu)u−xu−mu, x∈(mu,u)0, otherwise.
For an arbitrary two trapezoidal fuzzy numbersa¯1=(l1,m1l,m1u,u1)anda¯2=(l2,m2l,m2u,u2) addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are defined in Table 2 [142].
In the case whenml=mu=mtrapezoidal fuzzy number becomes triangular onea˜=(l,m,u). The corresponding membership function is now
μF(x)={x−lm−l, x∈{l,m}u−xu−m, x∈{m,u}0, otherwise.
The corresponding arithmetical operations for two triangular fuzzy numbersa˜1=(l1,m1,u1)anda˜2=(l2,m2,u2)andk∈R are also present in Table 2.
3.2. Trapezoidal and Triangular Fuzzy AHP Algorithm
Analytical hierarchical process, as a methodology of multi-criteria decision-making, since its inception, has experienced resounding development in theoretical and practical terms. The fuzzy AHP method is an extension of the crisp AHP method, where estimates are presented with fuzzy values [143]. Many researchers express a lot of methods and applications of the fuzzy AHP method [144,145,146]. These methods are used to find the preference weightings of indicators by subjective assessment [147,148]. Trapezoidal fuzzy AHP has multiple application possibilities [149]. The meaning of triangular and trapezoidal fuzzy numbers is given in Table 3.
3.2.1. Trapezoidal Fuzzy AHP Algorithm
Step 1. Defining the goal. Step 2. Formation of a hierarchical structure of criteria and sub-criteria.
Step 3. Construction of a comparison matrixA¯ =(a¯ij)n×nwith trapezoidal fuzzy numbers, wherea¯ijis the fuzzy number that represents the relative importance of one indicator to another. The fuzzy numbera¯ij= (1, 1, 1, 1), ifi=janda¯ij=1/a¯jifori≠j.
Step 4. Calculation valuesCI=(λmax−n)(n−1) ,and CR = CI/RI of the crisp matrixA=(aij)n×n, whereaij=(mijl+miju)/2,λmaxis the maximum eigenvalue of a matrix A and RI is a random index. The consistency of the comparison matrixA¯is conditioned by the consistency of the crisp matrixA(CR<0.1 ) [150].
Step 5. The trapezoidal fuzzy weighting vectors for the comparison matrixA¯are evaluated using the geometric mean technique
M¯i=(∏j=1na¯ij)1n, i=1, 2,…,n.
Based on these values, by normalization, we obtain normalized trapezoidal fuzzy weighting vectors
M¯i*=M¯i/∑i=1n∑j=1na¯ij, i=1, 2,…,n.
Step 6. For the obtained normalized trapezoidal fuzzy weighting vectorsM¯i*=(li,mil,miu,ui) , i = 1, …, n, the total integral value has calculated as follows [151]:
wiλ=ITλ(M¯i*)=0.5(λ(miu+ui)+(1−λ)(li+mil)), λ∈[0, 1].
The number λ is an optimism index. The higher values represent the smaller degree of risk. To present the pessimistic, moderate, and optimistic views, we have used values 0, 0.5, and 1, respectively. Step 7. The ranking of sub-criteria is obtained by sorting the final weights calculated by multiplying the corresponding weights of the criteria and sub-criteria.
3.2.2. Triangular Fuzzy AHP Algorithm
If in the trapezoidal fuzzy numbera¯=(l,ml,mu,u)holds equalityml=mu=m, then the trapezoidal fuzzy number becomes a triangular fuzzy numbera˜=(l,m,u). In the corresponding algorithm, all calculations are performed with a triangular fuzzy number instead of a trapezoidal one. The steps in the algorithm are the same as in the trapezoidal case except for some differences.
Step 1 and Step 2 are the same as in the algorithm in Section 3.2.1.
Step 3. Using triangular fuzzy numbers, a comparison matrix, similar to in the trapezoidal method, has formed.
Step 4. In the crisp matrixA=(aij)n×n,aij=mij.
Step 5. Is similar to the algorithm in Section 3.2.1.
Step 6. The total integral value of the obtained normalized triangular fuzzy weighting vectorsM˜i*=(li,mi,ui), i = 1, …, n is calculated by the formula
wiλ=ITλ(M˜i*)=0.5(λui+mi+(1 −λ)li), λ∈[0, 1].
Step 7. is the same as in the algorithm in Section 3.2.1.
3.3. Interval Grey Numbers
To overcome the disparity between the natural and social sciences, as well as the incompleteness and uncertainty of amiss information, Deng introduced an effective mathematical method, the Grey system theory [152,153], applying partially known data and supporting decision-makers. Nowadays, this theory is widespread and is applied in many disciplines: economics, management, industry, military issues, environment, agriculture [154,155].
An interval grey numberx⨂ is a number that belongs to the interval [156]:
x⨂=[xl,xu]={x|xl≤x≤xu}.
For such numbers, one can define the degree of greyness by the valuexu−xl. When the degree of greyness tends to infinity, interval grey numbers become interval black numbers. In the opposite case, when the degree of greyness tends to zero (whenxl=xu) , the interval grey number becomes a crisp number. More about the interval grey number is present in the papers [157,158,159].
Leta⨂=[al,au]andb⨂=[bl,bu]be two interval grey numbers andk∈R. Then the basic operations of interval grey numbersa⨂andb⨂ are defined as follows (Table 4).
An overview of some interval mathematics algorithms is in papers [160,161,162].
3.4. Interval Grey AHP Algorithm
The interval grey matrices for pairwise comparisons, with numerical intervals, in the AHP method are used to overcome the uncertainty that arises from the degree of subjectivity [163].
Step 1 and Step 2 are the same as in algorithms in Section 3.2.
Step 3. An interval grey pairwise comparison matrix is constructed.
A⨂=[1[a12,b12][a21,b21]1…[a1n,b1n]…[a2n,b2n]⋮⋮[an1,bn1][an2,bn2]⋱ ⋮ ⋯1].
In the matrixA⨂for alli,j=1, 2,…,n,inequalitiesaij≤bij, aij≥0, bij≥0, aij=1/ bij and bij=1/ ajihold, and the matrixA⨂is a reciprocal.
Step 4. Matrices P =(pij)n×n, Q =(qij)n×nand R =(rij)n×nare constructed, based on the matrixA⨂:
pij={bij, i<j1, i=jaij, i>j, qij={aij, i<j1, i=jbij, i>j, rij=pijα qij1−α, i,j=1, 2,…,n,
where0≤α≤1.
The consistency of non-interval matrices P and Q(CR<0.1)provide the consistency of the interval matrixA⨂.
Step 5. Using the method of the convex combination one can obtain the interval weights of an interval grey matrixA⨂. Letw(R)be a weighting vector of a matrix R, wherewi(R)=(∏j=1nrij)1/n, for alli=1, 2,…,nand all0≤α≤1.
If∏i=1nwi=1,then
wi(R)=(∏j=1nrij)1n=(∏j=1npij α qij 1−α)1n=wi α(P)wi 1−α(Q).
Weighting vectors for matrices P and Q arew(P)andw(Q), respectively. Using the weighting vectorwof the matrix R interval weightw(A⨂)for a matrixA⨂is
wi(A⨂)=[min{wi(R)|α∈[0, 1]},max{wi(R)|α∈[0, 1]}]=[min{wi(P),wi(Q)},max{wi(P),wi(Q)}].
Step 6. The probability that one interval weight is bigger than the other is calculated [164]. Interval weightwi=[wiL,wiU]is bigger than the interval weightwj=[wjL,wjU]if
P(wi≥wj)>P(wj≥wi),
with probability
pij *=P(wi≥wj)=max(0,wiU−wjL)−max(0,wiL−wjU)(wiU−wiL)+(wjU−wjL),
for alli,j=1, 2,…,n, i≠j.Whenwi=wj, thenpij *=0.5.Speciallypii*=0.5,for all i = 1, …, n. Using probabilities from (13) for all intervals, one can form a probability matrix of preferencesPp*=(pij *)n×n.
Step 7. The final rank is obtained by the row-column elimination method applied to the probability matrixPp* [165].
These algorithms are schematically presented uniquely in Figure 1.
4. Results and Discussion
In this section, the algorithms outlined in Section 3.2 and Section 3.4 have been applied. The pairwise comparison matrices are made respecting the opinions of the experts. The appropriate fuzzy comparison matrices are created using the meaning in Table 3.
For adopted criteria and sub-criteria, defined in Section 2.1, the problem hierarchy is formed. The matrix of criteria comparison, given by experts, is in Table 5. According to the obtained value CR < 0.1, it can be concluded that the comparison matrix is consistent.
Pairwise comparison matrices of main criteria and sub-criteria in the fuzzy trapezoidal AHP method are given in Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11, and the final ranking of the indicators has done in Table 12.
In Figure 2, we observe that the trapezoidal fuzzy AHP is stable. Namely, the first ten indicators have the same rank for all levels of optimism.
Pairwise comparison matrices of main criteria and sub-criteria in the triangular fuzzy AHP method are given in Table 13, Table 14, Table 15, Table 16, Table 17, Table 18 and Table 19, and the final ranking of the indicators is in Table 20. Sub-criteria are ranked using the triangular fuzzy AHP method with different index λ.
When applying the triangular fuzzy AHP, we notice that there is a difference in the ranking for the second indicator for different degrees of optimism (Figure 3).
The following results are obtained using the interval grey AHP method and they are presented in Table 21, Table 22, Table 23, Table 24, Table 25, Table 26, Table 27 and Table 28. The interval matrixA⨂proposed by experts, is consistent because the matrices P and Q are consistent.
Comparing the finally ranked indicators using trapezoidal fuzzy AHP, triangular fuzzy AHP, and interval grey AHP, all applied methods favor as the most crucial factor the strategic and legislative framework for the management of the architectural heritage because it is a prerequisite for further activities and measures. For moderate views of decision-makers for both trapezoidal and triangular fuzzy AHP algorithms, the first ten indicators have the same rank. The key indicators are a public-private stakeholder partnership, architectural integrity, and the rate of economic income after the heritage restoration and activation. Further, the significant indicators are also the active public participation of the citizens in heritage management, the existing state of the architectural heritage, and investment costs on heritage restoration and heritage digitalization. In terms of optimistic and pessimistic attitudes, there are slight differences in ranking indicators using trapezoidal and triangular fuzzy AHP. According to the optimistic view, the triangular fuzzy AHP gives priority to economic aspects and economic profitability of investments in heritage renewal projects, while trapezoidal favors institutional indicators concerning factors related to the stakeholders’ collaboration. The ranking results for the interval grey AHP method besides the legislative framework for heritage management, favor the architectural integrity of architectural heritage, the existing state of the architectural heritage, public-private stakeholders collaboration, and the possibility for the adaptive reuse of existing spatial capacities. Besides, the application of interval grey AHP gives more attention to the development of infrastructure for continuous interoperable digitalization of architectural heritage and networking as one of the technological factors in smart cities. The experts chose how to compare the criteria and sub-criteria. A group of experts in the field of architectural heritage management agreed on the interval approach. The fuzzy approach in the evaluation has been used by experts from various scientific fields dealing with Smart City in different sectors of urban areas. The differences in the final ranks between the interval grey AHP and the fuzzy AHP methods are a consequence of the various evaluations of experts. In the interval assessment, all values from the selected interval, by the expert, have the same weight, while in the fuzzy methods, the central values have a higher weight. Comparing the final results is noticed that the interval approach gives priority to indicators which, in addition to institutional, refer to the architectural aspect of heritage and its characteristics.
Ranked indicators in the interval grey AHP method are presented in Figure 4.
In this paper, seven different rankings have been obtained. In assessing and analyzing ranking similarities, the authors most often use Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient [166]
rs=1−6∑i=1n di2n(n2−1), di=Rxi−Ryi,
but the application of different solving techniques can lead to inconsistencies even though the problem is the same. Salabun and Urbaniuk recently introduced a new WS coefficient suitable for comparing rankings in the field of decision making, where changes of the ranks on the top of ranking have more influence on coefficient [167]
WS=1−∑i=1n(2−Rxi|Rxi−Ryi|max{|1−Rxi|,|n−Rxi|}).
In Formulas (14) and (15), n represents the number of elements in the ranking, whileRxiandRyiare ranks of the element i in rankings that are compared.
Using Formulas (14) and (15), the ranking obtained by trapezoidal and triangular fuzzy AHP algorithms for different coefficient values was first compared with each other λ. In the trapezoidal fuzzy AHP algorithm comparison rankings for λ = 1 and λ = 0.5 gives coefficientsrs=0.998andWS=0.999,while the results in the case of comparing ranking for λ = 1 and λ = 0 arers=0.989andWS=0.999. The corresponding coefficients for triangular fuzzy AHP algorithm arers=0.994andWS=0.968, for λ = 1 and λ = 0.5 andrs=0.989andWS=0.965, for λ = 1 and λ = 0.
Second, the ranking obtained by trapezoidal and triangular fuzzy AHP algorithms for the same values of the coefficient λ was compared. For λ = 1 the coefficients arers=0.994andWS=0.968,for λ = 0.5,rs=0.998andWS=0.999,while in the case when λ = 0,rs=0.991andWS=0.997. Finally, the interval grey AHP method was compared with the fuzzy AHP methods. For the trapezoidal fuzzy AHP coefficients arers=0.877andWS=0.950,for λ = 1,rs=0.862andWS=0.950,for λ = 0.5, andrs=0.863andWS=0.950,for λ = 0. Similarly, for triangular fuzzy AHP coefficientsrs=0.859andWS=0.880,for λ = 1,rs=0.877andWS=0.950,for λ = 0.5, andrs=0.867andWS=0.952,for λ = 0 were obtained.
According to all comparisons, one can conclude that all rankings have high similarity sincemin{WS}=0.880.
5. Conclusions Architectural heritage management is an imperative of modern society that develops on the principles of sustainable development. Although there are many indications of the application and approach of the management architectural heritage, it currently represents an unexploited asset, even if there are more opportunities for integration in the context of smart cities. Smart cities have a huge potential to improve the quality of life as a complex system based on the heterogeneity of urban resources and interconnectivity between people, devices, platforms, and infrastructures. The integration of comprehensive solutions for smart cities and opportunities for the preservation and promotion of architectural heritage is currently entering a phase of maturity. Using advanced technologies urban sectors are successfully enhanced in cities across the world. Thus, IoT platforms and services enable the use of the smart application in the architectural heritage sector and facilitate the organization of management steps. More importantly, sustainable principles established and improved through the concept of a smart city can significantly preserve the integrity of architectural heritage for future generations, while permanently protecting recognizable landscapes and silhouettes of cities, but also to offer new ways of using dilapidated and devastating urban resources in an economically sustainable way and use them in educating the local and wider community about the cultural, social and architectural past. The paper has examined the issue of managing architectural heritage in the sustainable urban environments of a smart city. Indicators related to the management of the architectural heritage have been divided into six groups institutional, economic, social, environmental, technological, and architectural aspects. The approach in assessing the indicators, with fuzzy numbers, and intervals, impacts the concluding ranking results. Using trapezoidal and triangular fuzzy AHP and interval grey AHP, 22 different criteria were rank to identify priority ones in the decision on protection and preservation of architectural heritage. Trapezoidal fuzzy AHP shows better stability, and for different degrees of optimism, there is no difference in the ranking of the first ten indicators, unlike triangular fuzzy AHP. Both approaches assign priority to the strategy, and legal framework for architectural heritage management, although the interval approach gives a more significant rank to architectural heritage factors. The similarity of the proposed methods has been tested, and the similarity factor in the ranking indicates a high degree of similarity in comparing the reference rankings. The obtained results and conclusions opened up the possibilities for further research in the field of architectural heritage management using MCDM. Future studies regarding fuzzy and interval grey AHP approaches will be applied in the field of architectural heritage management under the protection regime in terms of rehabilitation techniques concerning different levels of preservation of the heritage. Given the importance of the energy sector and energy efficiency in smart cities, some of the future papers will try to identify optimal measures to enhance energy efficiency according to the level of protection of the architectural heritage buildings. Multi-criteria analysis has evidential a convenient theoretical and methodological toolkit in solving many decision problems in heritage praxis. The results of the ranking of indicators contribute to a field of architectural heritage protection and management and its support using the concept of the smart city, which is to position the goals strategies and legislative framework for heritage management, favor the authenticity and integrity of the architectural heritage, its existing state in terms of the degree of conservation and stability, public-private stakeholder partnership and the flexibility of existing spatial capacities for a different purpose. Guided by significance indicators, policymaker management for the architectural heritage in smart cities has the opportunity to prepare documented, targeted, and informed strategies and measures to incorporate architectural heritage goals into technology-driven urban development.
| Criteria Group | Sub-Criteria | Description of Sub-Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Institutional (A) | A1—Legislative framework | Adoption and implementation of strategies, urban and spatial plans, laws and regulations, recommendations and guidelines, and other relevant national and local documents regarding protection and preservation of architectural heritage and their harmonization with international standards; |
| A2—Public-private stakeholder partnership | Collaboration and cooperation between stakeholders at different hierarchical levels [83,84] including local authorities, institutions for heritage protection, non-government organizations, ministries, private investors, scientific bodies, cultural institutions, universities, architects and urban planners, etc. while creating interactions patterns; | |
| A3—Heritage database | Documenting of architectural heritage and creating unique national databases on heritage, accessible to the public, in written and digitalized forms of information and documents; | |
| A4—Public participation | Support of local communities in terms of making opportunities for citizens active participation in heritage management strategies to express their knowledge and experience [76,85] through volunteer programs and different workshops | |
| Economic (B) | B1—The rate of income | Providing growth in the annual income generated for municipality and city [86], especially from the heritage tourism sector and its activities; |
| B2—Investment costs | Includes investment costs on heritage restoration process during the field studies, state analysis, development and realization of reconstruction and refurbishment as well as investments costs on heritage promotion in terms of organization of the workshops, exhibitions, marketing, tourism offers, etc. [28]; | |
| B3—External funding | External funding support [86] for the architecture heritage promotion, protection, and preservation from foreign direct investments, private investors, and individual donation | |
| Social (C) | C1—Local employment | Making job opportunities for the residents through activation of the heritage tourism sector and employment within heritage redevelopment programs; |
| C2—Education on heritage | Spreading knowledge on architectural heritage through education and promotion programs while connecting citizens and visitors (tourists) with the importance and values of historical monuments and sites [87]; | |
| C3—Cultural identity | Creating a sense of place and collective memory as the urban identity of the local community [88] | |
| Environmental (D) | D1—Urban recycling | Includes adaptive reuse and revitalization of the architectural heritage while preserving urban landscapes [51,52,53,89]; |
| D2—Pollution degree | Degree of environmental pollution that comes with the abandoned architectural heritage (industrial, military, etc.) and endangers the environment as well as the amount of waste generated during the restoration process [28]; | |
| D3—Green energy support | Implementation of renewable energy sources [90] and energy-efficiency tools during the restoration and refurbishment of architectural heritage [59,60] | |
| Technological (E) | E1—Mapping and documenting | Use of advanced technologies as GIS and BIM systems for urban mapping of architectural heritage and its classification through modeling systems as a precondition for making local and national database on heritage [82,91]; |
| E2—Heritage digitalization | Development of infrastructure for continuous interoperable digitalization of architectural heritage and networking [92]; | |
| E3—A virtual presentation | Use of various applications, platforms, and other multimedia solutions for education, as well as part of heritage tourism experience, often using AR concept [78,79,93]; | |
| E4—Diagnosis, and monitoring | Implementation of smart applications for architectural heritage diagnosis [94] in terms of structural integrity and degree of preservation, stability, and safety of facility as well as smart monitoring of the effects of interventions and its conservation state, often using photogrammetry tools | |
| Architectural (F) | F1—Existing state | Includes structural integrity, degree of material and construction conservation, facade plastic conservation, and previous interventions; |
| F2—Spatial reuse | The ability of internal layout, spatial capacities, and infrastructure of abandoned architectural heritage for the new purpose; | |
| F3—Lifespan | Duration of the building after restoration [28]; | |
| F4—Architectural integrity | Includes authenticity, originality, rarity, and architectural-compositional values of the heritage and its regime of protection; | |
| F5—Refurbishment works | The scope and the character of rehabilitation and restoration construction works [28] |
| a¯1 ⊕a¯2=(l1+l2,m1l+m2l,m1u+m2u,u1+u2) | a˜1 ⊕a˜2=(l1+l2,m1+m2,u1+u2) |
| a¯1 ⊖a¯2=(l1−u2,m1l−m2u,m1u−m2l,u1−l2) | a˜1 ⊖a˜2=(l1−u2,m1−m2,u1−l2) |
| a¯1 ⊙a¯2=(l1·l2,m1l·m2l,m1u·m2u,u1·u2) | a˜1 ⊙a˜2=(l1·l2,m1·m2,u1·u2) |
| a¯1 ⊘a¯2=(l1/u2,m1l/m2u,m1u/m2l,u1/l2) | a˜1 ⊘a˜2=(l1/u2,m1/m2,u1/l2) |
| ka¯1=(kl1,km1l,km1u,ku1) | ka˜1=(kl1,km1,ku1) |
| Meaning of Fuzzy Numbers | Trapezoidal Fuzzy Numbers | Inverse Trapezoidal Fuzzy Numbers | Triangular Fuzzy Numbers | Inverse Triangular Fuzzy Numbers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal importance | (1, 1, 1, 2) | (1/2, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 3) | (1/3, 1, 1) |
| Intermediate values | (1, 1, 3, 4) | (1/4, 1/3, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | (1/3, 1/2, 1) |
| Weak dominance | (1, 2, 4, 5) | (1/5, 1/4, 1/2, 1) | (1, 3, 5) | (1/5, 1/3, 1) |
| Intermediate values | (2, 3, 5, 6) | (1/6, 1/5, 1/3, 1/2) | (3, 4, 5) | (1/5, 1/4, 1/3) |
| Strong dominance | (3, 4, 6, 7) | (1/7, 1/6, 1/4, 1/3) | (3, 5, 7) | (1/7, 1/5, 1/3) |
| Intermediate values | (4, 5, 7, 8) | (1/8, 1/7, 1/5, 1/4) | (5, 6, 7) | (1/7, 1/6, 1/5) |
| Demonstrated domination | (5, 6, 8, 9) | (1/9, 1/8, 1/6, 1/5) | (5, 7, 9) | (1/9, 1/7, 1/5) |
| Intermediate values | (6, 7, 9, 9) | (1/9, 1/9, 1/7, 1/6) | (7, 8, 9) | (1/9, 1/8, 1/7) |
| Absolute domination | (8, 9, 9, 9) | (1/9, 1/9, 1/9, 1/8) | (7, 9, 9) | (1/9, 1/9, 1/7) |
| a⨂ ⊕ b⨂=[al+bl, au+bu] |
| a⨂ ⊖ b⨂=[al−bu, au−bl] |
| a⨂ ⊙ b⨂=[al bl, au bu] |
| a⨂ ⊘ b⨂=[al/bu, au/bl] |
| ka⨂=[kal,kau] |
| A | F | B | E | D | C | w1 | w0.5 | w0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | (1, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 3, 4) | (1, 2, 4, 5) | (2, 3, 5, 6) | (3, 4, 6, 7) | (4, 5, 7, 8) | 0.348 | 0.354 | 0.384 |
| F | (14,13, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 3, 4) | (1, 2, 4, 5) | (2, 3, 5, 6) | (3, 4, 6, 7) | 0.248 | 0.247 | 0.243 |
| B | (15,14,12, 1) | (14,13, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 3, 4) | (1, 2, 4, 5) | (2, 3, 5, 6) | 0.173 | 0.170 | 0.154 |
| E | (16,15,13,12) | (15,14,12, 1) | (14,13, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 3, 4) | (1, 2, 4, 5) | 0.113 | 0.110 | 0.099 |
| D | (17,16,14,13) | (16,15,13,12) | (15,14,12, 1) | (14,13, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 3, 4) | 0.071 | 0.071 | 0.068 |
| C | (18,17,15,14) | (17,16,14,13) | (16,15,13,12) | (15,14,12, 1) | (14,13, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 1, 1) | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.048 |
| A1 | A2 | A4 | A3 | w1 | w0.5 | w0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | (1, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 3, 4) | (1, 2, 4, 5) | (3, 4, 6, 7) | 0.443 | 0.446 | 0.460 |
| A2 | (14,13 , 1, 1) | (1, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 3, 4) | (2, 3, 5, 6) | 0.291 | 0.289 | 0.281 |
| A4 | (15,14,12, 1) | (14,13 , 1, 1) | (1, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 4, 5) | 0.188 | 0.185 | 0.171 |
| A3 | (17,16,14,13) | (16,15,13,12) | (15,14,12, 1) | (1, 1, 1, 1) | 0.076 | 0.078 | 0.086 |
| B1 | B2 | B3 | w1 | w0.5 | w0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | (1, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 3, 4) | (1, 2, 4, 5) | 0.509 | 0.510 | 0.516 |
| B2 | (14,13 , 1, 1) | (1, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 3, 4) | 0.307 | 0.306 | 0.300 |
| B3 | (15,14,12, 1) | (14,13, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 1, 1) | 0.183 | 0.183 | 0.183 |
| C2 | C3 | C1 | w1 | w0.5 | w0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2 | (1, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 3, 4) | (1, 2, 4, 5) | 0.509 | 0.510 | 0.516 |
| C3 | (14,13 , 1, 1) | (1, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 3, 4) | 0.307 | 0.306 | 0.300 |
| C1 | (15,14,12, 1) | (14,13, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 1, 1) | 0.183 | 0.183 | 0.183 |
| D3 | D2 | D1 | w1 | w0.5 | w0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D3 | (1, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 3, 4) | (1, 2, 4, 5) | 0.509 | 0.510 | 0.516 |
| D2 | (14,13 , 1, 1) | (1, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 3, 4) | 0.307 | 0.306 | 0.300 |
| D1 | (15,14,12, 1) | (14,13, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 1, 1) | 0.183 | 0.183 | 0.183 |
| E2 | E1 | E3 | E4 | w1 | w0.5 | w0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E2 | (1, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 3, 4) | (1, 2, 4, 5) | (2, 3, 5, 6) | 0.432 | 0.436 | 0.457 |
| E1 | (14,13 , 1, 1) | (1, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 3, 4) | (1, 2, 4, 5) | 0.281 | 0.279 | 0.266 |
| E3 | (15,14,12, 1) | (14,13 , 1, 1) | (1, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 3, 4) | 0.179 | 0.177 | 0.166 |
| E4 | (16,15,13,12) | (15,14,12, 1) | (14,13, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 1, 1) | 0.105 | 0.106 | 0.109 |
| F4 | F1 | F2 | F3 | F5 | w1 | w0.5 | w0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F4 | (1, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 3, 4) | (1, 2, 4, 5) | (2, 3, 5, 6) | (3, 4, 6, 7) | 0.383 | 0.388 | 0.416 |
| F1 | (14,13 , 1, 1) | (1, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 3, 4) | (1, 2, 4, 5) | (2, 3, 5, 6) | 0.263 | 0.261 | 0.253 |
| F2 | (15,14,12, 1) | (14,13 , 1, 1) | (1, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 3, 4) | (1, 2, 4, 5) | 0.176 | 0.173 | 0.156 |
| F3 | (16,15,13,12) | (15,14,12, 1) | (14,13 , 1, 1) | (1, 1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 3, 4) | 0.109 | 0.108 | 0.102 |
| F5 | (17,16,14,13) | (16,15,13,12) | (15,14,12, 1) | (14,13, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 1, 1) | 0.066 | 0.067 | 0.070 |
| w1 | w0.5 | w0 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 0.154 | A1 | 0.158 | A1 | 0.177 |
| A2 | 0.101 | A2 | 0.102 | A2 | 0.108 |
| F4 | 0.095 | F4 | 0.096 | F4 | 0.101 |
| B1 | 0.088 | B1 | 0.086 | B1 | 0.079 |
| A4 | 0.065 | A4 | 0.065 | A4 | 0.065 |
| F1 | 0.065 | F1 | 0.064 | F1 | 0.061 |
| B2 | 0.053 | B2 | 0.052 | B2 | 0.046 |
| E2 | 0.048 | E2 | 0.048 | E2 | 0.045 |
| F2 | 0.043 | F2 | 0.043 | F2 | 0.038 |
| D3 | 0.036 | D3 | 0.036 | D3 | 0.035 |
| E1 | 0.031 | B3 | 0.031 | A3 | 0.033 |
| B3 | 0.031 | E1 | 0.031 | B3 | 0.028 |
| F3 | 0.027 | A3 | 0.027 | E1 | 0.026 |
| A3 | 0.026 | F3 | 0.027 | C2 | 0.025 |
| C2 | 0.023 | C2 | 0.023 | F3 | 0.025 |
| D2 | 0.022 | D2 | 0.021 | D2 | 0.020 |
| E3 | 0.020 | E3 | 0.019 | F5 | 0.017 |
| F5 | 0.016 | F5 | 0.016 | E3 | 0.016 |
| C3 | 0.013 | C3 | 0.014 | C3 | 0.014 |
| D1 | 0.013 | D1 | 0.013 | D1 | 0.012 |
| E4 | 0.011 | E4 | 0.011 | E4 | 0.010 |
| C1 | 0.008 | C1 | 0.008 | C1 | 0.009 |
| A | F | B | E | D | C | w1 | w0.5 | w0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | (1, 3, 5) | (3, 4, 5) | (3, 5, 7) | (5, 6, 7) | 0.326 | 0.333 | 0.349 |
| F | (13,12, 1) | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | (1, 3, 5) | (3, 4, 5) | (3, 5, 7) | 0.251 | 0.250 | 0.250 |
| B | (15,13, 1) | (13,12, 1) | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | (1, 3, 5) | (3, 4, 5) | 0.180 | 0.178 | 0.174 |
| E | (15,14,13) | (15,13, 1) | (13,12, 1) | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | (1, 3, 5) | 0.124 | 0.120 | 0.110 |
| D | (17,15,13) | (15,14,13) | (15,13, 1) | (13,12, 1) | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | 0.074 | 0.073 | 0.071 |
| C | (17,16,15) | (17,15,13) | (15,14,13) | (15,13, 1) | (13,12, 1) | (1, 1, 1) | 0.043 | 0.043 | 0.043 |
| A1 | A2 | A4 | A3 | w1 | w0.5 | w0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | (1, 3, 5) | (3, 5, 7) | 0.436 | 0.432 | 0.423 |
| A2 | (13,12 , 1) | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | (3, 4, 5) | 0.280 | 0.289 | 0.312 |
| A4 | (15,13, 1) | (13,12 , 1) | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 3, 5) | 0.210 | 0.202 | 0.184 |
| A3 | (17,15,13) | (15,14,13) | (15,13, 1) | (1, 1, 1) | 0.072 | 0.074 | 0.079 |
| B1 | B2 | B3 | w1 | w0.5 | w0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | (1, 3, 5) | 0.529 | 0.521 | 0.502 |
| B2 | (13,12 , 1) | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | 0.298 | 0.303 | 0.317 |
| B3 | (15,13, 1) | (13,12, 1) | (1, 1, 1) | 0.172 | 0.174 | 0.179 |
| C2 | C3 | C1 | w1 | w0.5 | w0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2 | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | (1, 3, 5) | 0.529 | 0.521 | 0.502 |
| C3 | (13,12 , 1) | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | 0.298 | 0.303 | 0.317 |
| C1 | (15,13, 1) | (13,12, 1) | (1, 1, 1) | 0.172 | 0.174 | 0.179 |
| D3 | D2 | D1 | w1 | w0.5 | w0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D3 | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | (1, 3, 5) | 0.529 | 0.521 | 0.502 |
| D2 | (13,12 , 1) | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | 0.298 | 0.303 | 0.317 |
| D1 | (15,13, 1) | (13,12, 1) | (1, 1, 1) | 0.172 | 0.174 | 0.179 |
| E2 | E1 | E3 | E4 | w1 | w0.5 | w0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E2 | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | (1, 3, 5) | (3, 4, 5) | 0.427 | 0.432 | 0.444 |
| E1 | (13,12 , 1) | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | (1, 3, 5) | 0.297 | 0.291 | 0.276 |
| E3 | (15,13, 1) | (13,12 , 1) | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | 0.177 | 0.176 | 0.175 |
| E4 | (15,14,13) | (15,13, 1) | (13,12, 1) | (1, 1, 1) | 0.097 | 0.099 | 0.102 |
| F4 | F1 | F2 | F3 | F5 | w1 | w0.5 | w0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F4 | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | (1, 3, 5) | (3, 4, 5) | (3, 5, 7) | 0.374 | 0.377 | 0.386 |
| F1 | (13,12 , 1) | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | (1, 3, 5) | (3, 4, 5) | 0.265 | 0.267 | 0.270 |
| F2 | (15,13, 1) | (13,12 , 1) | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | (1, 3, 5) | 0.188 | 0.182 | 0.168 |
| F3 | (15,14,13) | (15,13, 1) | (13,12 , 1) | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 2, 3) | 0.109 | 0.109 | 0.108 |
| F5 | (17,15,13) | (15,14,13) | (15,13, 1) | (13,12, 1) | (1, 1, 3) | 0.062 | 0.063 | 0.065 |
| w1 | w0.5 | w0 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 0.142 | A1 | 0.144 | A1 | 0.148 |
| B1 | 0.095 | A2 | 0.096 | A2 | 0.109 |
| F4 | 0.093 | F4 | 0.094 | F4 | 0.096 |
| A2 | 0.091 | B1 | 0.093 | B1 | 0.087 |
| A4 | 0.068 | A4 | 0.067 | F1 | 0.067 |
| F1 | 0.066 | F1 | 0.067 | A4 | 0.064 |
| B2 | 0.053 | B2 | 0.054 | B2 | 0.055 |
| E2 | 0.053 | E2 | 0.052 | E2 | 0.049 |
| F2 | 0.047 | F2 | 0.045 | F2 | 0.042 |
| D3 | 0.039 | D3 | 0.038 | D3 | 0.035 |
| E1 | 0.037 | E1 | 0.035 | B3 | 0.031 |
| B3 | 0.031 | B3 | 0.031 | E1 | 0.030 |
| F3 | 0.027 | F3 | 0.027 | A3 | 0.027 |
| A3 | 0.023 | A3 | 0.024 | F3 | 0.027 |
| C2 | 0.022 | C2 | 0.022 | D2 | 0.022 |
| E3 | 0.022 | D2 | 0.022 | C2 | 0.022 |
| D2 | 0.022 | E3 | 0.021 | E3 | 0.019 |
| F5 | 0.015 | F5 | 0.015 | F5 | 0.016 |
| C3 | 0.012 | C3 | 0.013 | C3 | 0.013 |
| D1 | 0.012 | D1 | 0.012 | D1 | 0.012 |
| E4 | 0.012 | E4 | 0.012 | E4 | 0.011 |
| C1 | 0.007 | C1 | 0.007 | C1 | 0.007 |
| A | F | B | E | D | C | wc | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | [1, 1] | [1, 2] | [3, 3] | [3, 4] | [4, 4] | [5, 5] | [2.372, 2.814] |
| F | [12,1] | [1, 1] | [2, 3] | [3, 3] | [3, 4] | [4, 5] | [2.031, 2.116] |
| B | [13,13] | [13,12] | [1, 1] | [1, 2] | [2, 2] | [3, 3] | [1.007, 1.047] |
| E | [14,13] | [13,13] | [12,1] | [1, 1] | [1, 2] | [2, 3] | [0.776, 0.796] |
| D | [14,14] | [14,13] | [12,12] | [12,1] | [1, 1] | [2, 2] | [0.660, 0.555] |
| C | [15,15] | [15,14] | [13,13] | [13,12] | [12,12] | [1, 1] | [0.401, 0.362] |
| A1 | A2 | A4 | A3 | wsc | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | [1, 1] | [2, 2] | [3, 3] | [4, 5] | [2.215, 2.341] |
| A2 | [12,12] | [1, 1] | [2, 2] | [3, 4] | [1.314, 1.407] |
| A4 | [13,13] | [12,12] | [1, 1] | [2, 3] | [0.759, 0.841] |
| A3 | [15,14] | [14,13] | [13,12] | [1, 1] | [0.452, 0.360] |
| B1 | B2 | B3 | wsc | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | [1, 1] | [1, 2] | [2, 3] | [1.259, 1.817] |
| B2 | [12,1] | [1, 1] | [2, 2] | [1.259, 1] |
| B3 | [13,12] | [12,12] | [1, 1] | [0.629, 0.550] |
| C2 | C3 | C1 | wsc | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2 | [1, 1] | [2, 2] | [3, 3] | [1.817, 1.817] |
| C3 | [12,12] | [1, 1] | [2, 2] | [1, 1] |
| C1 | [13,13] | [12,12] | [1, 1] | [0.550, 0.550] |
| D3 | D2 | D1 | wsc | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D3 | [1, 1] | [1, 2] | [2, 3] | [1.259, 1.817] |
| D2 | [12,1] | [1, 1] | [2, 2] | [1.259, 1] |
| D1 | [13,12] | [12,12] | [1, 1] | [0.629, 0.550] |
| E2 | E1 | E3 | E4 | wsc | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E2 | [1, 1] | [1, 2] | [3, 4] | [4, 4] | [1.863, 2.385] |
| E1 | [12,1] | [1, 1] | [3, 3] | [3, 4] | [1.729, 1.556] |
| E3 | [14,13] | [13,13] | [1, 1] | [1, 2] | [0.576, 0.636] |
| E4 | [14,14] | [14,13] | [12,1] | [1, 1] | [0.537, 0.423] |
| F4 | F1 | F2 | F3 | F5 | wsc | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F4 | [1, 1] | [1, 2] | [2, 2] | [3, 3] | [4, 4] | [1.901, 2.193] |
| F1 | [12,1] | [1, 1] | [1, 2] | [2, 3] | [3, 4] | [1.433, 1.653] |
| F2 | [12,12] | [12,1] | [1, 1] | [2, 2] | [3, 3] | [1.245, 1.075] |
| F3 | [13,13] | [13,12] | [12, 12] | [1, 1] | [2, 2] | [0.695, 0640] |
| F5 | [14,14] | [14,13] | [13,13] | [12,12] | [1, 1] | [0.423, 0.400] |
| wc⊙wsc | p* | |
|---|---|---|
| A1 | [5.255, 6.588] | 1 |
| F4 | [3.862, 4.640] | 0.992 |
| A2 | [3.117, 3.962] | 0.853 |
| F1 | [2.911, 3.498] | 1 |
| F2 | [2.276, 2.529] | 0.841 |
| E2 | [1.877, 2.500] | 0.659 |
| A4 | [1.800, 2.367] | 1 |
| E1 | [1.630, 1.742] | 1 |
| F3 | [1.354, 1.413] | 0.864 |
| B1 | [0.978, 1.447] | 0.859 |
| A3 | [1.015, 1.073] | 1 |
| D3 | [0.832, 1.009] | 0.669 |
| B2 | [0.796, 0.978] | 0.684 |
| F5 | [0.847, 0.860] | 1 |
| D2 | [0.555, 0.832] | 0.500 |
| C2 | [0.658, 0.729] | 0.993 |
| E3 | [0.580, 0.667] | 1 |
| E4 | [0.443, 0.541] | 0.790 |
| B3 | [0.438, 0.489] | 1 |
| C3 | [0.362, 0.401] | 0.688 |
| D1 | [0.305, 0.416] | 1 |
| C1 | [0.199, 0.220] |
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.R.M., A.D.S. and D.M.M.; methodology, D.M.M. and M.R.M.; software, D.M.M.; validation, M.R.M., D.J.S. and A.D.S.; formal analysis, M.R.M., A.D.S. and D.M.M.; investigation, A.D.S., D.M.S. and M.R.M.; resources, A.D.S. and D.M.S.; data curation, D.M.M., D.M.S., and D.J.S.; writing-original draft preparation, M.R.M. and D.M.M.; writing-review and editing, M.R.M. and A.D.S.; visualization, M.R.M. and D.M.M.; supervision, M.R.M. and D.M.M.; project administration, M.R.M., A.D.S. and D.J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Acknowledgments
The authors express gratitude to the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technological Development of Serbia for providing partial support for this paper.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
1. Zhang, X.; Bayulken, B.; Skitmore, M.; Lu, W.; Huisingh, D. Sustainable urban transformations towards smarter, healthier cities: Theories, agendas, and pathways. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 173, 1-10.
2. Bibri, S.E. Compact urbanism, and the synergic potential of its integration with data-driven smart urbanism: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Land Use Policy 2020, 97, 104703.
3. Sharifi, A.; Kawakubo, S.; Milovidova, A. Urban sustainability assessment tools: Toward integrating smart city indicators. In Urban Systems Design-Creating Sustain. Smart Cities in the Internet of Things Era, 1st ed.; Yamagata, Y., Yang, P., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherland, 2020; pp. 345-372.
4. Jamecny, L.; Husar, M. From Planning to Smart Management of Historic Industrial Brownfield Regeneration. Procedia Eng. 2016, 161, 2282-2289.
5. Etz, D.; Branter, H.; Kastner, W. Smart Manufacturing Retrofit for Brownfield Systems. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 42, 327-332.
6. Nitoslawski, S.A.; Galle, N.J.; Van Den Bosch, C.K.; Steenberg, J.W.N. Smarter ecosystems for smarter cities? A review of trends, technologies, and turning points for smart urban forestry. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 51, 101770.
7. Chen, Y.; Han, D. Water quality monitoring in the smart city: A pilot project. Autom. Constr. 2018, 89, 307-316.
8. Lu, X.; Pu, X.; Han, X. Sustainable smart waste classification and collection system: A bi-objective modeling and optimization approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 124183.
9. Sharma, M.; Joshi, S.; Kannan, D.; Govindan, K.; Singh, R.; Purohit, H.C. Internet of Things (IoT) adoption barriers of smart cities' waste management: An Indian context. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 270, 122047.
10. Thellufsen, J.Z.; Lund, H.; Sorknaes, P.; Østergaard, P.A.; Chang, M.; Drysdale, D.; Nielsen, S.; Djørup, S.R.; Sperling, K. Smart energy cities in a 100% renewable energy context. Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev. 2020, 129, 109922.
11. Dimić, V.; Milošević, M.; Milošević, D.; Stević, D. Adjustable Model of Renewable Energy Projects for Sustainable Development: A Case Study of the Nišava District in Serbia. Sustainability 2018, 10, 775.
12. Goncalves, D.; Sheikhnejad, Y.; Oliveira, M.; Martins, N. One step forward toward smart city Utopia: Smart buildings energy management based on adaptive surrogate modeling. Energy Build. 2020, 223, 110146.
13. Chen, M.; Li, W.; Hao, Y.; Qian, Y.; Humar, I. Edge cognitive computing based smart healthcare system. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018, 86, 402-411.
14. Manogaran, G.; Varatharajan, R.; Lopez, D.; Kumar, P.M.; Sundarasekar, R.; Thota, C. A new architecture of Internet of Things and big data ecosystem for secured smart healthcare monitoring and alerting system. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018, 82, 375-387.
15. Aguaded-Ramirez, E. Smart City and Intercultural Education. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2017, 237, 326-333.
16. Bajaj, R.; Sharma, V. Smart Education with artificial intelligence based determination of learning styles. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018, 132, 834-842.
17. Buys, L.; Barnett, K.; Miller, E.; Hopkinson, C. Smart Housing and Social Sustainability: Learning from the Residents of Queensland's Research House. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Soc. 2005, 3, 44-57.
18. Khan, S.; Woo, M.; Nam, K.; Chathoth, P.K. Smart City and Smart Tourism: A Case of Dubai. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2279.
19. Ju, J.; Liu, L.; Feng, Y. Citizen-centered big data analysis-driven governance intelligence framework for smart cities. Telecomm. Policy 2018, 42, 881-896.
20. Aguilera, U.; Pena, O.; Belmonte, O.; Ilpina, D.L. Citizen-centric data services for smarter cities. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2017, 76, 234-247.
21. Laurini, R. A primer of knowledge management for smart city governance. Land Use Policy 2020, 104832.
22. Batagan, L. Indicators for economic and social development of future smart cities. J. Appl. Quant. Methods 2011, 6, 27-34.
23. Akande, A.; Cabral, P.; Casteleyn, S. Understanding the sharing economy and its implication on sustainability in smart cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 124077.
24. Šurdonja, S.; Giuffre, T.; Deluka-Tibljaš, A. Smart mobility solutions-necessary precondition for a well-functioning smart city. Transp. Res. Proc. 2020, 45, 604-611.
25. Porru, S.; Misso, F.E.; Pani, F.E.; Repetto, C. Smart mobility and public transport: Opportunities and challenges in rural and urban areas. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 2020, 7, 88-97.
26. Khalil, E.E. 12-Distributed energy in smart cities and the infrastructure. In Solving Urban Infrastructure Problems Using Smart City Technologies, Handbook on Planning, Design, Development, and Regulation, 1st ed.; Vacca, J.R., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherland, 2021; pp. 249-268.
27. Pickard, R. Funding the Architectural Heritage: A Guide to Policies and Examples; Council of Europe: Strasbourg, France, 2009.
28. Pavlovski, M.; Migilinskas, D.; Antucheviciene, J.; Kutut, V. Ranking of Heritage Building Conversion Alternatives by Applying BIM and MCDM: A Case of Sapieha Palace in Vilnius. Symmetry 2019, 11, 973.
29. Petti, L.; Trillo, C.; Makarone, B.C.N. Towards a Shared Understanding of the Concept of Heritage in the European Context. Heritage 2019, 2, 2531-2544.
30. Jokilehto, J. Definition of Cultural Heritage: References to Documents in History; ICCROM Working Group Heritage and Society: Rome, Italy, 2005.
31. Brankov, B.; Nenković-Riznić, M.; Pucar, M. Role of urban systems as part of the infrastructure in the reduction of climate change effects in the cities. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Building Services and Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Belgrade, Serbia, 5 December 2019; Faculty of Architecture: Belgrade, Serbia, 2019; pp. 9-17.
32. ICOMOS. Cultural Heritage, the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and the New Urban Agenda; International Council on Monuments and Sites-ICOMOS: Paris, France, 2016.
33. Chang, C.S.; Chiu, Y.H.; Tsai, L. Evaluating the adaptive reuse of historic buildings through multicriteria decision-making. Habitat Int. 2018, 81, 12-23.
34. Ribera, F.; Nestico, A.; Cucco, P.; Maselli, G. A multicriteria approach to identify the Highest and Best Use for historical buildings. J. Cult. Herit. 2020, 41, 166-177.
35. Zagorskas, J.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Burinskiene, M.; Blumberga, A.; Blumberga, D. Thermal insulation alternatives of historic brick buildings in Baltic Sea Region. Energy Build. 2014, 78, 35-42.
36. Kutut, V.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Lazauskas, M. Assessment of priority alternatives for preservation of historic buildings using model based on ARAS and AHP methods. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2014, 14, 287-294.
37. Haroun, H.A.A.F.; Bakr, A.F.; Hasan, A.E.S. Multi-criteria decision making for adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: Aziza Fahmy Palace, Alexandria, Egypt, Alexandria. Eng. J. 2019, 58, 467-478.
38. Uberman, R.; Ostrega, A. Applying the analytic hierarchy process in the revitalization of post-mining areas field. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Honolulu, HI, USA, 8-10 July 2005; pp. 1-10.
39. Dutta, M.; Husain, Z. An application of Multicriteria Decision Making to build heritage. The Case of Calcutta. J. Cult. Herit. 2019, 10, 237-243.
40. D'Alpaos, C.; Valluzzi, M.R. Protection of Cultural Heritage Buildings and Artistic Assets from Seismic Hazard: A Hierarchical Approach. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1608.
41. Li, R.Y.M.; Chau, K.W.; Zeng, F.F. Ranking of Risks for Existing and New Building Works. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2863.
42. Rana, N.P.; Luthra, S.; Mangla, S.K.; Islam, R.; Roderick, S.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Barriers to the development of smart cities in Indian context. Inform. Syst. Front. 2019, 21, 503-525.
43. Anand, A.; Rufuss, D.D.W.; Rajkumar, V.; Suganthi, L. Evaluation of Sustainability Indicators in Smart Cities for India Using MCDM Approach. Energy Proc. 2017, 141, 211-215.
44. Myeong, S.; Jung, Y.; Lee, E. A Study on Determinant Factors in Smart City Development: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2606.
45. Du, F.; Zhang, L.; Du, F. Smart City Evaluation Index System: Based on AHP Method. Big Data Analytics for Cyber-Physical System in Smart City. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Big Data Analytics for Cyber-Physical-Systems, BDCPS 2020, Shanghai, China, 28-29 December 2020; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2020; pp. 563-569.
46. Soini, K.; Dessein, J. Culture-Sustainability Relation: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Sustainability 2016, 8, 167.
47. Borri, A.; Corradi, M. Architectural Heritage: A Discussion on Conservation and Safety. Heritage 2019, 2, 41.
48. Llorens, J.; Zanelli, A. Structural membranes for the refurbishment of the architectural heritage. Procedia Eng. 2016, 155, 18-27.
49. Anwar, M. Practical Techniques for Restoration of Architectural Formation Elements in Historical Buildings. WJERT 2019, 7, 193-207.
50. ICOMOS CHARTER. Principles for the analysis, conservation, and structural restoration of architectural heritage. In Proceedings of the ICOMOS 14th General Assembly, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, 27-31 October 2003.
51. Stanojević, A.; Keković, A. Functional and aesthetic transformation of industrial into housing spaces. FU Arch. Civ. Eng. 2019, 17, 401-416.
52. Tu, H.M. The Attractiveness of Adaptive Reuse: A Theoretical Framework. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2372.
53. Douglas, J. Buildings Adaptation, 2nd ed.; Heriot-Watt University: Edinburgh, UK, 2006.
54. Ćurčić, A.; Momčilović-Petronijević, A.; Topličić-Ćurčić, G.; Keković, A. An approach to building heritage and its preservation in Serbia and surrounding areas. FU Arch. Civ. Eng. 2020, 8, 15-31.
55. Asquith, L.; Vellinga, M. Vernacular Architecture in the 21st Century: Theory, Education and Practice, 1st ed.; Taylor and Francis: London, UK, 2006.
56. Berti, E. Cultural Routes of the Council of Europe: New Paradigms for the Territorial Project and Landscape. Almatourism 2013, 4, 1-12.
57. Marta, L.; Agalitou, C.; Panos, P. Cultural Festivals on Site of Cultural Heritage as a Means of Development of Alternative Forms of Tourism. In Strategic Innovative Marketing; Kavoura, A., Sakas, D., Tomaras, P., Eds.; Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017.
58. Gholitabar, S.; Alipour, H.; Costa, C.M.M. An Empirical Investigation of Architectural Heritage Management Implications for Tourism: The Case of Portugal. Sustainability 2018, 10, 93.
59. Lidelow, S.; Orn, T.; Luciani, A.; Rizzo, A. Energy-efficiency measures for heritage buildings: A literature review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 45, 231-242.
60. Fouseki, K.; Cassar, M. Energy-Efficency in Heritage Buildings: Future Challenges and Research Needs. Hist. Environ. 2014, 5, 95-100.
61. Muminović, E.; Radosavljević, U.; Beganović, D. Strategic Planning and Management Model for the Regeneration of Historic Urban Landscapes: The Case of Historic Center of Novi Pazar in Serbia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1323.
62. Milojković, A.; Brzaković, M.; Nikolić, M. The influences and Importance of the UNESCO World Heritage List: The Case of Plaošnik, Ohrid. Space Cult. 2020, 23, 164-180.
63. Hegazy, S.M. Conservation of historical buildings: The Omani-French museum as a case study. HBRC J. 2015, 11, 264-274.
64. Guzman, P.; Pereira Roders, A.R.; Colenbrander, B. Impacts of Common Urban Development Factors on Cultural Conservation in World Heritage Cities: An Indicators-Based Analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 853.
65. Tweed, C.; Sutherland, M. Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 83, 62-69.
66. Berhold, E.; Rajaonson, J.; Tanguay, G.A. Using sustainability indicators for Urban Heritage management: A review of 25 case studies. IJHSD 2015, 4, 23-34.
67. Spangenberg, J.H. Institutional sustainability indicators: An analysis of the institutions in Agenda 21 and a draft set of indicators for monitoring their effectivity. Sustain. Dev. 2002, 10, 103-115.
68. Petti, L.; Trillo, C.; Makore, B.N. Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Development Targets: A Possible Harmonisation? Insights from the European Perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 926.
69. Auclair, E.; Fairclough, G. Living between Past and Future. Introduction to Heritage and Cultural Sustainability. In Theory and Practice in Heritage and Sustainability: Between Past and Future; Auclair, E., Fairclough, G., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; pp. 1-22.
70. Adamczyk, M.; Betlej, A.; Gondek, J.; Ohotina, A. Technology and sustainable development: Towards the future? Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2019, 6, 2003-2016.
71. Shrivastava, P.; Ivanaj, S.; Ivanaj, V. Strategic technological innovation for sustainable development. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2016, 70, 76-107.
72. Su, R.; Bramwell, B.; Whalley, P.A. Cultural political economy and urban heritage tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2018, 68, 30-40.
73. Viu, J.M.; Fernandez, R.F.; Caralt, J.S. The Impact of Heritage Tourism on an Urban Economy: The Case of Granada and the Alhambra. Tour. Econ. 2008, 14, 361-376.
74. Foster, G.; Kreinin, H. A review of environmental impact indicators of cultural heritage buildings: A circular economy perspective. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 043003.
75. Čolić, N.; Manić, B.; Niković, A.; Brankov, B. Grasping the framework for urban governance of smart cities in Serbia. The case of Interreg SMF project CLEVER. Spatium 2020, 43, 26-34.
76. Li, J.; Krishnamurthy, S.; Roders, A.P.; Wesemael, P. Community participation in cultural heritage management: A systematic literature review comparing Chinese and international practices. Cities 2020, 96, 102476.
77. Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Jaafar, M.; Ahmad, A.G.; Barghi, R. Community participation in World Heritage Site conservation and tourism development. Tour. Manag. 2017, 58, 142-153.
78. Pejić, P.; Rizov, T.; Krasić, S.; Stajić, B. Augmented reality application in engineering. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress Science and Management of Automotive and Transportation Engineering, Craiova, Romania, 23-25 October 2014; pp. 39-44.
79. Luna, U.; Rivero, P.; Vicent, N. Augmented Reality in Heritage Apps: Current Trends in Europe. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2756.
80. Lerario, A. The IoT as a Key in the Sensitive Balance between Development Needs and Sustainable Conservation of Cultural Resources in Italian Heritage Cities. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6952.
81. Jara, A.J.; Sun, Y.; Song, H.; Bie, R.; Genooud, D.; Bocchi, Y. Internet of Things for Cultural Heritage of Smart Cities and Smart Regions. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops, Gwangiu, Korea, 24-27 March 2015; pp. 668-675.
82. Saygi, G.; Remondino, G. Management of Architectural Heritage Information in BIM and GIS: State of the Art and Future Perspectives. IJHDE 2013, 2, 695-713.
83. Wang, R.; Liu, G.; Zhou, J.; Wang, J. Identifying the Critical Stakeholders for the Sustainable Development of Architectural Heritage of Tourism: From the Perspective of China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1671.
84. Wojewnik-Filipkowska, A.; Węgrzyn, J. Understanding of Public-Private Partnership Stakeholders as a Condition of Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1194.
85. Čolić, N.; Dželebdžić, O. Beyond formality: A contribution towards revising the participatory planning practice in Serbia. Spatium 2018, 39, 17-25.
86. Ren, W.; Han, F. Indicators for Assessing the Sustainability of Built Heritage Attractions: An Anglo-Chinese Study. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2504.
87. Lopes, R.O.; Malik, O.A.; Kumpoh, A.A.A.; Keasberry, C.; Hong, O.W.; Lee, S.C.W.; Liu, Y. Exploring Digital Architectural Heritage in Brunei Darussalam: Towards Heritage Safeguarding, Smart Tourism, and Interactive Education. In Proceedings of the IEEE Fifth International Conference on Multimedia Big Data (BigMM), Singapore, 11-13 September 2019; pp. 383-390.
88. Yung, E.; Chan, E. Formulating social indicators of revitalizing historic buildings in urban renewal: Towards a research agenda, in urban density and sustainability. In Proceedings of the Sustainability Building 2013 Hong Kong Regional Conference, Hong Kong, China, 12-13 September 2013; pp. 1-14.
89. Bagnato, V.P.; Martinelli, N. Recycling Heritage Between Planning and Design Interventions. In Cultural Urban Heritage. The Urban Book Series; Obad Šćitaroci, M., Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci, B., Mrđa, A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2019; pp. 155-164.
90. Cabeza, L.F.; Gracia, A.; Pisello, A.L. Integration of renewable technologies in historical and heritage buildings: A review. Energy Build. 2018, 177, 96-111.
91. Liu, X.; Wang, X.; Wright, G.; Cheng, J.C.P.; Li, X.; Liu, R. A State-of-the-Art Review on the Integration of Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Geographic Information System (GIS). ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2017, 6, 53.
92. Borowiecki, K.J.; Navarrete, T. Digitization of heritage collections as indicator of innovation. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 2017, 26, 227-246.
93. Addison, A.C.; Gaiani, M. Virtualized architectural heritage: New tools and techniques. IEEE Multimed. 2000, 7, 26-31.
94. Lee, J.; Kim, J.; Ahn, J.; Woo, W. Remote Diagnosis of Architectural Heritage Based on 5W1H Model-Based Metadata in Virtual Reality. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 339.
95. Eekels, J.; Roozenberg, N.F.M. Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods, 1st ed.; Wiley Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1995.
96. Turskis, Z.; Antuchevičienė, J.; Keršulienė, V.; Gaidukas, G. Hybrid Group MCDM Model to Select the Most Effective Alternative of the Second Runway of the Airport. Symmetry 2019, 11, 792.
97. Turskis, Z.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Kutut, V. A model based on Aras-G and AHP methods for multiple criteria prioritizing of heritage value. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 2013, 12, 45-73.
98. Ogrodnik, K. Multi-Criteria Analysis of Design Solutions in Architecture and Engineering: Review of Applications and a Case Study. Buildings 2019, 9, 244.
99. Stanojević, A.; Milošević, M.; Milošević, D.; Turnšek, B.; Jevremović, L. Developing multi-criteria model for the protection of cultural built heritage in Serbia from the aspect of energy recovery of the buildings. In Proceedings of the International Congres and Exhibition on Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning, HVAC&R Society, Belgrade, Serbia, 4-6 December 2019; HVAC&R Society: Belgrade, Serbia, 2020; Volume 50, pp. 397-408.
100. Emrouznejad, A.; Marra, M. The state of the art development of AHP (1979-2017): A literature review with a social network analyst. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2017, 55, 6653-6675.
101. Mornkunaite, Ž.; Kalibatas, D.; Kalibatiene, D. A bibliometric data analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods in heritage buildings. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2019, 25, 76-99.
102. Zavadskas, E.K.; Antucheviciene, J.; Kaplinski, O. Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Civil Engineering: Part I-A State-of-the-Art Survey. Eng. Struct. Technol. 2016, 7, 103-113.
103. Zavadskas, E.K.; Antucheviciene, J.; Kaplinski, O. Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Civil Engineering. Part II-Applications. Eng. Struct. Technol. 2015, 7, 151-167.
104. Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Kildiene, S. State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM /MADM methods. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2014, 20, 165-179.
105. Tupenaite, L.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Kaklauskas, A.; Turskis, Z.; Seniut, M. Multiple criteria assessment of alternatives for built and human environment renovation. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2010, 16, 257-266.
106. Chalekaee, A.; Turskis, Z.; Khanzadi, M.; Ghodrati Amiri, G.; Keršulienė, V. A New Hybrid MCDM Model with Grey Numbers for the Construction Delay Change Response Problem. Sustainability 2019, 11, 776.
107. Keršuliene, V.; Turskis, Z. Integrated fuzzy multiple criteria decision making model for architect selection. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2011, 17, 645-666.
108. Saaty, T. The Analytic Hierarchy Process; Mcgraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
109. Saaty, T.L. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 1977, 15, 234-281.
110. Zhang, C.; Liu, X.; Jin, J.G.; Liu, Y. A stochastic ANP-GCE approach for vulnerability assessment in the water supply system with uncertainties. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2015, 63, 78-90.
111. Luo, H.C.; Sun, Z.X. A study on stock ranking and selection strategy based on UTA method under the condition of inconsistence. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Management Science & Engineering 21th Annual Conference Proceedings IEEE, Melbourne, Australia, 1-4 August 2014; pp. 1347-1353.
112. Behzadian, M.; Otaghsara, S.K.; Yazdani, M.; Ignatius, J. A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 13051-13069.
113. Palczewski, K.; Sałabun, W. The fuzzy TOPSIS applications in the last decade. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019, 159, 2294-2303.
114. Sałabun, W. The mean error estimation of TOPSIS method using a fuzzy reference models. J. Theor. Appl. Comput. Sci. 2013, 7, 40-50.
115. Sari, J.; Gernowo, R.; Suseno, J. Deciding endemic area of dengue fever using simple multi attribute rating technique exploiting ranks. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Information Technology and Electrical Engineering IEEE, Bali, Indonesia, 24-26 July 2018; pp. 482-487.
116. Opricovic, S.; Tzeng, G.H. Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2007, 178, 514-529.
117. Zavadskas, E.K.; Kaklauskas, A.; Peldschus, F.; Turskis, Z. Multi-attribute assessment of road design solutions by using the COPRAS method. Balt. J. Road Bridge Eng. 2007, 2, 195-203.
118. Govindan, K.; Jepsen, M.B. ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2016, 250, 1-29.
119. Hashemi, S.S.; Hajiagha, S.H.R.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Mahdiraji, H.A. Multicriteria group decision making with ELECTRE III method based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information. Appl. Math. Model. 2016, 40, 1554-1564.
120. Brans, J.P.; Vincke, P.; Mareschal, B. How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1986, 24, 228-238.
121. Uhde, B.; Hahn, W.A.; Griess, V.C.; Knoke, T. Hybrid MCDA methods to integrate multiple ecosystem services in forest management planning: A critical review. Environ. Manag. 2015, 56, 373-388.
122. Watróbski, J.; Jankowski, J.; Ziemba, P.; Karczmarczyk, A.; Zioło, M. Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection: Rule set database and exemplary decision support system implementation blueprints. Data Brief 2019, 22, 639.
123. Wieckowski, J.; Kizielewicz, B.; Kołodziejczyk, J. Application of Hill Climbing Algorithm in Determining the Characteristic Objects Preferences Based on the Reference Set of Alternatives. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Decision Technologies, Virtual Conference, Split, Croatia, 17-19 June 2020; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 341-351.
124. Więckowski, J.; Kizielewicz, B.; Kołodziejczyk, J. Finding an Approximate Global Optimum of Characteristic Objects Preferences by Using Simulated Annealing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Decision Technologies, Split, Croatia, 17-19 June 2020; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 365-375.
125. Chang, Y.H.; Yeh, C.H.; Chang, Y.W. A new method selection approach for fuzzy group multicriteria decision making. Appl. Soft Comput. 2013, 13, 2179-2187.
126. Kujawińska, A.; Rogalewicz, M.; Diering, M.; Piłacińska, M.; Hamrol, A.; Kochańskib, A. Assessment of ductile iron casting process with the use of the DRSA method. J. Min. Metall. Sect. B Metall. 2016, 52, 25-34.
127. Sałabun, W.; Wątróbski, J.; Shekhovtsov, A. Are MCDA Methods Benchmarkable? A Comparative Study of TOPSIS, VIKOR, COPRAS, and PROMETHEE II Methods. Symmetry 2020, 12, 1549.
128. Zanakis, S.H.; Solomon, A.; Wishart, N.; Dublish, S. Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1998, 107, 507-529.
129. Guitouni, A.; Martel, J.M. Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1998, 109, 501-521.
130. Gershon, M. The role of weights and scales in the application of multiobjective decision making. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1984, 15, 244-250.
131. Watróbski, J.; Jankowski, J.; Ziemba, P.; Karczmarczyk, A.; Zioło, M. Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection. Omega 2018, 86, 107-124.
132. Cinelli, M.; Kadzinski, M.; Gonzalez, M.; Słowinski, R. How to Support the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis? Let Us Start with a Comprehensive Taxonomy. Omega 2020, 96, 102261.
133. Hanne, T. Meta decision problems in multiple criteria decision making. In Multicriteria Decision Making, Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference Hagen (Germany), Hagen, Germany, 19-23 June 1995; Fandel, G., Gal, T., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1999; pp. 147-171.
134. Wang, X.; Triantaphyllou, E. Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods. Omega 2008, 36, 45-63.
135. Horst, R.; Pardalos, P.M. Handbook of Global Optimization; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013.
136. Faizi, S.; Rashid, T.; Sałabun, W.; Zafar, S.; Watróbski, J. Decision Making with Uncertainty Using Hesitant Fuzzy Sets. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2018, 20, 93-103.
137. Ruiz-Jaramillo, J.; Munoz-Gonzales, C.; Joyanes-Diaz, M.D.; Jimenez-Morales, E.; Lopez-Osorio, J.M.; Barrios-Perez, R.; Rosa-Jinemez, C. Heritage risk index: A multi-criteria decision-making tool to prioritize municipal historic preservation projects. Front. Archit. Res. 2020, 9, 403-418.
138. Liu, F.; Zhao, Q.; Yang, Y. An approach to assess the value of industrial heritage based on Dempster-Shafer theory. J. Cult. Herit. 2018, 32, 210-220.
139. Pavlovski, M.; Antucheviciene, J.; Migilinskas, D. Assessment of Buildings Redevelopment Possibilities using MCDM and BIM Techniques. Procedia Eng. 2017, 172, 846-850.
140. Jovčić, S.; Simić, V.; Průša, P.; Dobrodolac, M. Picture Fuzzy ARAS Method for Freight Distribution Concept Selection. Symmetry 2020, 12, 1062.
141. Rodcha, R.; Tripathi, N.K.; Shrestha, R.P. Comparison of Cash Crop Suitability Assessment Using Parametric, AHP, and FAHP Methods. Land 2019, 8, 79.
142. Nieto-Morote, A.; Ruz-Vila, F. A Fuzzy AHP multi-criteria decision-making approach applied to combined cooling, heating and power production systems. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. 2011, 10, 497-517.
143. Buckley, J.J. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1985, 17, 233-247.
144. Milošević, D.M.; Milošević, M.R.; Simjanović, D.J. Implementation of Adjusted Fuzzy AHP Method in the Assessment for Reuse of Industrial Buildings. Mathematics 2020, 8, 1697.
145. Srdjević, B.; Medeiros, Y. Fuzzy AHP assessment of water management plans. Water Resour. Manag. 2008, 22, 877-894.
146. Kahraman, C.; Süder, A.; Kaya, I. Fuzzy multicriteria evaluation of health research investments. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2014, 20, 210-226.
147. Milošević, M.R.; Milošević, D.M.; Stanojević, A.D. Managing Cultural Built Heritage in Smart Cities Using Fuzzy and Interval Multi-criteria Decision Making. In Intelligent and Fuzzy Techniques: Smart and Innovative Solutions. INFUS 2020. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Kahraman, C., Cevik Onar, S., Oztaysi, B., Sari, I., Cebi, S., Tolga, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 1197, pp. 599-607.
148. Milošević, D.; Stanojević, A.; Milošević, M. AHP method in the function of logistic in development of smart cities model. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference: Transport and Logistic Til, Niš, Serbia, 25-26 May 2017; pp. 287-294.
149. Ozkok, B.A. Finding fuzzy optimal and approximate fuzzy optimal solution of fully fuzzy linear programming problems with trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2019, 36, 1389-1400.
150. Milošević, M.R.; Milošević, D.M.; Stević, D.M.; Stanojević, A.D. Smart City: Modeling Key Indicators in Serbia Using IT2FS. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3536.
151. Liou, T.S.; Wang, M.J. Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1992, 50, 247-256.
152. Deng, J. Introduction to Grey System Theory. J. Grey Syst. 1989, 1, 1-24.
153. Deng, J.L. Properties of relational space for grey system. In Essential Topics on Grey System-Theory and Applications; Deng, J.L., Ed.; China Ocean: Beijing, China, 1988.
154. Deng, J.L. Control problems of grey systems. Syst. Control. Lett. 1982, 1, 288-294.
155. Deng, J.L. Spread of grey relational space. J. Grey Syst. 1995, 7, 96-100.
156. Malczewski, J.; Rinner, C. Introduction to GIS-MCDA. In Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Geographic Information Science; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2015; pp. 23-54.
157. Baradaran, V. Assessment and Prioritizing the Risks of Urban Rail Transportation by Using Grey Analytical Hierarchy Process (GAHP). J. Transp Eng. 2017, 4, 255-273.
158. Stanujkic, D.; Zavadskas, E.; Ghorabaee, M.K.; Turskis, Z. An Extension of the EDAS Method Based on the Use of Interval Grey Numbers. Stud. Inform. Control 2017, 26, 5-12.
159. Stanujkić, D.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Liu, S.; Karabašević, D.; Popović, G. Improved OCRA Method Based on the Use of Interval Grey Numbers. J. Grey Syst. 2017, 29, 49-60.
160. Petković, M.S.; Milošević, M.R.; Milošević, D.M. New higher-order methods for the simultaneous inclusion of polynomial zeros. Numer. Algorithms 2011, 58, 179-201.
161. Petković, M.S.; Milošević, M.R.; Milošević, D.M. Efficient methods for the inclusion of polynomial zeros. Appl. Math. Comp. 2011, 217, 7636-7652.
162. Petković, M.S.; Milošević, M.R. Efficient Halley-like methods for the inclusion of multiple zeros of polynomials. Comput. Methods Appl. Math. 2012, 12, 351-366.
163. Ghorbanzadeh, O.; Moslem, S.; Blaschke, T.; Duleba, S. Sustainable Urban Transport Planning Considering Different Stakeholder Groups by an Interval-AHP Decision Support Model. Sustainability 2019, 11, 9.
164. Liu, F. Acceptable consistency analysis of interval reciprocal comparison matrices. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2009, 160, 2686-2700.
165. Wang, Y.M.; Yang, J.B.; Xu, D.L. A two-stage logarithmic goal programming method for generating weights from interval comparison matrices. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2005, 152, 475-498.
166. Ceballos, B.; Lamata, M.T.; Pelta, D.A. A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods. Prog. Artif. Intell. 2016, 5, 315-322.
167. Sałabun, W.; Urbaniak, K. A new coefficient of rankings similarity in decision-making problems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 3-5 June 2020; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020.
Mimica R. Milošević
1,*,
Dušan M. Milošević
2,
Ana D. Stanojević
3,
Dragan M. Stević
4 and
Dušan J. Simjanović
5
1Faculty of Business Economics and Enterpreneurship, Mitropolita Petra 8, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
2Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Electronic Engineering, University of Niš, Aleksandra Medvedeva 14, 18000 Niš, Serbia
3Department of Public Buildings Design, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Niš, Aleksandra Medvedeva 14, 18000 Niš, Serbia
4Department of Construction Management, Faculty of Technical Science, University of Priština, Knjaza Miloša 7, 38220 Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia
5Faculty of Information Technology, Metropolitan University, Tadeuša Košćuška 63, 11158 Belgrade, Serbia
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
© 2021. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.