Table 2.
Comparative analysis of principles of valorization of criteria and indicators of multi-criteria models.
| Principles of valorization | The hierarchy between criteria | Type of valorization/applied MCDA method/evaluation software | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Conversion meter model | ● veto criteria - the assessment of potential is stopped if one of the criteria is not met; | ● The weights of the criteria and sub-criteria are not explicitly defined, but a difference in the interpretation of criteria values depending on the target group of users appears; | Quantitative/Appraisal method-checklist scale |
| ● a set of criteria and indicators that are not of an elimination character is evaluated by collecting positive answers to the criteria of location, i.e. building, sums are multiplied by determined coefficients, and then the final result is ranked within a predetermined quantitative scale. The potentials of buildings for conversion are determined by the value range, which, according to the potential for conversion, are classified into five categories; | ● the values of the coefficients multiplying the sums of positive responses to the location and facility criteria are provisional and are 5 and 3, to suggest a greater influence of the location parameters; the possibility of change for specific cases. | ||
| ● financial feasibility is determined based on the ratio of invested and potentially achievable funds. | |||
| The TOBUS model | ● a separate scale has been established for each criterion, which evaluates these criteria descriptively, through codes; | ● there is no hierarchy among the criteria, but the focus in the decision-making process is on energy needs and the achieved comfort of the interior; | Qualitative and quantitative/COPRAS method |
| ● in the software of this model, qualitative estimates of criteria are quantified using an algorithm; | |||
| ● each criterion represents a module based on which certain types of interventions on the facility are proposed; | |||
| ● the result is given in the form of different scenarios with presented costs, energy needs, and the degree of improvement of the interior space. | |||
| The ARP model | ● the physical life of the building is determined based on a set of criteria and indicators that are evaluated positively/negatively; | ● there is no hierarchy between criteria; | Quantitative/SINDEX methodology |
| ● the impact of different types of obsolescence on the useful life of the building is evaluated as a percentage of 0–20%; | ● great influence of the expected duration of the facility and the current age on the final result. | ||
| ● the useful life of the building is calculated by a mathematical formula (discount rate) which establishes a connection between the physical life of the building and all types of obsolescence; | |||
| ● the maximum and minimum adaptive reuse potential of the building is calculated based on a series of equations (the curve – “obsolescence function” and equations that derive from a geometric statement about the proportionality of the parallel sides of similar triangles); | |||
| ● a scale of potential facilities for adaptation in percentages has been established, within which several levels have been determined. | |||
| The iconCUR model | ● criteria are determined by indicators that are evaluated on a scale from 0 to 5; | ● the hierarchy between the indicators within the criteria is established by their percentage share, which changes the value of the criteria, and thus the outcome of the evaluation. | Quantitative/Visual PROMETHEE method (GAIA) |
| ● the influence of the indicators on the total value of the criteria is determined by the percentage share (variable); | |||
| ● the final result is obtained in a 3D diagram where the object is positioned within the spatial grid with criteria whose values are entered as coordinates. The edges of the spatial lattice represent possible types of interventions. The decision on the intervention is determined by the distance in the coordinates of the object from some of the edges (type of intervention) of the spatial grid. | |||
| The PAAM model | ● indicators are evaluated by a descriptive scale whose qualitative values are quantified; | ● the hierarchy between criteria and indicators within the criteria exists and is expressed by their percentages. | Qualitative and quantitative/PCA method |
| ● the value of the indicator is determined by the percentage of the same value of the same indicator in the analyzed case studies on which the analyzed intervention has already been conducted and the maximum and minimum value of this criterion in cases of adapted buildings; | |||
| ● the obtained criterion values are qualitative; | |||
| ● the final result is determined by the percentage of criteria and their values. |