dc.rights.license | Kūrybinių bendrijų licencija / Creative Commons licence | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Kutut, Vladislavas | |
dc.contributor.author | Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras | |
dc.contributor.author | Lazauskas, Marius | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2025-05-16T10:55:15Z | |
dc.date.available | 2025-05-16T10:55:15Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1877-7058 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://etalpykla.vilniustech.lt/handle/123456789/157627 | |
dc.description.abstract | Numerous countries are trying to find the best method for suitable management of real estate objects that encompass both material value
and cultural property. Cultural property can be defined as historical heritage in the form of volumetric and planned spaces of buildings.
Yet another problem lurks in utilization and maintenance of such buildings, which are usually regulated by national legislation thus
aggravating certain decision-making processes related to their adjustment to the needs of the public or investors. This article addresses the
status of some buildings located in the historic city centre of Vilnius and analyses indicators, on the basis of which such buildings could
be assessed in order to identify their need for reconstruction, considering archaeological, historical, architectural, economic, social and
other arguments. As experience in reconstruction suggests, such decisions demand for well-reasoned and precise concepts as each hasty
conclusion usually results in mistakes that demand for additional work and funds. ARAS method, which is well-known in decision-making,
have been chosen to design the algorithm for priority setting. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 5 p. | en_US |
dc.format.medium | Tekstas / Text | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.relation.uri | https://etalpykla.vilniustech.lt/handle/123456789/156173 | en_US |
dc.rights | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International | * |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ | * |
dc.source.uri | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705813008163 | en_US |
dc.subject | cultural heritage building | en_US |
dc.subject | Analytical Hierarchy Process | en_US |
dc.subject | ARAS | en_US |
dc.subject | decision method | en_US |
dc.subject | construction project | en_US |
dc.title | Assessment of priority options for preservation of historic city centre buildings using MCDM (ARAS) | en_US |
dc.type | Konferencijos publikacija / Conference paper | en_US |
dcterms.accessRights | Laisvai prieinamas / Openly available | en_US |
dcterms.accrualMethod | Rankinis pateikimas / Manual submission | en_US |
dcterms.issued | 2013-05-17 | |
dcterms.license | CC BY NC ND | en_US |
dcterms.references | 21 | en_US |
dc.description.version | Taip / Yes | en_US |
dc.contributor.institution | Vilniaus Gedimino technikos universitetas | en_US |
dc.contributor.institution | Vilnius Gediminas Technical University | en_US |
dc.contributor.faculty | Statybos fakultetas / Faculty of Civil Engineering | en_US |
dcterms.sourcetitle | Procedia Engineering | en_US |
dc.description.volume | vol. 57 | en_US |
dc.publisher.name | Elsevier | en_US |
dc.publisher.country | United Kingdom | en_US |
dc.publisher.city | Oxford | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.04.083 | en_US |