ValueAssessmentofTraditionalRuralArchitecture:Preservationand SustainableDevelopmentinSuzhou’sSixVillages
Thesisby
YanXin AThesis
SubmittedtoCollegeofDesignandEngineering throughtheDepartmentofArchitecture inPartialFulfillmentoftheRequirementsforthe DegreeofMasterofArtsinArchitecturalConservation attheNationalUniversityofSingapore
Singapore 2024
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Iextendmydeepestgratitudetomysupervisor,ProfDrJohannesWidodo, forhisunwaveringsupportandguidancethroughoutmyjourneyatthe NationalUniversityofSingapore.HisinsightfulperspectivesonSuzhou's ruralarchitectureandhisprofessionaladvicegreatlyenrichedmy understandingandapproachtomyresearchProfWidodo'sencouragement anddedicationtomyacademicgrowthhavebeeninvaluable,andIfeel privilegedtohavecompletedmydegreeunderhismentorship,alongwiththe supportoftheentireteam. IamalsosincerelythankfultoProf.Dr.HoPuayPeng,whosevaluable suggestionsandfeedbacksignificantlyenhancedthequalityofmyresearch Additionally,IappreciateDr.NikhilJoshiforprovidingmetheopportunityto exploreconservationtechniquesandoperationalframeworkswithin architecturalconservation,whichenrichedthescopeofmystudy.
Abstract
China'sculturalheritageisrichanddiverse,shapedbycenturiesofhistorical evolution.Thetraditionalarchitectureofruralvillagesreflectsawealthof culturalcharacteristics,embodyingdeephistoricalandregionalsignificance (Hough1992)Thisstudyconductsavalueassessmentofsixtraditional culturalvillagesinSuzhou,aimingtoexploremethodstodeterminethevalue ofruralarchitecturalheritageandtoprovideafoundationforfuture developmentplanningofthesevillages.Theresearchemploysstatistical analysis(Delphimethod)andAnalyticHierarchyProcess(AHP),with evaluationcriteriacategorizedintofourprimarydimensions:scientificvalue, socialvalue,artisticvalue,andusevalue,wheresocialvalueholdsthe greatestweight.Atthesub-criterialevel,15factorswereconsidered, includingbuildingage,structure,materials,environmentalcompatibility, constructiontechniques,decorativestyles,modificationstoarchitectural forms,location,scale,utilizationrate,buildinglayout,surrounding environment,andeconomicviability.Together,theseelementsforma comprehensiveframeworkforarchitecturalvalueassessment.Derivedfrom thesecriteria,twocategoriesareidentifiedtoclassifythesixvillages: "excellent"and"moderate."Villagesratedas"excellent"achievedhigher scoresasaresultoftheirrepresentativearchitecturalforms,strategic locations,andwell-maintainedconditions.
1.0Introduction
1.1ResearchBackground
TheimplementationoftheruralrevitalizationstrategyacrossChinahas broughtsignificantopportunitiesforruraldevelopment(Zhou,Li,andXu 2020).Rootofnationalculture,ruralarchitecturehasevolvedintoafocal pointaswellasadifficultfeatureofruraldevelopmentChinahasunderlined thepreservationoftraditionalvillagesmoreandmorestartinginthe twenty-firstcentury,implementingpoliciesandlawsincludingtheTraditional VillageEvaluationandIdentificationIndexSystem(Trial)(2012),theBasic RequirementsfortheCompilationofTraditionalVillageProtectionand DevelopmentPlans(Trial)(2013),andtheGuidanceonTraditionalVillage Protection(2014).Theseprojectsseektoimprovethepreservationofhistoric communities.Thesurvivalofoldsettlementsisstillunderdangerevenif policyframeworksaregraduallyimprovingDatafromtheChinaVillage CultureResearchCenteratHunanUniversityshowthataverageannual declineintraditionalvillagesintheYangtzeandYellowRiverbasinsis7.3%, meaningaround1.6villagesvanishdaily.Chinahasrespondedbysteppingup itssupportoftraditionalvillagesthroughfinancialsubsidiesandprotective protectionsince2012(Yan2016)
Traditionalvillagesaretypicallydefinedasthoseestablishedearlyonand possessingrichtraditionalresources(Wangetal2024)Theyrepresenta formoflivingculturalheritagethatreflectsthelifestyle,socialculture,and ethniccharacteristicsofaspecifichistoricalperiodandregionalunit(Olsen 2010).Unlikehistoricculturalvillages,traditionalvillagesplacegreater emphasisonthecontinuousexistenceofagriculturalsettlementheritage, focusingonpreventingdamagefromrealculturalelementsandtheliving transmissionofunphysicalculturalheritage(Zhou,Chu,andDu2019).
Since2012,theMinistryofHousingandUrban-RuralDevelopment,along withthreedifferentministries,hasactivelyundertakentheselectionand registrationoftraditionalvillagesintheChineseTraditionalVillageDirectory (Li2024).Asof2023,Suzhouishometo14nationallyrecognizedtraditional villagesand71provinciallyrecognizedtraditionalvillagesinJiangsu. ConsideringthecharacteristicsofruralareasinSuzhou,thisstudy establishesacorrespondingvalueassessmentsystemandproposesanew methodtoaddressissuesrelatedtotheweightingoffactorsinrural architecturalheritageandtheidentificationofprotectionlevels.
1.2ResearchObjectives
Inthedevelopmentofruralarchitecturalheritage,itisessentialtofirst assessitsvalue.Onlythroughthisevaluationcaneffectiveguidancebe
providedforthefurtherrenovationandutilizationofruralheritage(Lietal.
2023)Preliminaryresearchonruralarchitecturalheritagehasprimarily focusedonaspectssuchasstructure,materials,andphysicalenvironment. However,therehasbeennosystematicstudyonthedevelopmentof Suzhou’sruralarchitecturalheritagefromavalueassessmentperspective. Therefore,thisstudyapproachestheissuefromthisangle,aimingtoextract thepositiveelementsofSuzhou’sruralarchitecturalheritageandapplythem tocontemporaryprojects,offeringafoundationforplanningand developmentforsixvillagesbyprovideddesignersandmanagers.
2.ResearchMethodology
Thisstudyemploysfieldsurveys,questionnaires,andexpertinterviews,with researchbasedondatacollectedfromon-siteinvestigationsTheresearch processisasfollows:
1ConductfieldsurveysinSuzhou’straditionalvillagestocollect extensivedataandinformation,layingafoundationforsubsequent work.
2.Buildanevaluationindexsystemforruralarchitecturalheritage valuesthroughaliteraturereview.
3AnalyzeandimplementtheindexsystemusingtheDelphi approachandanalyticalhierarchyprocess(AHP).
Oftenappliedinfieldsofgreatambiguity,theDelphimethodisamethodical, orderedapproachtoexpertconsultationBymeansofseveralroundsof anonymousquestionnairesorsurveys,theDelphimethodcompilesexpert opinionsandofferscommentstoeveryparticipant,thereforeenablingthem tochangetheirperspectivedependingonothers'comments.Following multipleroundsofopiniongatheringandmodification,aconsensusor generalagreementresults.
AmericanoperationsresearcherThomasL.Saatydevisedthemathematical decision-makingtoolwhichisoftenregardedastheAnalyticHierarchy Process(AHP)(SaatyandVargas2011).AHPsplitscomplexissuesinto multiplelevels(suchascriteria,sub-criteria,goals,andalternatives)and formedahierarchicalrepresentation(VaidyaandKumar2006).AHPassigns weightsdependingonrelativeimportancebymeansofpairwisecomparisons ofcomponentsateverystageduringthedecision-makingprocess Ultimately,thewholeweightsofthealternativeshelpdecision-makersto selectthebestone.AHPisextensivelyrelevantformulti-criteria decision-makingandsophisticatedproblemanalysissinceitcanmix qualitativeandquantitativeaspects
IntegratingtheDelphitechniquewithAHPwastheinitialphaseofthisstudy inordertocreateanevaluationmodelforconventionaltowns.Afterthat,this modelwastestedincasestudiesemployingDelphitechniquetocompile
expertopinionsinadditiontofielddatapartiallyderivedfromsurveys.Excel toolswereappliedfordatacomputationandanalysisthroughoutthe researchprocedure.
2.1StructuralAnalysisoftheValueEvaluationIndexSystem
Heritagevaluescomeinseveralcategories(Owens,Bolli,andZinman2002). WhilePruzinclassifiedthemintointrinsicandextrinsicvalues(Liuetal. 2024),Rieglsplitthemintosixgroupsdependingoncommemorativeand modernvalues(Lamprakos2014)Commoncriteriaincludetechnical,artistic, andhistoricalvalues;othercategoriescouldchangebasedontheresearch setting(Tangetal.2022).Thisstudyreferencesthesecategoriesandadopts sixformsofvaluefromtheChinesePrinciplesfortheConservationof HeritageSites,soaddingeconomicvaluetoestablishathoroughevaluation system:historical,artistic,scientific,social,cultural,andfinancialvalues.
ThreeelementsformSuzhou'sassessmentindexsystemforrural architecturallegacy:"factorhierarchy,""evaluationfactors,"and"factor explanation."Threelevelscomprisethe"factorhierarchy:thealternative layer,thecriterialayer,andthegoallayer."Thefirstlevelisthe"evaluationof Suzhou'sruralarchitecturalheritagevalue."Thesecondlevel,thecriteria layer,consistsofbasiccomponentsselected,classified,andanalyzedbased onfactorsaffectingthevalueofSuzhou’sruralarchitecturalheritage.The
thirdlevel,thealternativelayer,providesamoredetailedbreakdownofthe criteriaThe"factorexplanation"includesdescriptionsandinterpretationsof thesecondaryindicators.
Buildingonareviewandsummaryofchartersandresearchliteraturerelated totheprotectionofruralarchitecturalheritage,thisstudyconductedan investigationandcharacteristicanalysisofvariouselementsandsystems withinSuzhou’straditionalvillages,identifyingsixmainvalues:cultural, historical,technical,social,artistic,andeconomic.
Fromaculturalperspective,thebrick-and-tileindustrialheritageofJinxiis closelylinkedwiththeregionalbrickculture,reflectingtheindustrialculture oftheregion'seconomicdevelopment(Yietal.2020).Thus,itisnecessaryto recognizeitsculturalvaluefromtheperspectiveofrespectingandprotecting culturaldiversity.Historicalvaluemainlyconcernstheassociationbetween theheritageandsignificanthistoricaleventsorfigures,aswellasthe historicalinformationembeddedwithintheheritage(Harvey2001).Giventhat thestudy'sobjectsdatebacktomoderntimes,thedurationoftheheritage wasnotusedasasub-criterionScientificandtechnicalvalue,akeyfactorin modernindustrialheritage,isassessedthroughaspectssuchasconstruction techniques,architecturallayoutplanning,andthescientificandadvanced natureofproductionfacilities(PardoAbad2020).Socialvaluefocuseson theemotionalties,collectivememory,andcommunitylifeconnectedto
regionalbrick-and-tileindustrialheritage(TrungandSirisuk2024).Artistic valueconsiderstheaestheticaspectsofbrick-and-tileindustrial architecture,includingtheoverallfactorylayout,industrialstructures, equipment,andtheartisticinformationcarriedbytheseelements.Economic valuecanbedividedintotheheritage'sinherentmonetaryworth,itsresource andenvironmentalvalue,theeconomicbenefitsfromtherevitalizationof architecturalheritage,andthespacefortourismgrowthrelatedtothe brick-and-tileindustry.Basedonthisanalysis,thisresearchhasestablished acomprehensive"ValueEvaluationIndexSystemforSuzhou'sRural ArchitecturalHeritage."
2.2LiteratureReview
In1972,TheConventionConcerningtheProtectionoftheWorldCulturaland NaturalHeritageadoptedbyUNESCOestablishedevaluationcriteriafor culturalheritage(Gruber1973).Regardingarchitecture,choosingcultural legacycallsforhistorical,artistic,scientific,andaestheticallypleasing representativenessinlinewithauthenticity(WatertonandWatson2010). Includedunderthescopeofassessmentaretraditionalbuildingswith outstandingexperientialrelevanceaswellasthoseconnectedwith significantpersonalitiesandevents.
Emphasizingtheneedoftheculturalsettingandmilieuinwhichthelegacy persists,theNaraDocumentonAuthenticity(Gruber1973)underlinedthat thesefactorssignificantlyinfluencevaluejudgment.TheCharterontheBuilt VernacularHeritage(Gruber1973)focusedonthetraditionalbackgroundof vernacularculture,emphasizingtheimportanceofregionalcharacteristics andestablishingvernaculararchitectureasanovelheritagecategorydistinct fromtraditionalheritageconservation(MuandAimar2022).
Theseinternationaldeclarationsprimarilyapproachheritageconservation fromaculturalperspective,shiftingfromabeginningwithaconcentrationon specificbuildingstoabroaderconcernforarchitecturalcomplexes,with increasedemphasisonculturalelementsinevaluations(Jokilehto2018). Meanwhile,severalscholarshavedevelopedtheirownperspectiveson architecturalevaluation,expandingattentiontoaspectssuchasuser experienceandpsychologicalfactors(Giffordetal2000)Intheyearof1992, PurcellandNasarestablishedanevaluationmodelfromtheperspectiveof environmentalperception,focusingonprototypecognition,familiarity, appearance,andaestheticexperience(Walsh,Craik,andPrice2000).Bass andLigtendag,in1995,arguedthattheessentialpartsofheritagevalueare typicity,rarity,andalignmentwiththeenvironmentaround(Charters, Spielmann,andBabin2017).In2002,Coeterierstatedthattheshapeofa heritagesiteismoreimportanttothelocalswholivethere.,withevaluation
criteriaincludingform,information,functionaluse,andemotionalfactors, whereformisabletobefurtherdividedintoaesthetics,authenticity, distinctiveness,andartistry(Giaoutzi2017).In2003,Mazzantiexplored heritageevaluationmethodsfromvariousperspectives,includingeconomic andculturalvalue,aswellaslocals'attitudes(Mazzanti2003).
AustralianprofessorFrederickRomberg(Zhu,Choi,andKang2021)asserted thathistoricarchitecturalheritagehastheobligationtoembodythesevalues: 1)historicalvalue,suchasscientificandemotionalsignificance(Clavir1998); 2)artisticvalue,encompassingart-historical,artisticquality,andintrinsic artisticvalue(Lignolaetal.2016);3)functionalvalue(Kowalskiand
Wiśniewski2013).RussianprofessorO.N.Prukinapproachedarchitectural valuefromtheperspectiveofconservationandrestoration,proposingthatit shallinvlove:1)historicalvalue(establishinghistoricalauthenticity),2)urban planningvalue(releventtohistoricurbanplanning),3)architecturalaesthetic value(presentationanddeterminationofarchitecturalaesthetics),4)artistic perceptionvalue(interactionbetweenartandperception),5)scientific restorationvalue(feasibilityofrestoration),and6)functionalvalue (integrationwithmodernusage)FrederickandPrukinbothemphasized functionalvalueintheirarchitecturalevaluationstofurtherclarifythe componentsofvalue.Table1summarizesvariousevaluationstandards.
Fromtheassessmentofarchitecturalvalue,itisevidentthatpastscholarly achievementshaveconcentratedonthescientific,historical,andartistic aspectsofarchitecturemostly(Morkunaiteetal.2019),largelybecausethese evaluationsoriginatedfromaculturalheritageperspective.Incontrast,social andusevalueshavebeenrelativelyneglected.Adistinguishingfeatureof vernaculararchitectureisitscontinuedusebyresidents,servingasplaces forlivingandproduction,thuspossessingutilityandreusability(Tipnis2012). Therefore,asanaspectofevaluatingthefunctionalvalueofreuse,theuse valueofbuildingsholdsowners'andusers'interestsinmind.Socialvalue,on theotherhand,isconsideredfromabroaderurban-ruralperspective,taking intoaccountthepositionofvernaculararchitecturewithinthesocioeconomic system,andfocusingonitsplanninganddevelopment(Shkaruba,Kireyeu, andLikhacheva2017).Thisstudybuildsonpreviousresearch,integrating differentsocialperspectivesontheevaluationofruralarchitectureto comprehensivelysummarizethecompositionofitsvalueThevalue compositionofruralarchitecturalheritageinthisstudyiscategorizedinto scientific,artistic,social,andusevalues. Table1.Differentbuildingvalueevaluationstandards.
theConservationof
HistoricTownsand
UrbanAreas(1987)’ ②architectural
‘Conventionforthe ProtectionoftheWorld Culturaland NaturalHeritage(1972)’
‘NaraAuthenticityIssue Document(1994)’
integrity③social value
①historica l ②artistic ③ scientific ④aesthetic authenticity
①cultural background
②environment location and background
‘The Vernacular ArchitectureHeritage Charter(1999)’ ①regional characteristics ②nature of vernacular architecture thescopeofheritage
‘Purcell,A.T.,&Nasar, J.L.(1992)’
①prototype perception ②familiarity
③appearance
④aesthetic experience environmental perception
‘Bass, H.G., &①typicality environmental
Ligtendag(1995)’ ②scarcity
③consistency characteristics ‘Cocterie,J.F.(2002)’①form
②information
③functionaluse
④emotionalfactors thesenseofform
‘MazantiM.(2003)’ ①economy
②cultural value
③residents’ attitudes development and sense
‘FrederickRomberg (1997)’
①historicalvalue (scientific value\emotional value)
②artistic value
(artistichistorical value\artistic qualityvalue\artistic valueitself) protection and function
‘O.N.Prukin(1997)’ ①historicalvalue,
②urbanplanning value, protection,restoration anddevelopment
‘Ashworth,G.J.,&
Tunbridge,J.E.(2000)’
③architectural
aestheticvalue, ④artistic
⑤perceptionvalue, ⑥scientific restorationvalue, ⑦functionalvalue
①heritagetourism
②local identity
③economic regeneration heritageasaresource
Table2.Summaryofbuildingvalueassessmentcriteria
Scientific value
History
Structure
Materials
Consistencywiththeenvironment
ArtisticvalueRepresentationandunityofarchitectural
crafts
Decoration
Summarized
Form
Buildingstructure
Spacelayout
Sustainableenvironment
Buildingeconomy
3.0EstablishingArchitecturalEvaluationStandards
3.1ExpertGroupSelection
Theselectionofexpertgroupmemberswasbasedontypicityand representativeness,focusingonprofessionalscloselyassociatedwiththe ruralculturalheritagesector.Theexpertgroupconsistedof26individuals, involving7designers,6universitylecturers,3governmentofficials,4 engineers,and6committeeheadsofthevillage
Designers:Architectswhohaveparticipatedinprojectsinvolvingthe renovation,restoration,andredevelopmentofruralbuildings
UniversityLecturers:Researchersspecializingintheconservation andutilizationofruralarchitecture,focusingonscientificresearchin relatedfields.
GovernmentOfficials:Personnelaccountfordevelopingplansand policiesforthedevelopmentofruralarchitecture
Engineers:Technicalprofessionalsinvolvedinruralbuilding constructionandenvironmentalmonitoring.
VillageCommitteeHeads:Representativesoflocalfarmers,reflecting theneedsandopinionsofthecommunity
Table3providedthedetailsoftheexpertgroupmembers. Table3.InformationoftheExpertGroup.
3.2EstablishingtheEvaluationCriteriaSystem
ThisworkusedtheDelphitechniqueandtheAnalyticHierarchyProcess(AHP) tobuildtheevaluationframeworkanddevelopthehierarchicalstructureof thevalueofruralarchitectureinSuzhouThecompleteAHPmodelis presentedasahierarchicalstructure,comprisingseveralkeycomponents: thegoallevel,criterialevel,andsub-criterialevel(seeTable4).Selecting evaluationcomponentsbasedonideasofcomprehensiveness, representativeness,quantifiability,relevance,andcomparabilityWithaneye towardauthenticity,integrity,andenvironmentalquality(Zhao,Xiong,and Zhang2024),thesefeaturesmostlyreflecttheinherentvaluequalitiesofthe Jinxibrickindustry.
GoalLevel:Overallevaluationofthevalueofruralarchitectural heritageinSuzhou.
CriteriaLevel:Servingasevaluationindicators,theseweredeveloped basedonpreviousresearch,consideringvarioussocialgroups' perspectivesonthevalueofruralarchitecture
Sub-CriteriaLevel:Wecanclassifythevaluecompositionasfollows: scientificvalue,artisticvalue,socialvalue,andusevalue.
Bymeansofamorethoroughandscientificassessmentoftheworthof Suzhou'sruralarchitecture,thisorganizedevaluationsystemenablesits preservationandadaptivereusebasedonsuchpremise.
Inputwasobtainedfrom26experts,whobasedonthecriterionlevelselected particularevaluationaspectseitheratthethirdlevel(sub-criteriaor alternativelevel).Theseelementswerethensummarizedandcategorized basedonexpertopinions,resultinginthefollowingclassification:
ScientificValueconsistsof4elements:theageofthebuilding, structuralrationality,thequalityofbuildingmaterials,and environmentaladaptability.
ArtisticValueincludes4elements:theintegrityofarchitecturalforms, therepresentativenessofdecorativeelements,craftsmanship typology,andtypicalityofarchitecturaldesign.
SocialValueiscomposedof3elements:geographicallocation,the scaleofthearchitecturalcomplex,andutilizationrate.
UseValueencompasses4elements:structuralsafety,rationalityof spatiallayout,suitabilityoftheindoorenvironment,andeconomic viabilityofthebuilding. TheevaluationsystemforthevalueofruralarchitectureinSuzhouisshown inTable4.
Table4.TheevaluationmodelofRuralArchitecture.
EvaluationoftheValue ofRuralArchitecturein
Scientificvalue
Artisticvalue
StructuralSafety
(2)ConstructingtheJudgmentMatrix
Expertswereinvitedtoparticipatethroughquestionnairestoevaluatethe elementsonalevel-by-levelbasis.A1-9scalewasemployedtoratethe
pairedcomparisonsoffactors,withfactorssignifiedasiandj.Pleaserefer toTable5forthescale
Table5.ScaleValuesandDescriptionsfortheJudgmentMatrix
Scale Description
aij=1
aij=3
aij=5
aij=7
aij=9
aij=2,4,6,8
Incomparisonofthetwoelementsiandj,elementiiiis correspondinglysignificantaselementj.
SlightlyMoreImportant:Incomparisonofthetwoelementsi andj,elementiisslightlymoreimportantthanelementj
ClearlyMoreImportant:Incomparisonofthetwoelementsi andj,elementiisclearlymoreimportantthanelementj.
StronglyMoreImportant:Incomparisonofthetwoelementsi andj,elementiisstronglymoreimportantthanelementj
AbsolutelyMoreImportant:Incomparisonofthetwoelementsi andj,elementiisabsolutelymoreimportantthanelementj.
IntermediateImportance:Theimportanceofelementirelative toelementjfallsbetweenthelevelsofimportancedescribed above
Reciprocal Inanoccasionthattherelativeimportancescaleofelementito
elementjisdenotedasaij,therelativeimportancescaleof elementjtoelementIwillbeaji=1/aij
Thepairwisecomparisonjudgmentmatrixconstructedaccordingtothe hierarchicalevaluationcriteriasystemAn×nisasfollows:
(3)Tomergetheexpertmatrices
ThegeometricmeanmethodisusedThescoringjudgmentmatricesformed bymexperts(m=1,2,..k)aremultipliedelement-wise,andthenthem-throot istakentoobtaintheintegratedjudgmentmatrixIn×n，thefollowingisthe formula:
(4)CalculationofIndicatorWeights
ThecalculationofindicatorweightsisthecoreaspectoftheAnalytic HierarchyProcess(AHP)Thestudyemploystheproduct-summethodto calculatetheweights.Initially,thencolumnvectorsoftheintegrated judgmentmatrixIarenormalizedtogetB=(bij)n×n,asfollows:
Next,thesumoftherowvectorsofthenormalizedmatrixistoobtain
Finally,normalizethesumvectortoobtaintheweightvectorWi：
(4)ConsistencyCheckoftheJudgmentMatrix
Verifyingthejudgmentmatrix'sconsistencyisanimportantfirststepin makingsuretheelements'weightsarereasonableandmakesense.
ConsistencyIndex(CI)andConsistencyRatio(CR)calculationsarerequired wheneverthejudgmentmatrixorderisbiggerthan2Thejudgmentmatrixis deemedtohaveacceptableconsistencyandweightdistributioniftheCRis lessthan0.1.Untiltheconsistencyrequirementsaresatisfied,thematrix elementsmustbeadjustediftheconditionisnotmet.
TheConsistencyIndex(CI)calculatingformulais:
λmaxisthelargesteigenvalueofthejudgmentmatrixHereistheformulafor thecalculation:
TheConsistencyRatio(CR)isrelatedtotheConsistencyIndex(CI)andthe RandomIndex(RI)TheexpressionforCRis:
Table6revealsthestandardvaluesoftheRandomIndex(RI),whichare showninthefollowingtable.
Table6AverageRandomConsistencyIndex(RI)ValuesforJudgmentMatrix Orderof the Matrix
4.0Datacalculation
Atotalof26expertswereinvitedtoparticipateintheAHPquestionnaire survey.Aftercollectingandorganizingtheresponses,apairwisecomparison judgmentmatrixwasobtainedfromeachexpertregardingtheimportanceof theindicators,whichwasthenusedtocalculatetheweights
CalculationofFirst-LevelIndicatorWeights
FortheprimaryindicatorsintheevaluationgroupofSuzhourural architecturevalues,namely:A1(ScientificValue),A2(ArtisticValue),A3 (SocialValue),andA4(UseValue),thematriceswereconsolidated.After confirmingthateachmatrixmettheconsistencyrequirements,the26
judgmentmatriceswerecombinedbytakingtheirgeometricmean,according toFormula2Theintegratedmatrixispresentedinthefollowingtable:
Table7:IntegratedJudgmentMatrixforA1-A4undertheEvaluationofRural
ArchitecturalValue
（1）Accordingtothetableabove,theintegratedjudgmentmatrix�is obtained：
�=
10.88231.90870.5675 11334118360493 052390544710478 1.7622.02842.0921
（2）Eachcolumnvectoroftheintegratedmatrix�isnormalizedtoobtain matrix�：
�= 0226301980279202236 02565022440268601942 0.11850.12230.14630.1883 0398704553030603939
（3）Therowvectorsofthenormalizedmatrix�aresummedtoobtainthe eigenvector�：
（4）Thevector�isnormalizedtoobtaintheweightvector�：
02318 02359 0.1438 0.3885
（5）Tocalculatethemaximumeigenvalueλmax：
（6）ConsistencyCheckoftheJudgmentMatrix퐶
Basedonthecalculationprocessabove,theweightsandconsistencycheck resultsforthefourprimaryevaluationindicatorsofSuzhou'srural architecture,asdeterminedbyexperts,areasfollows: Theweightforusevalueis0.3885,rankingfirst,indicatingthatusevalue holdsthemostsignificantpositionintheevaluationofSuzhou'srural
architecturalheritage.Thissuggeststhatthefunctionalityandpracticalityof thearchitecturearekeyfactorsinfluencingtheassessmentSuzhou'srural architecturalheritagenotonlycarriesculturalandhistoricalsignificancebut alsorequiresappropriatecontemporaryuse.Theevaluationincludesfactors suchasthestructuralsafetyofbuildings,rationalityofspatiallayout, suitabilityoftheindoorenvironment,andeconomicviability,providinga practicalfoundationforthepreservationanddevelopmentofrural architecture.
Theweightforartisticvalueis02359,rankingsecondArtisticvaluereflects theaestheticandculturalexpressionofthearchitecture,suchastheintegrity ofbuildingcomplexes,representativenessofdecorativeelements,typology ofcraftsmanship,anduniquenessofarchitecturaldesign.Intheevaluation, Suzhou'sruralarchitectureisrenownedforitsuniquecraftsmanshipand decorativearts,makingartisticvalueanimportantcomponentofthe comprehensiveassessment.
Theweightforscientificvalueis0.2318,rankingthird.Scientificvalueis mainlyreflectedinfactorssuchasthehistoricalageofthebuildings, structuralrationality,materialquality,andadaptabilitytotheenvironment. Theseindicatorsshowcasethetechnicalrationalityandsustainabilityofthe architectureoverlong-termuse,highlightingitsroleinpreservingtraditional craftsmanshipandbuildingtechniques
Theweightforsocialvalueis0.1438,rankingfourth.Althoughsocialvalue rankslowestinweight,itremainscrucialThisindicatorconsidersfactors suchasthegeographicallocationofruralbuildings,thescaleofbuilding complexes,andtheirutilizationrate,demonstratingthesocialfunctionof ruralarchitecturewithinthecommunityanditsconnectiontolocalculture.
ForthesecondaryindicatorsunderA1ScientificValue,namely:A11Yearof Construction,A12StructuralRationality,A13MaterialQuality,andA14 EnvironmentalAdaptability,thematriceswereconsolidated.Afterverifying thateachmatrixmettheconsistencyrequirements,the26judgment matriceswerecombinedbytakingtheirgeometricmeanaccordingto Formula2Theintegratedmatrixispresentedinthefollowingtable:
Table9IntegratedJudgmentMatrixforA11-A14underA1ScientificValue
BasedonFormulas3,4,5,6,7,and8,theweightsandconsistency calculationsfortheintegratedmatrixofA11-A14wereperformed,resultingin thefollowingranking:ConstructionYear>MaterialQuality>Environmental Adaptability>StructuralRationality.Specifically,ConstructionYear(A11)had aweightof0.5583,rankingfirst,indicatingthatitisthemostcriticalfactorin thescientificvalueofSuzhou'sruralarchitecture,reflectingthehistorical significanceandculturalheritageofthebuildings.MaterialQuality(A13)had aweightof0.1817,rankingsecond,highlightingtheimportanceofmaterials inthelong-termpreservationandstructuralstabilityofthebuildings.
EnvironmentalAdaptability(A14)hadaweightof0.1408,rankingthird, emphasizingtheharmoniouscoexistenceofthebuildingwithitsecological environment.StructuralRationality(A12)hadaweightof0.1192,ranking fourth,indicatingarelativelylowerimportance,yetstillasignificantpartof thearchitecturalscientificvaluethroughrationalstructuraldesign.
Overall,expertevaluationsrevealthatConstructionYearisthemostcritical evaluationfactor,followedbyMaterialQualityandEnvironmental Adaptability,underscoringthehistoricalvalueofthearchitecture,the durabilityofmaterials,andtheirintegrationwiththeenvironmentTheweight calculationresultsarepresentedinthetablebelow:
Evaluation Indicator
Adaptability A14
0.1408
ForthesecondaryindicatorsunderA2ArtisticValue,namely:A21Integrityof BuildingComplexes,A22RepresentativeArchitecturalDecorations,A23 Craftsmanship,andA24ArchitecturalDesign,thematriceswere consolidated.Afterconfirmingthateachmatrixmettheconsistency requirements,the26judgmentmatriceswerecombinedbytakingtheir geometricmeanaccordingtoFormula2.Theintegratedmatrixisillustrated inthefollowingtable:
Table11.IntegratedJudgmentMatrixforA21-A24underA1ScientificValue
Basedontheweightandconsistencycalculationresultsoftheintegrated matrixforA21-A24,therankingisasfollows:IntegrityofBuilding
Complexes>RepresentativeArchitecturalDecorations>Craftsmanship> ArchitecturalDesign
Specifically: IntegrityofBuildingComplexes(A21)hasaweightof0.3123,rankingfirst.
Thisindicatesthatintheassessmentofartisticvalue,theoveralldesign coherenceandintegrityofbuildingcomplexesarethemostcriticalfactors. Theintegrityofthebuildingcomplexnotonlyreflectsthespatialandvisual unityofthearchitecturallayoutbutalsodemonstratesthecoordinationofthe overallaestheticsoftraditionalruralarchitecture,whichiscrucialfor preservingandshowcasingtraditionalstyles.
RepresentativeArchitecturalDecorations(A22)hasaweightof0.2791, rankingsecond.Thisshowsthatdecorativeelementsoccupyanimportant positionintheevaluationofartisticvalue.Elementssuchascarvings, paintings,andornamentallinescanreflecttheculturalcharacteristicsand craftsmanshiplevelofspecificregionsandarethecoremanifestationsof traditionalarchitecturalaesthetics.
Craftsmanship(A23)hasaweightof02459,rankingthirdCraftsmanship mainlyreferstothetraditionalskillsandtechniquesusedintheconstruction process.Theseskillsreflectthecraftsmanshiplevelofartisansandthe
transmissionofarchitecturalculture,whichiswhytheycarryarelativelyhigh weightintheassessmentofartisticvalue
ArchitecturalDesign(A24)hasaweightof0.1628,rankingfourth.Thedesign andstyleofthearchitecturalformhaveanimportantimpactontheartistic senseofthebuildingasawholeAlthoughitsrelativeweightislower,it remainsanimportantcomponentoftheassessmentofartisticvalue, embodyingtheuniquenessandaestheticeffectofregionalarchitecture.The resultsoftheweightcalculationaredisplayedinthetablebelow:
Evaluation Indicator
Integrityof
Representative
ForthesecondaryindicatorsunderA3SocialValue,namely:A31 GeographicalLocation,A32ScaleofBuildingComplexes,andA33Utilization Rate,thematriceswereconsolidated.Afterensuringthateachmatrixmet theconsistencyrequirements,the26judgmentmatriceswerecombinedby takingtheirgeometricmeanaccordingtoFormula2.Theintegratedmatrixis presentedinthefollowingtable:
Table13:IntegratedJudgmentMatrixforA31-A33underA3SocialValue
Basedontheweightandconsistencycalculationresultsoftheintegrated matrixforA31-A33,therankingisasfollows:UtilizationRate>Geographical Location>ScaleofBuildingComplexes.
Specifically:
UtilizationRate(A33)hasaweightof0.6861,rankingfirst.This indicatesthatintheevaluationofsocialvalue,theactualfrequencyof useandfunctionalityofthebuildingisthemostcriticalfactor.High utilizationmeansthatthebuildingstillhasasignificantimpacton communitylife,reflectingitssocialconnectivityandfunctionality.
GeographicalLocation(A31)hasaweightof01577,rankingsecond Thisshowsthatgeographicallocationholdscertainimportanceinthe assessment,asfavorablegeographicconditionscanenhancethe visibilityandattractivenessofthebuilding.
ScaleofBuildingComplexes(A32)hasaweightof0.1562,ranking thirdAlthoughrelativelylessimportant,largerbuildingcomplexescan createacompletesocialspaceandculturalatmosphere,helpingto keepthetraditionalcharacteristicsandcommunityfunctionsofrural areas.
Theresultsofweightcalculationarepresentedinthetablebelow:
Scaleof
ForthesecondaryindicatorsunderA4UseValue,namely:A41Structural Safety,A42RationalityofSpatialLayout,A43SuitabilityofIndoor Environment,andA44EconomicViability,thematriceswereconsolidated Afterconfirmingthateachmatrixmettheconsistencyrequirements,the26 judgmentmatriceswerecombinedbytakingtheirgeometricmeanaccording toFormula2.Theintegratedmatrixispresentedinthefollowingtable:
Table15:IntegratedJudgmentMatrixforA41-A44underA4UseValue
Basedontheweightandconsistencycalculationresultsoftheintegrated matrixforA41-A44,thefollowinginterpretationoftheusevalue(A4)for Suzhou'sruralarchitectureisprovided:Therankingisasfollows:Economic Viability>RationalityofSpatialLayout>SuitabilityofIndoorEnvironment> StructuralSafety.
Specifically:
EconomicViability(A44)hasaweightof0542,rankingfirstThis suggeststhatthemostimportantdeterminantofusevalueappraisalis economicone.Determiningtheusevalueofbuildingsdependsmostly oneconomicbenefitsandcost-effectiveness,particularlyinthe preservationandadaptivereuseofruralarchitecturewherefinancial viabilitydeterminesthepossibilityforsustainabledevelopment
RationalityofSpatialLayout(A42)hasaweightof0.1678,ranking second.Thisshowsthatawell-designedspatiallayoutenhancesthe practicalityandfunctionalityofthebuilding,withefficientspace utilizationandapositiveuserexperiencebeingthecoreelements
SuitabilityofEnvironment(A43)hasaweightof0.1665,rankingthird. Thisindicatesthatasuitableenvironment,includinggoodventilation, lighting,andtemperaturecontrol,enhancesthecomfortandlivability
ofthebuilding,whichisimportantforthedailyuseofruralbuildings andattractingvisitors
StructuralSafety(A41)hasaweightof0.1236,rankingfourth. Althoughrelativelylessimportant,itremainsafundamental prerequisiteforensuringthelong-termuseandfunctionalityof buildings,servingasabasicsafeguard
Evaluation
Indicator
Table16:WeightCalculationResultsforA41-A44
WeightSummary
Thecalculatedresultsfromtheprevioussectionsaresummarized,andthe relativeweightsofeachindicatorarecompiled.Byprogressivelymultiplying therelativeweights,thecomprehensiveweightforeachindicatorisobtained. Thecomprehensiveweightsrepresentthehierarchicalrankingofthe lowest-levelindicatorsinrelationtothegoalasawhole.Thespecificresults arepresentedinthetablebelow:
Table17:SummaryofIndicatorWeights
Target
Artistic
Adaptability A14
Integrityof
Representativ
eArchitectural
Decorations
Craftsmanship
Architectural
Geographical Location
Scaleof
Utilization
Structural
Rationalityof
5.0CaseStudyofRuralArchitectureinSuzhou
5.1CurrentSituationSurveyofSixVillages
TraditionalruralarchitectureinSuzhouisprimarilydistributedinthe distinctiveenvironmentoftheJiangnanwatertowns,showcasingarich historicalandculturalheritage(Jiangetal.2023).Thisstudyselectedsix typicalvillagesinSuzhouforastatussurvey,includingKaixiangongVillage, XibangVillage,ZhupangVillage,andLuxiangAncientVillageinDongshan Town,BeilianVillageinTongliTown,andZhaojiazhuangVillageinLuzhiTown Thesevillages,withtheiruniquegeographicallocationsandtraditional architecturalstyles,representtypicalruralarchitecturalsettlementsin Suzhou,fullyreflectingthetraditionallifestyleandarchitecturalformsof watertownsintheJiangnanregion.
KaixiangongVillageandBeilianVillagehaveachievedremarkablesuccessin theadaptivereuseoftraditionalbuildings,with60%and70%ofthe structures,respectively,beingconvertedintohomestays,culturalexperience centers,orexhibitionbasesThisdemonstratesthepositiverolethatthe culturalandcreativeindustries,alongwithtourism,haveplayedinreviving thetraditionalarchitectureofthesevillages.However,ZhupangVillageand ZhaojiazhuangVillagehaveahigherproportionofbuildingsthatareeither idleorlackmaintenanceInparticular,ZhupangVillagehas35%ofits traditionalstructuresleftunattended,highlightingtheimpactofanaging populationandthetrendoflabormigration.
InZhaojiazhuangVillage,although25buildingshavebeendesignatedas culturalheritagesitesandarewell-maintained,20%ofthestructuresremain vacant,posingongoingchallengesforfutureuseandmaintenance.Xibang Villagepresentsauniquecasewhere20%ofitstraditionalbuildingshave beenconvertedintoteahousesandhandicraftshops,yetitalsofacesissues relatedtotheoverdevelopmentoftourism,whichhasledtothedamageof originalarchitecturalfeatures.Over10%ofthebuildingshaveundergone extensivemodernization.
LuxiangAncientVillageservesasamoresuccessfulexample,with40%ofits traditionalbuildingsbeingrenovatedandutilizedfortourismdevelopment, illustratingthepositiveoutcomesofcombiningculturaltourismwiththe preservationoftraditionalarchitecture.Overall,fromthe1980sto2015,the rateofdisappearanceoftraditionalbuildingsinthesevillageswascloseto 50%Between2015and2020,therateoflossacceleratedfurther,reaching 60%.
5.2CaseStudyandAnalysis
IntheevaluationstudyoftraditionalarchitectureacrosssixvillagesinSuzhou, 26expertsconducteddetailedscoringbasedontheestablishedevaluation criteria.Atotalof156scoringsheetsweredistributed,allofwhichwere completedandvalidated.Throughscientificstatisticalanalysis,theresearch teamintegratedthecalculationprocessanddatapresentationofthe evaluationresultstogainadeeperunderstandingofeachvillage's performanceinarchitecturalpreservationanddevelopment.
Firstly,inthecalculationofscoresatthesub-indexlevel,theaveragescore foreachevaluationelementwasobtainedbyaveragingtheexperts'ratings.
TheseoutcomesarepresentedinTable18andarevisuallyportrayedin Figure4usingalinegraph,whichhelpstounderstandthedifferencesin villageperformanceonspecificindicators.Secondly,inthecalculationof scoresattheindicatorlevel,aweightedanalysiswasconductedby processingthescoresfromthesub-indexlevel,leadingtothefinal indicator-levelscoresforeachvillageTable18displaystheseoutcomesand arefurtherillustratedbyalinechartinFigure5,revealingthecorrelations anddisparitiesbetweendifferentevaluationelements.
Finally,byapplyingmultiplecombinationsofweightsacrossthe indicator-levelelements,theoveralltarget-levelcompositescoreforeach villagewascalculated.Thisscorereflectsthecomprehensiveperformanceof eachvillageintermsofpreservationanddevelopment.Thedetailedresults arelistedinTable18,andtheinfluenceofeachevaluationelementonthe compositescoreisshowninFigure1throughacomparativelinegraphof evaluationattenuationelements.
1)AnalysisofSub-StandardLevelElements
TheevaluationresultsofthetraditionalarchitectureinsixvillagesofSuzhou revealsignificantdifferencesinperformanceacrossvarioussub-standard levelelements.Regardingtheconstructionyear(A11),KaixianGongVillage scoredthehighest,indicatingthatithaspreservedagreaternumberof historicalbuildingsandpossessesarichculturalheritage.Incontrast,Xibang Village,primarilycomposedofmodernstructures,receivedthelowestscore
Fortherationalityofbuildingstructure(A12),XibangVillageperformed exceptionallywell,reflectingimprovementsinthestabilityandpracticalityof itsarchitecturethroughrecentrenovationsandmaintenance.KaixianGong Villageshowedrestrictionsinthisregard,ontheotherhand.
WithregardtoMaterialQuality(A13),ZhaojiacunVillageshone,displayinga highdegreeofmaterialselectionandqualitycontrol.Ontheotherhand, LuxiangAncientVillagegotthelowestratingperhapsbecauseof deterioratingbuildingmaterials.WhileKaixianGongVillagedisplayedpoorer performanceinthisregard,XibangVillageandZhaojiacunVillagebothclearly exhibitedgreatadaptationofbuildingstotheirsurroundings(A14),therefore indicatingagoodintegrationwiththenaturalsurroundings.
KaixianGongVillagetoppedtheintegrityofbuildinggroups(A21)andthe representativenessofarchitecturaldecorations(A22),sodemonstrating greatcoherenceandhistoricalrepresentationinsideitsarchitectural ensemble.Bycontrast,XibangVillagelackedgeneralcohesivenessand decorativeelements.Reflectingitsarchitecturalappealandtypicity, ZhaojiacunVillageexcelledinCraftsmanship(A23)andBuildingAesthetics (A24);ZhuhangVillage'sdesignqualitieswerelessclear.
XibangVillageledintermsofgeographicposition(A31)andbuildinggroup scale(A32)becauseofitsproximitytothecityandhandytransit;Kaixian
GongVillagescoredlowerbecauseofitsisolatedlocation.WhileXibang Villagehadaratherlowutilizationrate,KaixianGongVillagehadthehighest UtilizationRate(A33),thereforesuggestingagreatdegreeofbuildingusage.
ZhaojiacunVillageandKaixianGongVillagedidwellinthestudyofBuilding StructureSafety(A41)andtherationalityofspatiallayout(A42),with reasonablelayoutsandclearfunctionalzoning,socontributingtotheirsafety.
ZhaojiacunVillagecontinuedtoexcelinIndoorEnvironmentalSuitability (A43),providingacomfortableindooratmosphere,whereasLuxiangAncient VillagefacedrelativelypoorerenvironmentalconditionsRegardingBuilding EconomicViability(A44),KaixianGongVillagedemonstratedstrong economicperformancewithgoodcost-effectivenessinrenovations,while XibangVillageexhibitedlowereconomicviability.
2)AnalysisofSub-StandardLevelIndicators
FromtheperspectiveofScientificValue,KaixianGongVillagescoredthe highest(005456),indicatingitsexcellenceinthepreservationofhistorical architectureandstructuraldesign.Notably,theconstructionofJiangVillage servesasanexample;KaixianGongVillagehasenhancedthedurabilityand adaptabilityofitsbuildingsthroughtherestorationandpreservationof traditionalresidences,effectivelyretainingarichhistoricalcharacterwhile implementingrationalstructuralreinforcements.BeilianVillagefollowed
closelywithascoreof(0.04301);itsarchitecturalstructureisreasonable,and materialqualityishigh,althoughthereisaneedforimprovementinthe protectionandmaintenanceofhistoricalbuildings.LuxiangAncientVillage scored(0.03659)withgoodmaterialqualityandenvironmentaladaptability. Bypreservingtheoriginalappearanceofitsoldstreetsandstonepaths,it hascreatedanarchitecturalensemblethatcombinesbotholdandnew elements.ZhaojiacunVillage(0.03789)hasmaintainedagoodbuilding structureandenvironmentaladaptability,butthepreservationofhistorical buildingsisrelativelyaverage.ZhuhangVillage(0.03823)hasenhancedits scientificvaluethroughthetransformationofabrickandtileculturalcenter, whichshowcasestraditionalbrick-makingtechniquesHowever,itsoverall buildingageisrelativelyshort,resultinginalowerhistoricalvalue.Xibang Villagescoredthelowest(0.0314),likelyduetoextensivebuilding renovationsandarelativelysmallnumberofhistoricalstructures,leadingto weakerperformanceintermsofscientificvalue Table19.Thescoreoftheelementsoftheindexlevel.
Figure2.Thescoreoftheelementsoftheindexlevel.
Figure3.EvaluationofSuzhou’sruralarchitecture
IntermsofArtisticValue,KaixianGongVillage(0.04895)standsout prominently,showcasingitsartisticexpressivenessthroughtheintegrityof itsoverallarchitecturalensembleandtherepresentativenessofits decorations.TherestorationprojectinJiangVillagehaspreservedtraditional architecturalornamentationandintricatecarvingdetails,establishingitasan importantbaseforshowcasingSuzhou'straditionalcultureLuxiangAncient Village(0.04087)andZhaojiacunVillage(0.04076)closelyfollow,particularly LuxiangAncientVillage,wherethestonebridgesandstone-carved decorationswithinthevillagestillexhibitrichclassicalJiangnanelements. Theseculturaldetailssignificantlyenhancetheartisticqualityofthe villageBeilianVillage(004662)combinesmodernartisticdecorationswith traditionalarchitecture,resultinginaslightlyweakeroverallintegritybutstill retainingartisticvalue.ZhuhangVillage(0.03458)hasrevitalizedtraditional brick-makingtechniquesthroughthetransformationofitsbrickandtile culturalcenter,incorporatingsomemodernartisticelementswithinthe center.XibangVillage(0.02414)receivedthelowestscoreinartisticvalue, primarilyduetoalackoftraditionalartisticelements.However,thelocal KunquOperaassociationenhancesthevillage'sculturalandartistic atmospherethroughregularKunquperformancesandacademicexchanges, helpingtopreservetraditionalartforms.
SocialValue,whichencompassesGeographicalLocation,BuildingGroup Scale,andUsageRate,reflectstheconnectionbetweenbuildingsand communitylifeaswellastheirpracticality(Zhaoetal.2015).KaixianGong Village(0.02759)scoresthehighestduetoitshighusagerateandfavorable geographicallocation.ThehistoricalbuildingsinJiangVillagehavebeen transformedintoacommunitycenter,providingvisitorswithrichcultural experiencesandconvenienttransportationfacilities,allowingthevillageto playasignificantroleincommunitylife.BeilianVillage(0.0257)featuresa moderatebuildingscaleandcomprehensivecommunityfunctions,withthe renovatedbuildinggroupservingasagatheringhubforresidents.Luxiang AncientVillage(002412)demonstratesstrongapplicability,butitssocial functionissomewhatlimitedbyitsgeographicallocation,necessitatingthe enhancementoftourismservicestoimproveitssocialfunctionality.Zhuhang Village(0.02262)andZhaojiacunVillage(0.02204)exhibitrelativelylow buildingusageratesNotably,whileZhuhangVillage'sbrickandtilecultural centerattractsvisitors,itsoverallscaleandcommunityengagementstill requireimprovement.XibangVillage(0.02183)hasthelowestsocialvalue, withitsbuildinggroup'ssocialfunctionsbeingrelativelylimited.Althoughthe presenceoftheKunquOperaassociationprovidesthevillagewithacultural symbol,itsgeographicallocationandinadequatesupportingfacilitiesrestrict theoverallexpressionofsocialvalue(Lin2017).
UsageValueassessestheStructuralSafety,SpatialLayoutRationality, EnvironmentSuitability,andEconomicViabilityofbuildings,makingitthe mostweightedindicatorintheoverallevaluation(Akhanovaetal.2020).
KaixianGongVillage(0.0829)excelsinusagevalue,particularlythroughthe transformationofJiangVillage,whereseveraloldbuildingswereconverted intoguesthousesandteahousesThishasresultedinarationalspatiallayout, highsafetystandards,andsignificanteconomicbenefits,effectivelyserving boththecommunityandvisitors.BeilianVillage(0.0787)followsclosely, demonstratinghigheconomicviabilityandsuitableenvironments;however, itsstructuralsafetyrequiresimprovement.LuxiangAncientVillage(0.0616) showsgoodusagevalue,particularlyinoverallfunctionalityandtourism services.ZhuhangVillage(0.0646)hasachievedareasonablespatiallayout throughtherenovationofthebrickandtileculturalcenterandsurrounding buildings,yetitstillhassafetyshortcomings.ZhaojiacunVillage(0.0584) needsenhancementineconomicbenefitsandcommunityfunctionsXibang Village(0.0423)hasthelowestusagevalue;despitethepresenceofthe KunquOperaassociationprovidingculturalactivities,theoverallsafetyand economicviabilityofitsbuildingsremainrelativelyweak.
Basedonthescoresofthefourprimaryindicators,thefinalrankingofthesix villagesisasfollows:KaixianGongVillage(0.214),BeilianVillage(0.194), LuxiangAncientVillage(0.1632),ZhuhangVillage(0.160),ZhaojiacunVillage
(0.1591),andXibangVillage(0.1197).KaixianGongVillageexhibitsthemost comprehensiveperformance,leadinginallindicators,particularlyinscientific, artistic,andusagevalue.Movingforward,itcancontinuetoenhancethe maintenanceoftraditionalarchitectureandpromotetheculturaltourism industry,possiblybyadoptingthearchitecturaltransformationmodelseenin JiangVillageBeilianVillageshowsoverallgoodperformance,withstrong artisticandusagevalue.Itisrecommendedtofurtherimproveitsscientific andsocialvalueaspects.LuxiangAncientVillageretainsagoodamountof historicalculture,butitssocialandeconomicfunctionsneedenhancement. Futureimprovementscouldincludeintroducingmorecommunityactivities andculturalexhibitionstoboostitsusagevalueZhaojiacunVillagehas relativelyhighartisticandscientificvalue,yetitrequiresimprovementin economicbenefitsandcommunityfunctions.Strengtheningtransportlinks withtheoutsideworldisadvisable.ZhuhangVillageneedstoenhanceits artisticandusagevalue,focusingonarchitecturalrestorationandfunctional optimization.Furtherdevelopmentoftheculturalcentercouldincreasethe practicalandculturalsignificanceofitsbuildings(Nocca2017).Xibang Villagehasthelowestscore,indicatingsignificantroomforimprovementin scientific,artistic,andusagevaluePrioritizingimprovementsinbuilding safetyandfunctionality,alongsideenhancingtheprotectionanddisplayof historicalculturalelementsparticularlythroughthepromotionoftheKunqu Operaassociationcouldfurtherenrichthevillage'sculturalatmosphere.