Evaluation of the Protection of Historical Buildings in Universities Based on RCM-AHP-FCE

Abstract

The accumulation of years imbues historical buildings within universities with a profound sense of heritage, evident not only in the temporal imprints within their internal spaces but also in the evolution of their external surroundings. This cultural legacy subtly enriches students’ spatial awareness of history and fosters a collective memory of campus context. Current scholarly inquiry into university historical buildings primarily revolves around comprehensive considerations encompassing the preservation of these edifices, the overarching planning of academic institutions, and the safeguarding of the distinctive features inherent to historical structures. However, the predominant focus lies on qualitative analyses, leaving a pressing need for quantitative assessments and the establishment of an evaluation framework to gauge the efficacy of historical building preservation in academia. Addressing this gap, this study employs the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation (FCE) to formulate the University Historical Building Protection Evaluation Framework (UHBPEF). Drawing from the examination and categorization of the primary instructional edifices within the Yujiatou campus of Wuhan University of Technology through the Research Classification Method (RCM), along with the consolidation of insights from experts and academic stakeholders, this study underscores the imperative of enhancing the scientific precision and pertinence of the university’s strategy for preserving historical buildings. By employing both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, this study offers innovative insights into the challenges facing historical building preservation in university settings, therefore propounding effective preservation strategies and offering a roadmap for future endeavors in this domain.

1. Introduction

Historical buildings on university campuses, regarded as valuable architectural heritage, play a significant role in many individuals’ recollections of their university years. University historical buildings are defined as those situated within university campuses and recognized as national or local outstanding historical buildings. Scholars have investigated various aspects of the preservation of these structures. Carla Balocco proposed that the preservation of university historical buildings could be integrated with energy design to achieve sustainability over their lifespan [1]. María Jesús Puy-Alquiza employed both qualitative and quantitative methods to assess the damage to the stone materials of the historical building at the University of Guanajuato’s Music School in Mexico [2]. Rocío Mora advocated for the establishment of Historical Building Information Modeling (HBIM) as a preservation strategy for university historical buildings [3]. However, existing research lacks a comprehensive evaluation system to identify specific deficiencies in the preservation of university historical buildings and to implement targeted preservation measures. In this context, the present study aims to explore the establishment of an evaluation system for the preservation of university historical buildings through a review of relevant theories and practices in the field. Utilizing the proposed evaluation system, an on-site investigation and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of the preservation status of the main teaching building at the Yujiatou campus of Wuhan University of Technology, a recognized historical building, will be conducted. By integrating qualitative and quantitative methodologies, this study seeks to identify the challenges in the preservation process of university historical buildings and to propose effective preservation strategies.

In essence, this investigation utilizes a pragmatic case study to elucidate the methodologies of Research Classification Method (RCM), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation (FCE) in the conservation endeavors of historical buildings within colleges and universities.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Research on the Protection of Historical Buildings in Universities

From a historical perspective, universities in Western countries were established earlier and have a longer historical evolution. Consequently, there are numerous historical buildings on these campuses [4]. These campus architectural heritages in the West are well-preserved under comprehensive legal and regulatory protections, maintaining the historical continuity of university development.

From the 19th century to the 1950s, Western countries enacted various laws and regulations to protect historical buildings, including those on university campuses. For example, the United Kingdom’s Ancient Monuments Protection Act of 1882 designated some historical buildings on the campuses of the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford as protected sites. In 1947, the Town and Country Planning Act included historical buildings on university campuses in its protection scope, such as the Cripps Hall student accommodation at the University of Nottingham [5]. By 1993, buildings like the Engineering Building at the University of Leicester and the Library at the University of Sussex were also listed for protection.

In 1976, during the celebration of the United States Bicentennial, attention was drawn to the historical monuments of the country’s older universities. To protect the historically significant campus heritage, the University of Virginia initiated a series of preservation efforts [6]. In 2002, the Getty Foundation launched the Getty Campus Heritage Initiative to support the management and preservation of historical buildings on university campuses. This initiative provided funding for the preservation work of numerous historically significant universities across the United States [7]. The Getty Foundation allocated different funding amounts based on the specific preservation needs of each historical building, as shown in

Table 1. List of historical buildings in universities funded by the Getty Foundation.

The University	Author, Year, and Reference	City	Building Age	Amount of Funding (USD)
Columbia University	Sila Akman. (2016) [7]	New York	1903	200,000
Harvard University	Sila Akman. (2016) [7]	Boston	1833	170,000
University of California	Sila Akman. (2016) [7]	Berkeley	1868	250,000
University of Chicago	Sila Akman. (2016) [7]	Chicago	1890	121,000
Brown University	Sila Akman. (2016) [7]	Providence	1764	170,000
Ohio State University	Sila Akman. (2016) [7]	Columbus	1989	200,000
Hollins University	Sila Akman. (2016) [7]	Roanoke	1842	130,000
Philadelphia University	Sila Akman. (2016) [7]	Philadelphia	1884	120,000
University of Arizona	Sila Akman. (2016) [7]	Tucson	1885	150,000
University of Oregon	Sila Akman. (2016) [7]	Eugene	1876	190,000
Emerson College	Sila Akman. (2016) [7]	Boston	1880	200,000
New York University	Sila Akman. (2016) [7]	New York	1831	180,000
University of Cincinnati	Sila Akman. (2016) [7]	Cincinnati	1895	150,000
University Of Hawaii	Sila Akman. (2016) [7]	Honolulu	1907	100,000

, striving to achieve optimal preservation outcomes for each site.

In 2005, Richard Dober, the visionary behind the Association of College and University Planners (SCUP), posited that the preservation of campus heritage ought to be approached holistically, integrating considerations of campus planning, design, and landscape [8]. Concurrently, Jin Yunfeng of Tongji University in China conducted seminal research, culminating in a comprehensive inventory and analysis of historical university buildings in Shanghai. Yunfeng scrutinized the historical edifices within the campus of the East China University of Political Science and Law, advocating for their collective preservation. Building upon this discourse, in 2008, Ma Rui of Shanghai Jiao Tong University underscored the significance of external spaces surrounding esteemed historical buildings. Rui emphasized the importance of considering the experiential aspects of these spaces, including the emotional resonance they evoke among inhabitants and the dynamic interactions fostered between educators and students. Such considerations, Rui argued, are pivotal in nurturing the vibrancy of university campuses.

In 2011, Audrain Calvert W anchored discussions on campus heritage management, advocating for a comprehensive approach that encompasses identification, strategic planning, procedural establishment, and sustained maintenance and funding. This framework underscores the multifaceted nature of safeguarding campus heritage [9]. In 2013, the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) called for global attention to campus heritage, sparking a wave of campus heritage preservation efforts in numerous universities worldwide. In 2014, Zhaoyue Zhao from Northeast Forestry University emphasized the need to consider visual factors, spatial factors, functional factors, and the coordination between new and old buildings in the protection and utilization of historical university buildings. In 2016, Xiaoni Zhang from Shanghai Jiao Tong University proposed constructive suggestions on methods for maintaining the color of historical university buildings in Shanghai. In 2018, many scholars globally suggested the use of AR technology to build interactive platforms between faculty, students, and campus historical buildings in the Internet era. In 2021, Rocío Mora proposed a novel preventive heritage protection method for the University of Salamanca library in Spain, integrating historical buildings into an HBIM (Historic Building Information Modeling) digital environment through 3D modeling to enable diagnostics and preventive protection via monitoring [3]. In 2022, the College of Charleston in the United States focused on the role and historical value of construction workers in addition to preserving historical buildings. In 2024, Ziqi Lin evaluated the preservation of university campus historical buildings from an energy perspective, utilizing the Urban Building Energy Model (UBEM) to protect the historical value of buildings.

In summary, the protection of historical buildings within university contexts underscores the need for enhanced quantitative analyses and refined, science-driven strategies. This imperative reflects a broader discourse aimed at fortifying the preservation efforts surrounding these invaluable cultural assets.

2.2. Analysis of Factors in the Evaluation Indicators for the Protection of Historical Buildings in Universities

Drawing upon pertinent legislation governing the safeguarding of cultural relics and historical edifices, the assessment of historical buildings within university settings can be quantified across five key dimensions: value assessment, utilization assessment, safety appraisal, maintenance evaluation, and stakeholders’ engagement.

2.2.1. Elements of Value Protection Evaluation

The assessment of value primarily revolves around three facets: historical, artistic, and scientific value.

Historical value is quantified through three key indices: original drawings, historical imagery, and archival documents [10]. Artistic value pertains to the aesthetic allure and visual delight offered by the interior, facade, or other architectural elements of the historic structure. This is discerned through interior ornamentation, facade features, and distinctive architectural elements [11]. Additionally, the scale of the historical building and its adequacy of ventilation and illumination serve as indicators reflecting the technological sophistication prevalent during the construction era.

2.2.2. Elements of Use Protection Evaluation

The utilization assessment primarily gauges the extent to which university historical buildings are actively utilized, considering factors such as occupancy and frequency of use. This evaluation encompasses the condition of walls, floors, roofs, and other elements within both the interior and exterior spaces of the building, as well as the surrounding environment.

The accessibility of the internal space of the historic building is indicative of its suitability for regular circulation. Meanwhile, the visual scope within the historical building encapsulates the panoramic view available from any vantage point within the interior space [12]. The external space of the building, formed by the building itself and its immediate surroundings, encompasses aspects such as accessibility and the presence of external amenities [13].

2.2.3. Elements of Safety Protection Evaluation

The safety assessment of historical buildings within university precincts, also known as risk assessment, entails considerations across three primary dimensions: building structure, fire safety protocols, and load capacity.

Building structure pertains to the integrity of the structural system responsible for supporting loads, encompassing both foundation elements and load-bearing components within the building. Fire protection requirements encompass crucial aspects of fire prevention measures, including fireproofing treatments for critical components, installation of fire suppression facilities, implementation of monitoring systems, deployment of fire alarm systems, creation of fire escape routes, and other measures aimed at mitigating risks and averting disasters [14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. Building load refers to the collective weight exerted by occupants, equipment, and other fixtures both within and surrounding the building. This can be quantitatively evaluated by assessing user loads, utilization loads, structural loads, and equipment loads.

2.2.4. Elements of Maintenance Protection Evaluation

The maintenance of historical buildings within university settings entails ensuring their continued functionality starting from the early stages of planning, encompassing daily upkeep, repair of various components and equipment systems, and preservation of key structural elements.

In the planning phase, implementation involves decisions regarding the demarcation of protection zones, establishment of construction control areas, installation of protective facilities, signage deployment, and comprehensive analysis of the surrounding environment. Repair and maintenance necessitate adherence to stringent qualifications by repair units, followed by regular upkeep and seasonal maintenance [21,22,23,24,25,26]. Repair entities tasked with historical building maintenance must possess the requisite credentials. Maintenance efforts targeting interior spaces, facades, architectural nodes, and other pivotal components of historical structures serve to uphold their intrinsic value and utility.

2.2.5. Evaluation Elements of Teachers’ and Students’ Attention

The significance of teachers and students is delineated across three distinct groups: school administrators, faculty members, and students.

The pivotal role of school administrators is chiefly manifested in the formulation of protective frameworks, establishment of protective entities, allocation of funding for preservation efforts, and oversight of building archives [27]. The level of attention from faculty members is gauged through a dual lens: psychological awareness and behavioral engagement with historical structures. Psychological awareness encompasses faculty members’ emotional responses to the aesthetics, ambiance, architectural style, and custodianship of historical buildings. Behavioral engagement, on the other hand, pertains to the impact of faculty members’ day-to-day actions on the preservation of historical edifices [28]. Similarly, the cognition of students and faculty behaviors reflects the influence of their daily conduct on the maintenance and preservation of historical buildings.

3. Method

3.1. Research Classification Method

The investigation into the current status of value protection, usage, safety, and maintenance of university historical buildings employs the Public Space-Public Life (PSPL) survey method. The current level of attention given by faculty and students is assessed using the Semantic Differential (SD) method.

3.1.1. Public Space-Public Life (PSPL) Survey Method

The PSPL survey method should identify the research areas for historic buildings in higher education institutions, develop a work plan and schedule, and discuss the overall progress of the project and the anticipated outcomes. The PSPL survey method consists of six steps, as shown in Figure 1.

(1)

Determine the Research Objects

Wuhan University of Technology traces its origins to the Hubei Technical School, established in 1898 by Zhang Zhidong, the Governor of Huguang. Zhang Zhidong, a prominent figure in the Self-Strengthening Movement in China, strongly advocated for the integration of Chinese and Western knowledge. He emphasized the idea of “Chinese learning as the foundation, Western learning for practical use” and proposed hiring foreign teachers to instruct Chinese students in subjects like physics, chemistry, and machinery to meet the needs of modern industrialization. Against this backdrop, the Hubei Technical School was founded, marking the beginning of Wuhan University of Technology’s century-long journey.

At the start of the 21st century, Wuhan University of Technology was formed through the merger of Wuhan Industrial University, Wuhan Automotive Industrial University, and Wuhan Transportation Technology University. Wuhan University of Technology currently has three campuses: Mafangshan, Yujiatou, and Nanhu. The Yujiatou campus is located on the former site of Wuhan Transportation Technology University. The main teaching building at the Yujiatou campus, completed in 1962, was recognized as part of the tenth batch of Outstanding Historical Buildings in Wuhan in 2016. This building, with a total area of approximately 15,000 square meters, emulates the architectural style of the former Soviet Union’s Leningrad Institute of Water Transport Engineering. Soviet experts participated in its design and construction, incorporating classical Western architectural techniques such as baseboards and detailed ornaments like anchors and waves that highlight the maritime discipline. The building’s grand scale and imposing dimensions are illustrated in Figure 2.

(2)

Research Planning

The survey team is divided into five groups, each focusing on one of the following aspects of the historical building: value protection status, usage protection status, safety protection status, maintenance protection status, and the level of attention from faculty and students. The survey content is based on the evaluation factors selected in the previous chapter and will be addressed one by one.

(3)

Preparation of Materials

Each of the five survey groups is equipped with notebooks, stopwatches, calculators, pens, cameras, umbrellas, clipboards, water, and food. Additionally, they will have maps of the historical building locations and detailed position diagrams for the survey. The group investigating the level of attention from faculty and students will also prepare questionnaires.

(4)

Personnel Organization

Participants in the investigation are selected from individuals or students with experience in the research of historical building preservation. Before the survey, each group will discuss the survey content to ensure familiarity. Each group consists of 2–3 members, with one member specifically designated to take notes.

(5)

Field Investigation

The field investigation is scheduled for a day with clear and favorable weather conditions for outdoor activities. The survey will span from 8:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., covering a continuous period of 12 h. The investigation is divided into one-hour units, with the duration and selection of time units adjustable based on local conditions.

(6)

A New Round of Investigation

Organize and analyze the collected survey data. If the data quality is unsatisfactory, a new round of investigation may be conducted.

3.1.2. Semantic Differential (SD) Method

The preservation of university historical buildings is closely related to the level of attention given by their users. Historical buildings will only be well-maintained if they are valued psychologically. The Semantic Differential (SD) Method is used to quantify the psychological perceptions of faculty and students towards the historical buildings on their campus. This method can reflect the level of attention faculty and students pay to their university’s historical buildings. The evaluation scale is set as shown in Figure 3.

(1)

Selection of Psychological Perception Evaluation Factors

The visual perception of university historical buildings is the most immediate experience. The selected evaluation factors for visual perception include light, color, texture, and decoration. The evaluation factors for the experience of the building include tranquility, comfort, rhythm, and recognizability. The evaluation factors for architectural style include modernism, ancient architecture, and eclecticism. The evaluation factors for management perception include cleanliness and security.

(2)

Determination of Respondents

The survey targets the faculty members of the Yujia Tou campus, specifically those from the School of Transportation and Logistics, the School of Navigation and Energy Dynamics, and the School of Navigation. Questionnaires will be distributed to professors, associate professors, and lecturers within the faculty groups of these three schools, as well as to doctoral students, master’s students, and undergraduates within the student groups. A total of 200 questionnaires will be distributed to each of the two groups: faculty and students.

(3)

Compilation and Calculation of Questionnaires

The survey results will be organized, and the average scores for the 13 evaluation factors of the main teaching building at the Yujia Tou campus will be calculated for both the faculty and student groups.

3.2. AHP-FCE Method

By leveraging the Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation (FCE) method in conjunction with the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), the weight values of each evaluation index have been ascertained, therefore facilitating the attainment of a rational and scientifically grounded quantitative evaluation outcome, as depicted in Figure 4.

Two hundred questionnaires were distributed to senior experts specializing in the preservation of historical buildings to discern the pertinent indicators for the evaluation system of historical building protection in universities, as outlined in

Table 2. Background of the consulted expert.

Type	Information	Number	Percentage
Title level	Professor/Researcher	99	49.5%
	Associate Professor/Associate Researcher	68	34%
	Lecturer/Assistant Researcher	33	16.5%
working seniority	>30	57	28.5%
	21–30	54	27%
	11–20	41	20.5%
	6–10	35	17.5%
	0–5	13	6.5%
educational background	doctor	126	63%
	master	68	34%
	bachelor	6	3%

. The evaluation system delineates five hierarchical criteria levels: value assessment, use assessment, safety assessment, maintenance assessment, and attention from teachers and students [29]. Within these criteria, 14 intermediary indicators have been identified, encompassing aspects such as historical, artistic, and scientific value, internal and external spatial considerations, structural integrity, fire safety requisites, load-bearing conditions, planning intricacies, repair and maintenance protocols, and attentiveness from school leaders, teachers, and students [30]. Subsequently, a comprehensive evaluation index system for the preservation of historical buildings in universities has been meticulously crafted, as depicted in Figure 5.

3.2.1. Analytic Hierarchy Process

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) scrutinizes the assessment factors pertaining to historical buildings in colleges and universities, categorizing and hierarchically structuring them for weight calculation purposes. Primarily reliant on expert scores as its main input, the AHP inherently incorporates subjective elements into the evaluation decision-making process.

(1)

Establishment of Hierarchical Structure Model

The hierarchical structure typically comprises three tiers. Through successive decomposition of the overarching objective, it is delineated into the goal layer, the sub-criteria layer, and the options layer, as illustrated in Figure 5 above.

(2)

Construct Pairwise Comparison Matrix

Once the hierarchical structure model is established, a comparison matrix is constructed through pairwise comparisons of various factors. This matrix encapsulates the relative importance of factors i and j in comparison to factors from the preceding layer [17]. The importance degree is derived based on Saaty’s proposed scale table, and the weight of the evaluation index is subsequently computed accordingly.

$$B=(b_{ij}{)}_{n*n}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}{b}_{11}& b_{12}& \cdots & b_{1n}\\ b_{21}& b_{22}& \cdots & b_{2n}\\ ⋮& ⋮& & ⋮\\ b_{n1}& b_{n2}& \cdots & b_{nn}\end{array}\right]$$

In the formula, b_ij = $\frac{1}{b_{ji}}$, matrix B forms the judgment matrix.

(3)

Hierarchical Single Sorting, Calculation of Eigenvector W_i

First, normalize each column of the judgment matrix B to obtain the judgment matrix

$${\overline{b}}_{ij}=b_{ij}/{\sum }_{k=1}^n{b}_{kj}, (i, j = 1, 2, 3, \dots , \mathrm{n})$$

(1)

Second, add matrix $\overline{B}$ by row to obtain:

$${\overline{W}}_i={\sum }_{j=1}^n{\overline{a}}_{ij}, (i, j = 1, 2, 3, \dots , \mathrm{n})$$

(2)

Then, set $\overline{{ W}_i}$ (i = 1, 2, …, n) Perform normalization processing:

$$W_i=\overline{W_i}/{\sum }_{j=1}^n{\overline{W}}_j, (i, j = 1, 2, 3, \dots , \mathrm{n})$$

(3)

We obtain W = (W₁, W₂, …, W_n) ^T is the weight value, and the calculation formula of the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix B is as follows:

$${\lambda }_{max}={\sum }_{i=1}^n{\left(AW\right)}_i/{nW}_i$$

(4)

(4)

Conduct Consistency Tests and Calculate CI and CR

The consistency test requires three values: CI, RI, and CR. The consistency index CI needs to be calculated first when performing the consistency test:

$$CI=\frac{{\lambda }_{max}-n}{n-1}$$

(5)

When λ_max equals n and CI equals 0, matrix A is deemed to possess complete consistency. A larger CI value suggests greater inconsistency within the judgment matrix A. In such cases, it becomes imperative to compute the consistency ratio, which is calculated using the following formula:

$$CR=\frac{CI}{RI}$$

(6)

The values of random consistency indicator RI are shown in

Table 3. RI table of consistency indicators.

Order of Matrix	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
RI	0	0	0.58	0.90	1.12	1.24	1.32	1.41	1.45	1.49

.

When the consistency ratio (CR) is less than 0.1, the judgment matrix is deemed to have passed the consistency test. Conversely, if CR exceeds 0.1, the matrix lacks satisfactory consistency, necessitating adjustments until a satisfactory level of consistency is achieved.

3.2.2. Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Method

Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, in conjunction with expert scores, effectively captures the inherent fuzziness in evaluation criteria and influencing factors, yielding evaluation results that closely align with the actual circumstances [31].

(1)

Establishing Factor Set, Evaluation Set

To determine the factor level, the factor set U to be evaluated is divided into n factor subsets U = {U₁, U₂, U₃, …, U_n}. Evaluation set: V = {V₁, V₂, …, V_m}.

(2)

Single-Factor Evaluation

The membership degree r_ij of an index is calculated based on the occurrence frequency of single-factor grades within the index set. If the total number of experts is k and m_ij represents the grade evaluation frequency of a single index, the calculation is as follows:

$$r_{ij}=\frac{m_{ij}}{k}$$

(7)

(3)

Obtain Index Weights

The weight value encompasses two sets: the weight set of the criteria layer relative to the total target layer and the weight set of the indicator set relative to the criteria layer.

$$W=(W_{B_1},W_{B_2}, \dots ,W_{B_5})$$

(8)

$$W_{B_1}=(W_{B_{1\_1}},W_{B_{1\_2}}{,W}_{B_{1\_3}})$$

(9)

$$W_{B_2}=(W_{B_{2\_1}},W_{B_{1\_2}})$$

(10)

$$W_{B_3}=(W_{B_{3\_1}},W_{B_{3\_2}}{,W}_{B_{3\_3}})$$

(11)

$$W_{B_4}=(W_{B_{4\_1}},W_{B_{4\_2}}, W_{B_{4\_3}})$$

(12)

$$W_{B_5}=(W_{B_{5\_1}}, W_{B_{5\_2}}{, W}_{B_{5\_3}})$$

(13)

(4)

Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation

The elements of the first layer dictate the source elements of the second layer, therefore evaluating each source element from each layer. Consequently, the evaluation matrix of each element reflects a comprehensive assessment of the inclusion of elements at the second level.

$$R_i=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}{r}_{11}& r_{12}& \cdots & r_{1n}\\ r_{21}& r_{22}& \cdots & r_{2n}\\ \cdots & \cdots & & \cdots \\ r_{m1}& r_{m2}& \cdots & r_{mn}\end{array}\right]$$

In summary, K_i = W_Bi·R_i is the second level of evaluation, namely:

$$K_i = W_{Bi}·R_i=(W_{B_1}, W_{B_2}, \dots , W_{B_5})·\left[\begin{array}{cccc}{r}_{11}& r_{12}& \cdots & r_{1n}\\ r_{21}& r_{22}& \cdots & r_{2n}\\ \cdots & \cdots & & \cdots \\ r_{51}& r_{52}& \cdots & r_{5n}\end{array}\right] = (B_1, B_2, \dots , B_5)$$

The single-factor matrix of the first level is obtained as follows:

$$R=\left[\begin{array}{c}{B}_1\\ B_2\\ ⋮\\ B_5\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccc}{W}_{B1}& •& R_1\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{ccc}{W}_{B2}& •& R_2\end{array}\\ ⋮\\ \begin{array}{ccc}{W}_{B5}& •& R_5\end{array}\end{array}\right]$$

The fuzzy comprehensive evaluation set is:

$$K = W·R$$

(5)

Handling of Evaluation Results

If the membership matrix B calculated above does not satisfy ${\sum }_{j=1}^5{B}_j$ = 1, it is necessary to normalize the evaluation results.

$$P_j=\frac{B_j}{{\sum }_{J=1}^5{B}_j}, (\mathrm{j} = 1, 2, \dots , 5)$$

So that ${\sum }_{j=1}^5{P}_j$ = 1, after normalization, a new judgment matrix is obtained:

$$P = (P_1, P_2, P_3, P_4, P_5)$$

According to the principle of maximum membership degree, select the evaluation level corresponding to $\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{max}{1\le j\le 5}${P_j} as the evaluation result to make a scientific judgment on the protection of historical buildings in universities.

(6)

Calculation of the Final Evaluation Results

Invite experts in pertinent fields to assign scores to the evaluation indicators. Subsequently, multiply the scores provided by all experts by the weight of each index. The resulting score represents the project’s level [32]. The criteria for success rating are delineated in

Table 4. Evaluation Level and Score Division of Historical Buildings in Universities.

Hierarchy	I	II	III	IV	V
Score	100	80	60	40	20

The final evaluation result: N = K × V^T.

below.

4. Results

4.1. RCM Results

4.1.1. Survey on the Current Status of Value Protection

The documentation of the main teaching building on the Yujiatou campus is relatively comprehensive, encompassing plans, elevations, sections, and construction drawings. However, the drawings exhibit severe yellowing, with some markings appearing blurred. Historical imagery is scant, limited to a single aged photograph. Presently, literature pertaining to the building is sparse, primarily confined to mentions in the annals of the Wuhan University of Technology, with minimal elaboration on architectural specifics.

The interior decor of the Bishop Building on the Yujiatou campus features a Chinese aesthetic, while the facade adopts a segmented style, exuding dignity and stability. Notably, the corridor of the main teaching building and its adjacent structures are adorned with ship anchor motifs, infusing the surroundings with both artistic merit and a poignant reminder of the building’s maritime heritage and the institution’s longstanding history, as illustrated in

Table 5. Information on the artistic value of the main teaching building of the Yujiatou campus.

Artistic Value	Interior Decoration	Elevation Feature	Characteristic Node
Reality picture

.

The main teaching building of the Yujiatou campus boasts superior ventilation and illumination, coupled with a meticulously crafted scale. Each classroom within the building is endowed with a window, ensuring ample natural light and air circulation. The ratio of the window aperture to the depth of standard classrooms stands at 1.125, while for specialized classrooms, this ratio is 1.44. These proportions align with pedagogical principles, fulfilling the exigencies of effective teaching practices and imparting inherent scientific merit to the building’s design.

4.1.2. Survey on the Current Status of Use

The interior layout of the main teaching building on the Yujiatou campus is characterized by excellent accessibility. Configured along a symmetrical axis, the entire building design revolves around a central hall and staircase, serving as pivotal spaces within the structure. As depicted in Figure 6, these areas are easily accessible from any point within the building, with smooth flow lines facilitating movement. This underscores the favorable accessibility of the key spaces within the main teaching building.

However, despite the well-connected central corridor, visibility within the middle section of the building is compromised due to the considerable distance between this area and the classrooms flanking the corridor. Consequently, natural light is insufficient, necessitating artificial illumination even during daylight hours. Conversely, the peripheral sections of the building, in direct contact with the external environment, benefit from better visibility compared to the central interior.

The Yujiatou campus exhibits a commendably orderly overall layout, characterized by a predominantly orthogonal arrangement of roads and buildings. The main teaching building is flanked by designated cultural and sports activity areas to the north, teaching and research zones to the west and east, and administrative offices and additional cultural and sports facilities to the south. External access to the main teaching building is facilitated by well-connected pathways, both horizontal and vertical, interlinking it with surrounding precincts. Notably, accessibility to the main teaching building is assured from any point within the campus via the network of roads. Moreover, the external spaces surrounding the building feature prominently defined landscape nodes, offering excellent visibility and enhancing the overall aesthetic appeal of the campus environment, as depicted in Figure 7.

The main teaching building of the Yujiatou campus boasts a substantial volume, with its facade featuring predominantly air conditioning units, monitoring equipment, water pipes, and electrical wiring. Notably, the air conditioning machinery is concentrated primarily on the second and third floors of the facade, with minimal presence observed on the fourth to sixth floors. Water pipes are predominantly situated along the eastern and western sides of the teaching building, while electrical wiring is primarily routed between the first and second floors. The school motto, “Sound in Morality, Broad in Learning and Pursuing Excellence”, is prominently displayed at the entrance gate, as depicted in Figure 8. Overall, the external equipment adorning the main teaching building of the Yujiatou campus is relatively modest in scale.

4.1.3. Survey on the Current Status of Safety

Analysis of the archives and maintenance records maintained by the Logistics Support Department reveals that the foundation and load-bearing elements of the main teaching building on the Yujiatou campus have remained untouched, indicating a high level of structural stability. However, fire prevention measures targeting critical areas of the building have yet to be implemented. Fire extinguishers are predominantly situated in stairwells and corridors. To mitigate fire risks, each floor of the main teaching building is equipped with a monitoring system, with smoke alarms installed in every classroom. Moreover, to facilitate safe and orderly evacuation in the event of fire or emergencies, fire escape signs are prominently positioned in stairwells and corridors, aiding teachers and students in swiftly locating evacuation routes, as illustrated in Figure 9.

The main teaching building comprises a total of 140 classrooms, categorized as follows: 109 standard classrooms, each spanning 46.08 square meters; 6 small specialized classrooms, each measuring 92.16 square meters; 16 small to medium-sized specialized classrooms, each covering 115.92 square meters; 8 medium-sized specialized classrooms, each occupying 230.48 square meters; and 2 large specialized classrooms, each extending over 324 square meters. Based on a per capita usage area of 2 square meters per person for university classrooms, the main teaching building can accommodate a maximum of 4961 individuals. Serving as the cornerstone of educational activities on the Yujiatou campus, the main teaching building hosts a substantial number of teachers and students daily, in addition to facilitating lectures and seminars within its historic confines. This underscores the considerable load borne by the main teaching building both in terms of user capacity and utilization demands. Moreover, classrooms are outfitted with multimedia facilities and fixed desks and chairs, further contributing to the structural load.

4.1.4. Survey on the Current Status of Maintenance

In the initial planning stages of the Yujiatou campus, the main teaching building was earmarked as a designated historical and cultural preservation zone within the campus. However, the construction control zone surrounding the main teaching building was not delineated. Situated adjacent to the primary thoroughfare of the campus, the main teaching building lacks designated protection facilities in its immediate vicinity. Instead, rectangular lawns have been employed on the eastern and western perimeters, serving to demarcate the building from the surrounding roads. While these lawns fulfill a certain buffering function in terms of protection, as depicted in Figure 10, the absence of dedicated protective infrastructure warrants further consideration in safeguarding the historical integrity of the building.

The archives of Wuhan University of Technology indicate a notable absence of information regarding the renovation of the main teaching building on the Yujiatou campus, suggesting that no significant repairs have been undertaken to date. Presently, the Bishop’s building on the Yujiatou campus has undergone minimal alterations to both its interior and facade, with the notable addition of an elevator at the entrance. However, in the maintenance of characteristic nodes, there remains a pressing need for enhancement. The anchor carvings adorning the corridors of the main teaching building, subjected to years of exposure and weathering, have begun to exhibit signs of discoloration. Without intervention, the intricate carvings risk enduring prolonged obscurity. It is imperative to prioritize the maintenance of these pivotal elements to ensure the preservation of historical buildings in their entirety.

4.1.5. Survey on the Current Status of Teacher and Student Attention

The Yujiatou campus stands distantly apart from the administrative office building of the school, leading to a potential delay in the school leaders’ oversight of the main teaching building on the Yujiatou campus. Absent specialized protection systems at the institutional level, the assurance of historical building preservation is compromised, diminishing the quality and scientific rigor of protection efforts.

As the primary locus of daily activities for teachers and students from various campus colleges, the main teaching building of the Yujiatou campus holds paramount importance. Teachers and students serve as the principal users and observers of this historic edifice, therefore playing a pivotal role in its safeguarding. Through diligent investigation, the school has allocated parking spaces in the external vicinity of the main teaching building. However, sparse vehicle presence and the absence of graffiti on the building’s walls, as depicted in Figure 11, underscore the conscientious preservation efforts thus far.

Through the investigation and subsequent SD analysis of teachers’ and students’ psychological cognition, it has been discerned that the average scores pertaining to tranquility, texture, and historical significance of the first teaching building on the Yujiatou campus are notably low, all registering below 0, as illustrated in Figure 12. While behavioral cognition assessment indicates that the daily conduct of teachers and students has not engendered adverse effects on the preservation of the main teaching building of the Yujiatou campus, a conspicuous absence of institutional safeguards is evident at the school level. Notably, there is a dearth of protective systems, agencies, and dedicated personnel tasked with overseeing the preservation endeavors.

4.2. AHP-FCE Results

The membership matrix R is derived by normalizing the judgment results. The normalized membership matrix of primary and secondary indices can be represented as illustrated in

Table 6. Calculation results of membership matrix R.

RA =	$\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.276& 0.114& 0.452& 0.127& 0.021\\ 0.042& 0.583& 0.292& 0.758& 0.000\\ 0.274& 0.372& 0.314& 0.031& 0.009\\ 0.055& 0.068& 0.593& 0.242& 0.042\\ 0.121& 0.221& 0.150& 0.348& 0.160\end{array}\right]$
RB1 =	$\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.033& 0.067& 0.667& 0.200& 0.033\\ 0.767& 0.100& 0.033& 0.000& 0.000\\ 0.667& 0.233& 0.100& 0.000& 0.000\end{array}\right]$
RB2 =	$\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.067& 0.533& 0.167& 0.033& 0.000\\ 0.033& 0.600& 0.333& 1.000& 0.000\end{array}\right]$
RB3 =	$\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.400& 0.500& 0.100& 0.000& 0.000\\ 0.033& 0.133& 0.733& 0.067& 0.033\\ 0.100& 0.167& 0.567& 0.167& 0.000\end{array}\right]$
RB4 =	$\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.033& 0.200& 0.500& 0.233& 0.033\\ 0.033& 0.100& 0.533& 0.267& 0.067\\ 0.067& 0.033& 0.633& 0.233& 0.033\end{array}\right]$
RB5 =	$\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0.100& 0.067& 0.067& 0.533& 0.233\\ 0.167& 0.467& 0.333& 0.000& 0.033\\ 0.133& 0.533& 0.200& 0.100& 0.033\end{array}\right]$

.

The evaluation vector B is derived by multiplying the weight vector W by R. The results are presented in

Table 7. Calculation results of evaluation vector B.

B1 =	W2B_1R2B_1 = [0.2761, 01137, 0.4520, 0.1267, 0.0209]
B2 =	W2B_2R2B_2 = [0.0415, 0.5833, 0.2915, 0.7583, 0.0000]
B3 =	W2B_3R2B_3 = [0.2741, 0.3716, 0.3135, 0.0310, 0.0093]
B4 =	W2B_4R2B_4 = [0.0545, 0.0682, 0.5928, 0.2419, 0.0419]
B5 =	W2B_5R2B_5 = [0.1210, 0.2207, 0.1504, 0.3482, 0.1597]
B =	WR1A = [0.1934, 0.3509, 0.3448, 0.2295, 0.0196]

.

The AHP weights and rankings of historical building protection in universities are shown in

Table 8. Weights and rankings of AHP in the standard layer and scheme layer of historical building protection in universities.

Hierarchy Level	Code	Performance Attributes	AHP Weighting	Ranking
Level 1	B1	value assessment	0.0907	4
	B2	Use evaluation	0.2068	2
	B3	Security assessment	0.5430	1
	B4	Maintenance evaluation	0.1148	3
	B5	Importance of teachers and students	0.0493	5
Level 2	B1_1	historical value	0.0545	1
	B1_2	artistic value	0.0138	3
	B1_3	Scientific value	0.0224	2
	B2_1	Internal space	0.0517	2
	B2_2	External space	0.1551	1
	B3_1	building structure	0.3493	1
	B3_2	Fire protection requirements	0.1536	2
	B3_3	Load situation	0.0401	3
	B4_1	Planning level	0.0122	3
	B4_2	Repair and maintenance	0.0299	2
	B4_3	Key parts maintenance	0.0727	1
	B5_1	Importance of school leaders	0.0313	1
	B5_2	Teacher’s Importance	0.0128	2
	B5_3	Student Importance	0.0052	3

.

Experts evaluated the main teaching building of the Wuhan University of Technology campus head protection using the judging set V = [Excellent, Good, Secondary, Poor, Very poor]. Thirty industry experts were invited to score, and based on the calculated evaluation index membership degrees, the evaluation results are summarized in

Table 9. Expert evaluation results table.

Primary Indicators	Secondary Indicators	Third Level Indicators	I	II	III	IV	V	Total
A	B1	B1-1	1	2	20	6	1	30
		B1-2	23	3	1	0	0	30
		B1-3	20	7	3	0	0	30
	B2	B2-1	2	16	5	1	0	30
		B2-2	1	18	10	1	0	30
	B3	B3-1	12	15	3	0	0	30
		B3-2	1	4	22	2	1	30
		B3-3	3	5	17	5	0	30
	B4	B4-1	1	6	15	7	1	30
		B4-2	1	3	16	8	2	30
		B4-3	2	1	19	7	1	30
	B5	B5-1	3	2	2	16	7	30
		B5-2	5	14	10	0	1	30
		B5-3	4	16	6	3	1	30

I: Excellent; II: good; III: secondary; IV: poor; V: Very poor.

.

After computing the comprehensive evaluation vector B and the quantitative evaluation set V = [100, 80, 60, 40, 20], the outcome of the protection evaluation for the main teaching building of Yujiatou Campus at Wuhan University of Technology is determined by N = BV^T.

N = [0.1934,0.3509,0.3448,0.2295,0.0196][100, 80, 60, 40, 20] ^T = 77.672

The calculation results indicate a general level of protection for historical buildings in this context. The investigation findings suggest that the protection of the main teaching building in the Yujiatou Campus at Wuhan University of Technology has achieved some degree of effectiveness. However, there are numerous aspects of conservation that require improvement. Furthermore, the degree of protection varies across different aspects, such as historical value, use, safety, maintenance, and attention from teachers and students. Based on the current situation investigation and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, this paper advocates for targeted measures to enhance the protection of historical buildings in this setting.

5. Discussions

Previous research on the overall assessment of the preservation of university historical buildings is limited, often focusing on single values or aspects. For instance, Bryce E. Berrett et al. utilized drones and photogrammetry to enhance the preservation of historical value through data collection [33], while Maurizio Aiello et al. assessed the preservation of university historical buildings from a fire safety perspective, emphasizing safety issues [34]. However, their studies did not consider usage protection, maintenance protection, or the level of attention from faculty and students. Existing research indicates that scholars have attempted to adopt more scientific methods to preserve university historical buildings, but they have not evaluated the preservation comprehensively. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a comprehensive and rational evaluation system for the preservation of university historical buildings, aiming to accurately identify issues in preservation and develop corresponding strategies. This study employs the RCM-AHP-FCE method to provide more precise evaluation results for the preservation of various university historical buildings, enabling the formulation of targeted preservation strategies.

This study employs a combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis methods to evaluate the preservation of university historical buildings. For the qualitative analysis, the Research Classification Method (RCM) is used. This involves first obtaining real-world data on value protection, usage protection, safety protection, and maintenance protection through the Public Space-Public Life (PSPL) survey method. Additionally, the Semantic Differential (SD) method quantifies faculty and students’ psychological perceptions of historical buildings, reflecting their level of attention. For the quantitative analysis, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used to determine the weight of evaluation indicators across five dimensions: value protection, usage protection, safety protection, maintenance protection, and the level of attention from faculty and students. The Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation (FCE) method is then applied for a comprehensive and systematic quantitative evaluation. By integrating these results, the study identifies existing problems in the preservation of university historical buildings. Compared to previous studies that relied solely on qualitative or quantitative methods, this approach offers greater scientific rigor and applicability, providing valuable guidance for research on the preservation of university historical buildings.

The scope of the evaluation system for university historical building preservation constructed in this study is limited to a single historical building at Wuhan University of Technology. Future research can enhance the evaluation system by applying it to a larger sample size. In this evaluation system, the number of quantitative indicators is relatively small, and some of the quantitative data are obtained through questionnaires, which introduces a degree of subjectivity. Subsequent research could focus on refining the methods for quantifying both qualitative and quantitative indicators.

6. Conclusions

The results of this case study indicate that the preservation of university historical buildings should first involve the use of online information platforms to establish a database for these buildings. This database should standardize the digitization of historical building archives and enable interactive browsing, therefore preserving the historical value information of the buildings permanently while providing visitors with an immersive experience. By combining AI 3D panoramic technology with an information QR code system, universities can capture and present historical buildings, potential historical buildings, and the surrounding natural and cultural environment. This allows faculty, students, and even external visitors to explore these buildings in a 360-degree view on electronic devices at any time, achieving virtual tourism. Universities can also adopt the practice of the Getty Foundation in the United States by establishing alumni charitable foundations through alumni associations to increase funding for the specific protection of historical buildings. Second, the structural integrity of historical buildings directly affects their longevity. Given that the load on university historical buildings should not be excessively high, universities should use simulation software to calculate the maximum load capacity of historical buildings and strictly control the live load. A software application for scheduling visits can regulate the number of people entering historical buildings daily and during specific time periods. At the entrance of historical buildings, a facial recognition system can be integrated with the scheduling app to build an intelligent management system, ensuring more rational use of historical buildings. Due to the inevitable wear and tear of building materials over time and the influence of weather and human factors, internal structural damage can occur. Therefore, universities need to conduct regular monitoring of the structural integrity of historical buildings to detect potential hazards in a timely manner. Thirdly, the protection of historical buildings requires top-level design at the institutional level. Universities should refer to national laws and regulations on cultural heritage protection and the requirements of administrative regions for the protection of outstanding historical buildings to impose controls on the preservation of campus historical buildings. Detailed regulations tailored to the specific conditions of the historical buildings on campus should be established to ensure that there are clear guidelines for preservation and penalties for violations. Universities should also establish a Campus Heritage Management Committee responsible for the scientific management of all aspects of campus historical buildings and potential historical buildings. The committee should have a clear organizational structure with defined roles and responsibilities, including departments for value protection, usage management, safety monitoring, maintenance operations, and preservation advocacy, as shown in Figure 13. Additionally, the management committee can establish a historical building protection association at the school and college levels. This association can guide faculty and students to participate in volunteer activities dedicated to the preservation of campus historical buildings during their spare time.

Based on the relevant theories and practices of university historical building preservation, this study analyzes the evaluation indicators for the preservation of these buildings. It delves into the structural and computational models of the preservation evaluation and constructs an evaluation system for university historical buildings. By employing the RCM-AHP-FCE evaluation method, the study integrates both qualitative and quantitative dimensions to identify problems in the preservation of university historical buildings and propose targeted recommendations. The key research outcomes are as follows:

(1)

Construction of the Evaluation Indicator System for University Historical Building Preservation. The study identifies and selects the evaluation indicators for the preservation of university historical buildings, forming the framework of the evaluation system. By combining the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation (FCE) methods, the weights of each evaluation indicator are calculated, thus establishing a comprehensive evaluation system for the preservation of university historical buildings.

(2)

Comprehensive Summary of Preservation Issues Using Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. The study employs a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to thoroughly summarize the existing problems in the preservation of university historical buildings.

(3)

Qualitative Analysis of Preservation Features Using PSPL and SD Methods for qualitative analysis, the study adopts the Public Space-Public Life (PSPL) survey method and the Semantic Differential (SD) method, classifying protection features at different levels to achieve more reasonable survey results.

(4)

Development of Preservation Strategies Based on Case Study Results. The study explores preservation strategies from various dimensions: value, usage, safety, maintenance, and faculty-student attention. These strategies provide insights for the future preservation work of university historical buildings based on the results of the case study.