*3.2. The A'WOT Model*

Starting from the analysis of the historic farmhouses of the Aglié Castle, in this paper we provide new management strategies of these assets aiming at their preservation and valorization. To this purpose, we developed an A'WOT model with the objective of ranking the four farmhouses according to their potential for successful valorization strategy implementation. They are ranked from best to worst in terms of priorities of potential successful intervention.

As described in Section 2, we structured the modeling into three main subsequent stages. The first step of the modeling consists of the implementation of the SWOT analysis and construction of the SWOT matrix in order to structure the decision problem. In particular, the SWOT categories (namely Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) were further broken down into specific sub-criteria, which represent the key aspects in the evaluation of cultural heritage assets. To identify the above-mentioned SWOT factors, we conducted an extensive literature review on cultural heritage valorization and interviewed a panel of experts composed by an officer of the Superintendence of Turin and by three experts in the field of history of architecture, restoration, and structural analysis, and economic valuation, respectively.

The SWOT factors identified, grouped into to Strengths S, Weaknesses W, Opportunities O and Threats T, can be described as follows.


According to the aforementioned structure, we then compiled four SWOT matrixes, one for each farmhouse under investigation. As an example, Appendix A reports the SWOT matrix that has been constructed for Cascina Lavanderia.

In the second phase, according to the AHP [21], the SWOT factors have been organized into a hierarchical structure (Figure 4), in which at the top of the hierarchy there is the goal (i.e., ranking of ducal farmhouse with respect to their potential in the implementation of successful, sustainable valorization strategies), at lower levels, there are criteria (i.e., SWOT categories) and sub-criteria (i.e., SWOT factors), respectively. At the bottom of the tree-like structure, there are the alternatives under investigation (i.e., the ducal farmhouses in the Aglié estate), to be compared in order to determine their relative importance and the final ranking.

**Figure 4.** Structuring of the decision problem through the A'WOT (a hybrid tool, which combines the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method.

As required by the AHP method, firstly it was necessary to evaluate the criteria level, i.e., the SWOT categories, and the sub-criteria level, i.e., the SWOT factors. To this purpose, being more strategic and general levels of the problem, we asked the officer of the Superintendence, involved in the panel of experts, to fill in the pairwise comparison questions related to the relative importance of SWOT categories and SWOT factors. Figures 5 and 6 report an example of questions for the evaluation of the SWOT categories and factors, respectively.

Once all the pairwise comparison questions were filled in, we calculated the priorities of SWOT categories and factors as resulting from the Superintendence officer's interview (see Section 4).

**Figure 5.** Example of pairwise comparison questions for the evaluation of the SWOT categories.


**Figure 6.** Example of pairwise comparison questions for the evaluation of the SWOT factors.

Subsequently, it was necessary to fill in the pairwise comparison questions for alternatives evaluation. In this case, being a specific technical issue, we submitted the questionnaire to the above-mentioned three experts in the field of history of architecture, restoration, and structural analysis, and economic valuation. They evaluated the farmhouses with respect to each selected factor (sub-criterion) and evaluated each factor with respect to SWOT categories (criteria). It worth noting that as far as Strengths and Opportunities are considered, the preference for an alternative means that the alternative is able to maximize the S/O elements, while as far as the Weakness and Threats elements are considered, the preference for an alternative indicates the alternative is able to minimize the W/T elements. As an example, Figures 7 and 8 report two of the questions administered to the panel of experts.

**Figure 7.** Example of pairwise comparison questions for the evaluation of the alternatives with respect to sub-criteria "accessibility".



**Figure 8.** Example of pairwise comparison questions for the evaluation of the alternatives with respect to sub-criteria "relationship with the context".

Finally, in the third phase, once all the pairwise comparison matrices were replied, we calculated the priorities of the alternatives and multiplied the local weights of each farmhouse by the weights of the SWOT categories and factors previously defined, and obtained the final ranking (see Section 4).

### **4. Results and discussion**

As aforementioned, we organized a focus group to validate the hierarchy and the weights by dynamic discussion [61–63]. During the brainstorming, experts processed data and contributed to discussion according to their expertise, and a moderator helped discussion among experts and favored the process of reaching consensus on the final set of weights. We obtained the final set of weights by calculating the geometrical mean of experts' judgments [64,65]. In detail, local priorities of objects are

derived according to the eigenvalue approach to pairwise comparisons and then aggregated within the hierarchy in order to derive global priorities. We implemented the weighted geometric mean aggregation method in the computation of the global priorities as it reflects the preference information contained in local pairwise comparison matrices of alternatives properly [66]. In order to obtain the priority vectors and the final ranking, we implemented the A'WOT model in the *Super Decision* software. The overall set of weights of criteria and sub-criteria are displayed in Table 1.


**Table 1.** Criteria and sub-criteria priority vector.

According to criteria priorities displayed in the third column of Table 1, Opportunities play a major role (i.e., 0.479) in the successful implementation of valorization strategies, whereas Weaknesses are ranked as fourth (i.e., 0.034). This result is rather intuitive with respect to asset valorization processes, in which the asset potential resides mostly in Opportunities, which counterbalance the negative impact of asset's Weaknesses on strategy implementation. As far as sub-criteria priorities are concerned (fourth column of Table 1), historical/cultural value has the highest priority with respect to strengths (i.e., 0.785), followed by state of conservation (i.e., 0.121) and by accessibility (i.e., 0.083), whose impact is negligible with respect to other factors. As far as Weaknesses are concerned current use has the highest priority (i.e., 0.669), whereas the quality of the context is the most important opportunity factor (i.e., 0.785) and the connection to network infrastructures is the least important (0.066). As expected, experts considered budget constraints as the most crucial Threats (i.e., 0.649) and, although it might appear counterintuitive, regulatory risks are ranked as third (i.e., 0.072). It is worth noting that the above priorities represent the relative importance of SWOT factors with respect to the parent node SWOT category. Therefore, although regulatory risks are ranked as last, this does not imply that they are not worth considering in absolute terms, being identified as a Threat in the SWOT analysis.

Finally, Table 2 illustrates alternatives' priority vectors with respect to each sub-criterion as well as ducal farmhouses' final ranking.

According to results, Cascina Lavanderia has the highest potential in the successful implementation of asset valorization strategies. This is mainly because the asset is not currently in use, thus easing any potential intervention, and to the quality of the surrounding context. In fact, it is very close to the park and its favorable location is of paramount importance in the successful design and development of a touristic circuit connecting the four ducal farmhouses in a unitary management perspective. The remaining farmhouses reveal the same potential, with a small preference for Cascina Lamandria, which is ranked as second, due to its good state of conservation. By contrast, Cascina Gozzano is ranked as fourth due to both its state of abandonment and distance from the Castle.

The Lavanderia farmhouse has a great potential in creating a synergy with the park system due to its favorable location and its original reason for construction, as it was built to be of service to Aglié Castle. Although it fell into neglect, its relatively small size (approximately 1400 square meters) increases the potential for timely maintenance and refurbishment of the structures, as well as the renovation of the roads connecting it to the park. The classification of the asset state of conservation and the identification of pathologies and degradation represent a crucial phase in the knowledge process and they are preliminary operations to establish the urgency of restoration works, defining the works to be undertaken in a specific site and their progressive order of intervention (Figure 9).


**Table 2.** Alternatives priority vector and final ranking.

The main objective is to recover the interconnections of this system to the reality of the Castle and the Park and to establish a unique well-coordinated management strategy.

From this preliminary analysis, it emerged the scenario hypothesis a, in which territorial, social and cultural peculiarities are the most suitable to the characteristics of the asset under investigation, to the detriment of the scenario hypothesis whose characteristics do not fully respond to its valorization needs.


**Figure 9.** Gantt chart for the intervention works of the Lavanderia farmhouse.
