**1. Introduction**

The problems in the context of cultural heritage conservation and valorization refer to multi-faceted issues described by several dimensions, such as historic and artistic values, economic constraints, technical aspects, and a plurality of actors and stakeholders who play important roles in the decisional arena. Such as public authorities, practitioners, tourists, inhabitants, and so on. Of particular importance in this domain is the concept of adaptive reuse, which involves a change of use of existing buildings with the aim to achieve improvement in environmental, economic and social dimensions of sustainability, including resource efficiency, costs reduction and intrinsic values retention [1–6]. In the light of this complexity, decision-making processes in the domain of cultural heritage operations need to be addressed by specific evaluation tools, able to consider both the use-values related to the tangible benefits provided by Cultural Heritage to people and non-use values, accruing to current potential and future users, under the perspective of the Social Complex Value [7,8].

In particular, the evaluation of cultural heritage focused so far on two main directions:


As far as the first group of methods are concerned, they have been primarily introduced by economists to value public goods, which are non-excludable and non-rivaled in consumption [9]. Cultural heritage typically possesses the characteristics of public goods and thus can be valued by implementing non-market valuation methods. Broadly speaking, there are two categories of non-market valuation methods: Stated Preferences methods, such as Contingent Valuation Method or Choice Experiments, which estimate the value individuals place on public goods by means of direct elicitation queries in terms of Willingness To Pay [10], and Revealed Preferences methods, such as Travel Cost Method or Hedonic Models, which infer values from individual choices within real markets [11]. With reference to the context under investigation, it has to be noticed that heritage economics established as an area of analysis for the valuation of benefits provided by cultural heritage projects and different applications exist with reference both to Stated Preference and Revealed Preferences Methods [12–15].

Regarding multicriteria evaluation, these methods are used to make a comparative assessment of alternative projects or heterogeneous measures and they allow several criteria to be taken into account simultaneously, considering the opinions of the different stakeholders involved in the decision-making process [16]. In the context of cultural heritage, multi-criteria approaches proved to be able to provide a systematic vision of project effects, taking into account both the qualitative and the quantitative aspects of the decision problem [17–20].

The objective of the paper is to explore the use of a novel hybrid multi-criteria method named A'WOT for supporting a real-world problem in the context of cultural heritage. In particular, the method combines two common approaches used in decision analysis, namely the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) [21], and Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) Analysis. SWOT analysis bases on internal and external valuation criteria to identify strengths and opportunities, which can positively encourage the achieving of objectives, as well as weaknesses and threats, which can adversely affect achieving the objectives. Its contribution to the development of sustainable valorization strategies addressing abandoned cultural heritage is to maintain the strengths, find solutions for weaknesses, capitalize on opportunities and prevent threats. As it might become onerous to come to concordant decisions by solely implementing a SWOT analysis, due to the qualitative nature of its value judgments, the AHP is used to derive priorities and relative importance of criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives in a formal, analytical way, based on experts' judgment.

In the present paper, an A'WOT model has been developed with the purpose of addressing the design and management of the historic farmhouses in the Aglié Castle in Northern Italy. In our framework, SWOT analysis captures potential drivers (i.e., opportunities and strengths) and barriers (i.e., threats and weaknesses) to promote an in-depth understanding of the framework conditions of the ducal farmhouses system, whereas AHP is used to define the priorities of the elements under examination. Thanks to this understanding, we drew new sustainable strategies for the valorization of these assets and we prioritized ducal farmhouses according to their potential in successful strategy implementation.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the methodological background and focuses on the A'WOT method. Section 3 presents the A'WOT model provided to identify top-priority targets among the farmhouses of the Aglié Castle. It describes the structuring of the decision problem thought the SWOT matrix and the evaluation procedure implemented to identify priorities of SWOT categories and factors and the final ranking of alternatives. Section 4 illustrates and discusses the results. Finally, Section 5 synthetizes conclusions and provides guidelines for the design of interventions and the identification of successful management strategies.

### **2. Methodological Framework**

Strategic management of cultural heritage assets and their valorization involve the analysis of both interactions between these assets and the environment that surrounds them and internal and external factors, which affect the successful implementation of sustainable interventions to restore and enhance them.

In this respect, the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis is a systematic approach to assess internal and external factors [22,23] as well as potentials and pitfalls, which guarantees a fact-based, data-driven insight on planning decisions and course of actions, thus providing a good basis for strategy definition [24,25]. The SWOT analysis was firstly developed for business and market analysis and it is currently extensively implemented in planning and management and adopted in many fields for research assistance in order to evaluate potential bottlenecks or opportunities to prioritize development and/or management strategies [26,27]. Strengths may enhance overall performances and provide an advantage, whereas Weaknesses may affect efficiency, profitability and competitive advantage. Opportunities are possibilities, which may contribute to exploit advantage or add additional advantage, whereas threats may generate problems and retrieve successful development and implementation of any strategy.

Nonetheless, SWOT analysis can mainly support in the accurate identification of key factors in the analysis, but it does not provide any analytical tool or algorithm to determine the relative importance of these factors in the decision-making process, as results are provided in terms of qualitative assessment [25,28,29]. To address this issue and to improve the quantitative information basis of strategic planning processes, Reference [28,29] proposed the A'WOT method, a hybrid tool, which combines the SWOT analysis and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), proposed by Saaty in the Eighties [21]. The AHP is a well-established technique to address complex decisions and obtain a priority ranking of alternatives. Criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives relative importance are determined through pairwise comparisons expressed in semantic judgments converted into numerical values according to Saaty's fundamental scale [21].

In the A'WOT model, the AHP is therefore used to evaluate the SWOT factors, as well as the four SWOT categories (i.e., Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) and make them commensurable with respect to their priority intensities.

The integration of AHP with SWOT analysis provides analytically determined priorities, according to the eigenvalue approach to pairwise comparisons, and allows comparing alternatives with respect to each SWOT factor and ranking them from best to worse with respect to the goal of the decision-making problem [30]. The A'WOT decomposes a complex decision problem into a simple hierarchy. According to the AHP, at the top of the hierarchy, there is the goal, whereas SWOT categories (i.e., criteria) and SWOT factors (i.e., sub-criteria), which contribute to the goal are at lower levels and alternatives under investigation are at the bottom of the hierarchy.

According to [28], the A'WOT method is structured into the following subsequent phases:


Firstly, the SWOT analysis is carried out, and internal and external factors are identified. Secondly, pairwise comparisons of factors (with respect to each SWOT category) and of SWOT categories (with respect to the goal) are performed and priorities (i.e., preference intensities) are calculated. At this stage, weights (i.e., priorities) are determined according to the eigenvalue approach to pairwise comparisons and pairwise comparisons of elements at each level are conducted with respect to their relative importance towards their parent node [31]. The consistency of pairwise comparison matrices is then verified by determining the inconsistency index IC, which is usually considered as acceptable whenever IC < 0.10 [21]. Finally, we obtained the priority ranking of alternatives via a weighted sum aggregation procedure, from the bottom to the top of hierarchical levels.

Starting from the seminal works by [28,29], a significant strand of literature developed and the number of its applications to real-world decision problems increased significantly [32–34]. The applications of the A'WOT method are varied and cover as major fields natural resource management [32,35–37], sustainable tourism and tourism management [25,34,38,39], strategic assessment and group decision making (see among others, [40–43]). Although in the field of cultural heritage assessment, there are a flourishing set of recent contributions in literature on the sole application of AHP [44–51] and SWOT analysis [52–56], respectively. Nonetheless, to our knowledge, there are no contributions on the application of A'WOT to strategic decisions on cultural heritage. This contribution complements the existing literature on A'WOT methods with a novel application in cultural heritage and provides a new investigation of strategic choice on the valorization of abandoned and severely damaged assets.

### **3. Case Study**

### *3.1. Description of the Case Study: The Ducal Farmhouses in Aglié Estate*

The township of Agliè is located in the Canavese area, about 40 km from Turin. It has a varied territory and it is located partly in the hilly area of the Ivrea morainic amphitheater and partly in the plain to the south. The agricultural area features arable land, meadows and poplar groves on the plain and vineyards, as well as wooded areas, on the hills. The ducal farmhouses, established to serve Agliè Castle, together with a system of reserves, farms, and estates, represent the assets in possession of the Savoy family [57]. Their main function was agricultural management.

In 1764 Benedetto Maria Maurizio, Duke of Chiablese, bought the estate of Agliè Castle and its park and other possessions, including the "Cascina del Parco" (Lavanderia), owned by the Marquis San Germano, Cascina Valle owned by the Count of Agliè and Cascina Gozzani, belonging to poet Guido Gozzano's family (Figures 1 and 2).

The farmhouses, joined in one property, were called "Cascine Ducali" [58]. In 1769, Count Ignazio Birago di Borgaro planned new expansions of the existing buildings as well as new settlements, including Cascina Allea.

Cascina Allea (called Mandria) was designed between 1772 and 1773, thanks to the drawings and instructions of Birago di Borgaro, at the service of the Duke of Chiablese [59]. This building is interesting mainly because of its location within the context of the Castle Park and the architecture of its façade. The complex is formed by a closed court organized around a quadrangular space. A U-shaped volume forms the structure and it has an axis of symmetry passing through the large entrance arch. The structure is composed of three main volumes. The structure does not appear to be in an advanced state of degradation but it is damaged by a lack of maintenance and by exposure to the action of atmospheric agents.

**Figure 1.** Cartography extrapolated from the geoportal representing the system of the Castle and ducal farmhouses, Municipality of Agliè, http://www.geoportale.piemonte.it/geocatalogorp.

**Figure 2.** Cartography extrapolated from the Ancient Archive of Agliè Municipality ("Comune di Agliè").

Cascina Ortovalle has been represented on historical maps since 1745. It is a single building with simple wings and was mainly used for cultivations of fruit and vegetables. The structure is located on a hill and can be accessed by a poorly maintained dirt road. The building is in good condition since it is inhabited. It has a large terrace looking into the countryside of Agliè and a wall surrounds it. The context in which Cascina Ortovalle is located is characterized by large cultivated fields and the structure is well connected to the city through the main road. Presently the building can be used on all stories, it is not at risk of collapse and it does not present a compromised crack pattern. The architectural structure has a large barn with a trussed roof, which was restored a few months ago by the current tenants of the building.

Cascina Gozzani is composed of two buildings and is located south-east of Agliè, not far from the park. The historical cadastral maps attribute ownership of Cascina to Guido Gozzano's family. The complex is characterized by a planimetric layout composed of an internal courtyard with a double opposing row that is spread throughout the Canavese countryside. The two buildings face each other at close range and they are connected to each other through a surrounding wall. The position in which it is located is rather isolated because it is more to the north and far from the city center and the castle. The functional division between the two buildings reflects the theme in which they're inserted, on the northern side, there are the residential and service functions, including the rooms of the Lord, an area which stands out for its height and turns towards the east. The general situation of the complex is considerably compromised. A recent inspection revealed the definitive collapse of part of the roof, added to degradation phenomena of extended areas from the upper floors through the ground floor. The main reason related to this phenomenon is the total absence of maintenance by the State, which owns the property and has not tried to limit damages to both buildings. The main causes of deterioration of the structures concern substantial infiltrations of water through cracks and collapses of the roofs, which have caused considerable damage to the underlying areas.

Among the farmhouses, Cascina Lavanderia is the closest to the Park and, due to its location, on historical maps, it is referred to as "Cascina del Parco" [60]. Its role was of service to the Castle and it was destined for the cultivation of vegetables and food preservation. The farmhouse is situated in a strategic position with respect to the Park, in an area next to the south-west border and the main access road and numerous paths directly connect it to the Park. From an architectural point of view, the structure is a simple two-story wing, with a stairwell in its central part. The state of conservation of this building is almost totally compromised. The structure is secured thanks to a system of beams to help in stabilizing it and reducing the risk of collapse. The roof and ceiling are almost completely collapsed, thus damaging the horizontal surfaces of the lower floors, and some of these rooms host dense vegetation (Figure 3).

**Figure 3.** The farmhouses of the Aglié Castel (photos by the authors).
