*3.2. Selection of the Evaluation Index*

#### 3.2.1. Potentiality Evaluation Index Selection Basis

Previous assessments of reuse potentiality have focused predominantly on transformation potentiality based on heritage value indicators, with a greater emphasis on the value of industrial heritage ontology [17–19]. The future value-added effect and its impact on the city were not fully accounted for in the evaluation index system, and the existing potentiality assessment indexes do not differentiate the relationship between the heritage essence and urban redevelopment due to the indexes' lack of relevance and adaptability [20,21], as well as an insufficient consideration for the complexity and diversity of industrial heritage transformation [22]. To emphasize the significance of urban indicators, the selected evaluation indicators emphasize the need to promote healthier and more efficient urban renewal [23,24]. Thus, this paper discusses adaptive reuse potentiality from three perspectives: autologous value, retrofitting value, and potential benefit value. Not only is the building itself discussed but the selection of urban dimension indicators also needs to be included.

This paper examines an index system for evaluating the reuse potentiality of industrial heritage, using industrial heritage as the research object and constructing three progressive relationship levels to address the existing problems of the potential evaluation system. The first dimension is autologous value, which represents an object's inherent value regardless of whether it has been renovated or not, and its own value, which exists objectively regardless of renovation or not and is used to determine whether renovation and reuse can be performed based on the evaluation results. The second dimension is retrofitting value, which represents the increase in use value resulting from renovation; the higher the rating, the greater the effect of subsequent renovation and use. The third dimension of future benefit represents the impact of the adaptive reuse of industrial heritage on surrounding areas and cities, which can help accelerate urban development.

In order to make the potentiality evaluation results more scientific for guiding the renovation and adaptive reuse strategies, the potentiality assessment results are presented as weighted scores of the three dimensions, and the corresponding reuse strategy cannot determine the reuse potentiality of industrial heritage solely based on the final score but should consider the weights of different levels and further clarify the tendency and trend of reuse based on the specific score. To develop a targeted redevelopment plan, we should consider the weighting of various indicators and elucidate the reuse tendency and trend based on the specific score and weight distribution of each dimension.

#### 3.2.2. Reuse Potentiality Evaluation Index Composition

Figure 2 illustrates how the assessment indexes of the adaptive reuse potentiality of industrial heritage are calculated, as well as how the evaluation content is separated into autologous value, retrofitting value, and potential benefit value. There are two components to the assessment of industrial heritage: the building dimension and the urban dimension. The evaluation index of the autologous value comprises the landscape integrity, structural reliability, heritage authenticity, safety in the autologous dimension and location, the surrounding environment, external space, planning restrictions, and infrastructure in the regional dimension. The evaluation indexes of the retrofitting value include the functional variability, architectural sustainability, user attitude, and construction technology implementation. The evaluation indexes of the retrofitting value include the expected effect, functional variability, architectural sustainability, user attitude, construction technology implementation, and expected effect. In the urban dimension, the evaluation indexes of the retrofitting value include the economic conditions, political context, participants' attitudes, and legal policies. The potential effect evaluation indexes include the humanistic value, artistic value, expected impact, scientific and technological value, the representativeness and scarcity of the building ontology dimension, the historical continuity, the cultural evaluation parameters of the indicators, and data acquisition that is challenging, resulting in the variables and weights being influenced by subjective factors.

The evaluation of the adaptive reuse potentiality of industrial heritage is a complicated process that depends on many factors. Using a singular evaluation index to evaluate the reuse potentiality of various options could result in less precise evaluation results. Due to the fact that the three-dimensional indicators for various industrial heritage need to be modified in a targeted manner, they are only partially enumerated in the examples, and the specific contents of the indicators need to be modified for various research topics.

#### 3.2.3. Overview Section of the Research Area

In China, the city of Beijing was early in carrying out practices of industrial heritage conservation and reuse, and it has taken the lead in conducting a census and academic research on industrial heritage. From the announcement of 30 existing industrial heritage sites in Beijing by the Architectural Society of China's Academic Committee on Industrial Architectural Heritage in 2010 to the first batch of China's Industrial Heritage Protection List in 2019, 9 industrial heritage sites in Beijing were selected [25]. The preservation and reuse of Beijing's industrial heritage are becoming more important. Beijing's existing urban industrial heritage can be divided into nine national, six municipal, and several general
