4.6 Article

Architectural Cultural Heritage Conservation: Fire Risk Assessment of Ancient Vernacular Residences Based on FAHP and EWM

期刊

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
卷 13, 期 22, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app132212368

关键词

risk management; architectural heritage; fire risk; assessment; human factors issue

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assessed fire risks in vernacular residences and identified key factors using an evaluation system. The results revealed that human misconduct and social management had the greatest impact on fire risk. Comparing protection differences between ancient houses and high-rise buildings offered new perspectives for safeguarding architectural heritage from fires.
The architectural relics of ancient vernacular residences and villages with brick-timber structures are at great risk of fire; if one occurs, they cannot be recovered. To protect this cultural heritage, this study takes a southern Guangdong He Xinwu building complex as a case study. It focuses on four indicator systems: human factors, facility factors, environmental factors, and social management factors, and 20 sub-indicators to establish an assessment system for fire risk in vernacular residences. Combining triangular fuzzy hierarchical analysis and the entropy weight method to determine weight values reduces evaluation subjectivity, allowing for both qualitative and quantitative measurements to derive the safety level and determine key fire risk factors. The results showed that human misconduct and social management of fire had the greatest impact on fire risk (29% and 25.8%, respectively). The most important secondary indicators were the ability to fight fires early on, the fire resistance level of building materials, fire rescue capability, fire load, and electricity use by villagers. Moreover, comparing differences in protection between ancient houses and high-rise buildings provided targeted policy recommendations that offer a new perspective for protecting architectural heritage from fires.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据