1 s2.0 S1877042813021150 Main

Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 101 (2013) 465 475
AicQoL 2013 Langkawi

AMER International Conference on Quality of Life
Holiday Villa Beach Resort & Spa, Langkawi, Malaysia, 6-8 April 2013
"Quality of Life in the Built and Natural Environment"
Expert Choice for Ranking Heritage Streets

Rodzyah Mohd Yunusa, Zalina Samadia*,Norezatty Mohd Yusopb & Dasimah
Omara
a
Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Shah Alam, Selangor.
Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Science, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Shah Alam, Selangor.
Abstract
This paper presents an Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) using Expert Choice software to simplify
the decision making processes for analyzing data from the selected heritage streets in Penang and Melaka.
In this method, the researcher selects pair wise method in the design of the questionnaires. The emails are
sent to experts and follow them up for face to face interview. Only two heritage experts contribute due
to the requirement on high focus and commitment in providing a qualitative experts selection. Finally,
this research shares the step-by-step strategy in heritage streets ranking data collection and analysis. The
ultimate goal is ensuring achieving high quality of life in the urban outdoor of heritage streets.
2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under the responsibility of the Centre for EnvironmentSelection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Association of Malaysian Environment-Behavior Researchers,
Behaviour
Studies (cE-Bs), Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.
AMER (ABRA malaysia).
Keywords: Multi Criteria Decision Making, Analytical Heirarchical Process, Expert Choice, Quality of Heritage Streets
1. Introduction.
Everyone makes a decision in many tasks in many parts in our life. Regardless whom we are and how
complex or significant the decision is, we may consider many factors, criteria and wishful thinking prior
*
Corresponding author. Tel.:+60192179021; fax:++03-55444353

E-mail address:zalina_samadi@yahoo.com or zalin628@salam.uitm.edu.my.
1877-0428 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Association of Malaysian Environment-Behavior Researchers, AMER (ABRA malaysia).
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.220
466
Rodzyah Mohd Yunus et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 101 (2013) 465 475
to confirm the ultimate decision. In most circumstances, the ultimate decision that we make should be a
wisdom decision. The decision making especially involving important factors such as incurrence of cost,
time and human participation or involvement of many parties become a crucial than a simple one that may
involve less important factors. This complex decision making with many factors, criteria and objectives is
defined as Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM).
1.1. MCDM Development.
The current trends indicated that Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) has been developed and
applied into many categories. According to (Sauian, 2006 and Zionts,1990), there are four main
categories are: Multi-Criteria Mathematical Programming (MCMP), Multi-Criteria Discrete analysis,
Multiple-Criteria Utility Theory (MAUT) and Negotiation Theory (NT). Besides research development
on MCDM there is also a research society namely, the International Society on Multi-Criteria Decision
Making (ISMCDM) in Europe (Hamburg, Germany) whom actively organizing an international
conference, conducting summer school courses, awarding Doctoral Dissertation Award in the MCDM
field. The participation of this society from multi-countries including Finland, Germany, Poland, France,
Canada, United States of America, United Kingdom, Japan, China, Korea, Switzerland, Turkey, Spain,
New Zealand and others.
1.2. MCDM Application.
The latest application shows that Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is a study of methods
and procedures by which relates conflicting that can be incorporated into a management and business
decision making processes. A key area of research related to Operation Research and Management
Science (OR/MS) has been developed in this field based on the MCDM.
The Weighted Sum Model (WSM) is known as the simplest method in Multiple-Criteria Decision
Analysis (MCDA) in evaluating a number of alternatives (choice) in terms of a number of criteria. The
application of all the data are expressed in exactly the same unit even though the deal of each criterion is
on different quality, scale or unit of measurement. In general, MCDA problem defines as Av (WSM
Score). Therefore:
Av = WC x PA
Considering that the value of Av, WC and PA are as follows:
Av = (WSM Score)
WC= the relative weight of the criterion
PA= Performance value of alternative
1.3. Analytical Hierarchical Processes (AHP).
The theory and practice of the evolution of Analytical Hierarchical Processes (AHP) have created an
excitement of many researchers in various fields including oil and gas, arts, humanities, health, education,
business, military, politics and construction industry. Based on (Adamovic, P. et al. 2007, Mohd Safian,
E. & Nawawi, A.H., 2011) studies, the right and optimal methods have to be chosen within the limited
period of time to overcome the problem and augment of criteria for construction decision.
AHP helps people with the intuitive, the rational and irrational, and with risk and uncertainty towards
complex situation. The idea of AHP was designed by Dr Thomas Saaty in 1970s while he was a professor
at the Wharton School of Business. In 1983, he joined Dr. Earnest Forman (a professor of management
science at George Washington University) to co-found the Expert Choice.
As earlier explained, prior to any decision making it involves many influencing factors of criteria and
factors. Even though Analytical Hierarchical Processes (AHP) is purely mathematical that covers matrix
in quantitative researches but, the application can applied into the qualitative research. It is possible to
quantify the qualitative criteria through this combination of mathematical and psychological studies
refinement of AHP. The elements in hierarchical process can relate to tangible and intangible factors that
apply to the decision at hand. The AHP converts these evaluations of the tangible and intangible factors to
the numerical value that can be processed and compared over the entire research ultimate goal.
1.4. Expert Choice (EC) Software.
Expert Choice software is quick-to-learn and easy-to-use product for Collaborative Decision Making
to help research intuition. It is a graphical based structured which able to apply judgment to objectives
and finally achieve the ultimate goal. The advantage of using this software is that it helps decisionmakers arrive at the best decision but also gives a crystal clear picture for that decision. This true since
the given results provide extra internal validity through visual integration in testing the sensitivity
analysis.
The AHP and Expert Choice software engage decision maker in structuring a decisions-making
process into smaller parts. Beginning from a set goal to achieve, followed objectives to sub-objectives to
the alternatives. Decision-makers then make a simple pair-wise comparison judgment throughout the
hierarchy priority to arrive at the overall priorities for the alternatives.
1.5. Quality of Heritage Streets.
In this research the application of Expert Choice (EC) Software assists researcher in terms of
simplifying the decision making in the process of nominating the best heritage streets. The main criteria
of the architectural quality of heritage streets in the conduct of this study include the physical and nonphysical attributes of heritage streets. The establishment of the attributes based on the earlier research
findings which sourced from the literature review findings. This result as presented by the researcher to
be having each of nine criteria in physical attributes and nine elements in spiritual attributes (Samadi, Z.
& Mohd Yunus, R., 2012). Based on this main criterion which works as the quality of heritage streets
then, it was tested through many models of decision making in the research of the construction industry
domain as well as in the mathematical domain. In the local construction industry of Malaysia, there is a
Green Building Index (GBI) as applied by the Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia (Malaysian Architects
Association) for nominating green building was evaluated. The purpose is to investigate its system,
working mechanism and investigating its green attributing factors.
2. Main Criteria in Heritage Streets.
The main criteria in heritage streets are developed and tested according to its reliability towards the
alternatives of heritages streets in Penang and Melaka. Prior to this stage of evaluating the main criteria
using experts selection, the preliminary criteria are developed. The preliminary one was extracted from
the Physical and Spiritual Attributes of Revitalization Index (RI). This RI was developed based on the
evaluation of revitalization attributes for heritage streets in architectural aspects (Samadi, Z. & Mohd
Yunus, R., 2012). Each attributes carries the description of quality as expected from heritage streets.
Those attributes are compulsory in the process of ensuring the livability the outdoor of the urban
467
468
environment is revitalized by all stakeholders and management of the heritage city. Failure of having the
component may lead to outdoor space deterioration. The following table (Table1) presents the summary
of the Revitalization Index criteria.
Table 1: Preliminary Physical and Spiritual Attributes.
Physical Attributes.
Faade Design.
Transport.
Streetscape.
Landscape.
Safety.
Accessibility.
Activity.
Promotion.
Density.
Spiritual Attribute.
Sensory.
Connectivity.
Vitality.
Livability.
Vibrancy
Magnetivity.
Aura.
User-Friendly.
Valuability.
3. Method of Selecting the Best Heritage Street.

This paper presents the recent application of Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) using Expert Choice.
Expert Choice has an advantage to simplify the decision making processes. For decision making based on
many variables, including fulfilling research objectives, limited resources and one researcher to manage;
Expert Choice is the best choice for analyzing collected data.
3.1. Designing Questionnaires for Expert Choice.
In designing the questionnaires to expert require designers to give particular attention of time in
answering the questionnaires by expert. The original design include all pair-wise to all criteria, objectives
and alternatives. The following table (Table 2) shows the Preference Level and the Numeric Vales
between 1 to 9 in selecting the significance of criteria and the heritage streets choices.
Table 2: AHP Preference scale.
Preference level.
Equally preferred.
Numeric Value.
1
Moderately preferred.
Strongly preferred.
Very strongly preferred.
Extremely preferred.
Intermediate values between the two adjacent judgments.
9
2, 4, 6, 8
469
3.2. Expert Choices Alternative.

The data collection for this research is from the researchs study site in Penang and Melaka. The
following list is the selected heritage streets for ranking tasks in Penang in which become the alternatives
in the Expert Choices judgment.
Chulia Street (Lebuh Chulia).
Armenian Street (Lebuh Armenian).
Pitt Street (Lebuh Harmony).
Beach Street (Lebuh Pantai).
The similar set of questionnaires is design for the study site in Melaka. Therefore, the following list
shows the selected heritage streets for ranking tasks in Melaka in which become the alternatives in the
Expert Choices for an expert to give their judgment in selecting the nominating the best heritage street.
Jalan Hang Jebat /Jonker Street.
Lorong Hang Jebat.
Jalan TunTan Cheng Lock.
Jalan Tokong/Tukang Emas/Tukang Besi.
Jalan Kampung Pantai.
Jalan Hang Kasturi.
Jalan Hang Lekiu.
Jalan Hang Lekir.
In this questionnaire design, the numerical scale ranging from 1 to 9 in the choices of provision in the
Preference level beginning with equally preferred and ended with extremely preferred. In this method,
each of the sites required only one expert to answer the set of the questionnaires.
3.3. Sample of Questionnaires.
The following tables are samples of questionnaires for the expert to make their choice based on their
expertise.
Table 3: Compare the Relative Preference With Respect To Main Criteria (Goal).
Evaluation Criteria.
Faade Character.
Street Accessibility.
Active Landscape.
Street Furniture.
Activity.
Aerial Enclosure.
Design Robustness.
Themed Ambience.
Table 4: How Would You Rate The Street With Respect To Faade Character?
Numerical Scale.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
470
Numerical Scale.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
Numerical Scale.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
Numerical Scale.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
Numerical Scale.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
Numerical Scale.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
Numerical Scale.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
Numerical Scale.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
Table 5: How Would You Rate The Streets With Respect To Street Accessibility?
Table 6: How Would You Rate The Street S With Respect To Active Landscape?
Table 6: How Would You Rate The Streets With Respect To Street Furniture?
Table 7: How Would You Rate The Streets With Respect To Activity?
Table 8: How Would You Rate The Streets With Respect To Aerial Enclosure?
Table 9: How Would You Rate The Streets With Respect To Design Robustness?
471
Table 10: How Would You Rate The Streets With Respect To Themed Ambience?
Numerical Scale.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
After the process of selecting the right choice in those tables, all the answers are evaluated using the
pair-wise method. The following Table 11 shows sample of the pair-wise process for selecting the main
criteria through the Comparison of Relative Preference to main criteria.
Table 11: Comparison of Relative Preference
Evaluation Criteria
Vertical Component: Faade
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Horizontal Component:
Pedestrian And Vehicular
Ceiling Component: Outdoor
Closure
Closure
Closure
Closure
Active Landscape
Numerical Scale
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Evaluation Criteria
Closure
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Active Landscape
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Street Furniture
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Street Activity
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Robustness
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Closure
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Active Landscape
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Street Furniture
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Street Activity
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Robustness
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Active Landscape
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Street Furniture
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Street Activity
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Robustness
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Street Furniture
Active Landscape
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Street Activity
Active Landscape
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Robustness
Street Furniture
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Street Activity
Street Furniture
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Robustness
Street Activity
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Robustness
472
4. Results and Discussions..

The conduct of the researrch involves tw
wo phases. Thee first phase appplies communiication throughh email
a the second
d phase involvees the interview
w session. Thee researcher sennds an email consists
with experts and
of the set of thhe questionnairres to the expeert and follows up the expert for face to facce interview session.
Even though,, only two heeritage expertss interacts in this study, buut the processs of completinng the
questionnairess require a hig
gh focus, timee consuming annd high coopeeration. This iss due the num
mber of
main criteria and the sub crriteria which giives the extenssive matrix of choices becom
me complex annd time
T final set of
o questionnairres with a com
mpressed numbber of criteria saves the answ
wering
consuming. The
period.
4.1. Groupingg of Main criterria.
Heritage Streett Selection
Physical Attributes
[T
Tangible- Visual Assessment]
A
Verticle
Components
Horizontal
Componen
t
Aerial
Componen
t
3Dimension
al Physical
Quality
Spiritua
al Attributes
[Intangible
e- Psychological
Re
eflection]
Horizontal
Relection
Effect
Vertical
Reflection
R
Senses
Exp
perientia
l off Senses
Sp
pace
Au
ura
Fig.1. Desiigned Main Criteriia in Expert Choicce.
o the heritagee streets and thhe weightage of the

Finally, the fiindings of this research sharee the ranking of
main criteria. With this resu
ult, hopefully the
t manager off the heritage cities
c
of Malayysian World Heritage
w improve their
t
monitorinng system in ensuring
e
high quality of life in the
Sites (WHS) in both sites will
T descriptionn of sub-criterria is the expllanation of deetail of
urban outdooor of the herittage streets. The
expected quallity in heritage streets.
4.2. Main Criteria and Sub-Criteria.
Table 11: Sub- Criteria
C
[Physical Attributes].
A
S
SubCriteria.
Description.
Vertical Componen
V
nt: Faade
A
Attractiveness.
Horizontal Component: Street

H
A
Accessibility.
A
Active
Landscape.
S
Street
Furniture.
Faade Attracttiveness and Style, Appropriateness Composition,

Color and Liight Signboard, Window Displayy, Canvas and
Interactive faccade Decorative annd Cultural Elemeents (Day and
Night Effects) Resilience Materiials, Pattern and Texture.
Physical Pedeestrian-Vehicular Accessibility
A
and Connectivity ,
Visual Way-fi
finding, Safety annd Legible Signaage, Control of
Flow: Nodess, Coordinates , Intersection, Vehicular
V
and
Pedestrian Frieendly and Resiliennce Material.
Pocket Gardden and Link Perimeter Link, Outdoor,
Sport/Game/R
Recreation Corneer Audio Visuaal, Interactive
(Musical Founntain ) Friendly and Safety (Playy Fountain and
Drinking Wateer) Green and resillience Material andd Finishes.
Outdoor Livinng Room Set, Streeet Benches, Perimeeter Bollard,
Activity.
Ceiling Component: Aerial

Enclosure.
Design Robustness.
Themed Ambience.
Refuse Bin and Landmark (Clock, Temp etc.) Trellises/Tropical

Outdoor Partition, Bollards and Boulevards, Interactive Info and
Cultural / Festive elements Resilience Material and Finishes,
Power Saving Street Lighting.
Street Shopping, Eating and Performance Basic Amenity, Auto
Teller Machine and Banking Disabled , Inclusive and Universal
Approach, Cultural / Festive / Fashion, Trendy and Style Product
Sales ,Resilience Material & Finishers, Positive attitude and
Healthy Regime.
Open Sky to sunlight or shaded with a certain degree of
enclosure, Degree of Closure or Interactive /Intelligent, Roofing
System, Pergola / Tropical Roofing Elements Cultural / Festive
elements such as lights and lanterns Material and Finishes, Info
and Light [Light Show and Fireworks.
Flexibility - Change and Adaptability, Control Movement,
Vibrancy, Safety Visual and Functional, Innovative and Creative.
Overall characteristic, Total product and environment,
Experience being in the space.
Table 12: Sub-Criteria [Spiritual Attributes].

1
Main Criteria.
Heritage Richness.
Interactive Connectivity.
Aerial Festive Expression.
Healthy Lifestyle.
Convenient Amenity.
Local Identity.
Aura.
Description.
Visual Appealing and Eye Catching Harmonious Balanced
Composition Between Heritage / Current Style Self
Maintained Decorative and Cultural Elements Resilience
Materials, Pattern and Texture.
Smooth Pedestrian and Vehicular Traffic , Legible and Self
Positioning for Way Finding Harmoniously Controlled
Movement Traffic Calming Approach Friendly and
Resilience Streets Materials.
Openness and Liberty Degree of Privacy Tropical Roofing
Elements Ethnic Festive Expression Material and Finishes,
Info and Light [Light Show and Fireworks].
Sense of Relief and Hygiene, Urban Recreation Sensory
Activation, Fun and Joy Spirit, Clean Environment and
High Quality Of Life.
Urban Outdoor Recreation, Urban Friendly Lifestyle,
Interactive Info and Cultural Artwork, Idealist Resilience
Material and Finishes.
Local Themed Identity of Daily Routine, Local Themed
Amenity and Comfort, Universal Design Level Tuned to
Local Approach, Local Cultural Zeitgeist Promotion
Resilience Material & Finishers.
Self Healing and Positive Aura.
Valuability.
The meaning to society memory.
473
474
Concluding remarks.
This stage of research exposed that there various software developed from mathematical equations and
formulae. In this post millennium age time is a precious essence of life. All of us need to make a quick
decision within a short time. Using Expert Choice as the software simplified the whole process and
provides visual integration of sensitivity analysis.
Acknowledgements.
This acknowledgement is highly dedicated to all officers of Research Management Institute of
Universiti Teknologi MARA particularly whom in charge for this research grant. Special thank I direct to
my researcher in supporting the success of this research.
References
Adamovic, P. et al. (2007). Expert Choice Model for Choosing Appropriate Trenchless Method for Pipe
Laying. Department of Civil Engineering. Research Dissertation. Polythechnic of Zagreb, Crotia.
Ehrgott, M. (2011). Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. Vol 142 of the series in Operation
Research & Management Science, edited by Matthias Ehrgott, Joes Figeria, Salvator, Springer, 1st
Edition., 2010.
Mohd Safian, E. & Nawawi, A.H. (2011). The Evolution of Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP As
Decision Making Tool In Property Sectors. Munich Personal RePec Archive. http: //mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/39442/MRPA Paper No. 39442.
Mohd Yusop, N. & Mohamed Yusof, N. (2009). Analytical Hierarchical Process Method to Prioritize
Automobile Purchase Criteria. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Research and
Education in Mathematics. ISBN No. 978-967-344-092-4. Institute of Mathematical Research
(INSOPEM), UPM.
Samadi, Z. & Mohd Yunus, R. (2012). Physical and Spiritual Attributes of Urban Heritage Street's
Revitalization. Asian Journal of Environment-Behaviour Studies. Volume 3. No. 7, 2012, Pages 69-78
Samadi, Z. et al. (2012). Spirit of Outdoor Spaces in between Urban Heritage Buildings. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 42, 2012, Pages 460-465, ISSN 1877-0428,
10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.04.211.(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812010932.
Samadi,Z. & Mohd Yunus, R. (2012). Conflict of Image and Identity in Heritage Commercialization.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 50, 2012, Pages 675-684, ISSN 1877-0428,
10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.070. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812032089).
Samadi,Z. et.al. (2012). On-Street Visual Analysis on Outdoor Space of Jalan Hang Jebat, Melaka.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 68, 19 December 2012, Pages 353-362, ISSN 18770428, 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.233.
Sauian, M.S. (2011). A Practical Approach in Making Meaningful Decisions. Journal of Statistical
Modelling and Analysis. Vol 2. No. Pages 21-28.
Sauian, M.S. (2011). Operation Management Strategy for Selecting Business Location using AHP, Jurnal
Teknologi Maklumat Sains Maklumat Dan Sains Kuantitatif. 8(1), UPENA, UiTM, Shah Alam.
Zionts, S. (1990). Where We have been and Where We Are Going? Proceedings Of The International
Conference On Opertion Research And Management Science, Manilla, Philippines.
475

1 s2.0 S1877042813021150 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S1877042813021150 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

AicQoL 2013 Langkawi

Expert Choice for Ranking Heritage Streets

Corresponding author. Tel.:+60192179021; fax:++03-55444353

3. Method of Selecting the Best Heritage Street.

Very strongly preferred.

3.2. Expert Choices Alternative.

Ceiling Component: Outdoor

4. Results and Discussions..

Fig.1. Desiigned Main Criteriia in Expert Choicce.

o the heritagee streets and thhe weightage of the

Horizontal Component: Street

Faade Attracttiveness and Style, Appropriateness Composition,

Ceiling Component: Aerial

Refuse Bin and Landmark (Clock, Temp etc.) Trellises/Tropical

Table 12: Sub-Criteria [Spiritual Attributes].

Aerial Festive Expression.

The meaning to society memory.

You might also like