A Quantitative Evaluation of Cultural Criteria in Cultural-Artistic Architecture: A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach in Tehran

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• sara sadeghi ¹
• Mehdi Mahmoudi Kamel Abad ²

¹ Ph.D. Candidate in Architecture, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

² Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/cauds.2025.94355.1019

Abstract

Quantitative assessment of cultural criteria in the architecture of contemporary cultural-artistic complexes is essential for enhancing spatial quality, strengthening identity, and social acceptance. This study aimed to identify, prioritize, and quantify the impact of five cultural criteria—aesthetic quality, proportions, architectural style, social acceptability, and cultural meaning and identity—on ten case studies in Tehran. The criteria were first extracted through a systematic literature review and validated in three Delphi rounds with the participation of 27 architecture and structural design experts. Then, the scores (1–10) of each criterion for each sample were analyzed using the weighted hierarchical analysis method and the causal relationships of the criteria were analyzed with DEMATL. The results showed that aesthetic quality has the highest weight (0.47), followed by cultural meaning and identity (0.30) and social acceptability (0.20); architectural style (0.09) and proportions (0.05) are complementary but effective. DEMATL analysis showed that aesthetic and meaning criteria, as the main effective variables, have a strong effect on other indicators (CI > 0.60).
Among the examples, the “City Theater” performed the best with an overall score of 9.05, indicating a successful balance between visual appeal, cultural connection, and social engagement. These findings confirm the necessity of integrating aesthetic and cultural identity criteria into design; a design that goes beyond structural function to also address social dynamics and the preservation of local heritage. The proposed data-driven and multi-criteria framework provides a practical model for architects and urban planners in culturally-sustainable design.

Keywords

• Cultural criteria
• qualitative characteristics
• architecture
• quantitative assessment
• cultural-artistic collections

©2025 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)

References

1.Alexander, C. (1979). The timeless way of building. Oxford fUniversity Press.

2.Bani Masoud, A. (2020). Contemporary architecture in Iran: From 1925 to the present.. ISBN 979-8620711642.

3.Bapiri, J., Esfandiar, K., & Seyfi, S. (2020). A photo-elicitation study of the meanings of a cultural heritage site experience: A means-end chain approach. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 26(1), 62–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2020.1756833.

4.Ching, F. D. K. (2007). Architecture, form, space & order. Hoboken: Wiley.

5.Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555.

6.Curtis, W. J. R. (1996). Modern architecture since 1900 (3rd ed., Illustrated ed.). Phaidon Press.

7.Dawoud, M. M., & Elgizawy, E. (2018). The correlation between art and architecture to promote social interaction in public space. In M. K. Dawoud (Ed.) , Cities’ identity through architecture and arts (pp. 99–105). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315166551-9.

8.Dovey, K. (2010). Becoming places: Urbanism / Architecture / Identity / Power. Routledge.

9.Dubois, C., Cloutier, G., Potvin, A., Adolphe, L., & Joerin, F. (2020). Design support tools to sustain climate change adaptation at the local level: A review and reflection on their suitability. Environmental Modelling & Software, 125, 104612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.104612.

10.Frampton, K. (1992). Modern architecture: A critical history (3rd ed.). Thames & Hudson.

11.Gayen, P., & Hajela, A. (2025). Modern heritage assessment index: A quantitative approach for assessing the cultural significance of modern heritage. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 11(2), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2025.2502972.

12.Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings: Using public space (6th ed.). Island Press.

13.Gerstenberg, T., Baumeister, C. F., Schraml, U., & Plieninger, T. (2020). Hot routes in urban forests: The impact of multiple landscape features on recreational use intensity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 203, 103888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103888.

14.Gifford, R. (2007). The consequences of living in high-rise buildings. Architectural Science Review, 50(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.3763/asre.2007.5002.

15.Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (1996). Revitalising historic urban quarters. Routledge.

16.Hsu, C. & Sandford, B. A., (2007) “The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus”, Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 12(1): 10. https://doi.org/10.7275/pdz9-th90.

17.Karbalaei Hossini Ghiyasvand, A. and Soheili, J. (2019). The Role of Environmental Physical Indicators in Socibility of Cultural Spaces Using Space Syntax Technique, Case Study: Dezfol and Niavaran Cultural Complexes. Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Development, 11(25), 361-373.

18.Khosravi, S., & Alavi, N. (2022). Quantitative assessment of architectural aesthetics based on order and complexity: Addressing subjective biases in evaluation. Journal of Architectural Science and Research, 18(3), 210–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasr.2022.04.005.

19.Lang, J. (1987). Creating architectural theory: The role of the behavioral sciences in environmental design. Van Nostrand Reinhold.

20.Maselli, G., Cucco, P., Nesticò, A., & Ribera, F. (2023). Historical heritage–MultiCriteria Decision Method (H-MCDM) to prioritize intervention strategies for the adaptive reuse of valuable architectural assets. MethodsX, 10, 102487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2023.102487.

21.Mishra, P. S., & Muhuri, S. (2021). Incorporating perceptions of multiple stakeholders while assessing architectural heritage value: A case of Odishan temple architecture in India. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 44(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X211072526.

22.Mishra, P. S., & Muhuri, S. (2021). Value assessment of existing architectural heritage for future generation using criteria importance through inter-criteria correlation and grey relational analysis method: A case of Odisha temple architecture in India. Current Science, 121(6), 823–833. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v121/i6/823-833.

23.Montgomery, J. (1998). Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 3(1), 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809808724418.

24.Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 377–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659402600305.

25.Nasr, S. H. (2006). Islamic science: An illustrated study. World Wisdom.

26.Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002.

27.Oliver, P. (2003). Dwellings: The vernacular house worldwide. Phaidon Press.

28.Pallasmaa, J. (2005). The eyes of the skin: Architecture and the senses (2nd ed.). Wiley-Academy.

29.Pérez-Gómez, A. (1983). Architecture and the crisis of modern science. MIT Press.

30.Pisolkar, Y. (2024). Cultural heritage management and sustainable development: Major themes and research trajectories. Journal of Electrical Systems, 20(6s), 2417–2431. https://doi.org/10.52783/jes.3224.

31.Rahbar, M., MahdaviNejad, M. J., Bemanian, M. R., & Davaie-Markazi, A. (2020). Artificial neural network for outlining and predicting environmental sustainable parameters. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), pages. https://doi.org/10.22061/jsaud.2019.4501.1333

32.Rapaport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment: A non-verbal communication approach. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press.

33.Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion. https://archive.org/details/placeplacelessne0000relp

34.Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill.

35.Sagarna, M., Senderos, M., Pérez, J. J., Azcona, L., Otaduy, J. P., Lizundia, I., Roca, M., Martín-Garín, A., Aizpiri, A., & Mora, F. (2025). Globalization and architecture: Urban homogenization and challenges for unprotected heritage. Buildings, 15(3), Article 497. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15030497

36.Scruton, R. (1979). The aesthetics of architecture. Princeton University Press.

37.Shaheen, S., Waly, T., & Metawi, R. (2022, December). A process model for architectural heritage values assessment. In Sustainable Conservation of Cultural Heritage, KNUCH UNESCO Chair International Forum. Helwan University.

38.Vardopoulos, I. (2019). Critical sustainable development factors in the adaptive reuse of urban industrial buildings: A fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 50, 101684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101684MDPI+9CoLab+9Academia+9

39.Yau, Y. (2009). Multi-criteria decision making for urban built heritage conservation: Application of the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Building Appraisal, 4(3), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1057/jba.2008.34

40.Zhao, Q., Zhang, L., & Hou, J. (2025). Developing a cultural sustainability assessment framework for environmental facilities in urban communities. npj Heritage Science, 13, Article 107. https://doi.org/10.1038/s40494-025-01662-6