2024 Volume 12 Issue 2 Pages 99-118
Industrial heritage is a relic of industrial civilisation, and unlike other historical and cultural heritage, it has industrial properties. The value of mining and the promotion of industrial heritage are important for the promotion of a city's cultural status and the preservation of its historical features. However, the current situation is that the level of importance and protection of industrial heritage varies from country to country, and there is a lot of room for value extraction and improvement behind it. It is necessary to assess the value of industrial heritage. In order to assess the value of industrial heritage, it is necessary to select corresponding criteria. According to the sorting out of relevant standards, this paper proposes a standard value matrix for urban industrial heritage, including eight dimensions—history, art, society, culture, science and technology, economy, environment, and function—and establishes an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) model of industrial heritage value assessment to evaluate the value of industrial heritage. The model is applied to the value assessment of the industrial heritage of Mawei Shipbuilding in Fuzhou, and the value convergence of relevant industrial heritage is found, so as to carry out classification analysis and implement corresponding suggestions for value improvement according to different types, which is expected to contribute to its protection and reuse.
Industrial heritage refers to the remains of industrial civilisation, including buildings, machinery, workshops, factories, mining fields and mining areas, warehouses, places of energy production, transportation and utilisation, transport and infrastructure, and places of social activity related to industry, such as housing, religious and educational facilities, etc. Unlike other historical and cultural heritage, it has industrial characteristics. Industrial buildings serve industrial production and have high requirements for building materials and construction technology. Industrial heritage is a special component of urban historical heritage. Industrial heritage carries the historical memory and cultural accumulation of the industrial development of a city. Mining and upgrading the value of industrial heritage are important for raising the city's cultural status and maintaining its historical style (Wu, Yu et al., 2021). However, on a global scale, there is still a large number of industrial heritage values that are commonly overlooked as replaceable demolition objects for urban development (Chen, Wei et al., 2014). The value of industrial heritage has been positively and beneficially highlighted in relevant international documents. The identification of the value of industrial heritage originated from the Charter of Nizhny Tagil, which expounded for the first time the universal value of industrial heritage, including the value of science and technology and the aesthetic value reflected by engineering technology, and became the international standard for the evaluation of industrial heritage value (Hong, 2017). In November 2011, the 17th session of the International Council on Monuments adopted the Dublin Principles, which emphasise the structure, region and landscape of industrial heritage, complement the environmental discourse on industrial heritage in the Charter of Nizhny Tagil, and propose intangible cultural heritage protection. In November 2012, the 15th international Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage General Assembly was held in Taipei, and the Taipei Declaration on Asian Industrial Heritage was issued to further systematically elaborate on the value of industrial heritage, emphasising the value component of the whole and the value link between intangible and material heritage.
Countries around the world have achieved some results in protecting the value of industrial heritage. For example, the United Kingdom is a big country of industrial heritage, with the earliest industrial heritage protection (Qi, T., 2014), and has established a relatively complete industrial heritage identification criteria and value evaluation system, thus fully protecting the value of industrial heritage. Australia has integrated the protection and reuse of industrial heritage into urban management and planning systems as an open cultural space resource (Wang, W., Wang et al., 2021), increasing the value of industrial heritage conservation, preserving identity, and safeguarding the value of industrial heritage mining. Germany mainly adheres to the concept of ecological protection and uses landscape remodelling to enhance the functional value of industrial heritage (Li and Soyez, 2019), allowing cities and industrial heritage to develop sustainably. The concept of industrial heritage in France is gradually developing in the direction of the industrial landscape (Wang, Y., Wu et al., 2015). There are few documents on the protection of industrial heritage in France, but the system for protecting industrial heritage is gradually improving. Drawing on the experience of Europe (Zhang, 2021), China has begun to establish its own industrial heritage protection system step by step. Since the development period is relatively short and at an early stage, it is necessary to continue studying the value of industrial heritage. The current situation is that the level of importance and protection of industrial heritage varies from country to country, and there is also a lot of space for mining and promoting the value behind industrial heritage. Therefore, a value assessment of industrial heritage is extremely important.
At present, by combing the relevant conference literature on the protection and reuse of China's industrial heritage (Tang and Wang, 2022), it can be seen that compared with other research levels (Figure 1), there are relatively few relevant value studies, and the exploration of value methods is more limited. Most of the relevant studies mainly focus on the introduction of domestic and foreign cases. For the renewal and transformation of industrial heritage, we should actively pay attention to the value of industrial heritage, which is the core part of its protection and reuse. If industrial heritage is not renovated according to its value, there can easily be serious consequences. For example, the Liverpool Sea Mall in England (Liu, 2021) which, due to the continuous large-scale development and construction of the heritage site and buffer zone, seriously damaged the authenticity and integrity of the industrial heritage, resulting in its removal from the World Heritage List. Therefore, exploring the value of industrial heritage through scientific and effective methods is of great significance for the protection and reuse of industrial heritage.
This paper establishes a comprehensive assessment model of industrial heritage that takes into account both internal and external factors of industrial heritage by means of chromatography analysis. Through the model, we can intuitively feel different levels of value of industrial heritage, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of different levels, and analyse the value of industrial heritage that is in need of protection and reuse. Through evaluation, heritages with similar values are found, classified, and targeted promotion strategies are proposed according to the protection problems existing in their values, which helps the government or other implementers scientifically and effectively transform the industrial heritage according to the evaluation results.
The organizational structure of this paper is as follows: Section 2 reviews the previous studies on the valuation criteria for industrial heritage. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) model is introduced, and a standard matrix AHP model of industrial heritage value is established. It describes the motivations and characteristics of the case study domain. Section 3 introduces the results of applying the established model to evaluate the value of industrial heritage in the case study area and puts forward targeted value enhancement strategies. Section 4 outlines the proposed model and provides suggestions for future research.
At present, the commonly used evaluation methods of industrial heritage value include the conditional value evaluation method, fuzzy comprehensive analysis method, factor analysis method, AHP, etc. The advantage of the conditional value assessment method is that it directly understands the value cognition of the investigated group on industrial heritage to obtain a quantitative evaluation of industrial heritage value. However, its disadvantage is that its results are easily affected by the value preference of cognitive subjects (Damigos and Kaliampakos, 2003). The advantage of fuzzy comprehensive analysis is that it is good at sorting out complex problems and data, resulting in accurate results. However, its disadvantage is that the calculation is complicated and affected by the subjectivity of the analyst (Han, Song et al., 2015). The factor analysis method can better simplify the analysis process, but it has certain requirements for related data components (Sun, 2014). The AHP brings multi-dimensional factors into the evaluation system, constructing the target layer, criterion layer, sub-criterion layer, and other hierarchical analysis systems (Cuadrado, Zubizarreta et al., 2015), and then constructs the mathematical statistics matrix to obtain the evaluation results, providing a basis for the protection and reuse of industrial heritage. Its advantage is that it has many evaluation factors and is relatively objective, providing multi-dimensional factor demonstration for protecting and improving the value of industrial heritage. Its disadvantage is that the selection of evaluation dimensions has high requirements for scientific accuracy, and the results are easily affected by overlapping dimensions. Because the value assessment of industrial heritage has many dimensions and abundant evaluation factors, this paper aims to establish a standard evaluation model using the AHP analysis method to evaluate the value of industrial heritage to help the city achieve better sustainable development.
Case StudyMawei Shipbuilding is located in Mawei District, Fuzhou City, Fujian Province, China. It is extremely important industrial heritage of China (Gao, 1997), including the modern Mawei shipbuilding industry heritage, the Fujian ship administration building complex, modern coastal defence relics, Luoxing Tower and its surrounding mountain park, Qianhou traditional commercial streets, etc. Mawei Shipbuilding is an important part of the westernization movement in modern Chinese history, with a long history. It features the construction of many industrial buildings with different cultural integration characteristics and unique styles; the founding of the Mawei Shipbuilding School directly promoted the establishment and development of China's modern navy and was of great significance. The introduction of western application technology rapidly improved the level of science and technology industries and promoted the exchange of Chinese and Western cultures. At that time, the ship manufacturing technology was essentially the same as current technology, and the technology was superb. The types of industrial heritage are rich, well-maintained, complete, and have great potential for development. Situated in front of the Minjiang River, beyond the middle Qi mountain system, it benefits from a superior natural environment. The building space of Mawei Shipbuilding is tall and open, with good lighting modes and high space adaptability. Therefore, upon preliminary judgment, Mawei Shipbuilding possesses historical, artistic, societal, cultural, scientific and technological, economic, environmental, functional, and other values, making it suitable for the value evaluation model of industrial heritage outlined in the previous section, thereby validating the AHP model of the value standard matrix of industrial heritage.
Mawei Shipbuilding, which integrates the shipbuilding industry with military administration, is referred to as shipbuilding administration due to its involvement not only in the manufacturing aspects of shipbuilding and ship repair but also in government functions such as personnel training and navy construction. Mawei Shipbuilding Administration covers a significant area, with its construction control zone divided into three parts, namely, the Mawei Shipyard area: extending east to Yanshanxi Road, south to the 3,000-ton ship platform, west to 100 meters west of the Drawing Institute, and north to the north of the Classic Car Museum; Majanshan area: extending north to Gangang Road, east to Zhaozhong Road, southwest to the Minjiang River, and north to the 15,000-ton slipway; Luoxing Mountain area: extending west to the port railway, south to the Minjiang River, and east to the protected area. The total planning area is 46.12 hectares, with the field protection area covering 24.66 hectares (Figure 2).
The case study area has a long history, and its heritage is diverse, but the good and bad are intermingled. The level of protection and promotion of its value mining have ample room for improvement. Therefore, through the utilisation of the industrial heritage standard matrix in the AHP model, an industrial heritage value assessment of Horsetail Ship Administration Heritage is conducted, delving into the value of Horsetail Ship Administration Heritage and putting forward targeted, more valuable advice.
Analytic Hierarchy ProcessThe Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a hierarchical weight decision analysis method proposed by the American operations research scholar Thomas Saaty, based on network system theory and the multi-objective comprehensive assessment method (Olson, 1996). This method breaks down related objects into different levels in AHP. Combining quantitative analysis with qualitative analysis, it employs mathematical statistics to allocate weights to assess the advantages and disadvantages of a scheme order, and deals with those problems that are difficult to solve by quantitative methods. It should be noted that the factors at each level are generated by pairwise comparison, which makes it crucial to assign relative importance between the two factors. The process of hierarchical analysis is as follows (Saaty, T. L., 1994):
• Analyse and determine the evaluation factors according to the problems and related elements, and build an orderly hierarchical weight evaluation system;
• Issue the index weight consultation form and relevant data about the research object to experts or professional team members to determine the index weight of each criterion layer;
• Determine the evaluation standard, quantify the score standard of the criterion layer, ask experts to score and assign values to each individual index, and take the average value of the comprehensive expert score result;
• Calculate the weight index, bring the score result and weight value into the model calculation, and get the final evaluation score table;
• Comprehensive analysis of the final evaluation results (Saaty, T. L., 1977).
The judgment matrix for the comparison between two elements was constructed, and the element indices of the same level in the matrix were compared. Table 1 demonstrates the Element comparison assignment. The 1-9 scale was used to assign a value to the degree of importance by comparing the importance of the two elements (Saaty, T. L., 1977). If element A is as important as element B, then the importance degree is 1. If A is absolutely more important than B, then the importance degree of A to B is 9, and that of B to A is 1/9, and so on.
Table 1. Element comparison assignment table (source: Saaty, R. W., 1987))
| Serial number | Degree of importance | Ratio |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | A is absolutely more important than B | 9 |
| 2 | A is more important than B | 7 |
| 3 | A is obviously more important than B | 5 |
| 4 | A is slightly more important than B | 3 |
| 5 | A is no less important than B | 1 |
According to the judgment matrix, the geometric mean method was used to calculate the weight of design elements for the criterion layer and sub-criterion layer. The procedure was as follows:
• Multiply each row in the judgment matrix to obtain Mi: In the formula, Bij represents the index in row i and column j, and m, the number of indices(Saaty, T. L., 1977).
Mi =
• Judge the geometric mean of products of scales at each hierarchy.
• Calculate the relative weight.
Wi =
• Calculate the maximum characteristic root, where BWi represents component i of vector BW, and n denotes the order.
λmax=
• Consistency test of results: n represents the corresponding order of evaluation index in the judgment matrix, CI, the average consistency index, and CR, the consistency ratio. When CR≤0.1, the results pass the consistency test. If CR>0.1, the results fail, indicating that the judgment matrix is not acceptable, and it needs to be checked and adjusted for another calculation.
CI=
• The total weight is calculated as the weight of rule hierarchy multiplied by that of the sub-hierarchy of rule.
| n | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RI | 0 | 0 | 0.52 | 0.89 | 1.12 | 1.26 | 1.36 | 1.41 | 1.46 | 1.52 |
Finally, through the index weight table of the research object, the index weight and evaluation score are calculated to obtain the score of each index, and the importance weight of the comprehensive index is sorted out (Table 2).
This study utilises AHP to develop a multi-dimensional industrial heritage value assessment model for various levels. The guidelines and criteria for this model are presented in the next section
AHP model of industrial heritage standard matrixAt present, scholars continue to deepen their research on the evaluation methods of industrial remains. Through cross-research, they apply professional evaluation methods such as management and statistics to the evaluation of industrial remains. They combine qualitative, quantitative, and comprehensive evaluation methods to avoid the subjective assumptions of qualitative methods and the extensive analysis of quantitative methods, allowing qualitative methods to provide a judgment basis for quantitative methods. Quantitative accuracy for qualitative expression better meets the value of industrial heritage assessment. Among them, different scholars build an accurate value evaluation system to evaluate the industrial relics of their own research, which has a high pertinence.
In China, the value evaluation model proposed by Professor Liu Boying in A Preliminary Study on the Evaluation Method of Beijing Industrial Heritage is of great reference significance (Liu and Li, 2008). The evaluation system is divided into two parts: the value given by history to industrial heritage and the value related to the status quo, protection, and reuse of industrial heritage. On the basis of the absolute value of the evaluation results in the first part, according to the evaluation method of the second part, the results do not affect the first part and only serve as a reference and basis for the protection and reuse of industrial heritage. The evaluation factors of the established evaluation system are representative, but its weight and grade differentiation are not clear. Starting from the spatial level, Huang Qi divided the value of modern industrial buildings in Shanghai into three levels: city, community, and building (Qi, H., 2008), and the community included industry, enterprise, and factory. Then combined with the six categories of industrial heritage, such as history, art, science, environment, economy, and society, the protection and reuse system of modern industrial buildings in Shanghai was established. The advantage is that the hierarchy is clear, but the disadvantage is that only the analysis of historical value at the spatial level is conducted, ignoring the role of other values at the spatial level. The tabulator did not determine a fixed weight; the weight was determined by the investigator.
By analysing the three most common industrial remains evaluation systems, it can be found that in the establishment of the evaluation model, there are more and more evaluation dimensions, and the selection of dimensions is more and more flexible. The relevant value of industrial remains is widely and deeply considered, but the repeatability of evaluation dimensions is noted. The method of evaluation is becoming more and more scientific. The weight is generated by quantitative comparative statistics, avoiding the subjectivity formulated by human beings, ensuring the scientific results of the evaluation model, providing method guidance for value discrimination, and providing advantages for reference in the evaluation model of industrial heritage value.
So, through the above case study, the selection of factors for value assessment follows a rule as follows: Each factor can comprehensively cover the value of industrial heritage, and at the same time, the factors are relatively independent for a multi-dimensional reflection of the core value of industrial heritage. According to the Lower Tajir Charter, for the definition of industrial heritage, history, technology, society, and art are the core values of industrial patrimony. Britain takes history, architecture, aesthetics, sharing, and material evidence as the basis of the value of industrial inheritance. Scholar Li Gherl believes that industrial legacy as a practical heritage in historical heritage should have commemorative values and contemporary values; memorial values include historical and spiritual cultural values; contemporary values include artistic, functional, economic, etc. The China Industrial Heritage Value Assessment Guidelines put forward the value assessment of industrial heritage with historic, scientific, artistic and social character as the criteria, and influence, representation, advancement, integrity and speciality as the assessment conditions.
With reference to the value evaluation system of other industrial heritage established by scholars in related fields and relevant theoretical frameworks, the industrial heritage value evaluation system was constructed by selecting a total of eight dimensions as the criterion layer, or evaluation factors, for analysis, namely history, art, society, culture, technology, economy, environment and function. The evaluation system of this study is constructed, and the above research and indicators are referred to, based on which the method of this study is formed. They are divided into 16 sub-criteria for control, that is, chronological value, characters and events, architectural style, decorative aesthetics, social impact, public participation, cultural identity, emotional experience, production process, product quality of finished products, transformation cost, economic value added, environmental coordination, regional environment, current situation of usage and functional adaptation (Table 3).
| Value type | Value elaboration |
|---|---|
| Historical value | Industrial heritage will have historical traces with the passage of time. The older it is, the higher its historical value will be. The more important historical events and historical figures occur, the higher their special historical value will be. |
| Artistic value | The artistic value of industrial heritage is mainly reflected in the overall style of the region and the decorative atmosphere of the building. |
| Social value | The sociality of industrial heritage is reflected in its contribution to society, the extent of its impact, and the degree of public participation in its construction and development. |
| Cultural value | The cultural nature of industrial heritage is reflected in the public’s sense of identity with its culture. In addition to the formation of its own corporate culture, material and immaterial retention, and cultural radiation and communication to the surrounding areas. |
| Scientific and technological value | The scientific and technological nature of industrial heritage lies in the quality of its industrial production techniques and products. |
| Scientific and technological value | The economic value of industrial heritage is related to the scale of resources reused. The transformation cost is small, and the potential economic value-added capacity is large, so the economic value is higher. |
| Economic value | The environmental nature of industrial heritage lies in the coordination between internal and external environmental elements and industrial elements, as well as the connection between the environment and the physical, visual, spiritual, and other cultural backgrounds of industrial heritage. |
| Functional value | The function of industrial heritage lies in its current situation, what use functions it undertakes, and what new functions can be implanted after transformation to bring new vitality. |
In combination with the above process and related industrial heritage value research, the value assessment index system O was established with history, art, society, culture, science and technology, economy, environment, and function as the first-level rule hierarchies represented respectively by A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H. After organisation and analysis, the items were further divided by serial numbers based on the letters for the parent items, and the results were as shown in the following figure:
A judgment matrix for the comparison of pairwise elements was constructed to compare the element indices of the same hierarchy in the matrix, and the weight values of each design element in each hierarchy were determined. For comparison element Xij in the judgment matrix, the 1-9 scale proposed by Saaty was adopted. The importance degree was assigned through a relevant comparison between elements, as shown in Table 4. According to the above calculation process of the geometric mean method and the investigation results based on the judgment matrix, the relative weight of design elements at each hierarchy was calculated by scale product and relative weight. The weight results of evaluation indexes and the resulting index weight values were sorted according to the rule hierarchy and sub-hierarchy for the evaluation system. To guarantee the consistency of the subject in thinking and the compatibility of the judgment matrix in the evaluation, the maximum characteristic root-assisted judgment matrix was calculated to test the consistency of results, and as a result, the CR values were all less than 0.1, indicating that they passed the consistency test, as shown in Table 6.
| Hierarchy | Element | Weight (%) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion layer | O | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | |
| A | 1 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 25.19% | |
| B | 1/2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 18.75% | |
| C | 1/5 | 1/3 | 1 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 2 | 1/3 | 5.33% | |
| D | 1/2 | 1/2 | 2 | 1 | 1/2 | 2 | 3 | 1/2 | 10.40% | |
| E | 1/2 | 1/2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 15.56% | |
| F | 1/3 | 1/3 | 2 | 1/2 | 1/2 | 1 | 1/2 | 2 | 8.26% | |
| G | 1/5 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 2 | 1 | 1/2 | 5.59% | |
| H | 1/2 | 1/2 | 3 | 2 | 1/2 | 1/2 | 2 | 1 | 10.91% | |
| Target layer | Criterion layer | Sub-criteria layer | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Criterion layer |
Weight (%) |
Criterion layer |
Weight (%) | Sublevel total weight (%) | |
| Industrial heritage value | History | 25.19% | Chronological value | 33.33% | 8.40% |
| Character events | 66.67% | 16.80% | |||
| Art | 18.75% | Architectural style | 66.67% | 12.50% | |
| Decorative aesthetics | 33.33% | 6.25% | |||
| Society | 5.33% | Social impact | 75.00% | 3.99% | |
| Public participation | 25.00% | 1.33% | |||
| Culture | 10.40% | Cultural identity | 66.67% | 6.94% | |
| Emotional experience | 33.33% | 3.47% | |||
| Technology | 15.56% | Production process | 66.67% | 10.38% | |
| Finished product quality | 33.33% | 5.19% | |||
| Economics | 8.26% | Transformation cost | 25.00% | 2.07% | |
| Economic appreciation | 75.00% | 6.19% | |||
| Environment | 5.59% | Environmental coordination | 33.33% | 1.86% | |
| Regional environment | 66.67% | 3.73% | |||
| Function | 10.91% | Use status | 33.33% | 3.64% | |
| Chronological value | 66.67% | 7.27% | |||
Note: The sublevel total weight of the segments is obtained by multiplying the specific gravity of the standard layer and the specific gravity of the sub-standard layer.
| O | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| λmax | 8.63 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| CI | 0.09 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| RI | 1.41 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CR | 0.06 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null |
| Results | Pass | ||||||||
The process for assessing the score of industrial heritage is as follows (Zou, Ma et al., 2022):
• First, relevant scholars are required to judge the factors of industrial heritage and collect the data for each standard;
• Second, rank the calculated data according to established performance criteria;
• Third, the global weight of each sub-criterion is calculated as the weight of the criterion (main criterion prioritization) multiplied by the weight of the sub-criterion (sub-criterion);
• Finally, the value of an industrial heritage building can be measured according to the established industrial heritage value score level.
According to the above standard matrix AHP model of industrial heritage value, a comprehensive assessment was made of the existing architectural heritage of Mawei Shipbuilding in Fuzhou. The final results are summarised and sorted as shown in Table 7:
| Building | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government | 21.4 | 16.2 | 4.9 | 8.4 | 12.1 | 7.3 | 3.9 | 8.2 | 21.4 |
| The school in front | 18.9 | 15.0 | 4.2 | 8.8 | 8.8 | 7.5 | 4.3 | 8.6 | 18.9 |
| The school in the back | 18.0 | 14.4 | 4.2 | 8.9 | 8.7 | 6.9 | 4.2 | 8.3 | 18.0 |
| Cutting station | 22.6 | 16.3 | 4.6 | 7.4 | 13.3 | 6.5 | 3.6 | 6.3 | 22.6 |
| Denso workshop | 15.4 | 13.3 | 2.4 | 5.7 | 12.4 | 5.3 | 3.8 | 7.3 | 15.4 |
| Auditorium | 17.3 | 13.7 | 4.2 | 7.8 | 3.8 | 7.7 | 4.8 | 9.7 | 17.3 |
| Office building | 16.7 | 12.7 | 4.8 | 6.6 | 3.8 | 7.6 | 4.5 | 8.6 | 16.7 |
| Internal workshop | 23.8 | 13.6 | 5.0 | 6.8 | 13.6 | 6.8 | 4.4 | 9.5 | 23.8 |
| Field operation section | 11.8 | 10.7 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 12.7 | 7.6 | 3.8 | 6.4 | 11.8 |
| Coating workshop | 11.5 | 8.5 | 1.7 | 3.5 | 13.9 | 7.2 | 3.7 | 6.5 | 11.5 |
| Jiaju section | 23.1 | 16.0 | 4.5 | 5.9 | 14.6 | 6.8 | 3.4 | 8.9 | 23.1 |
| Installation workshop | 17.7 | 13.6 | 4.3 | 6.8 | 12.6 | 5.8 | 3.6 | 5.9 | 17.7 |
| Wheel factory | 23.9 | 17.2 | 5.3 | 9.3 | 13.9 | 7.9 | 4.7 | 6.4 | 23.9 |
| Design institute | 23.6 | 17.0 | 5.3 | 9.1 | 13.5 | 7.4 | 4.5 | 6.6 | 23.6 |
| Air compressor station | 10.4 | 7.4 | 1.4 | 4.9 | 12.0 | 6.8 | 4.9 | 7.5 | 10.4 |
| No. 2 dock | 24.6 | 15.7 | 5.2 | 8.5 | 12.7 | 5.8 | 4.9 | 7.6 | 24.6 |
| Building berth group | 19.1 | 14.9 | 5.4 | 6.4 | 11.3 | 8.1 | 3.7 | 8.3 | 19.1 |
| Pipe processing section | 10.4 | 10.5 | 3.6 | 6.2 | 12.6 | 6.4 | 3.5 | 6.3 | 10.4 |
| Machine workshop | 18.5 | 13.7 | 4.6 | 6.6 | 13.7 | 5.5 | 4.7 | 7.6 | 18.5 |
| Warehouse | 12.5 | 9.6 | 4.5 | 4.2 | 9.4 | 7.9 | 3.3 | 9.3 | 12.5 |
| Ship loading dock | 13.6 | 12.7 | 4.9 | 3.8 | 9.8 | 8.2 | 2.5 | 8.8 | 13.6 |
| Naval battle fort | 25.0 | 13.9 | 5.1 | 10.2 | 13.7 | 6.5 | 3.7 | 5.7 | 25.0 |
| Zhaozhong temple | 23.5 | 16.4 | 5.1 | 9.9 | 4.6 | 7.5 | 4.7 | 8.6 | 23.5 |
| Martyrs' tomb | 23.8 | 14.8 | 5.1 | 9.2 | 4.6 | 7.0 | 5.1 | 8.4 | 23.8 |
| Consulate | 21.7 | 16.3 | 5.3 | 9.1 | 10.7 | 7.4 | 4.9 | 8.2 | 21.7 |
| Meiyuan prison | 21.4 | 14.5 | 4.8 | 8.9 | 5.7 | 7.1 | 5.1 | 8.6 | 21.4 |
| Director's apartment | 23.7 | 12.8 | 4.6 | 8.0 | 10.3 | 7.9 | 4.9 | 6.5 | 23.7 |
| Shengjiao hospital | 24.7 | 15.5 | 5.3 | 8.6 | 12.7 | 7.5 | 4.7 | 7.7 | 24.7 |
| Luoxing tower | 25.0 | 17.3 | 5.1 | 8.7 | 10.4 | 7.4 | 5.3 | 7.8 | 25.0 |
| No. 1 dock | 22.6 | 16.4 | 4.6 | 8.3 | 13.6 | 7.7 | 4.8 | 7.5 | 22.6 |
The value of obtaining a single item score accounting for more than 85% of the total score of a single item is set as the high standard value, marked with the red numerals, and the reasons behind the analysis are provided to provide a basis for the subsequent value improvement. According to Table 7, the value of Mawei Shipbuilding is sorted out from eight valuation dimensions. It can be found that most of the heritage has high historical value, such as the Ship government, Wheel factory and Design institute, which scored more than 85% of the total score. As an important part of the Westernization movement in modern China, Mawei Shipbuilding was the first attempt to introduce western science and technology, and it was also the beginning of China to educate students with western modern scientific knowledge. It cultivated celebrities such as Yan Fu, Lin Shu, and Zhan Tianyou. As examples, the Naval Battle Fort, Zhaozhong Temple and Martyrs' Tomb experienced a series of events such as the Sino-French Majiang Naval Battle during this period, thus obtaining a high special historical value, more than 85% of the total score. A small number of buildings have low historical value, such as field operation section, air compressor station and warehouse. The score is around 13 points because the building history is not long enough and the events are less experienced.
In terms of artistic value, it can be found that the related architectural styles can be divided into three types. The first type is Chinese classical architectural style, with red walls, grey tiles, and various decorations. As a representative of classical architecture, the ship government and yamen received a high score of 16.2. The second is the industrial architecture style, simple and hard, with bright lines. As the representative of industrial architecture, the machinery factory achieved 17.2. The third is the combination of Chinese and Western architectural styles, which combines the graceful Chinese style with the concise Western style. For example, the consulate, as a representative of the combination of Chinese and Western architecture, received a high score of 16.3.
In terms of social value, Mawei Shipbuilding is the earliest and largest government-run shipyard and shipbuilding school in China. It is the starting point of China's modern marine military industry and directly promotes the establishment and development of China's modern navy. It is not only the cradle of the modern shipbuilding industry and modern navy but also promotes the two-way cultural exchange between China and the West. This makes almost all buildings of high social value, scoring more than 4 points.
In terms of cultural value, the establishment of Mawei Shipbuilding was primarily used to arm the navy and train shipbuilding and naval talents, which promoted the development of local and surrounding culture and education, thus forming its own unique marine shipping culture. The school in front and in the back, the Wheel factory, and Design institute achieved 8.8, 8.9, 9.3 and 9.1 respectively. Therefore, cultural value is mainly reflected in the architecture of Mawei School and Mawei Shipyard. Secondly, Naval Battle Fort, Zhaozhong Temple, Martyrs' Tomb got 10.2, 9.9 and 9.2. They are the products left over after the Majiang naval battle. They contain a special spiritual culture, so they also have high cultural value.
In terms of scientific and technological value, the Cutting Station, Internal workshop, Installation workshop, Wheel factory, and the Design institute achieved 13.3, 13.6, 13.9, 13.9 and 13.5. It can be seen that the value is mainly reflected in the connection between the construction of Mawei Shipyard and the processes of production. The related process involves making moulds for wood mould factories; wood mills and iron cutters split materials; watch factories produce parts; turbine factories and Helong factories manufacture turbines; water cylinder factories produce water cylinders, and finally, all the parts are assembled under the ship. At present, the only architectural heritage of traditional craft production is the wheel factory and the Helong factory.
In terms of economic value, Mawei Shipbuilding encompasses various types of buildings. In addition to traditional industrial structures, there are also government buildings such as Mawei Yamen and educational buildings such as ship schools. These buildings maintain a good scale, have a complete structural layout, and a solid structural system. Therefore, the relevant heritage buildings have high economic value, all scoring above 5 points.
In terms of environmental value, scores of 4.8 and 4.9, such as for the Internal workshop and No. 2 dock, were obtained because the environment was well-maintained. For example, Jiaju workshop and Installation workshop got 3.4 and 3.6, respectively, because most of the industrial production buildings are affected by time and lack timely maintenance and protection, resulting in some loss. Natural landscapes and human architecture need visual coordination, and the environment requires updating compared with architecture, so the environmental value needs improvement. For example, the lowest environmental value fraction of the shipboard wharf is 2.5 because the relevant steel components are heavily rusted, resulting in significant loss, and the nearby water is cloudy, requiring repairs and cleaning.
In terms of functional value, structures with a simple and durable steel frame, tall and open industrial buildings, exhibit excellent value. For instance, the internal business recess and comprehensive warehouse received 9.5 and 9.3 points, respectively, due to their good spatial lighting, prominent steel style, strong lines, geometric rectangular shape, high space utilization rate, and strong functional adaptability.
Typing analysisBased on the combination of the above eight evaluation dimensions, in-depth analysis, as well as the historical background and actual presentation of relevant buildings, the buildings are highly correlated, with relevant convergence in heritage value (Akil, Pradadimara et al., 2022). According to the type of value convergence, the buildings of Mawei Shipbuilding may be divided into four categories of heritage for value type evaluation and analysis, namely Shipbuilding culture, Industrial manufacturing, Coastal defence, and Cultural scenery. Specific value enhancement strategies can then be obtained based on the analysis.
Figure 4 clearly displays that the first type is the heritage of Shipbuilding culture, which includes Shipbuilding Yamen (the government office at that time), front and rear schools, office buildings, and auditoriums. Yamen and front and rear schools have very prominent historical and cultural values because they undertook the functions of handling military and political affairs, cultivating talents, and building the navy, representing the historical and cultural deposits of Mawei Shipbuilding. The office building and auditoriums have been built for a long time. They have undertaken the functions of Shipbuilding Yamen and become a place for dealing with affairs until now. As current measures for activation, the Shipbuilding Yamen and the front and rear schools are restored for static display, while the office building and the auditoriums continue to deal with affairs. However, only a small number of such buildings have been preserved; the original Kaogongsuo was demolished, and thus, its integrity was damaged. The Shipbuilding Yamen was also damaged for traffic construction in Fuzhou. The original historical and cultural deposits were partially lost, although they were reconstructed, and therefore, the spatial narrative effect of the buildings is limited.
The second type is the heritage of Industrial manufacturing, including the old industrial buildings like the cutting workshop, Jiaju section, electrical installation workshop, wheel factory, design institute, No. 2 dock, and the new industrial buildings like the coating workshop, field operation section, pipe processing section, comprehensive warehouse, and ship loading dock. Most of such buildings have values in function as well as science and technology, and at present, they are still used for ship production and maintenance with a complete production process in which steel moulding and processing, assembly of hull parts, hull welding and assembly, and launching of the finished ship are closely related. The process has its own industrial characteristics, indicating that the technology in the late Qing Dynasty was basically the same as the current technology. Therefore, it is of high value in science and technology. At present, the main measures for activation are as follows: the production process is preserved for living heritage display, and some of the buildings are transformed into museums for the display of materials. However, there is a disadvantage to this: for the shipbuilding industry, only the value of science and technology is demonstrated, and the value of aviation and navigation is not reflected.
The third type is the heritage of Coastal defence, including Naval Battle Fort, Zhaozhong Temple, Martyrs' Tomb, etc., for which the connotation lies in historical, social, and cultural values. The Naval Battle Fort is the site of the Majiang River Naval Battle, which contributed to the defence against foreign aggression and witnessed the heroes who fought hard to defend their country until death. Zhaozhong Temple and the Martyrs' Tomb dedicated to the worship of heroes who died in the Majiang River Naval Battle are the resting places of the martyrs. Such heritage embodies a heroic and indomitable Chinese spirit with patriotism as the core, showing no fear of power and remaining unflinching in the face of death. Such heritage is mainly for static display, and the buildings need to be inspected and repaired regularly. A disadvantage of protecting the heritage is the limited display mode and monotonous experience for visitors.
The fourth type is the heritage of Cultural scenery, which includes Meiyuan Prison, Shengjiao Hospital, the Director's Apartment, and Luoxing Tower, whose value is reflected in culture, society, and environment. The well-preserved architectural layout and colour of Meiyuan Prison, Shengjiao Hospital, and the Director's Apartment may reflect the exchange and integration of Chinese and Western cultures with unique styles and a long history of use, and they have made outstanding contributions. As the gateway logo of the Minjiang River as well as an internationally recognized beacon of navigation, the Luoxing Tower, with its long history, has a very high heritage value. It is praised as the "Chinese Tower" because it leads ships coming and going along the Minjiang River. The current measures for activating this heritage include opening it as a public space or building it as a landscape park for tourists to visit and leaving some spaces unused for closed protection. However, such a protective measure makes the heritage less associated with other heritages, and thus, the space elements need to be refined.
The ship administration yamen is the representative of the ship administration cultural heritage, with scores of 21.4, 16.2, 4.9 and 7.3 in history, art, society and economy, respectively. The cultural value is not high due to the reconstruction, and the total score is 21.4, which is the highest among the ship administration cultural heritage values, so it is the main body for planning and linkage. The cultural value of the school before and after is 8.8 and 8.9, respectively, while the other value scores are more ordinary, and the total score is average, which can complement the shipbuilding yamen and drive the value of the auditorium group, office building, and other shipbuilding ancillary buildings. Based on the Mawei Mariner School and Shipbuilding Elementary School and supported by existing activities of the schools like teaching, learning, living, and managing, the prosperous scene of Shipbuilding School at that time may be reproduced through reconstructing a Residence for Apprentice and the Garden of Cultivation as the heritage of shipbuilding culture, improving the integrity of buildings for shipbuilding culture, and advancing the overall narrative space for architectural heritage in combination with shipbuilding institutions. New cultural buildings like the Shipbuilding Hall of Fame may visualize the shipbuilding culture, load the cultural spirit into the material space, and provide tourists with intuitive feelings in a physical form, so as to revitalize the style of ancient streets for shipbuilding, retain the patterns of streets and lanes for the industrial heritage area, and construct a space of appropriate scale rich in sequence. Therefore, relevant cultural activities may be carried out based on the shipbuilding culture, thus extending the function of shipbuilding as a tour and providing services like sightseeing, catering, and shopping. This improves the value score of the environment and the function of the ship's cultural heritage.
Focus on the enhancement of experience in science and technology for the heritage of industrial manufacturingIn the industrial manufacturing heritage, the cutting workshop, the internal workshop, the Jiaju workshop, the locomotive factory, the drawing institute, and the No. 2 Dock, among other buildings, scored 22.6, 23.8, 23.1, 23.9, 23.6 and 24.6, respectively. These buildings were used as representatives for planning and display purposes. Integrating all industrial manufacturing heritage buildings, repairing and maintaining high-value heritage, and transforming and demolishing low-value buildings, such as those with a total score of 17.7, which is more moderate, can be transformed. If the air compressor station scores 10.4, which is low, it can be dismantled without damaging the value of the overall heritage. The cutting workshop, internal workshop, Jiaju workshop, wheel factory, and drawing institute have high science and technology scores of 13.3, 13.6, 14.6, 13.9 and 13.5, respectively. All have clear and open sites that can be integrated with research, experience, entertainment, and other functions to build a shipbuilding industry science and technology park. With the theme of “Past, Present, and Future”, an aviation technology zone with the “No. 1 of Type A” as the display object, the first seaplane of China, and the marine science and technology zone with ships such as "Evergreen" and "Yang Wu", a living heritage display area with a shipbuilding experience zone reflecting the shipbuilding technique, as well as a living heritage display zone with the assembly, testing, and launching of ship parts can be maintained. Thus, from the perspectives of different time periods, industrial manufacturing types, and industrial manufacturing processes, the value of industrial manufacturing heritage in science and technology will be fully displayed, which could trigger tourists' interest in this field.
Focus on the promotion of diversified display means for the heritage of coastal defenceThe heritage of the coastal defence is limited, but it contains rich value, such as the sea battle fort, Zhaozhong shrine, and the tomb of the martyrs, which scored highly, respectively, at 25.0, 23.5 and 23.8. Their common characteristics are high historical, social, and cultural values. The scores of these three naval artillery batteries are 25.0, 5.1 and 10.2; the scores of Zhaozhong Temple were 23.5, 5.1 and 9.9; the Tomb of the Martyrs scored 23.8, 5.1 and 9.2. Because static protection and display of the coastal defence legacy cannot adequately convey its rich value, it is vital to fully exploit the intangible cultural connotation of coastal defence heritage and define the material space carrier in order to highlight the spiritual culture. To fully explore the intangible cultural connotation of naval war heritage, the material space carrier should be clearly defined to highlight the spiritual culture, integrate the planning around the Zhaozhong Temple, Naval Battle Fort, Martyrs' Tomb, and the battlefield of the Battle of Fuzhou for creating an experience zone themed on the Battle of Fuzhou, and highlight the function of Zhaozhong Temple and Martyrs' Tomb for mourning the heroes, so as to carry forward the spirit of patriotism. With the help of multimedia, VR, AR, and other information technologies, scenes of wars at that time could be reproduced and provided to tourists in the form of integrated media. Using virtual means to shape the light, colour, shadow, and form, the original single space narrative would be transformed into a multi-narrative, creating a connection for people's multi-sensory experience. Therefore, tourists may have a first-hand experience of the naval battle.
Focus on spatial interactivity of heritage group environment for the heritage of cultural sceneryCultural and scenic heritage is mainly located in Maxian Mountain and Luoxing Mountain of Mawei Ship Administration, with a long history, beautiful environment and great social influence, so the total score is very high. Respectively, the Consulate scored 21.7, Meiyuan Prison 21.4, Dean's Apartment 23.7, Saint Church Hospital 24.7 and Luoxing Tower 25.0. Among them, the values of technology and function are relatively average, with Consulate 10.7 and 8.2, Meiyuan Prison 5.7 and 8.6, Dean's Apartment 10.3 and 6.5, Holy Church Hospital 12.7 and 7.7 and Luoxing Tower 10.4 and 7.8. Therefore, it is necessary to develop strengths and avoid weaknesses, give full play to the advantages of historical value, social value, and environmental value, and build the Majanshan Park with Meiyuan Prison and Luoxing Tower as the main park. The design should pay attention to the connection among identification systems, landscape pieces and buildings (Luo, 2019). By strengthening industrial elements and environmental symbols, the historical and cultural heritage of the natural space could be combined, which would enhance the charming details of space and environment. Also, the emphasis on the construction of related infrastructure could bring an intact experience of humanistic and natural landscapes. The industrial heritage area of the Mawei Shipbuilding, the historic building area of Maxian Mountain, and the natural landscape area of Luoxing Tower are linked to realizing a natural transition from green landscape through cultural landscape to industrial landscape, which shapes the green space nodes consciously and establishes a connection between the sky and green spaces. Thus, it could jointly present a harmonious and beautiful landscape that combines nature and culture, containing mountains, water, trees, buildings, ships, and so on.
This study analysed the value of industrial heritage in eight dimensions: history, art, society, culture, science and technology, economy, environment, and function. A new standard model of industrial heritage value assessment based on AHP has been established to provide weights for classic and secondary standards. According to each existing standard below the standard, the new evaluation model gives the value of industrial heritage, and the result shows the distribution of the value of industrial heritage in the relevant dimensions, which provides a scientific basis for the protection and reuse of industrial heritage in the future.
In addition, this research conducted a model evaluation and analysis on the case of Fuzhou Mawei Shipbuilding in China, and found value convergence of related industrial heritage. We divided the Mawei Shipbuilding heritage into shipbuilding culture, industrial manufacturing, coastal defence, and cultural scenery, and proposed corresponding value enhancement strategies according to different types. It is expected to contribute to the protection and development of Mawei Shipbuilding.
The results of this study can provide an evaluation model for urban industrial heritage. The relevant data and results can lead to the optimization of the value and resources of industrial heritage, enabling governments and relevant construction units to formulate corresponding measures and strategies for better protection and reuse of urban industrial heritage, thus promoting the sustainable development of the city. In the future, additional assessment aspects and criteria could also be considered to adapt the model to other types of industrial heritage.
Conceptualization, X.C. , L.J. and B.C.; methodology, X.C. and B.C.; software, L.J.; validation, X.C., L.J. and Y.Z.; formal analysis, X.C.; investigation, L.J. and X.L.S.; resources, X.L.S. and Y.D.Z. ; writing—original draft preparation, X.C. and L.J.; writing—review and editing, X.C., L.J.,B.C. and Y.Z.; visualization, Y.D.Z. and Y.F.;supervision,Y.D.Z. and Y.F.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of the paper.
This paper is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51708117), Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province (2019J01788) and the "Innovation and Practice of Teaching Methods for the Major of Planning and Architecture under the Emerging Technology Paradigm", the New Engineering Research and Reform Practice Project of Fujian Province. We sincerely appreciate their support.
