Microsoft Word - ETASR_V12_N5_pp9229-9232
Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 12, No. 5, 2022, 9229-9232 9229
www.etasr.com Abdullah & Hatem: Assessing Critical Criteria for Historical Archeological Buildings in Iraq
Assessing Critical Criteria for Historical
Archeological Buildings in Iraq
Oday Hammoody Abdullah
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Baghdad
Baghdad, Iraq
10984@uotechnology.edu.iq
Wadhah Amer Hatem
Baquba Technical Institute
Middle Technical University
Baghdad, Iraq
wadhah1970wadhah@gmail.com
Received: 18 June 2022 | Revised: 13 July 2022 | Accepted: 14 July 2022
Abstract-This research was conducted to identify and evaluate
the relative importance of the criteria in an archaeological
building. Open and closed questionnaires were used and
interviews with experts and specialists from many ministries and
governorates were conducted to identify the most important
criteria. The aim determines what factors influence historic
archaeological building success, and which criteria should be
used to determine the best response. The data were analyzed with
the SPSS V25 program using the Relative Importance Index
(RII) method to determine the relative importance of the
considered 15 variables. RII allows the identification of the most
important criteria based on responses from participants, and it is
a useful tool for prioritizing indicators rated on Likert-type
scales. The data were analyzed using a formula from a previous
study's relative index analysis method. Providing information or
a database of historic old buildings ranked first with RII = 92%,
and providing information on the changes taking place in old
buildings ranked second with RII = 88%.
Keywords-construction projects; historic archaeological
buildings; relative importance index
I. INTRODUCTION
Architectural and art historians, historical geographers, and
local historians are among those who study the environment of
historical archaeological buildings [1]. Archaeological
discoveries of buried structures are frequently dismissed in
favor of artifacts recovered from buried deposits associated
with them [2]. The original architectural and structural system
of approximately 25% of structures changes by restoration [3].
As a result, in some historical archaeology overviews, the study
of buildings is virtually invisible. Instead, surveys of vernacular
architecture studies are being conducted [4]. Others, aware of
the importance of more integrated archaeology of buildings,
find such perspectives strangely limited, whether in
interpretations of Neolithic Europe or descriptions of
mediaeval Britain [5]. Archaeologists around the world have
used a variety of methods to focus their research and cultural
resource management efforts on building remains that have
survived above or below ground as wall foundations, floor
surfaces, or post holes over the past 40 years, despite the
general lack of attention paid to the study of buildings in the
mainstream historical archaeology literature. Some of this
material is reviewed in [6]. We argue that built structures are an
important part of the material remains of the past 500 years and
that their study should be integrated with the study of sites,
artifacts, and landscapes. To quantify the relative importance
indices of an exhaustive list of the criteria of historical
archaeological building in Malaysia, the Relative Importance
Index (RII) technique was used in [7]. The paper is divided into
five sections based on the importance of historical,
archaeological building factors. In this study, the RII technique
was used to rank historical and archaeological building criteria
[8]. The survey's findings revealed that ignorance of planning
and building regulations, insufficient housing schemes,
unrealistic zoning, and the location of land are important
factors that influence unauthorized building sitting [9]. Data
from previous related studies were analyzed using a formula
for the relative index analysis method for historical/
archaeological buildings. The results revealed that site
maintenance ranked first (RII = 0.836), warranty clauses in
contract specifications to incorporate construction quality
ranked second (RII = 0.830), and construction personnel
training ranked third (RII = 0.826) [10]. The RII of the main
criteria in descending order in [11] is: Experience & Past
Performance (EP), Financial Stability (FS), Personnel
Capabilities (PC), Equipment Capabilities (EC), Managerial
Capabilities (MC), Health & Safety (HS), Past Relationships
(RR), and Geographic Location of contractor (GL) [11].
II. IDENTIFYING IMPORTANT CRITERIA FOR HISTORICAL
ARCHEOLOGICAL BUILDINGS
Because different criteria apply to different areas, different
authors considered different criteria for historical buildings.
Previous research has identified a number of critical standards
for historical and archaeological constructions (see Table I).
III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The research objectives are:
• To determine the factors that should be examined and taken
into account when recommending a historical or
archaeological structure.
• Criteria ranking according to their RII values.
Corresponding author: Oday Hammoody Abdullah
Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 12, No. 5, 2022, 9229-9232 9230
www.etasr.com Abdullah & Hatem: Assessing Critical Criteria for Historical Archeological Buildings in Iraq
TABLE I. IDENTIFIED CRITERIA FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES
No. Criterion Symbol Ref.
1
Providing information or a database of
historical old buildings
C01
[10]
There are differences and intersections between
architectural, construction, electrical and other
disciplines
C02
Existence of complete plans as a reality for the
old buildings
C03
2
Having a regular maintenance system C04
[11] Providing a schedule to determine the times of
processing materials for maintenance
C05
3
Existence of a facility management system C06
[12]
Availability of specialized staff using BIM
technology
C07
There is coordination between the members of
the team that design the architectural,
construction, electrical, and other
specializations
C08
4
Presence of information on the changes taking
place in old buildings, including additions and
removals through time
C09
[13]
Existence of a facility management system C10
Availability of specialized staff using BIM
technology in the department
C11
5
Provides 3D models of old buildings C12
[14]
There is documentation of information on
ancient buildings
C13
Damage and lost items are controlled on site C14
There is continuous work to improve the quality
of the design
C15
IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The following points describe briefly the methodology of
the current research:
• Obtaining the necessary information and data during
theoretical and field research on the study topic and using
the research map to locate the historical/archaeological
structure criteria.
• Using an open questionnaire to collect data from a group of
experts to identify the criteria.
• Determining the criteria and selecting the study sample by
using a closed questionnaire to collect data from the open
questionnaire.
• Ranking the criteria with the RII method from higher to
lower importance on the given scale, i.e. 1-very low, 2-low,
3-medium, 4-high, and 5-very high.
V. PILOT STUDY FOR THE CLOSED QUESTIONNAIRE FORM
A pilot study can be used to validate and evaluate closed
questionnaires. Risk is vital to contractors, clients, and
consultants within the construction industry; however, the
problems of risk assessment are complex and poorly
understood in practice [15]. A questionnaire run that includes
testing of question formulation is known as a pilot study, in
which the effectiveness of various data collection methods is
assessed by identifying and testing the most challenging
inquiries [16]. In this phase, the questions are checked for
clarity and any issues that may arise are discovered. An
assessment group with at least 15 years of experience was used
for this pilot study's closed questionnaire distribution.
Evaluation and assessment of the validity of the closed
questionnaire form was carried out by experts, who confirmed
the validity and suitability of the sections of the closed
questionnaire form. All suggestions and comments were
collected and rated, and all suggestions and proposed changes
were discussed [17].
VI. CLOSED QUESTIONNAIRE FORM DISTRIBUTION
Closed questionnaires were handed out to a selected group
of participants. Fifty survey forms were collected out of 60 sent
forms and some samples were excluded due to lack of data and
information. In the end, 45 closed questionnaire forms were
considered and analyzed.
VII. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS DATA
Quantitative data were gathered and analyzed using a
statistical program (IBM/SPSS V25). The factors were
calculated for ranking using the RII technique. RII was used to
rank the importance of each recommendation provided by the
respondents [18]. The RII of the criteria is calculated by [19]:
RII = � ∑��∗
� (1)
where RII ranges from 0 to 1, W is the weight given to the
factors by the responders, ranging from 1 to 5 (1 is less
important and 5 is highly important), A is the total number of
responses for that factor or option, and Z is the highest weight
(in this case, 5).
VIII. RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY TESTS
Validity and reliability consider the most important method
conditions for research tool design. Therefore, validity and
reliability of the closed questionnaire forms must be provided
before any statistical analyses data. The value of Reliability can
be founded by finding the value of (Cronbach's Alpha, α) [20].
1) Reliability of Closed Questionnaire
The term "reliability" refers to the measurement of true
results and the stability and equality checks. Reliability is a
necessary, but not sufficient factor in determining the viability
of a tool for measuring historical building criteria.
2) Validity of Closed Questionnaire
More than any single statistical tool, it is necessary to
establish a relationship between the assessment and the
behavior it is meant to measure in order to determine its
validity. It is critical that the test be valid to use and interpret
the results correctly. Validity is equal to the square root of the
coefficient of reliability [21]:
V = √�� (6)
where V is the validity and � the reliability.
IX. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The top test criteria were determined using the SPSS V25
statistical program. The results are provided in the form of
tables to make them more understandable and straightforward.
Following the distribution and collection of completed
Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 12, No. 5, 2022, 9229-9232 9231
www.etasr.com Abdullah & Hatem: Assessing Critical Criteria for Historical Archeological Buildings in Iraq
questionnaire forms, the next step was to determine a specific
method for statistical and measurement purposes to complete
the calculations and data analysis.
1) Reliability
Most the social science research situations use the
Cronbach’s alpha. If it is more than 0.7, then the consistency
index shows high reliability and it would be acceptable [18].
Table II shows the closed questionnaire's reliability for each
criterion.
TABLE II. CRONBACH'S ALPHA FOR THE CLOSED QUESTIONNAIRE
No. Criterion Cronbach's Alpha {����}
1
C01 0.920
C02 0.810
C03 0.780
2
C04 0.800
C05 0.70
3
C06 0.77
C07 0.87
C08 0.88
4
C09 0.90
C10 0.65
C11 0.95
5
C12 0.88
C13 0.75
C14 0.77
C15 0.70
2) Validity
Table III shows the validity of each criterion for the
historical archaeological building in the closed questionnaire.
TABLE III. VALIDITY
No. Criterion ���� Validity coefficient
1
C01 0.920 0.959
C02 0.810 0.900
C03 0.780 0.883
2
C04 0.800 0.894
C05 0.700 0.836
3
C06 0.770 0.877
C07 0.870 0.932
C08 0.880 0.938
4
C09 0.900 0.948
C10 0.680 0.824
C11 0.950 0.974
5
C12 0.880 0.938
C13 0.750 0.866
C14 0.770 0.877
C15 0.700 0.836
X. ANALYSIS OF THE CLOSED QUESTIONNAIRE FORMS
The first stage of a closed questionnaire is a description of
the sample members' general experience. The second stage is
an assessment of the criteria. Respondents were asked to mark
(spot) the criteria of historical archaeological buildings that
they thought were important in a closed questionnaire and RIIs
were calculated. The analysis and discussion of the results will
be according to the parts mentioned, so each axis will be
analyzed and discussed separately.
A. Part Οne: (Personal Information)
Part one includes the personal information in closed
questionnaire forms.
1) Scientific Qualifications
Table IV shows the frequency distribution of respondents
according to their scientific qualification.
TABLE IV. SCIENTIFIC QUALIFICATIONS
Scientific qualification Frequency Percentage
BSc 23 51.00%
MSc 12 27.00%
PhD 10 22.22%
Total 45 100.00%
2) Engineering Specialization
Table V shows the engineering specialization of the
respondents.
TABLE V. ENGINEERING SPECIALIZATION
Engineering specialization Frequency Percentage
Civil 24 53.33%
Electricity 6 13.33%
Architectural 5 11.11%
Mechanical 4 8.89%
Environment 3 6.67%
Chemical 3 6.67%
Total 45 100.00%
3) Actual Experience
Table VI shows the experience of the respondents.
TABLE VI. EXPERIENCE
Actual experience Frequency Percentage
(15-20) 15 33.33%
(21-25) 5 11.11%
(26-30) 11 24.45%
More than 30 14 31.11%
Total 45 100.00%
4) Labor Sector
The respondents' distribution according to the labor sector
is shown in Table VII.
TABLE VII. LABOR SECTOR
Labor sector Frequency Percentage
Public 35 77.78%
Private 10 22.22%
Total 45 100.00%
B. Part Two: Evaluation of the Criteria
Part two includes the evaluation of the criteria for historical
archaeological buildings from the respondents. Each question
will be analyzed by RII to find the criteria ranking. Table VIII
shows the analysis and ranking of the criteria from higher to
lower importance.
Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 12, No. 5, 2022, 9229-9232 9232
www.etasr.com Abdullah & Hatem: Assessing Critical Criteria for Historical Archeological Buildings in Iraq
TABLE VIII. CRITERIA ANALYSIS AND RANGING BY RII FOR
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL BUILDINGS
Criterion
Very
high
High Medium Low
Very
low
Ranking
C01 30 12 3 0 0 92%
C09 26 15 3 1 0 88%
C15 21 16 8 0 0 86%
C10 21 14 8 2 0 84%
C02 12 28 4 1 0 82%
C03 8 30 7 0 0 80%
C11 7 29 9 0 0 79%
C08 15 15 10 5 0 78%
C12 8 23 13 1 0 76%
C06 8 21 15 1 0 75%
C04 10 19 10 6 0 74%
C07 7 17 20 1 0 73%
C05 13 13 11 5 3 72%
XI. CONCLUSION
The development of a set of evaluation criteria for historical
and archaeological structures is described in this paper. Based
on a thorough literature review, fieldwork, and discussion with
selected experts from many governorates, a total of 15 criteria
were identified in this study. RII calculation and analysis was
used to rank the criteria from the most to the least important.
The researchers were able to compare the relative importance
of the criteria as perceived by respondents using these rankings.
The first criterion is the provision of information or a database
of old historical buildings which received the 92% of the vote,
indicating that this criterion is very important. Most of the
criteria are construction activities, indicating that respondents
agreed that historical and archaeological building criteria
should be implemented. Ministries and local governments can
use the findings of this study to develop historical and
archaeological structures, as well as using it as a pilot study to
get feedback from a group of experts. Experts were contacted
to assess the questionnaire's validity and to confirm the
suitability of the items for the research goals in order to
identify any flaws in the questionnaire.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project is supported by the Ministry of Planning, Iraq,
and the University of Baghdad.
REFERENCES
[1] E. Ziglio, Gazing into the Oracle: The Delphi Method and its Application
to Social Policy and Public Health, 1st ed. London, UK: Jessica
Kingsley, 1996.
[2] O. P. Akadiri, "Development of a Multi-Criteria Approach for the
Selection of Sustainable Materials for Building Projects," Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK, 2011.
[3] H. I. Polat, "A Classification Study on the Development Stages of
Construction Technologies in Turkey," Engineering, Technology &
Applied Science Research, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 1909–1913, Oct. 2017,
https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.1606.
[4] S. Balubaid et al., "Assessment Index Tool for Green Highway in
Malaysia," Jurnal Teknologi, vol. 77, no. 16, Nov. 2015, https://doi.org/
10.11113/jt.v77.6405.
[5] J. M. Bryce, Developing Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure
Exploring the Development and Implementation of a Green Highway
Rating System. Washington, DC, USA: ASTM International, 2008.
[6] A. L. Delbecq and A. V. D. Ven, Group techniques for program
planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview,
IL, USA: Scott, Foresman, 1975.
[7] G. Fernández-Sánchez and F. Rodríguez-López, "A methodology to
identify sustainability indicators in construction project management—
Application to infrastructure projects in Spain," Ecological Indicators,
vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 1193–1201, Nov. 2010, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolind.2010.04.009.
[8] A. Griffith and K. Bhutto, "Better environmental performance: A
framework for integrated management systems (IMS)," Management of
Environmental Quality: An International Journal, vol. 20, no. 5, pp.
566–580, Jan. 2009, https://doi.org/10.1108/14777830910981230.
[9] R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, W. C. Black, and J. F. Hair, Multivariate
Data Analysis, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall College
Div, 1998.
[10] K. Nikumbh and P. D. Aher, "A review paper - Study of green highway
rating system," International Research Journal of Engineering and
Technology, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 2014–2018, 2017.
[11] A. Khoso, N. Memon, S. Sohu, F. H. Siddiqui, and J. Khan, "Decision
Criteria For Assessment Of Contractors In Prequalification Phase Of
Public Projects," International Journal of Advanced Science and
Technology, vol. 29, no. 11s, pp. 2624–2635, Jun. 2020.
[12] S. R. Sahamir, R. Zakaria, G. Alqaifi, N. I. A. Abidin, and R. R. R. M.
Rooshdi, "Investigation of Green Assessment Criteria and Sub-criteria
for Public Hospital Building Development in Malaysia," Chemical
Engineering Transactions, vol. 56, pp. 307–312, Mar. 2017,
https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1756052.
[13] M. Soderlund, "Sustainable Roadway Design - A Model For An
Environmental Rating System," M.S. thesis, University of Washington,
Washington DC, USA, 2007.
[14] M. Loosemore and T. Uher, Essentials of Construction Project
Management. NewSouth Publishing, 2003.
[15] U. H. Issa, M. A. Farag, L. M. Abdelhafez, and S. A. Ahmed, "A Risk
Allocation Model for Construction Projects in Yemen," Civil and
Environmental Research, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 78–88, 2015.
[16] N. M. N. Saeed and A. S. Hasan, "The Effect of Total Quality
Management on Construction Project Performance," Journal of Science
and Technology, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 11–30, 2012, https://doi.org/
10.20428/jst.v17i2.93.
[17] J. D. Princy and S. Shanmugapriya, "A Probabilistic Fuzzy Logic
Approach to Identify Productivity Factors in Indian Construction
Projects," Journal of Construction Engineering and Project
Management, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 39–55, 2017, https://doi.org/10.6106/
JCEPM.2017.9.29.039.
[18] J. N. Gatitu, C. K. Kabubo, and P. Ajwang, "Approaches on Mitigating
Variation Orders in Road Construction Industry in Kenya: The Case of
Kenya National Highways Authority (KeNHA)," Engineering,
Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 6195–6199,
Oct. 2020, https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.3737.
[19] R. A. Majeed and H. K. Breesam, "The criteria for selecting the landfill
sites in Baghdad governorate," IOP Conference Series: Materials
Science and Engineering, vol. 1090, no. 1, Nov. 2021, Art. no. 012013,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1090/1/012013.
[20] F. Magalhaes, Facing the Challenges of Informal Settlements in Urban
Centers: The Re-urbanization of Manaus, Brazil. Washington DC, USA:
Inter-American Development Bank.
[21] R. A. Majeed and H. K. Breesam, "Application of SWARA Technique
to Find Criteria Weights for Selecting Landfill Site in Baghdad
Governorate," IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering, vol. 1090, no. 1, Nov. 2021, Art. no. 012045,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1090/1/012045.
[22] M. A. Akhund, H. U. Imad, N. A. Memon, F. Siddiqui, A. R. Khoso, and
A. A. Panhwar, "Contributing Factors of Time Overrun in Public Sector
Construction Projects," Engineering, Technology & Applied Science
Research, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 3369–3372, Oct. 2018, https://doi.org/
10.48084/etasr.2276.