# An Integrated SWOT-PESTLE-AHP Model Assessing Sustainability in Adaptive Reuse Projects
## 4 Results
### Quantitative Analysis  
The twenty-four (24) indicators (Table 5) were input as criteria, resulting in fifty-one (51) pairwise comparisons. The indicator rank results for each expert's evaluation are presented in Table 6, and the final collective decision (geometric mean) is listed in Table 7. The indicators listed in this matrix as strengths and opportunities were positive, while the indicators identified as weaknesses and threats were negative (Table 7), and are illustrated in Figures 4 and 5 so as to graphically present the total negative versus the total positive indicators area. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sustainability** & **Strengths** & **Weaknesses** & **Opportunities** & **Threats** \\
**Indicators** & & & & \\ \hline
**Political** & P1.Blocking Neglect & P2.Political Support & P3.Urban Re-Development & P4.Political Inertia \\  & Policy & Level & Strategies/Incentives & \\
**Economic** & E1.Economic Growth & E2.Inability to Estimate & E3.Capitalization of & E4.Investment \\  & Boost & economic Viability & Cultural Value & Returns \\
**Socio-Cultural** & SC1.Cultural Values & SC2.Facadism & SC3.Quality of Life & \\
**Socio-Cultural** & Preservation & SC2.Facadism & Improvement & SC4.Gentrification \\
**Technological-** & TTI.Technological & TT2.Asset Condition & TT3.Cooperation in a wide & TT4.Technical \\
**Technical** & Innovation & & range of scientific fields & Difficulties \\  & EN1.Reduced & EN2.Achieving & EN3.Eco-Building & EN4.Indoor \\
**Environmental** & Environmental & Not-Zero Energy Goals & EN3.Eco-Building & Environmental \\  & Footprint & & Quality \\
**Legal** & L1.Current Legislative & L2.Current Building & L3.Land use plan & \\  & Context & Standards & and zoning & L4.Ownership Status \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Adaptive reuse SWOT-PESTLE matrix. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Expert:** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Eonomy**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Society**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Environment**} \\ \hline
**Indicators** & **Priority (\%)** & **Rank** & **Priority (\%)** & **Rank** & **Priority (\%)** & **Rank** \\ \hline P1.Blocking Neglect Policy & 4.1 & 8 & 3.0 & 8 & 0.6 & 16 \\ P2.Political Support Level & 6.8 & 3 & 9.8 & 4 & 1.4 & 13 \\ P3.Urban Re-Development & 6.8 & 3 & 28.1 & 1 & 2.7 & 11 \\ Strategies/Incentives & 1.9 & 13 & 1.4 & 16 & 0.6 & 16 \\ \hline E1.Economic Growth Boost & 11.9 & 1 & 14.3 & 3 & 1.1 & 14 \\ E2.Inability to Estimate Economic Viability & 2.9 & 11 & 6.0 & 6 & 0.6 & 16 \\ E3.Capitalization of Cultural Value & 6.8 & 3 & 2.1 & 11 & 3.5 & 9 \\ E4.Investment Returns & 2.9 & 11 & 0.9 & 13 & 3.5 & 9 \\ SC1.Cultural Values Preservation & 1.5 & 15 & 10.9 & 2 & 6.4 & 6 \\ SC2.Facadism & 1.5 & 15 & 3.9 & 7 & 1.1 & 4 \\ SC3.Quality of Life Improvement & 1.5 & 15 & 2.5 & 9 & 9.3 & 2 \\ SC4.Gentrification & 0.5 & 16 & 0.8 & 14 & 6.8 & 5 \\ TTI.Technological Innovation & 5.5 & 4 & 6.7 & 5 & 2.8 & 10 \\ TTI2.Asset Condition & 2.5 & 12 & 2.3 & 10 & 1.0 & 15 \\ TT3.Cooperation in a wide range of scientific fields & 5.5 & 4 & 0.9 & 13 & 5.5 & 7 \\ TT4.Technical Difficulties & 4.3 & 7 & 0.4 & 17 & 0.6 & 16 \\ \hline EN1.Reduced Environmental Footprint & 3.7 & 10 & 1.9 & 12 & 4.2 & 8 \\ EN2.Achieving Net-Zero Energy Goals & 2.9 & 11 & 0.9 & 13 & 7.9 & 4 \\ EN3.Eco-Building & 5.0 & 6 & 0.4 & 17 & 27.7 & 1 \\ EN4.Indoor Environmental Quality & 3.7 & 10 & 0.1 & 19 & 8.0 & 3 \\ \hline LTE.Legislative Context & 4.0 & 9 & 1.6 & 12 & 0.3 & 17 \\ L2.Building Standards & 7.1 & 2 & 0.7 & 15 & 0.7 & \\ I3.Land Use Plan and Zoning & 5.1 & 5 & 0.3 & 18 & 2.4 & 12 \\ L4.Ownership Status & 1.7 & 14 & 0.1 & 19 & 1.1 & 14 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Indicators evaluation and rank by expert.