Adaptive reuse practices expand the concept of authenticity and integrity of heritage objects to a variety of sources which include materials and Adaptive reuse practices expand the concept of “authenticity and integrity” of heritage objects to a variety of heritage values which include together “materials and substance, use and function, tradition and techniques, location and setting, spirts and feeling and other internal or external factors” (Nara document on Authenticity 1994).

Hence, the protection of these values implies a shift from the heritage as thing approach to heritage as an ongoing process (Knippenberg 2019). Although the variety of aspects to be considered might create conflicts along the adaptation process (e.g. community needs vs compatible use, continuous access vs physical preservation, etc.) the equal care of -often- opposite elements foster the understanding and integration of existing heritage status, values and conditions into the protecting process, providing the reasons for all proposed interventions (ICOMS 2019). By protecting multiple heritage values as something in flux and adaptable to an ever-changing present (Harrison 2013, Högberg 2016), it acknowledges the need for an ongoing maintenance, participated by local communities and supported by dynamic approaches to respectful and compatible adaptive reuse and management (ICOMS 2019).

Key references

• Harrison, Rodnay. 2013. Heritage: Critical Approaches. London: Routledge.




• Högberg, Anders. 2016. Rodney Harrison: Heritage. Critical Approaches. London: Routledge. Norwegian Archaeological Review, pp. 268.




• ICOMOS. 2019. “European quality principles for EU-funded interventions with potential impact upon cultural heritage.” Paris: Manual. ICOMOS International.




• ICOMS. 1994. “Nara document on authenticity.” Available at: whc.unesco.org/document/116018.




• Karim van. 2019. “Towards an Evolutionary Heritage Approach: Performances, Embodiment, Feelings and Effects.” In AESOP 2019 Conference: Planning for Transition: Book of Abstracts, 166–166. Association of European Schools of Planning (AESOP)

The policy framework should promote economic development which does not conflict with environment protection and environmental and social sustainability. Economic development here is understood not as mere economic growth indicated by cost-benefit analyses, but as an activity which allows to avoid gentrification, over tourism and growing social inequalities. Adaptive heritage reuse should foster job creation, increase economic activity and household incomes, revitalize local communities and empower residents, achieve better mixes of use within neighborhood, reduce vacancies, and foster the controlled growth of the properties’ value. As such, it helps to achieve some economic objectives, but rather as a part of long-term strategies than short-term profit-oriented projects.

Key references

• Auclair, Elizabeth, and Graham Fairclough. 2015. “Living Between Past and Future. An introduction to heritage and cultural sustainability.” In Theory and Practice in Heritage and Sustainability. Between past and future, edited by Elizabeth Auclair and Graham Fairclough, 1-22. London and New York: Routledge.




• Gunay, Zeynep. 2008. “Neoliberal Urbanism and Sustainability of Cultural Heritage.” In Neoliberal Urbanism and Cultural Change. 44th ISOCARP Congress, January 2008. https://isocarp.org/app/uploads/2014/05/Gunay.pdf




• Lombardi, Rachel, Libbi Porter, Austin Barber, and Chris D. F. Rogers. 2011. “Conceptualizing Sustainability in UK Urban Regeneration: A Discursive Formation.” Urban Studies 48, no. 2: 273-296.




• Rypkema, Donovan D. 2014. The Economics of Historic Preservation. A Community Leader’s Guide. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: PlaceEconomics.

In the process of implementation, the financing is secured through various channels to evade dependency on a single resource. The appropriate mix of resources is context dependent, but it preferably includes a combination of grants, loans and own income. Involving the heritage community through applying new financing mechanisms is also preferred.

Key references

Fostering ecological sustainability in adaptive heritage reuse – extending the life cycle of material and resources by reusing structural elements and recycling materials. Ecological sustainability in heritage reuse can include such aspects as improvement of energy efficiency, use of renewable energy systems, reduction of resources consumption, reduction of building and demolition waste, recycling of waste, contribution to the growing environmental awareness and education, safeguarding of natural heritage, including cultural landscapes, brownfield redevelopment and reduction of urban sprawl.

Key references

• Cassar, May. 2009. “Sustainable Heritage: Challenges and strategies for the Twenty-First Century.” APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology 40, no. 1: 3-11.




• Powter, Andrew, and Susan Ross. 2005. “Integrating Environmental and Cultural Sustainability for Heritage Properties.” APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology 36, no. 4: 3-11.




• Vardopoulos, Ioannis, and Eleni Theodoropoulou. 2018. “Does the New ‘FIX’ Fit? Adaptive Building Reuse Affecting Local Sustainable Development: Preliminary Results.” The IAFOR Conference on Heritage & the City, November 2018, https://papers.iafor.org/submission43399/




• Yung, Esther H. K., Edwin H. W. Chan. 2012. “Implementation challenges to the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: Towards the goals of sustainable, low carbon cities.” Habitat International 36: 352-361.

Social sustainability recognizes the significance and diversity of community, the critical importance of ‘sense of place’ and heritage - which include the buildings, townscapes, landscapes and immaterial culture-  in any plans for the future. A “sense of place” and cultural identity based on heritage are seen as a major component of quality of life and provide a sense of belonging. These are key aspects in ensuring social well-being and collaboration for the common good, and thus contributes to social sustainability.

Key reference

• R Rostami, S M Khoshnava and H Lamit. 2014. “Heritage contribution in sustainable city.” IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 18.




• Stephen McKenzie. 2004. "Social sustainability :Towards some deffinitions." Hawke Research Institute Working Paper Series No 27, Hawke Research Institute University of South Australia Magill, South Australia.

Co-governance is a multi-stakeholder governance arrangement whereby the community emerges as a key actor and partners up with at least one of the other four actors of the quintuple helix governance scheme of urban innovation. This approach builds on the theories elaborated to explain governance approaches used to stimulate innovation such as the triple helix and it implies the involvement in urban governance of five categories of actors: 1) active citizens, “commoners” and practitioners of the urban commons, social innovators, city makers, organized and informal local communities; 2) public authorities; 3) private economic actors (national or local businesses; small and medium enterprises; social businesses; neighborhood or district-level businesses) 4) civil society organizations and NGOs; 5) knowledge institutions (i.e. school; Universities; research centers; cultural centers; public, private, civic libraries). This model foresees an active role of the cognitive institutions as entrepreneurial and engaged universities.  Co-governance arrangements are aimed at empowering the actors involved and stimulate resource integration through social and economic pooling. They ultimately trigger processes of inclusive urban development. 

Key references

• Ansell, C., Gash, A.. 2008. “Collaborative governance in theory and practice. ”Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(4), 543-571.




• Arnstein, S. R.. 1969. “A ladder of citizen participation. ” Journal of the American Institute of planners, 35(4), 216-224.

Social collaboration is the process of multiple people or groups working in a coordinated and mutual fashion to achieve common goals. Promoting social collaboration may also happen on the basis of communication methods such as social media platforms, participatory approaches and co-designed activities, to encourage different groups in the neighborhood to active involvement and engagement.

Key references

• Dennis Sandow, Reflexus Company and Anne Murray Allen, Hewlett-Packard Company. 2005. “The Nature of Social Collaboration: How Work Really Gets Done.” Reflections: the SoL Journal on Knowledge, Learning, and Change. Volume 6, Number 2/ 3: 1-14.

Developing and maintaining local partnerships (both in informal or formal / legal structures) is essential for trust, and working in collaboration rather than competition with other local initiatives and partners. Such partnerships are invaluable for the long-term reuse of heritage assets, supporting also ethical reuse, rather than exploiting certain partners for mean-while use, whilst focussing on others for longer-term uses.

Key references

• Emma Coffield, Katie Markham, Paul Richter, Rebecca Huggan, David Butler, Edward Wainwrightand Rebecca Prescott. 2019. More Than Meanwhile Spaces. Online via https://thenewbridgeproject.com/events/meanwhile-spaces-publication-launch-party/(New Bridgeand Newcastle University, UK)




• Helen, Graham, and Vergunst Jo. 2019.Heritage as Community Research: Legacies of Co-Production. Policy Press.

Adaptive reuse practices foster the improvement of the quality and use of the built environment in the instant surroundings of the site, by considering it closely linked of its cultural, environmental, social and economic features and needs (Leeuwarden Declaration 2018). In particular, social inclusiveness is a crucial aspect of the physical and economic regeneration process, where the improvement of the quality and use of the built environment could contribute in parallel to an improvement of the social capital of the area (Pendlebury et al. 2004). Therefore, locals become more aware of their renovated neighborhood, assist and participate eagerly in the caring of the built environment (Alföldi et al. 2019) and foster a continuous, suitable and compatible use of the site that is a crucial aspect for this improvement process. These aspects allow to overcome the adaptive re-use practices from their usual and unique circle of tourism. This prevent negative effects (e.g. gentrification, real estate values rise, social exclusion, expulsion process etc.), and intend quality, in the context of interventions on built heritage, beyond the only physical and technical matters at the level of single area, by considering as a precondition of quality the recognition of heritage as a common good (Icoms 2019).

Key references

• Alföldi, György, Melinda Benkő. And Gábor Sonkoly. 2019. “Managing Urban Heterogeneity: A Budapest Case Study of Historical Urban Landscape”. In Reshaping Urban Conservation. The Historic Urban Landscape Approach in Action, edited by Ana Pereira Roders, Francesco Bandarin, 149-166. Berlin: Springer.




• ICOMOS. 2019. “European quality principles for EU-funded interventions with potential impact upon cultural heritage.” Paris: Manual. ICOMOS International.




• Leeuwarden Declaration Adaptive Re-Use of the Built Heritage: Preserving and Enhancing the Values of Our Built Heritage for Future Generations. 2018. Available at: https://www.acecae.eu/uploads/tx_jidocumentsview/LEEUWARDEN_STATEMENT_FINAL_EN-NEW.pdf




• Pendlebury, John, Tim Guy Townshend. And Gilroy Rose. 2004. “The conservation of English cultural built heritage: a force for social inclusion.” International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10(1), pp. 11-31.