Involving the exchange with other not-for-profit and non-governmental organizations is the mutually beneficial sharing of ideas, data, experience, and expertise. Many potential outcomes from this reciprocity usually bring social and economic benefits of for the partners and greater independence from for-profit corporations with exploitative and non-sustainable practices.

Key references

• Patti, Daniela, and Polyák, Levente, eds. 2017. Funding the Cooperative City. Vienna: Eutropian Research & Action.




•  S Macdonald. 2011. “Leveraging heritage: public-private, and third-sector partnerships for the conservation of the historic urban environment” ICOMOS 17th General Assembly.

For adaptive reuse projects to be self-sustainable, the (new / future) users–often creative, small,informal–organisations tend to need to go through a process of ‘formalisation’ setting up moreformal structures to operate within and collaborate from,to develop into an organisation that can(financially) sustain the asset / lease / maintenance in the long term (assuming dependency onfunding or gifts is not feasible).

This developmentcan potentiallycome with creating paid positions, e.g. to run theorganisation, aswell as help widen participation (support education, volunteering), or develop / sell a product /service.It is important to consider the type of jobs it will create, to avoid bad jobs (e.g. underpaid, tohigh a workload, and no securityin contract) and thus not actually contributing to people’slivelihood. The type of job will also depend on the chosen legal form, e.g. social enterprise,cooperative, charity or equivalent, as they come with different values, objectives, and structures,aswell as different access to funding, time, and other resources.

Adaptive reuse practices can be places of cooperation that connect their new uses with the needs of the community, particularly in low income and marginalized areas (Ostanel 2017). As such, they can improve access, offer better services, and be more responsive to local needs, working with local community groups and other stakeholders (e.g. offering cultural services, welfare, refugee protection, health services, housing etc.). In some cases this includes providing support for educational and cognitive values by promoting learning programs (see e.g. https://teh.net/).

These can then contribute to the development of skills, awareness, and knowledge to foster further training or education and/ or provide support through educational courses and workplace skills (CHCfE 2015). The creation, definition and sharing of both activities should not occur merely for the community but with the community (Jenkins 2009) by securing inclusivity, accessibility, impartiality and usability of the governance of the assets (Iaione 2015)

Key references

• CHCfE Consortium. 2015. Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe. Krakow: International Cultural Centre.




• Iaione, Christian. 2015. Governing the Urban Commons. Italian Journal of Public Law vol. 1, pp. 170-221.




• Jenkins, Henry. 2009. Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.




• Ostanel, Elena. 2017. Spazi fuori dal comune: rigenerare, includere, innovare. Milan: Franco Angeli

The implementation of usage concepts with reliable and resilient economic structures is a key feature for a successful long-term heritage reuse. A permanent advancement of economic concepts is necessary to react to changing internal and external conditions. Therefore, it is important that the structures and concepts are evaluated within OpenHeritage. 

Key reference

• Stiftung trias, Hrsg. 2019. Bürgerfonds für Fachwerkstädte. Hattingen: Stiftung trias.




• Stiftung trias, Hrsg. 2017. Die Finanzierung zivilgesellschaftlicher Projekte. Hattingen: Stiftung trias.




• Patti, Daniela, and Polyák, Levente, eds. 2017. Funding the Cooperative City. Vienna: Eutropian Research & Action.