Adaptive heritage re-use policies that try to link the re-use of material and immaterial aspects of heritage to the empowerment and inclusion of local and/or heritage communities and on going issues of spatial (re-)development enables one to address adaptability and flexibility which come along with community engagement and participation.

Key references

• Mydland, & Grahn. 2012. "Identifying heritage values in local communities." International Journal of Heritage Studies, 18(6), 564-587.




• van Knippenberg, K. 2019. "Towards an evolutionary heritage approach : fostering community-heritage engagement." Paper presented at the 13th AESOP Young Academics Conference 2019.




• Vecco. 2010. "A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible." Journal of Cultural Heritage, 11(3), 321-324.

Ownership by the right group / organisation is often very important in adaptive reuse projects. First of all, legal ownership will influence what funding  / financial aid can be applied for (e.g. a government owned site in many countries often has access to other funding than privately owned site). Moreover, ownership can support (or limit) what can be done with a site, restrict or facilitate access, owner can reduce / restrict speculation if gentrification happens, owner can also support low-income business, when the owner is not in it for profit, and this keep price increases to minimum.  Mixed ownership can complicate decision-making, but well organised (e.g. in cooperative) it can also support a more equal way of decision-making. 

Key references

Policy when open to and supportive of civic engagement, and beyond that civic initiative is important for adaptive reuse, as these processes are often bottom up initiated projects by locals. Working with those groups, and supporting reuse for a social / cultural use. However, of course this can also lead to abuse (excluding other groups, restricting access), so there is still need for checks and balances, promoting public access, and working in partnership with organisations who are willing to invest time and resources. 

Integrative policies allow taking into account various fields and expertise, setting up appropriate processes and procedures to ensure the interaction of different public stakeholders. At the same time, they lay down the foundation of a clear decision-making mechanisms, creating clear boundaries for and supporting how the multi-actor process unfolds.

Key reference

This criteria has been removed from good policy criteria.

Adaptive heritage reuse relies on unique solutions depending on the specific heritage site and its social, cultural, environmental, and economic context. These unique solutions can emerge in a regulatory context that is flexible enough to allow some negotiation and thus, offers some space for experimenting. Legislation and the related governance and institutional system provide such an environment if they do not focus on heritage conservation per se but are based on an integrative approach considering heritage in the context of planning, so conservation through development. 

Key references

• Clark, Justine. 2013. Adaptive Reuse of Industrial Heritage: Opportunities and Challenges. Melbourne: Heritage Council Victoria.




• Leeuwarden Declaration. 2018 “Adaptive Re-use of Built Heritage: Preserving and Enhancing the Values of Our Built Heritage for Future generations.” Adopted by the Architects’ Council of Europe on 23 November 2018 in Leeuwarden. https://www.ace-cae.eu/uploads/tx_jidocumentsview/LEEUWARDEN_STATEMENT_FINAL_EN-NEW.pdf, Accessed 21 February 2020.




• Meurs, Paul et al. 2017. Reuse, Redevelop and Design: How the Dutch Deal with Heritage. Rotterdam: Nai010 publishers.




• Pendlebury, John. 2002. “Conservation and Regeneration: Complementary or Conflicting Processes? The Case of Grainger Town, Newcastle upon Tyne.” Planning Practice & Research 17, No.(2002): 145–158.

Urban experimentalism entails a methodological approach for institutionally designed processes that enable scientific discoveries, urban social and economic innovations, new technologies testing, new solutions to fight against climate change and/or ecological resiliency/transition, as well as many other phenomena that can be understood and tested by using neighborhoods, and eventually scaling up to cities, as laboratories of experimentation. 

Key References

• Poteete, Amy, Janssen, Marco and Ostrom, Elinor. 2010. Working Together: Collective Action, The Commons, And Multiple Methods in Practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.




• Ranchordas, Sofia. 2015. “Innovation Experimentalism in The Age of The Sharing Economy” Lewin and Clark Law review, vol. 19:4.




• Raven, B. et al. 2017. “Urban experimentation and institutional arrangements”, European Planning Studies, 1-24.

D.12 (Veldpaus et al., 2019) and D1.3 (Mérai et al, 2020) show reuse is best facilitated in countries where regulatory frameworks for heritage and planning are well integrated on a national level (either through policy or in law), and levels of government have fairly clear relations, roles and responsibilities in the process, with the local level usually being the place where decision making happens for both. As for regulations, it tends to be easier when they are strict in principle, but there is space for negotiation (discretion) locally, to facilitate reuse to happen. This does however rely on willingness locally to take this space, and thus a collaborative, constructive attitude.

Resourcing (well-resourced in terms of capacity (people, time) and often also have funding schemes in place as well as tax or VAT incentives) and the integration of resources, proved to be an influential aspect. Well-resourced countries can often also count on non-heritage related policies and programmes that integrate and stimulate reuse over new built (e.g. housing, sustainability, culture). Countries that have a very rigid, inflexible regulatory system for heritage (also meaning related funding is often only usable for (nationally) listed buildings) can be well resourced, but when this focusses on protection only, it can make adaptive reuse practices more difficult. If at all, resources then have to from non-heritage sources (e.g. regeneration, tourism, social or sustainable development policies) which is not guaranteed. Here we also identify the potential influence from (e.g. ERDF, ESF) EU funding.

Key reference

Veldpaus, Loes, Federica Fava, and Dominika Brodowicz. 2019. Mapping of Current Heritage Re-Use Policies and Regulations in Europe Complex Policy Overview of Adaptive Heritage Re-Use. OpenHeritage: Deliverable 1.2. Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

Mérai, Dóra; Veldpaus, Loes; Kip, Markus; Kulikov, Volodymyr and Pendlebury, John. 2020. Typology of current adaptive heritage re-use policies: Deliverable 1.3. Budapest, Hungary.