Next Article in Journal
Challenges Threatening Agricultural Sustainability in the West of Iran: Viewpoint of Agricultural Experts
Previous Article in Journal
Development of Material Combination Model Considering Economics and Construction Efficiency for G-SEED Certification
Previous Article in Special Issue
Mechanical Performance of Lime Mortar Coatings for Rehabilitation of Masonry Elements in Old and Historical Buildings
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/su13063536
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Extraction of Prerequisite Criteria for Environmentally Certified Adaptive Reuse of Heritage Buildings

by
Elnaz Farjami
1,* and
Özlem Olgaç Türker
2
1
Department of Architecture, Eastern Mediterranean University, 99628 Famagusta, Turkey
2
Department of Interior Architecture, Eastern Mediterranean University, 99628 Famagusta, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(6), 3536; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063536
Submission received: 11 February 2021 / Revised: 15 March 2021 / Accepted: 18 March 2021 / Published: 22 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Strategies and Approaches in Conservation of the Built Heritage)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Heritage buildings provide a remarkable value for both the culture and the region where they are located; hence, there is a necessity for them to be conserved. Sustaining heritage buildings for future generations serves cultural sustainability and can be achieved through adaptive reuse with appropriate functions as an efficient conservation approach. Moreover, harnessing the embedded energy from adaptive reuse and the improvement of environmental performance in heritage buildings plays a significant role in ecological sustainability. The aim of the study was to investigate environmental rating systems (ERS) as ecological sustainability evaluation tools and to find out mutual aspects with adaptive reuse models (ARM), thus, serving cultural sustainability.

1. Introduction

Cultural heritage depicts lifestyles that have shaped societies as time passed and were transferred from ancestors to descendants by practical customs [1]. Restoring and conserving heritage, such as architectural sites, needs close attention because of the congenital nature of cultural heritage as a system [2]. Shetabi [3] expressed that, in the development strategies of UNESCO [4], culture is considered as significant as the concepts of justice, human rights, and sustainability. As a symbol of cultural identity, cultural heritage needs to be sustained for future generations. Heritage has greatly contributed to environmental sustainability, as can be seen in conventional knowledge and pragmatism, since heritage “promotes an ecologically sustainable pattern of production and consumption and sustainable urban and architectural design solutions” [3].
Recent debates have been concerned with the potential of heritage conservation to contribute to environmental sustainability by reducing the energy associated with building structures. In 2015, the World Heritage Committee started to use a policy that integrated a sustainable development viewpoint into the procedures concerning world heritage [5]. It aligned with the United Nation’s (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and defined the means by which world heritage can help the three key aspects of sustainable development: environmental sustainability, inclusive social development, and inclusive economic development [5,6]. Adaptive reuse refers to upgrading buildings for new functions. For instance, by taking control of the embedded energy via adaptive reuse and upgrading old buildings in terms of environmental friendliness, passive heating and cooling, harnessing of natural light, improving water infrastructure and achieving energy efficiency are occurring [6,7,8,9]. The major difficulty of adaptive reuse is the integration of such sustainable designs with the preservation of buildings and their historic value [10]. Environmental importance and sustainability are strongly related, specifically when it comes to the environmental value, such as restoring and conserving land and reducing pollution and construction waste. They are also related in terms of the relationship between heritage and environment or space (embedment of heritage in space; interaction of natural and cultural heritage; and restoration of heritage as a part of spatial planning) [11]. In addition, all modifications to the heritage building (HB) need to be made by considering maintenance in preservation of the original structure and materials. By improving the sustainability and efficiency of the historical building in terms of the environment and energy, cultural heritage is expected to sustain its unique nature and arrangement [12].

1.1. Aim and Objectives

Regarding the previous research on adaptive reuse, the complex part of the study is the absence of information about applying both environmental rating systems (ERS) and adaptive reuse models (ARM) on heritage buildings in particular. The problem appears when extracting the mutual features within both ARM and ERS that are intertwined with heritage buildings. As for cultural sustainability, ARM address the innovative evaluation method for heritage buildings. Furthermore, using ERS as ecological sustainability tools under the environmental sustainability umbrella is the innovative part of the combination. Based on the Venice Charter [13] and the Burra Charter [14], guidance for assessing and managing change and additions in heritage building is required. The aim of this study was the alignment of related features in both ERS and ARM to create a unique alignment schema for certified adaptation of heritage buildings for improving cultural and ecological sustainability of HB. The proposed alignment schema was derived from all aspects of ARM and ERS related to heritage buildings.

1.2. Material and Methods

Heritage buildings can find new, mixed, or extended uses by logical conversion processes, increasing their values and enhancing their cultural significance [15]. Adaptive reuse of cultural heritage, as a significance of conservation, expresses the rehabilitation, redevelopment, and retrofit of HB that reveals the changing community needs [16]. By considering local needs and enhancing and conserving built heritage value, a broad range towards sustainable development has been enlightened [17]. This study contains qualitative research methods. Data collection methods focused on literature survey via investigation of mutual features of ARM and ERS in order to achieve the particular alignment schema. Accordingly, the extraction of related features was based on grounded theory as a qualitative research method. Qualitative data collection was performed for two different topics within this study. The grounded theory research method was used for the selection of both ARM and ERS, which have special focus on heritage buildings. Historical buildings are treasured originals since they have congenital heritage value. Thus, these buildings need to be specifically cared for, treated, and protected. Such building stocks, when incorporating environmental systems in their conversion designs, can alleviate the problems caused by global environmental issues like high-energy consumption and greenhouse gasses [18,19]. Through redesign and renovations, architects are able to dramatically decrease energy consumption, improve indoor temperature conditioning, and at the same time, maintain the heritage value of such buildings [16,20]. The Burra Charter states that maintaining these buildings has to be a priority and it must “be distinguished from repair because repair involves restoration or reconstruction” [21]. Furthermore, cultural heritage and architectural features in existing buildings help sustainable development and therefore require consideration [22].

2. Significance of Green Approaches for Heritage Buildings (HB)

Progressively, the efficiency of conservation measures available for heritage buildings can be evaluated for how building conservation costs and conservation theory meld with environmental sustainability. Significantly, conservation also extends their life and capacity, including repair, maintenance, and restoration. Heritage buildings’ conservation and sustainability are two interrelated concepts and are frequently encountered when it comes to maintenance and repair [23,24].
Heritage buildings have the potential to evolve environmental sustainability while strengthening the resilience of communities [25]. Research preventing energy waste without spoiling the values and historical significance of heritage buildings can make conservation difficult [26,27]. As a major aspect of the world’s revitalization strategy to advance sustainability in its environment, numerous structures of verifiable social importance are being adjusted and reused as opposed to being demolished [28,29,30,31,32].
Adaptive reuse is recognized as a conservation strategy [14,21,33], Adaptive reuse of built heritage on the point of conservation strategy is defined as a critical change to a current structural work when the previous function becomes obsolete; while there is an option in contrast to customary destruction and rebuilding; therefore, it is intrinsically feasible as it consumes less energy and produces less waste [31,34,35].
Adaptive reuse has been adopted for various types of historical buildings, such as those for defence, airfields, government, industry, and education [36]. Adaptive reuse is acknowledged in various settings and requires the discovery of new financing and administration models [37].
The way to a fruitful adaptive reuse is to comprehend the heritage building with the current (or lost) energy efficiency aspects. Thus, available energy-efficient and environmentally sustainable features of the building need to be evaluated alongside qualities like historical, architectural, aesthetic, and social [3]. For Zushi [38], successful adaptive reuse projects need building designs and careful plans that take into account the surrounding environment. The holistic approach of this study targets achieving a unique alignment schema for adaptive reuse of heritage buildings through getting inspiration from various categories of ARM, to serve cultural sustainability, and ERS, to serve ecological sustainability (Figure 1).

2.1. ARM to Serve Cultural Sustainability

On an international scale, important administrative and legislative actions with regard to conservation were introduced by the “Athens Charter” in 1931. In this document, a very delicate urban design is recommended for nearby historical monuments by taking special consideration of the aesthetic value of the heritage together with its context [39,40].
For the last 40 years or so, there have been special attempts in the conservation of architectural heritage, ranging from single monument preservations with aesthetic and historic value to taking measures to help sustainable development of the region in economic, social, environmental, and cultural ways [30,41,42]. This is because the first official definition of cultural heritage, defined and described in the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), was only introduced in 1972 [43]. Various scholars defined several value types attached to cultural heritage. Such types of value were presented with associated terminology, such as historical, socio-economic, symbolic, age-related, architectural, educational, contextual, aesthetic, and emotional [16,17,21,33,44,45,46,47]
The Burra Charter stated that adaptation is acceptable only where the adaptation has minimal impact on the cultural significance of the place, and minimal changes to the significant fabric should take place after considering alternatives [34]. Experts in adaptive reuse have been assessing reuse capability of heritage buildings according to related models since 1979 in the Burra Charter, Australia. Adaptive reuse of buildings has the capability to replace demolition since it produces less waste and requires less energy. Its advantages to society include rejuvenation of natural tourism spots and giving tourists a fresh life [48]. In addition, adaptive reuse is a model procedure for conservation of authentic structures regarding their legacy.
Douglas [34] stated that, as the danger of becoming outdated and deteriorated increases, the degree of mediation increases as well. Adaptation projects have a range from essential protection to rebuilding (Table 1). In the middle of these two extremes, in almost top to bottom order are interventions such as conservation, refurbishment, rehabilitation, renovation, remodelling, and restoration.
ARM’s role is to recognize and rank the capability of adaptive reuse in existing structures and, in this manner, can be portrayed as a mediation technique to guarantee that aggregate social worth is improved and future redundancy is planned. In addition, it needs an evaluation of physical, economic, functional, technological, social, legal, political, and environmental out-datedness. The evaluation utilizes substitute estimation methods since no immediate market proof exists [49]. ARM from around the world related to the importance of adaptive reuse for heritage buildings have been compiled in Table 2.
In Table 2, there are three categories of ARM, where the first column shows the models to be used in adaptive reuse process of HB through standards and provided scoresheets; and the second and third columns mark software used in certain processes like designing a historical building reuse project and documentation systems related with cultural heritage consecutively.
As Table 2 presented, this study emphasizes ARM in the first category by collecting detailed information of each model with a focus on evaluation system, and it is shown in Figure 2, whose results will be used in evaluation criteria based on ecological sustainability features in the alignment part.
Figure 2 displays the variety of ARM from around the world related to heritage buildings that were introduced in previous Table 2. In Figure 2, analyses of the related models in terms of their scope, in addition to direct or indirect relations to HB, the evaluation tools and software, and their problems and limitations are outlined. The information in Figure 2 has been collected from various sources in order to clarify each ARM methodology to be used by users who are leading adaptive reuse projects. Based on the type of HB obsolescence, they can implement the design criteria and sub-criteria to overcome obsolescence within the related category or to avoid further obsolescence.
Figure 2 investigates ARM with direct relation to HB in order to extract their HB-related features as the first component of the alignment schema to be proposed.
By addressing the analysed documents from selected ARM with direct relation to heritage buildings (Figure 2), the pointed criteria will be assisted in the evaluation part of the study in order to achieve the mutual features to shape the proposed alignment schema.

2.2. Environmental Rating Systems to Serve Ecological Sustainability in HB

Recently, integrating heritage conservation with environmental issues has been an intrinsic characteristic of backing up sustainability [60,61]. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) [62] underscored that the building sector must concentrate more on adjusting and retrofitting of existing structures to the ideal energy efficiency standard. In addition, UNEP considered the capacity of historic buildings for energy-saving contributions as “the least important aspect of the relationship of heritage to sustainability”, emphasizing rather “the cultural and social contribution that heritage makes every day to how lives are lived, and to the ways in which identities and relationships are formed” [63] (p. 22). Identifying historical worth must be an integral stage of a sustainable building process, focusing on the preservation and upgrade of all its past configurations with the aim of identifying, enriching, and transmitting cultural heritage to descendants. ERS are suggested for upgrading a building’s sustainability level without putting its heritage value at risk [64,65].
Environmental appraisal instruments or rating frameworks cannot overlook legacy structures. Besides, for example, benchmarks and rules, confirmation frameworks, contracts, and models are significant instruments for quality affirmation in cultural heritage management [19,66]. Key environmental sustainability measures that can be considered in the adjustment of heritage buildings are equivalent to those applicable to non-legacy stock. In particular, measures may include energy efficiency, water proficiency, decrease of waste, presentation of recycling and waste management, detail of low environmental impact materials, and effective building activity and facility management. Such actions can lessen environmental impacts of buildings and are perceived that way because of their consideration in ecological appraisal instruments. The instruments are utilized to assess the degrees of sustainability accomplished in green structures [62,63].
ERS can be used for projects seeking a range of intervention degrees from preservation to renovation. In all cases, the main goal of the process must be the historic building’s major renovation and the interior space renewal or functional reorganization, considering a building envelope’s performance improvement consistent with the preservation of the heritage, architectural, and construction features [12,63]. In this study, ERS from around the world have been collected and classified according to their relation type to HB as is shown in Table 3.
By addressing Table 3 ERS with direct relation to HB have been marked to be under precise information detail. Notably, Figure 3 investigates the selected ERS, which have direct relation to heritage buildings, by evaluating their scope. Furthermore, they were examined in terms of problems/limitations and used software in order to achieve certification for adaptive reuse projects to be ecologically sustainable.
Figure 3 investigates ERS with direct relation to HB in order to extract their HB-related features as the second component of the alignment schema to be proposed.
Increasing the demand for ecological sustainability in different fields is noticeable, especially in architectural conservation of heritage buildings as was explained in collected data for Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3. Therefore, this study attempts to align both cultural and ecological design criteria in case of heritage obsolescence, which requires adaptation instead of demolishing in order to accomplish the alignment schema as a result.

3. Integrating Cultural and Ecological Sustainability of Heritage Buildings through a Particular Alignment Schema

Concentration on the improvement of new information with respect to future building adaptive reuse, sustainability issues, and future plan headings will proceed, most likely, at an expanding rate for the following years, pushed by an expanding consciousness of environmental duty [90]. Fournier and Zimnicki [91] planned some rules to give data and direction to the adaptive reuse of buildings, such as reducing development of new structures, which devours critical measures of crude materials and land resources that may be better utilized for different capacities. In line with the aims of heritage preservation and sustainable planning, these rules integrate sustainability into the adaptive reuse of current historical buildings to empower the built environment at the same time as protecting the local culture of the society.
Snyder [92] considered utilizing the common principles in adaptive reuse and sustainable design that lead to development that decreases environmental impact by conserving material and energy. He also stated that adaptive reuse and sustainable design are two important elements in the future of architecture, as is fulfilling the existing requirements of today’s buildings and the design of new buildings to make sure that they are sustainable in the future, back up global climate protection, and emissions reduction.
This study is unique with regard to cultural and environmental aspects of sustainable development. It is trying to provide an alignment schema for obtaining certified adaptive reuse of HBs so that it can be used in conservation areas, which was not considered sufficiently in past studies for different types of ARM and ERS. Ecological sustainability and its harmony with other sustainability elements have been taken into account as one of the important aims of sustainability. Alongside this, adjustment of HB yields cultural sustainability via continuation of symbolic, historical, and social values. In the meantime, suitable reuse of HB increases income to maintain the reused HB. Thus, environmentally sustainable reuse of HB provides utmost sustainability in every respect.
In this study, the association between cultural and ecological sustainability is considered to propose the challenges and integrations of ARM and ERS in terms of recommending the alignment schema be applied on heritage buildings. The integration of both cultural and ecological sustainability became significant recently since cultural heritage includes signs of cultural identity. By considering adaptive reuse for conserving heritage buildings as cultural sustainability factors, various adaptive reuse obsolescence design criteria have been specified, such as physical, economic, social, functional, technological, political, environmental, and legal issues. Accordingly, all adaptive reuse obsolete design criteria and sub-criteria have been investigated for achieving the related features to sustainability.
All factors are defined in this section to identify the values of concern. Environmental sustainability has been analysed for years to provide support for the environment considering limitations in energy and use of green design strategies [93]. Heritage buildings also need to be preserved as they provide significant knowledge of the past and present for future generations [15,17]. Ecological sustainability of heritage buildings has become a more concerning issue, and it needs to be a sensitive element of the process. Therefore, it needs to be ensured that building requirements are considered in the problem-solving process and are in line with heritage conservation requirements [93]. The graph presents the procedure of alignment of cultural and ecological sustainability. In parallel, ecological reuse of HB has been investigated in detail in order to find out the HB-related criteria that contributed to sustainability. This procedure has been illustrated in Figure 4, which expresses the collected data from both ARM and ERS with mutual features towards sustainability reuse of HB.
By considering Figure 4, [29] attempted to label precisely the significance of adaptive reuse for cultural sustainability. Consequently, there have to be numbers of obsolete design criteria to support adaptive reuse of heritage buildings, which is explored in further stages.

3.1. Deriving Adaptive Reuse Design Criteria from ARM

Based on the collected data from ARM with related features to heritage buildings, an evaluation examined and revealed the ARM’s criteria versus adaptive reuse design criteria. Accordingly, Figure 5 highlights particular ARM criteria related to HBs. The examination was targeted to find certain ARM and their criteria, which have a relationship with cultural heritage. The selected ARM related to HB have been added to Figure 5 in order to prepare the evaluation criteria. In this figure, adaptive reuse design criteria and sub-criteria in relation to HB have been marked and extracted based on the definition made in related original ARM (Table 2). The inclusion of keywords such as heritage building, historic building, architectural heritage, cultural heritage, heritage value, heritage significance, etc., in the original definition, helped the researcher in the determination of related sub-criteria.
Figure 5 presents design criteria and sub-criteria derived from ARM and based on obsolescence categories related to HB. The related features have been collected in the alignment schema for this study in order to clarify the related features of each ARM.

3.2. Deriving Criteria Related to HB from Ecological Environmental Rating Systems

Ecological sustainability principles are focused on the environmental values of design strategy. As for the central fundamental idea of this study, ERS play a core role in the standardization of the ecological principles to be considered in ecologically sustainable adaptive reuse of heritage buildings. Figure 6 represent design criteria and sub-criteria gathered from selected ERS, which are explained in Figure 3 and analysed according to different headings. The marked ones express the features with relations to HB extracted among all features.
In this figure, ecological design criteria and sub-criteria in relation to HB have been marked and extracted based on the definition made in related original ERS (Figure 3). The inclusion of keywords such as historic site, historic interest, cultural interest, heritage building, historic building, architectural heritage, cultural heritage, heritage value, heritage significance, etc., in the original definition helped the researcher in the determination of related sub-criteria.
Figure 6 introduce the HB-related criteria and sub-criteria derived from the inclusive categorization of design criteria extracted from selected ERS worldwide.
In the next section of this study, the marked mutual aspects of ARM and ERS (Figure 3 and Figure 4) are transferred to the proposed particular alignment schema called the prerequisite criteria schema (PCS). PCS includes the criteria and sub-criteria to be initially checked among the inclusive features to be fulfilled in the ecological adaptive reuse process of HB.

3.3. The Proposed Prerequisite Criteria Schema (PCS)

Promoting the importance of integrating both ARM and ERS can be framed as a figure that contains the collected data in relation to HBs. The connection to both ARM and ERS criteria and sub-criteria has been explored from their feature descriptions analysis in previous sessions, which attempt to innovate a beneficial PCS for certified adaptive reuse of heritage buildings.
In this manner, PCS was drawn by targeting both “ARM’” as cultural sustainability design criteria and “ERS” as ecological sustainability design criteria in relation to HB. PCS serves as the initial step within the procedure of achieving green adaptive reuse of HB. This schema will help the user to check whether they fulfil HB-related features among the inclusive ARM and ERS criteria and sub-criteria (Figure 7).
If the majority of the mutual features exist in an adaptive reuse project, then the process for applying the green certification can be envisioned for an adapted HB. If there are insufficient number of criteria fulfilled in an adaptive reuse project, then PCS can be used in order to develop and revise the project according to the related mutual features, ensuring continuity of heritage significance. The integration of sustainable designs with the conservation of HB will be achieved by sustaining their historic values and authenticity.

4. Conclusions

The identification of historical value must be an integrated part of the refurbishment processes for HB, which are aimed at the preservation and enhancement of all its previous expressions with the ultimate goal of identification, enhancement, and transmission of cultural heritage values to the future generations. Parallel to this, ERS are proposed for improving the historical building’s ecological sustainability level without compromising its cultural value. As for the numerous ARM and ERS worldwide, the limitation of this study is that it addresses the ones that are focused particularly on heritage buildings. Moreover, in terms of applying both cultural and ecological sustainability issues to heritage buildings, an examination of criteria and sub-criteria takes place according to the amount of HB obsolescence in ARM and amount of HB analysis in ERS.
As the focus, ARM and ERS consider the features of cultural and ecological sustainability and evaluate HBs according to their interactions. Based on cultural and ecological sustainability roles on heritage buildings, the evaluation structures known as ARM and ERS are capable ways to lead conservators toward green adaptations and standardized assessment processes. Regarding the alignment of mutual features between ARM and ERS, the proposed prerequisite criteria schema (PCS) has the ability to be updated based on future studies following new models and systems.

Author Contributions

Data collection, E.F.; writing original draft, E.F.; conceptualisation, methodology, examination of data, visualisation, framework development, E.F. and Ö.O.T.; writing, review and editing, Ö.O.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data on ARM and ERS have been collected from public sources and have been referred both in the text and in the reference list.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Dogan, H.A. Assessment of the perception of cultural heritage as an adaptive re-use and sustainable development strategy. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 9, 430–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Blundo, D.S.; Ferrari, A.M.; del Hoyo, A.F.; Riccardi, M.P.; Muiña, F.E.G. Improving sustainable cultural heritage restoration work through life cycle assessment based model. J. Cult. Herit. 2018, 32, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Shetabi, L. Heritage Conservation and Environmental Sustainability: Revisiting the Evaluation Criteria for Built Heritage. In Proceedings of the Australia ICOMOS Conference–Fabric: Threads of Conservation, Australia ICOMOS, Adelaide, Australia, 5–8 November 2015; pp. 2–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). Hangzhou Declaration: Placing Culture at the Heart of Sustainable Development Policies; United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization: Hangzhou, China, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  5. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). Policy for the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention. In Decisions Adopted by the General Assembly of the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention at Its 20 Session; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  6. Siebrandt, D.; Kraak, A.L.; James, L.; Saldin, M. Editorial: Heritage, sustainability and social justice. Hist. Environ. 2017, 29, 2–10. [Google Scholar]
  7. Boyd, N. Heritage and sustainability 101. Hist. Environ. 2017, 29, 56–65. [Google Scholar]
  8. Yung, E.H.; Chan, E.H. Implementation challenges to the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: Towards the goals of sustainable, low carbon cities. Habitat Int. 2012, 36, 352–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Winter, T. Heritage conservation futures in an age of shifting global power. J. Soc. Archaeol. 2014, 14, 319–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rodrigues, C.; Freire, F. Adaptive reuse of buildings: Eco-efficiency assessment of retrofit strategies for alternative uses of an historic building. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 157, 94–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Conejos, S.; Langston, C.; Smith, J. Designing for better building adaptability: A comparison of adaptSTAR and ARP models. Habitat Int. 2014, 41, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Castaldo, V.L.; Pisello, A.L.; Boarin, P.; Petrozzi, A.; Cotana, F. The Experience of International Sustainability Protocols for Retrofitting Historical Buildings in Italy. Buildings 2017, 7, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites). The Venice Charter: International Charter for Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites; ICOMOS: Paris, France, 1964. [Google Scholar]
  14. Australia ICOMOS. The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, Australia ICOMOS Incorporated International Council on Monuments and Sites; Deakin University Australia: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2013; pp. 1–10. Available online: http://portal.iphan.gov.br/uploads/ckfinder/arquivos/The-Burra-Charter-2013-Adopted-31_10_2013.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2019).
  15. Architects’ Council of Europe. Leeuwarden Declaration—Adaptive Re-Use of the Built Heritage: Preserving and Enhancing the Values of our Built Heritage for Future Generations. In Adaptive Re-Use and Transition of the Built Heritage; EuropeForCultural: Leeuwarden, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  16. Foster, G. Circular economy strategies for adaptive reuse of cultural heritage buildings to reduce environmental impacts. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 152, 104507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Faro, A.L.; Miceli, A. Sustainable Strategies for the Adaptive Reuse of Religious Heritage: A Social Opportunity. Buildings 2019, 9, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Webb, A.L. Energy retrofits in historic and traditional buildings: A review of problems and methods. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 77, 748–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kilitci, A.; Kaya, Z.; Acar, E.M.; Elmas Ömer, F. Scrotal Calcinosis: Analysis of 5 Cases. J. Clin. Exp. Investig. 2018, 9, 150–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Martínez-Molina, A.; Tort-Ausina, I.; Cho, S.; Vivancos, J.-L. Energy efficiency and thermal comfort in historic buildings: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 61, 70–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Truscott, M.C. Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (1999). In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology; Metzler, J.B., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 1078–1082. [Google Scholar]
  22. Roders, A.A.P.; Van Oers, R. Editorial: Bridging cultural heritage and sustainable development. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 1, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kayan, B.A.; Halim, I.A.; Mahmud, N.S. Green Maintenance for Heritage Buildings: An Appraisal Approach for St Paul’s Church in Melaka, Malaysia. Int. J. Technol. 2018, 9, 1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Dal Bello, P. Rethinking Cultural Heritage: A Qualitative Research on the Value of Adaptive Reuse for Cultural Heritage. Master Arts, Culture & Society. Master’s Thesis, Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication/Cultural Economics and Entrepreneurship, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2017. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/2105/39510 (accessed on 20 September 2020).
  25. Fiore, P.; Sicignano, E.; Donnarumma, G. An AHP-Based Methodology for the Evaluation and Choice of Integrated Interventions on Historic Buildings. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Godwin, P. Building Conservation and Sustainability in the United Kingdom. Procedia Eng. 2011, 20, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Pickles, D.; McCaig, L. Energy Efficiency and Historic Buildings—Application of Part L of the Building Regulations to Historic and Traditionally Constructed Buildings, 2nd ed.; Historic England: UK, London, 2017; pp. 1–44. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ball, R. Developers, regeneration and sustainability issues in the reuse of vacant industrial buildings. Build. Res. Inf. 1999, 27, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Royal Australian Institute of Architects Australia; Department of the Environment and Heritage. Adaptive Reuse Preserving our Past, Building our Future; Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, Australia, 2004; pp. 1–18. Available online: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/3845f27a-ad2c-4d40-8827-18c643c7adcd/files/adaptive-reuse.pdf (accessed on 9 February 2019).
  30. Wilkinson, S.; Reed, R. The business case for incorporating sustainability in office buildings: The adaptive reuse of existing buildings, PRRES: Investing in Sustainable Real Estate Environment. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Pacific Rim Real Estate Society, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20–23 January 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wilkinson, S.J.; James, K.; Reed, R. Using building adaptation to deliver sustainability in Australia. Struct. Surv. 2009, 27, 46–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Bullen, P.A.; Love, P.E.D. Residential regeneration and adaptive reuse: Learning from the experiences of Los Angeles. Struct. Surv. 2009, 27, 351–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lo Faro, A. Adaptive Re-Use of the built heritage: A proposal for the town of Leonforte (Italy), REHABEND 2020. In Proceedings of the Euro American Congress. Construction Pathology, Rehabilitation Technology and Heritage Management, Granada, Spain, 24–27 March 2020; pp. 1220–1228. [Google Scholar]
  34. Douglas, J. Building Adaptation; Elsevier: London, UK, 2006; pp. 3–21. [Google Scholar]
  35. Conejos, S.; Langston, C.; Chan, E.H.W.; Chew, M.Y.L. Governance of heritage buildings: Australian regulatory barriers to adaptive reuse. Build. Res. Inf. 2016, 44, 507–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Langston, C.; Wong, F.K.; Hui, E.C.; Shen, L.-Y. Strategic assessment of building adaptive reuse opportunities in Hong Kong. Build. Environ. 2008, 43, 1709–1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Klamer, A. Doing the right Thing. In A Value Based Economy; Ubiquity Press: London, UK, 2016; pp. 197–213. [Google Scholar]
  38. Zushi, K. Potential Residential Buildings for Adaptive Reuse-Cincinnati’s CBD. Master’s Thesis, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  39. Jokilehto, J. Definition of Cultural Heritage, References to Documents in History, original for ICCROM, 1990, Revised for CIF: 15 January 2005. Available online: http://cif.icomos.org/pdf_docs/Documents%20on%20line/Heritage%20definitions.pdf (accessed on 25 June 2020).
  40. Örn, T. Energy Efficiency in Heritage Buildings: Conservation Approaches and Their Impact on Energy Efficiency Measures. Ph.D. Dissertation, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Magrini, A.; Franco, G. The energy performance improvement of historic buildings and their environmental sustainability assessment. J. Cult. Herit. 2016, 21, 834–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1973; Available online: http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/ (accessed on 21 October 2018).
  43. Riegl, A. The Modern Cult of Monument: It’s Character and its Origin. Reprint; Moderne Denkmalkultus: Sein Wesen und seine Entstehung, Oppositions; Ghirardo, D.; Forster, K., Translators; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1982; Volume 25, pp. 21–51. [Google Scholar]
  44. Mason, R. Assessing Values in Conservation Planning: Methodological Issues and Choices. In Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage, Research Report; De la Torre, M., Ed.; Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  45. English Heritage. Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance; English Heritage: London, UK, 2008; pp. 1–77. [Google Scholar]
  46. Fredheim, L.H.; Khalaf, M. The significance of values: Heritage value typologies re-examined. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2016, 22, 466–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Conejos, S.; Langston, C.; Smith, J. Improving the implementation of adaptive reuse strategies for historic buildings. In Proceedings of the Le Vie Mercanti SAVE HERITAGE: Safeguard of Architectural, Visual, Environmental Heritage, Naples, Italy, 9–11 June 2011; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  48. Conejos, S. Optimisation of future building adaptive reuse design criteria for urban sustainability. J. Des. Res. 2013, 11, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bopp, S. The Historic American Buildings Survey and Interpretive Drawing: Using Digital Tools to Facilitate Comprehensive Heritage Documentation. Master’s Thesis, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bruno, S.; De Fino, M.; Fatiguso, F. Historic Building Information Modelling: Performance assessment for diagnosis-aided information modelling and management. Autom. Constr. 2018, 86, 256–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wilkinson, S.J.; Remøy, H.; Langston, C. Sustain Building Adaptation: Innovations in Decision-Making; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; pp. 1–294. Available online: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=AkCCAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA11&dq=Sustainable+building+adaptation:+innovations+in+decision-making&ots=3cLLEK8k1a&sig=hZWMDWOLoLhmaggxceHkHGZyt4U (accessed on 25 June 2020).
  52. Wilkinson, S. The preliminary assessment of adaptation potential in existing office buildings. Int. J. Strat. Prop. Manag. 2014, 18, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Idemen, A.E.; Şener, M.; Acar, E. Assessing the adaptive re-use potential of buildings in emergencies: Analysis of architectural design factors. In Proceedings of the Conference: Architecture in Emergency—Re-thinking the Refugee Crisis, Co-organized by Istanbul Kültür University and Bergen School of Architecture, Istanbul, Turkey, 17–19 November 2016. [Google Scholar]
  54. Murphy, M.; McGovern, E.; Pavia, S. Historic Building Information Modelling—Adding intelligence to laser and image based surveys of European classical architecture. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2013, 76, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Buhagiar, C.M.; Bailey, T.; Gove, M. CHIMS: The Cultural Heritage Inventory Management System for the Maltese Islands. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage VAST, Glyfada, Greece, 28–30 November 2006. [Google Scholar]
  56. Conejos, S.; Langston, C.; Smith, J. AdaptSTAR model: A climate-friendly strategy to promote built environment sustainability. Habitat Int. 2013, 37, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Seeley, I. Building Economics: Appraisal and Control of Building Design Cost and Efficiency; Macmillian Press: New York, NY, USA, 1983; pp. 200–358. [Google Scholar]
  58. Langston, C. The sustainability implications of building adaptive reuse. In Proceedings of the CRIOCM2008, Beijing, China, 31 October–3 November 2008. [Google Scholar]
  59. İdemen, A.E.; Şener, S.M.; Acar, E. Assessing the Adaptive Re-Use Potential of Buildings as Part of the Disaster Management Process. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. Int. J. Civ. Environ. Struct. Constr. Archit. Eng. 2016, 10, 433–439. [Google Scholar]
  60. Stubbs, M. Heritage-sustainability: Developing a methodology for the sustainable appraisal of the historic environment. Plan. Pr. Res. 2004, 19, 285–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bullen, P.A.; Love, P.E. The rhetoric of adaptive reuse or reality of demolition: Views from the field. Cities 2010, 27, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. UNEP (United Nations Environment Program). Buildings and Climate Change: Summary for Decision-Makers; Yamamoto, J., Graham, P., Eds.; UNEP publications: Nairobi, Kenya, 2009; Available online: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/32152/BCC_SDM.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 12 September 2018).
  63. Auclair, E.; Fairclough, G. (Eds.) Theory and Practice in Heritage and Sustainability: Between Past and Future; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2015; pp. 1–236. [Google Scholar]
  64. Boarin, P.; Guglielmino, D.; Pisello, A.L.; Cotana, F. Sustainability Assessment of Historic Buildings: Lesson Learnt from an Italian case Study through LEED® Rating System. Energy Procedia 2014, 61, 1029–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Boarin, P. Bridging the gap between environmental sustainability and heritage preservation: Towards a certified sustainable conservation, adaptation and retrofitting of historic buildings. In Proceedings of the 50th International Conference of the Architectural Science Association. School of Architecture and Built Environment, the University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, 7–9 December 2016; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312278591_Bridging_the_gap_between_environmental_sustainability_and_heritage_preservation_towards_a_certified_sustainable_conservation_adaptation_and_retrofitting_of_historic_buildings (accessed on 3 July 2018).
  66. Leijonhufvud, G.; Broström, T. Standardizing the indoor climate in historic buildings: Opportunities, challenges and ways forward. J. Arch. Conserv. 2018, 24, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Green Building Council Italia. GBC Historic Building. Sistema di Verifica GBC Historic Building®—Parte 1; Green Building Council Italia: Rovereto, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  68. Naguib, I. International Rating Systems and their Applicability on Historic Buildings. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Energy Systems, Environment, Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ICESEEI’16), Barcelona, Spain, 13–15 February 2016; Available online: http://naun.org/cms.action?id=11146 (accessed on 28 July 2018).
  69. Azhar, S.; Carlton, W.A.; Olsen, D.; Ahmad, I. Building information modeling for sustainable design and LEED® rating analysis. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. BREEAM. New Construction Assessment. 2018. Available online: https://www.breeam.com/NC2018/content/resources/output/10_pdf/a4_pdf/print/nc_uk_a4_print_mono/nc_uk_a4_print_mono.pdf (accessed on 2 June 2019).
  71. Balson, K.; Summerson, G.; Thorne, A. Briefing Paper Sustainable Refurbishment of Heritage Buildings-How BREEAM helps to Deliver. Briefing Paper; BRE Global: Watford, UK, 2014; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. IBEC (Institute of Building Environment and Energy Conservation). CASBEE Brochure; Institute of Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC). 2016. Available online: https://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/document/CASBEE_brochure_2016.pdf (accessed on 6 August 2019).
  73. Atanda, J.O.; Öztürk, A. Social criteria of sustainable development in relation to green building assessment tools. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2018, 22, 61–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sasatani, D.; Bowers, T.; Ganguly, I.; Eastin, I.L. Adoption of casbee by japanese house builders. J. Green Build. 2015, 10, 186–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Pinheiro, M.D.; Lider, A. Voluntary System for the Sustainability of Built Environments, Lisbon, February 2011 (V2.00c1). Available online: http://www.lidera.info/resources/_LiderA_V2.00c1%20sumario_ingles.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2020).
  76. Miranda, J.A.P. Weighting Factors for the Criteria of a Building Sustainability Assessment Tool (DGNB). Master’s Thesis, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal, July 2013. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/143396613.pdf (accessed on 22 June 2019).
  77. Mateus, R.; Bragança, L. Sustainability assessment and rating of buildings: Developing the methodology SBToolPT–H. Build. Environ. 2011, 46, 1962–1971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. iiSBE/GBC 2005. GBTool Demo. International Initiative for Sustainable Built Environment. 2005. Available online: http://www.iisbe.org/iisbe/gbc2k5/gbc2k5-dwn.htm (accessed on 25 June 2020).
  79. Zhang, Y.; Wang, H.; Gao, W.; Wang, F.; Zhou, N.; Kammen, D.M.; Ying, X. A Survey of the Status and Challenges of Green Building Development in Various Countries. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Moussa, R.R. The reasons for not implementing Green Pyramid Rating System in Egyptian buildings. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2019, 10, 917–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Asdrubali, F.; Baldinelli, G.; Bianchi, F.; Sambuco, S. A comparison between environmental sustainability rating systems LEED and ITACA for residential buildings. Build. Environ. 2015, 86, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wilkinson, S.J. Back to the future: Heritage buildings, adaptation and sustainability in the Melbourne Central Business District. Hist. Environ. 2012, 24, 7–13. [Google Scholar]
  83. Awadh, O. Sustainability and green building rating systems: LEED, BREEAM, GSAS and Estidama critical analysis. J. Build. Eng. 2017, 11, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ho, D.C.W.; Chau, K.W.; Yau, Y.; Cheung, A.K.C.; Wong, S.K. Comparative study of building performance assessment schemes in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Surv. 2005, 16, 1–12. Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2c89/02d59d54bee70161f1c11b1c590f236ebcbb.pdf?_ga=2.36258400.1949628359.1577653537-614876857.1573634146 (accessed on 10 November 2018).
  85. Wu, M.; Yau, R. A comprehensive environmental performance assessment scheme for buildings in Hong Kong. In Proceedings of the World Sustainable Building Conference, Tokyo, Japan, 27–29 September 2005; Available online: https://www.irb.fraunhofer.de/CIBlibrary/search-quick-result-list.jsp?A&idSuche=CIB+DC3772 (accessed on 9 August 2017).
  86. Bernardi, E.; Carlucci, S.; Cornaro, C.; Bohne, R.A. An Analysis of the Most Adopted Rating Systems for Assessing the Environmental Impact of Buildings. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Gu, Z.; Wennersten, R.; Assefa, G. Analysis of the most widely used Building Environmental Assessment methods. Environ. Sci. 2006, 3, 175–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. NABERS. Setting Targets Using Reverse Calculators; Nabers National Initiative NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment: 2019. Available online: https://www.nabers.gov.au/reverse-calculators (accessed on 25 June 2020).
  89. Bannister, P. NABERS: Lessons from 12 Years of Performance Based Ratings in Australia. 2012. Corpus ID: 55214093. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/NABERS%3A-Lessons-from-12-Years-of-Performance-Based-Bannister/8f65e9a56fe37ea8f3430329d9c4fd6f9b5ce384 (accessed on 6 July 2020).
  90. Conejos, S. Designing for Future Building Adaptive Reuse. Ph.D. Dissertation, Bond University, Robina, Australia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  91. Fournier, D.; Zimnicki, K. Integrating Sustainable Design Principles into the Adaptive Reuse of Historical Properties; Engineer Research and Development Center, Final Report US Army Corps of Engineers: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  92. Snyder, G.H. Sustainability through Adaptive Reuse: The Conversion of Industrial Buildings. Master’s Thesis, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA, 25 July 2005. [Google Scholar]
  93. Hill, S. Constructive conservation—A model for developing heritage assets. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 6, 34–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 03536 g001 550
Figure 1. The structure of the study, which describes various stages of the methodology.
Figure 1. The structure of the study, which describes various stages of the methodology.
Sustainability 13 03536 g001
Sustainability 13 03536 g002 550
Figure 2. Analysis of ARM worldwide, with their direct and indirect relations to adaptive reuse of heritage buildings Ref [11,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59].
Figure 2. Analysis of ARM worldwide, with their direct and indirect relations to adaptive reuse of heritage buildings Ref [11,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59].
Sustainability 13 03536 g002
Sustainability 13 03536 g003a 550Sustainability 13 03536 g003b 550Sustainability 13 03536 g003c 550Sustainability 13 03536 g003d 550
Figure 3. Analysis of ERS worldwide, with their direct and indirect relations to heritage buildings. Refs [62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89].
Figure 3. Analysis of ERS worldwide, with their direct and indirect relations to heritage buildings. Refs [62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89].
Sustainability 13 03536 g003aSustainability 13 03536 g003bSustainability 13 03536 g003cSustainability 13 03536 g003d
Sustainability 13 03536 g004 550
Figure 4. The parallel concepts prior to the alignment of ERS and ARM.
Figure 4. The parallel concepts prior to the alignment of ERS and ARM.
Sustainability 13 03536 g004
Sustainability 13 03536 g005 550
Figure 5. ARM versus adaptive reuse design criteria related with HB.
Figure 5. ARM versus adaptive reuse design criteria related with HB.
Sustainability 13 03536 g005
Sustainability 13 03536 g006a 550Sustainability 13 03536 g006b 550Sustainability 13 03536 g006c 550Sustainability 13 03536 g006d 550Sustainability 13 03536 g006e 550Sustainability 13 03536 g006f 550Sustainability 13 03536 g006g 550Sustainability 13 03536 g006h 550
Figure 6. Extracting HB-related criteria from selected ERS.
Figure 6. Extracting HB-related criteria from selected ERS.
Sustainability 13 03536 g006aSustainability 13 03536 g006bSustainability 13 03536 g006cSustainability 13 03536 g006dSustainability 13 03536 g006eSustainability 13 03536 g006fSustainability 13 03536 g006gSustainability 13 03536 g006h
Sustainability 13 03536 g007 550
Figure 7. The prerequisite criteria schema (PCS).
Figure 7. The prerequisite criteria schema (PCS).
Sustainability 13 03536 g007
Table
Table 1. The range of interventions (adapted from Douglas [34] (p. 3).
Table 1. The range of interventions (adapted from Douglas [34] (p. 3).
Level of Intervention
(Minimum to Maximum)		Type of InterventionExplanation
Preservation:
arrest decay		MaintenanceBasic adaptation works including fabric repairs.
Conservation:
preserve purposefully		Maintenance
Stabilization		Basic adaptation works including fabric repairs.
Strengthening and major improvement works to the structure.
Refurbishment:
facelift or makeover		StabilizationStrengthening and major improvement works to the structure.
Rehabilitation:
modernization		StabilizationStrengthening and major improvement works to the structure.
Renovation:
upgrading		Stabilization
Consolidation		Strengthening and major improvement works to the structure.
Medium adaptation and maintenance works.
Remodeling:
improving/extending		ConsolidationMedium adaptation and maintenance works.
Restoration:
bringing back		Consolidation
Reconstruction		Medium adaptation and maintenance works.
Substantial rebuilding of part or parts of the building.
Demolition:
removing		ReconstructionSubstantial rebuilding of part or parts of the building.
Table
Table 2. Classification of ARM from around the world in accordance with their relation to adaptive reuse of heritage buildings.
Table 2. Classification of ARM from around the world in accordance with their relation to adaptive reuse of heritage buildings.
No:Country and YearNameManagementScopeAR Models for HB AR Software for HBDocumentation System for HB
1America
(1930s)		HABSHistoric
American Building Surveys		“By abiding to such an intense documentation routine that promotes hands-on engagement with a historic structure, a deeper understanding of the historic fabric is achieved and thus is reflected in an accurate set of documentation for the Heritage Documentation Program’s archive (HDP)” [49] x
2America
(1970) 		BIMBuilding
Information Modelling		“New paradigm of digital design and management, shows great potential for the refurbishment process” [50]. X
3Australia
(2004)		PAAMPreliminary Assessment of Adaptation Potential“PAAM is a reliable diagrammatic representation of the relationship between key significant decision-making criteria and building adaptation” [51].
“The PAAM model facilitates a relatively fast and deeper understanding of the adaptation potential of a building and highlights the important property attributes which are likely to present issues for stakeholders” [52,53].		x
4Australia
(2007)		ARPAdaptive
Reuse
Potential		“The ARP model provides a reasonable straightforward method for accessing effective useful life and adaptive reuse potential (ARP) in existing buildings.” “The concept of adaptive reuse potential (ARP) provides a robust assessment of the effective useful life of a historic building, taking consideration of factors affecting obsolescence. The ARP model predicts useful life as a function of (discounted) physical life and obsolescence and allows the calculation of the adaptive reuse potential” [31].x
5Ireland
(2009)		HBIM Historic
Building
Information Modelling		“Historic Building Information Modelling (HBIM) is a novel prototype library of parametric objects, based on historic architectural data and a system of cross platform programmes for mapping parametric objects onto point cloud and image survey data” [54]. x
6Australia
(2010)		AdaptSTARAdapt Star Model“A new design rating tool called adaptSTAR, is a weighted checklist of design strategies that lead to future successful adaptive reuse of buildings.” “AdaptSTAR model can empower designers of buildings to make critical decisions that contribute to improving longevity and future reuse” [22].x
7Malta
(2011)		CHIMS Cultural Heritage Information Management System“The main objective of CHIMS is to create a new knowledge-based context for understanding, managing and disseminating data concerning cultural heritage. CHIMS aims at enabling access to cultural heritage as a requirement for protection as well as a fundamental human right” [55]. x
8Lithuania
(2018)		CHPP Cultural Heritage Perception Potential“The CHPP model requires analyzing the indicators which establish the impression for people to evaluate buildings as cultural heritage by contextual analysis” [4]. x
Table
Table 3. Classification of ERS from around the world, according to their relationship with adaptive reuse of heritage buildings.
Table 3. Classification of ERS from around the world, according to their relationship with adaptive reuse of heritage buildings.
NOCountryNameManagementRelated
with AR of HB		Indirectly Related
with AR of HB		Non-Related
with AR of HB
Africa
1South AfricaGreen Star SASouth Africa GBC X
2SBATCSIR (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research X
3Northeast AfricaGPRS (Green pyramid rating system)X
Asia
4ChinaGHEMChina Real Estate Chamber of Commerce X
5GOBASMinister of Science and Technology X
6DGNBDGNB China X
7ESGBMinistry of Housing and Urban-Rural Construction X
8Hong KongBEAM PlusHK-BEAM Society X
9CEPASComprehensive Environmental Performance Assessment Scheme for BuildingsX
10HK-BEAMHong Kong Building Environment Assessment Method X
11IBIThe Intelligent Building Index X
12BQIThe Building Quality Index
13IndiaTERI-GRIHAThe Energy and Research Institute (TERI) X
14LEED® IndiaIndian GBC X
15JapanCASBEEJapan Sustainable Building ConsortX
16NIRE-LCANational Institute for Resource and Environment X
17KoreaGBCCKorean Korea Institute of Energy Research X
18SingaporeGreen MarkSingapore Building and Construction Authority X
19TaiwanEEWHArchitecture and Building Research Institute X
20ThailandDGNBARGE—Archimedes Facility-Management GmbH, Bad Oeynhausen and RE/ECC X
21VietnamLOTUSVietnam GBC X
22EgyptGBRSs (Green Building Rating Systems) X
Europe
23AustriaBREEAM ATDIFNI X
24DGNBÖGNI X
25BelgiumLEnSEBelgian Building Research Institute X
26BulgariaDGNBBulgarian GBC X
27Czech
Republic		DGNBDIFNI X
28SBToolCZiiSBE International, CIDEAS X
29DenmarkBEAT 2002SBI X
30DGNBDenmark GBC X
31FinlandPromisEVTT X
32FranceHQE™ MethodHQE™ X
33ESCALECSTB and the University of Savoie X
34GermanyDGNBGerman Sustainable Building Council X
35BREEAM DEDIFNI X
36GreeceDGNBDIFNI X
37HungaryDGNBDIFNI X
38ItalyGBC HB/LEED®ItaliaItaly Green Building Council—Historic BuildingsX
39Protocollo
ITACA		iiSBE ItaliaX
40LuxembourgBREEAM-LUDIFNI X
41NetherlandsBREEAM-NLDutch GBC X
42NorwayBREEAM-NORNorwegian GBC X
43ØkoprofilSINTEF X
44PolandDGNBDGNB International X
45PortugalLiderAInstituto Superior Técnico, LisbonX
46SBToolPTiiSBE Portugal, LFTC-UM, ECOCHOICEX
47RussiaDGNBDGNB International X
48SpainDGNBN/A X
49BREEAM ESFundacion Instituto Technològico de Galicia X
50SwedenEcoEffectRoyal Institute of Technology X
51BREEAM SESwedish GBC X
52SwitzerlandBREEAM CHDIFNI X
53DGNBSGNI X
54TurkeyDGNB- X
55UkraineDGNBDGNB International X
56United
Kingdom		BREEAMBREX
North America
57CanadaLEED® CanadaCanada GBC X
58GreenGlobesECD Canada X
59MexicoSICESMexico GBC X
60United
States		LEED®United States GBCX
61GreenGlobesGreen Building Initiative X
58BEESBuilding for Environmental and Economic Sustainability X
Oceania
59AustraliaGreen StarAustralian GBC X
60NABERSNSW Office of Environment and HeritageX
61New
Zealand		Green Star NZNew Zealand GBC X
South America
62ArgentinaLEED® ArgentinaArgentina GBC X
63BrazilLEED® BrazilBrazil GBC X
64HQE™Fundação Vanzolini X
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Farjami, E.; Türker, Ö.O. The Extraction of Prerequisite Criteria for Environmentally Certified Adaptive Reuse of Heritage Buildings. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3536. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063536

AMA Style

Farjami E, Türker ÖO. The Extraction of Prerequisite Criteria for Environmentally Certified Adaptive Reuse of Heritage Buildings. Sustainability. 2021; 13(6):3536. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063536

Chicago/Turabian Style

Farjami, Elnaz, and Özlem Olgaç Türker. 2021. "The Extraction of Prerequisite Criteria for Environmentally Certified Adaptive Reuse of Heritage Buildings" Sustainability 13, no. 6: 3536. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063536

APA Style

Farjami, E., & Türker, Ö. O. (2021). The Extraction of Prerequisite Criteria for Environmentally Certified Adaptive Reuse of Heritage Buildings. Sustainability, 13(6), 3536. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063536

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop