Figure - available from: Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
Criteria of the ITACA for residential buildings and for non-residential buildings protocols related to the CE and the AR concepts.
Source publication
This paper explores the enhancement of adaptive reuse (AR) of buildings through the lens of the sustainability protocols within the context of circular economy (CE) in Italy. Cities and the built environment can play a key role in the transition to a CE, especially considering the documented negative global impact due to resource consumption and wa...
Similar publications
New economic and industrial developments in the post-Industrial era have caused the construction and mechanical infrastructure of the Industrial Revolution to lose functionality, a trend especially apparent in industrial facilities in major European industrial centers after the 1950s. Industrial remains, which include conventional structures and sp...
Established in 2015, the One Planet Sustainable Buildings and Construction (SBC) Programme has studied the state of play for circular built environment in different regions: Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, North America and Oceania. One aspect of this study has been assessment for circularity using the 2030 Agenda indicators. This...
Citations
... According to Disli et al., the crucial parameters that contribute to the circular economy of buildings include regeneration, continuous use and maintenance, the potential to evolve for different functions and conditions, accessibility, waste minimisation, optimal resource use, and the ability to utilise building elements in different locations or situations [52]. The AR of underused or derelict urban structures contributes to SDG 11, target 11.6 and SDG 12, target 12.5 because the practice prevents and reduces waste, resource, and land consumption and improves the circulation of resources [60,63,89,108]. Gregorio et al. highlighted the potential of selective demolition within AR interventions as an instrument of circularity, where waste materials and components are reused in the area [25]. Another contribution to target 11.6 is observed when the environmental performance of the existing building is improved [25,40,46,65]. ...
... The evidence presented revealed that AR interventions can balance financial investment, cultural heritage protection, and environmental improvements [100]. To achieve this balance, sustainability protocols and policies must provide stronger support for repurposing practices, for instance, by including a wider range of criteria to improve the potential of urban structures for future reuse [3,60,98]. ...
... The analysed literature highlights the role of repurposing practices in enhancing policy coherence for sustainable development, thus contributing to SDG 17, target 17.14. Several studies indicate that a lack of supportive policies is a crucial barrier to progressing AR [60,69,76,82,84,100]. Repurposing architectural heritage can trigger new policy development by providing specific measures of its contribution to urban sustainability objectives [4,53,89,101,103]. ...
The adaptive reuse of urban structures is gaining significant attention due to its multiple benefits for sustainable urban development. Current research on repurposing initiatives provides valuable insights that can guide these practices from a research-based perspective. This paper aims to systematically review the existing literature on the adaptive reuse of buildings to develop a framework that outlines studies and findings on how repurposing practices contribute to specific sustainable development goals and their targets. The systematic literature review focuses on research published from 2018 to the end of 2024, serving as the foundation for this framework. The findings indicate that repurposing projects can make direct contributions to nine sustainable development goals. The strongest impacts were identified in relation to goals 4, 11, and 17. For goal 4, repurposing projects serve as valuable case studies, demonstrating how existing architecture can function as an asset that benefits urban sustainability. Concerning goal 11, the literature emphasises the importance of inclusivity in decision making throughout various stages of adaptive reuse and highlights the protection of unique architectural features as a strategy to enhance social capital and provide cultural and economic improvements. Adaptive reuse supports goal 17 by fostering public–private partnerships and encouraging transparent policy communication, which aids the development of new policies focused on sustainability. The results can assist urban planners, architects, and developers in making research-based decisions regarding underutilised buildings in urban contexts.
... Regarding the papers that tackle the relations between heritage, adaptive reuse, and the circular economy, authors mostly focused on finding the best practices of adaptive reuse [2,8,25,26], on assessing how adaptive reuse and the circular economy could better align with public policies, stakeholders objectives, or investment opportunities [23,[25][26][27][28], and on evaluating the relation between the circular economy and the conservation of heritage (such as adaptive reuse) to determine if they are always compatible [3,4,29,30]. In this field, some authors have deployed methodologies of an inductive nature, consisting in identifying fundamental findings of adaptive reuse processes on the basis of specific case studies [2,8,25,26,29,30]. ...
... Marika et al., 2021 [28] 1. "This paper focused on the adaptive reuse (AR) approach of underused or abandoned buildings, sites, and areas as a useful practice to generate new values by supporting innovative development dynamics" (p. 2). 2. "Within this framework, the present paper aims at exploring and understanding if and how the most widely used sustainability protocols in Italy (GBC and ITACA), currently address and enhance the practice of AR of underused or abandoned buildings in the broader context of CE. [. . ...
When it comes to the circular economy, studies devoted to religious built heritage focus mainly on the interest of the adaptive reuse of buildings, e.g., recycling a building for new contemporary uses. The present study proposes to go a step further by deploying, for the first time in the literature, a life-cycle assessment (LCA) to a monastery-type religious building located in the province of Quebec, Canada. To this end, this study takes into account the embodied and operational energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the building’s entire life cycle, from its construction, in 1907, to the rehabilitation scenario currently under analysis. It also compares this scenario to a new building to determine the best option from an environmental point of view. The article concludes with the importance of using LCA in the context of religious buildings. It also calls for qualitative factors to be taken into account, which could enhance the results of the LCA by better integrating the precepts of the circular economy, in particular the attitudes and coping strategies of occupants with regard to operational energy consumption.
... 99,100], a narrative that puts social problems to the center of CE models and "acknowledge[s] the significant social changes required for CE transformations" [100], and "is going beyond growth, technology and market-based solutions", but instead "frames transitions to circularity as a profound social-ecological transformation" [99]. Applying CE principles to construction or existing building stock is believed to bring along social benefits such as empowerment, inclusion, or new jobs [53,83,84,97]. However, the general focus of publications dealing with a CE in construction has been on sustainable construction, i.e., resource or energy efficiency. ...
In the face of climate change and resource scarcity, the built environment’s transition towards circular practices is thought to be inevitable. To foster a transition of any system, not only technological, but also social innovations are needed. Based on a literature review including both scientific and grey literature, this paper thus sheds light on the social component of existing innovations for a circular built environment. A heuristic framework is designed to classify and identify social innovations in the built environment, their similarities and patterns as well as the dynamics that arise from them. It finds that the majority of social innovations for a circular built environment under study tend to focus on the use of materials and buildings, thus narrowing or slowing resource flows, whereas the closing of resource flows seems to be left outside of social structures. The research underscores the need for a holistic approach to drive sustainable, resource-efficient practices in construction. Future research will empirically examine SI’s impact in real-world settings, aiming to uncover contextual drivers and barriers. By focusing on the social aspects of circularity, this study offers new insights into BE innovations, supporting a paradigm shift toward a sustainable and circular built environment.
... [18,21,52,[66][67][68][69][70] Adaptive Reuse. [29,49,52,[71][72][73] End of Life Reuse of Materials and Products. [45,46,48,49,51,53,61,64,74] Closed-Loop Recycling (up-cycling). ...
The concept of circular economy (CE) has emerged as an effective strategy for addressing resource depletion, waste generation, and environmental challenges, offering a promising path towards a more sustainable future. In the building sector, adopting CE principles can significantly mitigate environmental impacts, minimize lifecycle costs, and promote sustainability throughout a building’s lifecycle. Using a mixed-method approach via a pre-interview questionnaire and semi-structured interviews with 10 sustainability experts, this study analyses the significance of 15 CE strategies in building construction projects, assessing their importance and ranking their potential for adoption. Furthermore, this study evaluates the feasibility of applying CE principles to different building types, including storage, industrial, commercial, residential, business, and healthcare facilities. The role of lifecycle stages including initiation and planning, design, procurement, construction, operation and maintenance, and end of life is examined to identify phases with the highest potential for successfully embracing CE principles. The role of stakeholders in driving change is also analyzed. The outcomes of this study reveal that the most feasible strategies include the use of renewable energy, design for durability and longevity, prefabrication, and offsite construction. The study findings indicate that storage, industrial, and business (office) buildings are the most feasible for CE application, while the initiation and planning and design stages are identified as critical phases for embracing CE adoption. Owners and designers emerge as the stakeholders with the greatest influence on CE implementation. The results of this study provide a comprehensive overview of the feasibility of CE adoption in the building sector. These findings offer valuable insights that can inform the development of targeted strategies to support the effective adoption of CE principles.
... Although adaptive reuse often stirs debate due to its blurred distinctions with related practices like façadism and other renovation strategies (Della Spina, 2020;Tsilika & Vardopoulos, 2022), it has emerged as a viable compromise between preservation (especially of historical or significant sites) and complete demolition (Owojori et al., 2021;Vardopoulos, Giannopoulos, et al., 2023). This way, adaptive reuse aligns with the three pillars of sustainable development-environmental, economic, and social sustainability-effectively contributing to the principles of a circular economy (Marika et al., 2021;Vardopoulos, 2022a). ...
... Given the substantial potential of adaptive reuse for advancing circular economy principles and sustainable urban models Fabi et al., 2021;Foster & Saleh, 2021;Gravagnuolo et al., 2021;Ikiz Kaya et al., 2021), it has garnered considerable attention in recent years (Lanz & Pendlebury, 2022;Marika et al., 2021;Owojori et al., 2021). Early studies on adaptive reuse underscore a growing consensus around its role in promoting sustainability (Bullen, 2007). ...
... Adaptive reuse represents a dynamic approach to integrating existing buildings into contemporary urban landscapes, positioning these structures within an innovative cycle that aligns with the demands of modern society (Metta, 2024;Vardopoulos, 2019). Effectively, adaptive reuse channels buildings through sustainable practices, resonating with the core principles of the circular economy (Cellucci, 2021;Marika et al., 2021). ...
This research examines adaptive reuse by showcasing notable examples across Europe as case studies, specifically focusing on buildings transformed into tourist accommodation units. It delves into how timeless structures, repurposed for modern use, contribute to sustainable urban regeneration, community engagement, and economic growth, all while preserving architectural authenticity. The study identifies the strengths and opportunities associated with adaptive reuse projects, such as promoting sustainability by reducing waste and energy consumption, enhancing local identity, fostering community recreation (urban) spaces, boosting regional revenue, and motivating additional improvements or redevelopment activities throughout. Despite the potential challenges, such as unanticipated urban stress and the need for comprehensive and efficient stakeholder engagement, adaptive reuse remains a viable strategy for architectural 'reinterpretations', as well as it could substantially contribute to the sustainable growth of the real estate industry and tourism development in particular. This research enriches the discourse on adaptive reuse, providing insights that can inform the development of sustainable policy measures and practical strategies for transitioning to a circular economy in urban development enhancing the real estate products. Future studies should explore diverse cultural contexts and integrate innovative technologies to maximize the sustainable potential of adaptive reuse projects.
... Researchers have scrutinized two such systems in Italy regarding their alignment with the principles of the circular economy concerning historical building reuse. Their findings indicate that while the GBC system demonstrates greater consideration for reuse issues than the ITACA system, both systems emphasize circular economy criteria such as resource consumption and waste production rather than specific reuse aspects [22]. In a multidisciplinary study, the environmental sustainability of a renovated historical monument was assessed, revealing that existing rating systems, primarily designed to preserve historical value, impose constraints on renovation endeavors [23]. ...
Historical buildings are unique assets in any society, embodying cultural significance and architectural heritage. Denmark, with its rich architectural background, has taken steps to preserve these values. As the imperative of sustainability continues to grow, recognizing the social, economic, and environmental values of historic buildings is becoming increasingly important. As an important step towards adapting sustainability certification systems for historic buildings in order to identify and preserve their historical values, this paper aims to conduct a comparative analysis between the GBC and HB (Green Building Council–Historic Building), which has been adapted for historic buildings in Italy and the Danish GBC system (GBC-DK or so-called DGNB-DK). The study is based on a theoretical framework underpinned by a systematic approach utilizing a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) alongside the triangulation method. This includes a systematic literature review comparing the GBC-DK and GBC-HB systems and an analysis of an actual building renovation project at a municipal hospital in Aarhus, Denmark. The findings indicate a notable absence of criteria and sub-criteria pertaining to the protection of tangible and intangible values in the application of the GBC-DK system. It is justified that in order to improve the sustainability of historic buildings in Denmark, a broader and more in-depth study on the adaptation of the GBC-DK system for historic buildings is needed.
... The sustainability protocols can be viewed as helpful instruments to explore initiatives for promoting the sustainable building culture (Gaballo et al. 2021). ...
Heritage is present in everyday society and it is a resource linked to social capital, economic growth, and environmental sustainability (Bandarin and van Oers 2014). Adaptive reuse is defined as “any building work and intervention aimed at changing its capacity, function or performance to adjust, reuse or upgrade a building to suit new conditions or requirements” (Douglas 2006). In Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World (1982), James Marston Fitch points out that the adaptive reuse of historic buildings “is more economic” not only in terms of the “conservation of the energy represented by the built environment,” but also for the “relative costs of old and new built space”. Adaptive reuse can be an effective conservation strategy allowing present and future use of abandoned heritage buildings, groups of buildings, landscapes or sites, changing and enhancing their functions and adapting the existing features to new needs (Bullen and Love 2010). However, the adaptive reuse intervention should not compromise heritage values, thus the threshold of transformation versus conservation should be carefully identified. Cultural heritage adaptive reuse is a complex activity, where multiple and often conflicting values need to be considered (CHCfE consortium 2015). Therefore, adaptive reuse should be supported by adequate multidimensional and multicriteria evaluation tools which enable to deal with multiple values and needs, also considering the diverse range of stakeholders, users and beneficiaries of the interventions This study presents the structured framework for the ex-post and ex-ante evaluation of the impacts of cultural heritage adaptive reuse practices in the perspective of the circular economy. It builds on previous analysis of more than 120 case studies of cultural heritage adaptive reuse. The aim of this chapter is to identify multidimensional evaluation tools, as criteria and indicators, according to the CLIC framework of circular adaptive reuse of cultural heritage, starting from the analysis of previous studies and ex-post evaluation of adaptive reuse practices, to structure a comprehensive operational framework for ex-ante evaluation and participatory decision-support in the perspective of circularity.
... Though there are many definitions on "adaptive reuse", Singh et al. (2022) defined it as "a building's ability to successfully fit the shifting demands of its setting, therefore maximizing value through time". As a core principle of the circular economy, adaptability offers a design of circular building to expand its lifespan through flexible and efficient use of resources (Marika et al., 2021, Ollár, 2024. Circular economy principles offer many advantages for optimal adaptive reuse projects (Sanchez et al., 2019b). ...
... Adaptive reuse building projects are mostly perceived as intrinsic to the circular economy and can greatly speed up the transition of the built environment to circularity (Hamida et al., 2024). A growing trend of adaptive reuse research has been noticed recently towards establishing the link between adaptive reuse building and circular economy (Scialpi & Declercq, 2023, van Laar et al., 2024b, Marika et al., 2021. Both concepts, the circularity and adaptability in buildings, aim to preserve the prolonged and dynamic use of buildings (Ollár, 2024). ...
... Since 2016, adaptive reuse has attracted significant attention from the scientific community and general public, with the primary reason being the cost benefits, as reusing existing buildings can be less costly than constructing new buildings (Wilkinson et al., 2009). The potential energy savings and environmental benefits are drivers for adaptive reuse projects and research, especially within the context of a circular economy (Marika et al., 2021). ...
This investigation delineates the environmental ramifications of the adaptive reuse of historic buildings through a comprehensive life cycle analysis (LCA) posed against traditional demolition and construction approaches. The principal research question probes the extent of environmental conservation achieved through adaptive reuse. Objectives include the empirical quantification of adaptive reuse benefits across five impact categories using a historical edifice in Zabrze, Poland, as a case study. The LCA methodology facilitates a comparative assessment of the benefits of adaptive reuse. The outcomes reveal a substantial diminution in environmental impacts, notably an 82% reduction in global warming, 51% smog formation, 27% acidification, and 21% eutrophication potential. These insights substantiate adaptive reuse as a pivotal strategy for environmental impact mitigation in the construction sector. The study highlights the challenges of maintaining the historical, cultural, and social value of old buildings while improving their sustainability and usability.
... Despite the complexity this introduces into the decision-making process, it should not deter efforts to address these challenges. Historic buildings, whether listed or unlisted, represent a substantial portion of the building stock in many countries [13,14], making their role in meeting the goals of sustainable development and an ecological transition, as set in European strategies, crucial [21][22][23][24]. Therefore, the potential impact of improvements in energy management and efficiency in these buildings on the reduction of global energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions is significant and cannot be overlooked. ...
The construction industry in Europe significantly contributes to energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions, and this has prompted the European Union to issue directives for renovating and decarbonizing the existing building stock to meet 2050’s energy and environmental targets. However, achieving nearly zero-energy building (nZEB) standards in historic buildings is a complex challenge, as heritage values cannot be compromised for the sake of energy improvements. Our research advocates for a “whole building approach”, integrating various disciplines to achieve low-energy retrofitting while preserving historical material authenticity. The proposed methodology, inspired by the EN16883:2017 standard, involves a comprehensive building survey and assessment, the definition of conservation-compatible design solutions, and a performance analysis of these selected measures in relation to nZEB standards. This method was then applied to an ongoing project on a small, listed building in Genoa, demonstrating the feasibility of achieving conservation and high energy savings and, in these specific circumstances, the possibility of approaching nZEB parameters. This best practice example highlights the importance of adopting a cross-disciplinary, structured method to balance different values and needs in retrofitting projects, and it shows how creative and innovative solutions can break down the typical barriers encountered when implementing retrofitting solutions for built heritage.