The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2044-124X.htm

BEPAM
1,1
A new future for the past:
a model for adaptive reuse
decision-making
32 Peter Bullen and Peter Love
Department of Construction Management, Curtin University,
Perth, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – Adaptive reuse is an effective strategy for optimizing the operational and commercial
performance of built assets. While the benefits of adaptive re-use have been widely espoused, it would
appear that owners and practitioners lack a point of reference to justify and evaluate their decision-
making with regard to reusing existing assets. This paper therefore aims to develop a model to assist
practitioners with their decision-making when considering to re-use or demolish an existing built
asset.
Design/methodology/approach – To gain an understanding of the issues that owners and
practitioners are confronted with when considering adaptive re-use, demolition and issues pertaining
to sustainability, an interpretative research approach was adopted. A total of 81 in-depth interviews
were conducted over a six-month period with a variety of stakeholders such as architects, developers,
planners, building managers/owners and property consultants. Content analysis was used as the
primary analysis technique on the collected data.
Findings – The analysis of the interviews revealed three key criteria are used to examine adaptive
reuse decision making: capital investment; asset condition; and regulation. While financial criteria
such as development and construction costs were the primary determinants influencing the decision
reuse or demolish, the physical condition of the asset juxtaposed with regulations were also
considered. Additionally, issues associated with the environmental, economic and social tenets of
sustainability were identified as being important but had been given less priority when considering
reuse. As current building stock is rapidly becoming obsolete, increasing emphasis is beginning to be
placed on them during the adaptive reuse decision-making process to ensure sustainable outcomes.
Practical implications – The developed model identifies the critical areas that owners, developers
and key project stakeholders need to consider when deciding to either reuse or demolish an existing
building. It also can be used to evaluate the economic, physical and social implications of undertaking
a heritage project. Project and asset managers need to be aware of the impact that different variables
have on a reuse project’s construction and operational performance as well as long term commercial
performance.
Originality/value – The proposed adaptive reuse decision-making model is grounded in practice and
therefore encompasses the real-life dilemmas and issues facing practitioners. The model captures the
complexity associated with the adaptive reuse process and provides an important reference point for
developing future ex-ante evaluation models for its investment justification.
Keywords Asset management, Sustainable buildings, Sustainable development, Decision making
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Managing the whole project life cycle (i.e. design, construction, commissioning,
operating, maintaining, repairing, modifying, replacing and decommissioning/
disposal) has become a fundamental strategy to optimize operational performance
Built Environment Project and Asset
Management and commercial profitability of built assets (Bullen and Love, 2010). In particular,
Vol. 1 No. 1, 2011
pp. 32-44 The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief, Professor
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2044-124X Mohan Kumaraswamy for their constructive comments which have helped improve this
DOI 10.1108/20441241111143768 manuscript.
adaptive reuse has been identified as a process that can significantly improve the A new future
financial, environmental and social performance of existing built assets (Bullen, 2007). for the past
It is best described as “a process that changes a disused or ineffective item into a new
item that can be used for a different purpose” (Department of Environment and
Heritage (DEH), 2004, p. 3). The adoption of this process for buildings can contribute to
sustainability and climate change by reducing CO2 emissions (Bromley et al., 2005;
Bullen, 2007; Kurul, 2007). There is a growing acceptance that a process of adaptive 33
reuse can be used as a responsive strategy that can attend to the changing needs of
owners and occupiers (Kohler and Hassler, 2002; Bullen and Love, 2010). A key
decision that many owners and occupiers are confronted with, is whether to adapt and
reuse their built assets, or demolish them. Ellison et al. (2007) have suggested that
refurbishing a building to meet the standards needed to make a positive contribution
to sustainability may be 12 percent more expensive than a standard reuse project. On
the other hand, Kohler and Yang (2007) point out that the costs of reusing buildings
can be lower than the equivalent costs of demolition and redevelopment. An adaptive
reuse strategy is only preferable to demolition, if the objectives of environmental
sustainability and reduced energy consumption can be attained.
Building owners and practitioners, however, have traditionally been reluctant to
embrace adaptive reuse due to the problems associated with health and safety,
increased maintenance, increased rental returns, inefficiencies in spatial layout and
commercial risk and uncertainty (Shipley et al., 2006; Remoy and van der Voordt, 2007;
Kurul, 2007; Bullen, 2007; Bullen and Love, 2010). While the benefits of adaptive reuse
have been widely espoused, it would appear that owners and practitioners lack a point
of reference to justify and evaluate their decision making with regard to reusing
existing assets (Bullen, 2007). Against this contextual backdrop, this paper seeks to
determine the critical decision-making factors that are considered when determining
to reuse or demolish an existing built asset. Based upon 81 in-depth interviews
with industry practitioners, a model that incorporates critical adaptive reuse
decision-making factors is developed.

Adaptive reuse of built assets

The shift to building reuse and adaptation has become an increasing trend within the
last decade (e.g. Bon and Hutchinson, 2000; Caccavelli and Gugerli, 2002; Kohler, 2006;
Van Beuren and de Jong, 2007; Bullen and Love, 2010). Buildings of historical
significance are often subjected to adaptive reuse, though this can be a costly
experience for developers and owners due to heritage and conservation requirements.
As a result, the DEH (2004) states “it is necessary for developers to acquire an
understanding of why the building has been awarded heritage status, and then pursue
development that is sympathetic to the building given it a new purpose” (p. 3).
According to DEH (2004), the most successful heritage adaptive reuse projects
are those that respect and retain a building’s significance and add a contemporary
layer that provides value for the future. In some instances, adaptive reuse may be the
only way that a building’s structure and form can be properly cared for, revealed or
interpreted, while ameliorating the use of its new function.
Increasing the life of a building through reuse can lower material, transport and
energy consumption and pollution and thus make a significant contribution to
sustainability (e.g. Velthuis and Spennemann, 2007; Love and Bullen, 2009). There is
also a growing perception that it is cheaper to convert old buildings to new uses than
to demolish and rebuild (e.g. Ball, 2002). The relative costs, related benefits and
BEPAM constraints of reuse vs demolition and new build have received widespread debate,
1,1 with Hall (1998), Douglas (2006) and Kohler and Yang (2007) stating that the costs of
reusing buildings are lower than the equivalent costs of demolition. It is potentially
cheaper to adapt than to demolish and rebuild inasmuch as the structural components
already exist, and the cost of borrowing is reduced, as contract periods are typically
shorter (Shipley et al., 2006).
34 Buildings are generally demolished when they are perceived to no longer have any
value (Kohler and Yang, 2007). In most cases, however, it is the market that sets this
value, even though such an assessment may be based on incomplete information
with no consideration given toward externalities. Douglas (2006) maintains that there
is considerable value attached to retaining style and character and the so called “solid
build qualities of buildings.” According to Ball (2002), it is generally preferable to
repair a building than replace it as the value of the location and quality of a new
building is not necessarily better than the old one. In contrast, Bullen (2007) suggests
that an adapted building may not completely match a new building in terms of
performance, but the shortfall should be balanced against gains in social value.
Demolition is often selected when the life expectancy of an existing building is
estimated to be less than a new alternative, despite any improvements that adaptive
reuse may inject (Douglas, 2006). According to Bullen and Love (2010), this would only
justify limited investment on a short-term basis before disposal and redevelopment.
Building longevity can raise many technical problems, particularly with respect to the
durability of the external fabric and finishes. When the external fabric of a building
begins to deteriorate, then significant problems may arise when considering its reuse.
Technical challenges, for example, may require a wide range of renovation and
refurbishment techniques (Ball, 1999). As a result, this may involve determining
innovative solutions that can be applied within economic and time constraints that
may be imposed upon the design team and contractor (Shipley et al., 2006). When
considering a building for adaptive reuse it is essential to examine the following issues
(Shipley et al., 2006; Itard and Klunder, 2007; Bullen and Love, 2010):
. building’s structural layout and its capacity to accommodate required spaces
and functions;
. energy efficiency of the building’s walls, windows and roof;
. building’s potential for meeting building, heath, safety and accessibility
requirements;
. condition of mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems and their capacity for
modification;
. the presence of hazardous materials;
. ability of the building and site to provide a safe and secure environment; and
. convenience and safety of the building’s location.

Adaptive reuse offers a more efficient and effective process of dealing with buildings
than demolition. It is deemed to be safer strategy as it reduces the amount of
disturbance due to hazardous materials, contaminated ground and the risk of falling
materials and dust. In particular, site work is also more convenient as the existing
building presents a work enclosure that reduces downtime from inclement weather. In
a similar vein, Itard and Klunder (2007) have stated that demolition should be regarded
as being an environmentally unfriendly process. They found from a renovation study A new future
that adapting buildings for a new use generates less waste, uses fewer materials and for the past
probably uses less energy than demolition and rebuilding. Evidence clearly suggests
that the opportunities created by adaptive reuse outweigh those presented by
demolition and rebuilding (e.g. Cooper, 2001; Douglas, 2006; Bullen and Love, 2010).
Despite evidence clearly suggesting that adaptive reuse has significant long-term
benefits to offer owners and developers, the decision-making process associated with 35
whether to demolish or reuse assets can be exacerbated by an array of interacting
variables that converge around financial issues.

Research approach
The decision-making processes associated with the planning, design and construction
of a building are diverse and dynamic. To gain an understanding of the issues that
owners and practitioners are confronted with when considering adaptive reuse,
demolition and issues pertaining to sustainability, an interpretative research approach
was adopted. Such an approach can capture information about the beliefs, actions and
experiences of stakeholders involved in the decision-making process surrounding
adaptive reuse. Moreover, in considering the viability of adaptive reuse, it is necessary
to consider the “context” of the project in terms of its impact on social and natural
environments as well as those of an economic nature.

Interviews
Interviews were chosen as the primary data collection mechanism as they were an
effective tool for learning about matters that cannot be directly observed (Patton, 1990;
Silverman, 2000). Interviews were used to understand the views and experiences
associated with adaptive reuse, which allowed a channel for “context” to be captured
(Kvale, 1996). Three basic types of qualitative interviewing have been identified
(Patton, 1990): the informal conversational interview, the interview guide approach
and the standardized open-ended interview. Although these types vary in the format
and structure of questioning, they have in common the fact that the participant’s
responses are open-ended and not restricted to choices provided by the interviewer.
The interview guide is the most widely used format for qualitative interviewing and
was adopted for this research (Patton, 1990). In this approach, the interviewer has an
outline of topics or issues to be covered, but is free to vary the wording and order of the
questions to some extent.
Interviewing of this nature requires a relatively skilled and experienced interviewee
who needs to know when to probe for more in-depth responses or guide the
conversation to make sure that all topics contained within the outline are covered.
In this case, an interviewer with more than 15 years research and industry experience
was used to conduct the interviews.
In all 81 in-depth interviews were conducted over a six-month period with a variety
of stakeholders such as architects, developers, planners, building managers/owners
and property consultants (Table I). Interviewees were chosen for their ability to
contribute toward this study through both tacit and explicit knowledge of adaptive
reuse. Individual representatives from firms from the metropolitan area of Perth (WA)
were selected from the Yellow Pagess using the technique of stratified random
sampling and invited to participate in the research. The interviews were conducted at
the offices of interviewees. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim
to allow for the nuances in the interview to be apparent in the text.
BEPAM The interviewees’ details were coded to allow for anonymity, although all
1,1 interviewers were aware that it might be possible to identify them from the content of
the text. The format of the interviews was kept as consistent as possible following the
themes identified above. The nature of the questions allowed for avenues of interest to
be pursued as they arose without introducing bias in the response. Notes were taken
during the interview to support the digital recording to maintain validity. Each of the
36 interviews varied in length from 30 minutes to two hours. Interviews were open to
stimulate conversation and breakdown any barriers that may have existed between
the interviewer and interviewee.

Data analysis
Content analysis was used as the primary data analysis technique. In its simplest
form, this technique is used to extract and categorize information from documents.
Inferences from the data can only be drawn from the relationship with their
institutional, societal and cultural contexts (Krippendorf, 1980). The text derived from
the interviews was analyzed using QSR Nvivo (which is a version of NUD*IST and
combines the efficient management of non-numerical unstructured data with powerful
processes of indexing and theorizing) and enabled the development of themes to be
identified. One advantage of such software is that it enables additional data sources
and journal notes to be incorporated into the analysis. The development and
re-assessment of themes as the analysis progressed accorded with the calls that have
been made to avoid the confinement of data to pre-determined sets of categories
(Silverman, 2000). Kvale (1996) suggests that ad hoc methods for generating meaning
can enable the researcher access to “a variety of common-sense approaches to
interview text using an interplay of techniques such as noting patterns, seeing
plausibility, making comparisons etc” (p. 204). Using Nvivo enabled the researchers
to develop an organic approach to coding as it enabled triggers or categories of interest
in the text to be coded and used to keep track of emerging and developing ideas
(Kvale, 1996). These codings can be modified, integrated or migrated as the analysis
progresses and the generation of reports, using Boolean search, facilitates the
recognition of conflicts and contradictions. This process enabled the key themes
needed to be considered during the adaptive reuse or demolition decision-making
process to be identified.

Propagation of a model for adaptive reuse decision making

In the last decade, there has been a subtle shift in attitude among owners, developers
and practitioners toward considering adaptive reuse in the Perth marketplace, as there

Profession N ¼ 81 Type of organization N ¼ 81

Architects 17 Public service authority 24

Property developer 11 Construction and property development 8
Property consultant 10 Property development consultants 9
Cost consultant 2 Financial planning and management 8
Project manager 2 Planning consultants 10
Table I. Building manager 21 Local authority planning department 16
Characteristics of Planning consultant 8 Tertiary institutions 6
interviewees Town planner 12
is a proclivity for greater returns on capital investment to be made. The A new future
decision-making process associated with the reusing or disposing of built assets for the past
was found to be extremely complicated for building owners and operators. From the
interviews, a number of key drivers and barriers of adaptive reuse were identified
(Table II). These drivers and barriers juxtaposed with the interviewees experiences
and views of the “how” and “why” were used to develop a model to assist with the
adaptive reuse decision-making process. 37
The analysis revealed that three underlying factors influenced the adaptive reuse
decision-making process: first, capital investment; second, asset condition; and third,
regulation (Figure 1). Integrating these factors were the following sustainability tenets:
environmental (e.g. energy efficiency, emissions and resource consumption), economic
(e.g. whole life cycle costs and construction costs) and social (e.g. amenities,
streetscape, community consolidation and proximity to transport hubs). Respondents
were sensitive to the requirements of sustainability and acknowledged that the needs
of stakeholders within the community were changing continually. This was considered
particularly important for the management of commercial built assets where a
diverse range of user needs and aspirations needed to be taken into account when
selling or renting the asset. For adaptive reuse to succeed, stakeholder input was
deemed a pre-requisite for ensuring that the tenets of sustainability were taken into
consideration.
When built assets are considered a short-term investment by owners and
developers, they tend to eschew adaptive reuse. It was revealed that buildings had
often been demolished when their components and structure had residual life cycles
that could be exploited with many different uses over significant periods. In the past,
buildings in Perth had been demolished purely so that the site could be redeveloped
with a new building that had a greater footprint or higher density. Demolition
frequently occurred without considering the opportunity of harvesting the residual
life of the building or the impact upon sustainability tenets.
Acknowledgment of the social value that built assets deliver to society was a
recurring theme that emerged from the interviews. Practitioners recognized that future
generations would benefit from protecting certain places and areas in cities. In
particular, an architect suggested that adaptive reuse not only retains the physical
asset but also enables it to be used in an accessible and usable way that can service
the changing needs of stakeholders. The reuse of heritage buildings can provide
community with new housing and commercial opportunities. Location, access to public

Benefits Barriers

Lower material, transport and energy consumption Condition of external fabric and finishes
Reduced resource consumption Maintenance costs
Less material waste Higher rental in reuse buildings
Rising energy costs Building regulations/planning restrictions
Building functionality Complexity
Less disruption Lack of skilled tradesmen
Reduce negative impact of poor buildings Building layout (e.g. space efficiencies)
Changing work patterns Health and safety requirements Table II.
Requirement for multiple use Commercial risk and uncertainty Benefits and barriers to
Financial incentives Low quality construction adaptive reuse
BEPAM
1,1 Sustainability
Environmental
Capital investment Economic Asset condition
Social
• Aesthetics • Location
• Finance • Residual service life
• Occupier demand • Internal layout
38

sts

Co
• Marketability • Structural integrity

co

ns
• Tax concessions • Usability/functionality

life

tru
• Corporate image • Space

ctio
ole
• Market trends

Wh

nc
os
Adaptive reuse

ts
Decision making

Sustainability Resource consumption Sustainability

Environmental Environmental
Economic Economic
Regulation
Social Social
• Governance
• Legislation
• Building code
• Planning requirements
• OHS
• Heritage

Figure 1.
A model for adaptive
reuse decision making

transport and a mixture of occupancy usage with a contemporary image were

suggested as factors that contributed to the social sustainability of reuse projects.

Capital investment
A multitude of financial considerations are used by building owners and operators
when confronted with a decision to reuse or demolish their built asset. They typically
tend to concentrate on development and construction costs, operational costs,
marketing and maintenance requirements. Issues associated with sustainability and
environmental performance were seldom considered even though there was an
awareness and understanding that such criteria needed to form an integral part of
the decision-making process. Fundamentally, the decision to reuse or demolish built
assets was driven by economic considerations (i.e. development costs, project costs,
investment returns and market) and a desire for short-term profits. Several developers
were cognizant of the negative impact that deciding to demolish and erect a new
development instead of reuse a built asset could have on their corporate image as
sustainability has become a mainstay with stakeholders.
Overwhelmingly, however, development and construction costs are still the
dominant factors that influence a building owner’s and developer’s decision to reuse or
demolish built assets that are close to their life expectancy or where structural and
environmental performance is less than optimal (i.e. expensive operating costs due to
poor materials and services). If a business case for adaptive reuse was viable and
commercial growth could be generated from an asset, then owners and developers A new future
suggested they would give greater consideration to the investment. This would for the past
however be dependent on the structural and environmental integrity of the existing
built asset. Avoidance of groundwork and excavation can potentially produce
cost savings for developers, especially with increasing labor and material costs, but if
forecasted profit was compromised then demolition would be considered the preferred
option, despite the increased need for sustainable built assets. A developer did suggest 39
that in Central Business Districts locations, built assets are an attractive investment
option for reuse projects, as premium prices and rents can be obtained for office
space. To obtain premium prices and rents, buildings need to possess high-quality
finishes and have a five or even six Greenstar environmental rating. The commercial
performance of buildings was deemed to be influenced by esthetic appearance,
operational costs and employee productivity. For example, issues that required
attention were tenant needs, investment returns, maintenance, repair costs, running
costs, productivity levels, employee retention rates and market value. Any reuse project
needs to take into account the owner and developer needs as well as stakeholders’,
particularly spatial, human resource and operational requirements.
Issues surrounding the marketing of built assets that had been subjected to reuse
adaption focussed on the following: epoch and utility; and character and ambience.
It was perceived that end users are attracted to modern built assets regardless of
whether they had been retrofitted with energy efficient services and equipment. In the
case of character and ambience, it was perceived that different age groups had varying
perceptions of a building’s function, form and style.

Asset condition
A variety of reasons why many existing buildings would not be considered suitable
for adaptive reuse were identified. Purpose designed single use buildings were
deemed too difficult to retain and adapt without significant capital expenditure.
Buildings such as a prison would not present many opportunities for reuse due to
extensive compartmentalization. Low-rise buildings that did not fully utilize the
available plot ratio or zoning would not be an economical proposition for reuse. In
this instance, a greater financial return may be obtained from demolition and replacing
with a high-rise building. Small cottages in a terrace would be extremely hard to
adapt due to limitations of space. Large steel sheds or factory units while spacious
may generate little value for retention as they are too specialized. Unless a built asset
has some redeeming esthetic features or is heritage listed its reuse may not be an
economically and sustainably viable option.
Generally, it was perceived that it would be easier to demolish certain buildings
than try to develop new accommodation within their existing structure. When there
was not an obvious use for an existing asset, there was a potential danger it can be left
to degenerate and decay and subsequently fall down, which is problematic for the local
community and adjoining buildings. Buildings that have been allowed to decay can
become a health and safety problem, be subjected to extensive vandalism and graffiti,
and provide a place where drug users can congregate. Such buildings can also have a
negative influence on the value and marketability of other assets in their immediate
vicinity. The decision to reuse therefore was found to be dependent on the physical
condition of the asset and how much the transformation to a new functional use would
cost. If the building was in good condition, several owners and building managers
suggested that benefits of reusing their existing facility could include avoiding the
BEPAM disruption of relocation, reducing maintenance and running costs. It was also
1,1 perceived that any reuse project should satisfy users’ current and future needs and
demands in terms of any internal reorganization of the leaseholder or purchaser that
may be required. For example, changes in staffing levels or additional technological
requirements.
Various scenarios were found to be typically undertaken to those providing the
40 highest returns on investment were given priority. Building managers, for example,
tended to place increasing emphasis on including whole life cycle costs when
determining costs for a project. In addition, it was suggested that a cost-benefit
analysis should be undertaken to determine optimum returns for the capital
investment that was to be made. Conversion of an existing asset to a functional
new building was ultimately influenced by its structural integrity, residual service
life, spatial layout and location. Other issues that were considered during the
decision-making process were how technically difficult it would be to convert and
install new services that would be required to reduce resource consumption (i.e. energy
and water). It was perceived that in many cases, asset suitability was dictated by the
era that the building was constructed. Building assets constructed in the 1960s and
1970s in Perth were deemed to have low suitability for reuse as they were perceived to
have been poorly constructed and used thermally inefficient materials and techniques.
Yet, buildings constructed in the 1980s were perceived to have been engineered to
minimal tolerances and specifications.
There was a perceived relationship between operational attributes and risk of
carrying out adaptive reuse. Operational attributes related to the building’s ability to
perform efficiently in terms of meeting energy consumption, costs in use, repairs and
maintenance benchmarks. An environmental benefit of reusing built assets identified
was the retention of the original buildings “embodied energy”; its reduction can render
a project to be environmentally sustainable. New buildings have much higher
embodied energy than those that are adaptively reused (e.g. Treloar et al., 2000;
Treloar et al., 2001; Schultmann and Sunke, 2007). The reuse of building materials
can provide substantial savings in embodied energy that would otherwise be wasted
(Venkatarama Reddy and Jagadish, 2003).
A number of risks were identified by interviewees that could arise during and
after an adaptive reuse project had been undertaken. A significant risk for a developer
and owner related to attracting tenants or selling the asset. There was a risk that the
building would not meet the needs of end users. In many cases, it was considered
difficult to determine potential tenants or purchasers as needs were constantly
changing. For this reason, when a building was to be reused for residential purposes,
apartments tended to be sold off the plan with construction not commencing until a
fixed percentage had been pre-sold. Other risks identified were uncovering latent
defects in the fabric and structure, the presence of hazardous materials, lack of
information locating existing services and the structure becoming unstable while
alterations were being carried out.

Regulation
Government and other agencies have frequently referred to the importance of adopting
sustainability initiatives for the built environment. According to interviewees, such
calls have been made without tangible strategies being put in place, for example,
flexibility in applying building codes, plot ratio bonuses particularly where these can
be transferred from one development to another. There was deemed to be a lack of
leadership and encouragement by state and local governments to embrace adaptive A new future
reuse and implement sustainable innovations. An architect suggested that if the for the past
government established a mandate to only lease buildings that had been subjected to
reuse and possessed a minimum star energy rating, then this would be seen as an act
toward achieving sustainable outcomes. It was perceived that if governments
established minimal energy ratings for their buildings, then “industry benchmarks”
could be established, which would encourage other owners and developers to follow 41
suit. Yet, existing measurement and evaluation of sustainability performance was
identified as a problematic issue for interviewees. Architects and building managers
suggested that too much reliance was being placed on the Green Star Environment
Rating System or “Australian Building Green Rating” system by owners and users.
Improvements carried out during adaptive reuse were considered to provide the
opportunity to link the performance of a building directly to the objectives of
sustainability (e.g. reusing and recycling materials, reducing resource and energy
consumption, emissions and waste generation). Undertaking exemplar adaptive reuse
demonstration projects for industry professionals to assess and emulate would display
a commitment to sustainability and urban regeneration.
The use of legislation as a mechanism to mandate adaptive reuse projects was
viewed negatively by respondents. The general growing awareness and need to reduce
CO2 emissions and waste to address environmental sustainability were deemed to be
sufficient motivators for initiating change. Forcing an adaptive reuse directive on to
the industry and its clients was deemed to be heavy handed and could be
counterproductive, as it may discourage building owners and developers from
retaining older buildings. If legislation was enacted, then there was a potential for
market forces to increase the costs to adapt buildings. Compliance to the existing
building code, particularly with regard to fire and disabled access regulations, often
acted as a significant barrier and disincentive for adaptive reuse. In many instances
when adaptive reuse had been considered an alternative strategy for the design, layout
and spatial attributes of the existing building rendered it economically unviable to
adapt to the current building code. Exemptions from the code were not required,
but flexibility in the way they were interpreted and implemented without
compromising safety. Planning requirements were also identified as being a barrier
and hindering the adaptive reuse process. Current requirements were deemed to be
inconsistently applied by local authorities, outdated and inflexible.

Conclusion
Adaptive reuse enables a building to suit new conditions. It is a process that reaps the
benefits of the embodied energy and quality of the original building in a sustainable
manner. Initiatives to improve the sustainability of buildings have tended to focus on
new construction projects rather than existing ones. One reason is the tendency to
regard old buildings as products with a limited useful life that have to be eventually
discarded and demolished. A considerable amount of existing building stock within
major world cities will still be in use for another 100 years. Thus, there is a need to
develop policy and strategies that encourage adaptive reuse and the ongoing
sustainability of building stock. Building owners and occupiers need to evaluate
an array of options when considering to discarding, expanding or changing the
function of their buildings. The research reported in this paper has revealed that
decision process is influenced three critical factors: first, capital investment; second,
BEPAM can act as a point of reference for decision making was developed. The key drivers
1,1 influencing the decision-making process included the environmental economic and
social tenets of sustainability.
The research identifies key adaptive reuse issues that need to be addressed by
policy makers, developers and owners during the formative stages of the design
process so that efforts toward sustainability can be ameliorated. Addressing a
42 building’s adaptive reuse will significantly reduce whole life costs, waste and lead to
the improved building functionality. As buildings age, their operational performance
typically reduces until eventually they fall below the expectations of building
owners and occupiers. Apart from the natural depreciation of the buildings fabric and
systems, their effectiveness is impacted by changing market demands. The resultant
declining operating performance is a critical issue that owners and operators have to
deal with during the potentially long life cycles of their buildings. Responding to
declining performance frequently results in decisions to demolish and redevelop
buildings that are justified purely on economic grounds. The decision to demolish may
be premature if it ignores the residual utility and value of buildings that could be
optimized by adapting and refurbishing using the process of adaptive reuse. Failing
to optimize buildings also means that their residual life cycle expectancy is not
fully exploited, which is a basic problem in adopting a more sustainable use of the
built stock.
Adaptive reuse is beginning to receive widespread attention due to the economic,
social and environmental benefits that have been espoused. Despite widespread and
long-term benefits that can contribute to sustainability, economic costs and short-term
returns on investment still appear to be the determinants for reusing a built asset.
It is envisaged that the decision-making model, which has been developed, may assist
owners and developers to make better informed decisions about built assets and
hopefully make a positive contribution to sustainability.

References
Ball, R. (1999), “Developers, regeneration and sustainability issues in the reuse of vacant
buildings”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 140-8.
Ball, R. (2002), “Re-use potential and vacant industrial premises: revisiting the regeneration issue
in stoke-on-trent”, Journal of Property Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 93-110.
Bon, R. and Hutchinson, K. (2000), “Sustainable construction: some economic challenges”,
Building Research and Information, Vol. 28 Nos 5/6, pp. 310-14.
Bromley, R.D.F., Tallon, A.R. and Thomas, C.J. (2005), “City centre regeneration through
residential development: contributing to sustainability”, Urban Studies, Vol. 42 No. 13,
pp. 2407-29.
Bullen, P.A. (2007), “Adaptive reuse and sustainability of commercial buildings”, Facilities,
Vol. 25 Nos 1/2, pp. 20-31.
Bullen, P.A. and Love, P.E.D. (2010), “The rhetoric of adaptive reuse or reality of demolition:
views from the field”, Cities, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 215-24.
Caccavelli, D. and Gugerli, H. (2002), “TOBUS – a European diagnosis and decision-making tool
for office building upgrading”, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 113-19.
Cooper, I. (2001), “Post-occupancy evaluation-where are you?”, Building Research and
Information, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 158-63.
Department of Environment and Heritage (2004), Adaptive Reuse, Commonwealth of Australia, A new future
Canberra.
for the past
Douglas, J. (2006), Building Adaptation, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford and Burlington, MA.
Ellison, L., Sayce, S. and Smith, J. (2007), “Socially responsible property investment: quantifying
the relationship between sustainability and investment property worth”, Journal of
Property Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 191-219.
Hall, P.G. (1998), Cities on Civilisation, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London. 43
Itard, L. and Klunder, G. (2007), “Comparing environmental impacts of renovated housing
stock with new construction”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 35 No. 3,
pp. 252-67.
Kohler, N. (2006), “A European perspective on the Pearce report: policy and research”, Building
Research and Information, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 287-94.
Kohler, N. and Hassler, U. (2002), “The building stock as a research object”, Building Research and
Information, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 226-36.
Kohler, N. and Yang, W. (2007), “Long-term management of building stocks”, Building Research
and Information, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 351-62.
Krippendorf, K. (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, Sage, Newbury
Park, London.
Kurul, E. (2007), “A qualitative approach to exploring adaptive re-use processes”, Facilities,
Vol. 25 Nos 13/14, pp. 554-70.
Kvale, S. (1996), Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Love, P.E.D. and Bullen, P.A. (2009), “Toward the sustainable adaption of existing facilities”,
Facilities, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 357-67.
Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Interviewing and Research Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, Newbury
Park, London.
Remoy, H.T. and van der Voordt, T.J.M. (2007), “A new life: conversion of vacant office buildings
into housing”, Facilities, Vol. 25 Nos 3/4, pp. 88-103.
Schultmann, F. and Sunke, N. (2007), “Energy-oriented deconstruction and recovery planning”,
Building Research and Information, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 602-15.
Shipley, R., Utz, S. and Parsons, M. (2006), “Does adaptive reuse pay? A study of the business
of building renovation in Ontario, Canada”, International Journal of Heritage Studies,
Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 505-20.
Silverman, D. (2000), Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook, Sage, London.
Treloar, G., Love, P.E.D. and Holt, G.D. (2001), “Using national input-output data for embodied
energy analysis of individual residential buildings”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 49-61.
Treloar, G., Love, P.E.D., Faniran, O.O. and Iyer-Raniga, U. (2000), “A hybrid life cycle assessment
method for construction”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 5-9.
Van Beuren, E. and de Jong, J. (2007), “Establishing sustainability: policy successes and failures”,
Building Research and Information, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 543-56.
Velthuis, K. and Spennemann, D.H.R. (2007), “The future of defunct religious buildings: Dutch
approaches to their adaptive re-use”, Cultural Trends, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 43-66.
Venkatarama Reddy, B.V. and Jagadish, K.S. (2003), “Embodied energy of common and
alternative building materials and technology”, Energy in Buildings, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 129-37.
BEPAM About the authors
Peter Bullen is Head of the Department of Construction Management. He holds a PhD in Building
1,1 Sustainability and has over 40 years’ experience working in the construction industry. Dr Bullen
regularly acts as an advisor, speaker, writer, commentator, critic, and consultant
on all aspects of building science, sustainability and facilities management within the built
environment. He is widely recognized as Australia’s foremost authority on the subject of
44 “Adaptive Reuse of Commercial Buildings”. Bullen is currently leading an international research
study that is examining energy consumption in educational facilities. He has been published in
several leading international journals such as Cities and Facilities.
Peter Love is a John Curtin Distinguished Professor within the School of Built Environment at
Curtin University. He is a Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and recipient of
2010 Scopus Young Australian Researcher of the Year Award (Humanities and Social Science)
as well as a member of the Australian Research Council’s Engineering and Environmental
Science Panel for the 2010 Excellence in Australian Research Exercise. He has published more
than 400 papers, which have appeared in leading journals such as: European Journal of
Operations Research, Journal of Management Studies, and IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management. His scholarly articles have attracted more than 4,000 citations and an h-index of 35.
Peter Love is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: plove@iinet.net.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints