Kern, A P and Zuliani da Silva, L G (2025) System of rehabilitation assessment and cost comparative (SARC): Case study in abandoned buildings rehabilitation in Brazil. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 21(1), pp. 78-97. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
Rehabilitating abandoned buildings in urban centers presents financial, environmental, and social advantages, however, cost uncertainties and complexity challenge constructors and investors. Many building assessment systems are shown in the literature to support feasibility studies. They vary in terms of the study object, and most limit themselves to assessing the state of the building’s conservation. This study presents a system focusing on cost estimatives information, comparing rehabilitation cost with the cost of new building construction. From the assessment by a visual inspection, the system calculates an Index of Rehabilitation (IR) to base the rehabilitation cost estimations. The system also estimate the waste generation, based on literature measurements. The comparison of costs and waste generation showed high financial and environmental advantages for the rehabilitation to the detriment of new constructions, pointing differences from 1.5 to 8.7 times (cost) and more than 20 times (waste). The application of the system in a pilot study showed that the cost incurred for real cases is within the system’s estimated cost range, validating the system. The information made available by the system may help managers and financiers in decision-making, considering that economic and financial issues are critical in the rehabilitation context.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | abandoned building; abandoned building visual inspection; building's conservation assessment; rehabilitation; rehabilitation cost |
| Index terms: | Brazil, decision-making, waste generation, building assessment, cost estimating, estimate, building construction, case study, visual inspection, conservation, complexity, feasibility study, investor, manager |
| Subjects: | sociology, decision analysis, Geography, systems engineering, environmental policy, data collection methods, design stages, practitioner, environmental impact, asset management, professional practice, financial and cost management, building construction |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Cost Management, Geographical Context, Construction Technology, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Design Practice, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here