Governance of heritage buildings: Australian regulatory barriers to adaptive reuse

Conejos, S; Langston, C; Chan, E H W and Chew, M Y L (2016) Governance of heritage buildings: Australian regulatory barriers to adaptive reuse. Building Research & Information, 44(5-6), pp. 507-519. ISSN 0961-3218

Abstract

The resilience and capacity of historic buildings to adapt plays a vital role in mitigating climate change through adaptive reuse. The adaptive reuse of buildings is a practical substitute to demolition and has substantial economic, environmental and social benefits. However, tensions exist between the retention of heritage buildings and conformance with regulatory requirements (e.g. energy efficiency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, disability access, etc.). This raises questions about whether regulatory systems can embrace both green building technologies and heritage conservation principles. This paper examines the challenges/barriers to successful adaptive reuse projects in Australia using a qualitative approach that involves multiple case studies and in-depth interviews with industry experts coupled with field observation and building plan appraisals. The findings show that compliance to codes/regulations and current design requirements are the major challenges encountered in undertaking adaptive reuse projects. The underlying parameters of the identified challenges will serve as an initiative for formulating prospective regulations that address changing building use, encourage the integration of modern technologies and inhibit unnecessary building demolition for future global climate protection.;The resilience and capacity of historic buildings to adapt plays a vital role in mitigating climate change through adaptive reuse. The adaptive reuse of buildings is a practical substitute to demolition and has substantial economic, environmental and social benefits. However, tensions exist between the retention of heritage buildings and conformance with regulatory requirements (e.g. energy efficiency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, disability access, etc.). This raises questions about whether regulatory systems can embrace both green building technologies and heritage conservation principles. This paper examines the challenges/barriers to successful adaptive reuse projects in Australia using a qualitative approach that involves multiple case studies and in-depth interviews with industry experts coupled with field observation and building plan appraisals. The findings show that compliance to codes/regulations and current design requirements are the major challenges encountered in undertaking adaptive reuse projects. The underlying parameters of the identified challenges will serve as an initiative for formulating prospective regulations that address changing building use, encourage the integration of modern technologies and inhibit unnecessary building demolition for future global climate protection.;The resilience and capacity of historic buildings to adapt plays a vital role in mitigating climate change through adaptive reuse. The adaptive reuse of buildings is a practical substitute to demolition and has substantial economic, environmental and social benefits. However, tensions exist between the retention of heritage buildings and conformance with regulatory requirements (e.g. energy efficiency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, disability access, etc.). This raises questions about whether regulatory systems can embrace both green building technologies and heritage conservation principles. This paper examines the challenges/barriers to successful adaptive reuse projects in Australia using a qualitative approach that involves multiple case studies and in-depth interviews with industry experts coupled with field observation and building plan appraisals. The findings show that compliance to codes/regulations and current design requirements are the major challenges encountered in undertaking adaptive reuse projects. The underlying parameters of the identified challenges will serve as an initiative for formulating prospective regulations that address changing building use, encourage the integration of modern technologies and inhibit unnecessary building demolition for future global climate protection.;

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: sustainable development; heritage; Australia; adaptive reuse; building regulations; governance; construction & building technology; regeneration; sustainability; climate change; greenhouse effect; green buildings; emissions
Index terms: case study, retention, regulatory system, governance, building technology, social benefit, compliance, interview, energy efficiency, building regulation, Australia, historic building, sustainable development, adaptive reuse, qualitative approach, greenhouse effect, regulation, green building, heritage building, integration, greenhouse gas emission, conservation, disability, climate change, appraisal
Subjects: health conditions and diseases, organizational analysis, political science, environmental health, regulatory law, research methods, factor and component analysis, design practice, theoretical framing, management, health safety and environment, Geography, sustainable design, sustainability and energy, environmental policy, business, construction type, data collection methods, climate science, engineering systems
Topics: Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Governance, Sustainability, Construction Technology, Human Resources, Design Practice, Legal Issues, Organizational Design
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

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