Skip to main content
Log in

Characterisation of Adaptive Reuse Stakeholders and the Effectiveness of Collaborative Rationality Towards Building Resilient Urban Areas

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Systemic Practice and Action Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In an adaptive reuse decision-making setting, there is usually an occurrence of conflicting beliefs, opinions, interests, and resources among relevant stakeholders. Knowing who these stakeholders are and why, through a collaborative approach, will allow stakeholders with diverse interests regarding adaptive reuse to come together and participate either directly or indirectly in any stage of the decision-making process. This paper examines the usefulness of collaborative rationality among stakeholders involved in an adaptive reuse decision-making process. The specific objectives include: to characterise the stakeholders involved in an adaptive reuse decision-making process; and; investigate how their collaborative rationality can be effectively integrated into the adaptive reuse decision-making process. After a review of existing literature, four typical categories of stakeholders involved in an adaptive reuse decision-making process were identified: i) investors; ii) producers; iii) regulators; and iv) users. Also, the effectiveness of collaboration among the diverse stakeholders of an adaptive reuse decision-making process was validated using a focus group workshop to incorporate transparency, common goal, ideal speech, and consistency into the process. These findings imply that the active collaboration among characterised adaptive reuse stakeholders is important to mitigate the risk of manipulation of an adaptive reuse decision-making process, and, for policy makers to understand better the expectations and needs of the public, thereby, enhancing consents for optimal adaptive reuse decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aas C, Ladkin A, Fletcher J (2005) Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management. Ann Tour Res 32(1):28–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aigwi IE, Egbelakin T, Ingham J (2018) Efficacy of adaptive reuse for the redevelopment of underutilised historical buildings: Towards the regeneration of New Zealand’s provincial town centres. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation 36(4):385–407

  • Aigwi IE, Phipps R, Ingham J, Filippova O (2019a) Urban transformation trajectories of New Zealand's earliest cities undergoing decline: Identifying links to the newly enforced Building (Earthquake-Prone b~Buildings) Amendment Act 2016. Paper presented at the 43rd Australasian Universities Building Education Association (AUBEA) Conference, 6-8 November, Noosa QLD, Australia.

  • Aigwi IE, Egbelakin T, Ingham J, Phipps R, Rotimi J, Filippova O (2019b) A performance-based framework to prioritise underutilised historical buildings for adaptive reuse interventions in New Zealand. Sustain Cities Soc 48:101547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansell C, Gash A (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theory 18(4):543–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball A, Rebori M, Singletary L (2000) Introduction to collaborative process. Managing Natural Resource Disputes – No. 1. Retrieved 06/02 2018 from http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/nr/other/fs9984.pdf

  • Bond C (2011) Adaptive reuse: explaining collaborations within a complex process. Department of Planning, Public Policy & Management, University of Oregon

  • Brocklesby J (2009) Ethics beyond the model: how social dynamics can interfere with ethical practice in operational research/management science. Omega 37(6):1073–1082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullen PA, Love PE (2009) Residential regeneration and adaptive reuse: learning from the experiences of Los Angeles. Struct Surv 27(5):351–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullingworth JB, Caves R (2013) Planning in the USA: policies, issues, and processes. Routledge

  • Derak M, Cortina J, Taiqui L (2017) Integration of stakeholder choices and multi-criteria analysis to support land use planning in semiarid areas. Land Use Policy 64:414–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz T (2013) Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(supplement 3):14081–14087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas J (2006) Building adaptation, 2nd edn. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Elsorady D (2017) Sustainability and Conserved Energy Value of Heritage Buildings. Renewable Energy and Sustainable Development 3(1):104–117.

  • European Commission (2001) European governance. A white paper. COM (2001), 428, 25

  • Fisher R, Ury WL, Patton B (2011) Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin

  • Gratz RB (2007) Reports from the edge: the vacant-building syndrome. Next American City

  • Gratz RB, Mintz N (2000) Cities back from the edge: new life for downtown. Wiley

  • Gray B (1989) Collaboration: finding common ground for multiparty problems. Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (2017) National heritage preservation incentive fund. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org.nz/protecting-heritage/national-heritage-preservation-incentive-fund

  • Howe KW (2003) Private sector involvement in historic preservation. A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century, pp 279–311

  • Innes JE, Booher DE (2010) Planning with complexity: an introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge

  • Le Menestrel M, Van Wassenhove LN (2004) Ethics outside, within, or beyond OR models? Eur J Oper Res 153(2):477–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeuwis C (2000) Reconceptualizing participation for sustainable rural development: towards a negotiation approach. Dev Chang 31(5):931–959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield JR (2002) What's in a name? Complexities in the definition of “refurbishment”. Prop Manag 20(1):23–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason R (2009) Reclaiming the history of places. Local Planning: Contemporary Principles and Practice, pp 127–133

  • Mayer IS, Van Bueren EM, Bots PW, Van Der Voort H, Seijdel R (2005) Collaborative decisionmaking for sustainable urban renewal projects: a simulation–gaming approach. Environment and Planning B: planning and design 32(3):403–423

  • Miles ME, Netherton LM, Schmitz A (2015) Real estate development : principles and process, 5th edn. Urban Land Institute, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller E, Buys L (2008) Retrofitting commercial office buildings for sustainability: tenants’ perspectives. J Prop Invest Financ 26(6):552–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mısırlısoy D, Günçe K (2016) Adaptive reuse strategies for heritage buildings: a holistic approach. Sustain Cities Soc 26:91–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munda G (2004) Social multi-criteria evaluation: methodological foundations and operational consequences. Eur J Oper Res 158(3):662–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen PT, Wells S, Nguyen N (2019) A systemic indicators framework for sustainable rural community development. Syst Pract Action Res 32(3):335–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peiser RB, Frej AB (2003) Professional real estate development: the ULI guide to the business. ULI--the Urban Land Institute

  • Robert M (2013) Incentives for historic heritage toolkit - sustainable Management of Historic Heritage Guidance Series. Wellington, New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga (NZHPT)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rypkema D (2008) Historic preservation and sustainable development. Lecture given at New Brunswick University, New Brunswick, Canada

  • Rypkema D, Wiehagen K (2000) Dollars and sense of historic preservation. The economic benefits of preserving Philadelphia’s past. National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington DC

  • Scolobig A, Thompson M, Linnerooth-Bayer J (2016) Compromise not consensus: designing a participatory process for landslide risk mitigation. Nat Hazards 81(1):45–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stipe RE (2003) A richer heritage: historic preservation in the twenty-first century. Univ of North Carolina Press

  • Trujillo R (2011) Adaptive reuse: preservation through innovation. University of Kentucky, Lexington

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuler SP, Dow K, Webler T, Whitehead J (2017) Learning through participatory modeling: reflections on what it means and how it is measured. In: Environmental modeling with stakeholders. Springer, pp 25–45

  • Van Den Hove S (2006) Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches. Land Use Policy 23(1):10–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster N, McKechnie JL (1996) Webster’s new universal unabridged dictionary. Dorset & Baber

  • Wilson KJ (2016) Exploring the role of design in sustainable adaptive reuse of built heritage. (PhD Thesis by publication), Queensland University of Technology, Ql, Australia

  • Yakubu IE, Egbelakin T, Dizhur D, Ingham J, Sungho Park K, Phipps R (2017) Why are older inner-city buildings vacant? Implications for town centre regeneration. J Urban Regen Renew 11(1):44–59

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express gratitude to all participants of the focus group workshop for their huge contributions to the study. This paper was (partially) supported by QuakeCoRE, a New Zealand Tertiary Education Commission-funded Centre. This is QuakeCoRE number 0558

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Itohan Esther Aigwi.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aigwi, I.E., Phipps, R., Ingham, J. et al. Characterisation of Adaptive Reuse Stakeholders and the Effectiveness of Collaborative Rationality Towards Building Resilient Urban Areas. Syst Pract Action Res 34, 141–151 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-020-09521-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-020-09521-0

Keywords

Navigation