See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/368432981

A decision-making framework to prioritize existing buildings for adaptive

reuse with a case study of school buildings in Guilan, Iran

Article in Architectural Science Review · February 2023

DOI: 10.1080/00038628.2023.2174067

CITATIONS READS

3 227

3 authors:

Mohammad Pourebrahimi Amirreza Karimiazeri

Eindhoven University of Technology University of Guilan
2 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS 52 PUBLICATIONS 267 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mojtaba Pour Ahmadi

University of Guilan
6 PUBLICATIONS 32 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Amirreza Karimiazeri on 16 February 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Architectural Science Review

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tasr20

A decision-making framework to prioritize existing

buildings for adaptive reuse with a case study of
school buildings in Guilan, Iran

Mohammad Pourebrahimi, Amir Reza Karimi Azeri & Mojtaba Pour Ahmadi

To cite this article: Mohammad Pourebrahimi, Amir Reza Karimi Azeri & Mojtaba Pour
Ahmadi (2023): A decision-making framework to prioritize existing buildings for adaptive
reuse with a case study of school buildings in Guilan, Iran, Architectural Science Review, DOI:
10.1080/00038628.2023.2174067

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2023.2174067

Published online: 10 Feb 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tasr20
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW
https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2023.2174067

RESEARCH ARTICLE

A decision-making framework to prioritize existing buildings for adaptive reuse with

a case study of school buildings in Guilan, Iran
Mohammad Pourebrahimi, Amir Reza Karimi Azeri and Mojtaba Pour Ahmadi
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Art, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The paper seeks to outline a framework to prioritize existing buildings for adaptive reuse. Twenty-nine Received 26 December 2021
schools were selected and investigated to determine their priority for adaptive reuse. By evaluating obso- Accepted 12 January 2023
lescence and calculating the useful life of the buildings, their potential for reuse was identified using KEYWORDS
Adaptive Reuse Potential (ARP) model. According to the reuse potential and best time for reuse inter- Building conservation; reuse
vention, these projects were prioritized. By determining the most important obsolescence types and prioritization; adaptive reuse;
setting priorities among them according to their impact on reducing the buildings’ useful life, different building obsolescence;
strategies to mitigate/avoid each obsolescence have been discussed. The results show that functional, renovation; sustainability
technological and physical obsolescence are the most important types of obsolescence respectively.
Also, according to the results the average effective useful life of all case studies is 54%. Therefore,
with the persistenceof the current conditions, only about half of the expected life of the cases will be
utilized.

Introduction reuse, believe that the economic benefits of this approach can-
Conservation means the preservation of existing buildings with- not be generalized to all cases and may vary from a project
out altering or destroying their character, even though the to another one.
repairs may be necessary (Azizi et al. 2016). Conservation cov- The decision-making in the adaptive reuse involves a set of
ers a wide range of actions and approaches from basic main- complex considerations that include the architectural, location,
tenance to adaptive reuse (Yazdani Mehr, Skates, and Holden market and heritage aspects (Günçe and Mısırlısoy 2019). There
2017). Among these, adaptive reuse is one of the most impor- are cases where an old building is in such a state of disrepair
tant approaches in the conservation and preservation of exist- that its adaptation is uneconomical, or its internal layout may be
ing building stock. Adaptive reuse refers to the conservation inappropriate for any change of use. Also, despite any improve-
of obsolete or old disused buildings for new and more appro- ments that adaptation can make, the life expectancy of an exist-
priate functions (Aigwi, Egbelakin, and Ingham 2018). Adaptive ing building may be less than a new alternative, and the life cycle
reuse of built heritage is a viable alternative to demolition, as it of existing materials may be shorter than new ones (Bullen 2004).
avoids the wasteful processes of demolition and new construc- Therefore, adaptive reuse needs proper strategies and decision-
tion while expanding the life span of cultural heritage (Kaya et al. making. First of all, buildings’ adaptive reuse potential has to
2021). It is a way to maximize the use of existing assets potential be evaluated to see if they are suitable for reuse or not. Timely
(Sanchez, Rausch, and Haas 2019). intervention is another major factor, as a building that now has
By optimal use of resources and materials and preventing a good reuse potential, over time, may become so deteriorated
unnecessary urban expansion, adaptive reuse plays an impor- that it loses its reusability. This paper seeks to outline a practical
tant role in sustainable development (Pourebrahimi et al. 2020). framework for prioritizing existing buildings for adaptive reuse
Adaptive reuse of old buildings is more sustainable than demo- by studying 29 cases. Adaptive reuse potential and the best time
lition and new construction concerning the environmental, for reuse intervention are two main applied criteria to rank these
social and economic impacts (Chan, Bachman, and Haas 2020). projects. It should be noted that there are different approaches
Riggs and Chamberlain (2018) also believe that adaptive reuse to adaption, some of which refer to adaption as a change in the
can be a more sustainable choice than new construction in building performance with maintaining the same use (Haidar
terms of environmental impacts. According to Foster (2020), the and Talib 2015). Some refer to ‘within-use’ or ‘across-use’ as two
main driver of the environmental benefits of adaptive reuse forms of adaptive reuse. In within-use adaption, a building keeps
is embodied energy. Pourebrahimi and Eghbali (2019), while its primary use (for example, an office can be adapted but still be
reaffirming the social and environmental benefits of adaptive used as an office), while across-use changes the original use of a

CONTACT Mohammad Pourebrahimi [email protected] Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Art, University of Guilan,
Rasht, Iran

© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 M. POUREBRAHIMI ET AL.

building to another one (for example, an office can be adapted as Equation 1: Useful life calculation (Lp = physical life, Oi =
a residential building) (Yazdani Mehr, Skates, and Holden 2017; obsolescence)
Wilkinson, Remøy, and Langston 2014). Within-use adaption was According to Langston et al. (2007, 2008) the types of building
considered as the adaptive reuse type in the paper, although the obsolescence in the useful life calculation, include physical obso-
method can be applied for across-use adaption, too. lescence, economic obsolescence, functional obsolescence,
technological obsolescence, social obsolescence, legal obsoles-
cence and political obsolescence. The ARP score, regarding the
Research method increasing and decreasing potential, is calculated according to
Adaptive reuse potential and the best time for reuse interven- the following Equations:
tion are considered as the two main renovation ranking criteria.
[100 − (EL2u /100] × ELb
To examine these criteria, Adaptive Reuse Potential (ARP) model ARP(increasing) =
is applied in 29 school buildings. The methodology to evaluate ELu
the buildings’ potential for reuse and to investigate the cases are Equation 2: ARP increasing (Elu = effective useful life, ELb =
described in the following. effective building age)

[100 − (EL2u /100] × (100 − ELb )

Adaptive reuse potential evaluation method ARP(decreasing) =
100 − ELu
Despite the benefits of adaptive reuse, especially in environmen-
tal and social aspects, all buildings are not suitable for adaptive Equation 3: ARP decreasing (Elu = effective useful life, ELb =
reuse and there may be cases where demolition and new con- effective building age) Figure 1 shows a hypothetical example
struction are inevitable. Therefore, to prioritize existing buildings of the ARP model, which is used as the assessment tool for eval-
for adaptive reuse, the first step is to examine their potential for uating building potential for reuse in this research. According to
reuse. The literature review shows that there are different cri- Figure 1, building ARP score is about 56%, so the reuse potential
teria and methods to evaluate buildings’ potential for adaptive is high (ARP score more than 50%) and increasing (because the
reuse and assign new suitable reuse (Remøy and van der Voordt effective building age is less than effective useful life).
2007; Wilkinson and Reed 2011; Wang and Zeng 2010; Aigwi The shaded area under the curve is the possible area for the
et al. 2020; Bullen 2007; Tan, Shen, and Langston 2014; Gann and model, which is defined by the equation Y = 100−X 2 /100 (the
Barlow 1996; Geraedts and van der Voordt 2004; Architectural maximum value for the X-axis is 100, which means 100% of the
Institute of Japan 2007; Wilson 2010). For example, to evaluate life span of a building) (Wilkinson, Remøy, and Langston 2014).
the potential of office buildings for transforming into housing, There are some studies that have used ARP model to evaluate
Geraedts and van der Voordt (2004) introduce a measurement building potential for reuse or compare reuse potential of dif-
tool that includes physical aspects of building (including aspects ferent building types or compare reuse potential of urban and
such as structure, dimensions and facade) and locational aspects non-urban projects (please refer to Shen and Langston 2010;
(including aspects such as urban location, distance and quality of Langston 2010). In this study, the ARP model and the applied cri-
facilities, access to the public transport, parking) and some mar- teria is used to rank existing buildings for reuse and renovation.
ket consideration. According to Bullen (2007), important factors
during the decision-making process for adaptive reuse include Case studies
cultural significance, life cycle assessment, heritage significance,
effectiveness in meeting sustainability benchmarks, economic By determining the adaptive reuse potential assessment
sustainability, environmental sustainability, social sustainability, method, in the next step, the case studies were identified. To
value to the local community, the orientation of a building, influ- make the results more applicable and according to the coun-
ence on the local economy, the technical ability of a building try’s vision for the reuse and renovation of existing schools,
to adapt and, stakeholder views. The problem with such cri- this paper focused on the old school prioritization for adaptive
teria is that most of them are qualitative ones that would be reuse. At this stage, the necessary correspondence was made
difficult to evaluate. Adaptive reuse potential (ARP) model, as with the Organization for Development, Renovation and Equip-
a tool for measuring building potential for reuse, while quan- ping Schools of Guilan (ODRES), Iran. Within-use adaption of old
tifying the quality criteria, provides some ARP scores that can school buildings is one of the main goals of the organization.
be much more applicable. The ARP model requires the build- Prioritization of old school buildings is necessary for thought-
ings’ useful life, the predicted physical life of the building and ful reuse planning. With the cooperation of the ODRES, access
its current age (Langston et al. 2008). The ARP score above 50% to the province schools’ database was obtained. Regarding the
indicates high potential for adaptive reuse, ARP score between large number of schools, to limit the number and identify the
20% to 50% indicates moderate potential, and score below 20% final cases, five cities with appropriate geographical distribu-
indicates low potential for adaptive reuse (Langston 2012). The tion in the province were determined. Given that the number
useful life of a building is calculated using Equation (1): of schools was still very large, in the next step only cases with
25–35 years old were considered. It is because younger build-
ings are probably still in good condition, and older buildings are
Lp
Useful Life(Lu) =  Lp probably already deteriorated. Therefore, it seems that the most

7
effective measures can be taken in schools with the determined
1+ Oi
i=1 age range. After applying the filters, buildings with the most
 ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 3

Figure 1. ARP model concept.

Figure 2. Location of schools in the Guilan province, Iran.

available data were selected from the remaining ones. Finally, to early July 2021. The collected data were quantified to eval-
29 schools were selected to conduct the surveys (Figure 2). uate the seven types of building obsolescence regarding the
To investigate the school buildings and evaluate their state obsolescence evaluation criteria. To quantify the collected data
of obsolescence and useful life, on-site visits and interviews through field work and on-site visits, they were also checked
with all the school principals were conducted. Required permits and validated according to the ODRES database. The database
for the on-site visits of the buildings and structured interviews, includes information such as school buildings’ construction year,
were obtained from the Department of Education of Guilan, Iran, structural systems, foundation types, materials, roof structure,
and then the Department of Education of the relevant cities. heating and cooling systems, lateral load bearing system types.
Finally, case studies were investigated for their physical con- Preliminary assessment and evaluation of building condition for
dition, maintenance status, materials condition, quality of con- reuse (such as retrofit studies should be done, the building must
struction, building facilities, location, etc., and necessary data be demolished) is part of the data provided in the database, too.
were collected. Due to limitations caused by the COVID-19 pan- Also, based on the collected data, the physical life of the school
demic, the process of obtaining permits to the end of the on- buildings was predicted through interviews by experts. In this
site visit took more than four months, from early March 2021 way, schools’ potential and the best time for reuse intervention
4 M. POUREBRAHIMI ET AL.

were identified according to the evaluated obsolescence, pre- It also can be a function of the appreciation of the site, rather
dicted physical life, building current age and calculated useful than the depreciation of the existing construction. In this way,
life. the rapid growth of the site value can make a building eco-
nomically obsolete (Mansfield and Pinder 2008; UKEssays 2018).
The most important causes of economic obsolescence include
Building obsolescence
the:
Obsolescence is a decline or loss of utility or performance of a
building that can occur as a result of factors such as physical • Lack of match between supply and demand for a particular
deterioration, technological advancement and change in users’ building or the goods or services produced by the asset (over-
demands (Grover and Grover 2015; Ashworth 2004; Kintrea 2007; supply or reduced demand) (Reed and Warren-Myers 2010;
Mansfield and Pinder 2008; Thomsen and Flier 2011; Flanagan Douglas 2006; Grover and Grover 2015; Williams 1986; Evelyn
et al. 1989; Khalid 1994; Baum 1991; API 2017). Obsolescence is and Guangming 2010; API 2017; RICS 2017)
a critical threat to built properties and different types of build- • Change in the highest and best use of the land (UKEssays
ing obsolescence can decrease buildings’ utility and reduce their 2018; Flanagan et al. 1989)
average life (Pourebrahimi, Eghbali, and Roders 2020). Accord- • Rapid increase in land value than building capital value
ing to the ARP model 7 types of obsolescence, including physical, (Mansfield and Pinder 2008; UKEssays 2018)
economic, functional, technological, social, legal and political • Deterioration of a neighbourhood (Baum 1991)
obsolescence, need to be investigated.
Functional obsolescence
Physical obsolescence
Functional obsolescence is defined as the loss of usefulness
Physical obsolescence means loss of utility and deterioration or effectiveness of an asset (Butt et al. 2015, 2011). Accord-
of a building and its component due to factors such as build- ing to Sarja (2004), functional obsolescence occurs as a result
ing age and usage, level of maintenance costs (Bowei 1984; of changes in the functions and use of a building. Wilkinson,
Grover and Grover 2015; API 2017; RICS 2017). physical obsoles- Remøy, and Langston (2014) argue that functional obsolescence
cence is defined by environmental factors (such as radiation, rain is a result of an inflexible design that cannot easily change to
and snow) and non-environmental factors which are imposed meet new circumstances. They believe that functional obsoles-
by humans as a result of their activities for living and working cence can be evaluated by the extent of building flexibility and,
(UKEssays 2018). The most important causes of physical obso- a buildings’ useful life will effectively reduce if building layouts
lescence include the: are inflexible to possible change. The most important causes of
functional obsolescence include the:
• Physical mismanagement and inadequate maintenance and
repair (Wilkinson, Remøy, and Langston 2014; Ashworth 2004; • Technical and technological changes and improvements
Goetz 2012) (UKEssays 2018; Douglas 2006; Grover and Grover 2015; Rodi
• Owners activities for living and working and Inappropriate et al. 2015; Blakstad 2001; Mansfield and Pinder 2008; Baum
use by occupies (UKEssays 2018; Ashworth 2004) 1994; Bottom, McGreal, and Heaney 1999; Baum 1993; Dunse
• Building age (Evelyn and Guangming 2010; Rodi et al. 2015; and Jones 2005; Reilly 2013)
Guangming 2011; API 2017) • Poor initial design and flaw in the building form, layout, struc-
• Natural disasters such as earthquake (Grover and Grover ture or materials (UKEssays 2018; Douglas 2006; Reed and
2015) Warren-Myers 2010; Allehaux and Tessier 2002)
• Inflexible layout and design (UKEssays 2018; Wilkinson,
Remøy, and Langston 2014; Evelyn and Guangming 2010;
Economic obsolescence
Rodi et al. 2015)
Economic obsolescence occurs as a result of the mismatch • Changes in the ways of working (Wilkinson, Remøy, and
between costs and incomes. It means that the property opera- Langston 2014; Remøy 2010; Blakstad 2001)
tion is no longer economic (Mora, Bitsuamlak, and Horvat 2011)
and the owner no longer can get a fair rate of return from opera-
Technological obsolescence
tion (Reilly 2012). Economic obsolescence occurs when financial
goals can be achieved in another and better way (Ashworth A building may be technologically obsolete years before the
2004). Economic obsolescence can be associated with the high- end of its physical life. When a building, because of lower costs
est and best use of the site. change in the highest and best or more efficiency, is no longer technologically preferred to
use for the land can lead to the economic obsolescence. Such other alternatives technological obsolescence occurs (UKEssays
changes could be related to a specific site or the neighbouring 2018). Therefore, technological obsolescence appears when the
area and resulted from changes in the market or the planning building and its components are no longer technologically
policies (UKEssays 2018). Economic obsolescence also appears favourable, requiring to be renewed or replaced (Guangming
when underlying market conditions, regardless of the building 2011). Wilkinson, Remøy, and Langston (2014) argue that tech-
condition, leads to a decrease in the value and may eventu- nological obsolescence can be measured through energy con-
ally lead to redevelopment or abandonment of the building sumption by building. They believe that buildings’ useful life
(Dunse and Jones 2005; Beekmans, Krabben, and Martens 2012). will reduce if a building is dependent on high energy levels for
 ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 5

the comfort of the occupants. The risk of technological obsoles- Evaluating building obsolescence types
cence can be avoided or reduced by estimating future techno-
Langston et al. (2007, 2008), as the developer of the ARP model,
logical advancement and appropriate design of structural and
defines some criteria for evaluating these seven types of build-
building service systems to allow easy change (Sarja 2006). The
ing obsolescence. Based on this, each type of obsolescence is
most important causes of technological obsolescence include
evaluated as follows: (1) physical obsolescence is related to the
the:
physical condition of the building and maintenance policy. It
can be measured regarding the budgeted maintenance expen-
• Advancement in technology (UKEssays 2018)
diture. High maintenance budget will reduce the physical obso-
• Inadequate technological facilities compare to the other
lescence. (2) Economic obsolescence is related to the building
buildings (Rodi et al. 2015)
location regarding the central business district or other primary
• Rapid advancement of the computer age (Reed and Warren-
market hubs of the city. It can be evaluated according to pop-
Myers 2010; Rodi et al. 2015)
ulation density. buildings located in an area of low population
density will receive high economic obsolescence, (3) functional
Social obsolescence obsolescence is related to the flexibility of spatial layout and can
be measured by determining the extent of buildings’ flexibility.
Changes in the social needs and interests can lead to the Low flexibility in buildings’ layout will increase the rate of func-
demanding for a more compatible image, good neighbourhood tional obsolescence, (4) technological obsolescence is related to
and facilities (UKEssays 2018). Changes in social demands can the applied technologies in the building and can be measured
cause a building to lose its utility and become obsolete. Many by buildings’ use of operational energy. Building useful life will
buildings, although suitable for their intended purpose, can reduce due to technological obsolescence if a building is depen-
become socially obsolete due to their wrong location (UKEssays dent on high levels of energy to provide occupants comfort, (5)
2018; Ashworth 2004). The most important causes of social obso- social obsolescence for non-commercial buildings is related to
lescence include the: the services provided by the building. Decline in demand for the
building services can cause a high level of social obsolescence,
• Changes in needs and demands of users (UKEssays 2018) (6) legal obsolescence occurs as a result of the introduction of
• Changes in taste and style (Douglas 2006; Evelyn and Guang- new buildings standards and can be measured by the quality of
ming 2010; Rodi et al. 2015) design. Price is a reasonable indicator for building quality. Build-
• Changes in society behaviour or perception (Grover and ings with high quality of design and construction (high price)
Grover 2015; Rodi et al. 2015) will receive minimum rate of legal obsolescence, and (7) Polit-
ical obsolescence can be evaluated regarding the restrictive or
supportive political interference. A high level of restrictive polit-
Legal obsolescence ical interference can reduce building useful life and a high level
Legal obsolescence refers to changes in the regulatory mecha- of supportive political environment can extent building useful
nism that govern the development and renovation of buildings life. Because of limited access to the maintenance budget data,
and is related to compliance with current building regulations in this research besides the mentioned criteria, the field visits and
(Guangming 2011). Legal obsolescence occurs when a building examination of the physical condition of the building were used
is unable to meet the requirements of current regulations and as the main criterion in the assessment of physical obsolescence.
bringing the building up to the required standards is so expen- The studies showed that the very high humidity of the province
sive (UKEssays 2018; Ashworth 2004). In this way, the legal obso- has caused a rapid deterioration of the buildings. Besides the
lescence will advance building demolition before the end of its buildings’ plans, On-site visits and investigating the changeabil-
physical life. The most important causes of Legal obsolescence ity and adaptability of the buildings’ space layout is used as the
include the: criteria to investigate the functional obsolescence. Also, On-site
visits and examination of the construction and material types
• Introduction of new building codes and standards and build- and quality are used to evaluate legal obsolescence of the case
ing incapability of being economically updated to meet new studies.
legal requirements (Douglas 2006; Remøy 2010; Reed and A scale of 0–20% is applied to assess obsolescence vulnera-
Warren-Myers 2010; Grover and Grover 2015; Blakstad 2001; bility which 0% means no vulnerable and 20% means extremely
Baum 1994; Pugh 1992). vulnerable (in the case of political obsolescence, the scale is from
• Social changes that add their requirements (Pugh 1992). −20% to +20%). The 5, 10 and 15% (−5, −10 and −15% for
political obsolescence) scales are also applicable (Langston et al.
2008). Where reliable data are not available, honest estimation
Political obsolescence and experts’ opinions can be considered. Regarding the crite-
ria, required data are collected through the schools’ database,
Few studies refer to this type of building obsolescence. Accord-
on-site visits of the buildings, and structured interviews with
ing to Wilkinson, Remøy, and Langston (2014), political obsoles-
the school principals. In this way, the building obsolescence are
cence is related to political interference, which can be supportive
measured for each case study. The details of obsolescence eval-
or restrictive. Supportive political interference can increase and
uation for one of the cases are described in the following: Rahe
restrictive political interference can decrease the useful life of the
Shohada school was built in 1988 (Figure 3).
building.
6 M. POUREBRAHIMI ET AL.

Figure 3. Rahe Shohada School.

Table 1. Obsolescence rate in Rahe Shohada school.

Obsolescence types Physical Economic Functional Technological Social Legal Political
Obsolescence rate (%) 15 10 20 10 0 10 5
Total obsolescence 70
Annual obsolescence rate 0.01

The structural system is steel structure with an isolated foun- Regarding the above data and predicted physical life (70
dation and the lateral force-resisting system is moment frame. years), the annual obsolescence rate is equal to 0.01 (Table 1).
Central heating system and air conditioner are used as heating The final results of the obsolescence assessment for all cases
and cooling system. Based on the ODRES data and on-site visits are given in Table 2.
and interviews, the evaluation of the seven obsolescence types Table 2 shows the rate of each obsolescence type and annual
are as follows: obsolescence in all case studies. The annual obsolescence rate is
calculated according to the predicted physical life of each case
• Physical obsolescence: regarding the low maintenance bud- and rounded to four decimal places. According to the results, the
get and physical deterioration of the building, it is in a poor highest annual obsolescence rate, calculated for the school #11,
physical situation and the physical obsolescence is 15%. is 0.0129 and the lowest annual obsolescence rate, calculated far
• Economic obsolescence: building location and population the schools #9 and #19 is 0.006 (Figure 4).
density are the criteria to evaluate economical obsolescence. The average rate of annual obsolescence is 0.0091. Consid-
Regarding the building location and moderate population ering each type of obsolescence individually, functional obso-
density of the neighbourhood, the economical obsolescence lescence, with an average of 15.17%, has the highest rate of
is 10%. obsolescence. Technological obsolescence, with an average of
• Functional obsolescence: Regarding the school plan and 12.93%, and physical obsolescence, with an average of 11.55%,
structural limitless, the building is inflexible to any change have the highest obsolescence rates after the functional one.
and the functional obsolescence is 20%. Economic, legal, political and social obsolescence, respectively
• Technological obsolescence: Considering that the building’s with an average of 9.48, 9.31, 4.82 and 0%, are placed in the
heating system is relatively old, the amount of energy con- subsequent ranks. Obsolescence type prioritizing is important
sumption is a little higher than the standard rate. Accordingly, because according to their rank and importance, necessary mea-
the technological obsolescence is 10%. sures can be taken to mitigate or avoid them;
• Social obsolescence: Regarding to the country’s need for Functional obsolescence: As mentioned before, functional
the educational services provided by the building, the social obsolescence has the highest rate among all the seven obso-
obsolescence is 0%. lescence types. Therefore, regarding the definitions and causes
• Legal obsolescence: there wasn’t any information about con- of functional obsolescence, inflexibility is one the most impor-
struction price so the legal obsolescence is evaluated based tant causes for the reduction of the school buildings’ useful
on the on-site visits and construction and materials types and life, which cannot easily change to meet the current needs
quality evaluation. Based on this the construction and materi- and demands. Paying attention to the flexibility fundamen-
als quality is moderate and as a result the legal obsolescence tals, including open and wide spaces with minimum vertical
is 10%. load-bearing elements, changeable and movable architectural
• Political obsolescence: According to the investigations and elements, modular design, etc., is one of the most important
interviews, the political interference is not enough support- measures to prevent or mitigate functional obsolescence and
ive. So, the political obsolescence is 5%. consequently increase the useful life of buildings. Flexibility is
 ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 7

Table 2. Obsolescence evaluation.

Obsolescence types
School name Physical Economic Functional Technological Social Legal Political Total obsolescence Annual obsolescence rate
#1 Shohadaye Gomnam 15 15 20 15 0 10 5 80 0.0114
#2 Dastgheib 15 5 20 15 0 10 5 70 0.01
#3 Maani Jou 10 5 15 10 0 10 5 55 0.0073
#4 Vahdate Eslami 10 10 15 15 0 5 5 60 0.0092
#5 Khaghani 20 10 20 15 0 10 5 80 0.0114
#6 Khodshad 15 15 20 15 0 15 5 85 0.0121
#7 Mostafa Doust 10 5 15 10 0 10 5 55 0.0085
#8 Narjesieh 20 10 20 15 0 10 5 80 0.0114
#9 Tohid 10 5 10 10 0 5 5 45 0.006
#10 Sotoudeh 10 10 15 10 0 10 5 60 0.0092
#11 Karimi 20 20 20 15 0 10 5 90 0.0129
#12 Ghaemieh 15 15 20 15 0 10 5 80 0.0114
#13 Ayoub 10 15 10 10 0 5 0 50 0.0067
#14 Mofateh 10 10 15 15 0 10 5 65 0.01
#15 Velayat 10 15 20 15 0 10 5 75 0.0107
#16 Ramzanpour 10 10 15 15 0 10 5 65 0.0087
#17 Madani 10 10 10 15 0 10 5 60 0.0092
#18 Emam Reza 10 10 15 10 0 10 5 60 0.0092
#19 Khomami Zadeh 5 10 10 10 0 5 5 45 0.006
#20 Khajeh Nasir 15 10 10 5 0 10 5 55 0.0073
#21 Rahe Shohada 15 10 20 10 0 10 5 70 0.01
#22 Siavash Karimi 10 5 10 15 0 10 5 55 0.0085
#23 Sedighi 10 5 15 15 0 10 5 60 0.0092
#24 Sanaye Poushesh 5 10 15 10 0 10 5 55 0.0085
#25 Esmat 10 5 15 15 0 10 5 60 0.008
#26 Amou Pour 10 5 15 15 0 10 5 60 0.008
#27 Farshe Guilan 10 5 10 15 0 5 5 50 0.0067
#28 Mola Sadra 5 10 10 15 0 10 5 55 0.0073
#29 Hejrat 10 5 15 10 0 10 5 55 0.0085
Average (%) 11.55 9.48 15.17 12.93 0 9.31 4.82 63.27 0.0091

Figure 4. Left, school #9 - middle, school #11 – right, school#19.

also closely related to adaptability and can support the adapt- adolescents in these schools can accelerate the physical deterio-
ability of a building both during the utilization and for reuse. ration of the building. Providing enough maintenance budget,
Technological obsolescence: Lack of updating these schools skilled maintenance workers, and periodic repair and mainte-
technologically, including heating and cooling systems, is the nance are the appropriate solutions for extending buildings’ use-
second important factor in reducing the useful life of the school ful life. High humidity and heavy rain in the region also can cause
buildings. Making an honest prediction of technology advance- accelerated physical deterioration and obsolescence. Therefore,
ment and providing required flexibility in building to enable climate-friendly design and taking the necessary measures to
systems to be updated can mitigate technological obsolescence. control high humidity, such as sloping roofs and effective mois-
Also, a climate-friendly design to use natural and renewable ture insulation, can be effective solutions to deal with physical
energy sources, such as natural ventilation or solar systems, can obsolescence.
minimize the required energy for thermal comfort and extent Economic obsolescence: Regarding the causes, building loca-
building useful life. tion is one of the most important factors in economic obsoles-
Physical obsolescence: Physical obsolescence is closely related cence. Therefore, inappropriate location is an important factor
to maintenance policies. According to the studies, the mainte- in reducing these schools’ useful life and proper locating can
nance budget is not at the desired level and it made physical mitigate economic obsolescence and extent their life span effec-
obsolescence the third important factor in reducing the schools’ tively. However, it is difficult to predict and control economic
useful life. The presence of a large number of children and obsolescence.
8 M. POUREBRAHIMI ET AL.

Figure 5. Adaptive reuse potential (ARP) model for Rahe Shohada school.

Legal obsolescence: Legal obsolescence risk can be reduced section and based on the Table 1 and Equations (1) and (2),
by meeting the highest level of building codes and standards, building useful life is 35 years and the ARP score is 70% (Figure 5).
such as safety codes (e.g. fire safety) and structural stability (e.g.
earthquake resistance). Such an approach, although imposes Lp 70
Useful Life(Lu) =  Lp = (1 + 0.01)70  35
higher initial costs, can provide adaptability to possible future 
7
building codes. In this way, through mitigating legal obsoles- 1+ Oi
i=1
cence and extending building useful life, the increase in initial
costs will be compensated. [100 − (EL2u /100].ELb
ARP(increasing) =  70
Political obsolescence: As mention before, political obsoles- ELu
cence is related to political interference, which can be supportive
or restrictive. Therefore, treatment of this type of obsolescence The final results of the ARP assessment for all cases are given in
requires a review of policies and planning at the country level by Table 3. Maximum adaptive reuse potential appears when build-
expert groups to create the necessary supportive environment. ing age and calculated useful life are equal. So, it is logical to
Social obsolescence: social obsolescence is related to the consider the point of maximum potential (useful life) as the best
demands for services provided by a building. Here, due to the time for reuse intervention. The difference between the current
basic need of society for educational services, social obsoles- building age and the useful life is the time we have before (or
cence in all case studies is zero and has not affected schools’ after) the best time to intervene, which can be a very important
useful life. item in prioritization.
According to the results, the maximum useful life is equal to
48 years and calculated for schools #9 and #19, which also had
the lowest obsolescence rate. The minimum useful life is 29 years
Assessment of adaptive reuse potential
for school #11, which also had the highest obsolescence rate.
Based on the obsolescence rate and predicted physical life, the Subsequently, school #11 has the lowest effective useful life with
useful life of each school building was calculated according to 41%. The average calculated useful life for all cases is 38 years.
Equation (1). By comparing effective useful life (useful life as The highest effective useful life is 64%, and the lowest one is 41%.
a percentage of predicted physical life) and effective building Effective useful life is a percentage of the building predicted life
age (current age as a percentage of predicted physical life), if that will be utilized in practice. Therefore, the effective useful life
the effective useful life is more than the effective age, the ARP of 64% indicates that from 100% of the building potential and
index was calculated by Equation (2) (increasing reuse poten- expected life, only 64% will be utilized. The average of 54% effec-
tial), and if the effective useful life is less than the effective age, tive useful life shows that only about half of the life expectancy of
the ARP index was calculated by Equation (3) (decreasing reuse the cases will be utilized in practice, and failure to take the neces-
potential). Based on the collected data and related equations, sary measures can waste about half of the expected life of these
the useful life of the building, ARP index and reuse capability, buildings and many of them may be abandoned and eventually
maximum ARP index, and best time for intervention were calcu- demolished while still having high physical and structural poten-
lated and evaluated for all case studies. Following the detailed tial. According to Table 3, the lowest ARP index is 30% (Figure 6)
obsolescence assessment of Rahe Shohada school in previous and the highest ARP index is 83% (Figure 7).
 ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 9

Table 3. Assessment of adaptive reuse potential.

Current physical Obsolescence Useful ARP Max. ARP Adaptive Available
Construction age life rate life ELb Elu score score reuse timea
School date (years) (years) (%) (years) (%) (%) (%) (%) potential (years)
#1 1992 29 70 0.0114 32 41 46 70 79 High increasing 3
#2 1992 29 70 0.01 35 41 50 61 75 High increasing 6
#3 1990 31 75 0.0073 43 41 57 49 68 Moderate increasing 12
#4 1993 28 65 0.0092 36 43 55 55 70 High increasing 8
#5 1993 28 70 0.0114 32 40 46 69 79 High increasing 4
#6 1992 29 70 0.0121 30 41 43 78 81 High increasing 1
#7 1993 28 65 0.0085 38 43 58 49 66 Moderate increasing 10
#8 1991 30 70 0.0114 32 43 46 74 79 High increasing 2
#9 1993 28 75 0.006 48 37 63 35 60 Moderate increasing 20
#10 1993 28 65 0.0092 36 43 55 55 70 High increasing 8
#11 1992 29 70 0.0129 29 41 41 83 83 Max. 0
#12 1991 30 70 0.0114 32 43 46 74 79 High increasing 2
#13 1997 24 75 0.0067 45 32 60 34 64 Moderate increasing 21
#14 1994 27 65 0.01 34 42 52 59 73 High increasing 7
#15 1994 27 70 0.0107 33 39 47 65 78 High increasing 6
#16 1995 26 75 0.0087 39 35 52 49 73 Moderate increasing 13
#17 1993 28 65 0.0092 36 43 55 55 70 High increasing 8
#18 1993 28 65 0.0092 36 43 55 55 70 High increasing 8
#19 1996 25 75 0.006 48 33 64 30 59 Moderate increasing 23
#20 1997 24 75 0.0073 43 32 57 38 68 Moderate increasing 19
#21 1988 33 70 0.01 35 47 50 70 75 High increasing 2
#22 1991 30 65 0.0085 38 46 58 53 66 High increasing 8
#23 1992 29 65 0.0092 36 45 55 57 70 High increasing 7
#24 1995 26 65 0.0085 38 40 58 46 66 Moderate increasing 12
#25 1996 25 75 0.008 41 33 55 42 70 Moderate increasing 16
#26 1996 25 75 0.008 41 33 55 42 70 Moderate increasing 16
#27 1993 28 75 0.0067 45 37 60 39 64 Moderate increasing 17
#28 1993 28 75 0.0073 44 37 59 41 65 Moderate increasing 16
#29 1991 30 65 0.0085 38 46 58 53 66 High increasing 8
Avarage – 28 70 0.0091 38 40 54 54 71 High increasing 10
ELb = Effective building age; ELu = Effective useful life.
a Available time till the best time for intervention.

Figure 6. Adaptive reuse potential (ARP) model – School #19.

Comparing the ARP index with the effective useful life, make to utilize before reaching the state of obsolete, and therefore
it clear that these two quantities are inversely related to each in the end it will have a lower potential for reuse. In con-
other; the higher the effective useful life the lower the ARP trast, the highest ARP score (83%) is related to school #9 with
score. Therefore, the lowest calculated ARP score (30%) is related the lowest useful life (41%). It indicates that due to the low
to school #19 with the highest effective useful life (64%). It effective useful life, a large part of the building potential is
is because a large part of its expected life will be available available for reuse. The average adaptive reuse potential of all
10 M. POUREBRAHIMI ET AL.

Figure 7. Adaptive reuse potential (ARP) model – School #11.

Figure 8. Adaptive reuse potential (ARP) model – average of all projects.

case studies, with an ARP score of 54% is high and increasing shortest available time), considering that the current age and
(Figure 8). useful life are equal, the building is in the maximum state of
When the building adaptive reuse potential is maximum, it reusability and it is the best time to reuse intervention. Other-
is the best time to reuse intervention, which appears at the cal- wise, over time, the building’s potential for adaptive reuse will
culated useful life. Therefore, considering the building’s current decrease. Therefore, for effective reuse planning and measures,
age and its useful life, the available time before/after the best the available time is an important item.
time of intervention can be measured. If the current age is more
than the useful life, the best time to intervene is lost, and since
Prioritizing buildings for adaptive reuse
in such a case the reusability is decreasing, the necessary reuse
measures should be taken as soon as possible. According to the In this study, two criteria have been considered as the main crite-
results (Table 3), the maximum available time is 23 years and ria for prioritizing buildings for adaptive reuse. The first criterion
the minimum one is 0 years. In fact, in the school #11 (with the is the building potential for adaptive reused, which is measured
 ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 11

Table 4. Schools prioritizing for within-use adaptive reuse.

ARP Priority according to Available Priority according to the Final priority according to the
score (%) the ARP score time (years) available time Arp score and time
83 1. school #11 0 1. school #11 1. school #11
78 2. school #6 1 2. school #6 2. school #6
74 3. school #12 2 3. school #8 3. school #12
74 3. school #8 2 3. school #12 3. school #8
70 4. school #21 2 3. school #21 4. school #21
70 4. school #1 3 4. school #1 5. school #1
69 5. school #5 4 5. school #5 6. school #5
65 6. school #15 6 6. school #2 7. school #15
61 7. school #2 6 6. school #15 8. school #2
59 8. school #14 7 7. school #14 9. school #14
57 9. school #23 7 7. school #23 10. school #23
55 10. school #18 8 8. school #17 11. school #18
55 10. school #17 8 8. school #22 11. school #17
55 10. school #10 8 8. school #18 11. school #10
55 10. school #4 8 8. school #4 11. school #4
53 11. school #29 8 8. school #10 12. school #29
53 11. school #22 8 8. school #29 12. school #22
49 12. school #16 10 9. school #7 13. school #7
49 12. school #7 12 10. school #3 14. school #3
49 12. school #3 12 10. school #24 15. school #24
46 13. school #24 13 11. school #16 16. school #16
42 14. school #26 16 12. school #25 17. school #26
42 14. school #25 16 12. school #26 17. school #25
41 15. school #28 16 12. school #28 18. school #28
39 16. school #27 17 13. school #27 19. school #27
38 17. school #20 19 14. school #20 20. school #20
35 18. school #9 20 15. school #9 21. school #9
34 19. school #13 21 16. school #13 22. school #13
30 20. school #19 23 17. school #19 23. school #19

based on the ARP index. Accordingly, the higher the ARP index 53% for School #29. Therefore, school #4 has a higher reuse pri-
and the potential of the building for adaptive reuse, the higher ority than school #29. There are also cases where the ARP index
the priority for reuse. The second criterion is the time available till and available time are equal and placed at the same rank.
the best time for reuse intervention. The shorter the time inter- Based on the proposed decision-making model, different
val to the best time to intervene for reuse, the higher the priority. buildings can be prioritized for adaptive reuse to better and
Based on the proposed criteria, case studies are prioritized for more effective measures depending on the conditions of each
within-use adaptive reuse (Table 4). project. It should be noted that depending on the circumstances
Based on the first criterion, namely the building potential for and organizational goals, solely one of the criteria can also be
adaptive reuse, all the 29 case studies are prioritized in 20 ranks. considered for intervention planning.
In fact, due to the equal reuse potential of some cases, they
are placed at the same rank, and subsequently, 29 case studies
Conclusion
are ranked into 20 places. Also, regarding the second criterion,
namely the available time, all cases are ranked into 17 places. Adaptive reuse is one of the most important approaches in sus-
Here, as in the first criterion, due to the equal available time tainable architecture, and existing building stock provides many
in some cases, all schools are prioritized in 17 places for within opportunities for adaptive reuse that should not be neglected.
use adaption. As it is clear, by considering these two different But dealing with existing buildings, especially on a large scale,
criteria, two different prioritizations have been achieved. Now requires careful decision-making and planning. Existing build-
the question is which ranking should be considered for adap- ings have different priorities for reuse depending on their own
tive reuse intervention planning? Considering both criteria at conditions and also external factors. This study provides a frame-
the same time can be the answer to the question. By simultane- work for prioritizing buildings for adaptive reuse. In this regard,
ously considering the two criteria, as shown in Table 4, all schools by studying 29 school buildings, based on the needs of the coun-
are ranked into 23 places for adaptive reuse. This ranking can try, they were prioritized for within-use adaptive reuse. It means
be the main prioritization for adaptive reuse intervention plan- that these buildings will be reused but keep their primary use as
ning. In fact, by considering the ARP index and the best time school. Anyway, the applied method is applicable for across-use
for intervention simultaneously, projects with equal ARP index (change of the original use of a building to another one) adaptive
are prioritized based on the time, and conversely, projects with reuse, too. Adaptive reuse potential and the best time for reuse
equal available time are prioritized based on the ARP index. For intervention were the two main criteria for prioritization. Build-
example, in schools #1 and #21, the ARP index is equal to 70%, ings with more adaptive reuse potential and less available time
but the available time for school #21 is 2 years and for school #1 until the best time for intervention are given a higher priority for
is 3 years. Therefore, school #21 has a higher reuse priority than reuse. Respecting each criterion separately also provides differ-
school #1. Conversely, the available time for schools #4 and #29 ent prioritization and based on a project main goals and, time
is equal to 8 years, but the ARP index is 55% for schools #4 and and budget limitation, one of these criteria can be applied. For
12 M. POUREBRAHIMI ET AL.

example, it is possible that a building had a lower reuse potential Funding

comparing to another building but regarding the lowest avail- This work was financially supported by the Vice-Presidency for Science and
able time for the first building, it would get higher priority for Technology of Iran.
reuse. However, simultaneous consideration of both criteria pro-
vides a more comprehensive and accurate ranking. In this way, ORCID
based on the priority of the buildings, the necessary measures for Amir Reza Karimi Azeri http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1551-8895
reuse intervention can be taken. According to the results, about
59% of these 29 investigated school buildings have a high reuse
potential and 41% have a moderate potential for adaptive reuse.
References
These scores indicate the importance of adaptive reuse of exist- Aigwi, I. E., T. Egbelakin, and J. Ingham. 2018. “Efficacy of Adaptive Reuse
ing buildings and conservation of their structural, social, eco- for the Redevelopment of Underutilised Historical Buildings: Towards
the Regeneration of New Zealand’s Provincial Town Centres.” Inter-
nomic, physical, environmental and cultural capital. The reuse national Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation 36 (4): 385–407.
potential of some of the school buildings with moderate poten- DOI:10.1108/IJBPA-01-2018-0007.
tial will increase in the future and also some of these buildings Aigwi, I. E., J. Ingham, R. Phipps, and O. Filippova. 2020. “Identifying Param-
with high potential will lose their potential in the near future. eters for a Performance-Based Framework: Towards Prioritising Under-
Therefore, time consideration in the adaptive reuse approach is utilised Historical Buildings for Adaptive Reuse in New Zealand.” Cities
102: 102756. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2020.102756.
very important. Allehaux, D., and P. Tessier. 2002. “Evaluation of the Functional Obsolescence
Also, seven types of building obsolescence are studied and of Building Services in European Office Buildings.” Energy and Buildings 34
ranked according to their impact on reducing the buildings’ use- (2): 127–133. doi:10.1016/S0378-7788(01)00104-9.
ful life, and different strategies to mitigate or avoid them are API (Australian Property Institute). 2017. API Definitions (https://www.api.org.
au/definitions).
discussed. The results show that the average effective useful
Architectural Institute of Japan. 2007. Guidelines for Building Assess-
life of all case studies is 54%. It means that because of build- ment, Preservation and utilization (https://www.aij.or.jp/scripts/request/
ing obsolescence only about half of the life expectancy of the document/070810-1.pdf)
cases will be utilized in practice, and failure to take the nec- Ashworth, A. 2004. Cost Studies of Buildings. 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson/Prentice
essary measures can cause a waste of half of the expected life Hall.
Azizi, N. Z. M., A. A. Razak, M. A. M. Din, and N. M. Nasir. 2016. “Recurring
of these buildings. Such measures to mitigate building obso-
Issues in Historic Building Conservation.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral
lescence and extend building useful life include proper locat- Sciences 222: 587–595. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.217.
ing and considering the neighbourhood conditions, flexible Baum, A. 1991. Property Investment Depreciation and Obsolescence. London:
design (open spaces with minimum vertical load-bearing ele- Routledge.
ments, changeable architectural elements, modular design, etc.), Baum, A. 1993. “Quality, Depreciation, and Property Performance.” The Jour-
nal of Real Estate Research 8 (4): 541–565. doi:10.1080/10835547.1993.
climate-friendly design to minimize the required energy for
12090722.
thermal comfort, climate-friendly design to prevent accelerated Baum, A. 1994. “Quality and Property Performance.” Journal of Property Valu-
physical deterioration, providing enough maintenance budget ation and Investment 12 (1): 31–46. doi:10.1108/14635789410050494.
and skilled maintenance workers, and meeting the highest level Beekmans, J., E. V. D. Krabben, and K. Martens. 2012. “An Indicator for
of building codes and standards (safety codes, earthquake resis- Decline of Industrial Estates.” Journal of European Real Estate Research 5
(3): 229–249. doi:10.1108/17539261211282073.
tance, etc.). It should be noted that increasing buildings’ useful
Blakstad, S. H. 2001. “A Strategic Approach to Adaptability in Office Build-
life and reusing them to prevent the waste of building capital ings.” PhD diss., Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
requires planning and policy-making at the country level, and Bottom, C. W., W. S. McGreal, and G. Heaney. 1999. “Appraising the Func-
the applied method can be very useful in this regard. tional Performance Characteristics of Office Buildings.” Journal of Property
Other building types such as industrial buildings and power Research 16 (4): 339–358. doi:10.1080/095999199368085.
Bowei, N. 1984. “The Depreciation of Buildings.” Journal of Valuation 2 (1):
plants can be ranked based on the applied method or can just be
5–13. doi:10.1108/eb007944.
investigated to identify their potential for adaptive reuse. Access Bullen, P. A. 2004. “Sustainable Adaptive Reuse of the Existing Building
to the required data (such as maintenance budget or early con- Stock in Western Australia.” 20th Annual ARCOM Conference, Heriot Watt
struction costs) to evaluate different form of obsolescence is one University, 1–3 September.
of the limitations of this study. For more accurate result cus- Bullen, P. A. 2007. “Adaptive Reuse and Sustainability of Commercial Build-
tomized ARP model can be developed. The ARP model uses the ing.” Facilities 25 (1/20): 20–23. doi:10.1108/02632770710716911.
Butt, T. E., M. Camilleri, P. Paul, and K. G. Jones. 2015. “Obsolescence
same obsolescence types with the same weight for all build- Types and the Built Environment-Definitions and Implications.” Interna-
ing types. Regarding different form of building obsolescence, tional Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 14 (1): 20–39.
it seems that through identifying the most important obsoles- doi:10.1504/IJESD.2015.066896
cence types in different building categories we can develop cus- Butt, T. E., B. D. Giddings, J. C. Cooper, B. B. N. Umeadi, and K. G. Jones. 2011.
tomized ARP model and provide more accurate reuse ranking. “Advent of Climate Change and Resultant Energy Related Obsolescence in
the Built Environment.” Sustainability in Energy and Buildings 7: 211–224.
This will be investigated in future research. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-17387-5_22.
Chan, J., C. Bachman, and C. Haas. 2020. “Potential Economic and Energy
Acknowledgements Impacts of Substituting Adaptive Reuse for new Building Construc-
The authors also gratefully acknowledge the supports of the Organization for tion: A Case Study of Ontario.” Journal of Cleaner Production 259: 1–17.
Development, Renovation and Equipping Schools of Guilan (ODRES), Iran. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120939.
Douglas, J. 2006. Building Adaptation. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Spon Press.
Dunse, N., and C. Jones. 2005. “Rental Depreciation, Obsolescence and Loca-
Disclosure statement tion: The Case of Industrial Properties.” Journal of Property Research 22
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). (2–3): 205–223. doi:10.1080/09599910500453988.
 ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW 13

Evelyn, T., and L. Guangming. 2010. “Developing a Model for Computing Pourebrahimi, M., S. R. Eghbali, H. Zolfagharzadeh, and H. Ghafori Fard.
the Building Adaptation Potential Index for Public Housing in Singapore.” 2020. “Modifying Buildings Life Cycle Through Identifying Adaptive Reuse
Architectural Science Review 53 (4): 429–440. doi:10.3763/asre.2009.0081. Criteria.” [In Persian] Journal of Architectural Thought 3 (6): 126–143.
Flanagan, R., G. Norman, J. Meadows, and G. Robinson. 1989. Life Cycle Costing doi:10.30479/at.2019.11683.1325.
Theory and Practice. Boston: BSP Professional Books. Pugh, C. 1992. “The Refurbishment of Shopping Centres.” Property Manage-
Foster, G. 2020. “Circular Economy Strategies for Adaptive Reuse of Cultural ment 10 (1): 38–46. doi:10.1108/02637479210030213.
Heritage Buildings to Reduce Environmental Impacts.” Resources, Conser- Reed, R., and G. Warren-Myers. 2010. “Is Sustainability the 4th Form of
vation & Recycling 152: 104507. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104507. Obsolescence?.” 16th Pacific Rim Real Estate Society (PRRES) Conference,
Gann, D. V., and J. Barlow. 1996. “Flexibility in Building use: The Techni- Wellington.
cal Feasibility of Converting Redundant Offices Into Flats.” Construction Reilly, R. F. 2012. Functional Obsolescence and Economic Obsolescence
Management and Economzcs 14 (1): 55–66. DOI:10.1080/01446199600 Considerations in the Property Tax Valuation, Insights (www.willamette.
000007. com).
Geraedts, R. P., and T. van der Voordt. 2004. “Offices for Living In: An Instru- Reilly, R. F. 2013. “Consideration of Functional and Economic Obsolescence in
ment for Measuring the Potential for Transforming Offices Into Homes.” the Assessment of Industrial or Commercial Property.” Journal of Property
Open House International 28 (3): 80–90. Tax Assessment & Administration 10 (1): 45–58.
Goetz, E. G. 2012. “Obsolescence and the Transformation of Public Hous- Remøy, H. 2010. “Out of Office: A Study on the Cause of Office Vacancy
ing Communities in the US.” International Journal of Housing Policy 12 (3): and Transformation as a Means to Cope and Prevent.” PhD diss. Delft
331–345. doi:10.1080/14616718.2012.709671. University of Technology.
Grover, R., and C. Grover. 2015. “Obsolescence – a Cause for Concern?” Jour- Remøy, H., and T. van der Voordt. 2007. “A New Life: Conversion of Vacant
nal of Property Investment & Finance 33 (3): 299–314. doi:10.1108/JPIF-02- Office Buildings Into Housing.” Facilities 25 (3/4): 88–103.DOI:10.1108/
2015-0016. 02632770710729683.
Guangming, L. 2011. “Decision Model for Determination of Adaptation RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.). 2017. RICS Valuation – Global
Potential and Renewal Action for Public Housing in Singapore.” PhD diss. Standards.
National University of Singapore. Riggs, W., and F. Chamberlain. 2018. “The TOD and Smart Growth Implica-
Günçe, K., and D. Mısırlısoy. 2019. “Assessment of Adaptive Reuse Prac- tions of the LA Adaptive Reuse Ordinance.” Sustainable Cities and Society
tices Through User Experiences: Traditional Houses in the Walled City of 38: 594–606. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2018.01.007.
Nicosia.” Sustainability 11 (2): 540. doi:10.3390/su11020540. Rodi, W. N. W., T. K. Hwa, A. S. said, N. M. Mahamood, M. I. Abdul-
Haidar, L., and A. Talib. 2015. “Adaptive Reuse Practice in Tower Houses lah, and A. R. Abd Rasam. 2015. “Obsolescence of Green Office Build-
of Old City Sana’a Yemen.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 202: ing: A Literature Review.” Procedia Economics and Finance 31: 651–660.
351–360. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.239. doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01153-3.
Kaya, I. D., G. Dane, N. Pintossi, and C. A. M. Koot. 2021. “Subjec- Sanchez, B., C. Rausch, and C. Haas. 2019. “Deconstruction Programming for
tive Circularity Performance Analysis of Adaptive Heritage Reuse Prac- Adaptive Reuse of Buildings.” Automation in Construction 107: 102921.
tices in the Netherlands.” Sustainable Cities and Society 70: 102869. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102921.
doi:10.1016/j.scs.2021.102869. Sarja, A. 2004. “Generalised Lifetime Limit State Design of Structures.” 2nd
Khalid, G. 1994. “Obsolescence in Hedonic Price Estimation of the Financial International Conference, Lifetime-Oriented Design Concepts, ICDLOC, pp.
Impact of Commercial Office Buildings: The Case of Kuala Lumpur.” Con- 51–60. Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany.
struction Management and Economics 12 (1): 37–44. doi:10.1080/014461- Sarja, A. 2006. Predictive and Optimised Life Cycle Management. London: Tay-
99400000005. lor & Francis e-Library.
Kintrea, K. 2007. “Housing Aspirations and Obsolescence: Understanding Shen, L.y., and C. Langston. 2010. “Adaptive Reuse Potential; an Examination
the Relationship.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 22 (4): of Differences Between Urban and Non-Urban Projects.” Facilities 28 (1/2):
321–338. doi:10.1007/s10901-007-9087-4. 6–16. doi:10.1108/02632771011011369/full/html.
Langston, C. 2011. “On Archetypes and Building Adaptive Reuse.” PRRES2011 Tan, Y., L. Y. Shen, and C. Langston. 2014. “A Fuzzy Approach for Adaptive
Conference, Gold Coast: Bond University. Reuse Selection of Industrial Building in Hong Kong.” International Journal
Langston, C. 2012. “Validation of the Adaptive Reuse Potential (ARP) Model of Strategic Property Management 18 (1): 66–76. doi:10.3846/1648715X.
Using iconCUR.” Facilities 30 (3-4): 105–123. doi:10.1108/026327712112- 2013.864718.
02824. Thomsen, A., and K. V. D. Flier. 2011. “Understanding Obsolescence: A
Langston, C., and L. Y. Shen. 2007. “Application of the Adaptive Reuse Conceptual Model for Buildings.” Building Research & Information 39 (4):
Potential Model in Hong Kong: A Case Study of Lui Seng Chun.” 352–362. doi:10.1080/09613218.2011.576328.
International Journal of Strategic Property Management 11 (4): 193–207. UKEssays. November 2018. A Study of Building Obsolescence in Standard
doi:10.3846/1648715X.2007.9637569 Design. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/property/a-study-of-bulding-
Langston, C., F. K. W. Wong, E. C. M. Hui, and L. Y. Shen. 2008. “Strategic obsolescence.php?vref = 1.
Assessment of Building Adaptive Reuse Opportunities in Hong Kong.” Wang, H. J., and Z. T. Zeng. 2010. “A Multi-Objective Decision-Making Process
Building and Environment 43 (10): 1709–1718. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv. for Reuse Selection of Historic Buildings.” Expert Systems with Applications
2007.10.017. 37 (2): 1241–1249. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2009.06.034.
Mansfield, J. R., and J. A. Pinder. 2008. ““Economic” and “Functional” Obsoles- Wilkinson, S. J., and R. Reed. 2011. “Examining and Quantifying the Drivers
cence: Their Characteristics and Impacts on Valuation Practice.” Property Behind Alterations and Extensions to Commercial Buildings in a Cen-
Management 26 (3): 191–206. doi:10.1108/02637470810879233. tral Business District.” Construction Management and Economics 29 (7):
Mora, R., G. Bitsuamlak, and M. Horvat. 2011. “Integrated Life-Cycle Design 725–735. doi:10.1080/01446193.2011.588954.
of Building Enclosures.” Building and Environment 46 (7): 1469–1479. Wilkinson, S. J., H. Remøy, and C. Langston. 2014. Sustainable Building Adap-
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.01.018. tation: Innovations in Decision-Making. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons,
Pourebrahimi, M., and S. R. Eghbali. 2019. “Adaptive Reuse or Demolition: Ltd.
Investigating Opportunities and Barriers of Existing Buildings Adaptive Williams, A. 1986. “Remedying Industrial Building Obsolescence: The
Reuse.” [In Persian]. 3rd International Congress on Contemporary in Options.” Property Management 4 (1): 5–14. doi:10.1108/eb006609.
Civil Engineering Architecture and Urban Development, Tehran, Iran, 26 Wilson, C. A. 2010. “Adaptive Reuse of Industrial Buildings in Toronto,
December. Ontario Evaluating Criteria for Determining Building Selection.” Master
Pourebrahimi, M., S. R. Eghbali, and A. P. Roders. 2020. “Identifying Building diss. Queen’s University.
Obsolescence: Towards Increasing Buildings’ Service Life.” International Yazdani Mehr, S., H. Skates, and G. Holden. 2017. “Adding More by Using
Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation 38 (5): 635–652. DOI: Less: Adaptive Reuse of Wool Stores.” Procedia Engineering 180: 697–703.
10.1108/IJBPA-08-2019-0068. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.229.

View publication stats