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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-080X.htm

Adaptive reuse
Adaptive reuse of heritage of heritage
buildings buildings
Peter A. Bullen and Peter E.D. Love
Department of Construction Management, School of the Built Environment,
Curtin University, Perth, Australia
411
Abstract
Purpose – There is growing acceptance that heritage buildings are an important element of
Australia’s social capital and that heritage conservation provides economic, cultural and social
benefits to urban communities. The decision whether to reuse a building entails a complex set of
considerations including location, heritage, architectural assets, and market trends. The role of
building conservation has changed from preservation to being part of a broader strategy for urban
regeneration and sustainability. A growing body of opinion supports the view that adaptive reuse is a
powerful strategy for handling this change. Urban development and subsequent redevelopment has
a significant impact on the environment and the purpose of this paper is to investigate how the
conservation of heritage buildings may contribute to a more sustainable urban environment.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper examines the views and experiences of architects,
developers and building managers who have been involved with the adaptive reuse of heritage
buildings. In total, 60 semi-structured interviews were drawn from this stakeholder group to
investigate their current understanding of the sustainability issues associated with the adaptive reuse
of heritage buildings.
Findings – The subsequent data show that despite many positive outcomes in terms of sustainability,
the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings is considered to create many problems; not the least of which
is whether heritage buildings are icons that should be conserved or whether they are in fact eyesores
and unviable for adaptive reuse.
Originality/value – The contribution of heritage buildings to the three tenets of sustainability has
not previously been explored comprehensively and as a result there is a conflict of interest between the
preservation of heritage values and progression of the sustainable urban design agenda.
Keywords Australia, Heritage, Building conservation, Urban regeneration, Sustainability,
Adaptive reuse
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Heritage buildings form an integral part of Australia’s social capital. There is growing
acceptance within Australia that conserving heritage buildings provides significant
economic, cultural and social benefits (Bullen and Love, 2010). According to the
Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH, 2004) heritage buildings provide a
valuable glimpse of the past and lend character to communities and therefore should
be conserved for future generations. The integration of historic conservation with
environmental concerns has become an innate feature of an agenda to support
sustainability (Stubbs, 2004; Bullen and Love, 2010). As part of a wider revitalisation
strategy to promote sustainability within the built environment, many buildings of
cultural and historical significance are being adapted and reused rather than being
subjected to demolition (Ball, 1999; DEH, 2004; Wilkinson and Reed, 2008; Wilkinson
et al., 2009; Bullen and Love, 2009).
To date there has been limited research that has examined the economic benefits of Structural Survey
Vol. 29 No. 5, 2011
heritage buildings (Bullen and Love, 2010). As a result, the retention of heritage pp. 411-421
buildings are often viewed as being “investment sinkholes” with issues associated with r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-080X
social and environment sustainability being ignored. In Western Australia, for DOI 10.1108/02630801111182439
SS example, the City of Perth (2011) has been advocating that significant financial savings
29,5 and returns can be made from the adaptive reuse of historic buildings in an attempt to
preserve the past for the future.
Adaptive reuse may help communities, governments and developers in the quest to
reduce the environmental, social and economic costs of continued urban development
and expansion (Ball, 1999; Wilkinson and Reed, 2008; Bullen and Love, 2009). Adaptive
412 reuse can transform heritage buildings into accessible and useable places as well as
provide the added benefit of regenerating an area in a sustainable manner. Many cities
have begun to realise that reusing heritage buildings is an important part of any
regeneration programme (Ball, 1999). Yet, many building owners and developers still
regard the reuse of heritage buildings as being an unviable option as planning and
building regulations may restrict their functioning (Bullen and Love, 2010). In
addressing this issue, the Property Council of Australia (2005) has advocated that
heritage regulations should require the retention of only the best and most useful
features of an historic building. This paper examines practitioners’ views and
experiences associated with adaptive reuse of heritage buildings within the context of
urban regeneration, conservation and sustainability.

Adaptive reuse and the conservation of heritage buildings

Adaptive reuse involves converting a building to undertake a change of use required
by new or existing owners (Latham, 2000; Wilkinson et al., 2009). The change of use
may require refurbishment and/or complete renovation of existing buildings or
structures. In most States of Australia, adaptive reuse is a process that invariably
involves physically changing the function of a disused or ineffective building (DEH,
2004). Changes to buildings can involve major internal space reorganisation and
service upgrades or replacement. Alternatively, adaptive reuse may simply require
minor restoration works where nothing changes except the building’s functional use.
When adaptive reuse is applied to heritage buildings, it not only retains the building
but conserves the effort, skill and dedication of the original builders (Love and Bullen,
2009). Adaptive reuse also conserves the architectural, social, cultural and historical
values (Latham, 2000). Accordingly Bromley et al. (2005) have advocated that adaptive
reuse is essentially a form of heritage conservation. There has been a shift away from
confining heritage value to prestigious, monumental or historically significant
buildings. Buildings of more vernacular origins such as redundant offices or obsolete
community halls are seen to have heritage value (Hamer, 2000). The practical outcomes
of adaptive reuse and the conceptual values of conservation support the reuse of
heritage buildings as a sustainable strategy. Cooper (2001) suggests that the outcomes
of adaptive reuse include improvements in material and resource efficiency
(environmental sustainability), cost reductions (economic sustainability) and
retention (social sustainability).

Maintaining heritage buildings

The act of conserving parts of cities as history, and then reusing those spaces for a
variety of uses, is being driven by growing calls for urban regeneration (Ball, 1999,
2002; Bullen and Love, 2010). The conservation of heritage buildings has become a key
driver of regeneration (Pendlebury, 2002; Strange and Whitney, 2003). Pickard (1996)
contends that sustainable historic environments should:
. reflect local life;
 . improve quality of life; Adaptive reuse
. maintain local identity, diversity and vitality; of heritage
. minimise the depletion of non-renewal heritage assets; buildings
. develop collective responsibility for heritage assets;
. empower community action and involvement;
413
. provide a robust policy framework for integrating conservation objectives
with the aims of sustainable development more generally; and
. define the capacity by which historic centres can permit change.
In terms of environmental performance, heritage buildings even after adaptive reuse
may not reach the desired standards of new buildings. They may also have reached a
state where adaptive reuse is uneconomical or their layout may be inappropriate for
any change of function, particularly commercial buildings (Wilkinson et al., 2009;
Bullen and Love, 2011a, b). Reusing rather than replacing buildings is generally the
most resource effective strategy to provide accommodation, especially if a conservation
strategy is incorporated into the design (Ball, 1999; Douglas, 2002). The most
successful adaptive reuse projects are those that respect and retain a building’s
heritage significance as well as add a contemporary layer that provides value for
the future. When a building can no longer function with its original use, adaption is
the only way that a building’s fabric heritage significance can be preserved and
maintained. Some State agencies in Australia, such as Western Australia, are enacting
policies for the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings. Such policies contain standard
criteria to ensure that an adaptive reuse project has minimal impact on a building’s
heritage values, such as:
. discouraging “fac¸adism” – that is, gutting the building and retaining its fac¸ade;
. requiring new work to be recognisable as contemporary, rather than a poor
imitation of the original historic style of the building; and
. seeking a new use for the building that is compatible with the immediate area.

Research methodology
The decision-making processes that owners and practitioners are confronted with
when considering adaptive reuse and issues pertaining to sustainability are diverse.
An interpretative research approach was therefore adopted as it 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 building in
terms of its impact on social and natural environments as well as those of an economic
nature.

Data collection
Interviews were chosen as the primary data collection mechanism as they an effective
tool for learning about matters that cannot be directly observed (Taylor and Bogdan,
1998). Interviews were used to understand the views and experiences associated with
adaptive reuse, which allowed a channel for “context” to be captured (Kvale, 1996). The
interview guide is the most widely used format for qualitative interviewing and was
SS adopted for this research (Patton, 1990). In this approach, the interviewer has an
29,5 outline of topics or issues to be covered, but is free to vary the wording and order of the
questions to some extent. The general themes that the interviewer focused on were:
. effectiveness of adaptive reuse of heritage buildings as a strategy to achieve
sustainability;

414
. attributes that make a heritage building suitable or unsuitable for adaptive
reuse;
. impact of various factors on the decision to reuse heritage buildings; and
. the barriers and opportunities surrounding adaptive reuse of heritage buildings.
A total of 60 semi-structured interviews were conducted over a four-month period
with a stakeholder group comprising such as architects, developers and building
managers. Interviewees were chosen for their ability to contribute towards this
study through both tacit and explicit knowledge of adaptive reuse. Individual
representatives from firms from the metropolitan area of Perth were selected
using the technique of stratified random sampling and invited to participate in the
research.
Content analysis was used as the primary analysis technique of the collected data.
In its simplest form this technique is the extraction and categorisation of information
from documents. Inferences from the data can only be drawn from the relationship with
what the data appear to have with their institutional, societal and cultural contexts
(Krippendorf, 1980). The text derived from the interviews was analysed using QSR
NVivo 9.0, which enabled the development of themes and additional data sources and
journal notes to be incorporated into the analysis. 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.

Findings and discussion

The use of the coding mechanism within NVivo enabled a number of criteria to be
identified and quantified. Criteria that were identified as being important reasons for
implementing an adaptive reuse strategy for heritage buildings by interviews were:
“encouraging further conservation” (92 per cent), “enhancing the quality of the built
environment” (78 per cent), “reducing the use of private transport” (76 per cent),
“maintaining cultural identity of a community” (72 per cent). Issues that were
considered to be the most important when deciding whether or not to carry out
conservation of a particular building were the: “need to respond to changes in the
urban environment” (98 per cent), “incorporation of sustainability principles” (95 per
cent) and “need to treat old buildings as renewable resources” (95 per cent).
The interview process required respondents to determine their level of agreement
to a range of statements. All respondents agreed that “enabling a building to
accommodate changes over time increases value”, and “the age of a building does not
necessarily impact on usefulness”. Opinion was equally divided amongst interviewees
pertaining to whether obsolescence of a building was a valid reason for disposal. Adaptive reuse
Similarly, respondents perceived the obsolescence of a building provided the potential of heritage
for refurbishment or redevelopment as well as disposal.
Interviews identified that the most significant outcome considerations of a building buildings
subjected to adaptive reuse were: “ease of access for disabled or elderly”, “ability to
provide a safe and healthy environment”, “convenience of the building location”,
“ability of the building to assimilate future changes” and “how the building fits in with 415
the streetscape”. Incentives were identified as one of the measures that could be used
to encourage building owners and developers to conserve buildings rather than
demolition and redevelop. The incentives that were deemed to be the most persuasive
included “relaxation of building requirements for heritage listed buildings” and
“monetary contributions to construction works”. Development bonuses such as density
and plot ratio bonuses’ and “flexibility in meeting current construction regulations”
were also identified. Noteworthy, “speeding up the planning processes” was considered
the least influential incentive. Interviewees were highly supportive of adaptive
(building) reuse and refurbishment as opposed to demolition and rebuilding. There
appeared to be a great understanding of the concepts relating to the need to initially
plan and design buildings well so that they could be preserved and refitted later in their
lifecycle.

Adaptive reuse decision making

Respondents identified various factors that should be considered during the
feasibility stage of the decision process (Figure 1). Respondents identified that
“cultural significance” (68 per cent) and “heritage significance” (83 per cent) should be

Factors that affect the adaptive reuse decision process

Stakeholder views

Ability of building to adapt

Influence on local economy

Orientation of building

Value to local community

Social sustainability

Environmental sustainability

Economic sustainability

Meeting SD benchmarks

Heritage significance

Life cycle assessment

Cultural significance
Figure 1.
0%

Factors affecting adaptive

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0
10

reuse decision making

Proportion of respondents identifying each factor
SS assessed collaboratively with stakeholders. In addition, the practical aspects of various
29,5 use options should be fully explored while keeping community values and heritage
values in mind.
Feasibility studies should determine whether projected outcomes can meet
sustainability benchmarks and whether demolition and subsequent rebuilding would
increase density and plot ratio. Of them, 74 per cent of respondents perceived it to be
416 necessary to explicitly determine the technical and economic challenges of adaptive
reuse during the feasibility study. In particular, the determination of how existing
components and the intended construction method would maintain the structural
integrity of the building was deemed pivotal. In conjunction, a cost-benefit analysis
that was extended to triple bottom line objectives (including economic, social and
environmental sustainability) was also identified as being required.

Opportunities and barriers of adaptive reuse

A wide range of barriers and opportunities to adaptive reuse were identified in the
interviews (Figures 2 and 3). Although economic considerations were prevalent and of
concern to interviewees, there was evidence of a shift, albeit a subtle one, towards the
other tenets of sustainability. However, an inability to estimate economic viability of
adaptive reuse was considered to be a barrier (53 per cent). This indicates a fairly close
division of opinion regarding the difficulty to estimate the costs of adapting a building
compared with the costs of constructing a new one. However, the difference in opinion
widens when considering environmental and social viability. Here 61 and 77 per cent
identified barriers to adaptive reuse to be an inability to estimate environmental and
social viability, respectively.

Factors considered during adaptive

reuse decisions
Ability to aesthetically fit streetscape
Availability of materials to match existing
Benefits of reuse vs redevelopment
Community value of existing buildings
Compliance with building codes
Creative value compared to redevelopment
Demand for building after adaptive reuse
Heritage council guidelines
Impact on visual amenity
Increasing urban density
Market opportunity due to location
Opportunity for technical innovation
Orientation of building
Planning approval process
Public awareness of adaptive reuse
Viability of recycling existing materials
Figure 2.
0%

%
%

%
%
%
%

%
%
%
0%
10
20

30
40
50
60

70
80
90
10

Barriers to implementing
adaptive reuse Proportion of respondents identifying each
factor as a barrier
 Factors considered during adaptive Adaptive reuse
reuse decisions
of heritage
Ability to aesthetically fit streetscape
Availability of materials to match existing
buildings
Benefits of reuse vs redevelopment
Community value of existing buildings
Compliance with building codes 417
Creative value compared to redevelopment
Demand for building after adaptive reuse
Heritage council guidelines
Impact on visual amenity
Increasing urban density
Market opportunity due to location
Opportunity for technical innovation
Orientation of building
Planning approval process
Public awareness of adaptive reuse
Viability of recycling existing materials
0%

%
%

%
%
%

%
%

%
0%
Figure 3.
10
20

30

40
50
60

70
80

90
10
Benefits of implementing
Proportion of respondents identifying adaptive reuse
each factor as a benefit

Many barriers to adaptive reuse pertain to cost, as a perception existed that it was
more economical to demolish and construct a new building than to reuse. Compliance
with building codes (59 per cent) was deemed to be problematic as they were too rigid
and did not encourage technical innovation to be developed. Adaptive reuse was
perceived to be cost effective by 47 per cent of interviews in most cases but the
availability and price of materials to match existing elements/fixtures/fittings was an
issue of concern. It was perceived that retaining older buildings rather than building
more new ones would create a more aesthetical environment for the community
(58 per cent).
While older commercial buildings often do not support passive environmental
techniques, it was perceived that existing buildings do provide opportunity to test
many new innovative technologies and develop diverse solutions to enhance
sustainability (65 per cent). The location of existing buildings was seen to be a critical
component of market opportunity, but opinion was fairly evenly divided with 54 per cent
seeing it as a barrier and 46 per cent seeing it as an opportunity for adaptive reuse.

Impact of adaptive reuse on sustainability

According to 73 per cent of respondents adaptive reuse would impact sustainability by
reducing the amount of demolition. However, only 61 per cent felt the impact would be
beneficial as shown in Figure 5, while 12 per cent felt it would have a negative impact
as shown in Figure 4. A total of 77 per cent of respondents felt the economic viability of
a building after adaptive reuse would improve and in turn have a positive impact in
terms of sustainability objectives. But it would only be viable if costs and benefits were
factored in over the life of the building. Although adaptive reuse was seen as a
more sustainable option than redevelopment, the decision would be case sensitive, with
SS Sustainability objectives affected by adaptive reuse
29,5 Eco-efficiency of reused building
Economic viability of reused building
Energy efficiency of reused building
Extending building life cycles
418 Less energy for material production
Reduced use of Greenfield sites
Reduction of resource consumption
Retaining sense of place
Retention of visual amenity
Value to local community
Figure 4. Reduced demolition of buildings
Negative effects of
adaptive reuse on
0%

%
0%
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90
10
sustainability objectives
Proportion of respondents identifying affect as negative

Sustainability objectives affected by adaptive reuse

Eco-efficiency of reused building

Economic viability of reused building
Energy efficiency of reused building
Extending building life cycles
Less energy for material production
Reduced use of Greenfield sites
Reduction of resource consumption
Retaining sense of place
Retention of visual amenity
Value to local community

Figure 5. Reduced demolition of buildings

Positive effects of adaptive
0%

%
0%

reuse on sustainability
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90
10

objectives
Proportion of respondents identifying affect as positive

41 per cent of respondents, identifying that decisions needed to be based on options

that lead to the most effective use of land such as increased density. Only 46 per cent of
respondents identifying this factor felt it would have a positive impact on
sustainability. Energy efficiency was identified by 76 per cent of respondents as a
key factor that would affect sustainability. Although 43 per cent of them felt that in
some cases adaptive reuse could inhibit energy efficiency and the opportunity to
increase urban density, it had other benefits in this context such as visual amenity and Adaptive reuse
cultural heritage values. Provided the structure of existing buildings is still functional, of heritage
53 per cent of respondents felt that adaptive reuse should be a prime consideration in
terms of sustainability. The majority of responses emphasised that it must be assessed buildings
on a case-by-case basis, but with an innovative approach the longer term sustainability
of a building should be enhanced by adaptive reuse.
Adaptive reuse was seen to be effective because 75 per cent of the respondents that 419
referred to economic viability, felt the costs to demolish outweighed the costs to
improve the building. Out of the 62 per cent of respondents identifying eco-efficiency as
a factor, 55 per cent referred to case studies that show eco-efficiency of buildings is
increased during adaptive reuse by using efficient heating, insulation and low-impact
materials. It would appear from the respondents generally that utilising existing
buildings through adaptive reuse provides the opportunity to make the total built
environment more aesthetically pleasing and productive, while retaining streetscapes
and our sense of place.

Conclusion
The concept of adaptive reuse of heritage buildings as a component of sustainability
was strongly supported by respondents, but doubts remain about viability, particularly
of economic issues. To a large extent, sustainability of local communities depends on
the sense of place and value they place in their local community. Heritage invests local
communities with a powerful reason to look after their local environment and lead
more sustainable lifestyles as they have a powerful connection to their physical
environment through visual amenity and the intrigue and uniqueness offered by
heritage buildings and streetscapes. People feel a stronger sense of connection with
their local surroundings through heritage, which is quite different to the mentality
associated with new building stock, in that it can be, replicated anywhere and therefore
lends no specific connection to the local environment. Heritage buildings are cultural
icons and their preservation impacts on community well-being, sense of place and
therefore social sustainability. Due to the importance of these factors, it is preferable to
reuse heritage buildings rather than replace them regardless of bad plot ratios and lack
of efficiency. Old buildings can be a visual amenity that provides a sense of connection
with local surroundings through heritage.
The contribution of heritage buildings to the three tenets of sustainability has not
been explored comprehensively and as a result there is a conflict of interest between
the preservation of heritage values and progression of the sustainable urban design
agenda. In some cases it appears that the heritage requirements attached to buildings
may obstruct the use of new materials or techniques needed for adaptive reuse.
Any assessment that considers the reuse of heritage buildings should also
incorporate criteria that ensure the adaptive reuse will not affect heritage values of the
building. Despite presenting many positive outcomes in terms of sustainability, the
adaptive reuse of heritage buildings creates many problems. These tend to concentrate
around the technical difficulties that working on heritage buildings will generate.
Many of the materials and components used in heritage buildings are no longer readily
available and may have to be manufactured to special order. Even if the materials are
obtained there is no guarantee that suitably qualified craftsmen will be available
locally or even nationally. These problems will impact on the economic viability of
carrying out an adaptive reuse project and may prove totally impractical for
developers as an investment. In many cases, the only way that a heritage building will
SS present a viable opportunity as an adaptive refuse project will be if incentives
29,5 are available for developers. The ability to make heritage buildings attractive to
developers as viable reuse projects relies heavily on the introduction of legislation that
reduces building code and planning requirements and offers substantial financial
incentives in the form of tax concessions. The research has highlighted several broad
questions concerning the decision process for the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings
420 not the least of which is whether heritage buildings are icons that should be conserved
or whether they in fact eventually become eyesores that are liabilities.

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), “Reuse potential and vacant industrial premises: revisiting the regeneration issue
in Stoke-on-Trent”, Journal of Property Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 93-110.
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. and Love, P.E.D. (2009), “Residential regeneration and adaptive reuse: learning from
the experiences of Los Angeles”, Structural Survey, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 351-60.
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.
Bullen, P.A. and Love, P.E.D. (2011a), “Factors influencing the adaptive reuse of buildings”,
Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 32-46.
Bullen, P.A. and Love, P.E.D. (2011b), “A new future for the past: a model for adaptive reuse
decision-making”, Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 32-44.
City of Perth (2011), “Heritage program”, available at: www.perth.wa.gov.au/web/Business/
Heritage-Program/ (accessed 17 May 2011).
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 (DEH) (2004), Adaptive Reuse, Commonwealth of
Australia, Canberra.
Douglas, J. (2002), Building Adaption, Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn.
Hamer, D. (2000), “Learning from the past: historic districts and the new urbanism in the United
States”, Planning Perspectives, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 107-22.
Krippendorf, K. (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, Sage, Newbury
Park, CA.
Kvale, S. (1996), Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Latham, D. (2000), Creative Reuse of Buildings, Donhead Publishing, Shaftesbury.
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, CA.
Pendlebury, J. (2002), “Conservation and regeneration: complementary or conflicting processes?
The Case of Grainger Town, Newcastle Upon Tyne”, Planning Practice and Research,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 145-58.
Pickard, R.D. (1996), Conservation in the Built Environment, Addison Wesley Longman, Harlow. Adaptive reuse
Property Council of Australia (2005), “Tax incentives could transform civic and town of heritage
centres”, available at: http://propertycouncil.gravitymax.com.au/nat/page.asp (accessed
19 July 2006). buildings
Strange, I. and Whitney, D. (2003), “The changing roles and purposes of heritage conservation in
the UK”, Planning, Practice and Research, Vol. 18 Nos 2/3, pp. 219-29.
Stubbs, M. (2004), “Heritage-sustainability: developing a methodology for the sustainable 421
appraisal of the historic environment”, Planning Practice and Research, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 285-305.
Taylor, S.J. and Bogdan, R. (1998), Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: The Search for
Meaning, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Wilkinson, S. and Reed, R. (2008), “The business case for incorporating sustainability in office
buildings: the adaptive reuse of existing buildings”, Proceedings of 14th Annual Pacific
Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Pacific Rim Real Estate Society, Kuala Lumpur.
Wilkinson, S., Reed, R. and Kimberley, J. (2009), “Using building adaptive reuse to deliver
sustainability in Australia”, Structural Survey, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 46-61.

Corresponding author
Peter A. Bullen can be contacted at: p.bullen@curtin.edu.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