Adaptability of Buildings: A Critical Review on the Concept Evolution
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Literature Review Approach
2.2. Stages of Systematic Review Protocol
2.2.1. Planning
- Exploring the evolution of the concept and its underpinning theories and interpretations.
- Identifying design enablers for adaptable buildings.
- Identifying recent development of building adaptability and investigating strategies for implementation in light of current trends and technologies.
- Identifying gaps and potential opportunities for future consideration.
- What is meant by adaptability?
- What are the various interpretations of the concept within the scope of built environment?
- Adaptable to what (change factors)?
- What are the types/dimensions of adaptability in buildings?
- What is the difference between adaptability and flexibility?
- How did the concept emerge in the built environment?
- What are the system specifications that make a building adaptable?
- What facilitate a building’s adaptability in terms of design?
- What are the current trends and strategies that promote the implementation of the concept?
- What are the opportunities to improve the adaptability of buildings?
2.2.2. Processing
2.2.3. Analysis
2.2.4. Extraction and Reporting
3. Content Analysis
3.1. Interpreting the Concept of “Adaptability”
3.2. Dimensions and Overlapping Concepts
3.3. Enablers and Promoting Models
3.3.1. The Open Building
3.3.2. Shearing Layers and Building Decomposition
3.3.3. The Circular Economy in Buildings
- Design of Longevity and Durability. Longevity and durability are also discussed as principles of circularity in the built environment [58] as they imply a decreased demand upon primary resources and energy [83]. However, they strictly adhere to adaptability, because a long-life structure without performing required service would be inefficient [84]. Rather, a long-life structure that is adaptable and having the capacity to change its function, reconfigure, and replace its components in response to emerging needs is a genuine application to circularity on ground. A CE-promoted example in this regard is the development of multipurpose facilities of shared use [58]. These facilities combine both strategies of durability and adaptability by having the capability of switching between different functions while maintaining a structural capacity to support those functions. Moreover, strategies of longevity and durability at a building scale are more efficient than they are at a component or material scale. This is because components can be replaced in a building while they themselves are prone to deterioration and most of recycling processes are downcycling to lower quality for lower value allocations [85,86]. However, components’ replacement is mostly disabled in traditional buildings due to the interdependencies and interconnectivities among systems and components that hamper any change, causing significant damage to adjacent components. Still, the durability of the built assets is strongly encouraged by the circular economy [58]. Adaptations in this case can be made by relying on strategies of renovation and refurbishment that aim at extending the useful life of old structures despite being associated with additional material and energy flow. Therefore, designing durable structures should necessarily imply a lifecycle thinking [87] in order to promote retention of end-of-life value (e.g., through selective deconstruction and recycling) and facilitate components replacement. This calls for “Shearing Layers” decomposition of a building system and for the separation of an “Open Building” between the base building of long life and the fit-out/infill that goes through frequent changes. The “Open Building” was examined by Zuidema [88] as the base for CE buildings. Long-life products and building components in the circular economy are considered to require particular attention by promoting synergies between circular economy principles and design for adaptability [57]. The synergies in this case aim at facilitating the direct reuse of durable products by allowing their reincorporation into multiple building systems, which result in products of multiple lifecycles (slowing the loop). Durability and longevity strategies should associate adaptability also in order to accommodate technological upgrade [58].
- Design for Deconstruction and Disassembly. Design for disassembly is the most discussed strategy in the discourse of circular building design. It implies that all materials and products used at every level in a building can be neatly disassembled and recovered. By this means, building materials and components have the potential to be reused to their highest extent [89]. In addition, the direct reuse of components contributes to both waste reduction and energy savings [2] and would eventually lead to have multiple buildings with multiple lives (closing the loop) and extending drastically the lifecycle of those components (slowing the loop). Adaptable building is also discussed by the literature as a building in which particular components can be changed in response to external factors, for instance users or surrounding environment [12]. In this respect, Guy and Ciarimboli [74] suggest that designing for disassembly (DfD) goes hand-in-hand with principles of adaptability. Graham [49] likewise lists designing for deconstruction as a key strategy for adaptability. Durmisevic and Brouwer [6] find a strong relationship between adaptability and disassembly through the concept of “Reversible Building”. Durmisevic [65] identifies the scale of building reversibility as a key indicator of circular building that can be figured by assessing the adaptive capacity on three levels (spatial, structural, material) and the reuse potential on three levels (building, system/component, element). When components are designed for disassembly and reuse, a further advantage can be created towards sustainability [12], particularly in reducing costs and environmental impact [3]. By this means, building materials and components have the potential to be reused to their highest extent [89]. The REMs pilot model developed within the BAMB project is an important example of a reversible construction system fully designed for disassembly and to support multiple use scenarios. The model had been assembled and disassembled six times with almost zero waste [90]. Design for disassembly is a strategy that depends to a high extent on the integration of components [4] and how easy they are reachable for safe removal and replacement. In this concern, Slaughter [7] argues that minimizing interactions among systems’ components and creating specified zones for improved physical access to systems are strategies to further promote adaptability. However, this cannot be achieved in old typical buildings due to the inevitable interactions among systems’ components that restrain a safe recovery of components and materials of reuse potential. Still, some other strategies may help to retain maximum possible value from those structures, for example, by performing demolition audits for selective deconstruction. The utilization of demountable connections and prefabricated assemblies is an important enabler for disassembly [2,50], ensuring recovery of materials that are mostly reusable [91] and helping to keep the components of different functions independent from one another [49]. DfD goes beyond the life of a building by addressing the destination of building materials and components [49], accounting for the end-of-life scenarios of buildings at the early design stages [2] that can be an added value to adaptability.
- Standardization and Modularity. Standardization is also promoted by the circular economy as an inevitable strategy to promote the reuse of products and materials in multiple structures without essential losses [57]. Meanwhile, modularity has been widely discussed in the literature as an important enabler of adaptability [2,7,8,74,92]. Designing modular components and building products facilitates the process of disassembly and reuse, and therefore the adaptability [93]. They also reduce the costs [49], waste, and ecological footprint. Replicability of modular units allows for design simplicity, which enables physical modification, spatial rearrangement, reconfiguration, repurpose, and expansion. In this respect, prefabricated modular units create an important example providing further value for reduction, reusability, adaptability, and recyclability of their components [94]. Standardization can be achieved at three levels: material, component, and connection. However, each level has a distinct advantage. For example, standardized materials allow for more efficient recycling while standardized components create specific conditions for connections [57]. Connections in this context grasp major attention due to their importance as vital elements [50,64] in facilitating the change by enhancing the efficiency of modularity through ensuring easy removal and replacement of standardized components [2]. Standardization of connections could be of great value as it exempts the components from being standardized [57]. The use of standardized grids and modularization also facilitates component interchangeability, which is seen as a great enabler of adaptability [7], particularly in commercial office buildings where adaptability is a main stream [4].
- Material passports for facilitated reuse. Choosing adequate materials can have a potential influence on adaptability values [2,74]. They are also seen as an important pillar to achieve circularity in building design. Geldermans [57] found that circularity values (thus adaptability values as well) come up when specified intrinsic properties (material and product characteristics) cross with relational properties (building design and use characteristics). What were found to be the right options in the process of materials selection are new or reused biobased or technical materials that can be reused to their highest degree, or a hybrid solution of those two [89]. Those also have to be of high functional quality and of sustainable nontoxic origin [57]. Buildings containing hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos) have less potential for adaptive reuse due to the high risk and elevated costs associated with extraction or containment [2]. Conversely, durable nontoxic materials are important enablers for adaptive reuse projects where they contribute to a prolonged functional life of a building and reuse of its components in other projects [2]. Given all that, new materials must be developed to allow further opportunities for reuse and adaptations of buildings [80]. The use of secondary materials is an important enabler for the waste hierarchy (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle). Yet, the lack of market mechanisms to support recovery is a critical challenge raised by different stakeholders [95]. In addition, concerns about quality of secondary materials and their adequacy for reuse are perceived as additional challenges in this regard, especially when those are salvaged from old buildings. As for the connections, the use of mechanical connections rather than chemical ones helps to ensure a proper level of independence between functions of building layers and components [49].
3.3.4. Design for Resilience
- Robustness: is the ability to withstand the impacts of stressors and external disturbances without major damage or functional failure. Robustness ensures the durability of the structure so that it is strong enough to cater multiple uses and loading scenarios. Durable claddings and foundations can significantly facilitate adaptability, increasing therefore the potential of conversion over demolition [3]. Overdesigning structural capacity is an enabling strategy for adaptability in buildings [41] and meet future needs [109].
- Redundancy: is the capacity spared intentionally to accommodate upcoming disturbance. In this sense, it includes diversity of solutions to address a need or perform a certain function [110]. Redundancy assumes to provide alternatives to support the main functions of a system if the primary solution is disrupted, such as backup generators and multiple water supply systems for a building. The overcapacity of systems and building elements supports changes scenarios, making buildings more adaptable.
- Reflectiveness: consists of constantly evolving systems with the ability to modify standards based on emerging conditions rather than pursuing permanent responses to maintain the original state [110].
- Resourcefulness/Rapidity: is the capacity of rapidly meeting needs and reaching goals in multiple ways under a certain stress or during a shocking event. Adaptability being a proactive attribute inherited into a system allows for rapid changes.
- Longevity: Combining the flexibility of use with the desired structural robustness under certain conditions contributes to high levels of durability and longevity, which are key strategies of resilience that contribute to enhance sustainability as well [107].
- Passive survivability: Designing or even renovating buildings to be resilient enough to handle severe weather conditions or climate events relies on the ability to sustain prolonged loss of power via energy load minimization and preserve livable ambience through passive survival strategies. Employing passive measures into buildings contribute to increase adaptability [111]. Key potential methods to raise buildings adaptability to climate change pertain the general design of buildings, optimized ventilation, air conditioning systems, and user attitude [111]. Passive strategies include optimized ventilation, thermal massiveness, passive cooling systems (e.g., passive shading systems) [112], optimal orientation, green surfaces (e.g., green roofs) [86], and renewable energy systems. These strategies allow a building to operate with minimal external inputs [107]. The impact of climate change on buildings makes it more challenging to achieve a thermal comfort without extra energy consumption due to extremely high temperatures [111]. Energy consumption reduction measures contribute to a better behavior of buildings in this case.
4. Discussion and Open Questions
- How can design for adaptability be enhanced in terms of incentives, policies, processes, and stakeholder engagement (process adaptability)? This includes the role of process flexibility and multi nature enablers along the whole value chain to facilitate implementation of design enablers.
- What is the role of modern-day technology and intelligent systems in promoting existing design practices, assessing performance, and managing information throughout the whole lifecycle of a building? In this regard, multiple authors emphasized the role of BIM in facilitating the future adaptability of buildings, allowing access to more efficient and accurate information regarding the construction process, materials properties, repair and maintenance, and deconstruction planning [80]. However, some studies still perceive that the use of BIM for such purposes is quite challenging and requires further improvements to achieve further efficiency [67]. Modeling of various scenarios relates to different variables to choose the most efficient adaptability solution, e.g., in [115].
- To what extent can adaptability be implemented into existing buildings, bearing in mind they constitute a large part of future stock? Extending the life of the existing stock as a hub of anthropogenic materials and embodied energy through more efficient reuse is a global concern derived by increasing demand volatility together with sustainable development agenda [120].
- Potential future research may also address the temporary adaptations of spaces posed by the actual challenges due to the current COVID-19 emergency. The current challenge of COVID-19 further highlights the necessity of creating buildings of high response capacity to changeable circumstances, environments, and demography [41,121], which should be examined in consideration of other aspects that might affect the new normality of the built environment in post-COVID-19 society.
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Manewa, A.; Siriwardena, M.; Ross, A.; Madanayake, U. Adaptable Buildings for Sustainable Built Environment. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2016, 6, 139–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ross, B.E.; Chen, D.A.; Conejos, S.; Khademi, A. Enabling Adaptable Buildings: Results of a Preliminary Expert Survey. Procedia Eng. 2015, 145, 420–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Russell, P.; Moffatt, S. Assessing Buildings for Adaptability—Annex 31- Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings. 2001. Available online: https://www.iea-ebc.org/Data/publications/EBC_Annex_31_Assessing_Building.pdf (accessed on 29 June 2020).
- Gosling, J.; Sassi, P.; Naim, M.; Lark, R. Adaptable Buildings: A Systems Approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2013, 7, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinder, J.; Schmidt III, R.; Saker, J. Stakeholder Perspectives on Developing More Adaptable Buildings. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2013, 31, 440–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durmisevic, E.; Brouwer, J. Design Aspects of Decomposable Building Structures; Inhouse publishing: Rotterdam, Netherlands, 2002; p. 23. [Google Scholar]
- Slaughter, E.S. Design Strategies to Increase Building Flexibility. Build. Res. Inf. 2001, 29, 208–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arge, K. Adaptable Office Buildings: Theory and Practice. Facilities 2005, 23, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heidrich, O.; Kamara, J.; Maltese, S.; Re Cecconi, F.; Dejaco, M.C. A Critical Review of the Developments in Building Adaptability. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2017, 35, 284–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kissel, M.; Schrieverhoff, P.; Lindemann, U. Design for Adaptability—Identifying Potential for Improvement on an Architecture Basis. In Proceedings of the Nord Design Conference 2012, Aalborg Øst, Denmark, 22–24 August 2012; p. 11. [Google Scholar]
- Kendall, S.; Ando, M. Theory and Methods in Support of Adaptable Buildings. In Proceedings of the Action for Sustainability Conference, Tokyo, Japan, 27–29 September 2005; p. 4. [Google Scholar]
- Ismail, Z.; Rahim, A.A. Adaptability and Modularity in Housing: A Case Study of Raines Court and Next2; International Islamic University Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2011; pp. 167–186. [Google Scholar]
- Honold, C.; Leistner, S.; Roth, D.; Binz, H.; Sobek, W. Method Toolbox for the Multidisciplinary Planning and Development of Adaptive Buildings. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, Cambridge, UK, 21–23 August 2019; pp. 169–178. [Google Scholar]
- Conejos, S.; Langston, C.; Smith, J. AdaptSTAR Model: A Climate-Friendly Strategy to Promote Built Environment Sustainability. Habitat Int. 2013, 37, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Almeida Biolchini, J.C.; Mian, P.G.; Natali, A.C.C.; Conte, T.U.; Travassos, G.H. Scientific Research Ontology to Support Systematic Review in Software Engineering. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2007, 21, 133–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Briner, R.B.; Denyer, D. Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis as a Practice and Scholarship Tool. Handb. Evid. Based Manag. Co. Classr. Res. 2012, 112–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petticrew, M.; Roberts, H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2006; ISBN 1-4051-2110-6. [Google Scholar]
- Higgins, J.; Green, S. (Eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series; The Cochrane Collaboration: London, UK, 2008; ISBN 978-0-470-71218-4. [Google Scholar]
- Carvalho, M.M.; Fleury, A.; Lopes, A.P. An Overview of the Literature on Technology Roadmapping (TRM): Contributions and Trends. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2013, 80, 1418–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morioka, S.N.; de Carvalho, M.M. A Systematic Literature Review towards a Conceptual Framework for Integrating Sustainability Performance into Business. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 136, 134–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adapt, Adaptable, Adaptability. The American Heritage 2011. Available online: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/adaptability (accessed on 19 November 2020).
- Haberfellner, R.; de Weck, O. Agile Systems Engineering Versus Agile Systems Engineering. In Proceedings of the INCOSE International Symposium, INCOSE, Rochester, NY, USA, 28–30 September 2005; pp. 1449–1465. [Google Scholar]
- Gu, P.; Xue, D.; Nee, A.Y.C. Adaptable Design: Concepts, Methods, and Applications. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 2009, 223, 1367–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinder, J.A.; Schmidt, R.; Austin, S.A.; Gibb, A.; Saker, J. What Is Meant by Adaptability in Buildings? Facilities 2016, 35, 2–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Habraken, N.J. Design for Flexibility. Build. Res. Inf. 2008, 36, 290–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Till, J.; Schneider, T. Flexible Housing: The Means to the End. ARQ Archit. Res. Q. 2005, 9, 287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Remøy, H.; de Jong, P.; Schenk, W. Adaptable Office Buildings. Prop. Manag. 2011, 29, 443–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fricke, E.; Schulz, A.P. Design for Changeability (DfC): Principles to Enable Changes in Systems throughout Their Entire Lifecycle. Syst. Eng. 2005, 8, 342–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidt, R.; Eguchi, T.; Austin, S.; Gibb, A. What Is the Meaning of Adaptability in the Building Industry? In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Open and Sustainable Buildings, Bilbao, Spain, 17–19 May 2010; pp. 227–236. [Google Scholar]
- Addis, W.; Schouten, J. Principles of Design for Deconstruction to Facilitate Reuse and Recycling; Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA): London, UK, 2004; Volume 607, ISBN 978-0-86017-607-7. [Google Scholar]
- Douglas, J. Building Adaptation; Butterworth and Heinemann: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Gijsbers, R. Towards Adaptability in Structures to Extend the Functional Lifespan of Buildings Related to Flexibility in Future Use of Space. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Adaptable Building Structures (Adaptables 2006), Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 3–5 July 2006; Volume 1, pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO 21929-1:2011–Sustainability in Building Construction—Sustainability Indicators—Part 1: Framework for the Development of Indicators and a Core Set of Indicators for Buildings; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Geraedts, R. FLEX 4.0, a Practical Instrument to Assess the Adaptive Capacity of Buildings. In Proceedings of the Sustainable Built Environment Tallinn and Helsinki Conference (SBE16): Build Green and Renovate Deep, Tallinn, Estonia, 5–7 October 2016; Kurnitski, J., Ed.; Volume 96, pp. 568–579. [Google Scholar]
- Agha, R.H.M.; Kamara, J.M. Adaptations in Traditional Courtyard Houses in Baghdad, Iraq. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2017, 35, 348–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kamara, J.M.; Heidrich, O.; Tafaro, V.E.; Maltese, S.; Dejaco, M.C.; Re Cecconi, F. Change Factors and the Adaptability of Buildings. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beisi, J. Adaptable Housing or Adaptable People? Experience in Switzerland Gives a New Answer to the Questions of Housing Adaptability. Archit. Comport./Archit. Behav. 1995, 11, 139–162. [Google Scholar]
- Schmidt, R.; Austin, S.; Brown, D. Designing Adaptable Buildings. In Proceedings of the Design Society Conference, Greenville, NC, USA, 12–13 October 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Leaman, A.; Bordass, B.; Cassels, S. Flexibility and Adaptability in Buildings: The “Killer” Variables. Lond. Build. Use Stud. 1998, 18. [Google Scholar]
- Shahi, S.; Esnaashary Esfahani, M.; Bachmann, C.; Haas, C. A Definition Framework for Building Adaptation Projects. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 63, 102345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blakstad, S.H. A Strategic Approach to Adaptability in Office Buildings; Norwegian University of Science and Technology: Norwegian, Norway, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Malakouti, M.; Faizi, M.; Hosseini, S.-B.; Norouzian-Maleki, S. Evaluation of Flexibility Components for Improving Housing Quality Using Fuzzy TOPSIS Method. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 22, 154–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spaans, M.; Waterhout, B. Building up Resilience in Cities Worldwide—Rotterdam as Participant in the 100 Resilient Cities Programme. Cities 2017, 61, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brancart, S.; Paduart, A.; Vergauwen, A.; Vandervaeren, C.; Laet, L.D.; Temmerman, N.D. Transformable Structures: Materialising Design for Change. Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodynamics 2017, 12, 357–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Herthogs, P.; Debacker, W.; Tunçer, B.; De Weerdt, Y.; De Temmerman, N. Quantifying the Generality and Adaptability of Building Layouts Using Weighted Graphs: The SAGA Method. Buildings 2019, 9, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Beadle, K.; Gibb, A.; Austin, S.; Fuster, A.; Madden, P. Adaptable Futures: Sustainable Aspects of Adaptable Buildings. In Proceedings of the Annual ARCOM Conference, Cardiff, UK, 1–3 September 2008; Volume 11, pp. 1–3. [Google Scholar]
- Hudec, M.; Rollová, L. Adaptability in the Architecture of Sport Facilities. Procedia Eng. 2016, 161, 1393–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Graham, P. Design for Adaptability—An Introduction to The Principles And Basic Strategies. Environ. Des. Guide 2005, 1–9. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/26148326 (accessed on 26 October 2020).
- Andrade, J.B.; Bragança, L. Assessing Buildings’ Adaptability at Early Design Stages. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2019; Volume 225. [Google Scholar]
- Kendall, S. Reflections on the History and Future of the Open Building Network, CIB W104 Open Build Implement. 2015. Available online: http://open-building.org/archives/Reflections_on_the_History_and_Future_of_Open%20Building_and_the_OB_Network.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2020).
- Re Cecconi, F.; Moretti, N.; Maltese, S.; Dejaco, M.; Kamara, J.; Heidrich, O. A Rating System for Building Resilience. TECHNE 2018, 358–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foster, G.; Kreinin, H. A Review of Environmental Impact Indicators of Cultural Heritage Buildings: A Circular Economy Perspective. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 043003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidt, R.; Deamer, J.; Austin, S. Understanding Adaptability Through Layer Dependencies. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 11), Impacting Society through Engineering Design, Copenhagen, Denmark, 15–18 August 2011; Volume 5, p. 13. [Google Scholar]
- Sinclair, B.R.; Mousazadeh, S.; Safarzadeh, G. Agility, Adaptability + Appropriateness: Conceiving, Crafting and Constructing an Architecture of the 21st Century. Arcc J. Archit. Res. 2012, 9, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Habraken, N.J. Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing; Praeger Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1972; ISBN 978-0-85139-625-5. [Google Scholar]
- Geldermans, R.J. Design for Change and Circularity—Accommodating Circular Material & Product Flows in Construction. Energy Procedia 2016, 96, 301–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ness, D.A.; Xing, K. Toward a Resource-Efficient Built Environment: A Literature Review and Conceptual Model. J. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, 572–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juan, Y.; Cheng, Y.-C. Improving Building Longevity, Adaptability, and Sustainability: Examination of Multi-Unit Residential Building Regulations in Taiwan. Civ. Eng. J. Tehran 2018, 4, 394–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, R.; Follini, C.; Pan, W.; Linner, T.; Bock, T. A Case Study on Regenerating Informal Settlements in Cairo Using Affordable and Adaptable Building System. Procedia Eng. 2017, 196, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Askar, R.; Rodrigues, A.L.; Bragança, L.; Pinheiro, D. From Temporary to Permanent; A Circular Approach for Post-Disaster Housing Reconstruction. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 225, 012032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kokas, B.; Balogh, J.; Borsos, Á.; Medvegy, G.; Bachmann, B. Structural Adaptability of Residential Buildings: Sustainable Concepts in Hungarian Housing. Wit Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2019, 238, 593–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibb, A.; Austin, S.; Dainty, A.; Davidson, N.; Pasquire, C. Towards Adaptable Buildings: Pre-Configuration and Re-Configuration—Two Case Studies. In Proceedings of the The Transformation of the Industry: Open Building Manufacturing, Doelen Congress Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 25–26 April 2007; pp. 149–159. [Google Scholar]
- Beadle, K.; Gibb, A.; Austin, S.; Madden, P.; Fuster, A. Adaptable Futures: Setting the Agenda. In Proceedings of the 1st I3CON International Conference, Loughborough, UK, 14–16 May 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Durmisevic, E. Dynamic and Circular Buildings by High Transformation and Reuse Capacity. In Proceedings of the Circular Economy Innovation and Design Conference, Surrey, UK, 7–8 November 2016; p. 15. [Google Scholar]
- Pomponi, F.; Moncaster, A. Circular Economy for the Built Environment: A Research Framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 710–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Isaac, S.; Bock, T.; Stoliar, Y. A Methodology for the Optimal Modularization of Building Design. Autom. Constr. 2016, 65, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duffy, F. Measuring Building Performance. Facilities 1990, 8, 17–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brand, S. How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built; Penguin Books: New York, NY, USA, 1994; ISBN 978-0-14-013996-9. [Google Scholar]
- Schmidt, R.; Austin, S. Adaptable Architecture: Theory and Practice, 1st ed.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2016; ISBN 978-0-415-52257-1. [Google Scholar]
- Hofer, A.P.; Halman, J.I.M. Complex Products and Systems: Potential from Using Layout Platforms. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 2004, 18, 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levandowski, C.E.; Jiao, J.R.; Johannesson, H. A Two-Stage Model of Adaptable Product Platform for Engineering-to-Order Configuration Design. J. Eng. Des. 2015, 26, 220–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koh, E.; Keller, K.; Eckert, C.M.; Clarkson, P.J. Component Classification: A Change Perspective. In Proceedings of the 9th International DSM Conference, Munich, Germany, 16–18 October 2007; pp. 337–348. [Google Scholar]
- Guy, B.; Ciarimboli, N. Design for Disassembly in the Built Environment: A Guide to Closed-Loop Design and Building; The Pennsylvania State University, Hamer Center: State College, Pennsylvania, USA, 2008; p. 69. [Google Scholar]
- ARUP. The Circular Economy in the Built Environment; ARUP: London, UK, 2016; p. 94. [Google Scholar]
- Ellen MacArthur Foundation Towards the Circular Economy Vol. 1: Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition; Towards the Circular Economy; Ellen MacArthur Foundation: Cowes, UK, 2013; p. 98.
- Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Hultink, E.J. The Circular Economy—A New Sustainability Paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 143, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Smol, M.; Kulczycka, J.; Henclik, A.; Gorazda, K.; Wzorek, Z. The Possible Use of Sewage Sludge Ash (SSA) in the Construction Industry as a Way towards a Circular Economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 95, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geldermans, B.; Tenpierik, M.; Luscuere, P. Circular and Flexible Infill Concepts: Integration of the Residential User Perspective. Sustainability 2019, 11, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klinge, A.; Roswag-Klinge, E.; Radeljic, L.; Lehmann, M. Strategies for Circular, Prefab Buildings from Waste Wood. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 225, 012052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, H.-M.; Zhou, R.; Ulianov, C. Numerical Prediction and Corresponding Circular Economy Approaches for Resource Optimisation and Recovery of Underground Structures. Urban Rail Transit 2020, 6, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Schoenmakere, M.; Gillabel, J.; European Environment Agency. Circular by Design: Products in the Circular Economy; European Environment Agency: København, Denmark, 2017; p. 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boulding, K.E. The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth. In Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy; Jarret, H., Ed.; Resources for the future, Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1966; Volume 1, pp. 3–14. [Google Scholar]
- Kohler, N.; Yang, W. Long-Term Management of Building Stocks. Build. Res. Inf. 2007, 35, 351–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Braungart, M.; McDonough, W.; Bollinger, A. Cradle-to-Cradle Design: Creating Healthy Emissions—A Strategy for Eco-Effective Product and System Design. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 1337–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trovato, M.R.; Nocera, F.; Giuffrida, S. Life-Cycle Assessment and Monetary Measurements for the Carbon Footprint Reduction of Public Buildings. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cooper, T. Slower Consumption Reflections on Product Life Spans and the “Throwaway Society”. J. Ind. Ecol. 2005, 9, 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuidema, R.H. Open Building as the Basis for Circular Economy Buildings. In Proceedings of the Future of Open Building Conference, Zürich, Switzerland, 9–11 September 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Kanters, J. Circular Building Design: An Analysis of Barriers and Drivers for a Circular Building Sector. Buildings 2020, 10, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reversible Experience Modules (REMs). Available online: https://www.bamb2020.eu/topics/pilot-cases-in-bamb/rem/ (accessed on 5 May 2021).
- Akanbi, L.A.; Oyedele, L.O.; Akinade, O.O.; Ajayi, A.O.; Davila Delgado, M.; Bilal, M.; Bello, S.A. Salvaging Building Materials in a Circular Economy: A BIM-Based Whole-Life Performance Estimator. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 129, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webb, R.S.; Kelly, J.R.; Thomson, D.S. Building Services Component Reuse: An FM Response to the Need for Adaptability. Facilities 1997, 15, 316–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Geldermans, B.; Rosen-Jacobson, L. Circular Material & Product Flows in Buildings. TUDelft 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minunno, R.; O’Grady, T.; Morrison, G.; Gruner, R.; Colling, M. Strategies for Applying the Circular Economy to Prefabricated Buildings. Buildings 2018, 8, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Adams, K.T.; Osmani, M.; Thorpe, T.; Thornback, J. Circular Economy in Construction: Current Awareness, Challenges and Enablers. Waste Resour. Manag. 2017, 170, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meerow, S.; Newell, J.P.; Stults, M. Defining Urban Resilience: A Review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 147, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, P.; Stead, D. Understanding the Notion of Resilience in Spatial Planning: A Case Study of Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Cities 2013, 35, 200–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, J.; Copertaro, B.; Sangelantoni, L.; Zhang, X.; Suo, H.; Guan, X. An Early-Stage Analysis of Climate-Adaptive Designs for Multi-Family Buildings under Future Climate Scenario: Case Studies in Rome, Italy and Stockholm, Sweden. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 27, 100972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rockow, Z.R.; Ross, B.; Black, A.K. Review of Methods for Evaluating Adaptability of Buildings. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2019, 37, 273–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beermann, M. Linking Corporate Climate Adaptation Strategies with Resilience Thinking. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 836–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leichenko, R. Climate Change and Urban Resilience. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2011, 3, 164–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juliardi, R.D.; Misnan, M.S.; Khalid, A.G.; Haron, L. Recognizing of Building Components to Achieve Green Performance for Renovation and Retrofitting Works. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2019; Volume 353. [Google Scholar]
- Suykens, C.; Priest, S.J.; van Doorn-Hoekveld, W.J.; Thuillier, T.; van Rijswick, M. Dealing with Flood Damages: Will Prevention, Mitigation, and Ex Post Compensation Provide for a Resilient Triangle? Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Conejos, S.; Chew, M.Y.L.; Yung, E.H.K. The Future Adaptivity of Nineteenth Century Heritage Buildings. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2017, 35, 332–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du Plessis, C.; Brandon, P. An Ecological Worldview as Basis for a Regenerative Sustainability Paradigm for the Built Environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alfraidi, Y.; Boussabaine, A.H. Design Resilient Building Strategies in Face of Climate Change. Int. J. Civ. Environ. Struct. Constr. Archit. Eng. 2015, 9, 23–28. [Google Scholar]
- Phillips, R.; Troup, L.; Fannon, D.; Eckelman, M.J. Do Resilient and Sustainable Design Strategies Conflict in Commercial Buildings? A Critical Analysis of Existing Resilient Building Frameworks and Their Sustainability Implications. Energy Build. 2017, 146, 295–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vassigh, S. Complexity of Sustainable and Resilient Building Design and Urban Development. In Sustainability and Social Responsibility of Accountability Reporting Systems; Çalıyurt, K.T., Said, R., Eds.; Accounting, Finance, Sustainability, Governance & Fraud: Theory and Application; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 65–79. ISBN 978-981-10-3210-3. [Google Scholar]
- Marmot, A. Educational Innovation through Building Adaptation. Archit. Des. 2017, 87, 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ARUP. City-Resilience-Framework; The Rockefeller Foundation: London, UK, 2014; p. 24. [Google Scholar]
- Kadhim-Abid, A.L.; Baran, I.; Bliuc, I. Adaptability of Buildings to Climate Change and Ensuring Comfort Under Summer Conditions. Bull. Polytech. Inst. JassyConstr. Archit. Sect. 2014, 60, 151–162. [Google Scholar]
- Nocera, F.; Castagneto, F.; Gagliano, A. Passive House as Temporary Housing after Disasters. REPQJ 2020, 18, 42–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Battisti, A.; Persiani, S.G.L.; Crespi, M. Review and Mapping of Parameters for the Early Stage Design of Adaptive Building Technologies through Life Cycle Assessment Tools. Energies 2019, 12, 1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Honold, C.; Binz, H.; Roth, D. Technical Planning Tasks and Participants Involved in Planning Adaptive Buildings. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, Vancouver, ON, Canada, 21–27 August 2017; Design Society: Glasgow, UK, 2017; Volume 1, pp. 131–140. [Google Scholar]
- Martani, C.; Cattarinussi, L.; Adey, B.T. A New Process for the Evaluation of the Net-Benefit of Flexible Ground-Floor Ceiling in the Face of Use Transition Uncertainty. The Application Case of an Office Building in London. J. Build. Eng. 2018, 15, 156–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stroetmann, R.; Huettig, L. Sustainable Steel and Composite Constructions for Multifunctional Commercial Buildings. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Steel-Concrete Composite Structures (ASCCS 2018), València, Spain, 27–29 June 2018; pp. 609–616. [Google Scholar]
- Gorgorova, Y.V.; Sarkisyants, M.G. Dynamic Architecture as Reflection of a Modern Information Society. Mater. Sci. Forum 2018, 931, 699–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dietrich, U.; Posselt, M. Sustainable Architecture: Building Design Method Integrating User?S Comfort, Adaptive Building, Passive Optimized Building and Building Integrated PV—Experiences from a University Course. Wit Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2017, 223, 185–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warsewa, A.; Böhm, M.; Guerra, F.; Wagner, J.L.; Haist, T.; Tarín, C.; Sawodny, O. Self-Tuning State Estimation for Adaptive Truss Structures Using Strain Gauges and Camera-Based Position Measurements. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2020, 143, 106822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vimpari, J.; Junnila, S. Theory of Valuing Building Life-Cycle Investments. Build. Res. Inf. 2016, 44, 345–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kinnane, O.; Grey, T.; Dyer, M. Adaptable Housing Design for Climate Change Adaptation. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Eng. Sustain. 2016, 170, 249–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Protocol Stages | Protocol Steps | Research Aspects |
---|---|---|
1. Planning | Background to review | Problem: building obsolescence due to emerging needs and contextual changes. |
Rationale: building adaptability has provided multiple strategies to address multiple challenges related to changes of contextual conditions. | ||
Initial RQ: what makes adaptability of buildings essential in addressing change? | ||
Objectives statement | Primary objective: 1—Exploring the evolution of the concept and its underpinning theories and interpretations. 2—Identifying design enablers for adaptable buildings. 3—Identifying recent development of building adaptability and investigating strategies for implementation in the lights of current trends and technologies. 4—Identifying gaps and potential opportunities for future consideration. | |
Subquestions:
| ||
2. Processing | Criteria for selecting studies | Context: built environment, particularly individual buildings and buildings’ components Interventions, mechanisms, and outcomes: strategies, theories, practical examples, concepts, principles, guidelines, recommendations Types of studies: both qualitative and quantitative |
Search strategy for identification of studies | Databases: ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and Science Direct (Table 2) Timeframe: 2015 to present time of the study Keywords: adaptable building, adaptive building, adaptability of buildings, building adaptability, building adaptation, adaptive reuse, design for adaptability Language: English only Article type: indexed journal papers, conference proceedings, books, book chapters. Gray literature: included | |
3. Analysis | Eligibility | Inclusion/exclusion criteria: (Table 3) Number of reviewers screening the articles: 3 |
Quality appraisal | The quality of papers is assessed by the three reviewers and the paper is included when approved by at least two of them | |
4. Extraction and Reporting | Data collection | Full text of eligible articles is screened and analyzed; meanwhile, more sources and studies are added at this stage. The data extraction corresponds to three themes: 1. concept interpretation, 2. dimensions and overlapping concepts, 3. promoting models and design enablers |
Results synthesis | Type of synthesis: interpretation of results under descriptive and exploratory analysis of the bibliographical research content |
Filters | Databases | ||
---|---|---|---|
Web of Science | Scopus | Science Direct | |
Search in | Topic field that includes Keywords, Abstract, Title And Topic | Article Title, Abstract, Keywords | Title, Abstract or Author-Specified Keywords |
Categories |
|
|
|
Article type |
|
|
|
Language | English | English | English |
Timeframe | 2015 to time of study | 2015 to time of study | 2015 to time of study |
Criteria | Inclusion | Exclusion |
---|---|---|
Article type | Primary and secondary literature resources including journal papers, conference proceedings, book chapters, editorials, abstracts | - |
Accessibility | Online availability of full text, or obtained by requesting full texts from authors | Inaccessibility to full text |
Research scope | Built environment, particularly buildings and buildings components | Any other field |
Language | English | Any other language |
Timeframe | 2015 to time of study | 2015 to time of study |
Building Typology | Definition | Type of Change | Motives | Sources |
---|---|---|---|---|
Housing | Adaptable housing is the one that can adapt to users’ changing physical needs, in particular as they get older or lose their mobility | Accessibility, furniture (spatial) | Users’ physical restrictions | [27] |
Office building | Adaptability is a mean of increasing usability and extending buildings functional lifespan | Change of use | Long-term vacant office buildings | [28] |
Office building | Adaptability describes a building of 1. multifunctional use (generality); 2. built-in possibilities to rearrange, take away, or add elements (flexibility); 3. possibility of division into different functional units or extendibility (elasticity) | Change of use or function, spatial arrangements, change of size | Rapid change in private and public organizations, building redundancy | [8] |
General | Adaptability features a system’s ability to adapt itself towards changing environments | Interior changes | Varying operating conditions | [29] |
General | Adaptable architecture is “an architecture from which specific components can be changed in response to external stimuli, for example the users or environment” | Spatial flexibility and constructional openness | Changes both in the social, economic, and physical surroundings, and in the needs and expectations of occupants | [12] (p. 167) |
General | “The capacity of a building to accommodate effectively the evolving demands of its context, thus maximizing value through life” | Spatial, structural, and service strategies | Changing operational parameters over time | [30] |
General | “A building that has been designed with thought of how it might be easily altered to prolong its life” | - | Building obsolescence | [31] (p. 8) |
General | Building adaptation as the ability of a building to fit within new conditions or needs by means of reuse or upgrading | Change in performance for existing buildings | - | [32] |
General | Structural adaptability is “The capacity of the building structure to be able to undergo changes to the structure itself, with or without only small consequences for the remaining building storeys” | Structural | Structural obsolescence and inflexibility leading to economic unviability | [33] (p. 2) |
General | “The ease with which buildings can be physically modified, deconstructed, refurbished, reconfigured, repurposed, and/or expanded” | Changes in space, size, layout, components, use, and function | Building obsolescence leading to premature demolition | [2] |
General | Ability to be changed or modified to make suitable for a particular purpose” | - | Building obsolescence leading to premature demolition | [34] |
General | The adaptive capacity of a building includes all characteristics that enable the building to keep its functionality through changing requirements and circumstances, during its entire technical lifecycle and in a sustainable and economically profitable way | Obsolescence and economic unviability | [35] (p. 569) |
Terminologies | Description | Linkage to Adaptability | Type of Adaptability | Context | Sources |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Open Plan | Free of structural, mechanical and other obstructions. Components in the space plan layer can be more easily reconfigured to suit changing functional requirements | Open plan layouts grant facilitated adaptation of interior spaces with minimized impact on the existing structure and systems | Space plan adaptability to fit changing functional needs | More common in commercial buildings and warehouses | [2,43] |
Transformability | The ability of a part of a complex adaptive system to assume a new function | Adaptability manifests in short-term behavior while transformation into a new state refers to a longer period as it results from multiple adaptations | Functional adaptability | Resilient building systems | [44,45] |
Changeability | Changeability has four aspects: adaptability, flexibility, robustness, and agility | Allows products changeability across products platforms | Adaptability as a subset of products changeability implies internal changes to systems | Companies’ product families or platforms | [29] |
Generality | The ability of a building to meet changing functional purposes without changing its core properties (passive support for change) | A concept/dimension of adaptability | Multifunctional use | Office buildings | [8,43,46] |
Flexibility | “The ability of a building to meet changing functional user or owner needs by changing its properties easily” [8] (p. 121) | A concept/dimension of adaptability | Rearrangement of elements and systems | Office buildings | [8,30,47] |
Elasticity | The ability of a building to be extended, shrunk, or partitioned as required | A concept/dimension of adaptability | Dividing space into different functional units, changing the size of a building | Office buildings | [8,43] |
Simplicity | Designing simple structural systems, (e.g., repeating layouts and grids, larger but fewer components). The absence of complex systems vital for the continued operation of the building | Creates easily understood load paths, reducing therefore the uncertainty for designer working on adaptable solutions | Physical modification, deconstruction, refurbishment, reconfiguration, repurpose, and/or expansion | General | [2,3] |
Commonality | Using the same component sizes and construction details throughout a building; commonality reduces uncertainty | Repetition of the same components and details facilitates replacement, adaptation, and systematic reuse | Physical modification, deconstruction, refurbishment, reconfiguration, repurpose, and/or expansion | General | [2] |
Modularity/Standardization | The standardization of components sizes and interfaces | Facilitates reconfiguration of spaces, reuse and replacement of components | Changeable components; spatial configurability | Common in office cubicles, production of modular rooms | [2] |
Convertibility | Determines the ability of buildings to shift between different uses/functions | Adaptable use of space | Change of use/purpose/function | General | [1,3,30,36,48] |
Versatility | Represents the physical change of space (i.e., spatial layout) | Versatility is a branch of flexibility that is a strategy of adaptability | Change of space and layout | General | [30,36] |
Scalability | Increasing/decreasing the building size | A dimension of adaptability | Change of size | General | [30,36,48] |
Movability | Changing configurations/locations | A dimension of adaptability | Change of location | General | [30,36,48] |
Reusability | Used again in its original form | A dimension of adaptability | Changeable components | General | [30] |
Availability | Accessing a ready set of components | Access to adequate components facilitate adaptability | Changeable components | General | [30,47] |
Refitability | Exchanging, replacing, or renovating components | The ability to replace components increases adaptability options | Changeable components; change in performance | General | [30,36,47] |
Expandability/Extendibility | Facilitating additions to the quantity of space in a building | Accommodate much higher densities in the same building with the same footprint and infrastructures | Increasing the size of a building | General | [3] |
Upgradability | Choosing systems and components that anticipate and can accommodate potential increased performance requirements | Upgradable components allow performance adaptability | Changeable components; performance adaptability | General | [3] |
Adaptive reuse | Defined as the process of extending the useful life of historic, old, obsolete, and derelict buildings | Reuse of existing structures | Performance | Existing buildings/historic buildings | [41] |
Strategy | Resilience Feature | Values for Adaptability | Change | Sources |
Adaptive skins/shells/envelops (e.g., insulation materials or active renewable elements) | Passive survivability; Reflectiveness | Thermal and performance adaptability | Change in performance | [98,113,114] |
Existing infrastructure and structural reinforcement | Robustness | Support future expansions/scalability, e.g., adding stories | Change in size or function | [60,109] |
Clear story height | Redundancy; Resourcefulness | Meet floor height requirement of different uses | Change in use | [109,115,116] |
Enclosed courtyards | Passive survivability | Adaptability to environmental conditions | Change in performance | [36] |
Dynamic facades | Passive survivability; Reflectiveness | Adaptability to environmental conditions | Change in use. Change in performance | [117,118] |
Active load-bearing elements | Reflectiveness; Redundancy | Supporting multiple use scenarios | Change in use | [119] |
Size and placement of operable windows | Passive survivability | Adaptability to weather conditions | Change in performance | [118] |
Renewable energies (e.g., solar collectors and photovoltaic panels) | Passive survivability; Redundancy | Adaptability to environmental conditions | Change in performance | [118,112] |
Cavity floors | Redundancy; Resourcefulness | Supporting multiple use scenarios | Change in use | [116] |
Double-glazed and triple-glazed windows | Passive survivability | Adaptability to weather conditions | Change in performance | [86,112] |
Green roofs | Passive survivability | Adaptability to environmental conditions | Change in performance | [86] |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Askar, R.; Bragança, L.; Gervásio, H. Adaptability of Buildings: A Critical Review on the Concept Evolution. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4483. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11104483
Askar R, Bragança L, Gervásio H. Adaptability of Buildings: A Critical Review on the Concept Evolution. Applied Sciences. 2021; 11(10):4483. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11104483
Chicago/Turabian StyleAskar, Rand, Luís Bragança, and Helena Gervásio. 2021. "Adaptability of Buildings: A Critical Review on the Concept Evolution" Applied Sciences 11, no. 10: 4483. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11104483