Adaptive reuse challenges of Jordan’s heritage buildings: a critical review

ABSTRACT

This study addresses the challenges of adaptive reuse in heritage buildings in Jordan. Despite the importance of preserving heritage buildings, particularly given their cultural and historical significance, there is a lack of scholarly investigation into the specific challenges faced in their adaptive reuse in Jordan. This research aims to identify and analyse these challenges to provide insights for policymakers, preservationists, and urban planners. Using they Fuzzy Delphi Method, 10 conservationists specialising in heritage buildings in Jordan were consulted to identify six critical obstacles: scarcity of skilled contractors, financial burdens, lack of awareness among building owners, investment risks, legal constraints, and management challenges. Recognising and ameliorating these identified barriers emerge as imperative prerequisites for fostering the sustainable development of Jordan’s architectural heritage and catalysing the proliferation of adaptive reuse practices within the regional milieu.

KEYWORDS:

• Urban Jordan
• adaptive reuse
• heritage buildings
• sustainable urban development
• SDGs
• Fuzzy Delphi Method

Introduction

Jordanian heritage buildings are shaped by various geographical, social, and cultural influences (Al-Nammari 2003; Alzoubi and Almalkawi 2019; Tarrad and Husban 2021). Across Jordan, numerous villages house heritage buildings, with more than 70% of them dating back to the 17th to 19th centuries (Khammash and Mhire 1986). These heritage structures are predominantly found in the mountainous and plateau regions east of the Jordan Valley (Qtaishat et al. 2020; Tarrad and Husban 2021). Jordan’s heritage buildings are categorised into three primary groups based on their bioclimatic regions – highlands, valleys, and deserts – each displaying distinct characteristics in terms of construction materials, spatial layouts, architectural features, and structural intricacies (Table 1).

Table 1. A comparison of the three types of Jordan’s heritage buildings (Alzoubi and Almalkawi 2019; Qtaishat et al. 2020).

Characteristics	The Jordan Valley dwelling	The deserted land dwelling	The highland region dwelling
Construction material	sun-dried mud mixed with straw	Tensile fabric made from goat wool and other animal fiber cloth	local stones (mostly limestone or basalt stones)
Roofing system	Arched pointed domes of a single story	vaulted and cupula style-roofed of a single story which was supported by wooden poles.	Cross and keyed vaulted structural systems or flat roof systems. The roof was covered with wood logs that extended the whole length of the chamber, spaced around one meter apart. On top of the logs, reeds were placed, and then a layer of dry straw and mud was added.
Floor layout	2–5 rooms arranged one next to the other in cluster form.	Multi-use floor plans differ in size depending on the social strata of the dwelling owner.	A number of dwellings follow a modular system built on the repetition of one hall, or a room (usually 400 cm x 600 cm) sharing a courtyard that enables crossing between other rooms
Building envelop	molded mud sun-dried bricks. The thickness of the wall range between 50-100cm.	Removable tensile fabric that can be opened to provide a natural method of ventilation and privacy when needed. Frequently distinguished by a draped or flap aperture, the entrance assumes a central role in defining the façade’s architectural composition.	Walls usually range from 50 to 100 cm consisting of three vertical layers. The outer and inner layer consists of local stones laid in a stretcher bond pattern. The in-between filler layer consisted of compacted earth mixed with smaller stones.
Façade main features	2–3 small windows and a single-entry point		single entry point, along with 1–2 arched-shaped windows

Table 1 outlines heritage buildings characteristics in three diverse regions. According to Qtaishat et al. (2020), the majority of heritage buildings in Jordan are situated in the western mountainous area, while very few remain in the Jordan Valley or desert regions, making it impractical to investigate cases belonging to these categories. Jordan Valley dwellings are constructed with sun-dried mud mixed with straw, featuring arched pointed domes, clustered room layouts, and moulded mud walls. In deserted land dwellings, tensile fabric made from goat wool is employed for roofing, supporting vaulted and cupula styles, with multi-use floor plans and removable fabric for ventilation. Highland region dwellings utilise local stones for construction, incorporating cross and keyed vaulted structural systems or flat roofs covered with wood logs, reeds, straw, and mud. The floor layouts vary, ranging from clustered rooms in the Jordan Valley to modular systems in the highland region. Building envelopes differ, from moulded mud bricks in the Jordan Valley to removable tensile fabric in deserted lands and stone layers in the highland region. Facades exhibit features like small windows and single-entry points in the Jordan Valley, while deserted land dwellings feature arched-shaped windows.

Adaptive reuse of heritage buildings

The adaptive reuse of heritage buildings constitutes a complex and interconnected research discipline (Foster 2020). Numerous scholarly endeavours highlight the multifaceted benefits of adaptive reuse, positioning it strategically for developing nations to preserve both tangible and intangible cultural assets (Pintossi et al. 2021; Cucco et al. 2023). This practice yields significant economic, environmental, and social benefits, preserving cultural heritage in its various manifestations (Conejos et al. 2016; Chen et al. 2018; Cucco et al. 2023; Hidalgo Zambrano et al. 2023). Moreover, it contributes to climate change mitigation through enhanced durability, adaptability, and reduced energy consumption, avoiding unnecessary demolition and associated embodied energy consumption in new construction (Bullen and Love 2011; Yung and Chan 2012; De Medici et al. 2019; Strumiłło 2020; Wijesiri et al. 2022; Cucco et al. 2023).

The adaptive reuse of heritage buildings represents a strategic approach aimed at extending the lifespan of a facility while enhancing its environmental, social, and economic performance through meticulous renovation and conversion (Lowe 2004; Foster and Kreinin 2020; Hettema and Egberts 2020; Wijesiri et al. 2022). This approach adheres to the principles of integrity, preserving the authentic essence of cultural heritage (Cucco et al. 2023). Succinctly stated, it constitutes a systematic approach for repurposing abandoned or underutilised assets for novel functionalities (Ma et al. 2012; Elrod and Fortenberry 2017; Strumiłło 2020; Wijesiri et al. 2022). Transformed heritage buildings can serve as focal points in urban revitalisation initiatives, contributing not only to the rejuvenation of urban areas but also fostering sustainability, often proving economically viable (Bullen and Love 2011).

In the pursuit of sustainable urban development, the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings emerges as a focal point, aligning seamlessly with several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Biermann et al. 2017; Bebbington and Unerman 2018; Boluk et al. 2019; Tsalis et al. 2020; Cucco et al. 2023; Pintossi et al. 2023). The SDGs play a pivotal role in advancing global sustainable development offering a comprehensive and integrated approach to addressing diverse challenges across social, economic, and environmental dimensions (ibid). Comprising 17 interrelated objectives, the SDGs provide a holistic conceptual framework that transcends fragmented problem-solving by targeting root causes, thereby delineating a comprehensive roadmap for navigating complex global challenges (Maher et al. 2018; Di Baldassarre et al. 2019; Morton et al. 2019; Raub and Martin-Rios 2019; Pintossi et al. 2023). For instance, Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities underscores the significance of creating resilient, inclusive urban spaces, inherently linking with heritage preservation and adaptive reuse practices. Additionally, Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure play a pivotal role by emphasising sustainable industrialisation and infrastructure development, crucial components of innovative approaches in repurposing existing heritage structures. The commitment to Goal 13: Climate Action is evident in adaptive reuse projects contributing to energy efficiency and mitigating the environmental impact associated with new construction, thereby supporting climate resilience. These interconnected goals collectively underscore the multifaceted nature of the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings, emphasising a comprehensive approach to sustainable development with far-reaching implications for social, economic, and environmental well-being.

The adaptive reuse of heritage buildings in Jordan is a nascent approach, gaining recognition for its potential to preserve cultural heritage and revitalise urban spaces. While still in its early stages, a few notable successful cases have emerged in the literature, highlighting the viability of repurposing historical structures to meet contemporary needs while preserving their intrinsic cultural value. This study provides several noteworthy examples of prominent adaptive reuse projects across Jordan (Table 2).

Table 2. Examples of distinguished adaptive reuse projects for heritage buildings in Jordan.

Project Name	Governorates	Previous uses	New uses
Church of the Virgin Mary	Madaba	Religious building	Museum
Saraya Madaba	Madaba	Police station	Cultural center
Jasmine House	Amman	Residential House	Cultural center
Umm Qais Heritage Village	Irbid	Village	Mixed-use project
Ali Khulqi al-Sharayri’s house	Jerash	Residential house and administrative building	Training center
Darat al-Funun	Amman	Residential House	Cultural center
Dana Village	Tafila	Village	Hospitality project

The adaptive reuse projects discussed showcase exemplary efforts in preserving and revitalising Jordanian heritage buildings. The Church of the Virgin Mary’s project in Madaba addresses archaeological challenges by creating a protective structure, integrating innovative foundations, and collaborating with archaeologists for a harmonious blend of modern construction and ancient artefacts. Saraya Madaba’s adaptive reuse strategically leverages the building’s historical significance, involving internal and external renovations while maintaining the integrity of the original structure. The Jasmine House project in Jabal Al-Weibdeh emphasises heritage conservation’s impact on urban regeneration, successfully balancing authenticity and modern elements to contribute to cultural heritage and sustainable development. Darat al-Funun’s project exemplifies a commitment to architectural conservation, preserving the identity of traditional stone-masons and integrating old and new elements thoughtfully. Finally, the Dana Village Restoration project focuses on community-based hospitality, adapting traditional houses into guestrooms to meet tourism needs while preserving the village’s heritage and ensuring sustainable development. Each project reflects a thoughtful approach to heritage preservation with broader positive impacts on the community, economy, and environment.

Barriers to heritage buildings adaptive reuse

The literature extensively underscores substantial challenges that impede the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings, forming a central focus of this study. Rigorous academic research, as evidenced in well-known scholarly articles retrieved from Google Scholar, illuminates the multifaceted nature of these challenges. For instance (Pintossi et al. 2021), and (De Silva et al. 2019) delve into the intricate web of barriers and constraints, employing terms such as ‘barriers,’ ‘obstacles,’ ‘hurdles,’ ‘challenges,’ and ‘constraints’ interchangeably within the context of heritage building repurposing. This study systematically synthesises and analyzes these impediments, aiming to furnish a comprehensive understanding of the intricate complexities associated with initiatives geared towards the adaptive reuse of historical structures.

Citing the research of Pintossi et al. (2023), the study sheds light on how these challenges manifest and evolve in various adaptive reuse contexts. The amalgamation of these diverse terms underscores the nuanced nature of the issues inhibiting the adaptive reuse process, as discerned through a synthesis of authoritative works. This analytical framework not only facilitates an in-depth exploration of the identified barriers but also serves as a valuable resource for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers engaged in heritage preservation and urban revitalisation.

For a concise overview of these challenges, readers are directed to Table 3, which encapsulates a succinct summary derived from the comprehensive literature review. This tabulation further enhances the understanding of the prevailing barriers to adaptive reuse, offering valuable insights to inform future research and practical endeavours in heritage conservation and urban development.

Table 3. Barriers to heritage buildings adaptive reuse.

Barrier	Description	Supporting reference(s)
Legal constraints related to building codes and zoning compliance.	Adhere to planning permits, zoning, conservation, and construction codes. Face challenges in gaining local authorities’ approval for adaptive reuse, especially with heritage buildings.	Pintossi et al. (2021); De Silva et al. (2019); Aigwi et al. (2018); Esther Yakubu et al. (2017); Conejos et al. (2016); Bruce et al. (2015): Bullen and Love (2011)
Physical restrictions	Restrictions related to the arrangement of the floor’s structural system, including walls and columns, to accommodate new uses.	Pintossi et al. (2021); De Silva et al. (2019); Mehr et al. (2017); Esther Yakubu et al. (2017); Conejos et al. (2016); Bruce et al. (2015)
Financial barriers/remediation costs	Involves high costs linked to renovation techniques, advanced equipment, and innovative concepts	Pintossi et al. (2021); Fernandes et al. (2020); De Silva et al. (2019); Aigwi et al. (2018); Tan et al. (2018); Conejos et al. (2016); Bruce et al. (2015); Bullen and Love (2011)
Financial barrier/design and consultancy cost	Involves architectural design expenses for innovative solutions in adapting heritage buildings.	De Silva et al. (2019); Aigwi et al. (2018); Conejos et al. (2016); Bullen and Love (2011)
Financial barriers/Maintenance and operation cost	High maintenance and repair costs due to physical deficiencies and depreciation.	De Silva et al. (2019); Aigwi et al. (2018); Esther Yakubu et al. (2017); Conejos et al. (2016); Bullen and Love (2011)
Health and safety hazards	Contamination due to the use of hazardous materials in buildings	Pintossi et al. (2021); De Silva et al. (2019); Hettema and Egberts (2020); Tan et al. (2018); Esther Yakubu et al. (2017); Conejos et al. (2016); Bruce et al. (2015)
Lack of experienced and qualified rehabilitation contractors due to the progressive disappearance of traditional building crafts	Lack of local professionals and qualified craftsmen for restoration work.	Pintossi et al. (2021); De Silva et al. (2019); Aigwi et al. (2018); Esther Yakubu et al. (2017); Conejos et al. (2016)
Technical difficulties	Challenges include unreliable information and drawings for historic structures, along with difficulty sourcing matching materials in the local market.	De Silva et al. (2019); Esther Yakubu et al. (2017); Conejos et al. (2016); Bruce et al. (2015); Bullen and Love (2011)
High risk of investment	Concerns economic viability and reduced profit margins due to labour-intensive rehabilitation, challenging location of existing buildings.	Pintossi et al. (2021); Fernandes et al. (2020); De Silva et al. (2019); Tan et al. (2018); Esther Yakubu et al. (2017); Conejos et al. (2016); Bruce et al. (2015); Bullen and Love (2011).
Property owners and commercial property markets lack awareness regarding the importance of heritage building rehabilitation.	Heritage building owners lack awareness of cultural importance and potential market value. Property owners exhibit a lack of attachment to the place.	Lidón de Miguel et al. (2021); Aigwi et al. (2019); De Silva et al. (2019); Aigwi et al. (2018); Conejos et al. (2016); Bullen and Love (2011); Saleh (2001)
Risk of structural failure in events of seismic activity, flooding, and extreme weather	Supporting structural elements in heritage buildings are incapable of resisting severe weather and environmental conditions.	Pintossi et al. (2021); Bothara et al. (2022); D’Ayala et al. (2020); Ortega et al. (2018); Dyson et al. (2016); Remøy and Van der Voordt (2014)
Issues in identifying the new function of heritage buildings	Heritage buildings may not align with modern living conditions in comfort functionality, and maintenance. Adaptive reuse of heritage buildings may lead to conflicts with the surrounding community.	Pardo (2023); Pintossi et al. (2021); Elrod and Fortenberry (2017); Yung and Chan (2012)
Construction mamangment consideration	Challenges in estimating costs and duration of renovation projects due to unforeseen circumstances.	Bullen and Love (2011)

Research design

This section outlines the methodology employed to ascertain the most critical barriers that hinder the adaptive reuse of abandoned heritage buildings in Jordan. The process commenced with a comprehensive review of prevalent barriers in the literature. Regarding data collection, it is noteworthy that the Delphi method often involves a relatively small number of participants, with previous studies having as few as three to seven individuals (Rowe and Wright 1999, 2011; Trevelyan and Robinson 2015). However, participants were selected based on specific expertise within the field (Lilja et al. 2011; Sourani and Sohail 2015). Consequently, experts were chosen based on criteria such as relevant academic qualifications, substantial experience in heritage conservation, and participation in distinguished adaptive reuse projects.

The Delphi method is acknowledged for its capacity to collect and enhance group-based decision-making on specific issues, thereby providing diverse perspectives and mitigating the dominance of individual opinions common in group discussions (Belton et al. 2019; Fink-Hafner et al. 2019; Tabatabaee et al. 2022). Nevertheless, it is acknowledged as a time-consuming and demanding process for both researchers and participants and defining what constitutes a sufficient consensus remains an open question (Fink-Hafner et al. 2019).

To address the subjectivity and fuzziness inherent in respondents’ feedback, fuzzy set theory (FST) was integrated into the Delphi method (Tabatabaee et al. 2019, 2022). This integration aids in quantifying the linguistic scales utilised in the questionnaire, with the ultimate goal of enhancing the objectivity and efficacy of the Delphi process (Zeadat 2023). The procedural delineation of the Fuzzy Delphi Method, adopted in this study, is elucidated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Processes of the fuzzy Delphi method (adapted from Danacı and Yıldırım 2023 cited in Chang et al. 2011).

After identifying barriers, the researcher developed a structured questionnaire (Appendix A). This questionnaire was constructed based on linguistic characteristics outlined in Table 2. These linguistic variables, adapted to align with the specifics of this study using Tabatabaee et al.‘s (Tabatabaee et al. 2022) recommendations, encompass a range from ‘Not important’ to ‘Extremely important.’ In this research, triangular fuzzy sets are utilised, each comprising three values: the lowest conceivable value, the most probable value, and the highest conceivable value (Tabatabaee et al. 2022) (See Table 4). These values are situated between 1 and 5 for the lower and upper limits, while the membership functions operate within the 0 to 1 range (ibid).

Table 4. Linguistic variables employed for assessing the significance of barriers (Tabatabaee et al. 2022).

Variables	Fuzzy Numbers
Not important	(1, 1, 1.5)
Slightly important	(1.5, 2, 2.5)
Important	(2.5, 3, 3.5)
Very important	(3.5, 4, 4.5)
Extremely important	(4.5, 5, 5)

The Delphi method prioritises meaningful agreement among chosen experts in a study (Diamond et al. 2014; Belton et al. 2019). After conducting interviews and collecting questionnaire data, assessing expert consensus is crucial. This study used the SDMR rule by Gunduz and Elsherbeny (2020) to evaluate strategy consensus. SDMR values below 30% indicate strong consensus, while values equal to or exceeding 30% suggest low consensus for specific barriers (Zeadat 2023).

After reaching a consensus on each barrier, this study used triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) to convert experts’ qualitative responses into quantifiable measures. The researcher then applied the formulas in Equation (1) and Equation (2) to transform linguistic variables into quantifiable values for each barrier (Tabatabaee et al. 2022).

(1) $\mathit{Fi}\left(\mathit{b}\right)\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}=\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}\left(l_b,\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}{m}_b,\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}{u}_b\right),\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}\mathit{f}\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}\mathit{or}\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}\mathit{i}\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}=\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}1,\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}2,\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}.\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}.\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}.\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}},\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}\mathit{n}$(1)

(2) $\mathit{B}\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}\left(\mathit{b}\right)\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}=\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}\left(l_B,\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}{m}_B,\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}{u}_B\right)\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}=\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}\left(\mathit{min}\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}{l}_b,\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}\mathit{mean}\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}{m}_b,\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}\mathit{max}\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}{u}_b\right)$(2)

Fi(b) represents expert i’s TFN response for barrier b, and B(b) is the sum of all expert responses for barrier b (with min lb, mean mb, and max ub denoting the minimum lower value, average most likely value, and maximum upper bound, respectively) (Tseng et al. 2023; Zeadat 2023). Equation (3) was then used for defuzzification to obtain a precise value for each factor. Subsequently, Equation (4) was used to calculate the threshold value, crucial for identifying critical barrier(s).

(3) $\mathrm{DB}\left(\mathrm{b}\right)=\left(\mathrm{lb}+\left(4\ast \mathrm{mb}\right)+\mathrm{ub}\right)/6$(3)

(4) $\mathit{TS}=\sum _{\mathit{n}=1}^g\mathit{DB}\left(\mathit{b}\right)/\mathit{g}$(4)

DB(b) represents the clarified total of combined responses for barrier b, and TS stands for the threshold value. The de-fuzzified result for a specific barrier is what determines whether the factor is critical or not. In other words, if the de-fuzzified value surpasses the established threshold, the barrier is considered critical (Tabatabaee et al. 2022; Tseng et al. 2023).

Research results

In the initial phase, 10 experts, actively engaged in adaptive reuse projects in Jordan, participated in interviews to gauge the magnitude of each barrier (see Table 5). This study delved into discerning and characterising the most pivotal barriers hindering the successful implementation of adaptive reuse for heritage buildings in Jordan. The analysis categorises these barriers as ‘critical,’ determined through the application of FDM, with Defuzzification values surpassing 7.21, as elucidated in Table 6.

Table 5. Background of experts interviewed in this study.

ID	Years of experience	Number of adaptive reuse projects	Profession
Expert 1	More than 20 years	6	Practitioner
Expert 2	More than 20 years	7	Academic & practitioner
Expert 3	More than 20 years	5	Practitioner
Expert 4	More than 20 years	5	Practitioner
Expert 5	More than 20 years	6	Academic & practitioner
Expert 6	More than 20 years	8	Practitioner
Expert 7	More than 20 years	7	Academic
Expert 8	More than 20 years	5	Academic
Expert 9	More than 20 years	7	Practitioner
Expert 10	More than 20 years	6	Academic

Table 6. FDM results.

Barriers	Min. Value	Most likely value	Max. Value	Defuzzification	Rank	SDMR	Cronbach’s alpha
B1	1.5	3.9	5	7.3666	5	.2418	.891
B2	2.5	3.3	5	6.9	9	.2366
B3	1.5	3.8	5	7.2333	7	.2578
B4	1.5	3.5	5	6.8333	10	.1380
B5	3.5	3.9	5	8.0333	2	.2418
B6	1.5	3.5	5	6.8333	10	.2927
B7	3.5	4.6	5	8.9666	1	.1064
B8	1.5	3.7	5	7.1	8	.2432
B9	2.5	3.8	5	7.5666	4	.2294
B10	1.5	4.2	5	7.7666	3	.2564
B11	1.5	3.3	4.5	6.4	14	.2366
B12	1	3.2	5	6.2666	15	.30
B13	1.5	3.5	5	6.8333	10	.2634
B14	1.5	3.9	5	7.3666	5	.2677
B15	1.5	3.5	5	6.8333	10	.2927

As illustrated in Table 6, it is noteworthy that the Standard Deviation of Means (SDMR) for all identified barriers remains below 0.3. This indicates a high level of consensus among research respondents during the initial round of expert interviews. Furthermore, the Cronbach’s alpha result, reflecting the internal consistency of the responses, is exceptionally satisfactory. These findings collectively affirm the reliability and agreement among the experts, reinforcing the robustness of the research outcomes.

The upcoming section on ‘Research disscuion’ will offer a systematic discussion, providing an in-depth analysis of the critical barriers to adaptive reuse in heritage buildings. This discussion will be intricately linked to internationally recognised research, illuminating the broader implications of the study’s findings in the context of heritage preservation and urban development. The integration of these findings with existing global knowledge will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with adaptive reuse initiatives, offering valuable insights for both academic research and practical applications in the field.

Discussion

The foremost impediment identified by research participants revolves around the scarcity of skilled and qualified restoration contractors in Jordan. This perspective aligns with international literature that emphasises the specialised expertise required for the adaptive reuse of heritage structures (O’Reilly 2023; Smith et al. 2023). In contrast, our research acknowledges the potential disadvantages associated with less-experienced contractors, shedding light on the intricate nature of adaptive reuse projects and the inherent risk of inadvertently causing harm to historically significant elements. This recognition underscores the importance of a nuanced understanding and specialised expertise in navigating the complexities inherent in the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings, where a lack of experience may pose challenges to the preservation and integrity of culturally valuable structures.

A study by Smith et al. (2023) emphasises the importance of professional development programmes for contractors in heritage conservation projects, supporting the recommendation to address the scarcity of experienced contractors in Jordan. To counter this shortage, experts propose the establishment of training programmes facilitated by the Jordan Engineers Association and the Jordanian Construction Contractors Association. This initiative aims to enhance the proficiency of local contractors in heritage preservation and adaptive reuse techniques. The recommendation aligns with O’Reilly’s (2023) research, which underscores collaborative approaches involving diverse stakeholders. The involvement of international heritage preservation organisations and architectural firms is seen as crucial, offering knowledge transfer and resource support. The proposal extends to seek governmental support, suggesting endorsement and potential funding by government agencies in Jordan. Additionally, a new ‘Heritage Building Reservation’ classification should be introduced, accompanied by specialised certificate programmes to uphold specific standards, fostering a more adept workforce in Jordan. This integrated approach draws from international practices, emphasising collaboration, knowledge transfer, and governmental endorsement for enhancing the proficiency of local contractors in heritage preservation and adaptive reuse.

Economic considerations and the associated risks of maintenance and operational costs are recurrent themes in the international discourse on adaptive reuse. Our study echoes these concerns raised by experts, acknowledging the economic advantages of such projects but also underlining the potential financial risks involved (Jigyasu and Jokilehto 2023). The acknowledgement of unforeseen challenges during the adaptive reuse process and the potential for increased expenses aligns with the broader international discussion on the economic viability of heritage preservation efforts (Ferro et al. 2023).

The recommended multifaceted approach to address the financial challenges of heritage building adaptive reuse in Jordan aligns with established international research in heritage preservation and sustainable urban development. Internationally recognised studies, including those by Liu (2023) and O’Reilly’s (2023), advocate for the promotion of public-private partnerships as effective mechanisms for financing and executing successful adaptive reuse projects. This collaborative effort involving government agencies, private investors, and heritage preservation organisations is deemed crucial for sustainable heritage conservation (Boniotti 2023). Additionally, the proposed financial incentives, such as exemptions from licencing and construction fees and low-interest loans, resonate with findings from Rössler (2023), highlighting the importance of incentivising property owners to engage in heritage preservation. The call for municipalities and local councils to establish heritage investment funds, drawing from various sources, including international donors, is supported by research from Tarrafa Silva et al. (2023), emphasising the necessity of diversified funding mechanisms and international support for sustaining heritage preservation projects. This integrated recommendation reflects well-established international practices, emphasising collaborative partnerships, financial incentives, and diversified funding sources for the long-term success of adaptive reuse initiatives in Jordan.

Moreover, our study underscores the importance of building owners’ awareness as a critical barrier, a perspective that resonates with international research highlighting the neglect and demolition of historically significant structures due to owners’ lack of understanding of the financial incentives and support available for heritage preservation (Liu et al. 2023; Rössler 2023). This lack of awareness, both in terms of financial benefits and cultural significance, is a shared concern across various international contexts.

The economic viability of adaptive reuse projects and the challenges faced by real estate developers are universal issues corroborated by international literature (Heath et al. 2024). The prolonged period required for a return on investment, as elucidated in our study, resonates with global observations pertaining to the intricate financial dynamics inherent in heritage preservation projects. This alignment underscores the common challenges faced internationally in balancing the economic aspects of adaptive reuse against the relatively quicker returns associated with new construction endeavours. The protracted timeline for recouping investment in heritage preservation underscores the need for a strategic and patient approach, recognising the unique financial intricacies associated with the conservation of cultural heritage.

To combat the lack of awareness among heritage building owners in Jordan and to promote adaptive reuse, a comprehensive set of strategies is proposed. This includes educational campaigns, the promotion of incentives and success stories, the provision of technical support, organisation of heritage tours, community involvement, establishment of support networks, and simplification of regulatory processes. These strategies collectively aim to create awareness, disseminate information, and facilitate a conducive environment for heritage preservation and adaptive reuse endeavours.

Additionally, our study underscores the impact of urban development legislation on adaptive reuse, resonating with international perspectives that stress the significance of regulations in ensuring safety, cultural preservation, and effective urban planning (D’Agostino et al. 2023). The difficulties arising from rigorous preservation standards and intricate approval procedures, as articulated in our study, parallel ongoing international dialogues concerning the regulatory intricacies inherent in heritage preservation. This alignment underscores a universal recognition of the complex bureaucratic processes and stringent guidelines that govern efforts to safeguard cultural heritage globally. The challenges posed by regulatory frameworks resonate across diverse contexts, highlighting the need for a comprehensive understanding of and engagement with preservation standards in order to navigate and contribute effectively to the discourse surrounding heritage conservation.

The issue of multi-ownership, identified as a significant obstacle in our study, finds resonance in international literature, which acknowledges the complexities arising from divergent visions and interests among multiple owners (Foroughi et al. 2023). The financial burden and coordination challenges associated with multi-ownership are recognised as common impediments to successful transformations, underscoring the universality of these challenges in heritage preservation initiatives. In this vein, experts underscore the significance of effective communication, collaboration, and negotiation among multiple owners. This involves developing a shared vision, delineating roles and responsibilities, and creating comprehensive agreements to mitigate complexities during heritage building adaptive reuse projects. The involvement of heritage preservation specialists, legal experts, and relevant professionals is proposed to provide valuable guidance and solutions for navigating the intricate situations associated with multi-ownership scenarios in Jordan.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this research significantly contributes to the field of adaptive reuse by shedding light on the primary challenges hindering the rehabilitation of heritage buildings in Jordan. The study underscores the paramount importance of adaptive reuse in the context of escalating urban land costs and the imperative to preserve cultural heritage and ancestral legacies, particularly in the Global South. The research findings resonate with international literature, corroborating the intricate financial dynamics and regulatory complexities inherent in heritage preservation projects globally.

Drawing from established international research, our study aligns with the recognised significance of professional development programmes for contractors engaged in heritage conservation projects, proposing a comprehensive solution to address the scarcity of experienced contractors in Jordan. The multifaceted approach recommended for tackling financial challenges, including public-private partnerships and financial incentives, is in line with global observations on sustainable urban development and heritage preservation. The proposed strategies for raising awareness, simplifying regulatory processes, and addressing legal obstacles find resonance in international best practices, emphasising the need for collaborative efforts and expertise.

The research points out the importance of knowledge transfer, collaboration with diverse stakeholders, and governmental endorsement to enhance the proficiency of local contractors. The proposed strategies for financial sustainability align with established international practices, emphasising the crucial role of public-private partnerships in ensuring sustainable heritage conservation.

In essence, this research not only contributes to the specific challenges of heritage building adaptive reuse in Jordan but also aligns with and builds upon international best practices. The findings underscore the universal relevance of adaptive reuse practices and emphasise the need for collaborative, multifaceted approaches to address challenges, fostering sustainable development and heritage preservation not only in Jordan but also in global contexts. The outcomes of this study hold implications for adaptive reuse practices worldwide, offering insights and recommendations that can contribute to the advancement of sustainable urban development and cultural heritage preservation on an international scale.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the American University of Madaba.

Notes on contributors

Zayed F. Zeadat

Zayed Zeadat, Ph.D., is an assistant professor specializing in Urban Studies, with a distinguished academic background from Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh. His research expertise lies in the domains of urban governance, sustainable urban development, and public participation. Prior to pursuing his doctoral studies, Dr. Zeadat garnered extensive experience as an architect, making significant contributions to diverse projects spanning commercial developments, single-family homes, and multi-family residential units across Jordan.

Appendix A:

Research questionnaire

Table

Barriers	Importance of a barrier
	Not important	Slightly important	Important	Very important	Extremely important
Legal constraints related to building codes and zoning compliance.	□	□	□	□	□
Physical restrictions	□	□	□	□	□
Financial barriers/remediation costs	□	□	□	□	□
Financial barrier/design and consultancy cost	□	□	□	□	□
Financial barriers/Maintenance and operation cost	□	□	□	□	□
Health and safety hazards	□	□	□	□	□
Lack of experienced and qualified rehabilitation contractors due to the progressive disappearance of traditional building crafts	□	□	□	□	□
Technical difficulties	□	□	□	□	□
High risk of investment	□	□	□	□	□
Property owners and commercial property markets lack awareness regarding the importance of heritage building rehabilitation.	□	□	□	□	□
Risk of structural failure in events of seismic activity, flooding, and extreme weather	□	□	□	□	□
Issues in identifying the new function of heritage buildings	□	□	□	□	□
Construction mamangment consideration	□	□	□	□	□