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

Figures & data

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 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

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)

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

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)

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

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	□	□	□	□	□

Alzoubi HH, Almalkawi AT. 2019. A comparative study for the traditional and modern houses in terms of thermal comfort and energy consumption in Umm Qais city, Jordan. J Ecol Eng. 20(5):14–22. doi: 10.12911/22998993/105324.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Qtaishat Y, Emmitt S, Adeyeye K. 2020. Exploring the socio‐cultural sustainability of old and new housing: two cases from Jordan. Sustain Cities Soc. 61:102250.‏. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102250.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pintossi N, Ikiz Kaya D, Pereira Roders A. 2021. Assessing cultural heritage adaptive reuse practices: multi-scale challenges and solutions in Rijeka. Sustainability. 13(7):3603. doi: 10.3390/su13073603.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

De Silva GDR, Perera BAKS, Rodrigo MNN. 2019. Adaptive reuse of buildings: the case of Sri Lanka. J Financ Manag Prop Constr. 24(1):79–96. doi: 10.1108/JFMPC-11-2017-0044.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aigwi IE, Egbelakin T, Ingham J. 2018. Efficacy of adaptive reuse for the redevelopment of underutilised historical buildings: towards the regeneration of New Zealand’s provincial town centres. Int J Build Pathol Adapt. 36(4):385–407. doi: 10.1108/IJBPA-01-2018-0007.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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

 Google Scholar

Conejos S, Langston C, Chan EH, Chew MY. 2016. Governance of heritage buildings: Australian regulatory barriers to adaptive reuse. Build Res Inf. 44(5–6):507–519. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2016.1156951.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bruce T, Zuo J, Rameezdeen R, Pullen S. 2015. Factors influencing the retrofitting of existing office buildings using Adelaide, South Australia as a case study. Struct Surv. 33(2):150–166. doi: 10.1108/SS-05-2014-0019.

 Google Scholar

Bullen PA, Love PED. 2011. Adaptive reuse of heritage buildings. Struct Surv. 29(5):411–421. doi: 10.1108/02630801111182439.

 Google Scholar

Mehr SY, Skates H, Holden G. 2017. Adding more by using less: adaptive reuse of woolstores. Procedia Eng. 180:697–703. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.229.

 Google Scholar

Fernandes A, Figueira de Sousa J, Costa JP, Neves B. 2020. Mapping stakeholder perception on the challenges of brownfield sites’ redevelopment in waterfronts: the Tagus Estuary. Eur Plan Stud. 28(12):2447–2464. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2020.1722985.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tan Y, Shuai C, Wang T. 2018. Critical success factors (CSFs) for the adaptive reuse of industrial buildings in Hong Kong. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 15(7):1546. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15071546.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hettema J, Egberts L. 2020. Designing with maritime heritage: adaptive re-use of small-scale shipyards in northwest Europe. J Cult Heritage Manage Sustainable Dev. 10(2):130–143. doi: 10.1108/JCHMSD-04-2019-0032.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lidón de Miguel M, Vegas F, Mileto C, García-Soriano L. 2021. Return to the native earth: historical analysis of foreign influences on traditional architecture in Burkina Faso. Sustainability. 13(2):757. doi: 10.3390/su13020757.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Saleh MAE. 2001. The decline vs the rise of architectural and urban forms in the heritage villages of southwest Saudi Arabia. Build Environ. 36(1):89–107. doi: 10.1016/S0360-1323(00)00025-1.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bothara J, Ingham J, Dizhur D. 2022. Qualifying the earthquake resilience of heritage masonry buildings along the Himalayan arc. J Build Eng. 52:104339. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104339.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

D’Ayala D, Wang K, Yan Y, Smith H, Massam A, Filipova V, Pereira JJ. 2020. Flood vulnerability and risk assessment of urban traditional buildings in a heritage district of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 20(8):2221–2241. doi: 10.5194/nhess-20-2221-2020.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ortega J, Vasconcelos G, Rodrigues H, Correia M. 2018. Assessment of the efficiency of traditional earthquake resistant techniques for heritage buildings. Eng Struct. 173:1–27. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.06.101.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dyson K, Matthews J, Love PE. 2016. Critical success factors of adapting heritage buildings: an exploratory study. Built Environ Project Asset Manage. 6(3):250–265. doi: 10.1108/BEPAM-01-2015-0002.

 Google Scholar

Remøy H, Van der Voordt T. 2014. Adaptive reuse of office buildings into housing: opportunities and risks. Build Res Inf. 42(3):381–390. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2014.865922.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pardo JMF. 2023. Challenges and Current research trends for heritage buildings in a global world: a literature review. Buildings. 13(1):162. doi: 10.3390/buildings13010162.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Elrod JK, Fortenberry JL. 2017. Adaptive reuse in the healthcare industry: repurposing abandoned buildings to serve medical missions. BMC Health Serv Res. 17(1):5–14. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2339-4.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Yung EH, Chan EH. 2012. Implementation challenges to the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: towards the goals of sustainable, low carbon cities. Habitat Int. 36(3):352–361. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.11.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Danacı M, Yıldırım U. 2023. Comprehensive analysis of lifeboat accidents using the fuzzy Delphi method. Ocean Eng. 278:114371. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.114371.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chang PL, Hsu CW, Chang PC. 2011. Fuzzy Delphi method for evaluating hydrogen production technologies. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 36(21):14172–14179. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.05.045.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tabatabaee S, Mohandes SR, Ahmed RR, Mahdiyar A, Arashpour M, Zayed T, Ismail S. 2022. Investigating the barriers to applying the internet-of-things-based technologies to construction site safety management. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 19(2):868. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19020868.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar