Adaptive reuse of buildings is a sustainable practice implemented worldwide to cope with changing user requirements. It is a resource-efficient building intervention that can promote circularity in the built environment by reusing building assets and extending their longevity. As a type of building alteration, adaptive reuse needs to facilitate future changes by adopting principles of building adaptability: the ability to modify or adjust the configuration and composition of buildings to meet changing needs over time. This involves flexible design, modular construction, or innovative use of materials. While the benefits of future-proof circular adaptive reuse are acknowledged, its implementation remains challenging due to a lack of knowledge and other practical obstacles. The combination of circularity and adaptability in adaptive reuse projects requires a collaborative development process that aligns diverse demands. Drawing from the authors’ theoretical and empirical studies, this chapter outlines the essential design prerequisites – key foundational conditions – for circular and adaptable building reuse as an emerging practice in the built environment. This chapter stems from synthesizing these insights into actionable prerequisites that support circular and adaptable reuse design. These prerequisites comprise asset inventory; iterative and interdisciplinary co-design, knowledge acquisition and dissemination; and adoption of an approach to requirements alignment.

Circularity in adaptive reuse helps tackle material shortages, environmental damage, and ageing properties, while enhancing asset value. However, bridging the gap between visionary reuse scenarios of existing real estate and design strategies remains challenging. Integrating scenario tools with adaptive reuse frameworks can address this issue. This paper presents an approach to systematically define promising circular real estate scenarios and translate them into actionable strategies.

Circular and adaptable strategies in building reuse are key to achieving a resource-efficient and future-proof built environment. Despite significant advances in circular building research, this field is affected by a significant theory–practice gap. To bridge this gap, we applied an action design research methodology, implementing a circular building design framework over a five-month period in the context of a Dutch monumental office building reuse. The objective of these interventions was to observe practitioners engaging with the framework and identify the barriers they encountered when considering and applying circular building strategies. We observed that the framework primarily functioned as a descriptive tool. Enhancing its usability and effectiveness required several refinements, including simplifying its self-description, clarifying its strategies through practical solutions and connections to related models, providing robust assessment tools, and improving its accessibility. Through iterative action research conducted during the observation and intervention period, we addressed these issues and advanced the framework. Our design-oriented approach led to the development of key design artifacts: a prescriptive guiding, assessment, and reporting tool; a stepwise approach to streamline application; and a hands-on worksheet for practitioners. These artifacts were integrated into a user-friendly platform, transforming the framework into a practical tool for real-world implementation. For theory, this study incorporates a circular perspective into a usable framework and demonstrates how an action design research approach can co-develop and improve frameworks and their usability and relevance. For practice, the produced artifacts represent boundary objects tailored to practitioners’ needs; thereby paving the way for future circular adaptive reuse. Clinical trial number: not applicable.

Background and aim. Adaptive reuse enhances circularity by repurposing buildings, reducing carbon emissions, and preserving heritage. However, decision-making is complex due to stakeholder conflicts, regulations, and uncertainties. This study introduces an integrated framework combining Cross-Impact Balance (CIB) analysis, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and Fuzzy-TOPSIS to support structured, participatory decision-making.

Methods and Data. A mixed-method approach integrates CIB for scenario development, AHP for stakeholder-driven prioritization, and Fuzzy-TOPSIS for ranking reuse scenarios. A hypothetical case study demonstrates the framework’s applicability.

Findings. The integration of CIB, AHP, and Fuzzy-TOPSIS provides a structured decision-making approach that enhances scenario coherence, aligns decisions with stakeholder priorities, and improves scenario ranking robustness. The framework enables systematic exploration of adaptive reuse scenarios, ensuring alignment with stakeholder objectives.

Theoretical / Practical / Societal implications. Theoretically, this study advances scenario-based decision-making by integrating scenario development and decision-making approaches, addressing gaps in adaptive reuse decision frameworks. Practically, it provides policymakers, urban planners, and developers with a structured tool to navigate complex decision-making in adaptive reuse projects. Societally, it supports sustainable and inclusive urban development by fostering consistent, long-term strategies that balance environmental, economic, and social considerations.

Adaptive reuse of buildings offers a sustainable strategy for reducing global CO2 emissions by repurposing existing structures, conserving resources, reducing the need to extract new materials, and minimizing waste. However, the decision-making process in adaptive reuse projects is often complex, involving conflicting criteria and diverse stakeholders. Current approaches tend to polarize alternatives, focusing either on broad functional use or specific design options, which can limit decision effectiveness and quality. This study addresses these challenges by developing a participatory mixed-methods approach that integrates Cross-Impact Balance (CIB) analysis with creative scenario-building techniques, including generative AI and participatory workshops. This approach balances the extremes of current decision-making processes, offering a more comprehensive overview of desirable futures for decision-makers. The methodology was applied to create 15 “big picture” circular adaptive reuse scenarios, each incorporating circular building adaptability (CBA) strategies, and enriched with AI generated narratives and visualizations. These scenarios provide stakeholders with a nuanced understanding of potential future pathways, enhancing decision-making processes. This mixed-method approach demonstrates the potential of participatory CIB scenario development in advancing circularity, offering a valuable tool for navigating the complexities of adaptive reuse decision-making.

Over the past two decades, research promoting a sustainable built environment has pioneered new horizons to accelerate the transition to a circular economy. Yet, these efforts are suffering from a significant theory-practice divide. This article offers three interconnected research themes to bridge this gap: 1. Distinguishing circularity practices across spatial and time scales; 2. Redesigning the value of design and its process; and 3. Learning from sister transitions for acceleration.

Purpose
Circular building adaptability (CBA) in adaptive reuse – building transformation – projects can facilitate a resource-efficient and futureproof redevelopment of the built environment. However, there has been a lack of practical tools that guide practitioners on how to foster CBA in adaptive reuse. Therefore, this study aims to collaboratively develop a guiding framework for CBA in adaptive reuse (CBA-AR) projects in general. The CBA-AR framework is a descriptive and content-oriented synthesis mapping a series of strategies to the CBA determinants alongside their enablers and inhibitors.

Design/methodology/approach
A participatory research-oriented approach was followed. First, an archival research was conducted to develop the CBA-AR framework based on literature review and case studies. Second, two co-creation workshops, triangulated with structured interviews, were conducted to validate and expand the framework.

Findings
The first version of the CBA-AR framework comprises 30 CBA strategies. It also brings seven enablers and six inhibitors together with the 30 CBA strategies. The outcomes of the participatory approach contributed to refining and expanding the framework. The final of the CBA-AR framework version comprises CBA 33 strategies. This version brings 10 enablers and 7 inhibitors together with the 33 strategies.

Practical implications
This framework can be used as a guiding and reporting instrument by designers and property developers while transforming vacant or obsolete properties in the Netherlands. Policy makers can refer to this framework and amend adaptive reuse legislation.

Originality/value
The CBA-AR framework can introduce a transformative change in theory and practice, as it is based on theoretical, empirical and participatory research.

Despite the significant growth of the literature on adaptive reuse, little is known about the specific criteria unfolding throughout the different phases of the adaptive reuse decision-making process. To address this gap this paper aims to provide a comprehensive, state-of-the-art overview of the decision criteria for adaptive reuse throughout the adaptive reuse process. Through an integrative literature review with a systematic search strategy, three phases are substantiated: pre-project phase, preparation phase, and post-completion phase. This paper finds that despite the similarities between the different phases, with a predominant repetition of economic and architectural categories, more specific environmental decision criteria are still overlooked. The findings underscore the necessity for additional research on circularity within the adaptive reuse process, emphasizing the significance of the often overlooked implementation phase, crucial for practices like disassembly. By offering a novel process perspective on AR decision-making, this study contributes to the growing discourse on adaptive reuse and provides a basis for further enhancement of AR decision-making frameworks.

The built environment plays a crucial role in the ongoing challenge of climate change, primarily through resource consumption, energy use, and contributions to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As urbanization accelerates, the environmental footprint of construction and building operations has grown significantly. Currently, buildings account for 40% of the world’s waste, 40% of material resource use, and 33% of human-induced emissions.

Population growth, market volatility, building obsolescence and property vacancy are triggers for adaptive reuse. Thus, adaptive reuse is an investable practice that needs to be facilitated by the means of adaptable design. Furthermore, adaptive reuse aligns with the principles of circular economy (CE), as it promotes the reuse of buildings and their longevity; thereby, reducing the need for new materials. In this regard, promoting the so-called circular building adaptability (CBA) in adaptive reuse could provide different benefits to the built environment, including long-lasting functionality and material reversibility. However, no guiding tool has been developed yet to practically guide practitioners on how to promote CBA in adaptive reuse. Therefore, this study aims to develop a guiding framework for CBA in adaptive reuse. First, a content-wise guiding framework was synthesized based on lessons learned from the relevant literature and case studies. The framework brings together a series of passive, active and operational strategies alongside their enabling and inhibiting factors. Second, a co-creation workshop was conducted and triangulated with three interviews to validate and expand the defined strategies. Based on the findings of this participatory approach, the developed framework encompasses 33 strategies. This framework can be seen as a legitimate and informative tool for practitioners, as it was constructed based on acquiring knowledge from theoretical research, empirical research and participatory research.