Next Article in Journal
Study on Mechanical Properties of Shotcrete Arch Frames in Tunnel Engineering Considering Blasting Excavation Effect at Early Age
Previous Article in Journal
From Barriers to Breakthroughs: A Deep Dive into BIM Integration Challenges
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 15
Issue 7
10.3390/buildings15071119
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Adaptability in the Building Process: A Multifaceted Perspective Across the Life Cycle of a Building

by
Efthymia Ratsou Staehr
*,
Tor Kristian Stevik
and
Leif Daniel Houck
REALTEK, Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU) Drøbakveien 31, 1433 Ås, Norway
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2025, 15(7), 1119; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071119
Submission received: 10 February 2025 / Revised: 14 March 2025 / Accepted: 22 March 2025 / Published: 29 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Architectural Design, Urban Science, and Real Estate)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Adaptability is a crucial yet often misunderstood aspect of sustainable architecture. This study explores how adaptability can be systematically embedded from the early design phase through construction, use, and eventual transformation or repurposing. By conducting a comprehensive literature review, the research categorises adaptability into distinct types of change and examines their relevance at different project stages. The findings emphasise the necessity of incorporating adaptability considerations early in the process, ensuring that buildings can respond to evolving spatial, functional, and environmental demands over time. While existing research acknowledges the importance of adaptability, gaps remain in its practical application across the full building life cycle. This study addresses these gaps by proposing a methodology to support long-term decision-making and reduce obsolescence in the built environment. By promoting life cycle thinking, this paper contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of adaptability, advocating for strategies that enhance the longevity and sustainability of buildings while responding to future uncertainties.

1. Introduction

The built environment constantly evolves, influenced by internal and external factors [1]. Buildings that fail to adapt to these changes may require extensive renovation or early demolition, leading to obsolescence [2,3,4].This obsolescence can increase waste generation, resource consumption, and environmental and economic concerns [5,6].
Given these challenges, it becomes imperative to rethink how we manage the building’s life cycle. In an era of ambitious sustainability targets set by legislative bodies, demolition or extensive renovation should be a last resort [7]. Preserving and extending the functional life of buildings can substantially contribute to achieving these sustainability targets [8,9,10]. As highlighted by scholars, adaptable buildings offer crucial advantages in resource efficiency and longevity, requiring fewer materials and less energy to meet changing needs, thus reducing obsolescence [1,11,12,13].
Central to the concept of adaptability is the openness to change. Scholars define transformation capacity as a metric indicating how efficiently a building or its components can adapt to evolving needs and requirements [14]. This capacity serves as an indicator of both adaptability and sustainable architecture [15,16]. However, diverse interpretations of adaptability, as highlighted by Schmidt III and Austin [17] and Pinder et al. [13], reveal the need for further research to bridge the gap and enhance our understanding of adaptability in construction [13,18,19,20].
Adaptability enhances a building’s lifespan and transformation capacity by responding to variables and changing conditions, offering regenerative alternatives to today’s often obsolete buildings [20,21]. Designing adaptable buildings allows modifications in response to changing occupant needs or purposes without extensive and costly renovations, thereby increasing their overall value [3,22]. Property owners and investors favour adaptable buildings due to their added value, higher occupancy rates, and long-term market viability [23].
Integrating specific considerations throughout the entire building process is essential to optimising the benefits of adaptability [23,24,25]. This requires a successive commitment to incorporating adaptability into construction projects, with adjustments to design and planning as they evolve. Recognising adaptability as an ongoing process necessitates foresight, strategic planning, and deliberate decision-making to ensure buildings remain functional, efficient, and relevant over time.
The existing literature discusses adaptability in relation to design strategies [15,17], but few studies offer a structured framework for embedding adaptability throughout the entire building process—from conceptual design to end-of-life consideration [19,26,27]. This paper aims to address this gap by investigating how adaptability should be incorporated into the different stages of the building life cycle. The approach involves analysing adaptability and its associated terminologies, focusing on the types of change they represent in buildings. This analysis thoroughly reviews the relationship between these adaptability considerations and the entire building life cycle. This paper provides an outline for integrating adaptability into building design and construction processes by examining the specific terms and their broader implications.

2. Materials and Methods

This research employs a combination of systematic literature review and narrative review methodologies to provide a comprehensive exploration of adaptability within the building life cycle. The systematic review ensures a rigorous and transparent process for identifying and synthesising relevant literature, while the narrative review complements this by offering a qualitative, holistic interpretation informed by existing theories, models, and the researchers’ expertise. Together, these approaches provide both breadth and depth in analysing the complexities of adaptability.

2.1. Systematic Review

A systematic review, characterised by its structured approach to literature retrieval and analysis, was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework [28]. This approach included four phases: identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion, ensuring a transparent and replicable process.
To ensure comprehensive coverage of the relevant academic literature, a structured search was conducted using the indexed electronic databases Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. These databases were selected due to their extensive indexing of peer-reviewed publications across architecture, engineering, and construction disciplines.
The literature search strategy was designed to ensure broad coverage across multiple academic sources. In Scopus, the search targeted the title, abstract, and keyword fields, while in Web of Science, it was applied to the “Topic” field, encompassing title, abstract, author keywords, and Keywords Plus®. For Google Scholar, the search was performed through the general search interface, capturing a broader spectrum of scholarly materials.
The search queries were structured around two primary research domains: (1) “Adaptability AND buildings” and (2) “Project life cycle AND buildings”. This multi-database approach aimed to capture a comprehensive and diverse range of studies relevant to the research objectives
The initial search, conducted in March 2024, yielded 12,171 records for the query “Adaptability AND buildings” and 140,896 records for “Project life cycle AND buildings”. To refine the scope and improve relevance, additional keywords were introduced in the adaptability query, including “Flexibility”, “Design”, “Adaptation”, “Building”, and “Architectural Design”, which resulted in a more targeted subset of 517 articles. After screening titles and abstracts, this process culminated in 97 selected articles related to adaptability in building design.
For the project life cycle query, additional search terms such as “Management”, “Construction”, and “Review” were applied to narrow the focus, reducing the dataset to 4518 articles. Title and abstract screening further refined the selection, resulting in 238 articles relevant to the building life cycle. The complete selection and filtering process is illustrated in Figure 1.
The review included peer-reviewed journal articles, conference proceedings, books, and book chapters published in English between 2013 and 2023. Articles without validated methodologies were excluded. Duplicate and irrelevant articles were also removed during the PRISMA stages.

2.2. Narrative Review

The narrative review complements the systematic review by synthesising insights from primary studies and situating them within broader theoretical and practical frameworks [29]. This approach is particularly appropriate for addressing complex and multifaceted topics such as adaptability in architecture, where diverse interpretations and disciplinary perspectives contribute to a richer understanding of the subject matter [30]. Narrative reviews also allow for the integration of qualitative techniques, including meta-ethnography and phenomenography, which enable comparative analysis across studies and enhance interpretive depth [31].
In this study, the narrative review serves as a supplementary layer to the systematic review, critically examining how adaptability is conceptualised and applied across various academic and professional contexts. It enables the integration of adaptability-related concepts—such as flexibility, transformability, modularity, and adaptive reuse—by positioning them within the wider discourse on sustainable architecture and building life cycle frameworks. The combination of systematic and narrative methodologies provides a more comprehensive and nuanced analysis of the literature, ensuring methodological rigour while capturing the conceptual complexity inherent in adaptability discourse.

2.3. Categorisation and Refinement

Building on Schmidt and Austin’s [17] categorisation of adaptability into six dimensions—task, space, performance, use, size, and location—this research refines the framework to focus on four principal dimensions: internal layout, function, components, and volume. The exclusion of location, typically determined during the conceptual phase, simplifies the applicability of adaptability principles across the building life cycle.
This refined categorisation integrates findings from the systematic and narrative reviews, offering a structured yet contextually enriched framework for understanding and applying adaptability in architectural practice. By combining these methodologies, the study ensures a robust and comprehensive exploration of adaptability, bridging theoretical insights and practical implementation throughout the building life cycle.

3. Results

The concept of adaptability is often misused and misunderstood [13]. Scholars have noted that various interpretations lead to overlapping meanings and confusion [20,23,32]. Moreover, there is a lack of clarity on when to incorporate adaptability into a building’s life cycle, despite its known impact on project outcomes [16].
This section attempts to clarify the concept of building adaptability by examining its different definitions and then emphasising the importance of integrating adaptability throughout all stages of the building life cycle.
The first section reviews 10 definitions of building adaptability and examines the type of change they represent. The second part explores the building’s life cycle, categorising it into 10 phases and highlighting practical considerations for adaptability within each phase.

3.1. Adaptability

Building on the idea that adaptability is closely tied to evolution and change [13], it is evident that adaptability is highly dependent on the specific context, and it varies across different fields. In the field of product design, for example, adaptability is often associated with extending a product’s service life [33] or enabling products to adjust to differing requirements [34]. In process design, adaptability is viewed as a strategy to overcome inherent limitations [35]. This nuanced understanding of adaptability extends into the architectural domain, where scholars have systematically analysed and categorised the concept to enhance its applicability.
In their efforts to deepen the understanding of adaptability in the context of buildings, scholars have proposed dividing buildings into distinct layers [17,18,36,37]. According to Brand [18], adaptability is dynamic and includes different lifespans for the various elements of the building. Friedman introduced adaptability in the context of the relationship between buildings and their users, defining it as the ability to accommodate various functions over time [32]. Arge described it as the ability to change in response to internal or external factors [3].
Other scholars tried to decipher adaptability in buildings by dividing it into the process of building and the building as the final product [23,24]. Adding an economic perspective, Blyth and Worthington defined adaptability as ‘The capacity of a building to react within a short time to new circumstances with minimal effort and at a justifiable cost’ [38]. Ross further expanded on this by describing adaptability as the ease with which buildings can be physically modified, deconstructed, and reconfigured [39]. The present study aligns with this latter interpretation, emphasising adaptability as a design strategy that facilitates ease of transformation while supporting long-term functionality and sustainability.

3.2. Flexibility

Flexibility represents the capacity to adapt to new conditions or circumstances [40]. In the built environment, flexibility is vital for addressing uncertainties and adapting to evolving conditions.
Gerwin [41] describes flexibility as the capacity to respond effectively to environmental uncertainties, emphasising the need for buildings to accommodate unforeseen changes during design and construction [3,41]. Engel and Browning further define flexibility as the ability to withstand stress without damage, highlighting the importance of resilience [42].
Russell et al. [43] characterise flexibility as facilitating minor shifts in space planning, enhancing adaptability without significant structural changes. This practical aspect of flexibility allows buildings to meet the changing needs of their interior layout with small adjustments [43] (Table 1).

3.3. Elasticity

Elasticity encompasses two main aspects. The first definition pertains to the ability of a material to resume its initial form after being stretched or compressed. The second aspect refers to the ability to change or adapt [40].
In building structures, elasticity represents how a material responds to forces or heat exposure, emphasising the stress or movement involved when it returns to its original form [44]. In architectural discourse, elasticity extends beyond materials to encompass the building itself. It signifies a building’s capability to be extended, shrunk, or partitioned according to specific requirements, altering its volume [3,45] (Table 1).

3.4. Generality

Generality refers to a condition encompassing a wide variety of elements rather than focusing on specific details [40]. In architecture, this concept is particularly significant, as it represents a building’s ability to fulfil changing functional purposes without altering its core properties [3,27,45]. The essence of generality lies in its capacity to future-proof a structure, enabling its interior to adapt to diverse uses over time without requiring substantial structural modifications (Table 1).

3.5. Transformability

Transformability is regarded as the ability to go beyond the existing trajectory and discover new ways of development [46]. It is considered a crucial path towards resilience [47].
Within the built environment, transformability is defined as a component’s capacity to assume a new function [48]. This definition encapsulates the dynamic nature of certain elements within such systems, showcasing their ability to transition into different roles or functionalities in response to changing requirements or conditions.
Brancart further elaborated on the concept of transformability in buildings by identifying two fundamental principles: deployability and design for disassembly [49]. Deployability focuses on adapting a system’s components for efficient deployment, ensuring that they can be easily moved and reconfigured as needed. In contrast, design for disassembly emphasises strategic planning and construction of components to facilitate their disassembly when necessary, promoting adaptability and sustainability.
In essence, the concept of transformability encompasses both the inherent adaptability of components to assume new functions and the deliberate principles guiding their disassembly (Table 1).

3.6. Adaptive Reuse

The term ‘adaptive reuse’ refers to repurposing buildings that have outlived the original function for which they were constructed [50,51]. Essentially, adaptive reuse is the process of transforming existing buildings to serve contemporary or different purposes [2]. This concept goes beyond merely altering a building’s physical structure; it involves a collaborative effort between the conservation community and the field of architecture to revitalise and reoccupy these structures [51,52].
Adaptive reuse breathes new life into buildings that have fulfilled their initial purpose [22]. This process is collaborative and transformative, preserving architectural heritage while contributing to sustainable urban development. By repurposing existing resources to meet contemporary needs, adaptive reuse conserves materials, reduces waste, and fosters a connection between historical architecture and modern functionality [53]. This approach underscores the importance of sustainability in the built environment, ensuring that structures remain relevant and valuable over time without necessitating new construction (Table 1).

3.7. Adaptive Capacity

Schuetze and Willkomm [54] conceptualise adaptive capacity within the built environment as the intrinsic ability to accommodate diverse functions or adapt to changing requirements. This capacity is realised through the design and construction of components and products that enable efficient reuse and recycling with minimal effort while maintaining high quality standards. As such, adaptive capacity serves as a central element in building circularity [54].
Building upon this foundation, Geraedts et al. [23] extend the understanding of adaptive capacity by encompassing all characteristics that enable a structure to maintain functionality throughout its technical life cycle while withstanding changes in requirements and circumstances. This broader perspective categorises adaptive capacity into three integral dimensions: organisational flexibility, process flexibility, and product flexibility. Organisational flexibility pertains to the adaptability of the overall structure and its components to organisational changes. This involves the capacity of the building’s design to accommodate shifts in use or management practices without necessitating major structural alterations. Process flexibility involves adapting construction and operational processes to accommodate varying demands. This dimension focuses on the methods and procedures used during the building’s construction and operation phases, ensuring they are adaptable and can respond to changes efficiently. Product flexibility centres on the adaptability of the built product or structure itself to evolving functional requirements. This includes designing building components that can be easily modified, replaced, or repurposed to meet new demands [23] (Table 1).

3.8. Modularity

According to Cambridge Dictionary, modularity is the quality of having separate parts that, when combined, form a complete whole [55].
Ross et al. [39] and Slaughter [5] have conceptualised modularity in the context of buildings. This concept involves standardising component sizes and interfaces to promote consistency and compatibility within a system or structure [5,39]. Using standardised elements in construction allows for more efficient and interchangeable building practices.
At a micro level, modularity can be applied to the assembly of individual rooms. Here, standardised components are used to create spaces that can be easily modified or reconfigured as needed. On a macro scale, modularity extends to entire buildings composed of standardised rooms or modules [23]. This principle supports constructing large structures with consistent, interchangeable parts, facilitating easier expansion, renovation, or repurposing over time (Table 1).

3.9. Convertibility

Convertibility is the ability to change into a different form or use [40]. In buildings, this term explicitly denotes the capacity to transition between different functions or uses [1,13,56]. This concept highlights the dynamic adaptability of buildings to serve various purposes, showcasing their versatility and flexibility in responding to changing requirements or evolving societal needs [44].
The significance of convertibility lies in its potential to mitigate the risk of obsolescence. By enabling buildings to evolve in response to shifting demands, convertibility ensures that structures remain relevant and functional over time, minimising the need for extensive renovations or demolitions (Table 1).

3.10. Scalability

Scalability refers to a system’s ability to expand its capacity by including more elements, thereby increasing its size [55]. In the field of architecture, scalability signifies the dynamic capacity of a building to adjust its size and volume, permitting both expansion and contraction as needed [57].
The core of scalability lies in its flexibility to meet diverse needs, whether that involves increasing or decreasing the overall dimensions of the building. This concept is crucial for accommodating varying space requirements over time, ensuring that the building can adapt to different uses and functions without necessitating major structural changes (Table 1).

3.11. Open Building

N.J. Habraken and Valkenburg [58] first introduced the open building concept, a term associated explicitly with architecture, in 1972. This concept implies designing buildings that can be precisely adjusted to meet users’ needs. Habraken’s approach involves dividing the building volume into two distinct layers: the ‘base building’ and the ‘infill’ [58].
The ‘base building’ refers to the fixed structure of the building, which includes the fundamental and permanent elements. In contrast, the ‘infill’ comprises the interior parts that can be rearranged and modified according to the users’ needs. This separation allows for greater flexibility and adaptability, enabling spaces to be easily transformed to accommodate changing requirements without altering the core structural framework [59] (Table 1).
In conclusion, adaptability can be defined as the ability to change in response to various stimuli, encompassing a broad spectrum of interpretations depending on the specific type of change accommodated. Scholars have extensively explored and categorised these interpretations, recognising that adaptability is not a monolithic concept but a multifaceted one (Table 1).

3.12. Life Cycle of a Building

Over the past four decades, the concept of the building life cycle has undergone significant evolution, reflecting the increasing complexity and demands of construction projects [60]. In the 1980s, scholars identified four primary phases in construction projects: conceptualisation, planning, production, and termination [61,62]. As research advanced, the model expanded to include a ‘use’ phase, while the original stages were refined into sub-phases to capture the nuanced processes within modern construction [63,64].
The evolution of the building life cycle framework reflects the increasing complexity of construction projects and underscores the need to address emerging challenges within the industry [65]. Among these challenges, environmental sustainability has gained prominence as a central concern, prompting the integration of assessment tools and methodologies to evaluate buildings’ ecological impact [66,67,68,69,70].
The increasing emphasis on sustainability in the construction industry has driven the development and widespread adoption of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), a systematic methodology for evaluating the environmental impact of buildings throughout their entire life cycle [66,70,71,72,73]. Anchored in standards such as EN 15804 [74] and EN 15978 [75], LCA provides a structured framework for analysing key life cycle stages, focusing primarily on a building’s physical attributes [66]. These stages include the construction phase, subdivided into A1–A3 (material production) and A4–A5 (construction processes); the operational use phase (B1–B5); and the end-of-life phase (C1–C4), which addresses deconstruction, demolition, and material recovery or disposal [76,77].

3.13. The Critical Role of Early Design Phases in Enhancing Sustainability and Adaptability

The LCA framework offers a structured methodology for evaluating the environmental impact of buildings across their physical life cycle. However, it does not inherently encompass the early planning phases—namely, the concept and design phases—where critical decisions about materials, construction methods, and spatial configurations are made. These phases are pivotal, as they profoundly influence a building’s operational performance, environmental impact, and overall design quality [38,78,79,80].
Integrating LCA considerations into these early phases ensures that sustainability principles are embedded from the outset, minimising environmental impacts and aligning the design process with long-term sustainability goals [68,72].
By incorporating strategies for energy efficiency, material reuse, and adaptability into the concept and design phases, buildings can be better equipped to address future changes with minimal interventions. Early decisions to include modularity, disassembly, and transformability principles enable buildings to respond effectively to evolving societal, technological, or functional demands [3,32]. These strategies help reduce obsolescence, enhance flexibility, and extend the functional lifespan of buildings.
The significance of embedding adaptability criteria during these phases is widely emphasised in the literature [81]. Scholars argue that early integration of adaptability is essential for creating sustainable, long-lasting buildings [25,81,82]. Andrade and Bragança [16] underscore that adaptability considerations at this phase can extend building life expectancy, reduce environmental impact, and support sustainability goals. Failure to address adaptability early can lead to structural challenges and increased costs in later life cycle phases [6,16,83,84]. Strategic planning during the initial phases ensures that buildings are designed to accommodate future changes, thereby mitigating risks and reducing potential renovation expenses.
Neglecting adaptive reuse principles during these early phases further limits opportunities for disassembly and material reuse once a building reaches the end of its technical life. This omission undermines the potential for circular material use, a cornerstone of sustainable construction practices [16,25,85]. Early integration of adaptive reuse strategies allows architects and engineers to design buildings with future material recovery and reuse in mind, thus enhancing circularity and contributing to more sustainable construction projects [6,84,86]. Incorporating these principles ensures that buildings meet current needs and are resilient and adaptable to future demands.
Table 1. The table presents a chronological overview of scholarly references, indicating which adaptability-related terms are mentioned by each source. This synthesis is based on a systematic literature review and highlights the evolution and usage of terminology over time.
Table 1. The table presents a chronological overview of scholarly references, indicating which adaptability-related terms are mentioned by each source. This synthesis is based on a systematic literature review and highlights the evolution and usage of terminology over time.
Source (Temporal Order)AdaptabilityFlexibilityElasticityGeneralityTransformabilityAdaptive ReuseAdaptive CapacityModularityConvertabilityScalabilityOpen Building
[58]XX X
[41] X
[18]X
[2] X
[59] X
[43] X
[5] X
[32]X
[3]XXXX
[22] X
[36]X
[49] X
[27] XXX
[45] XX
[42]XX
[56]XX X
[54] X
[38]X
[26] X
[23] X X
[1]X X
[39]X X
[17]X
[51] X
[48] X
[84] XXX
[53] X
[50] X X
[52] X
[86] X XX

3.14. Building Life Cycle and Adaptability Considerations

The concept of the building life cycle may have traditionally been shaped by Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), a methodology primarily focused on evaluating the environmental impact of products and systems across their entire lifespan [87]. Initially developed as a tool for material flow accounting, LCA has evolved into a comprehensive approach for assessing environmental performance by adopting a circular rather than linear perspective—considering not only the production and operational stages but also future reuse, recycling, and end-of-life scenarios [76,87,88].
Grounded in standards such as ISO 14040:2006 [89], LCA provides a universally accepted framework for quantifying sustainability performance through a structured analysis of inputs, outputs, and potential environmental impacts across defined life cycle stages [90].
This study adopts a life cycle perspective based on LCA project phases, as it may provide a systematic universal framework for situating sustainability strategies such as adaptability in the building’s life cycle [1,91]. As adaptability is increasingly recognised as a key aspect of sustainable architecture [1,7,11,86,91], its integration throughout the building life cycle offers the potential to reduce resource use, extend service life, and mitigate obsolescence.
Accordingly, the building life cycle in this study is segmented into 10 distinct phases, incorporating both the early planning stages, such as concept and design [61], as well as the physical stages defined by LCA [77]. By examining how adaptability considerations can be embedded at each phase, this study highlights strategies to foster resilience and promote circularity. This comprehensive approach ensures that adaptability is addressed holistically, aligning the initial design and planning processes with the practical and environmental demands of the building’s physical life cycle (Figure 2).

3.14.1. Phase 1: Initiation

In the initial phase of project development, the clients decide on the type of building and its location. Practical adaptability strategies focus primarily on design modifications and building considerations, so they are not yet applicable during this phase [20] (Table 2).

3.14.2. Phase 2: Feasibility and Project Brief

During the feasibility and project brief phase, the foundational intentions and objectives for the building are established [92]. At this phase, key considerations for an adaptable building are defined [20]. Various future use scenarios may be explored to assess how the building could accommodate changing requirements over time [93,94]. Incorporating scenario-based design within the feasibility study can optimise the long-term functionality of the building by evaluating multiple possibilities for its use. This approach allows stakeholders to anticipate shifts in demand, technological advancements, and user needs, thereby informing strategic decisions early in the planning process. Additionally, the project brief, which is developed at this phase, plays a critical role in determining the type and extent of adaptability required for the building [64] (Table 2).

3.14.3. Phase 3: Architectural Concept

The concept phase is crucial for determining the architectural form of the building. It serves as the foundation for setting all criteria concerning the future building. During this phase, construction, strategic, and technical adaptability criteria are established, and the initial building volume takes shape [95,96,97]. Additionally, the conceptual framework for the building’s afterlife is developed during this phase [98] (Table 2).

3.14.4. Phase 4: Design

In the design phase, adaptability criteria materialise through collaboration between architects and engineers. Practical elements for the adaptable building are decided upon, and predictions about its future use are made. This phase involves finalising the adaptable design, determining future uses, selecting scalable infrastructure, and choosing future building materials [3,19,22,59,99]. If the building follows adaptive capacity criteria, architects and engineers must design all elements to facilitate easy disassembly [54,85,98]. Additionally, consideration of aesthetics, legislation, environmental strategies, constructional challenges, structural aspects, and economic factors is imperative to achieve a holistic, adaptable building [20,21,86,100] (Table 2).

3.14.5. Phase 5: Manufacturing

This phase encompasses the production and transportation of materials, including raw material extraction, processing, and delivery to the construction [77,101]. Adaptability strategies can be integrated at the component level by prioritising components that facilitate modularity, disassembly, and reuse. Materials designed to support these strategies enhance the potential for future reconfiguration or recycling of the building’s elements [102].

3.14.6. Phase 6: Construction

As construction proceeds, the physical assembly of the structure begins. This phase is where adaptability strategies are manifested by selecting appropriate building components and materials [102,103]. In addition, allowing assembly tolerance during this phase can ensure the maintenance of adaptability during the building’s life cycle [99] (Table 2).

3.14.7. Phase 7: Handover

In the handover phase, the building is officially handed over, marking the termination of the construction process. During this phase, all envisioned targets, including adaptability strategies, are validated and implemented [104]. A thorough inspection ensures that all elements are in place and functioning correctly before occupancy. The handover phase confirms that the building meets specified requirements and standards and is ready for use while accommodating future adaptability needs [104] (Table 2).

3.14.8. Phase 8: Use

The use phase signifies the occupancy of the building by its users, marking the transition from construction to practical use. At this phase, adaptability strategies are actively employed to adjust the building to varying needs, thereby extending its lifespan [11,13]. The building undergoes extensions, transformations, and alterations in response to different internal and external factors [3]. This phase ensures that the building remains functional and relevant, accommodating changes in usage and requirements over time as originally envisioned (Table 2).

3.14.9. Phase 9: End of Life

In the final phase, the building’s technical life cycle concludes, opening opportunities for alternative uses beyond its original design through adaptive reuse or recycling and deconstruction possibilities facilitated by circularity principles [22,50,54] (Table 2).

3.14.10. Phase 10: Afterlife

Incorporating an afterlife phase into the building’s life cycle significantly reduces the potential for obsolescence. This approach ensures that the building’s materials and components can be repurposed, recycled, or safely deconstructed, thereby extending the building’s overall lifespan and minimising environmental impact [77] (Table 2).
Table 2. Chosen set of project phases, their descriptions, and adaptability considerations.
Table 2. Chosen set of project phases, their descriptions, and adaptability considerations.
Phase DescriptionAdaptability Consideration
(The Strategic Identification and Integration of Adaptability Within Each Stage of the Building Life Cycle)		Adaptability Realisation
Concept PhasePhase 1:Client requirements and goals regarding the type of the building set [105].No adaptability actions [16].No adaptability realisation
Phase 2:The client approves the Project Brief, and the site is chosen [64].Adaptability is decided as one of the building criteria. Scenario-based predictions about the changing needs of owners/users are made [16,21,93,94].
Design PhasePhase 3:Architectural Concept approved by the client and aligned with the Project Brief [64].Adaptability criteria [106] and potential costs are established [27]. Architects and Engineers decide on the physical features of the building [107].No adaptability realisation
Phase 4:Architectural drawings completed. Engineering calculations, as well as drawings, are completed [61,64,105,108].Adaptability strategies implemented into the design of the building [20,21,86,100]. The building’s physical features, which promote future adaptability, are designed and calculated.
Construction PhasePhase 5:Manufacturing and transportation of building materials [77,101].Adaptability solutions are implemented in the component level. Materials that will assist in adaptability strategies and disassembly of buildings are constructed [102,109].No adaptability realisation
Phase 6:Construction of the building and commissioning of the contractor are completed [63,64,77,101,110].Adaptability-chosen solutions are implemented during the building’s construction by following the architectural drawings [18,102,103].
Phase 7:The building is handed over, aftercare is initiated, and the building contract is concluded [63].Validation that adaptability strategies are implemented [104].
Use PhasePhase 8:The building is used, operated, and maintained efficiently [64,77,101,108].Adaptability is used to encompass changes in the building. The building is altered to incorporate changing needs at a low cost. The building’s lifespan is prolonged [11,13].Flexibility, Generality, Modularity, Convertibility, Open plan, Transformability
End of Life PhasePhase 9:The building’s technical life is finished [77,111].The building’s technical life is prolonged until a halt.
Afterlife PhasePhase 10:Benefits beyond the system boundary. The building or parts of the building are reused [77].The building is either transformed or recycled/deconstructed with ease [22,50,54,112].Transformability, Adaptive reuse, Adaptive capacity

4. Discussion

As already stated, adaptability in architecture is a complex concept, resulting in inconsistencies in interpretation and application [13,26,113]. It functions as an umbrella term encompassing a range of related subcategories, each representing distinct types of change [20]. These aspects include flexibility, generality, open-plan design, convertibility, adaptive reuse, transformability, modularity, and adaptive capacity, all reflecting the various dimensions of how buildings respond to changing requirements, emphasising the breadth and complexity of adaptability as a concept.
To enhance understanding, scholars have sought to categorise adaptability based on the types of change it causes [3,23,58]. Schmidt and Austin [17] identified six types of change: task, space, performance, use, size, and location. Building on this framework, this research refines the categorisation to focus on four principal dimensions: internal layout, function, components, and volume. Location, typically predetermined during a project’s conceptual phase, is excluded from this analysis. By consolidating the remaining categories, the proposed approach simplifies the application of adaptability in architectural practice, ensuring a more structured and comprehensive integration throughout the design phase.

4.1. Internal Layout-Related Terms

Scholars have identified several key terms related to adaptability in building design, each emphasising different degrees and types of internal spatial changes. The three terms—flexibility, generality, and open building—focus on facilitating change within a building’s internal layout, during the use phase of the building life cycle. The primary distinction among them lies in the extent of change they accommodate.
Flexibility refers to spaces designed with the anticipation of future additions or modifications [3,42,43]. This concept requires consideration of potential structural elements that might be needed later, such as additional support beams or infrastructure capacity for new systems.
As far as generality is concerned, changes are minimal and do not affect the core properties of the building [3,27,45]. The design aims to maintain the building’s structural and aesthetic integrity while allowing various uses. This typically involves creating versatile, multi-use spaces that require little alteration to switch functions.
The open-plan approach allows for the most significant potential changes. By creating a fixed external shell with a non-specific internal layout, the building can undergo extensive internal reconfiguration [58]. This concept is ideal for environments where spaces’ functions are expected to change frequently and substantially over time (Figure 3).

4.2. Function-Related Terms

Convertibility and adaptive reuse are two key concepts related to building functional adaptability. Each addresses different stages of a building’s life cycle. Convertibility refers to a building’s capability to change its function during its active-use phase. Buildings designed with convertibility in mind are intended to adapt to different uses as needs evolve over time [1]. This adaptability-related term allows for functional shifts within the building’s original lifespan, enabling it to accommodate various purposes without significant structural changes.
In contrast, adaptive reuse pertains to the change in function that occurs after the building’s original use phase has concluded [2], during what is often referred to as the building’s ‘afterlife’. This approach focuses on repurposing and revitalising buildings that might otherwise be demolished, giving them a new lease on life by transforming them for different uses beyond their initial design.
While both convertibility and adaptive reuse aim to extend the functional life of buildings through changes in use, they operate at different points in the building’s life cycle. Convertibility allows for functional shifts during the building’s active-use phase, facilitating ongoing adaptability to meet current needs. On the other hand, adaptive reuse repurposes buildings after their initial use phase has ended, ensuring that existing structures are utilised efficiently and sustainably rather than being torn down. By addressing both active-use and post-use phases, these concepts contribute to the sustainable management of the built environment (Figure 4).

4.3. Component-Related Terms

Transformability, modularity, and adaptive capacity represent different approaches to designing buildings with adaptable components.
Modularity focuses on standardised components for efficient construction and easy modification [5], making it suitable for buildings requiring frequent changes or expansions during the use phase. Transformability emphasises designing components that can assume new functions [49], both during the use and afterlife phase, enabling spaces to be repurposed as needs evolve. Adaptive capacity involves designing with the future reuse of components during its afterlife phase in mind [54], promoting sustainability and resource efficiency.
In conclusion, all three terms refer to building components but differ in the type of change they offer: modularity allows for quick construction and flexible reconfiguration, transformability enables buildings to adapt to different functions without significant alterations, and adaptive capacity ensures the long-term sustainability of materials (Figure 5).

4.4. Volumetric-Related Terms

Two important concepts when considering changes in building volume are scalability and elasticity. Both terms pertain to the building’s ability to adapt its physical volume during the use phase of the building life cycle, but they differ in their approaches and implications for long-term use.
Scalability involves permanent adjustments to the building’s volume [57]. Once the building changes its physical volume, the new additions become a fixed part of its structure.
When designing with elasticity in mind, temporary changes in building volume should be considered, allowing the structure to expand and contract as needed [3]. This adaptability strategy is advantageous for buildings that need to adapt quickly to changing spatial requirements.
In summary, scalability and elasticity are critical concepts for managing changes in building volume. Scalability focuses on permanent expansions to meet long-term needs, while elasticity provides the adaptability to adjust space temporarily and revert to the original form (Figure 6).

4.5. Interrelations Among Adaptability Dimensions

It is important to acknowledge that the four dimensions of adaptability—internal layout, function, components, and volume—should not be viewed as isolated or mutually exclusive categories. Rather, these dimensions often coexist in practice and overlap within a building project, reflecting architectural adaptability’s multifaceted and interconnected nature. Designing for adaptability does not imply selecting a single dimension of change; instead, it necessitates a comprehensive approach that considers how multiple adaptability strategies may simultaneously contribute to long-term performance. For instance, a building with a flexible internal layout may also benefit from modular components or volumetric expansion capacity, enhancing functional and spatial adaptability. As Geraedts et al. [23] and Schmidt and Austin [17] suggest, adaptability should be approached as a dynamic system of interrelated strategies rather than as discrete elements. This integrative understanding is critical to ensure the building’s capacity to respond to a broad range of future requirements and scenarios.

4.6. Empirical Studies on Adaptability

The practical application of adaptability in architecture has been widely studied, with scholars examining the complexities and challenges of implementing adaptability in real-world scenarios.
When considering internal layout adaptability, researchers have explored how spatial flexibility influences residential and workplace environments. Femenias and Geromel [114] investigated the generality and flexibility of contemporary apartments, analysing how design choices impact future adaptability. Similarly, Van Der Voordt [115] examined flexibility in workspaces, highlighting the potential for reconfigurable office environments to accommodate evolving work practices.
Adaptability in function has also been extensively researched. Wong [51] studied adaptive reuse, identifying the various typologies buildings can take when repurposed for new uses. Additionally, Rinke and Pacquee [116] examined convertibility, mapping different structural systems to assess their capacity for functional transformation
Regarding component adaptability, studies have focused on the role of modular and circular construction. Leising et al. [98] analysed three case studies of buildings that incorporate circular components, demonstrating how design strategies can facilitate reuse. Generalova et al. explored prefabricated modular construction, illustrating how these systems allow for assembly and disassembly based on demand [117].
Finally, in the realm of volumetric adaptability, Cambier et al. [111] investigated the elasticity of single-family homes, demonstrating how architectural design can support spatial expansion or contraction to accommodate changing user needs.
These studies provide valuable insights into the practical ways adaptability can be integrated into building design, reinforcing the importance of strategic planning throughout the building life cycle.

4.7. Implementation of Adaptability in the Building Phases

Adaptability in building design is often addressed reactively, introduced in fragmented responses to evolving needs rather than as a cohesive design principle [26]. To address this concern, adaptability considerations should be embedded early in the conceptual phase [16,21] (Phase 2), where projections for the building’s future adaptability and sustainability are first outlined and continue to be applied throughout the whole building cycle.
The design phase (Phases 3 and 4) is widely regarded as an essential phase in the development of an adaptable building [23]. During this phase, architects and engineers define and integrate design criteria aligned with the selected adaptability considerations [107]. This phase involves making strategic decisions to accommodate changes in the internal layout, function, volume, and components and considering the building’s afterlife [20,21,112]. To accommodate internal layout changes, designs should incorporate surplus space, increased ceiling heights, and scalable technical systems, such as oversized ventilation shafts, while using lightweight, demountable partition materials for flexibility and minimal disruption [3,23,39]. Functional adaptability can be achieved through open-plan layouts and flexible technical systems, enabling seamless reconfiguration to meet changing user needs [3,23]. At the component level, modular construction and standardised components allow for efficient replacement, upgrading, and reconfiguration, while durable, reusable materials ensure long-term performance and sustainability [5,102]. For volumetric adaptability, robust structural systems and advanced joining techniques enable future expansions, such as adding floors, without compromising structural integrity [39,118].
During the construction phase (Phases 5, 6, and 7), the building takes shape through manufacturing and assembly [102]. While many adaptability elements are predetermined in the earlier phases, adjustments can be made to accommodate unexpected changes or deviations from the original designs [119].
In the use phase, adaptability related to the internal layout, function, volume, and components becomes essential. The building is now changed, allowing it to adjust to new requirements and extend its life cycle [13].
Finally, in the afterlife phase, the building ends its technical life. This is where adaptive capacity and reuse are crucial, either giving the building a new purpose or repurposing its components for new construction projects [22,112].

5. Conclusions

Adaptability is a fundamental concept in contemporary building design, serving as a cornerstone for creating functional, resilient, and sustainable structures. Adaptability must be integrated as a guiding principle across all phases of the building life cycle to fully harness its potential, from the initial conceptualisation to the building’s afterlife.
The conceptual and design phases are particularly critical, as decisions made during these early stages establish the foundation for a building’s long-term adaptability and sustainability. Architects should anticipate the types of changes their buildings may undergo over time—whether related to internal layout, function, components, or volume—and incorporate adaptability strategies accordingly. By embedding adaptability into the design phase, buildings can remain responsive to evolving needs with minimal structural or technical disruptions, thereby enhancing longevity and efficiency.
Equally significant is the afterlife phase, where strategies for repurposing or reusing building components play a crucial role in minimising waste and supporting circular economy principles. Adaptability must not be approached as a fragmented or reactive measure but rather as a continuous process embedded throughout the entire building life cycle to maximise its long-term benefits.
This study categorises adaptability into four key dimensions—internal layout, function, components, and volume—based on the types of change it represents. By integrating adaptability across these dimensions, buildings can evolve in response to shifting societal, functional, and environmental demands, reducing the risk of obsolescence while enhancing resilience.

6. Limitations and Future Research

While this study provides a structured framework for embedding adaptability in the building life cycle, several limitations should be acknowledged. As this research is primarily based on a literature review, it may not fully capture the practical complexities and challenges of implementing adaptability in real-world projects. Empirical validation through simulations or stakeholder engagement would provide deeper insights and reinforce the study’s conclusions.
Furthermore, this research focuses on four key dimensions of adaptability—internal layout, function, components, and volume—excluding external factors such as economic constraints, regulatory frameworks, and user-driven preferences, which may also influence adaptability considerations. Addressing these factors in future research will contribute to a more holistic understanding of adaptability and its broader implications.
Future research should also explore stakeholders’ perspectives—including architects, engineers, policymakers, and end-users—to bridge the gap between theoretical adaptability models and their practical application. Understanding how different disciplines perceive and implement adaptability will be crucial in developing comprehensive frameworks that support flexible, future-proof, and sustainable building practices.
By embracing adaptability as a cohesive and ongoing principle, architects and industry professionals can create buildings that meet current needs while remaining adaptable to future uncertainties, ensuring a more resilient and sustainable built environment.

Funding

The APC was funded by REALTEK, Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 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]
  2. Kenneth, P. Architecture Reborn, the Conservation and Reconstruction of Old Buildings; Laurence King Publishing: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arge, K. Adaptable office buildings: Theory and practice. Facilities 2005, 23, 119–127. [Google Scholar]
  4. Lemer, A.C. Infrastructure obsolescence and design service life. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 1996, 2, 153–161. [Google Scholar]
  5. Slaughter, E.S. Design strategies to increase building flexibility. Build. Res. Inf. 2001, 29, 208–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Webster, M.D. Structural design for adaptability and deconstruction: A strategy for closing the materials loop and increasing building value. In New Horizons and Better Practices; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2007; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  7. Gosling, J.; Sassi, P.; Naim, M.; Lark, R. Adaptable buildings: A systems approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2013, 7, 44–51. [Google Scholar]
  8. Arrigoni, A.; Zucchinelli, M.; Collatina, D.; Dotelli, G. Life cycle environmental benefits of a forward-thinking design phase for buildings: The case study of a temporary pavilion built for an international exhibition. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 187, 974–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Citherlet, S.; Defaux, T. Energy and environmental comparison of three variants of a family house during its whole life span. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 591–598. [Google Scholar]
  10. Power, A. Does demolition or refurbishment of old and inefficient homes help to increase our environmental, social and economic viability? Energy Policy 2008, 36, 4487–4501. [Google Scholar]
  11. van Ellen, L.; Bridgens, B.; Burford, N.; Heidrich, O. Rhythmic Buildings—A framework for sustainable adaptable architecture. Build. Environ. 2021, 203, 108068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wilkinson, S.J.; James, K.; Reed, R. Using building adaptation to deliver sustainability in Australia. Struct. Surv. 2009, 27, 46–61. [Google Scholar]
  13. Pinder, J.A.; Schmidt, R.; Austin, S.; Gibb, A.; Saker, J. What is meant by adaptability in buildings? Facilities 2017, 35, 2–20. [Google Scholar]
  14. Henrotay, C. BAMB 2020, 2015; Buildings As Material Banks. Available online: https://www.bamb2020.eu/topics/circular-built-environement/common-language/transformation-capacity/#:~:text=Transformation%20capacity%20is%20a%20measure%20that%20expresses%20the,its%20parts%20to%20meet%20changing%20needs%20and%20requirements (accessed on 25 March 2023).
  15. Durmisevic, E. Transformable Building Structures. Design for Disassembly as a Way to Introduce Sustainable Engineering to Building Design & Construction; Delft University: Delft, The Netherlands, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  16. Andrade, J.B.; Bragança, L. Assessing Buildings’ Adaptability at Early Design Stages. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  17. Schmidt, R., III; Austin, S. Adaptable Architecture: Theory and Practice; Routledge: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  18. Brand, S. How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built; Penguin: London, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  19. Geraedts, R. FLEX 4.0, a practical instrument to assess the adaptive capacity of buildings. Energy Procedia 2016, 96, 568–579. [Google Scholar]
  20. Askar, R.; Bragança, L.; Gervásio, H. Adaptability of Buildings: A Critical Review on the Concept Evolution. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. 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]
  22. Douglas, J. Building Adaptation; Routledge: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  23. Geraedts, R.; Olsson, N.O.; Hansen, G.K. Adaptability. In Facilities Management and Corporate Real Estate Management as Value Drivers; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 193–221. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gil, N.; Tommelein, I.D.; Stout, A.; Garrett, T. Embodying product and process flexibility to cope with challenging project deliveries. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2005, 131, 439–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dams, B.; Maskell, D.; Shea, A.; Allen, S.; Driesser, M.; Kretschmann, T.; Walker, P.; Emmitt, S. A circular construction evaluation framework to promote designing for disassembly and adaptability. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 316, 128122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Schmidt, R., III; Deamer, J.; Austin, S. Understanding adaptability through layer dependencies. In DS 68–10, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 11), Impacting Society through Engineering Design, Vol. 10, Design Methods and Tools pt. 2, Lyngby/Copenhagen, Denmark, 15–19 August 2011; The Design Society: Glasgow, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  27. Heidrich, O.; Kamara, J.; Maltese, S.; Cecconi, F.R.; Dejaco, M.C. A critical review of the developments in building adaptability. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2017, 35, 284–303. [Google Scholar]
  28. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kirkevold, M. Integrative nursing research—An important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. J. Adv. Nurs. 1997, 25, 977–984. [Google Scholar]
  30. Collins, J.A.; Fauser, B.C. Balancing the Strengths of Systematic and Narrative Reviews; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005; pp. 103–104. [Google Scholar]
  31. Jones, K. Mission drift in qualitative research, or moving toward a systematic review of qualitative studies, moving back to a more systematic narrative review. Qual. Rep. 2004, 9, 95–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Friedman, A. The Adaptable House; McGraw-Hill, Inc.: Chicago, IL, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  33. Gu, P.; Hashemian, M.; Nee, A.Y.C. Adaptable Design. CIRP Ann. 2004, 53, 539–557. [Google Scholar]
  34. Li, Y.; Xue, D.; Gu, P. Design for Product Adaptability. Concurr. Eng. 2008, 16, 221–232. [Google Scholar]
  35. Bravetti, M.; Di Giusto, C.; Perez, J.A.; Zavattaro, G. Adaptable processes. Log. Methods Comput. Sci. 2012, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  36. Leupen, B. Frame and Generic Space; 010 Publishers: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  37. Duffy, F. Measuring building performance. Facilities 1990, 8, 17–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Blyth, A.; Worthington, J. Managing the Brief for Better Design; Taylor and Francis: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ross, B.E.; Chen, D.A.; Conejos, S.; Khademi, A. Enabling Adaptable Buildings: Results of a Preliminary Expert Survey. Procedia Eng. 2016, 145, 420–427. [Google Scholar]
  40. Oxford, D. Oxford English Dictionary; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  41. Gerwin, D. Manufacturing flexibility: A strategic perspective. Manag. Sci. 1993, 39, 395–410. [Google Scholar]
  42. Engel, A.; Browning, T.R. Designing systems for adaptability by means of architecture options. Syst. Eng. 2008, 11, 125–146. [Google Scholar]
  43. Russell, P.; Moffatt, S. Assessing Buildings for Adaptability, IEA Annex 31 Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings. International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment (iiSBE), ON, 2001. Available online: http://annex31.wiwi.unikarlsruhe.de/pdf (accessed on 20 April 2023).
  44. Barber, J.R. Introduction. In Elasticity; Barber, J.R., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 3–24. [Google Scholar]
  45. Beadle, K.; Gibb, A.; Austin, S.; Fuster, A.; Madden, P. Adaptable futures: Sustainable aspects of adaptable buildings. In Proceedings of theARCOM (Association of Researchers in Construction Management) Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference, Cardiff, UK, 1–3 September 2008. [Google Scholar]
  46. Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.R.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Chapin, T.; Rockström, J. Resilience Thinking Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Walker, B.; Holling, C.S.; Carpenter, S.; Kinzig, A. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2004, 9, 5. [Google Scholar]
  48. 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]
  49. Brancart, S.; Paduart, A.; Vergauwen, A.; Vandervaeren, C.; De Temmerman, N. Transformable structures: Materialising design for change. Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodynamics 2017, 12, 357–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Stone, S. UnDoing Buildings: Adaptive Reuse and Cultural Memory; Routledge: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  51. Wong, L. Adaptive Reuse: Extending the Lives of Buildings; Birkhäuser: Basel, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  52. Lanz, F.; Pendlebury, J. Adaptive reuse: A critical review. J. Archit. 2022, 27, 441–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Brooker, G.; Stone, S. Re-Readings: 2, Interior Architecture and the Principles of Remodelling Existing Buildings; RIBA publishing: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  54. Schuetze, T.; Willkomm, D. Designing Extended Lifecycles. In SASBE 09–3rd CIB International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Built Environments; CIB & TU Delft: Delft, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  55. Cambridge, P. Cambridge Dictionary. 2024. Available online: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/adaptability (accessed on 15 March 2023).
  56. Pati, D.; Harvey, T.; Cason, C. Inpatient unit flexibility: Design characteristics of a successful flexible unit. Environ. Behav. 2008, 40, 205–232. [Google Scholar]
  57. Schmidt, R., III; Toru, E.; Simon, A.; Alistair, G. What is the Meaning of Adaptability in the Building Industry. Open Sustain. Build. 2010, pp. 233–242. Available online: https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB17993.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2023).
  58. Habraken, N.J.; Valkenburg, B. De Dragers en de Mensen. Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing; Valkenburg, B., Translator; Architectural Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1972. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kendall, S. Open building: An approach to sustainable architecture. J. Urban Technol. 1999, 6, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  60. Lafhaj, Z.; Rebai, S.; AlBalkhy, W.; Hamdi, O.; Mossman, A.; Da Costa, A.A. Complexity in Construction Projects: A Literature Review. Buildings 2024, 14, 680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Pinto, J.K.; Slevin, D.P. Critical Success Factors Across the Project Life Cycle; Project Management Institute: Drexel Hill, PA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  62. Cleland, D.I. Systems Analysis and Project Management; McGraw-Hill College: New York, NY, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  63. Fowler, M.; Highsmith, J. The agile manifesto. Softw. Dev. 2001, 9, 28–35. [Google Scholar]
  64. RIBA. RIBA Plan of Work 2020. 2023. Available online: https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/resources-landing-page/riba-plan-of-work (accessed on 11 March 2023).
  65. Evbuomwan, N.F.; Anumba, C.J. An integrated framework for concurrent life-cycle design and construction. Adv. Eng. Softw. 1998, 29, 587–597. [Google Scholar]
  66. Guinée, J.B.; Heijungs, R.; Huppes, G.; Zamagni, A.; Masoni, P.; Buonamici, R.; Ekvall, T.; Rydberg, T. Life Cycle Assessment: Past, Present, and Future; ACS Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  67. Loiseau, E.; Saikku, L.; Antikainen, R.; Droste, N.; Hansjürgens, B.; Pitkänen, K.; Leskinen, P.; Kuikman, P.; Thomsen, M. Green economy and related concepts: An overview. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 139, 361–371. [Google Scholar]
  68. Röck, M.; Hollberg, A.; Habert, G.; Passer, A. LCA and BIM: Visualization of environmental potentials in building construction at early design stages. Build. Environ. 2018, 140, 153–161. [Google Scholar]
  69. Obrecht, T.P.; Röck, M.; Hoxha, E.; Passer, A. BIM and LCA integration: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bhyan, P.; Shrivastava, B.; Kumar, N. Systematic literature review of life cycle sustainability assessment system for residential buildings: Using bibliometric analysis 2000–2020. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 25, 13637–13665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Vilches, A.; Garcia-Martinez, A.; Sanchez-Montanes, B. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of building refurbishment: A literature review. Energy Build. 2017, 135, 286–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bribián, I.Z.; Usón, A.A.; Scarpellini, S. Life cycle assessment in buildings: State-of-the-art and simplified LCA methodology as a complement for building certification. Build. Environ. 2009, 44, 2510–2520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Nwodo, M.N.; Anumba, C.J. A review of life cycle assessment of buildings using a systematic approach. Build. Environ. 2019, 162, 106290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. EN 15804; Sustainability of Construction Works—Environmental Product Declarations—Core Values for the Product Category of Con-struction Products. European committee for standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
  75. CEN 15978; 2011 a Sustainability of Construction Works—Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings—Calculation Method. European committee for standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
  76. Bjørn, A.; Owsianiak, M.; Molin, C.; Hauschild, M. LCA history. In Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 17–30. [Google Scholar]
  77. CEN 15978; 2011 b Sustainability of Construction Works—Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings—Calculation Method. European committee for standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
  78. Kovacic, I.; Zoller, V. Building life cycle optimization tools for early design phases. Energy 2015, 92, 409–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Bogenstätter, U. Prediction and optimization of life-cycle costs in early design. Build. Res. Inf. 2000, 28, 376–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Yang, Y.Q.; Wang, S.Q.; Dulaimi, M.; Low, S.P. A fuzzy quality function deployment system for buildable design decision-makings. Autom. Constr. 2003, 12, 381–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Boge, K.; Salaj, A.T.; Bjørberg, S.; Larssen, A.K. Failing to plan—planning to fail: How early phase planning can improve buildingsʼ lifetime value creation. Facilities 2018, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hashemian, M. Design for Adaptability; University of Saskatchewan: Saskatoon, SK, Canada, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  83. Israelsson, N.; Hansson, B. Factors Influencing Flexibility in Buildings. Struct. Surv. 2009, 27, 138–147. [Google Scholar]
  84. Pinder, J.R.S., III; Saker, J. Stakeholder Perspectives on Developing More Adaptable Buildings. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2013, 31, 440–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Durmisevic, E.; Guerriero, A.; Boje, C.; Domange, B.; Bosch, G. Development of a conceptual digital deconstruction platform with integrated Reversible BIM to aid decision making and facilitate a circular economy. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference CIB W78-LDAC, Luxembourg, 11–15 October 2021. [Google Scholar]
  86. Hamida, M.B.; Jylhä, T.; Remøy, H.; Gruis, V. Circular building adaptability and its determinants–A literature review. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2023, 41, 47–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Finnveden, G.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Ekvall, T.; Guinée, J.B.; Heijungs, R.; Hellweg, S.; Koehler, A.; Pennington, D.; Suh, S. Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 91, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  88. Arvidsson, R.; Svanström, M.; Sandén, B.A.; Thonemann, N.; Steubing, B.; Cucurachi, S. Terminology for future-oriented life cycle assessment: Review and recommendations. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2024, 29, 607–613. [Google Scholar]
  89. ISO 14040; 2006 Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. International Organisation for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  90. Finkbeiner, M.; Inaba, A.; Tan, R.; Christiansen, K.; Klüppel, H.-J. The new international standards for life cycle assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11, 80–85. [Google Scholar]
  91. Askar, R.; Bragança, L.; Gervásio, H. Design for adaptability (DfA)—Frameworks and assessment models for enhanced circularity in buildings. Appl. Syst. Innov. 2022, 5, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Markelj, J.; Kuzman, M.K.; Grošelj, P.; Zbašnik-Senegačnik, M. A simplified method for evaluating building sustainability in the early design phase for architects. Sustainability 2014, 6, 8775–8795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Lüley, M. Non-linear design thinking in architectural education. World Trans. Eng. Technol. Educ. 2020, 18, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  94. Eilouti, B. Scenario-based design: New applications in metamorphic architecture. Front. Archit. Res. 2018, 7, 530–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Macmillan, S.; Steele, J.; Kirby, P.; Spence, R.; Austin, S. Mapping the design process during the conceptual phase of building projects. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2002, 9, 174–180. [Google Scholar]
  96. 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]
  97. De Paris, S.; Lacerda Lopes, C.N.; Neuenfeldt, A., Jr. The use of an analytic hierarchy process to evaluate the flexibility and adaptability in architecture. Archnet-IJAR Int. J. Archit. Res. 2022, 16, 26–45. [Google Scholar]
  98. Leising, E.; Quist, J.; Bocken, N. Circular Economy in the building sector: Three cases and a collaboration tool. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 176, 976–989. [Google Scholar]
  99. 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]
  100. Sinclair, B.R.; Mousazadeh, S.; Safarzadeh, G. Agility, adaptability+ appropriateness: Conceiving, Crafting & constructing an architecture of the 21st century. Enq. ARCC J. Archit. Res. 2012, 9. [Google Scholar]
  101. Cabeza, L.F.; Rincón, L.; Vilariño, V.; Pérez, G.; Castell, A. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 29, 394–416. [Google Scholar]
  102. Gharehbaghi, K.; Rahmani, F.; Paterno, D. Adaptability of Materials in Green Buildings: Australian Case Studies and Review. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  103. Ying, W. Research on the Adaptability of Building Materials Application in Exterior Exterior Design of Buildings. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 189, 032009. [Google Scholar]
  104. Zhu, L.; Shan, M.; Xu, Z. Critical review of building handover-related research in construction and facility management journals. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2021, 28, 154–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Lloyd-Walker, B.; Walker, D. Collaborative Project Procurement Arrangements; Project Management Institute: Hong Kong, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  106. Pushkar, S.; Becker, R.; Katz, A. A methodology for design of environmentally optimal buildings by variable grouping. Build. Environ. 2005, 40, 1126–1139. [Google Scholar]
  107. Black, A.K.; Ross, B.E.; Rockow, Z. Identifying physical features that facilitate and impede building adaptation. In Sustainability in Energy and Buildings 2018, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference in Sustainability on Energy and Buildings (SEB’18) 10; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  108. Forbes, L.H.; Ahmed, S.M. Modern Construction: Lean Project Delivery and Integrated Practices; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  109. Reed, B. The Integrative Design Guide to Green Building: Redefining the Practice of Sustainability; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; Volume 43. [Google Scholar]
  110. Pinto, J.; Prescott, J. Variations in Critical Success Factors Over the Stages in the Project Life Cycle. J. Manag. 1988, 14, 5–18. [Google Scholar]
  111. Segara, S.; Li, Q.; Gallotta, A.; Wang, Y.; Gosling, J.; Rezgui, Y. Taxonomy of circularity indicators for the built environment: Integrating circularity through the Royal Institute of British architects (RIBA) plan of work. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 446, 141429. [Google Scholar]
  112. Long, P.W. Architectural Design for Adaptability and Disassembly; Creating_Making: Norman, OK, USA, 2014; p. 10. [Google Scholar]
  113. Carthey, J.; Chow, V.; Jung, Y.-M.; Mills, S. Flexibility: Beyond the Buzzword—Practical findings from a systematic literature beview. HERD Health Environ. Res. Des. J. 2011, 4, 89–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Femenias, P.; Geromel, F. Adaptable housing? A quantitative study of contemporary apartment layouts that have been rearranged by end-users. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2020, 35, 481–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Van Der Voordt, T.J. Productivity and employee satisfaction in flexible workplaces. J. Corp. Real Estate 2004, 6, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Rinke, M.; Pacquée, R. Structures and change–Tracing adaptability based on structural porosity in converted buildings. Archit. Struct. Constr. 2022, 2, 699–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Generalova, E.M.; Generalov, V.P.; Kuznetsova, A.A. Modular buildings in modern construction. Procedia Eng. 2016, 153, 167–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Thai, H.-T.; Ngo, T.; Uy, B. A review on modular construction for high-rise buildings. In Structures; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  119. Chan, D.W.; Kumaraswamy, M.M. An evaluation of construction time performance in the building industry. Build. Environ. 1996, 31, 569–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 15 01119 g001
Figure 1. Results of database search for adaptability and project life cycle in buildings.
Figure 1. Results of database search for adaptability and project life cycle in buildings.
Buildings 15 01119 g001
Buildings 15 01119 g002
Figure 2. Project phases framework utilised in this study.
Figure 2. Project phases framework utilised in this study.
Buildings 15 01119 g002
Buildings 15 01119 g003
Figure 3. Visual representation of the internal layout terms, highlighting the reconfigurations that can be achieved through flexibility, generality, and open-plan examples.
Figure 3. Visual representation of the internal layout terms, highlighting the reconfigurations that can be achieved through flexibility, generality, and open-plan examples.
Buildings 15 01119 g003
Buildings 15 01119 g004
Figure 4. Visual representation of the function-related terms, highlighting the reconfigurations that can be achieved through convertibility and adaptive reuse examples.
Figure 4. Visual representation of the function-related terms, highlighting the reconfigurations that can be achieved through convertibility and adaptive reuse examples.
Buildings 15 01119 g004
Buildings 15 01119 g005
Figure 5. Visual representation of the component terms, highlighting the reconfigurations that can be achieved through transformability, modularity, and adaptive capacity examples.
Figure 5. Visual representation of the component terms, highlighting the reconfigurations that can be achieved through transformability, modularity, and adaptive capacity examples.
Buildings 15 01119 g005
Buildings 15 01119 g006
Figure 6. Visual representation of the volumetric terms, highlighting the reconfigurations that can be achieved through elasticity and scalability examples.
Figure 6. Visual representation of the volumetric terms, highlighting the reconfigurations that can be achieved through elasticity and scalability examples.
Buildings 15 01119 g006
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Staehr, E.R.; Stevik, T.K.; Houck, L.D. Adaptability in the Building Process: A Multifaceted Perspective Across the Life Cycle of a Building. Buildings 2025, 15, 1119. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071119

AMA Style

Staehr ER, Stevik TK, Houck LD. Adaptability in the Building Process: A Multifaceted Perspective Across the Life Cycle of a Building. Buildings. 2025; 15(7):1119. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071119

Chicago/Turabian Style

Staehr, Efthymia Ratsou, Tor Kristian Stevik, and Leif Daniel Houck. 2025. "Adaptability in the Building Process: A Multifaceted Perspective Across the Life Cycle of a Building" Buildings 15, no. 7: 1119. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071119

APA Style

Staehr, E. R., Stevik, T. K., & Houck, L. D. (2025). Adaptability in the Building Process: A Multifaceted Perspective Across the Life Cycle of a Building. Buildings, 15(7), 1119. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071119

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop