**3. Coping Strategies for Industrial Heritage Reconstruction and Reuse**

The emergence of successful industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse projects has always been based on some basic principles. Therefore, among studies on industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse of the past five years, many have focused on case studies to unveil people's experience and promote future industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse projects. Specifically, these studies have highlighted the strategies used in these projects by focusing on three aspects. The main relevant studies are summarized in Table 2.

#### *3.1. Multisubject Participation*

In the process of industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse, a wide range of stakeholders are involved, and they have different interests and positions that affect decisionmaking on specific projects [79] and directly impact that process [57]. Therefore, some researchers have focused on multisubject participation in the early days of research on industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse. In the past five years, an increasing number of researchers have valued multisubject participation, and the scope of their research has gradually expanded to include aspects that had been ignored by early researchers, such as old factory workers and experts. At the same time, compared with the early research on this topic, research conducted over the past five years has refined and deepened it, achieving compelling results. This research has covered four actors: the public sector, private institutions, the public, and experts. Based on different cases and perspectives, different researchers have discussed the importance and responsibilities of relevant actors in industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse.


**Table 2.** Main literature on the coping strategies for industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse.

First, regarding the public sector, Mohamed Fageir, et al., showed that "it is important to uphold the role of the public sector" [36] in the process of industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse, because it controls the development of industrial heritage reuse [37] and has been shown to contribute important financial and policy support. On the one hand, the public sector is not only a major financial supporter but can also attract private investment because it is credible. Andreas Schulze Bäing and Cecilia Wong showed that the central government and the European Community were the main driving forces behind the reuse of the Media City UK project, which subsequently attracted private investment [38]. Han Han also stressed that the public sector could raise the funds necessary for the reuse of industrial heritage in the form of government guarantees through the issuance of special bonds for cultural industries and other channels [15]. On the other hand, the public sector can provide support for policies. While playing an incentivizing and driving role, the public sector can also mitigate the increase in costs and risks usually associated with such reuse activities [24]. For example, institutions of the public sector can support these activities by charging lower fees on applications for changes in land use and distributing the future income according to the stipulations specified in the contracts, turning undeveloped land into developed land and attracting investment more easily [39]. In addition, social forces can be included in such projects through policies, and the public can increasingly supervise the operation and implementation of the projects, which can reduce the occurrence of mistakes in the decision-making of the public sector [40].

Generally, private institutions contrast conceptually with the public sector and include companies, associations, and even individuals that have some capacity (including legal persons). Luc Rojas showed that factories have been widely reused by these actors since the early 1980s in France, which have been present in 63% of such projects [42]. Hence, private institutions have played an increasingly important role in industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse due to their flexibility and financial resources. Some researchers have even contended that the future of reuse "will be predominantly led by the private sector" [36]. Even so, researchers have also supported the view that the public sector needs to play a leading role in reconstruction and reuse projects [36,43].

The public refers to a group of people who have been connected with the Industrial heritage at stake in the past or directly affected by reconstruction and reuse projects; these people mainly include residents (communities) and prior factory workers. Much contemporary research has focused on the reconstruction and reuse of industrial heritage by focusing on the industrial heritage itself and ignoring the living conditions of industrial heritage communities that have been closely related to the reuse of industrial heritage [44]. Meanwhile, in many heritage sites, nonspatial forms of identity, which are based on class, religion, ethnicity, race, gender and culture, have been interlinked with spatial forms of identity [45]. The public is key in industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse. Therefore, in the past five years, many researchers have focused on this topic and emphasized the importance of incorporating the opinions of residents (communities) and prior factory workers into the different facets of industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse projects through case studies and survey interviews. Indeed, scholars have held that "local community wellbeing is one of the key factors in these renewal schemes" [46]; or, the participation of local communities in the decision-making process can ensure the success of entire operations [41,47,48]; or, heritage is "enabled by people, their work, and engagement" [49] and it is important to conduct research on people and record oral histories [50] to protect this heritage. In addition, a few researchers have focused on the relationship between the public and other entities. For example, Roberta Ingaramo, et al., showed that a solid participation by the community is a prerequisite for the reconstruction and reuse of former productive industrial buildings. Enhancing the public interest in these regions and attracting investors has been an important principle and strategy used to promote reconstruction and reuse [51]. Marie Gilbertová showed that "some of the projects that sparked the public's interest in the city's industrial history which, in turn, prompted city officials to take action to safeguard it" [52].

Experts include researchers, architects, planners and designers; they are important because they control the cultural, economic, social and aesthetic effects of industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse projects. Therefore, many researchers have asserted that "heritage professionals proved to have a great say, in the early stages of the adaptation process, in which the adaptive reuse approach was chosen" [54] and that "experts are key stakeholders that initiate and support the implementation of the regeneration projects" [55]. At the same time, because industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse is complex and requires professionalism, more stringent requirements have been proposed for the work of experts in practice. Therefore, some researchers have shown that not only do experts need a solid professional knowledge, but that professional cooperation is also needed [56].

#### *3.2. Focusing on the Integrity of Industrial Heritage*

The principle of industrial heritage integrity and research on industrial heritage go hand in hand. As early as 1998, Marilyn Palmer and Peter Neaverson wrote in Industrial Archaeology: Principles and Practice that integrity has become a key criterion in industrial heritage. In the research on industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse of the past five years, most researchers have mainly emphasized two aspects, one of which is the integrity of tangible industrial heritage, which mainly refers to the integrity of buildings and the preservation of machinery and equipment. In most of this research, integrity does not need to be intact but needs to be combined with a specific analysis of heritage value characteristics, preservation status, utilization conditions, etc. For example, Zheng Jiandong focused on cultural relics in industrial heritage and showed that the reuse of such buildings should be carried out without affecting the historical and cultural value of the building, the overall layout, and the main structure [58]. At the same time, integrity

has not been limited to single buildings or single industrial heritage sites, as it has also pertained to industrial heritage areas and communities in the surrounding environment. Oyabu Yoko showed that if industrial factors other than machinery, sound and buildings are considered in reconstruction and reuse, the charm of these heritage sites would be highlighted [57]. Zhang Song further showed that, aside from the systematic protection of the integrity of industrial buildings, sites and machinery, it is also necessary to rescue and protect the living heritage related to industrial production, such as workers' new villages, factories' front areas, and supporting service sites and facilities [59]. In addition, Wang Lin also asserted that industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse projects should also consider the style and features of industrial neighborhoods [59]. The living heritage and the neighborhoods together constitute the living environment of industrial heritage, which reflects the characteristics of this heritage and conveys culture [39].

"Keeping and reusing as much of the existing buildings and facilities as possible" [51], has been recognized by an increasing number of researchers as one of the strategies to promote the reconstruction and reuse of industrial heritage.

Scholars engaged in this strategy have emphasized the integrity of intangible industrial heritage, mainly by discussing the significance of heritage and the integrity of historical narratives. The issue of the integrity of intangible industrial heritage has received unprecedented attention in the past five years. Generally, intangible industrial heritage refers to industrial historical archives, technological processes, industrial literature and art related to past industrial production process [80]; this type of heritage constitutes industrial heritage, as the tangible industrial heritage does. Globally, there has been a general tendency to value historical buildings and despise industrial production processes, machinery and equipment in the protection of industrial heritage; this attitude has led to the intangible industrial heritage being neglected in the process of industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse. Some scholars have even held the limited view that reconstruction and reuse can only occur in the case of buildings and structures and that there is no connection with intangible industrial heritage. In fact, the intangible part of industrial heritage also has reuse value [37].

Many researchers have corrected this misunderstanding. Ai Zhike showed that the protection of industrial heritage through reconstruction and reuse cannot limit itself to the planning and design of tangible heritage and that the industrial memory of both tangible and intangible heritage should be fully reflected [62]. Liu Xuejiao, et al., considered intangible industrial heritage when defining the concept of industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse and showed that the concept constitutes a resource in the process of renewing original industrial resources such as buildings, structures, land and intangible heritage that are no longer adapted to the current urban construction [63]. Therefore, intangible industrial heritage cannot be ignored in reconstruction and reuse because the degradation of cities caused by deindustrialization not only occurs "in the spatial sense (many empty postindustrial spaces), but also in the social and the economic sense (unemployment, crime, problems with the adaptation to the new, capitalistic reality)". Hence, the use of heritage for revitalization relates "not only to material aspects (tangible heritage/spatial revitalization) but also to immaterial (intangible heritage/social revitalization)" [64]. In studying revitalization, some researchers have shown that the elements of intangible heritage can be embodied "through various workshops, artistic and educational events which would revive old crafts, customs and the like, and bring them closer to the citizens—the future users of this space" [65].

Intangible industrial heritage not only constructs the environment and highlights the significance of tangible industrial heritage but also makes the latter become more valuable in itself. Therefore, this heritage should be considered in the reconstruction and reuse process. Florence Hachez-Leroy mentioned that the successful integration of dimensions other than architecture, such as economic and social history and technological history, can be meaningful [42].

In addition, when studying the practice of reconstruction and reuse, most researchers have also focused on the fact that industrial heritage has been approached from one perspective and an improper historical narration. Professor Stefan Berger, a famous European social historian and industrial heritage expert, argued that the stories of industrialization in many countries and regions in the southern hemisphere are often linked with colonialism, imperialism, and forms of violence, which may lead to the history of industrialization being forgotten, excluded or suppressed [66]. This exclusion has been the result of improper historical narratives involving intangible industrial heritage. Erin Beeston analyzed the historical narrative emanating from the Manchester Road Station of the Liverpool Manchester Railway in the process of reconstruction and reuse. This site was preserved and transformed into a science and industry museum in the early 1980s. It has made great contributions to the preservation of local and national collective memory and has been known as "the oldest extant passenger railway station in the world". Therefore, the museum has neglected other significant stories pertaining to this space of industrial heritage, such as its long history of freight transport; in fact, freight went through the station for a longer time than passengers did, but the museum has focused on passengers. In this regard, Beeston stated that "how commemoration embedded at industrial heritage sites can limit our understanding of their past" and that when a museum correctly unfolds a complete narrative about a site, it promotes the role that local narratives can play in the process of industrial heritage protection [67].

#### *3.3. Selecting the Best Reuse Method*

At present, industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse can fulfill multiple cultural purposes. Museums, exhibition centers, art studios, cultural and creative industries, commercial spaces, etc., have become the most popular ways to practically engage in reuse. In China, the proportion of reconstruction and reuse projects using these avenues is as high as 80.57% [70]. In recent years, with the increasingly close relationship between industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse and urban development, "it is necessary to think about what will best meet the needs of the local community in the long term" [64]. Therefore, an increasing number of researchers have stated that the transformation of industrial heritage into infrastructure should receive more attention and that residential projects are representative of this effort. Many researchers have emphasized the role of residential projects in the revitalization of industrial zones [25,35,71,72]. On the one hand, "profit and the desire to purchase land in a suitable location at a low price was the most significantly motivating factor that affected the decision to engage in a project in a postindustrial area" [35]. The relatively low purchase price of abandoned industrial land has been attractive to real estate agents, which makes it easier to ensure the implementation of reconstruction and reuse projects. On the other hand, the relatively low rental price has made it easier for the affordable housing provided by residential projects to be favored by the market. Brano Glumac and Nizamul Islam surveyed 220 respondents of different ages and familial background and found that "nearly 70% of respondents favored renting a unit in an adapted building" [72].

Infrastructure reconstruction and reuse projects such as residential projects are more inclusive because they are oriented to solving social problems, thus maximizing the balance between supply and demand, gathering popularity and controlling the gentrification of industrial heritage spaces [40]. Compared with the urban regeneration strategy along which local governments use cultural brands and landmark buildings to build cities into tourist destinations and places that attract capital investment, the latter can easily fall into the trap of elite projects [73] or into situations in which no one cares because these projects are out of touch with the local sense of place and the daily reality of residents who experienced the "industrial destruction"; hence, the comprehensive benefits of these projects hardly exceed those of infrastructure projects. In this regard, transforming industrial heritage into infrastructure is an effective method both in theory and practice. It is also necessary to be alert to the problem that industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse will become "real estate" due to excessive reuse in practice [18].

Because industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse constitute complex projects and measures need to be adapted to local conditions to ensure compatibility between reuse methods and industrial heritage status [13], providing a complete set of guiding methods for industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse has become a pressing issue to minimize the uncertainty of the process.

Juan Claver, et al., proposed a method for the development and evaluation of heritage value and to unveil the most compatible use by using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) [75]. In this process, it is necessary to first determine what is the most important heritage when different heritage items of the same type need to be protected; indeed, it is almost impossible to preserve all heritage. Then, it is necessary to select the most appropriate new use for the heritage at stake according to the results of the evaluation. Corrado Vizzarri, et al., proposed an overall method of evaluation based on appropriate indicators and calibration through the AHP model and combining qualitative and quantitative methods. They analyzed and verified the former site of the Enel Power Plant in Bari, Italy, to enhance the feasibility of the method [76]. Different from Claver, et al., Vizzarri, et al., emphasized the effects of reconstruction and reuse projects in terms of meeting the needs of the population and respecting the landscape, and they chose reconstruction and reuse strategies according to these needs being met. Claver, et al., focused on the evaluation of heritage values. Although these scholars applied AHP, the former's methodological framework covered the overall process, from choosing the subject of reuse to showing how to reuse it, while the latter focused on one aspect of the overall process and analyzed how to choose appropriate reconstruction and reuse strategies based on that process. Hence, the latter is obviously a step ahead of the former in terms of research depth.

In addition, Marta Bottero, et al., also stated that the optimal reconstruction and reuse strategy could be determined by ranking the preferences of different stakeholders for the reconstruction and reuse strategy of industrial heritage; therefore, they propose a multistandard decision support method [68]. Stefania De Gregorio, et al., were more specific and microcosmic in their study. They propose that reconstruction and reuse should first use the context analysis method to analyze the environment, including the contemporary and historical environment. Then, the architectural analysis method is chosen to analyze the buildings, determine the advantages to be used, and determine the key points to be solved. Finally, the compatibility matrix is used to optimize the data, and the reconstruction and reuse strategy that is consistent with the industrial heritage environment and buildings is selected [77]. These research results have provided certain theoretical guidance for the selection of industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse strategies and for practice.

#### **4. Evaluation of the Effects of Industrial Heritage Reconstruction and Reuse**

The evaluation of the effects of industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse not only helps to correct the deficiencies of such projects themselves but also provide a practical reference for future industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse efforts. The evaluation of the effects is certainly important. Therefore, research on the evaluation of the effects of industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse has shown a growing momentum in the past five years. Specifically, in terms of research methods, qualitative evaluation methods have been optimized, and quantitative evaluation methods have been gradually valued and improved. In terms of research targets, the evaluation of individuals has become more prominent than the evaluation of projects. Some important and representative literature on the topic is summarized in Table 3.


**Table 3.** Main literature on the evaluation of the effects of industrial heritage reconstruction and reuse.
