Retention not demolition: how heritage thinking can inform carbon reduction
Open accessAbstract
Two key benefits of building retention and adaptation, over demolition and new build are identified in the academic literature as: the conservation of heritage, and reductions in embodied greenhouse gas emissions from construction materials. A four-year research project, including expert interviews, focus groups and three detailed case studies, developed extensive data on how these benefits are considered in decisions to demolish or retain buildings within larger urban development sites. The research found that heritage and embodied impacts are considered quite differently. Heritage is frequently a key driver towards retaining individual buildings, whilstembodied emissions are rarely key considerations. Where there are insufficient arguments based on heritage value, many buildings are therefore demolished and replaced rather than retained. To reduce the impact of construction on the environment it is crucial that we calculate the embodied as well as operational impacts of demolition decisions and retain and refurbish buildings where this is the lower carbon choice. Using heritage arguments as a basis, this paper proposes that the introduction of policy drivers for retention and against demolition, and the conversion of environmental value into economic uplift, are likely to be necessary conditions to encourage the retention of buildings for lower whole life carbon.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Research evidence shows two main reasons for retaining and reusing buildings: retention of heritage assets and reduction of embodied carbon compared with demolition and rebuild.
“Research evidence 49,51 shows two main reasons for retaining and reusing buildings, the first one is the retention of heritage assets and the second to reduce embodied carbon when compared with demolition and rebuild.”
From Eight recommendations to adopt materials passports and accelerate material reuse in construction: insights from academia and practice (2025) · cites this paper as [51]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Iacovidou, E., & Purnell, P. (2016) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.098 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 36
- 1 Peter A. Bullen and Peter E.D. Love, 'The Rhetoric of Adaptive Reuse or Reality of Demolition: Views From the Field', Cities 27, no.4 (2010): 215-224.
- 2 Ball, 'Re-use Potential and Vacant Industrial Premises: Revisiting the Regeneration Issue in Stokeon-Trent', Journal of Property Research 19, no. 2 (2002): 93-110; Peter A. Bullen and Peter E.D. Love, 'A New Future for the past: a Model for Adaptive Reuse Decision -Making', Built Environment Project and Asset Management 1, no.1 (2011): 32-44; Robert H. Crawford, 'Validation of the Use of Input-Output Data for Embodied Energy Analysis of the Australian Construction Industry', Journal of Construction Research 6, no.1 (2005): 71-90; Frances Plimmer et al., Knock it Down or Do It Up? Sustainable Housebuilding: New Build and Refurbishment in the Sustainable Communities Plan ( Watford, UK: BRE Press, 2008); Anne Power, 'Does demolition or refurbishment of old and inefficient homes help to increase our environmental, social and economic viability?' Energy Policy 36, no.12 (2008): 4487-4501; and Sara Wilkinson, 'The Relationship Between Building Adaptation and Property Attributes' (PhD thesis., Deakin University, Australia, 2011).
- 4 Hannah Baker, 'The Adaptation and Demolition of Existing Buildings on Masterplan Sites' (PhD thesis., University of Cambridge, UK, 2019).
- 5 John Pendlebury, 'Conservation Values, the Authorised Heritage Discourse and the Conservation Planning Assemblage', International Journal of Heritage Studies 19, no.7 (2013): 709-727.
- 7 Siân Jones, 'Wrestling with the Social Value of Heritage: Problems, Dilemmas and Opportunities', Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage 4, no.1 (2017): 23.
- 9 Ibid.; and John Schofield (ed.), Who Needs Experts?: Counter-mapping Cultural Heritage (Surrey, UK: Routledge, 2014).
- 11 Esteban R. Ballesteros and Macarena H. Ramírez, 'Identity and Community-Reflections on the Development of Mining Heritage Tourism in Southern Spain', Tourism Management 28, no.3 (2007): 677-687; Joks Janssen et al., 'Heritage as Sector, Factor and Vector: Conceptualizing the Shifting Relationship Between Heritage Management and Spatial Planning', European Planning Studies 25, no.9 (2017): 1654-1672; and Solmaz Yadollahi, 'Prospects of Applying Assemblage Thinking for Further Methodological Developments in Urban Conservation Planning', The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice 8, no.4 (2017): 355-371.
- 12 Eva Belláková, 'Analysis of Industrial Architectural Heritage - Iron and Steel Plants as a Development Potential', Procedia Engineering, World Multidisciplinary Civil Engineering-ArchitectureUrban Planning Symposium 161 (2016):1926-1931; and Patrick Patiwael, Peter Groote and Frank Vanclay, 'Improving Heritage Impact Assessment: an Analytical Critique of the ICOMOS guidelines', International Journal of Heritage Studies 25, no.4 (2018): 333-347.
- 13 Belláková, Analysis of Industrial Architectural Heritage , see note 11; and Luis Loures, 'Industrial Heritage: the Past in the Future of the City', WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development 4, no.8 (2008): 687-696.
- 14 Gregory J. Ashworth and John E. Tunbridge, 'Multiple Approaches to Heritage in Urban Regeneration: the Case of City Gate, Valletta' Journal of Urban Design 22, no.4 (2017): 494-501; Deloitte, Heritage Works - A Toolkit of Best Practice in Heritage Regeneration (London, UK: BPF, RICS, Historic England, 2017); Ahmend Elseragy and Amira Elnokaly, 'Heritage-led Urban Regeneration as a Catalyst for Sustainable Urban Development' (paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Heritage and Sustainable Development , Granada, Spain, 2018); and Saruhan Mosler, 'Everyday Heritage Concept as an Approach to Place-making Process in the Urban Landscape' , Journal of Urban Design 24, no. 5 (2019):778-793.
- 17 Randall Mason, 'Be Interested and Beware: Joining Economic Valuation and Heritage Conservation', International Journal of Heritage Studies 14, no.4 (2008): 303-318; Ruijgrok, 'The Three Economic Values of Cultural Heritage: a Case Study in the Netherlands', Journal of Cultural Heritage 7, no.3 (2006): 206-213.
- 18 John Cook et al., 'Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature', Environmental Research Letters 8, no.2 (2013); and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change (Washington, USA: The National Academies Press, 2016).
- 20 IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge, UK & New York, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2014).
- 21 Manish K. Dixit et al., 'Identification of Parameters for Embodied Energy Measurement: A Literature Review', Energy and Buildings 42, no.8 (2010): 1238-1247.
- 22 Ball, Re-use potential , see note 2; Pedro L. Gaspar and António L. Santos, 'Embodied Energy on Refurbishment vs. Demolition: A Southern Europe Case Study', Energy and Buildings 87, January (2015): 386-394; and André Thomsen and Kees van der Flier, 'Understanding Obsolescence: a Conceptual Model for Buildings', Building Research & Information 39, no.4 (2011): 352-362.
- 24 Kate Crawford et al., Demolition or Refurbishment of Social Housing? A Review of the Evidence ( London, UK: UCL Urban Lab and Engineering Exchange for Just Space and the London Tenants Federation, 2014); Power, Does Demolition or Refurbishment, see note 2; and Alice Moncaster et al., 'Why Method Matters: Temporal, Spatial and Physical Variations in LCA and Their Impact on Choice of Structural System', Energy and Buildings 173 (2018): 389-398.
- 25 Ulisses Munarim and Enedir Ghisi, 'Environmental Feasibility of Heritage Buildings Rehabilitation', Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (2016): 235-249; and Freya Wise et al., 'Considering Embodied Energy and Carbon in Heritage Buildings - a Review, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 329 (2019).
- 27 Minna Sunikka-Blank and Ray Galvin, 'Introducing the Prebound Effect: The Gap Between Performance and Actual Energy Consumption', Building Research & Information 40, no.3 (2012): 260-273.
- 29 Robert Crawford, Life Cycle Assessment in the Built Environment (London, UK: Routledge, 2011).
- 33 Harpa Birgisdottir et al., 'IEA EBC annex 57 'Evaluation of Embodied Energy and CO2eq for Building Construction', Energy and Buildings 154, November (2017): pp. 72-80.
- 34 Francesco Pomponi and Alice Moncaster, 'Embodied Carbon Mitigation and Reduction in the Built Environment - What Does the Evidence Say?', Journal of Environmental Management 181, October (2016): 687-700.
- 35 Jane Anderson and Alice Moncaster, 'Embodied Carbon of Concrete in Buildings, Part 1: analysis of published EPD', Buildings and Cities 1, no.1 (2020): 198-217.
- 36 Taofeeq Ibn-Mohammed, et al., 'Operational vs. Embodied Emissions in Buildings-A Review of Current Trends', Energy and Buildings 66, November (2013): 232-245.
- 37 Alice Moncaster and Tove Malmqvist, 'Reducing Embodied Impacts of Buildings - Insights from a Social Power Analysis of the UK and Sweden', IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 588, no.3 (2020).
- 41 Panu Pasaman et al., 'The Embodied Carbon Review: Embodied Carbon Reduction in 100+ Regulations & Ratings Systems Globally' (Helsinki, Finland: Bionova Ltd, 2018).
- 42 Birgisdottir et al., IEA EBC Annex 57, see note 32; Rolf Frischknecht et al., 'IEA EBC Annex 72 Assessing Life Cycle Related Environmental Impacts Caused by Buildings - Targets and Tasks', IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science , 323 (2019); and WGBC, ' Bringing Embodied Carbon Upfront. Coordinated Action for the Building and Construction Sector to Tackle Embodied Carbon ' (London, UK: World Green Building Council, 2019).
- 43 Architects Declare, ' UK Architects Declare Climate and Biodiversity Emergency', Available at: https://www.architectsdeclare.com/ (Accessed: 7 December 2020); and Architects' Journal, ' RetroFirst '. Available at: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/retrofirst (Accessed: 7 December 2020).
- 46 Centre for Sustainable Development, 'Embodied Carbon and Energy Symposium 2016', Available at: https://www-csd.eng.cam.ac.uk/news/embodied-carbon-and-energy-symposium-2016 (Accessed: 7 December 2020)
- 47 Adapted from Baker, The adaptation and demolition of existing buildings, see note 4. Based on images from: Ashwell CB1 Ltd., 'Planning. Application Summary. Planning application reference: 06/0008/OUT' (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge City Council, 2006); Gemeente Eindhoven , ' Ontwerp Strijp-R ' ( Eindhoven, the Netherlands: Gemeente Eindhoven, doc . 4286782/1/StrijpR , 2010); and NSW Department of Planning , ' Major Project Assessment. Carlton United Brewery Site. DirectorGeneral's Environmental Assessment Report. Section 75I of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ' (New South Wales, Australia: NSW Government. Department of Planning, doc. MP 060171, 2007).
- 50 QUBE, ' CB1 Environmental Statement: Volume 2. Cambridge Historic Environment Analysis Incorporated Townscape and Views Assessment. Planning Application Reference: 08/0266/OUT ', ( Cambridge, UK, 2008):15.
- 53 Cambridge City Council, ' Station Area Development Framework' (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge City Council Environment & Planning, 2004).
- 54 Sarah Dyer, ' Appendix E: Comments from Stat. and Non-statutory Consultees. Revised Application. Planning Committee Report. Planning application reference : 08/0266/OUT', (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge City Council, 2008): 23.
- 63 Gregory Ashworth, 'Preservation, Conservation and Heritage: Approaches to the Past in the Present through the Built Environment', Asian Anthropology 10, no.1 (2011): 1-18.
- 64 World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1987).
- 65 Zsuzsa Szalay, 'What is Missing from the Concept of the New European Building Directive?', Building and Environment , 42, no. 4 (2007): 1761-1769.
- 66 Matthew Carmona, 'The Formal and Informal Tools of Design Governance.' Journal of Urban Design 22, no.1 (2017): 1-36.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Costa, A. R., Hoolahan, R., & Charef, R. (2025) · npj Materials Sustainability · doi:10.1038/s44296-025-00079-3 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Baker, H., Moncaster, A., Remøy, H., & Wilkinson, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- The Open University (GB)
- Delft University of Technology (NL)
- University of Technology Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Baker, Hannah
- Venue
- Journal of Architectural Conservation
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2021-07-10
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 176-194
- ISSN
- 1355-6207 (ISSN-L)
- 2326-6384
- OpenAlex
- W3180319347
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 24.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Architectural Conservation (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Open Research Online - ORO (The Open University) (acceptedVersion)
- Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion)
- Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (submittedVersion)
- UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Apollo
- Funders
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Sustainable Building Design and Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Construction Management and Sustainability
- Keywords
- adaptive reuse, demolition, cultural heritage preservation, embodied carbon, greenhouse gas emissions, whole life carbon, urban development site, economic value of heritage, environmental impact of construction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
