Adaptive Reuse Trifecta: determinants, strategies, and future directions in Lagos, Nigeria

Abstract

This research explores expert insights into adaptive reuse in Lagos, Nigeria, across three major aspects: drivers and determinants, strategies, and future directions. This study provides relevant, in-depth insights into construction practitioners' perspectives on adaptive reuse, positioning it as a more sustainable approach to urban development and renewal. A structured interview guide was used to gather the opinions of ten (10) professionals across various disciplines in the built environment. Relevant codes were then identified and grouped based on recurring patterns and themes. The study presents the findings descriptively, through texts and visually through tables and charts. The professionals' perspectives reveal that multiple factors influence adaptive reuse in Lagos; technical strategies are essential for implementation, and widespread adoption substantially depends on the level of institutional and regulatory support available. The interrelationships among these major dimensions were used to develop a conceptual framework, termed the Adaptive Reuse Trifecta. Notably, the study also contextualizes key findings within current literature, identifying areas of convergence and divergence. Practically, this paper has implications for future design professionals, policymakers, investors, residents, and other key stakeholders in the heritage and built environment sector. By translating experts' insights into an integrated guide, it provides a context-specific framework that has the potential to inform adaptive reuse decision-making amongst building professionals in Lagos. Its insights could enable practitioners to identify key project determinants, adopt the most suitable approach and ensure that the adaptive reuse aligns with regulatory and market conditions. Moreover, it outlines suggested areas that require rapid regulatory, practical, and institutional interventions to promote efficient adaptive reuse practices in Lagos and similar contexts.

1 Introduction

Urban spaces in Lagos, Nigeria; the 4th most populous city in the world, are filled with abandoned structures that once held critical public or industrial significance (Ekhaese et al., 2026). Studies report that these obsolete buildings number over 56,000 and amount to approximately N18 trillion (Amuge, 2024; Obakin et al., 2024). These substantial figures indicate major economic loss, wasted resources, and missed opportunities for transformative urban development. However, these structures can also serve as a promising pathway to urban regeneration when preserved and reused (Akande et al., 2021; Obakin et al., 2024). This approach, commonly referred to as adaptive reuse, has become a global sustainability strategy (Umar and Said, 2018). Adaptive reuse offers numerous benefits across environmental, social, cultural, economic, and political sectors (Daramola et al., 2024). It is also regarded as a methodology that offers multidimensional sustainability advantages by conserving energy, increasing property value, and fostering cultural continuity (Riratanaphong, 2026). Nevertheless, its implementation within Nigeria's construction industry remains limited. Urban development structures within the country typically favor new construction and demolition over the adaptive reuse of existing buildings. This leads to the deterioration of historical value as well as environmental and financial losses (Davies et al., 2024). Olukoya (2026) and Davies (2026) argue that adaptive reuse and architectural conservation require critical analysis to meet the needs of the present society while preserving the assets and values of the past.

Fortunately, there are a few instances in which such analysis has been conducted effectively, leading to the successful reuse of historical buildings. Despite their scarcity, these successful projects represent the potential of adaptive reuse as a viable regenerative tool within Nigeria's landscape. Heritage buildings hold the legacies of past generations and, as such, are integral to the artistic, socio-cultural, financial and architectural framework of developing and developed countries (Davies et al., 2024). Adaptive reuse has therefore emerged as a sought-after means of preserving such historical benefits globally (Davies, 2026).

1.1 Present state of heritage conservation in Nigeria-review

In recent years, scholars in Nigeria have explored the concept of adaptive reuse as a heritage conservation and regenerative tool, using various methodologies. Oke et al. (2025) identified the barriers to the widespread implementation of adaptive reuse in Nigeria. Using a quantitative approach, questionnaires were distributed among professionals in the construction industry to gain insights into the hindrances to sustainable development. The survey revealed five major challenges: structural concerns, insufficient information about existing structures, weak safety policies, ambiguous property ownership, and the unavailability of materials. Similarly, Aliu et al. (2025) adopted the Q methodology to investigate Nigerian professionals' perspectives of adaptive reuse. The research developed a structured Q-set from a literature review and expert insights. From review of literature and expert insights, the study developed a structured Q-set that outlines key factors that influence professionals' perspectives of adaptive reuse. The factors were identified to be multi-dimensional; concerns cutting across various sectors, such as sustainability, economy, history, regulation, urbanization impact, and space limitations. Some studies focused on reviewing existing literature to understand adaptive reuse in Nigeria, both in academia and in practice. Davies et al. (2024) reviewed documents to highlight the challenges to Adaptive Reuse and Heritage conservation in Nigeria. While this report outlined factors similar to those in the aforementioned studies, other underlying obstacles were also uncovered. They include limited technological integration, inclusivity concerns, lack of required expertise, and general confusion surrounding the term ‘sustainability'. This paper offers notable insights into some of the foundational issues limiting adaptive reuse in a context, such as Nigeria. Umar and Said (2018), on the other hand, reviewed various decision-making models of heritage conservation in developed countries. Using a meta-analysis, eight models were identified, and each was analyzed to determine its characteristics. The decision-making models include Analytical Network Process (ANP), Multi-criteria Decision-making (MCDM), Multi-Attribute Value Theory (MAVT), Adaptive-reuse Decision-Making Model, AdapSTAR model, Adaptive Reuse Potential Model (ARP Model) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) model. This research provides valuable insights into heritage conservation in developing countries. Offering a biophilic angle, Okafor et al. (2025) explored the feasibility of converting historic buildings in Nigeria into biophilic health spaces. The study demonstrates that incorporating natural elements such as sunlight, vegetation and natural ventilation into old factories can lead to the creation of spaces that enhance the psychological and physiological state of the community. Overall, Okafor et al. position biophilia as a promising approach to successful adaptive reuse in Nigeria.

A number of studies examined these historic buildings, utilizing quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Davies (2026) distributed questionnaires to Osogbo residents to uncover their perceptions regarding the potential adaptive reuse of the Olaniyan Building in Osogbo. The Olanyian house is known for its Afro-Brazilian style and represents history, culture, and music within Nigerian architecture. Therefore, Davies (2026) found it critical to involve the Osogbo community in preserving this cultural symbol. Based on their feedback, the paper outlined that the majority of the residents support adaptive reuse over demolition. Suggestions were also made regarding the preferred potential uses of the buildings, including a community hub, co-working space, art gallery and museum, educational center, native-themed restaurant, or mixed-use facility. These insights demonstrate the positive opinions of the Nigerian community for the reuse of historic buildings for modern purposes. Similarly, Davies et al. (2025) utilized a decision-making model, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), to determine new uses for the Ojo Fagbewesa family house in Osogbo. Combined with input from experts and residents, this study proposes a community hub as a suitable new use for the historic building. One notable contribution of the study is that both residents and practitioners ranked the preservation of cultural heritage as the most important criterion for the project's adaptive reuse. Economic viability and environmental impact were not deemed as important as the social and cultural aspects of conservation. This finding suggests that preserving cultural narratives should be a priority among designers in Nigeria. Olukoya (2026) also adopted Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to assess new-use alternatives for the Egbo Egbo Bassey House, an abandoned wooden building located in Calabar. From the Thirty-six (36) stakeholders' perspectives, it was uncovered that preserving the “material integrity of the structure”, “strengthening social capital”, and “revitalizing local carpentry knowledge” were considered the most important objectives. The study also explored four adaptive reuse alternatives: Continuity (minimal change to the old use), Cultivation (new use in conversation with different layers of the past), Differential (new use prevailing over the old use), and Optimisation (the past story to be emphasized and regenerated for new use). After proposing four different models of the Egbo Egbo Bassey house, the Cultivation alternative outranked the other three across the various sustainability dimensions. Daramola et al. (2024) examined the application of adaptive reuse as an interior design strategy in an administrative building at Caleb University. Utilizing a mixed-method approach of interviews and on-site observations, the study identified five major themes: historical context, design strategies, functional adaptation, user engagement and financial considerations. The study findings suggest that educational facilities consider all these major themes to ensure a successful adaptive reuse project.

1.2 Research gap & study justification

From the previous section, it is evident that existing studies have explored adaptive reuse through the analytical lens of stakeholder perspectives, challenges, influential factors, decision-making models and case studies. However, this highlights the fragmented state of current literature, as most studies focus on these dimensions individually. Also, the majority of the investigations are case study-specific, thereby limiting professional understanding of adaptive reuse as a broad concept in Nigeria. This points to a research gap in the literature regarding the integrated assessment of the drivers of adaptive reuse, the key strategies required for its adoption and its potential future within Nigeria's sustainability agenda. To offer original contributions to the current debate, this paper gathers key insights from construction practitioners and synthesizes them into an integrated conceptual framework termed the Adaptive Reuse Trifecta. Rather than viewing determinants, strategies, and potential as independent factors, this research examines adaptive reuse in Lagos through its interconnections. It contributes to the development of a context-specific model for enhancing adaptive reuse decision-making among Lagos-based construction professionals. As a result, this study aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of adaptive reuse and its pathway to advancement in Lagos. Specifically, this aim will be achieved by:

• To examine the determinants driving adaptive reuse practice in Lagos.

• To analyse the technical strategies required for successful adaptive reuse implementation

• To investigate the future directions and opportunities of adaptive reuse development

• To develop an integrated conceptual framework linking the determinants, strategies, and future directions

2 Methodology

This research adopts a qualitative research approach, which allows for the extensive analysis of the perspectives of various practitioners. These insightful perspectives, making up the primary data for the study, were gathered through structured interviews. Secondary data were retrieved from existing research on adaptive reuse, architectural heritage in Nigeria, and similar contexts.

2.1 Study population

The study engaged 10 professionals across architecture (n = 4), structural engineering (n = 1), MEP engineering (n = 2), interior design (n = 1), and quantity surveying (n = 2) within the Lagos built environment sector. This sample size aligns with recommendations for qualitative research in the built environment (Francis et al., 2010; Hennink and Kaiser, 2022). These studies explain that saturation can be achieved with 6–12 participants when they offer insights into specific experiences. More recent authors, such as Aliu et al. (2025) and Oke et al. (2025), employed similar sample sizes in their research. Specific to this study, only professionals with experience in adaptive reuse projects in Nigeria were selected.

The participants were identified purposively and by snowball sampling, and all were practitioners in the built-environment sector in Lagos. The first pool consisted of reviewing significant adaptive reuse projects in Lagos and reaching out to professionals involved in their implementation. From this pool, additional participants were recruited via snowball sampling, with each participant asked to recommend colleagues in their discipline who met the selection criteria. Data from the registers of professional bodies of the Architects Registration Council of Nigeria (ARCON), Nigerian Institute of Architects (NIA), Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors (NIQS) and the Nigerian Society of Engineers (NSE) were also sought to obtain the names of eligible participants.

As this is currently an emerging field of sustainable construction in a developing context, specifically Nigeria, snowball sampling produced an additional 5 professionals. The adequacy of the sample size was assessed using information and data saturation rather than statistical representation. During the later stages of data collection and analysis, recurring patterns were observed, and no substantive new determinant, strategy or future-direction theme emerged, suggesting data saturation. As a result, the sample was considered adequate for the study, thereby confirming previous recommendations outlined by Francis et al. (2010) and Hennink and Kaiser (2022). Nevertheless, the possibility of selection bias from the sampling methods is acknowledged. While the purposive sampling focused on professionals with an identifiable adaptive reuse portfolio, the snowball recruitment may have resulted in participants referring to colleagues within similar professionals' networks, who may have similar perspectives. Therefore, the findings should not be generalized to represent all built-environment professionals in Lagos or Nigeria.

On the other hand, it was observed that professionals with over 15 years of experience had participated in numerous reuse projects, suggesting that adaptive reuse is prevalent among established construction professionals. Diverse disciplines make up the study population to ensure a broad, multidimensional examination of adaptive reuse across design, structural, environmental, financial, and policy dimensions. This also allows for a cross-comparison of insights, revealing variations and similarities amongst various disciplines.

2.2 Data collection

Data collection was conducted between December and April, 2026. To accommodate the busy interview schedules, some were conducted in person, while others were conducted online. Regardless of location, all interviews were structured to ensure participant comfort and to ensure honest, natural, and uninterrupted conversations. A session with each participant lasted between 45 and 75 min. Each session was audio-recorded with a recording device, after obtaining full consent from the participant, and assuring them of the confidentiality of their responses. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim within 72 h of each session by the second author (AA), and cross-checked and approved by the first author (OF), as transcripts were not returned to participants.

This study employed a semi-structured interview approach due to its ability to explore participants' perspectives in depth while maintaining a consistent framework that allows responses to be compared (Kallio et al., 2016). The interview guide (see supplementary material, S1) was developed from insights drawn from a comprehensive literature review and was organized to address each research objective. It is necessary to clarify that the semi-structured interview guide was developed as part of a broader master's thesis investigation into adaptive reuse in Lagos, with a specific focus on the potential use of the Ijora Power Station as an energy innovation hub. The guide was initially structured to address the thesis objectives; however, it was subsequently refined to inform this study's research focus. Prior to the main data collection, the interview guide was pilot-tested with two experienced professionals, an architect and an engineer, in order to refine the question's clarity and ensure relevance to the study's objectives.

2.3 Thematic analysis procedure

The thematic analysis was conducted manually by the second author. First, interview transcripts were read multiple times to gain familiarity with the data. Initial observations, reflections and potential codes were recorded in a journal to maintain an audit trail. The study also adopted a hybrid coding method, in which initial codes were deductively derived from the interview guides' main sections, while inductive codes emerged from recurring patterns in participants' responses. Coding was done manually; each code was recorded alongside participants' ID and direct quotations in Microsoft Excel. Then, the author reviewed the codes to identify similarities and grouped similar codes into broader categories. These categories were further reviewed and refined into themes that shed light on the determinants, strategies or future directions of adaptive reuse in the study area. To reduce individual bias and assess intercoder reliability, the first author independently coded 3 out of 10 interview transcripts. Disparities were discussed and resolved until a consensus was reached. The authors ensured to maintain a comprehensive audit trail, including interview notes, reflexive journal entries, and coding records throughout the research process.

The interrelationship model (Figure 1) and the Adaptive Reuse Trifecta framework (Figure 2) were developed through the authors' interpretive synthesis of the coded thematic data obtained from the qualitative analysis.

Figure 1

Figure 2

3 Results

This section presents the results based on each objective. The analysis begins with the participants' demographic information outlined in Table 1 below.

The interview guide served as a structured framework for identifying similar patterns across the various disciplines. Through this analytical process, themes regarding determinants, strategies and future trajectory of adaptive reuse in Lagos were identified. The results reveal notable similarities and variations in expert opinions across various disciplines. While architecture, engineering and construction-based professionals expressed similar opinions on the hindrances and opportunities of adaptive reuse, each profession placed emphasis on different aspects of the concept. Architects focused more on spatial and design implications; engineers focused on the structural concerns of adaptive reuse, and quantity surveyors placed more emphasis on its financial aspects. Details on each of the identified themes are presented in the section that follows:

3.1 Obj 1. To examine the determinants of adaptive reuse practice in Lagos

The analysis reveals that adaptive reuse in Lagos is influenced by a number of factors. While the professionals acknowledge the significant benefits of adaptive reuse, they also noted that a network of interconnected determinants influences its widespread adoption in Nigeria. These determinants cut across technical, regulatory, financial, environmental, social, institutional, functional, and knowledge-related dimensions.

3.1.1 Technical determinants

Technical challenges were among the most frequently cited barriers across the interviews. Engineers and architects particularly emphasized structural integrity, service integration, and spatial limitations as key technical constraints. Structural engineers (TI) and MEP engineers (SK, MA) highlighted that older buildings often lack reliable structural documentation, making it difficult to accurately assess load capacity or determine the extent of reinforcement required. This uncertainty introduces risk into the design and construction process.

• TI (Structural Engineer)- “The biggest issue in reuse projects is structural uncertainty. Without accurate records, engineers must assume worst-case scenarios”

• SK (MEP Engineer)- “Integrating modern services into older buildings can be difficult because there was no provision for these systems originally”

Architects (TO, AA, NI) similarly noted that existing spatial configurations sometimes conflict with new functional requirements, requiring significant redesign interventions.

• AA (Architect)- “Sometimes the spatial layout of the existing building limits how flexible the new design can be”

While architects described these issues primarily as design challenges, engineers interpreted them as performance risks that must be carefully evaluated before reuse can proceed.

3.1.2 Regulatory determinants

Regulatory challenges were also identified as a major factor discouraging adaptive reuse. Several respondents explained that current building regulations in Lagos are primarily structured around new construction rather than the modification of existing structures. Architects (NI, TO) indicated that this lack of clear adaptive reuse guidelines creates uncertainty during project approvals.

• NI (Architect)- “Most regulations are written for new buildings, so when dealing with reuse, we often have to interpret the codes”

• TO (Architect)- “There are no clear adaptive reuse guidelines, which makes the approval process complicated”

Quantity surveyors also noted that regulatory ambiguity often increases project timelines and costs. Respondents therefore emphasized the need for clearer policies and regulatory frameworks that specifically address adaptive reuse projects.

• GW (Quantity Surveyor)- “Regulatory uncertainty affects cost planning because delays can significantly increase project expenses”

3.1.3 Financial determinants

Respondents explained that adaptive reuse projects often involve unpredictable costs due to hidden structural defects, material deterioration, or undocumented building modifications. Quantity surveyors (GW, EC) noted that financial institutions sometimes perceive reuse projects as risky investments, particularly when cost estimates cannot be determined with certainty during early project stages.

• GW (Quantity Surveyor)- “The uncertainty in the condition of existing buildings makes cost forecasting difficult”

• EC (Quantity Surveyor)- “Developers sometimes prefer new construction because the costs are easier to estimate”

• RD (Interior Designer)- “Budget constraints often influence whether a building is reused or demolished”

This financial uncertainty often discourages developers from pursuing reuse projects.

3.1.4 Environmental determinants

Environmental considerations were viewed both as challenges and opportunities. Some respondents noted that issues such as contamination or deteriorated materials may require environmental remediation before reuse can occur. However, others emphasized that adaptive reuse offers significant environmental advantages by conserving embodied energy and reducing construction waste.

• MA (MEP Engineer)- “Reusing existing structures reduces the environmental impact compared to demolishing and rebuilding”

• SK (MEP Engineer)- “Older buildings may require environmental upgrades to meet current standards”

• TO (Architect)- “From a sustainability perspective, adaptive reuse helps conserve resources”

3.1.5 Social and cultural determinants

Several respondents noted that public perception and cultural attitudes influence the success of adaptive reuse projects. Some stakeholders associate new construction with progress and modernization, which can reduce interest in preserving or adapting existing buildings. Architects (TO, NI) and Interior Designers (RD) observed that community engagement and awareness can play an important role in shifting these perceptions.

• TO (Architect)- “There is often a perception that new buildings represent progress”

• NI (Architect)- “Public awareness about the value of reuse is still limited”

• RD (Interior Designer)- “Some people prefer completely new spaces rather than adapting old ones”

3.1.6 Institutional determinants

Institutional issues such as ownership fragmentation and lack of policy incentives were also identified as barriers. Respondents suggested that government support and institutional commitment are necessary to encourage adaptive reuse projects.

• GW (Quantity Surveyor)- “Government incentives could make adaptive reuse more attractive for developers”

• NI (Architect)- “Institutional support is needed to encourage more reuse projects”

• RD (Interior Designer)- “Policy from government can influence how these buildings are treated”

3.1.7 Functional determinants

Architects and engineers emphasized the importance of functional compatibility between the existing building and its proposed new use. They noted that buildings with flexible layouts are easier to adapt than those with rigid structural systems.

• AA (Architect)- “Some buildings adapt more easily because their structural grid allows flexibility”

• KA (Architect)- “Function determines whether reuse is feasible or not”

• TI (Structural Engineer)- “Structural configuration influences how adaptable a building is”

3.1.8 Knowledge and skills determinants

The practitioners also identified a shortage of specialized skills in retrofitting and adaptive reuse within the Nigerian construction industry. Younger professionals noted that training in adaptive reuse is still limited within architectural and engineering education.

• MA (MEP Engineer)- “Many professionals have limited experience working with retrofit systems”

• EC (Quantity Surveyor)- “There is still a learning curve in estimating adaptive reuse projects”

• AA (Architect)- “Training in adaptive reuse should be strengthened in architectural education”

Key insights on the eight determinants and frequency assessments are summarized in Table 2 below. Themes mentioned by six or more of the ten participants (≥60%) were classified as ‘High' frequency, indicating shared professional consensus, while those mentioned by five or fewer ( ≤ 50%) were classified as ‘Moderate' frequency, consistent with prevalence-based classification approaches in small-sample qualitative research (Hennink and Kaiser, 2022). This frequency classification rating system enables evidence-based insights into the prevalence of each determinant, thereby highlighting critical areas that require urgent intervention. This framework underscores the factors that must be attended to in order to foster adaptive reuse in Lagos.

3.2 Obj 2. To analyse the technical strategies required for successful adaptive reuse implementation

When discussing strategies for successful adaptive reuse, respondents emphasized the importance of technical assessment, integrated design processes, and flexible design approaches. Across disciplines, there was strong agreement that adaptive reuse requires a comprehensive building evaluation before design decisions are made. Structural engineers stressed the importance of structural audits, while MEP engineers emphasized service system evaluation.

• SK (MEP Engineer)- “Service systems must be evaluated early to determine integration possibilities”

• TI (Structural Engineer)- “Structural assessment determines how much intervention will be required”

Architects highlighted the need for spatial reconfiguration strategies that allow buildings to accommodate new uses without excessive structural modification.

• TO (Architect)- “A detailed building audit should always come before design intervention”

Another commonly mentioned strategy was interdisciplinary collaboration. Respondents explained that adaptive reuse projects require close coordination between architects, engineers, and cost consultants in order to manage the technical complexity of working with existing buildings.

• EC (Quantity Surveyor)- “Early collaboration between designers and cost consultants helps control project risks”

Respondents also emphasized the importance of flexible design solutions, including modular interventions, reversible construction techniques, and adaptable spatial planning.

• KA (Architect)- “Flexible planning allows existing structures to support different future uses”

To provide further insights into the technical strategies, Table 3 presents a theme-respondents heat map, illustrating where agreement of adaptive reuse in Lagos exists across various disciplines.

The heat map above illustrates the distribution of strategy mentions across individual participants. From the heat map, it is observed that Building Audit and Early collaboration emerged as a major concern for multiple building professionals in Lagos. This suggests that establishing project feasibility and on-time coordination of adaptive interventions is regarded as important to multi-professional projects. On the other hand, structural assessment, service systems evaluation, and flexible design emerged as discipline-specific tasks, led by structural engineers, MEP engineers and architects, respectively. The authors caution against over-generalization of findings, particularly in professional group differences, as two professional groups (Structural Engineering and Interior Design) are represented by only one participant each. The findings, therefore, reflect individual perspectives rather than definitive disciplinary positions.

3.3 Obj 3. To investigate the future directions and opportunities of adaptive reuse development

The overall outlook expressed was cautiously optimistic. Most participants agreed that several emerging trends could encourage greater adoption of adaptive reuse in the future.

• RD (Interior Designer)- “The industry is gradually becoming more open to reuse projects”

Urban land scarcity, increasing construction costs, and growing environmental awareness were identified as key drivers that may make adaptive reuse more attractive to developers and policymakers.

• TO (Architect)- “As cities become denser, reuse will become a practical necessity”

• GW (Quantity Surveyor)- “Rising construction costs may push developers to consider reuse more seriously”

• MA (MEP Engineer)- “Sustainability discussions are increasing awareness of the value of existing buildings”

However, respondents also emphasized that adaptive reuse will not become widespread without institutional reforms. Clearer regulations, financial incentives, and professional capacity development were repeatedly mentioned as necessary conditions for growth.

To further illustrate this objective, Figure 1 below summarizes and presents the potentials identified by the respondents, highlighting the interrelationship between future opportunities and anticipated impact. This chart demonstrates what the participants of this study suggest to be the impact that market forces have on the future of adaptive reuse and the critical role institutional forces need to play to ensure its large-scale adoption in Lagos.

Figure 1, based on the interview respondents, highlights the interrelationship between the driving forces and the anticipated impact. It also demonstrates that the future growth of adaptive reuse in Lagos depends not only on market forces but on external institutional support. This chart was developed through an interpretive synthesis of participants' responses regarding the future directions of adaptive reuse in Lagos, driven by two intersecting forces. The respondents' insights highlighted how Market-driven Forces shape the future of adaptive reuse, and how Institutional-Driven Forces can simultaneously create a conducive environment for widescale adoption. As reflected by the participants, no single force is sufficient for widespread change; rather, the anticipated impact would emerge from the interaction between both Market-driven and Institutional-driven Forces.

3.4 Obj 4. To develop an integrated conceptual framework linking the determinants, strategies, and future directions

This section explains how the three dimensions analyzed in this study relate to one another. Rather than viewing these dimensions in isolation, this framework, shown in Figure 2 below, illustrates how they sequentially and collectively influence adaptive reuse in Lagos.

The Adaptive Reuse Trifecta framework was developed through a four-stage systematic process of interpretive synthesis that links empirical themes to relevant components. This process is outlined below:

3.4.1 Stage 1: theme aggregation

During thematic analysis, all identified codes were compiled and categorized according to the three research objectives: determinants, strategies, and future directions. This process produced an initial pool of 34 codes across the three categories.

3.4.2 Stage 2: conceptual grounding

Similar codes were then grouped into clusters based on thematic relationships. For example, codes relating to structural uncertainty, spatial issues, and structural incompatibility were grouped as ‘Technical Determinants'. This conceptual grounding was informed by comparison with existing literature on adaptive reuse and broader built environment-focused studies.

3.4.3 Stage 3: relationship identification

This next stage examined the relationships between the clustered themes (stage 2) across the three categories. To do this, certain questions:

• How do determinants create conditions that necessitate specific strategies?

• How do these strategies address the challenges posed by the determinants?

• How do both the determinants and strategies influence future decisions for adaptive reuse?

3.4.4 Stage 4: development of framework

Based on the identified relationships in Stage 3, the framework was designed to illustrate the sequential, but interconnected nature of adaptive reuse practice.

The first component, the determinants, outlines the external conditions that encourage adaptive reuse adoption as an alternative to demolition and new construction. The second component, strategies, refers to the technical, functional, and economic forces that are required for adaptive reuse. The final component, future directions, suggests that adaptive reuse is supported by favorable market conditions and institutional and policy support.

The framework went through multiple stages of refinement and cross-checking against empirical data and direct quotes from participants. Table 4 below illustrates the mapping of framework components to empirical data, linked to relevant participant codes.

4 Discussion

To effectively outline the theoretical and practical implications of this research, Table 5 juxtaposes the key findings with existing studies related to adaptive reuse and heritage conservation in developing and developed countries. This comprehensive summary does two major things: it identifies where this research aligns with current studies and uncovers instances where variations exist. This synthesis provides a strong basis for future discussion regarding strategic intervention for adaptive reuse in Lagos.

The critical mapping above demonstrates that the key findings of this research are largely consistent with existing adaptive reuse scholarly works. It indicates that adaptive reuse practice in Lagos is determined by general and context-specific challenges. Determinants and implemented strategies highlighted by the participants support previous studies, especially regarding technical assessment, collaboration, and institutional support. However, the alternative/divergent perspectives regarding regulatory policies, spatial flexibility, impact of urbanization and rigid collaboration systems reveal the need for context-specific adaptive decision-making. This synthesis reinforces the importance of developing adaptive policies and strategies that align with local realities of developing countries, as well as suggesting areas where future investigative research may be needed.

4.1 Interdisciplinary dynamics in adaptive reuse practice

While this study identifies various determinants and strategies for adaptive reuse, the interview data also provide preliminary insights into how professionals from different disciplines interact and resolve potential conflicts during adaptive reuse projects.

From the interviews, distinct professional priorities were evident. Architects emphasized spatial quality and design flexibility (AA: “Sometimes the spatial layout of the existing building limits how flexible the new design can be”), while structural engineers prioritized building safety and load capacity. Quantity surveyors focused on cost control and budget management, (GW: “Regulatory uncertainty affects cost planning because delays can significantly increase project expenses”) and MEP engineers highlighted the integration of building services (SK: Integrating modern services into older buildings can be difficult because there was no provision for these systems originally).

Participants described several mechanisms for managing interdisciplinary tensions. First, early collaboration was emphasized as a preventive measure (SK: “Service systems must be evaluated early to determine integration possibilities”; EC: “Service systems must be evaluated early to determine integration possibilities”). Second, a practical hierarchy emerged where decisions are prioritized based on project stage and consequence. Design aspirations and budget constraints should be negotiated within the functional and structural constraints established at the onset (GW: “The uncertainty in the condition of existing buildings makes cost forecasting difficult”; RD: “Budget constraints often influence whether a building is reused or demolished”). Third, conflict resolution was described as an iterative process. Participants expressed that it takes several iterations to find a solution that satisfies all aspects of a reuse project.

Due to the unequal representation of professional groups in this study, these findings should be treated as preliminary observations requiring validation through future research with more balanced disciplinary representation.

4.2 Limitations

Despite these major contributions, a few limitations need to be acknowledged. Firstly, this study relies solely on the self-reports of the professionals, which are subject to bias and individual interpretation. Participants' accounts of adaptive reuse experience may not include the realities or perspectives of other project stakeholders. It is recommended that future studies include direct observations of such projects, document analysis, and post-occupancy evaluations to complement self-report studies, so as to provide a more comprehensive understanding of adaptive reuse. Second, the study garnered perspectives of design and construction professionals, and did not include insights from other stakeholders, such as building developers, lawmakers, residents or community members, conservation experts, investors or future users. Adaptive reuse typically involves various actors with diverse interests and priorities; therefore, considering these groups could offer additional insights into architectural conservation and heritage preservation in Nigeria.

It is also important to state that while the professionals interviewed possessed relevant expertise pertaining to adaptive reuse, the unequal representation of professionals (four architects, three engineers, two quantity surveyors, and one interior designer) within the sample limits the ability to make reliable cross-disciplinary comparisons. Two participant groups (structural engineering and interior design) are represented by one participant alone; therefore, certain findings interpreted as disciplinary differences may actually reflect individual perspectives. Furthermore, the study was geographically limited to Lagos state. While Lagos is regarded as a major urban center in Nigeria and a site with adaptive reuse activity, other Nigerian states, such as Ogun, Osun, Cross River, and Kaduna, with distinct heritage assets, may present unique findings for adaptive reuse in Nigeria. Scholars are thereby encouraged to examine how the determinants, strategies, and future directions of adaptive reuse vary across different building typologies and Nigerian states. Lastly, while the sample size (n=10) was sufficient for data saturation, it limits the generalisability of findings. Hence, the perspectives of the interviewed professionals should not be assumed to accurately represent broader construction industry insights.

5 Conclusion

This qualitative analysis explored experts' perspectives on the determinants, strategies and future directions of adaptive reuse in Lagos. Interview findings reveal that adaptive reuse is influenced by a number of interrelated factors. Technical challenges, regulatory issues, cultural attitudes (preference for new construction), and spatial incompatibility emerged as the most frequently cited determinants of adaptive reuse, based on the participants' responses. Financial, environmental, institutional and knowledge-related factors were also identified, though mentioned by a smaller number of participants.

Regarding required strategies, the interviewees mentioned in-depth building assessment, interdisciplinary collaboration and adaptability planning as major requirements for effective and widespread adaptive reuse in Nigeria.

With all these in place, the respondents indicate optimism regarding the future of adaptive reuse in Nigeria. However, they stressed that for stronger future development, market forces have to be supported by institutional forces, such as clearer regulations, financial incentives, and capacity development. It is important to note that these findings reflect the perspectives of ten Lagos-based professionals with direct adaptive reuse experience. Therefore, insights should be interpreted as such and generalization to the broader Nigerian and developing countries' construction industry should be approached with caution. To validate and extend these findings, future research with larger and more geographically diverse samples is recommended.

Overall, this research proposes an Adaptive Reuse Trifecta, a framework that demonstrates the interrelationship among influential factors, technical strategies and future pathways of adaptive reuse in Nigeria. This framework offers empirical evidence from the perspectives of the interviewed design professions and a context-inspired model for understanding adaptive reuse in Lagos, Nigeria.

This research, therefore, has implications for three key sectors:

• Theoretical Impact: This study offers original insights to the ongoing adaptive reuse discussion by proposing the Adaptive Reuse Trifecta, a conceptual framework that views adaptive reuse in Lagos through the interconnection of determinants, strategies and future directions. While present studies examine such factors in isolation, this study provides a more holistic, actionable model of adaptive reuse in developing contexts.

• Methodological Impact: This research made a methodological contribution by synthesizing professional knowledge across diverse disciplines, thereby identifying patterns and themes that informed the Adaptive Reuse Trifecta framework.

• Practical Contribution: Regarding practical application, the study's most significant contribution is a framework tailored for Lagos. It offers a realistic guideline that addresses the context-specific constraints faced within Lagos.

Furthermore, the Adaptive Reuse Trifecta Framework offers three contributions to adaptive reuse discourse, distinguishing it from existing decision-making models:

• Unit of Analysis: Existing frameworks such as Adaptive Reuse Potential (ARP) by Langston et al. (2008), AdapSTAR by Conejos et al. (2013), and FLEX (Geraedts, 2016) were all designed to answer the question, ‘how adaptable is this building?' The Adaptive Reuse Trifecta, however, does not score a building at all, rather it integrates three dimensions; determinants, strategies and future directions into a single framework that discusses both barriers and drives of adaptive reuse. It is not designed as a linear decision-making tool; it highlights interconnected factors that influence adaptive reuse outcomes.

• Epistemological Origin: Second, existing models derive their categories from literature-defined typologies and expert-weighted scoring. This study's framework, on the other hand, is built from thematically analyzed practitioner interview data.

• Context: Most existing frameworks were developed and validated in developed contexts, where regulatory frameworks, financial support and professional capacity are relatively mature. These models do not consider the complexities and fragilities of developing nations' institutional, regulatory, financial, and informal-market conditions. The Trifecta's explicit “Institutional Support” and “Market Forces” components, however, address this gap mainly because they were designed within the contexts where these variables are present and critical.

References

• 1

  AbastanteF.CorrenteS.GrecoS.LamiI. M.MeccaB. (2020). The introduction of the SRF-II method to compare the hypothesis of adaptive reuse for an iconic historical building. Oper. Res.22, 1–40. doi: 10.1007/s12351-020-00611-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  AdetoroO. C.GamboE. B. (2025). Sustainable futures in indigenous architecture: a study of contemporary professional engagement with mud techniques in Nigeria. Front. Built. Environ.11:1674149. doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2025.1674149

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  AdewaleB. A.AigbavboaC. O.OgunbayoB. F.EneV. O. (2025). “Exploring the integration of digital technologies and lean principles for transformative construction project management: a review,” in The fourteenth international conference on construction in the 21st century (CITC-14) (Rio de Janeiro: Federal University of Rio de Janeiro), 15.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  AigwiI. E.InghamJ.PhippsR.FilippovaO. (2020). Identifying parameters for a performance-based framework: toward prioritizing underutilized historical buildings for adaptive reuse in New Zealand. Cities102:102756. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2020.102756

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  AkandeI.SowemimoD.OyedeleO.AbassA. (2021). Potentials and viabilities of abandoned public buildings in Nigeria. Int. J. Innov.10, 47–56. doi: 10.24940/ijird/2021/v10/i5/MAY21031

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  AliuJ. O.OkeA. E.AghimienD.AdekunleS. A.AigbavboaC.EbekozienA. (2025). A Q methodology study on factors motivating adaptive reuse in the Nigerian construction industry. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt.44, 1–21. doi: 10.1108/IJBPA-04-2025-0081

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  AmugeO. (2024). Nigeria requires N18trn to restore junkyard of abandoned buildings. Business A.M. Available online at: https://www.businessamlive.com (Accessed August 27, 2024)

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  ArmstrongG.WilkinsonS.CilliersE. J. (2023). A framework for sustainable adaptive reuse: understanding vacancy and underuse in existing urban buildings. Front. Sustain. Cities5:985656. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2023.985656

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  BarrettJ. E. (2018). An exploratory study of collaboration in built environment design teams: a social psychology perspective (Doctoral dissertation). University of Central Lancashire.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  BiskjaerM. M.HalskovK. (2013). Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design. Digit. Creat.25, 27–61. doi: 10.1080/14626268.2013.855239

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  BowyerE. C.StephensonV.HawkinsW.IbellT. (2022). New angles for adaptive building reuse research. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.1078:012022. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012022

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  CIHANGERD. (2018). spaces by people: an urban design approach to everyday life. Metu J. Fac. Archit.35, 55–76. doi: 10.4305/METU.JFA.2018.2.2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  ConejosS.LangstonC.SmithJ. (2013). AdaptSTAR model: a climate-friendly strategy to promote built environment sustainability. Habitat Int. 37, 95–103. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.12.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  DaramolaO. F.BabamboniA. S.OwolabiT. O. S.AjayiO. O. (2024). Exploring the integration of adaptive reuse in interior design: a case study of Caleb University administrative building. Caleb Int. J. Dev. Stud.07, 228–237. doi: 10.26772/cijds-2024-07-01-015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  DaviesO. O. A. (2026). Community perceptions of adaptive reuse of historic buildings: a case study of the Olaniyan building in Osogbo, Osun State, Nigeria. Glob. J. Eng. Res.5, 8–16.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  DaviesO. O. A.BrisibeW. G.DaviesI. E. E. (2024). Challenges to implementation of adaptive reuse of heritage buildings. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 7(2).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  DaviesO. O. A.BrisibeW. G.ImaahN. O.DaminaboF. F. O. (2025). A multi-criteria approach to assessing the revival of heritage through Adaptive Reuse: the case study of Fagbewesa's house in Osogbo, Osun State, Nigeria. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 8(1).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  EkhaeseE. N.DimunaK. O.EssienA. H. (2026). Green city development principles (GCDP) implementation level and its effects on lagos megacity residents' well-being, Nigeria: a qualitative study. PLOS One21:e0354733. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0354733

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  FolasijiA. B.-D. (2022). Assessing the state (physical and functional) of the heritage buildings in Lagos State. Afr. J. Hist. Cult.14, 7–18. doi: 10.5897/AJHC2022.0549

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  FrancisJ. J.JohnstonM.RobertsonC.GlidewellL.EntwistleV.EcclesM. P.et al. (2010). What is an adequate sample size? operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol. Health25, 1229–1245. doi: 10.1080/08870440903194015

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  GeraedtsR. (2016). FLEX 4.0, a practical instrument to assess the adaptive capacity of buildings. Energy Procedia.96, 568–579. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.102

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  GumaP. K.MwauraM.NjagiE. N.AkallahJ. A. (2023). Urban way of life as survival: navigating everyday life in a pluriversal global south. City Anal. Urban. Trends27, 275–293. doi: 10.1080/13604813.2023.2214961

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  HamidaM. B.RemøyH.GruisV.JylhäT. (2023). Circular building adaptability in adaptive reuse: multiple case studies in the Netherlands. J. Eng. Des. Technol.23:1. doi: 10.1108/JEDT-08-2022-0428

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  HenninkM.KaiserB. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: a systematic review of empirical tests. Soc. Sci. Med.292, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  HmoodK. F. (2019). “Introductory chapter: heritage conservation-rehabilitation of architectural and urban heritage,” in Urban and Architectural Heritage Conservation Within Sustainability, ed. K. Hmood (Germany: BoD-Books on Demand), 3. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.86670

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  IwuanyanwuO.Gil-OzoudehI.OkwanduA. C.IkeC. S. (2024). Retrofitting existing buildings for sustainability: challenges and innovations. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J.5, 2616–2631. doi: 10.51594/estj.v5i8.1515

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  KallioH.PietiläA.-M.JohnsonM.KangasniemiM. (2016). Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. J. Adv. Nurs.72, 2954–2965. doi: 10.1111/jan.13031

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  KayaD. I.PintossiN.KootC. A. M. (2024). Adaptive Reuse of Cultural Heritage: Barrier Assessment and Policy-Related Recommendations. (Berlin: Springer EBooks), 379–407. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-67628-4_14

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  LangstonC.WongF.HuiE.ShenL. Y. (2008). Strategic assessment of building adaptive reuse opportunities in Hong Kong. Build. Environ.43, 1709–1718. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2007.10.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  MaheshikaI. (2024). Exploring user-led spatial practice and user design tools in urban low and middle-income residences: a study based in Kitulwatte, Colombo. FARU J.11, 26–35. doi: 10.4038/faruj.v11i1.258

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  MoortelE. V.deDe Troyer, F.AllackerK.StijnenL.SchoofsE. (2019). Avoiding financial lock-in effects in case of a stepwise energy renovation of social housing in Flanders. WEENTECH Proc. Energy4, 160–176. doi: 10.32438/WPE.1518

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  MoshoodT. D.RotimiJ. O.ShahzadW. (2024). Enhancing sustainability considerations in construction industry projects. Environ. Dev. Sustain.27:12. doi: 10.1007/s10668-024-04946-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  NwakiW.EzeE.ElemokwuJ. C. (2025). Evaluation of the benefits of design for deconstruction adoption for sustainable construction in the Nigerian construction industry. J. Build. Des. Environ. 3:202444. doi: 10.70401/jbde.2025.0003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  ObakinO. A.AfolamiS. K.AkandeO. K. (2024). Causative factors of abandoned urban housing projects and strategies for revitalization in Ibadan, Nigeria. J. Contemp. Urban Aff.8:2. doi: 10.25034/ijcua.2024.v8n2-17

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  OkaforC.OnwuzuligboC.BarnabyJ.IgweA.UdegbeC.OkekeM.et al. (2025). Biophilic retrofit of historic industrial buildings for community health hubs in Nigeria: a scoping review. Covenant Journal of Research in the Built Environment13:1.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  OkeA. E.AliuJ. O.FirdausR. B. R.AdebisiB. P.RamaboduM. S. (2025). Implementing adaptive reuse in Nigeria: challenges and pathways to low-carbon urban and rural development. Int. J. Constr. Manag.26, 1–15. doi: 10.1080/15623599.2025.2523927

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  OlukoyaO. A. P. (2026). Evaluating the sustainable Adaptive Reuse alternative for architectural heritage through the multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method—a study of a national monument of Nigeria. Sustainability18:6. doi: 10.3390/su18063070

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38

  OwojoriO. M.OkoroC. S.ChilesheN. (2021). Current status and emerging trends on the adaptive reuse of buildings: a bibliometric analysis. Sustainability13:11646. doi: 10.3390/su132111646

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 39

  RiratanaphongC. (2026). Adaptive reuse of a sports stadium as an academic workplace. Facilities44, 751–773. doi: 10.1108/F-10-2025-0200

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 40

  SalingarosN. A. (2024). Architectural knowledge: lacking a knowledge system, the profession rejects healing environments that promote health and well-being. New Des. Ideas8, 261–299. doi: 10.62476/ndi82261

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 41

  SholankeA. B.NwangwuC. I. (2025). Influence of architectural education on sustainable design thinking: a review of energy-efficiency concepts. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.1492, 012015–012015. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1492/1/012015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 42

  SulemanT.EzemaI.AderonmuP. (2023). Challenges of circular design adoption in the Nigerian built environment: an empirical study. Clean. Eng. Technol.17:100686. doi: 10.1016/j.clet.2023.100686

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 43

  Sunikka-BlankM.AbdieD.BardhanR. (2021). “We need ground space”: urban densification and transitional housing in Ethiopia. J Br Acad9, 81–106. doi: 10.5871/jba/009s7.081

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 44

  UmarS. B.SaidI. (2018). Conservation challenges of heritage building reuse in Nigeria: a review of decision-making models. Asian J. Envir. Behav. Studies4, 16. doi: 10.21834/aje-bs.v4i12.336

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  YungE. H. K.ChanE. H. W.XuY. (2014). Community-initiated adaptive reuse of historic buildings and sustainable development in the inner city of Shanghai. J. Urban Plan. Dev.140:05014003. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000174

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar