Belgian law encourages civic engagement in heritage adaptive reuse projects through various mechanisms that include public consultations and participatory planning sessions. These engagements are supported by institutional frameworks that aim to incorporate public opinion into the planning and execution phases of projects. Legal instruments such as local development plans often mandate public participation, ensuring that community voices are heard and considered in decision-making processes. This legal backing helps in shaping projects that are more attuned to the social and cultural contexts of the areas where they are implemented​ (Emerald Insight)​​ (Circular Cities and Regions Initiative)​.

Public-private partnerships in the form of concessions is the only possible governance partnership model, in which built heritage could be adapted for different purposes. However, this type of governance usually applies to buildings and spaces, where the original function remains. Other types of partnership models are vaguely described in the legal framework and there is little to nonpolitical or private initiative for their implementation. 

In the context of the national legal framework, civic engagement in cultural heritage protection is enabled through the Cultural Heritage Act, where public discussion is required for the approval of Conservation and Management Plans for immovable heritage sites. Unfortunately, such plans are not systematically developed for the territory of the country, and the only example in the last 10 years is the plan for Nessebar, which does not allow for the accumulation of experience from different cases and procedures.

The mayors of municipalities are obliged by the same Act to organise and coordinate the implementation of the cultural heritage protection policy on the territory of the respective municipality, such as establishing a public council for the protection of cultural heritage as an advisory body to the municipality, in which case a wider public involvement is possible. Such councils are sadly also rarely organised, which limits the opportunity for civic engagement.

It is often the case that discussions connected with heritage are not broadly communicated and remain only in the focus of professionals with a direct interest in cultural heritage, or the respective stakeholders, such as investors or municipal bodies.

Civic engagement is not proactively encouraged or resourced by public institutions outside of the prescribed by law mandatory initiatives, mentioned above. However, access to public resources through local governing bodies is accessible for organisations that manage to present projects that correspond to the aims of the local cultural strategy.

Organisations such as NGOs, professional unions or private companies resource such initiatives on a project basis.

Both types of resourcing can be through financing, provision of space, time, access to platforms and physical resources.

Outside of the stated above instruments for civic engagement, there are no other formal or legal instruments for direct engagement of local communities in the heritage reuse initiatives. Stimulating the community involvement could be included through Conservation and Management Plans and it could be measured by the consecutive monitoring of immovable cultural heritage, which is prescribed by the Cultural Heritage Act.

In the past fifteen years, the most common bottom-up initiatives have taken form mainly as festivals, which temporarily activate certain places. For example, up until 2016 Sofia Architecture Week (later One Architecture Week) was an annual event, organised by architects, urban planners and designers. In its last years, it was more focused on specific areas, which resulted in placemaking initiatives. In more recent years bottom-up initiatives tend to begin with architectural involvement in cooperation with local small business owners with the result being popular street festivals, such as for example Kvartal Festival in Sofia, Kapana Festival in Plovdiv, Varusha South in Veliko Tarnovo. Different type of build heritage and operational models are the focus of The initiative New Greenways for Old Railways, that aims to create a shared concept for the resilient integration of the railway areas of former cargo stations in Sofia, or the Buzludzha Project, which envisioned protected and well maintained heritage while being financially stable and well connected with the local community and enterprises.

For the involvement of unheard voices, marginalised or socially excluded groups the formal strategies include the National Strategy of the Republic of Bulgaria for Integration of the Roma (2012 – 2020), National Strategy for People with Disabilities (2021 – 2030) and National Strategy for the Child (2019 – 2030). All of them include access to culture as an aim, but do not specify a concrete link to cultural heritage.

Formal and informal practices remain sporadic. Probably the only such example in the last ten years is the initiative Building Together – Children’s City and Learning from Stolipinovo, which aims to include children and Romani people – the second largest ethnic minority group in Bulgaria.

In Cyprus, various governance partnership models are utilised for heritage preservation and adaptive reuse initiatives, each with its own strengths and effectiveness depending on the context and objectives of the project. These models include:

1. Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs)
2. Bottom-Up and Community-Led Initiatives
3. Collaborative and Multi-Stakeholder Models 
4. Tailor-Made and Hybrid Models

The most effective governance partnership models for heritage preservation and adaptive reuse in Cyprus are those that prioritise inclusivity, transparency, and sustainability, while also considering the specific context and objectives of each project. While PPPs can bring significant resources and expertise to large-scale initiatives, bottom-up and collaborative models empower communities, foster social cohesion, and ensure that projects are culturally relevant and responsive to local needs. Tailor-made approaches allow for flexibility and innovation, enabling stakeholders to design governance structures and processes that best fit the unique characteristics of each heritage preservation project. Ultimately, the effectiveness of governance partnership models depends on their ability to mobilise diverse stakeholders, build consensus, and achieve meaningful outcomes that contribute to the sustainable preservation and revitalization of Cyprus’ cultural heritage.

In Cyprus, civic engagement in adaptive reuse projects is encouraged and enabled by planning and heritage protection systems, though to varying degrees. While legal mandates for engagement may not exist universally, provisions in planning and heritage laws often facilitate public input through mechanisms like public hearings and consultations. Government agencies collaborate with local communities and organisations to solicit feedback and raise awareness about heritage preservation initiatives. However, the depth of community involvement depends on factors such as project scale and stakeholder capacity. Efforts to enhance civic engagement include providing resources like funding and information, supporting various organisational structures, and fostering partnerships. Despite challenges like limited resources, civic engagement remains crucial for transparency and inclusive decision-making in heritage preservation. Formal instruments for community engagement may include public consultation processes, capacity-building workshops, and community advisory committees, aimed at empowering local communities and promoting collaboration. These initiatives contribute to more sustainable and culturally vibrant heritage reuse projects in Cyprus.

In Cyprus, common bottom-up initiatives for heritage reuse encompass both temporary and long-term projects, fostering community engagement and cultural revitalization. Temporary initiatives often include:

1. Pop-up Markets and Events
2. Art Installations and Exhibitions
3. Temporary Use Permits

Long-term bottom-up initiatives include:

1. Community Gardens and Urban Agriculture
2. Heritage Restoration and Adaptive Reuse
3. Place-based Education and Interpretation
4. Public Space Activation

These bottom-up initiatives empower communities to reclaim and repurpose heritage spaces, fostering a sense of ownership, belonging, and pride while revitalising neighbourhoods and promoting cultural sustainability in Cyprus.

In Cyprus, strategies and practices are employed to engage unheard voices, marginalised, or socially excluded groups in public engagement processes related to heritage reuse initiatives. These efforts aim to ensure that diverse perspectives are considered and that the benefits of heritage preservation and revitalization are equitably distributed. Outreach efforts target marginalised communities through community centres, religious institutions, or social service organisations to solicit their input and participation in public consultation processes. Stakeholder mapping exercises identify key stakeholders, including marginalised or socially excluded groups, and develop tailored engagement strategies to involve them in decision-making processes. Participatory planning workshops provide a platform for marginalised groups to share their experiences, needs, and aspirations related to heritage reuse projects. Capacity-building programs target marginalised communities to build their skills, knowledge, and confidence in participating effectively in public engagement processes. Utilising accessible communication channels ensures that information about heritage reuse initiatives reaches marginalised communities and encourages their active participation. Inclusive design and programming incorporate principles of universal design to ensure that heritage reuse projects are accessible and inclusive to all members of the community. Recognition of the contributions of marginalised communities and their representation in decision-making bodies fosters a sense of belonging and ownership in heritage reuse initiatives.

In the current economic context, adaptive reuse projects are mostly run by civil society actors, primarily with the intention of converting buildings into housing. We see adaptive reuse is rarely funded because of heritage concerns, but for example through public funding for housing projects related to multigenerational living, accessibility, and housing for people with disabilities. 

Adaptive reuse projects require tailor-made solutions; civil society groups often show greater creativity and collective capacities to engage in these tasks and tend to appropriate buildings and spaces in innovative ways. The housing shortages in cities fosters this (re)development. But there are also adaptive reuse projects other than housing to address other needs such as artist workshops, social centres, childcare centres or village centres etc.

The German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB) and the federal Chamber of German Architects have developed a “Phase Sustainability”. The objective of the initiative is to establish sustainability as a planning and design standard. Based on 18 courses of action, specific sufficiency, climate action, environment, circular economy, positive spaces and Baukultur goals are to be set and prioritised. In projects on an urban scale, Phase Zero frequently involves technical investigations, participation processes and the question as to whether and to what extent a location is at all suitable for construction projects. Involving the users early and giving them opportunities to participate increases acceptance – during and after the construction period. Design competitions also help to determine the potential of a project.

New governance models have been gaining ground due to the changes in the real estate market where private actors are no longer able to buy and give value to abandoned heritage buildings. Public-private partnerships have been spreading consistently thanks to the mobilisation of civic actors and funds provided by private foundations or self-organised initiatives. Many heritage buildings belonging to local public authorities have been entrusted to these actors that managed to bring them to a new life. 

This trend has been fueled by the rise of the commons movement, prompting many Italian municipalities to enact specific regulations on the subject. Changes in legislation governing public and private goods have facilitated the flourishing of adaptive reuse of cultural heritage throughout the country. Despite this overarching framework, experiences vary widely depending on the specific needs of each territory, with some adopting alternative approaches such as temporary use of heritage sites or the no-cost lease of assets.

Civic engagement is encouraged by the government in different ways. On the policy level, the 2014 Unblock Italy Decree (Decreto Sblocca Italia, articles 24 and 26, L. 164/2014) assigns municipalities the responsibility to establish basic criteria for citizen participation. This law is based on the constitutional principle of “horizontal subsidiarity” (sussidiarietà orizzontale, article 118). Since 2014, over 170 municipalities have developed their own regulations for public property, while around 70 municipalities have begun the process using the commons framework.

From an administrative point of view, the New code of public procurement and contracts introduced innovations in public procurement, making it easier for private and civic actors to engage in the adaptive reuse of public heritage assets. Specifically, the administrative trade (Baratto amministrativo) enables local authorities to create “social partnership contracts” with individual or associated citizens. These contracts typically involve activities such as cleaning, managing, and beautifying green areas, squares, and streets, and may also include the recycling and reuse of abandoned areas and buildings, as well as the enhancement of specific territorial zones. The “social value” of these citizen-led actions can be recognized through a special tax regime (relief or exemption).

Civic engagement is also promoted through specific regulations regarding the third sector. As a matter of fact, the Code of the Third Sector (Codice del terzo settore) issued in 2017 recognizes that social enterprises can play a significant role in the adaptive reuse of existing built heritage. This is particularly true for what regards the “social” reuse of assets expropriated from organised crime. A 1996 law acknowledged the role of civic participation in managing confiscated assets. Since then, more than 700 associations and social cooperatives have been involved in this process.

The most notable grassroots initiatives in Spain emerge from community-led projects for the adaptive reuse of heritage. These initiatives often involve local residents, grassroots organisations, and cultural activists who are deeply invested in preserving and revitalising their cultural heritage. These grassroots efforts reflect a growing awareness of the importance of bottom-up approaches to heritage conservation. In terms of governance partnership models, Spain employs a combination of public-private partnerships, collaborative initiatives, and tailor-made approaches to heritage reuse. Public-private partnerships involve collaboration between government entities and private sector firms to fund and implement adaptive reuse projects. Collaborative models bring together multiple stakeholders, including government agencies, heritage experts, community groups, and private investors, to develop customised solutions for heritage conservation. While each model has its strengths and challenges, collaborative approaches that prioritise community engagement and local empowerment tend to be the most effective in fostering sustainable heritage reuse.

Civic engagement in adaptive reuse projects is encouraged by Spain’s institutional systems of planning and heritage protection, which provide legal frameworks and incentives for community involvement. The Spanish legal system recognises the importance of public participation in decision-making processes related to heritage conservation and urban development. Laws such as the Heritage Act and the Urban Planning Act require public consultation and environmental impact assessments for projects affecting cultural heritage sites. Additionally, local governments often establish advisory boards and citizen committees to facilitate dialogue between stakeholders and ensure inclusive decision-making. Community-driven projects often demonstrate resilience and creativity in overcoming resource constraints, leveraging social networks and community solidarity to achieve their goals.