IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/urbpla/v11y2026a11249.html

Who Matters in Residential Building Reuse? Navigating Conflicts and Collaborations Through Stakeholder–Issue Mapping

Author

Listed:
  • Lamiaa Ghoz

    (Faculty of Environmental Sciences, TU Dresden, Germany / Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development (IOER), Germany / Dresden Leibniz Graduate School (DLGS), Germany)

Abstract

The reuse of vacant residential buildings offers a strategy for revitalizing “shrinking cities” and advancing urban sustainability by transforming underutilized spaces into community assets. However, the decision‐making process involves stakeholders from diverse disciplines with conflicting perspectives, which creates significant challenges that hinder progress. This study therefore identifies these key stakeholders and maps their interrelations with reuse challenges, addressing the question: Who are the key stakeholders involved in the challenges and conflicts of interest that hinder the decision‐making in residential building reuse? A semi‐systematic literature review followed by thematic analysis was employed to identify stakeholder groups, supplemented by stakeholder–issue mapping to analyze their interrelations. The study identified five key groups: property owners, investors, government representatives and regulators, building professionals, and users, community, and civic society. The findings demonstrate that challenges are highly interconnected across multiple stakeholders, revealing patterns of conflict and opportunities for collaboration. The study underscores the role of government in initiating and steering the process and identifies emerging roles for other actors, such as building professionals acting as mediators. Existing research adopts a narrow disciplinary lens and focuses less on residential buildings, risking an overlooking of crucial actor dynamics. By offering a holistic perspective on the stakeholders and their interrelations with reuse challenges, this study provides vital insights for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners seeking to manage urban vacancies as resources in “shrinking cities” and advance a circular built environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Lamiaa Ghoz, 2026. "Who Matters in Residential Building Reuse? Navigating Conflicts and Collaborations Through Stakeholder–Issue Mapping," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v11:y:2026:a:11249
    DOI: 10.17645/up.11249
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/11249
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/up.11249?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John M Bryson, 2004. "What to do when Stakeholders matter," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 21-53, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bert George, 2017. "Does strategic planning ‘work’ in public organizations? Insights from Flemish municipalities," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(7), pages 527-530, November.
    2. Martin Luštický & Martin Musil, 2016. "Stakeholder-Based Evaluation of Tourism Policy Priorities: The Case of the South Bohemian Region," Acta Oeconomica Pragensia, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2016(3), pages 3-23.
    3. Jolanta MAJ, 2015. "Diversity Management’S Stakeholders And Stakeholders Management," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 9(1), pages 780-793, November.
    4. Franco-Trigo, L. & Fernandez-Llimos, F. & Martínez-Martínez, F. & Benrimoj, S.I. & Sabater-Hernández, D., 2020. "Stakeholder analysis in health innovation planning processes: A systematic scoping review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(10), pages 1083-1099.
    5. Francesca Iandolo & Antonio La Sala & Lorenzo Turriziani & Francesco Caputo, 2025. "Stakeholder engagement in managing systemic risk management," Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 1069-1085, October.
    6. Kik, M.C. & Claassen, G.D.H. & Meuwissen, M.P.M. & Smit, A.B. & Saatkamp, H.W., 2021. "Actor analysis for sustainable soil management – A case study from the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    7. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    8. John Manso Frimpong & Jacob Kuutoume & Christiana Abrafi Gyamfi, 2024. "Supply Chain Integration and Organizational Resources and Capabilities: The Moderating Effect of Stakeholders’ Support," International Review of Management and Marketing, International Review of Management and Marketing, vol. 14(4), pages 72-82, July.
    9. Christophe Favoreu & David Carassus & Christophe Maurel, 2015. "Strategic management in the public sector: a rational, political or collaborative approach? [Le management stratégique en milieu public : approche rationnelle, politique ou collaborative ?]," Post-Print hal-02152509, HAL.
    10. Cle‐Anne Gabriel & Kamran Shafique, 2024. "An ethical salience framework to achieve sustainable development goals," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 3213-3225, August.
    11. Sandra Ricart & Antonio M. Rico-Amorós, 2022. "Can agriculture and conservation be compatible in a coastal wetland? Balancing stakeholders’ narratives and interactions in the management of El Hondo Natural Park, Spain," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 589-604, June.
    12. Ashton W. Merck & Khara D. Grieger & Alison Deviney & Anna-Maria Marshall, 2023. "Using a Phosphorus Flow Diagram as a Boundary Object to Inform Stakeholder Engagement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-10, July.
    13. Aditya Pandu Wicaksono & Doddy Setiawan, 2024. "Impacts of stakeholder pressure on water disclosure within Asian mining companies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 6493-6515, March.
    14. Ogunlowo, Olufemi O. & Bristow, Abigail L. & Sohail, M., 2017. "A stakeholder analysis of the automotive industry's use of compressed natural gas in Nigeria," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 58-69.
    15. Austen Agata, 2012. "Stakeholders management in public hospitals in the context of resources," Management, Paradigm, vol. 16(2), pages 217-230, December.
    16. Sandra Ricart & Anna Ribas & David Pavón, 2016. "Qualifying irrigation system sustainability by means of stakeholder perceptions and concerns: lessons from the Segarra‐Garrigues Canal, Spain," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 40(1-2), pages 77-90, February.
    17. Cathy Macharis & Peter Nijkamp, 2013. "Multi-actor and multi-criteria analysis in evaluating mega-projects," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 11, pages 242-266, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Maciej Dobrzyñski & Krzysztof Dziekoñski & Arkadiusz Jurczuk, 2015. "Stakeholders Mapping - A Case Of International Logistics Project," Polish Journal of Management Studies, Czestochowa Technical University, Department of Management, vol. 11(2), pages 17-26, June.
    19. Szymaniec-Mlicka Karolina, 2016. "Impact of strategic orientation adopted by an organisation on its performance, as shown on the example of public healthcare entities," Management, Paradigm, vol. 20(2), pages 278-290, December.
    20. Carolus, Johannes Friedrich & Hanley, Nick & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Pedersen, Søren Marcus, 2018. "A Bottom-up Approach to Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 282-295.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v11:y:2026:a:11249. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.