IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i14p3877-d248992.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to Assess Urban Regeneration Proposals by Considering Conflicting Values

Author

Listed:
  • Stefano Capolongo

    (Department of Architecture, Built environment and Construction Engineering (A.B.C.), Politecnico di Milano, 20133 Milan, Italy)

  • Leopoldo Sdino

    (Department of Architecture, Built environment and Construction Engineering (A.B.C.), Politecnico di Milano, 20133 Milan, Italy)

  • Marta Dell’Ovo

    (Department of Architecture, Built environment and Construction Engineering (A.B.C.), Politecnico di Milano, 20133 Milan, Italy)

  • Rossella Moioli

    (Department of Architecture, Built environment and Construction Engineering (A.B.C.), Politecnico di Milano, 20133 Milan, Italy)

  • Stefano Della Torre

    (Department of Architecture, Built environment and Construction Engineering (A.B.C.), Politecnico di Milano, 20133 Milan, Italy)

Abstract

Urban regeneration has to be based on rigorous methodological frameworks able to find a balance among preservation instances, economic development, urban quality and the well-being of the population. Considering these premises, this research is focused on the definition of the decision-aiding process for the reuse of an abandoned health care facility with several historic buildings. Both public and private interests have been taken into consideration, since they play an important role for the urban regeneration project and for the definition of urban regeneration policies. Given the complexity of this issue, the evaluation process has been structured by combining different methodologies to support the policy cycle: Stakeholder Analysis, to identify the actors engaged (Social sustainability); Nara Grid for the values elicitation of the Built Cultural Heritage (Cultural and environmental sustainability); and the subsequent definition of different sustainable scenarios evaluated by the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis (Economic sustainability). Four alternatives have been assessed with the support of a Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) aimed at defining the most balanced one considering heritage significance retention and urban regeneration. This work contributes to the literature on soft OR by exploring interactions among different stakeholders and addresses policy instances by providing a transparent methodology based on value elicitation.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefano Capolongo & Leopoldo Sdino & Marta Dell’Ovo & Rossella Moioli & Stefano Della Torre, 2019. "How to Assess Urban Regeneration Proposals by Considering Conflicting Values," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-15, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:14:p:3877-:d:248992
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/14/3877/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/14/3877/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    2. Abastante, Francesca & Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Lami, Isabella M., 2018. "Choice architecture for architecture choices: Evaluating social housing initiatives putting together a parsimonious AHP methodology and the Choquet integral," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 748-762.
    3. Alberto Franco, L., 2009. "Problem structuring methods as intervention tools: Reflections from their use with multi-organisational teams," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 193-203, February.
    4. JosÉ Figueira & Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrogott, 2005. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-23081-8, September.
    5. Marta Bottero & Chiara D’Alpaos & Alessandra Oppio, 2019. "Ranking of Adaptive Reuse Strategies for Abandoned Industrial Heritage in Vulnerable Contexts: A Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, February.
    6. Franco, L. Alberto & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2010. "Facilitated modelling in operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 205(3), pages 489-500, September.
    7. Gamboa, Gonzalo & Munda, Giuseppe, 2007. "The problem of windfarm location: A social multi-criteria evaluation framework," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1564-1583, March.
    8. Marlijn Baarveld & Marnix Smit & Geert Dewulf, 2015. "Negotiation processes in urban redevelopment projects: Dealing with conflicts by balancing integrative and distributive approaches," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 363-384, September.
    9. Lami, Isabella M. & Tavella, Elena, 2019. "On the usefulness of soft OR models in decision making: A comparison of Problem Structuring Methods supported and self-organized workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(3), pages 1020-1036.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yunxi Bai & Shanshan Wu & Yunjie Zhang, 2023. "Exploring the Key Factors Influencing Sustainable Urban Renewal from the Perspective of Multiple Stakeholders," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-21, July.
    2. Shiwang Yu & Yong Liu & Caiyun Cui & Bo Xia, 2019. "Influence of Outdoor Living Environment on Elders’ Quality of Life in Old Residential Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-17, November.
    3. Martina Carra & Barbara Caselli & Silvia Rossetti & Michele Zazzi, 2023. "Widespread Urban Regeneration of Existing Residential Areas in European Medium-Sized Cities—A Framework to Locate Redevelopment Interventions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-23, September.
    4. Fabrizio Battisti & Orazio Campo, 2021. "The Assessment of Density Bonus in Building Renovation Interventions. The Case of the City of Florence in Italy," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, December.
    5. Fabrizio Battisti & Orazio Campo & Fabiana Forte, 2020. "A Methodological Approach for the Assessment of Potentially Buildable Land for Tax Purposes: The Italian Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-22, January.
    6. Marco Gola & Marta Dell’Ovo & Stefano Scalone & Stefano Capolongo, 2022. "Adaptive Reuse of Social and Healthcare Structures: The Case Study as a Research Strategy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-18, April.
    7. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm, 2022. "Problem Structuring Methods: A Review of Advances Over the Last Decade," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 55-88, February.
    8. Eglė Klumbytė & Raimondas Bliūdžius & Milena Medineckienė & Paris A. Fokaides, 2021. "An MCDM Model for Sustainable Decision-Making in Municipal Residential Buildings Facilities Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-16, March.
    9. Wang, Hao & Zhao, Yizhu & Gao, Xichen & Gao, Boyang, 2021. "Collaborative decision-making for urban regeneration: A literature review and bibliometric analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    10. Yuqi Zhang & Sungik Kang & Ja-Hoon Koo, 2021. "Perception Difference and Conflicts of Stakeholders in the Urban Regeneration Project: A Case Study of Nanluoguxiang," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-15, March.
    11. Manganelli, Benedetto & Tataranna, Sabina & Pontrandolfi, Piergiuseppe, 2020. "A model to support the decision-making in urban regeneration," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    12. Marco Rossitti & Alessandra Oppio & Francesca Torrieri, 2021. "The Financial Sustainability of Cultural Heritage Reuse Projects: An Integrated Approach for the Historical Rural Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-22, November.
    13. Długozima Anna & Kosiacka-Beck Ewa, 2020. "How to Enhance the Environmental Values of Contemporary Cemeteries in an Urban Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-19, March.
    14. Marco Trisciuoglio & Michela Barosio & Ana Ricchiardi & Zeynep Tulumen & Martina Crapolicchio & Rossella Gugliotta, 2021. "Transitional Morphologies and Urban Forms: Generation and Regeneration Processes—An Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, June.
    15. Marta Dell’Ovo & Federico Dell’Anna & Raffaella Simonelli & Leopoldo Sdino, 2021. "Enhancing the Cultural Heritage through Adaptive Reuse. A Multicriteria Approach to Evaluate the Castello Visconteo in Cusago (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-29, April.
    16. Maria LopezDeAsiain & Vicente Díaz-García, 2020. "The Importance of the Participatory Dimension in Urban Resilience Improvement Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-25, September.
    17. Bingni Deng & Julia Affolderbach & Pauline Deutz, 2020. "Industrial Restructuring through Eco-Transformation: Green Industrial Transfer in Changsha–Zhuzhou–Xiangtan, Hunan Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-22, August.
    18. Huang, Kun-Tai & Ozer, Muammer, 2020. "A multi-criteria expert decision system for investment decisions: The case of commercial real estate investments in China," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).

    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. Lami, Isabella M. & Todella, Elena, 2023. "A multi-methodological combination of the strategic choice approach and the analytic network process: From facts to values and vice versa," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 802-812.
    2. Stephen Harwood, 2021. "Introducing the VIPLAN Methodology (with VSM) for Handling Messy Situations – Nine Lessons," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 34(6), pages 635-668, December.
    3. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm, 2022. "Problem Structuring Methods: A Review of Advances Over the Last Decade," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 55-88, February.
    4. Lami, Isabella M. & Tavella, Elena, 2019. "On the usefulness of soft OR models in decision making: A comparison of Problem Structuring Methods supported and self-organized workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(3), pages 1020-1036.
    5. Elena Bakhanova & Jaime A. Garcia & William L. Raffe & Alexey Voinov, 2023. "Gamification Framework for Participatory Modeling: A Proposal," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1167-1182, October.
    6. Etxano, Iker & Villalba-Eguiluz, Unai, 2021. "Twenty-five years of social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) in the search for sustainability: Analysis of case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    7. Pelenc, Jérôme & Etxano, Iker, 2021. "Capabilities, Ecosystem Services, and Strong Sustainability through SMCE: The Case of Haren (Belgium)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    8. Iker Etxano & Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Oihana Garcia, 2018. "Conflicting Values in Rural Planning: A Multifunctionality Approach through Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-29, May.
    9. Robert G. Dyson & Frances A. O’Brien & Devan B. Shah, 2021. "Soft OR and Practice: The Contribution of the Founders of Operations Research," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 69(3), pages 727-738, May.
    10. Anna Scolobig & Vanesa Castán Broto & Aiora Zabala, 2008. "Integrating Multiple Perspectives in Social Multicriteria Evaluation of Flood-Mitigation Alternatives: The Case of Malborghetto-Valbruna," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 26(6), pages 1143-1161, December.
    11. Ion Georgiou & Joaquim Heck, 2021. "The emergence of problem structuring methods, 1950s–1989: An atlas of the journal literature," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 756-796, November.
    12. Alberto Franco, L., 2013. "Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 720-733.
    13. Stanislav Edward Shmelev (ODID), "undated". "Multi-criteria Assessment of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: New Dimensions and Stakeholders in the South of France," QEH Working Papers qehwps181, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
    14. Rodrigues, Teresa C. & Montibeller, Gilberto & Oliveira, Mónica D. & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2017. "Modelling multicriteria value interactions with Reasoning Maps," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 1054-1071.
    15. Garmendia, Eneko & Gamboa, Gonzalo, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: A case study on sustainable natural resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 110-120.
    16. Bottero Marta & Datola Giulia, 2020. "Addressing Social Sustainability in Urban Regeneration Processes. An Application of the Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-20, September.
    17. Munda, Giuseppe, 2009. "A conflict analysis approach for illuminating distributional issues in sustainability policy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(1), pages 307-322, April.
    18. Mauro Berta & Marta Bottero & Valentina Ferretti, 2018. "A mixed methods approach for the integration of urban design and economic evaluation: Industrial heritage and urban regeneration in China," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 45(2), pages 208-232, March.
    19. Konrad, Renata A. & Maass, Kayse Lee & Dimas, Geri L. & Trapp, Andrew C., 2023. "Perspectives on how to conduct responsible anti-human trafficking research in operations and analytics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(1), pages 319-329.
    20. Tavella, Elena & Hjortso, Carsten Nico, 2012. "Enhancing the Design and Management of a Local Organic Food Supply Chain with Soft Systems Methodology," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 15(2), pages 1-22, May.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:14:p:3877-:d:248992. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.