economic evaluation of urban regeneration
Post on 25-May-2015
262 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Economic evaluation of urban regeneration process
estimation of historical and architectural heritage enhancement
Carmelo M. Torre
Polytechnic of Bari, Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture
The Decision Making ContextRelationship
MonocraticPluralistic
Social Economy
Private Promoter
Public Private Partnership
External Public Promoter(e.g. EU)
Financial Economy
Public co-funding
The Decision Making Context Methods
MonocraticPluralistic
Social Economy
Cash Flow Analysis
Cost Benefit Analysis
Multicriterial Analysis
Multigroup Analysis
Financial Economy
The Decision Making Context Market and negotiation
Pluralistic Market – many competitors, many public promoters
Monopolystic Market – One competitor, many public actors
Monopsony Market – many competitors, one public actor
Bilateral Market – one competitor, one public actor
COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATIONALIFE
COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATIONALIFE
A - Refurbishment Roman Walls
B - -Anfi-theater
C -Green way
D - Social center
E - Commercial road axis
F - Research Center
G - Refurbishment Historic Gate
Promoters
G1. Local Government
G2. Public-Private Management
G3. Cultural Association
G4. Entrepreuners
Users
G5. Property
G6. Neighbours
G7. Touurists
G8. Potential users
G9. Future users
Preferability by NAIADE (Novel Approach of incertain
alternative decision environment
COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATION
COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATION
Preferability by NAIADE (Novel Approach of incertain
alternative decision environment)
NAIADE – Distance of Groups according preferability
COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATION
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9
G1 1,00 0,49 0,55 0,42 0,48 0,68 0,53 0,43 0,42
G2 0,49 1,00 0,43 0,59 0,76 0,51 0,39 0,36 0,35
G3 0,55 0,43 1,00 0,39 0,43 0,57 0,50 0,48 0,48
G4 0,42 0,59 0,39 1,00 0,61 0,42 0,38 0,37 0,34
G5 0,48 0,76 0,43 0,61 1,00 0,49 0,40 0,36 0,35
G6 0,68 0,51 0,57 0,42 0,49 1,00 0,49 0,43 0,42
G7 0,53 0,39 0,50 0,38 0,40 0,49 1,00 0,54 0,57
G8 0,43 0,36 0,48 0,37 0,36 0,43 0,54 1,00 0,60
G9 0,42 0,35 0,48 0,34 0,35 0,42 0,57 0,60 1,00
NAIADE – Conflicts Coalition Dendrograms
COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATION
COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATION
Ipote
si d
i
inte
rven
to
A R
esta
uro
Mu
ra
Ro
mane
B P
arco-
An
fite
atro
C S
trad
a P
arco
D C
entr
o S
oci
ale
E A
sse
Co
mm
erci
ale
F C
entr
o S
tud
i
G R
esta
uro
Cri
pto
po
rtic
o
Coalizioni Similitudine
G5, G2 0,76
G6, G1 0,68
G5, G4, G2 0,62 NO
G9, G8 0,60 NO
G9, G8, G7 0,57 NO NO
G6, G3, G1 0,57 NO NO NO
G9, G8, G7, G6, G3, G1 0,53 NO NO NO NO
G5, G4, G2, G9, G8,
G7, G6, G3, G1 0,51 NO NO NO NO NO NO
G1.Governo locale G2. Soggetto gestore G3. Associazioni culturali G4. Sistema Economico locale G5. Proprietari G6. Proprietari aree limitrofe G7. Turisti G8. Utenti potenziali G9. Utenti futuri
NAIADE – Conflicts/Coalition VETO Table
COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATION
X >> Y X > Y X ~ Y X == Y X ~ Y X < Y X << Y0,0000
0,2000
0,4000
0,6000
0,8000
1,0000
Parco-
Anfiteatro
Centro Sociale
SITUAZIONE TEORICA
X = moderatamente preferibile Y = moderatamente preferibile
implicherebbe in condizioni di certezza assoluta
Y=X =1 X Y = X <Y = X <<Y = X >Y = X >>Y = 0
Per X = Parco Anfiteatro Y = Centro Sociale
SITUAZIONE REALE
X = moderatamente preferibile Y = moderatamente preferibile
implica in condizioni di incertezza
Y=X = 0,85 X Y =0,78 X <Y = X <<Y = X >Y = X >>Y = 0
Per X = Parco Anfiteatro Y = Centro Sociale
NAIADE – Social preferability by pairwise comparison
Anfi Theater vs Social Center
COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATION
SITUAZIONE TEORICA
Per X = Parco Anfiteatro Y = Cripto Portico
X = moderatamente preferibile Y = Estremamente non preferibile
implicherebbe in condizioni di certezza assoluta
Y=X = X Y =X <Y = X <<Y =0 X >Y =1 e X >>Y = 1
SITUAZIONE REALE
Per X = Parco Anfiteatro Y = Cripto Portico
X = moderatamente preferibile Y = Estremamente non preferibile
implica in condizioni di incertezza
Y=X = X <Y = X <<Y =0 X Y = 0,16 X >Y = 0,77 e X >>Y = 0,73
X >> Y X > Y X ~ Y X == Y X ~ Y X < Y X << Y0,0000
0,2000
0,4000
0,6000
0,8000
1,0000
Parco-
Anfiteatro
RestauroCriptoportico
NAIADE – Social preferability by pairwise comparison
Anfi Theater vs Refurbishment of Historic Gate
COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATION
X >> Y X > Y X ~ Y X == Y X ~ Y X < Y X << Y
0,0000
0,2000
0,4000
0,6000
0,8000
1,0000
Parco-
Anfiteatro
Restauro Mura
X >> Y X > Y X ~ Y X == Y X ~ Y X < Y X << Y
0,0000
0,2000
0,4000
0,6000
0,8000
1,0000
Parco-
Anfiteatro
Strada Parco
X >> Y X > Y X ~ Y X == Y X ~ Y X < Y X << Y
0,0000
0,2000
0,4000
0,6000
0,8000
1,0000
Parco-
Anfiteatro
Centro Sociale
X >> Y X > Y X ~ Y X == Y X ~ Y X < Y X << Y
0,0000
0,2000
0,4000
0,6000
0,8000
1,0000
Parco-
Anfiteatro
Asse Commerciale
X >> Y X > Y X ~ Y X == Y X ~ Y X < Y X << Y
0,0000
0,2000
0,4000
0,6000
0,8000
1,0000
Parco-
Anfiteatro
Centro Studi
X >> Y X > Y X ~ Y X == Y X ~ Y X < Y X << Y
0,0000
0,2000
0,4000
0,6000
0,8000
1,0000
Parco-
Anfiteatro
RestauroCriptoportico
X >> Y X > Y X ~ Y X == Y X ~ Y X < Y X << Y
0,0000
0,2000
0,4000
0,6000
0,8000
1,0000
Restauro
Mura
Sistema
Parco-
Anfiteatro
X >> Y X > Y X ~ Y X == Y X ~ Y X < Y X << Y
0,0000
0,2000
0,4000
0,6000
0,8000
1,0000
Restauro
Mura
Strada Parco
X >> Y X > Y X ~ Y X == Y X ~ Y X < Y X << Y
0,0000
0,2000
0,4000
0,6000
0,8000
1,0000
Restauro
Mura
Centro Sociale
X >> Y X > Y X ~ Y X == Y X ~ Y X < Y X << Y
0,0000
0,2000
0,4000
0,6000
0,8000
1,0000
Restauro
Mura
Asse Commerciale
X >> Y X > Y X ~ Y X == Y X ~ Y X < Y X << Y
0,0000
0,2000
0,4000
0,6000
0,8000
1,0000
Restauro
Mura
Centro Studi
X >> Y X > Y X ~ Y X == Y X ~ Y X < Y X << Y
0,0000
0,2000
0,4000
0,6000
0,8000
1,0000
Restauro
Mura
RestauroCriptoportico
NAIADE – Social Preference: Entrepreneurship
Accessibility by touristic Pathway - Corridor VIIIEgnatia Road vs Durazzo-Skopije vs Thessaloniki-Kipi
Social - Qualitative criteria Impacts on Cultural Heritage
Pairwise comparison metrics Strong preferenceµ<<(X,Y)j µ>>(X,Y)j equal to µ<<=µ>>=0,325
Pairwise comparison metrics Weak preferenceµ<(X,Y)j µ>(X,Y)j equal to : µ<=µ>=0,60
Social - Qualitative criteria Impacts on Cultural Heritage
Weak equalityµ≈(X,Y)j equal to: µ≈=0,30
Strong equality µ≈(X,Y)j equal to: µ=0,05
Financial Quantitative variable Costs of Management
652
515 680
Financial Quantitative variable Costs of Management
DELIMITATION OF AREA
Del. C.C. 280 of 29/10/2001
Context of feasibility Study
Identification of contexts
• Nord District
• non homogeneous
• too wide context
• fragmantation of properties
• risky revenue
SAN GIROLAMO
FIERA
STANIC
COMPANY FOR URBAN TRANSFORMATION IN BARI
Expected utility:Probabilistic,Nash Equilibrium =1
Relative Risk adversionExpectation, non compensativeNash Equilibrium ≠1
FROM VON NEUMANN TO KAHNEMAN
Relative utility ratioSaaty weightings,
SOCIETIES FOR URBAN TRANSFORMATION (STU)
Why STU?
• New multi-functions settlements
Scopes
“…designing and implementing (therefore mechandising) interventions of urban transformation to activate plans’ …”
• Urban Renewal
• Integration of scarce local public fundings
• National Acts 197/1997 and 167/2002
Administrative Path
• Promotion (By Urban or Metropolitan Municipality)
• Feasybility study and official approval by the City Council
• Creation of the company for the S.T.U. - Agreement with Private partners• Acquisition of estate and soil, intervention and mechandising
ADVANTAGES
• Public plan + private Projects
LIMITATIONS RISKS
FUNDAMENTALS
• Identifying appropriate contexts and interventions
• Studying the feasibility to overpass the financial
dimension towards “social complex value”(Fusco Girard, 1987)
• Sharing know-how among enterpreneurs and public bodies (capacity building)• Financial Sustainability + social utility
• Multiplicity of partners and interventions
• Legislative pathways (espropriation, public bid and
partnership)
• Persistence of shared objectives in the long run, between private-public sector
SOCIETIES FOR URBAN TRANSFORMATION (STU)
• Shift of Exhibition Area in Stanic and re-use of old
exhibition center as cultural container• Expansion of Exhibition Area on the artificial
beach of Marisabella, and new Urban Park in Stanic• Expansion of Exhibition Area towards the Old Stadium of Victory
SCENARIOS
COMPANY FOR URBAN TRANSFORMATION IN BARI
ADVANTAGES• Dinamic Scenarios
Uncertainty
• Assessment of credibility instead of probability of evolving scenarios
• How much is useful the vision of stakeholder to weight the future?
CONSENSUS BUILDING AND DECISION MAKING
Application of Institutional Analysis (Munda, 2007)
Perception of events linked to interactions and reciprocal interference among actors
OPERATIONAL STAGE
• disaggregation of possible events
A
Bn
B2
B1
VARIABILE EVENTO PROBABILITA’
%1
%2
%n
ALBERO DECISIONALE (T. Bayes)
• Identification of stakeholders
• Decision trees
• Interviews and questionaires
CONSENSUS BUILDING AND DECISION MAKING
Alternative Scenarios
Expectation and Foreseeing
• Decision trees
• Scelte strategiche
• Mix funzionale
Relevance of actors(Saaty,2005)
• Appraisal of relevance of actors
• Appraisal of relevance of events
• Double entry matrix
CONSENSUS BUILDING AND DECISION MAKING
OFFICES
Commercial
Mix
Business +ICT
HOUSING
Constant growth
growthextension
riqualification
extension
Exhibition
Harbour
Commercial
Touristic
PROPOSALS
Starting Point• Mix of Function
• Strategic Choices
FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
Addiction of new project
Touristic Harbor
Estimated cost:
80 mln
Revenues
NPV
IRR
112 mln. €
9%
PROPOSALS
HousingUrban services
Offices
Commercial AreaCultural Cont.College
Exhibition area
Parks
PROPOSALS
Grazie
top related