Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACTThe location problems of the so‐called undesirable facilities such as waste incinerators or landfills presents two main characteristics: (i) social opposition and (ii) a huge number of social, economic and environmental data that have to be taken into account. In this sense, the decision problem can be seen as an intrinsically complex problem because it involves different interconnected elements and must achieve objectives that are often in conflict.The work proposes the use of the theory of the dominance‐based rough set approach (DRSA). The DRSA is a development of the rough sets philosophy which concerns the possibility of extending this theory to multiple criteria decision analysis by providing the model with preference‐ordered aspects of the problem.This article presents an argument for the use of DRSA in decisions‐aiding processes concerning urban and territorial projects. Mention has to be made to the fact that there are very few applications of DRSA to real case studies, and in particular, there is no application concerning the localization of undesirable facilities. Given the very delicate nature of the problem, where the contrasts are not only theoretical but also concrete, it is essential to 'test' the various methods of decision support before using them in real contexts. In this article, we argue that a simulation phase should reclaim responsibility for reliability and validity by implementing verification and self‐correcting strategies during the development of the application itself.In particular, the paper presents an application to a real‐world problem, concerning the choice of the location for a waste incinerator in the Province of Turin (Italy). In the application, different sites are analysed and compared through the use of the DRSA on the basis of different attributes, such as presence of population, hydrogeological risk, landscape value, interferences on transport infrastructures. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Intro -- Preface: At the Origin of Circularity -- Contents -- Models and Metrics for Social Impact Assessment -- An Analysis of the Housing Market Dynamics in the Italian Municipalities -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Aim -- 3 Case Study -- 3.1 Variables -- 4 Method -- 5 Application of the MCS-EPR Technique to the Three Study Samples -- 6 Conclusions -- References -- Impact Management as a Driver of Value Creation in Payment by Results Schemes for Urban Regeneration Projects -- 1 Introduction -- 1.1 The Importance of Value and Impact Management -- 1.2 Urban Redevelopment Projects and Payment by Results Schemes -- 2 The Social Innovation Fund's Experience in Italy -- 2.1 The Role of Social Impact Evaluation in FIS Projects -- 2.2 The Intervention Models of the FIS Funded Initiatives in Lucca and Perugia -- 2.3 Models of Monitoring and Evaluation of Lucca and Perugia's FIS Funded Initiatives -- 2.4 The Payment by Result Models: Make Value Matter -- 3 Conclusions -- Annex 1. Examples of Outcomes, Indicators, and Sources of the Two Case Studies -- Annex 2. Examples of Financial Proxies for Outcomes in PbR Schemes of the Two Case Studies -- References -- Creativity, Responsibility and the Social Project Finance in the Revitalization of Abandoned Territories -- 1 Introduction -- 1.1 Background -- 1.2 Contents and Aims -- 2 Materials -- 2.1 Abandonment as a Structural Trend -- 2.2 Disadvantaged Territory in Sicily -- 3 Methodological Issues -- 3.1 Innovative Funding Approaches for Repopulation of Villages Through Buildings Renovation and Digital Transformation -- 3.2 The New Italian Tax Credit for Properties Renovation -- 4 Application: A Hybrid Social Impact Bond (HSIB) for Village Digital Transformation -- 5 Conclusions -- References -- An Evaluation Tool of Public-Private Conveniences in the Definition of Urban Planning Variants.