Constructing Strategies in Strategic Urban Planning: A Case Study of a Decision Support and Evaluation Model
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Constructing Strategies in Strategic Urban Planning: A Case Study of a Decision Support and Evaluation Model

  • 514 views
Uploaded on

Constructing Strategies in Strategic Urban Planning: A Case Study of a Decision Support and Evaluation Model...

Constructing Strategies in Strategic Urban Planning: A Case Study of a Decision Support and Evaluation Model
Ivan Blečić, Arnaldo Cecchini, Giuseppe A. Trunfio - Department of Architecture, Planning and Design, University of Sassari, Alghero

More in: Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
514
On Slideshare
514
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. ASA: Actions Strategies Actors A decision support evaluation model
  • 2. Introduction
    • Problems with composite (strategic) plans:
      • How actions and projects should be activated, in which order, where to begin with?
      • What are the flagship or “hub” projects?
      • How to relation them to relevant actors (political “arena”)?
      • What is the implementation strategy?
  • 3. Evaluation criteria
    • Evaluate projects with respect to 3 criteria:
      • Actors’ interest
      • Projects’ relevance
      • Cost
  • 4. Actors’ interest Based on: Influence factor Effort factor Actors’ interest
    • measures how important an actor if for the realisation of a project
    • Expressed on an qualitative ordinal scale: “key actor (activator)”, “compulsory actor”, “influent actor”, “marginally influent actor”, “non-influent actor”
    • measures the willingness to invest (in wide sense) in a project
    • Expressed on an numeric ratio scale
    Overall interest for a project (aggregation): Weighted mean of efforts, using influences as weights
  • 5. Relevance criterion
    • Effectiveness of sequences of projects with regard to plan’s objectives
    • Considers:
      • “ direct” relevance
      • Interdependencies (synergies)
    • Calculus based on the estimation of relevance of every pair or projects:
      • relevance of a simple two-projects sequence: r(i,j)
      • Relevance of a longer sequence
  • 6. Relevance criterion
  • 7. Costs criterion
    • Considers:
      • Economical and financial technical costs
      • The possibility/probability of “external” financing
        • may depend on the level or agreement among actors
  • 8. Possible evaluation Relevance Costs Interest 3 criteria – 3 dimensions
  • 9. Possible evaluations Interactive exploration of the solution space Search based on filters and constraints on costs, relevance, interest, etc.
  • 10. Possible evaluations
  • 11. Possible evaluations Ancillary results: veto power of actors on the overall plans’ objectives
  • 12.  
  • 13.  
  • 14.  
  • 15.  
  • 16.  
  • 17.  
  • 18.  
  • 19.  
  • 20.  
  • 21.  
  • 22.  
  • 23.
    • Reporting tool
    • export in pdf, html (for web publishing)
    • Export in csv for further analysis
  • 24. Salient aspects
    • 3 criteria covers 3 fundamental dimensions of decision-making
    • works on and with sequences of projects (trying to cope with potential synergic effects)
    • Some levels of sophistication but still transparent, understandable and accountable
    • Interactive exploration of solution space, with no final aggregation in a single utility function