Advertisement

Benchmarking Multi-criteria Evaluation: A Proposed Method for the Definition of Benchmarks in Negotiation Public-Private Partnerships

  • Maria Rosaria Guarini
  • Fabrizio Battisti
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8581)

Abstract

In Italy, new processes of settlement transformation based on negotiation-type public-private partnerships (PPPN) have been standardised to cope with the degradation of many urban areas. However, these standards have not provided for benchmarks referring to the contents of partnerships or assessment procedures aimed at assessing the initiatives undertaken with respect to public utility objectives. This has often led to redevelopment initiatives geared more towards the satisfaction of private rather than public interests. The proposed methodology, structured on the integration of a Benchmarking process with multi-criteria evaluation techniques known as Benchmarking Multi-criteria Evaluation (BME) enables the definition of benchmarks through a participatory process of the different Stakeholders involved in a PPPN to which the BME is applied. The benchmarks can be used both for renewing the planning of the PPPN concerned and for verifying the quality of the initiatives within the same PPPN process.

Keywords

Appraisal Multi-Criteria Analysis Benchmarking Public-Private Partnership Stakeholders Governance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Curti, F.: Lo scambio leale. Negoziazione urbanistica e offerta privata di spazi e servizi pubblici, Officina, Rome (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morano, P.: La compensazione urbanistica nell’acquisizione consensuale non onerosa di risorse ad uso pubblico. In: Bentivegna, V., Miccoli, S. (eds.) Valutazione e Progettazione Urbanistica. Metodologia e applicazioni, pp. 175–206 (2010) ISBN: 978-88-496-0401-6Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stanghellini, S.: Il negoziato pubblico privato nei progetti urbani. Principi, metodi e tecniche di valutazione, Dei, Rome (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Urbani, P.: Territorio e poteri emergenti. La politica di sviluppo tra urbanistica e mercato, Giappichelli, Turin (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morano, P., Tajani, F.: Break Even Analysis for the financial verification of urban regeneration projects. In: Applied Mechanics and Materials, vol. 438-439, pp. 1830–1835. Trans Teach Publications Ltd. (2013), doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.438-439.1830 ISSN: 1660-9336Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karloff, B., Ostblom, S.: Benchmarking: A signpost to excellence in quality and productivity. Wiley, Chichester (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Camp, R.: Business process Benchmarking: Trovare e migliorare le prassi vincenti, Editoriale Itaca, Milano (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nijikamp, P., Rietveld, P., Voogd, H.: Multicriteria evaluation in physical planning. North Holland Publ., Amsterdam (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keeney, R.L., Raiffa. H.: Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. John Wiley, New York (1993); Republished by Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lichfield, N., Barbanente, A., Borri, D., Khakee, A., Pratt, A.: Evaluation in spatial planning: Facing the challenge of complexity. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    European Commission (1997), Benchmarking: Implementation of an Instrument available to economic actors and public authorities, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM (97) 153 final, 16 April 1997, Bruxelles (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    European Commission, Europe Aid Cooperation Office, Linee guida per l’analisi multicriteria (UE), Quando e perché l’analisi multicriteria dovrebbe essere utilizzata, Bruxelles (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guarini, M.R., Battisti, F.: Evaluation and Management of Land-Development Processes Based on the Public-Private Partnership. Advanced Materials Research 869-870, 154–161 (2014); online available at, www.scientific.net (since December I3, 2013), doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.869-870.154 ISSN: 10226680, ISBN 978-303785975-9
  14. 14.
    Fusco Girard, L., Nijkamp, P.: Le valutazioni per lo sviluppo sostenibile della città e del territorio, Franco Angeli, Rome (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roscelli, R.: Misurare nell’incertezza. Valutazioni e trasformazioni territoriali. Celid, Turin (2005) ISBN: 88-7661-664-0Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Battisti, F.: Valutazioni comparative per lo sviluppo dei processi di riqualificazione del territorio a partenariato pubblico-privato: una proposta di metodo. Sperimentazione sui Programmi Integrati di Intervento della Regione Lazio. PhD Thesis in Doctoral School of “Riqualificazione e Recupero Insediativo” (XXIV ciclo), Tutor Prof.ssa M.R. Guarini, Facoltà di Architettura, Sapienza University of Rome (2012), http://padis.uniroma1.it/handle/10805/2088
  17. 17.
    Mattia, S.: Costruzione e valutazione della sostenibilità dei progetti, vol. 1 & 2, Franco Angeli, Rome (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Rosaria Guarini
    • 1
  • Fabrizio Battisti
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Architecture and Design (DIAP), Faculty of ArchitectureUniversity of Rome SapienzaRome (RM)Italy

Personalised recommendations