Advertisement

A DSS to Assess and Manage the Urban Performances in the Regeneration Plan: The Case Study of Pachino

  • Maria Rosa Trovato
  • Salvatore Giuffrida
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8581)

Abstract

The historic centers, by using a large sustainability concept, should be the places where the quality and the symbolic values may prevail on the quantitative and functional ones, but often, the poor resources and the low quality of the management do not allow to promote a sustainable retraining process for them. The plan decision makers should verify the impact of the technical choices and then the sustainability of the actions, but also the impact of the planning policies on the economic performance and then on the economic sustainability of these actions. Therefore they must be helped to identify the planning actions, their funds and the value system they want to promote. In this regard, this study proposes a model to support the management of the retraining plan for Pachino’s historic center. The proposed model is a DSS that is developed using the MAUT and the IMO-DRSA tool.

Keywords

sustainable retraining plan MAUT IMO-DRSA economic performance equalization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Belton, V., Branke, J., Eskelinen, P., Greco, S., Molina, J., Ruiz, F., Słowiński, R.: Interactive Multiobjective Optimization from a Learning Perspective. In: Branke, J., Deb, K., Miettinen, K., Słowiński, R. (eds.) Multiobjective Optimization. LNCS, vol. 5252, pp. 405–433. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Comes, T., Wijngaards, N., Schultmann, F.: Intelligent technologies for decision support and preference modelling. In: Doumpos, M., et al. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Aid and Artificial Intelligence, pp. 45–72. Wiley, United Kingdom (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dyer, J.S.: MAUT. In: Figueira, J.R., et al. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, pp. 265–295. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giuffrida, S.: Evaluation for the new ethics of planning process. In: Fusco, G.L., et al. (eds.) L’uomo e la città: Verso uno sviluppo umano e sostenibile, Milano, FrancoAngeli (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giuffrida, S., Ferluga, G., Gagliano, F.: Social Housing nei Quartieri portuali storici di Siracusa. Un modello WebGIS per la valutazione e la programmazione 11, 121–154 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R.: Rough approximation of a preference relation by dominance relations. European J. Operational Research 117, 63–83 (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R.: Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis. European J. of Operational Research 129, 1–47 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R.: Dominance-based rough set approach to knowledge discovery – (I) general perspective (II) extensions and applications. In: Zhong, N., Liu, J. (eds.) Intelligent Technologies for Information Analysis, pp. 513–612. Springer, Berlin (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R.: Decision rule approach. In: Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, pp. 507–563. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Słowiński, R.: Dominance-Based Rough Set Approach to Interactive Multiobjective Optimization. In: Branke, J., Deb, K., Miettinen, K., Słowiński, R. (eds.) Multiobjective Optimization. LNCS, vol. 5252, pp. 121–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ishizaka, A., Nemery, P.: Multi-Criteria decision analysis, pp. 81–104. Wiley, U K (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Figueira, J.R., Greco, S., Mousseau, V., Słowiński, R.: Interactive Multiobjective Optimization Using a Set of Additive Value Functions. In: Branke, J., Deb, K., Miettinen, K., Słowiński, R. (eds.) Multiobjective Optimization. LNCS, vol. 5252, pp. 97–119. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Micelli, E.: La perequazione urbanistica. Marsilio, Venezia (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decision with Multiple Objectives: Preference and Value Tradeoffs. John Wiley and Sons, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pawlak, Z.: Rough Sets. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1991)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pawlak, Z.: Rough sets. International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences 11, 341–356 (1982)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stanghellini, S.: Il negoziato pubblico privato nei progetti urbani. DEI, Roma (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Trovato, M.R.: DRSA-IMO approach to support at a decision model for the social, architectural, urban and energetic retraining planning for the old town of Mazara del Vallo. 71 Meeting of the EWG MCDA. Politecnico di Torino (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Trovato, M.R.: Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and Participatory Values to Support of the Territorial Governance Processes. In: Society, Integration, Education: Utopias and Dystopias in Landscape and Cultural Mosaic, Udine, pp. 273–284 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Rosa Trovato
    • 1
  • Salvatore Giuffrida
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering and ArchitectureUniversity of CataniaItaly

Personalised recommendations