A Choquet Integral Based Assessment Model of Projects of Urban Neglected Areas: A Case of Study

  • Teresa Cilona
  • Maria Fiorella Granata
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8581)


This paper describes a multi-criteria evaluation model supporting decisions related to redevelopment of urban residual areas, a central theme in planning practices. Renewal projects on urban or neighborhood scale are complex problems because of the social, economic and environmental implications generated on the different categories of stakeholders. In the awareness of the specific characteristics of each city, the cognitive and evaluation model is especially defined for a given urban context, although it is easily adaptable to different ones. In order to take into account the interactions among the criteria by which we compare design alternatives, the Choquet integral is implemented as aggregation function. The model applies to some alternative projects for the redevelopment of a residual urban area in Agrigento (Italy). It can be usefully employed by the local government to choose the better alternative in pursuing policy objectives or to build new projects.


Multiple criteria decision aid Choquet integral neglected urban areas 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M.: Multiple criteria decision analysis. Springer, New York (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beinanat, E., Nijkamp, P. (eds.): Multicriteria Analysis for Land-Use Management. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bana e Costa, C.A., Nunes da Silva, F., Vansnick, J.C.: Conflict dissolution in the public sector: A case study. European J. of Operational Research 130, 388–401 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coutinho-Rodiguez, J., Simao, A., Antunes, C.H.: A GIS-based multicriteria spazial decision support system for planning urban infrastructures. Decision Support Systems 51, 720–726 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosso, M., Bottero, M., Pomarico, S., La Ferlita, S., Comino, E.: Integrating multicriteria evaluation and stakeholder analysis for assessing hydropower projects. Energy Policy 67, 870–881 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cerreta, M., D’Auria, A., Giordano, G., De Toro, P.: Valutazione multi criterio e multi gruppo per lo studio di fattibilità del sistema di mobilità della Penisola Sorrentina. In: Giordano, G. (ed.) Pratiche di valutazione. DENAROlibri, Napoli (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fusco Girard, L., Nijkam, P.: Le valutazioni per lo sviluppo sostenibile della città e del territorio. Angeli, Milano (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giordano, G. (ed.): Pratiche di valutazione. DenaroLibri, Napoli (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mollica, E., Malaspina, M.: Programmare valorizzare e accompagnare lo sviluppo locale. Laruffa editore, Reggio Calabria (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brandon, P.S., Lombardi, P.: Evaluating sustainable development. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Forte, F., Fusco Girard, L.: Creativity and new architectural assets: The complex value of beauty. International Journal of Sustainable Development 12, 160–191 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ratin, D.E.: Creative cities and/or sustainable cities: Discourses and Practices. Culture and society 4, 125–135 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rizzo, F.: Il capitale sociale della città. Valutazione pianificazione e gestione. FrancoAngeli, Milano (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rydin, Y., Holman, N.: Re-evaluating the contribution of social capital in achieving sustainable development. Local Environment 9, 117–133 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Girard, L.F., Torre, C.M.: The Use of Ahp in a Multiactor Evaluation for Urban Development Programs: A Case Study. In: Murgante, B., Gervasi, O., Misra, S., Nedjah, N., Rocha, A.M.A.C., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O. (eds.) ICCSA 2012, Part II. LNCS, vol. 7334, pp. 157–167. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lombardi, P. (ed.): Riuso edilizio e rigenerazione urbana. Innovazione e partecipazione. Celid, Torino (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cerreta, M., De Toro, P.: Assessing Urban Transformations: A SDSS for the Master Plan of Castel Capuano, Naples. In: Murgante, B., Gervasi, O., Misra, S., Nedjah, N., Rocha, A.M.A.C., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O. (eds.) ICCSA 2012, Part II. LNCS, vol. 7334, pp. 168–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stanghellini, S.: La riqualificazione urbana fra leggi di mercato ed esigenze sociali. In: Fusco Girard, L., Forte, B., Cerreta, M., De Toro, P., Forte, F. (eds.) L’uomo e la città, pp. 490–501. Franco Angeli, Milano (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lombardi, P., Micelli, E. (eds.): Le misure del piano. Angeli, Milano (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stanghellini, S., Stellin, G.: Politiche di riqualificazione delle aree metropolitane: domande di valutazione e contributo delle discipline economico-estimative. Genio Rurale 7/8, 47–55 (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    European Sustainable Cities and Towns Conference,
  22. 22.
    Sustainable Cities International – Canadian International Development Agency: Indicators for Sustainability. How cities are monitoring and evaluating their success, Vancouver (November 2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mondini, G.: La valutazione come processo di produzione di conoscenza per il progetto. Valori e Valutazioni 3, 5–16 (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fusco Girard, L., Cerreta, M., De Toro, P.: Valutazioni integrate: da “processo di apprendimento” a “gestione della conoscenza”. Valori e Valutazioni 4/5, 101–115 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Forte, F.: I giudizi di valore nel processo di ideazione del progetto. Valori e Valutazioni 4/5, 117–125 (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tsoukiàs, A.: On the concept of decision aiding process. Annals of Operations Research 154, 3–27 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Munda, G.: Environmental economics, ecological economics, and the concept of sustainable development. Environmental Values 6, 213–233 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rizzo, F.: Il territorio come organizzazione auto poietica, struttura dissipativa e sistema politico-amministrativo: una scienza del valore e delle valutazioni. In: Maciocco, G., Marchi, G. (eds.) Dimensione ecologica e sviluppo locale: Problemi di valutazione. FrancoAngeli, Milano (2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sugeno, M.: Theory of fuzzy integrals and its applications. Doctoral thesis. Tokyo Institute of Technology (1974)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Choquet, G.: Theory of capacities. Annales de l’Institut Fourier 5, 131–295 (1953)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Grabisch, M.: The application of fuzzy integrals in multicriteria decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 89, 445–456 (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Grabisch, M., Labreuche, C.: A decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid. Annals of Operations Research 175(1), 247–286 (2010)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ashayeri, J., Tuzkaya, G., Tuzkaya, U.R.: Supply chain partners and configuration selection: An intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral operator based approach. Expert Systems with Applications 39, 3642–3649 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Narukawa, Y., Torra, V.: Fuzzy measures and integrals in evaluation of strategies. Information Sciences 177, 4686–4695 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang, Z., Leung, K.S., Klir, G.J.: Applying fuzzy measures and nonlinear integrals in data mining. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 156(3), 371–380 (2005)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Li, G., Law, R., Vu, H.Q., Rong, J.: Discovering the hotel selection preferences of Hong Kong inbound travelers using the Choquet Integral. Tourism Management 36, 321–330 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Demirel, T., Demirel, N.C., Kahraman, C.: Multi-criteria warehouse location selection using Choquet integral. Expert Systems with Applications 37(5), 3943–3952 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pasrija, V., Kumar, S., Srivastava, P.R.: Assessment of Software Quality: Choquet Integral Approach. Procedia Technology 6, 153–162 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Islam, N., Sadiq, R., Rodriguez, M.J., Francisque, A.: Evaluation of source water protection strategies: A fuzzy-based model. Journal of Environmental Management 121, 191–201 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pinar, M., Cruciani, C., Giove, S., Sostero, M.: Constructing the FEEM sustainability index: A Choquet integral application. Ecological Indicators 39, 189–202 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zhang, L., Zhou, D.Q., Zhou, P., Chen, Q.T.: Modelling policy decision of sustainable energy strategies for Nanjing city: A fuzzy integral approach. Renewable Energy 62, 197–203 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Feng, C.M., Wu, P.J., Chia, K.C.: A hybrid fuzzy integral decision-making model for locating manufacturing centers in China: A case study. European Journal of Operational Research 200(1), 63–73 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lee, W.S.: Evaluating and ranking energy performance of office buildings using fuzzy measure and fuzzy integral. Energy Conversion and Management 51(1), 197–203 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Giove, S., Rosato, P., Breil, M.: An application of multicriteria decision making to built heritage: The redevelopment of Venice Arsenale. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 17, 85–99 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bottero, M., Ferretti, V., Pomarico, S.: Assessing Different Possibilities for the Reuse of an Open-pit Quarry Using the Choquet Integral. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (2013), Published online in Wiley Online Library Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Granata, M.F.: A multidimensional model based on the Choquet integral to evaluate performance of waterfront redevelopment projects in promoting local growth. BDC - Bollettino del Dipartimento di Conservazione dei Beni Architettonici ed Ambientali 12(1), 960–971 (2012)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vincke, P.: Multicriteria Decision-aid. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1992)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Angilella, S., Greco, S., Lamantia, F., Matarazzo, B.: Assessing non-additive utility for multicriteria decision aid. European Journal of Operational Research 158, 734–744 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Marichal, J.L., Roubens, M.: Determination of weights of interactive criteria from a reference set. European Journal of Operational Research 124, 641–650 (2000)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Grabish, M.: k-Order additive discrete fuzzy measures and their representation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 92, 167–189 (1997)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Martuscelli, M.: Agrigento, Relazione della Commissione d’indagine. Urbanistica 48, 31–160 (1966)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Miccichè, C.: Gli ipogei agrigentini tra archeologia, storia e mitologia. Industria grafica Sarcuto, Agrigento (1996)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    European Ministers responsible for Urban Development: Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities. Final Draft (May 2, 2007),
  54. 54.
    Miccichè, C.: Girgenti: le pietre delle meraviglie...cadute. Osservazioni, note autentiche, documenti editi e inediti per il recupero del centro storico di Agrigento. Tipografia Arcigraf, Agrigento (2006)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Detailed Plan of the Historic Center of Agrigento, report and drawings of Piano Particolareggiato del Centro Storico di Agrigento (2007)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Roy, B.: Paradigms and Challenges. In: Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, pp. 3–24. Springer, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development: Indicators of sustainable development: framework and methodologies. Background paper No. 3. United Nations, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Bouyssou, D.: Building Criteria: A Prerequisite for MCDA. In: Bana e Costa, C.A. (ed.) Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid. Springer, Berlin (1990)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Reed, M.S., Frases, E.D.G., Dougill, A.J.: An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecological Economics 59, 406–418 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Pelto, P., Pelto, G.: Anthropological Research: the Structure of Inquiry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1970)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kusakabe, E.: Advancing sustainable development at the local level: The case of machizukuri in Japanese cities. Progress in Planning 80, 1–65 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Teresa Cilona
    • 1
  • Maria Fiorella Granata
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ArchitectureUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations