Integrated Spatial Assessment (ISA): A Multi-Methodological Approach for Planning Choices

Abstract

In decision-making processes for urban planning and design, evaluation can be considered a relevant tool to build choices, to recognize values, interests and needs, and to explore the different aspects that can influence decisions. Evaluation can be considered a process to integrate approaches, methods and models, able to support the different needs of the decision-making process itself. According to Trochim and Donnelly (2006), it is possible to define a planning-evaluation cycle with various phases requested by both planners and evaluators. The first phase of such a cycle, the so-called planning phase, is designed in order to elaborate a set of potential actions, programs, or technologies, and select the best ones for implementation. The main stages are related to (1) the formulation of the problem, issue, or concern; (2) the broad conceptualization of the main alternatives to be considered; (3) the detailing of these alternatives and their potential implications; (4) the evaluation of the alternatives and the selection of the preferable one; and (5) the implementation of the selected alternative. These stages are considered inherent to planning, but they need a relevant evaluation work, useful in conceptualization and detailing, and in assessing alternatives and making a choice of the preferable one. The evaluation phase also involves a sequence of stages that includes: (1) the formulation of the major goals and objectives; (2) the conceptualization and operationalization of the major components of the evaluation (program, participants, setting, criteria, measures, etc.); (3) the design of the evaluation, detailing how these components will be coordinated; the analysis of the information, both qualitative and quantitative; and (4) the utilization of the evaluation results. Indeed, evaluation is intrinsic to all types of decision-making and can take different meanings and roles within decision-making processes, especially if it is related to spatial planning (Alexander, 2006). ”Evaluation in planning” or ”evaluation within planning” seems to better interpret the concept of planning-evaluation proposed by Lichfield (1996) where the binomial name makes explicit the close interaction and reciprocal framing of evaluation and planning: evaluation is conceived as deeply embedded in planning, affecting planning, and evolving with it (Cerreta, 2010). Indeed, the evolution of evaluation methods reflects their evolving relationship with the planning process and the way in which they interact with the diversity and multiplicity of domains and values. To identify an analytic and evaluative structure able to integrate different purposes and multidimensional values within the decision-making processes means to develop evaluation frameworks not focusing only on the environmental, social and economic effects of different options, but also considering the nature of the stakes, selecting priorities and values in a multidimensional perspective. It is crucial to structure complex decision-making processes oriented to an integrated...

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Port Plans in Italy: Experiences, Approaches, Tools

“…A multi-methodological framework can be considered as the integration of four systems: a dynamic system (that can consider temporal evolution and changes over time); a deliberative system (that can include all stakeholder perspectives and points of view); a comprehensive system (that can take into account quantitative and qualitative aspects relating to different components); and, a spatial system (that can identify territorial effects, including their visualization). A multi-methodological decision support system can be characterized by the interaction of Knowledge Bases (KB), Relational Database Management Systems (RDBMS), Graphical User Interfaces (GUI), Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Multi-Criteria Analyses (MCA), and Multi-Group Analyses (MGA) [32].…”

“…A multi-methodological decision support system can be considered as the integration of a dynamic system (able to consider the time evolution), a deliberative system (able to include all the stakeholders), a comprehensive system (able to take account of quantitative and qualitative aspects related to different components) and a spatial system (able to identify the territorial effects also through their visualization) [32]. According to this approach, a multi-methodological decision support system should be characterized by the interaction of Knowledge Base (KB), Relational Database Management System (RDBMS), Graphical User Interface (GUI), Geographic Information System (GIS), Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA), and Multi-Group Analysis (MGA), where the application of GIS is combined with evaluation tools and Planning Support Systems (PSS).…”

“…Taking into account the above perspective, in order to identify a multi-methodological decision support system, the Integrated Spatial Assessment (ISA) approach is proposed [32,44]. It is an approach in which the recognition of tangible and intangible values is the basis for collective decision-making that includes the development of goals, the sharing of knowledge, negotiation and compromise, problem posing and problem solving, the evaluation of needs, and the definition of goals.…”

Operationalizing the Circular City Model for Naples City-Port: A Hybrid Development Strategy

“…In this context, merging methodological research approaches around the complexity of urban port systems and integrated assessment approach, understood as structured and adaptive process which guides and supports the elaboration of decisions and the choice of preferable scenarios, implies to deal with situations of uncertainty and value conflicts that, sometimes, cannot be overcome only through the use of traditional tools [47][48][49]. Therefore, facing the challenge of the sustainability of the circular port-cities implies structuring decision-making processes consistent with the Agenda 2030 objectives and the "Maritime Spatial Planning" directive operational, activating contexts open to the constant and synergistic interaction between knowledge and skills, in which integrated evaluation approaches [22] can play a decisive role.…”

Social Vulnerability to Natural Hazards in Urban Systems. An Application in Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic)

“…This method was adopted for its ability to integrate GIS features with the MCDA [65][66][67]. This enabled to draw a landscape complexity map of each considered component according to a layer representation [68]. This visualization served as a tool to support decision-making as well as to identify, locate and select mitigation actions to be implemented within the study case.…”