IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v17y2024i12p2862-d1412645.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Multiple Benefits of Urban and Energy Regeneration Projects: A Stakeholder-Centred Methodological Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Irene Bertolami

    (Eurac Research, Institute for Renewable Energy, Viale Druso 1, 39100 Bolzano, Italy)

  • Adriano Bisello

    (Eurac Research, Institute for Renewable Energy, Viale Druso 1, 39100 Bolzano, Italy)

  • Marco Volpatti

    (Eurac Research, Institute for Renewable Energy, Viale Druso 1, 39100 Bolzano, Italy
    Interuniversity Department of Urban and Regional Studies and Planning, Polytechnic of Turin, Viale Mattioli 39, 10125 Turin, Italy)

  • Marta Carla Bottero

    (Interuniversity Department of Urban and Regional Studies and Planning, Polytechnic of Turin, Viale Mattioli 39, 10125 Turin, Italy)

Abstract

An effective way to promote energy transition while tackling climate change involves redefining cities from being part of the problem to integral parts of the solution. Positive energy districts and climate positive circular communities are excellent examples of how this is feasible. But how do we understand which are the multiple benefits that these projects can bring to the local territory and relative community? This article aims to answer this question by developing a specific engagement and evaluation methodology. Our approach involves consulting with project partners to explore the multiple benefits of each case study. Subsequently, it plans to engage the stakeholders through the submission of a questionnaire to gather information regarding the relative importance of different benefits as perceived by each stakeholder. The questionnaire is based on the best–worst scaling method, which is a survey technique for determining people’s priorities. The preliminary findings of the study conducted on project partners of two European projects, ARV and ProLight, indicate a strong alignment with current European policy priorities. The involvement of other stakeholders in the study will serve to assess whether bottom-up priorities coincide with broader perspectives or whether adaptations to project strategies and dissemination approaches are needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Irene Bertolami & Adriano Bisello & Marco Volpatti & Marta Carla Bottero, 2024. "Exploring Multiple Benefits of Urban and Energy Regeneration Projects: A Stakeholder-Centred Methodological Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-22, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:12:p:2862-:d:1412645
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/12/2862/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/12/2862/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ennio Cascetta, 2009. "Random Utility Theory," Springer Optimization and Its Applications, in: Transportation Systems Analysis, chapter 0, pages 89-167, Springer.
    2. Konstantinos Kourtzanidis & Komninos Angelakoglou & Vasilis Apostolopoulos & Paraskevi Giourka & Nikolaos Nikolopoulos, 2021. "Assessing Impact, Performance and Sustainability Potential of Smart City Projects: Towards a Case Agnostic Evaluation Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-38, July.
    3. Schuster, Anne L.R. & Crossnohere, Norah L. & Campoamor, Nicola B. & Hollin, Ilene L. & Bridges, John F.P., 2024. "The rise of best-worst scaling for prioritization: A transdisciplinary literature review," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    4. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Anika Kaczynski & Peter Zweifel & F. Reed Johnson, 2016. "Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fischer, Barbara & Telser, Harry & Zweifel, Peter & von Wyl, Viktor & Beck, Konstantin & Weber, Andreas, 2023. "The value of a QALY towards the end of life and its determinants: Experimental evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    2. Mariusz Czupich & Justyna Łapińska & Vojtěch Bartoš, 2022. "Environmental Sustainability Assessment of the European Union’s Capital Cities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-18, April.
    3. Eleonora Desogus & Ettore Bompard & Daniele Grosso, 2024. "A Composite Index for Tracking the Evolution towards Energy Transition at Urban Scale: The Turin Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-20, March.
    4. Wiebke Mohr & Anika Rädke & Adel Afi & Franka Mühlichen & Moritz Platen & Annelie Scharf & Bernhard Michalowsky & Wolfgang Hoffmann, 2022. "Development of a Quantitative Preference Instrument for Person-Centered Dementia Care—Stage 2: Insights from a Formative Qualitative Study to Design and Pretest a Dementia-Friendly Analytic Hierarchy ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-21, July.
    5. Hajji, Assma & Trukeschitz, Birgit & Malley, Juliette & Batchelder, Laurie & Saloniki, Eirini & Linnosmaa, Ismo & Lu, Hui, 2020. "Population-based preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) for service users for Austria: Findings from a best-worst experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 250(C).
    6. Osman, Ahmed M.Y. & Wu, Jing & He, Xiaoning & Chen, Gang, 2021. "Eliciting SF-6Dv2 health state utilities using an anchored best-worst scaling technique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    7. Soekhai, V. & Donkers, B. & Levitan, B. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2021. "Case 2 best-worst scaling: For good or for bad but not for both," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    8. Tatenda T Yemeke & Elizabeth E Kiracho & Aloysius Mutebi & Rebecca R Apolot & Anthony Ssebagereka & Daniel R Evans & Sachiko Ozawa, 2020. "Health versus other sectors: Multisectoral resource allocation preferences in Mukono district, Uganda," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-15, July.
    9. Baert, Midas & Kervyn, Matthieu & Kagou, Armand Dongmo & Guedjeo, Christian Suh & Vranken, Liesbet & Mertens, Kewan, 2020. "Resettlement preferences from landslide prone areas in Cameroon: Willingness to move, reasons to stay," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    10. Gemechis Guteta & Hailu Worku, 2024. "The role of industrial parks in managing sustainability challenges of urban transition: empirical analysis of the context in Adama and Hawassa Industrial Parks of Ethiopia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 27827-27853, November.
    11. Rausch, Theresa Maria & Baier, Daniel & Wening, Stefanie, 2021. "Does sustainability really matter to consumers? Assessing the importance of online shop and apparel product attributes," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    12. Yeongmin Kwon & Suji Kim & Hyungjoo Kim & Jihye Byun, 2020. "What Attributes Do Passengers Value in Electrified Buses?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-14, May.
    13. Lien Nguyen & Hanna Jokimäki & Ismo Linnosmaa & Eirini-Christina Saloniki & Laurie Batchelder & Juliette Malley & Hui Lu & Peter Burge & Birgit Trukeschitz & Julien Forder, 2022. "Valuing informal carers’ quality of life using best-worst scaling—Finnish preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for carers (ASCOT-Carer)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(3), pages 357-374, April.
    14. Jamil Hamadneh & Domokos Esztergár-Kiss, 2021. "The Influence of Introducing Autonomous Vehicles on Conventional Transport Modes and Travel Time," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-28, July.
    15. Ugarte Lucas, Paula & Gamborg, Christian & Lund, Thomas Bøker, 2022. "Sustainability concerns are key to understanding public attitudes toward woody biomass for energy: A survey of Danish citizens," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 181-194.
    16. Zhang, Yu & Li, Leiming, 2022. "Research on travelers’ transportation mode choice between carsharing and private cars based on the logit dynamic evolutionary game model," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 29(C).
    17. Hall, Natasha Yvonne & Le, Long & Abimanyi-Ochom, Julie & Mihalopoulos, Cathy, 2023. "Measuring the importance of different barriers to opioid agonist treatment using best-worst scaling in an Australian setting," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    18. H. Holly Wang & Lu Liu & David L. Ortega & Yu Jiang & Qiujie Zheng, 2020. "Are smallholder farmers willing to pay for different types of crop insurance? An application of labelled choice experiments to Chinese corn growers," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 45(1), pages 86-110, January.
    19. Shatu, Farjana & Yigitcanlar, Tan & Bunker, Jonathan, 2019. "Shortest path distance vs. least directional change: Empirical testing of space syntax and geographic theories concerning pedestrian route choice behaviour," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 37-52.
    20. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:12:p:2862-:d:1412645. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.