The added values of multifunctional underground constructions

An analysis based on the observation of the effects, their consideration and appraisal in the decision-making

MSc Thesis, Maurizio Mattiacci

Cover Picture: Forest City Masterplan; Iskander Development Region, Malaysia; Sasaki Associates

II

Information Delft University of Technology Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management Master thesis– Engineering and Policy Analysis (EPA) Maurizio Mattiacci – 4522346 Date 23/10/2017

Graduation Committee Chairman: Prof.dr. G.P. Bert van Wee Department of Transport and Logistics (T&L)

First Supervisor: Dr. Mr. Niek Mouter Department of Transport and Logistics (T&L)

Second Supervisor: Drs. Martijn Leijten Department of Policy, Organisation Law and Gaming (POLG)

External: Dr. Ir. Geert Roovers (COB)

External sponsor COB (Centrum Ondergronds Bouwen)

III

IV

PREFACE

This thesis research represents the last step before concluding my Master in Engineering and Policy Analysis at the Technical University of Delft. I got immediately attracted by the topic of decision-making during the lectures attended in my first year, which raised in me the curiosity of discovering how, in the planning phases of large public projects, the technical aspects interact with the social and political ones. Therefore I accepted with enthusiasm the proposal from the COB of researching the decisional process of underground structures and started working on this thesis. Today, concluding this journey and looking back, I have to acknowledge that the last six months have been challenging, difficult and in some moments also frustrating. These are not reasons for complaints, but reasons for satisfaction. Satisfaction in reaching a goal, the graduation, which looks like a finish line; but in reality is the starting point of new challenges for my life.

This last part of the journey, in particular, would have been impossible without the guidance of my whole graduation committee. Therefore I would like to thank Dr Niek Mouter, my first supervisor, for his suggestions, enthusiasm and continuous encouragement to improve my work. And also Drs. Martijn Leijten and Prof. Bert van Wee, second supervisor and chair of my graduation committee, for their corrections, suggestions and trust. Without forgetting about Dr Geert Roovers, who followed me representing the external sponsor the COB, giving suggestions, corrections and help with the necessary material.

Further thanks, therefore, goes to the COB for sponsoring the research, to Lidwien Besselink and the Triple Bridge for letting me use their working spaces and supporting the research. Deserves mention also all the people collaborated for the data gathering, starting from all the respondents that dedicated part of their time to my research, a gesture for which I will always be grateful. And also Cinzia Ricci from the Municipality of Riccione and Marta Crilly from the Boston City Archive which helped searching official documents.

Finally, I would like to thank my whole family, for supporting all my ambitions and initiatives. But also my friends and all the people that, in one way or another, directly or indirectly, contributed to letting me achieve this goal.

Maurizio Mattiacci

Delft, October 2017

V

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

World population growth and in-urbanisation are challenging the policymakers and urban designers in finding an alternative way to develop sustainable and liveable cities. The researchers have already acknowledged the use of the subterranean space, especially when it can serve multiple functions, as a valuable mean towards this goal. However, despite many examples of underground structures already implemented, it is not clear which are, in practice, the reasons behind the choice of building them.

Given this background, the ambition of this research is to create a broad descriptive knowledge of the practice of decision-making in all its phases; aiming for helping the implementation of more multifunctional underground projects. It has been done by looking at the common factors influencing the decisional processes, the effects considered, the effects analytically addressed and the alignment between their ex-ante estimation and the ex-post perception of the realised impacts. With this purpose has been set the following research question:

“What are the relevant factors, and to what extent the effects of multifunctionality are considered and aligned to their ex-post perceptions, in the practice of decision-making process and appraisal for Multifunctional Underground Projects (MUPs)?”

For answering the question, after building a theoretical base were analysed 3 International case studies (CA/T Project and the Post Office Square in Boston, the Promenade of Riccione) and 3 Dutch cases studies (Kethel Tunnel in Schiedam, Van Heekgarage in Enschede and Tram Tunnel in The Hague). The necessary information was gathered through a desk research, which was used to build a theoretical framework for reconstructing the decision-making of the cases. Regarding the cases, the literature was coupled with interviews with relevant actors consisting of open and semi-structured questions. The obtained data were principally quantitative, therefore, also considering their amount and the time constraint, the qualitative analysis methods were preferred. However, these methods were paired with mathematical and statistical functions which helped to provide a more punctual answer when analysing the considered effects.

Following the description of Bakker, van der Heijden, van Buren, Groffen, & van Engen, (2016), Multifunctional Underground Projects are defined as: underground structures which represent a shared mean for more functions, both above and under the ground, combined in a way that they obtain mutual benefits, so that different interests and goals are combined and achieved.

Using the 6 cases has been found that, the multifunctionality is mostly a consequence of the need of addressing various interests within the same project, rather than a driver. In fact, in 4 cases, the multifunctionality was reached to satisfy the interest groups so that they would allow achieving the primary goal. The best example, in this case, is the Kethel Tunnel and sports park, in fact, this project was the result of the negotiations between the central government, which for approximately 40 years tried to implement the A4 highway and the local groups; which were blocking it because concerned about the sustainability and liveability. Therefore, in order to please these interests, this stretch of urban highway was built semi- underground and covered with a roof used as a green and sports park.

The selection of an underground project appeared as rooted mostly in qualitative considerations, as most of the respondents pointed out. Just in the Kethel Tunnel case, the EIA (Environmental Impact Analysis) was used to rank alternatives and select the semi-underground among them.

VI

After reviewing theory, 45 theoretical effects of multifunctionality are individuated; from the analysis of literature and interviews, 62.2% of them was addressed in the case studies (66.4% after arbitrary data cleaning), but just the 24.4% was analytically estimated. The effects influencing costs were considered more often (83.3%) than liveability (64.6%) and sustainability (45.1%). In particular, in no one of the analysed cases, the issue of reallocating and restoring the underground space was addressed or discussed. The spatial constraint emerged from the interviews as a relevant factor influencing the decision of building underground.

Analysing a single case study (Promenade of Riccione) the perceived ex-post effects with the ex-ante expected ones resulted as aligned for the 60% approximately. There were various effects which materialised differently from the expectations, among them, the most relevant emerged to be the profitability. Almost all respondents indicated the factors related to the costs as negative. Some of them pointed to the fact that a lack of profitability would have been potentially dangerous for the success of the whole project since it could lead to a deficiency of maintenance or to abandon of the project. This case confirmed the lack of awareness towards the issue of reallocating the subterranean space.

Based on the knowledge acquired with this research, it is recommended to decision-makers and urban planners to think about underground structures as mean for combining functions and linking interests from the beginning. In fact, these type of projects link together interests of different stakeholders, a factor which would help to obtain a more linear process and oercoming difficult challenges. As the case of the Post Office Square demonstrated.

The low rate of considered and analytically addressed effects, especially regarding the impacts on sustainability and exploitation of subterranean resources, lead to the suggestion that more effects should be taken into account in the systematic and structured way. This, in the view of the researcher, can be done using a MCA; this method allows to address various effects in a qualitative, structured way, without overloading the analysis and coping with the expressed perception of the respondents in this research which said that certain impacts are too difficult to address analytically.

VII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ...... V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... VI TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... VIII LIST OF FIGURES ...... XI LIST OF TABLES ...... XII TABLE OF DEFINITIONS ...... XIV I. Introduction ...... 15 1. Introduction ...... 17 1.1 Background information and contextualisation ...... 17 1.2 The problem of addressing the effects of multifunctional underground structures ...... 18 1.3 The research gap ...... 19 1.4 The research objective...... 20 1.5 The scientific and social relevance of the research ...... 20 1.6 The research questions ...... 21 1.6.1 Sub-questions ...... 21 1.7 The research approach and design ...... 22 1.8 Methodology ...... 24 1.8.1 Data collection ...... 24 1.8.2 Data analysis ...... 25 1.9 Case studies selection...... 26 1.9.1 Single case study selection ...... 27 II. Theoretical Background...... 29 2. Multifunctional underground infrastructures...... 31 2.1 Defining “Multifunctionality” ...... 31 2.2 The effects of underground structures and infrastructures ...... 32 2.2.1 Effects of underground structures in existing literature...... 33 2.3 Analysis of the literature ...... 36 2.3.1 Sustainability and liveability ...... 37 2.4 Creating a framework for the effects of multifunctional underground structures ...... 38 3. Decision making and evaluation methods ...... 40 3.1 Rational, analytical or actors network approach to decision-making ...... 40 3.1.1 Decision-making models in actors network approach ...... 41 3.2 Selecting an approach ...... 42 3.3 Selecting a framework for the analysis of the decision-making process ...... 43 3.3.1 The need for a model ...... 43 3.3.2 The model selection ...... 43 3.4 The role of information and evaluation methods in the decision-making ...... 46 3.4.1 Data and information issue ...... 46 3.4.2 Evaluation methods issue ...... 47 4. The theoretical framework for future analysis ...... 48

VIII Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 4.1 “Which are the main features and effects of Multifunctional Underground Projects?” ...... 48 4.2 “Which is a suitable theory for highlighting the relevant factors and the role of the appraisal tools in the practice of decision-making for MUPs?” ...... 49 4.2.1 Framing decision-making practice ...... 49 4.2.2 Analysing the use of appraisal methods ...... 50 III. The Practice of Decision-Making ...... 51 5. Analysing the multiple-case studies ...... 53 5.1 Case study selection and data gathering ...... 53 5.2 Central Artery/Tunnel Project (CA/T) or “Boston Big Dig” ...... 55 5.2.1 Description and storyline ...... 55 5.2.2 Decision making ...... 58 5.2.3 Actors analysis ...... 61 5.2.4 Considerations on the CA/T Project ...... 64 5.3 Post Office Square Boston ...... 66 5.3.1 Description and storyline ...... 66 5.3.2 Decision-making ...... 68 5.3.3 Actors analysis ...... 70 5.3.4 Considerations on the Post Office Square Project ...... 73 5.4 Lungomare di Riccione ...... 74 5.4.1 Description and storyline ...... 74 5.4.2 Decision-making ...... 77 5.4.3 Actors analysis ...... 79 5.4.4 Considerations on the Lungomare di Riccione Project ...... 82 5.5 Van Heekgarage ...... 83 5.5.1 Description and storyline ...... 83 5.5.2 Decision-making ...... 85 5.5.3 Actors analysis ...... 87 5.5.1 Considerations for the Van Heekgarage project ...... 89 5.6 Kethel Tunnel, A4, Schiedam ...... 90 5.6.1 Description and storyline ...... 90 5.6.1 Decision-making ...... 92 5.6.1 Actors analysis ...... 93 5.6.2 Considerations over the A4, Kethel Tunnel ...... 95 5.7 Tram Tunnel, Den Haag (Het Soutterain) ...... 97 5.7.1 Description and storyline ...... 97 5.7.2 Decision-making ...... 98 5.7.3 Actors analysis ...... 100 5.7.4 Considerations over the Tram Tunnel ...... 101 6. “What relevant common factors can be highlighted in the practice of decision-making for MUPs and what is the role of the appraisal tools?” ...... 103 6.1 Over the process ...... 104 6.2 Over the use of data and appraisal tools ...... 109 IV. The Effects of Multifunctionality in Practice ...... 113 7. The effects of multifunctionality in decision-making and the appraisal tools ...... 115 7.1 Data gathering and processing ...... 115 7.2 New findings from the case studies ...... 116

IX Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 7.3 Recreating the match between theory and practice ...... 118 7.4 Analysing the match between theory and practice ...... 121 7.4.1 Differences International Dutch cases ...... 121 7.4.2 Effects analytically addressed ...... 122 7.4.3 Commonly addressed and not addressed effects ...... 123 7.4.4 Arbitrary data cleaning ...... 125 7.5 The role of the spatial constraint ...... 126 8. The effects of multifunctionality, expectations in decision-making and ex-post perceptions ... 128 8.1 Data gathering ...... 128 8.2 Making perceptions and expectations comparable ...... 129 8.2.1 Data cleaning ...... 133 8.3 Analysing the alignment of ex-ante expectations and ex-post perceptions ...... 135 8.2.2 Other remarks ...... 137 9. The effects of Multifunctionality in the practice of decision-making ...... 139 9.1 “To what extent the theoretical effects of multifunctionality are used in the practice of decision- making and appraisal tools?” ...... 139 9.2 “To what extent, ex-ante expectations and ex-post perceptions of the effects of multifunctionality are aligned?”...... 140 V. Conclusions ...... 143 10. Research goal and relevance ...... 145 11. Conclusions ...... 146 12. Limitations ...... 151 12.1 Regarding the approach ...... 151 12.2 Regarding the methodology ...... 151 13. Discussion and recommendations ...... 153 14. Further works suggestions ...... 155 REFERENCES ...... 156 APPENDIXES...... 164 Appendix A: decision-making perspective and models ...... 164 Appendix B: Actors and possible respondents ...... 168 Appendix C: Multiple-case studies presentation ...... 170 Appendix D: Analysing the effects of multifunctionality in decision-making and appraisal tools ..... 178 Appendix E: Statistical analysis of differences between International and Dutch cases ...... 191 Appendix F: Statistical analysis of differences between before and after data cleaning ...... 192 Appendix G: Ex-ante expectations and ex-post perceptions, data cleaning ...... 193

X Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Research design ...... 24

Figure 2: Multifunctionality scheme (Bakker et al., 2016) ...... 31

Figure 3: Multifunctionality in this research ...... 32

Figure 4: Models for decision-making in networks; adapted from Enserink et al. (2010) and Teisman (2000) ...... 42

Figure 5: Rounds and arenas model; (adapted from Bueren et al., 2003; Enserink et al., 2010) ...... 44

Figure 6: Boston before and after CA/T Project ...... 56

Figure 7: Multifunctionality in CA/T Project ...... 56

Figure 8: Actor’s Network map, CA/T Project ...... 63

Figure 9: Boston Post Office Square before and after redevelopment ...... 66

Figure 10: Multifunctionality in Boston Post Office Square Redevelopment Plan ...... 67

Figure 11: Actor’s Network map, Boston Post Office Square ...... 72

Figure 12: Promenade of Riccione before and after redevelopment ...... 75

Figure 13: Multifunctionality in redevelopment of Riccione Promenade ...... 76

Figure 14: Actor’s Network map, Lungomare di Riccione ...... 81

Figure 15: Van Heekplein Before and after the garage construction ...... 83

Figure 16: Multifunctionality in Van Heekgarage...... 84

Figure 17: Actor’s Network map, Van Heekgarage ...... 88

Figure 18: A4 Kethel Tunnel, construction and render of ultimate works ...... 90

Figure 19: Multifunctionality in A4 Kethel Tunnel ...... 90

Figure 20: Actor’s Network map, Kethel Tunnel ...... 95

Figure 21: Groote Marktstraat, before and after the Tram Tunnel construction ...... 97

Figure 22: Multifunctionality in Tram Tunnel (Het Soutterain) ...... 97

Figure 23: Actor’s Network map, Tram Tunnel ...... 101

Figure 24: Multifunctionality and actors, International cases ...... 107

Figure 25: Multifunctionality and actors, Dutch cases ...... 108

Figure 26: Project scores ...... 135

Figure 27: Schematisation of multifunctionality ...... 146

XI Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1: Case studpageies summary ...... 27

Table 2-1 Effects of underground constructions ...... 35

Table 2-2: Framework of effects of multifunctional underground structures ...... 39

Table 3-1: Actors stances and power; (source: de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008) ...... 46

Table 4-1: List of effects ...... 49

Table 5-1: Multiple-case studies overview ...... 53

Table 5-2: List of respondents ...... 54

Table 5-3: CA/T Project, Boston Big Dig Timeline ...... 57

Table 5-4: CA/T Project, Boston Big Dig Actors Analysis...... 61

Table 5-5: Boston Post Office Square Timeline ...... 68

Table 5-6: Boston Post Office Square Actors Analysis...... 70

Table 5-7: Lungomare di Riccione Timeline ...... 76

Table 5-8: Lungomare di Riccione Actors Analysis ...... 79

Table 5-9: Van HeekGarage Timeline ...... 84

Table 5-10: Van HeekGarage Actors Analysis ...... 87

Table 5-11: Kethel Tunnel timeline ...... 91

Table 5-12: A4 Kethel Tunnel actor analysis ...... 93

Table 5-13: Tram Tunnel, Timeline ...... 98

Table 5-14: Tram Tunnel Actors Analysis ...... 100

Table 6-1: Decision-making process main features comparison ...... 104

Table 6-2: Appraisal tools use, overview ...... 110

Table 7-1: New effects observed in the multiple-case studies ...... 117

Table 7-2: Analysis of the effects addressed in the decision-making process ...... 119

Table 7-3: Considered and analytically addressed effects, overview ...... 121

Table 7-4: Considered and analytically addressed effects, differences International and Dutch cases ...... 122

Table 7-5: Effects analytically addressed ...... 123

Table 7-6: Effect considered in all cases ...... 124

Table 7-7: Effects not considered in any case ...... 125

Table 7-8: Effects considered not relevant for the analysed cases ...... 125

XII Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Table 7-9: Considered and analytically addressed effects, before and after data cleaning ...... 126

Table 7-10: differences International and Dutch cases, before and after data cleaning ...... 126

Table 8-1: List of respondents, Riccione Promenade ...... 129

Table 8-2: Perception categories and marks ...... 129

Table 8-3: Project scores before data cleaning ...... 130

Table 8-4:Ex-ante expectations and Ex-post perception, comparison ...... 131

Table 8-5: Effects not relevant for the Promenade of Riccione ...... 133

Table 8-6: Data cleaning, effects with no ex-post perception and relative adjustment ...... 134

Table 8-7: Effects, differences between expectations and perceptions ...... 136

Table 11-1: Effects of multifunctionality ...... 147

Table B-1: List of actors and people to interview ...... 168

Table D-1: CA/T Project, considered effects ...... 179

Table D-2: Boston Post Office Square, considered effects ...... 181

Table D-3: Lungomare di Riccione, considered effects ...... 183

Table D-4: A4, Kethel Tunnel, considered effects ...... 185

Table D-5:Van Heekgarage considered effects ...... 187

Table D-6: Tram Tunnel, considered effects ...... 189

Table G-1: Ex-ante expected effects, data cleaning ...... 194

Table G-2:Ex-post perceived effects, data cleaning ...... 196

XIII Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci TABLE OF DEFINITIONS

Boston Redevelopment Authority, city development and BRA planning agency Boston Transportation Planning Review, transportation BTPR programme for the metropolitan area of Boston CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis Design-Build-Finance-Operate, particular type of contract DBFO used in public-private partnerships EIA/EIS Environmental Impact Assessment or Statement Federal Highway Administration, organisation in charge of FHWA supervising the US national highways FPOS Friends of Post Office Square Integrale Ontwikkeling tussen Delft en Schiedam, IODS organisation in charge of defining the goals for a sustainable development of the Delfland MCA Multi-Criteria Analysis MUP Multifunctional Underground Project PA Public Administration POS or P.O. Square Post Office Square PPP Public-Private Partnership SIA Social Impact Assessment WTP Willingness to pay

XIV Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci I. Introduction

This division of the thesis into sections will drive the reader through the research according to its approach, which consists of an introduction where the problem and the objective are presented, a review of the theory, analysis of the decision-making practice, analysis of the effects of multifunctionality in the reality of decision-making and research conclusions.

This section will provide a general introduction about the research, starting with the contextualisation and explanation of problem, research objectives, and finalise by outlining the thesis design and research methodology that will be used.

______

15 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci

16 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 1. Introduction

Urbanisation into big metropolitan areas is an urgent problem which is touching the whole planet and will continue in the next years (United Nations, 2014). Therefore, urban planners are challenged to find solutions for a more efficient use of land. Using the underground space appears as a viable way since placing more functions underground would help developing cities more compact, sustainable and liveable.

The researchers have already acknowledged the advantages of using the underground space, they explained its benefits and costs and suggested to address them in the decisional-process for urban planning. The use of the underground space is older than expected (Thewes et al., 2012), however, so far it was believed that underground solutions were implemented just when the spatial constraints did not permit further surface developments (Parriaux, Tacher, Kaufmann, & Blunier, 2006). Moreover, in the perception of COB, the real added value of these solutions are not well known, hence, not always properly considered in the decision- making1. In fact, in spite of a rich literature, which suggests the use of underground space due to its advantages, no research has been found regarding the practice of decision-making. In particular, no existing literature studied the decision-making practice trying to determine which factors influence the final decision in favour of an underground solution.

If we desire to promote the use of subterranean space because beneficial for sustainability and liveability, we need to develop prescriptive knowledge to improve the practice of decision-making. However, at this point, before reaching this step, are necessary more observations of the practice of decision-making aiming to create a comprehensive descriptive knowledge explaining the factors that lead to building underground. Just based on the awareness of these dynamics of the real world would be possible, for the scientific community, to make effective suggestions for promoting the implementation of subterranean structures.

This thesis aims to create that knowledge, and it will do it addressing six case studies, three Dutch and three internationals, of multifunctional underground structures. Each case will be investigated and analysed with the scope of defining which are the important factors defining the final decision. Successively, will be analysed to which extent, among these factors, the effects of multifunctionality are considered and finally whether they are in line with the ex-post realised effects. Would be possible in this way to make a full assessment of the decisional process and of the perception that decision-makers have regarding the effects of multifunctionality.

In the rest of this chapter, the topic of this research will be further and deeper illustrated going through background information and contextualisation (section 1.1), description of the problem to tackle (section 1.2), the scientific gap (section 1.3), the research objective (section 1.4), the discussion of the research relevance (section 1.5), before presenting the main research question and the following sub-questions (section 1.6). Finally, will be illustrated the approach to the research, the methodology and the case study selection (sections 1.7, 1.8, 1.9 respectively).

1.1 Background information and contextualisation More than half of the global population (54%) was already living in urban areas in 2014; projections of the United Nations forecasted 2,5 billion new people living in cities by 2050, reaching the 66% of the total world’s population. Africa and Asia are, at the moment, the most rural continents but their urbanisation is the faster-growing one. Nonetheless, all the continents are touched by this phenomenon (United Nations, 2014).

1 This thesis is developed within the COB project “The value of underground construction”. The aim of the program is to investigate societal benefits and the costs of subterranean constructions in order to give them the right space in the decision-making process.

17 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci The analysis of the physical expansion of cities by Angel et al. (2005), suggests that urban built-up area grows rate is going to increase even faster than the demographical urbanisation. This accelerated growth has challenged urbanists on how to plan the cities of the future; many propose that a more effective use of land is needed and that underground multifunctional structures may represent a solution for coping with this situation (Sterling et al., 2012).

In fact, underground infrastructures create space for different intended uses of land at the same time, like business, housing, parking, allocating water in excess in case of flood etc. Therefore a multipurpose subterranean structure has advantages such as reduction of land used, strengthening the city development in a compact way (Sterling et al., 2012). Other benefits are more efficient use of energy and resources, reduction and easier control of noise and air pollution, reduction of ecological footprint. Also, if compared to the above the ground solutions the underground ones result more resilient to external shocks like earthquakes, but, more vulnerable to internal ones such as terrorism (Bobylev, 2007). Due to these advantages can be said that these projects enhance the sustainability and liveability of cities (Admiraal & Cornaro, 2016b; Bakker et al., 2016; Bobylev, 2009; Koo, Ariaratnam, & Kavazanjian, 2009). Nowadays we can already see many functions been placed underground, infrastructures, data centre, warehouses, swimming pools, sports centres, bars, nightclubs, restaurants etc. (Admiraal & Cornaro, 2016b). Like other countries, the Netherlands are implementing various types and sizes of underground structures and infrastructures.

Based on the view of Bakker et al. (2016), this research considers as multifunctional, the underground structures capable of combining different goals, sharing means and linking interests in a way that they can cooperate and reinforce one another. Hence, given this definition, as the scope of this research, are considered multifunctional underground structures (which from now on will be called with acronym MUPs for simplicity), these projects built underground that are capable of combining functions and serving different purposes both below and above the surface. Consequently, to define a multifunctional structure are important: the number of functions that are placed underground, and the relations that the underground structure has with the surface and the surrounding built environment. Given this definition seems logical that many of the urban underground projects can be defined as multifunctional because characterised by a strong bond with the built environment.

However, some of the benefits and costs brought by multifunctional underground projects are hard to measure directly and monetise therefore difficult to consider when implementing a new project. Moreover, these underground structures and infrastructures are often large complex projects. As such, especially in urban areas, they are characterised by high costs, uncertainties, technical challenges and difficulties. Moreover, they often involve a large variety of stakeholders, heterogeneous political environment and other factors which contribute to making their decision-making process long and complicated (Altshuler & Luberoff, 2003; Priemus, 2010; Priemus & van Wee, 2013).

1.2 The problem of addressing the effects of multifunctional underground structures Most literature asserts that underground structures have effects which would enhance sustainability and liveability. Many authors suggest that just including these issues from the first steps of urban planning, (named the strategical level) and practice of decision-making, the full benefit of constructing underground could be reached (Admiraal & Cornaro, 2016a, 2016b; Bobylev, 2009; Parriaux et al., 2006; Sterling et al., 2012). Nonetheless, finding evidence of the real effects of underground constructions inclusion in the decision-making process results difficult, instead, according to Parriaux, Tacher, Kaufmann, & Blunier (2006), the underground development is chosen just when there are no further possibilities of construction on the surface.

18 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Assessing the effects of infrastructures and supporting the decisional process towards a more conscious and rational final decision requires powerful ex-ante evaluation methods as support for the decision-making process. Many tools are available today for ex-ante appraisal of projects, among the most popular ones, multi-criteria analysis (MCA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA), environmental impact assessment (EIA), social impact assessment (SIA), risk analysis, etc. Although each of them represents a valuable support, they all have different limitations, which make them suitable for a specific purpose but that can also affect the outcome of the decisional process (see Beukers, Bertolini, & Te Brömmelstroet, 2012; Mackie & Preston, 1998; Mackie, Worsley, & Eliasson, 2014; Petts, 2009; van Wee, 2012). Most of the scientist, civil servants and decision makers, who are daily in touch with the topic, would agree that CBA is currently the most used method in the Netherlands and across Europe (Annema, Koopmans, & Van Wee, 2007; Odgaard, Kelly, & Laird, 2006; Salling & Banister, 2009; van Wee, 2012); it is also mandatory when implementing public projects in many western countries (Mackie et al., 2014).

Obviously, CBA presents its advantages and limitations. According to Skou Nicolaisen & Driscoll (2014), construction costs and mobility demand are, in general, the main factors influencing the outcome of CBA for infrastructures. Both could be afflicted by the so-called “appraisal optimism”, that is the tendency to positively bias the estimations due to strategic behaviour, unexpected changes, inaccuracy of the used models, etc. (Flyvbjerg, Holm, & Buhl, 2005; Mackie & Preston, 1998; Salling & Banister, 2009; Short & Kopp, 2005; Skou Nicolaisen & Driscoll, 2014). In the Netherlands, CBA is perceived as problematic also for the difficulty of monetising certain effects, which leads to giving higher importance to measurable monetary ones (Beukers et al., 2012). In fact, when there are effects hard to monetise, the willingness to pay (WTP) is the most common technique in this cases, which could be questioned from the ethical side, since it gives more importance to wealthy social classes (van Wee, 2012). Moreover, Cost-Benefit Analysis is based on utilitarianism, which could not always be considered useful. Indeed, this technique aims to maximise the welfare, but, individuating the right welfare indicator is not immediate (van Wee, 2012). Even if conceived as a rational and analytical tool, its rational use depends on the political context (Mackie et al., 2014). In fact, in practice, this method is often used for strategical purposes, as an instrument for killing the political debate, or for hiding a political trade-off (Mouter, 2017).

Considering the characteristics and limitations of the appraisal tools, about their difficulties in addressing some common effects of multifunctionality, is reinforced the doubt regarding the factors determining the final choice. In fact, it is not clear to which extent the decision of constructing a multipurpose underground structure is due to a proper consideration of its costs and benefits or the sole lack of space.

1.3 The research gap As illustrated in the previous paragraph, MUPs, making more efficient use of land possible, would bring particular benefits, especially regarding sustainability and liveability. However, it is not clear if and how these benefits are addressed in the decision-making process, or if the choice is due just to space unavailability (Parriaux et al. 2006). Among these effects, there are directly accountable and indirectly accountable ones. While the first category can be directly monetised and included in the CBA, the second one needs further elaboration before being translated into monetary terms.

Given this situation, a gap in the theory of the decision-making related to these type of projects can be easily identified. In fact, the literature indicates a series of benefits deriving from multifunctional underground structures and suggests to include them in the planning phase, but does not provide evidence of if and how this is done. In other words, it is still not well known whether the effects of the underground structures are adequately examined in the practice of decision-making. In fact, Parriaux et al. (2006) stated that the underground solution is chosen just when there are no further possibilities of development above the ground. However, neither these or other authors provided practical evidence of it, in fact, in the preliminary studies 19 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci of this research, was not found any literature which investigates practical cases confirming or denying the statement.

A further gap regards the appraisal methods mostly used for analysing the viability of underground projects, the CBA, and the consequences of these projects which are often not readily accountable in monetary terms, thus includible. This gap that could potentially lead to wrong estimates, and consequentially, to the implementation of non-optimal choices while reducing the possibilities of subterranean solutions for being accepted. Moreover, while CBA (as well as other appraisal tools) is meant to be a support for a rational decision-making, it can still be used for strategic purposes, in particular when there is no certainty on the information.

Therefore, the central gap regards the literature. In the light of preliminary researches done before this thesis, the existing literature does not properly points which out the factors influencing the final decision in favour of a multifunctional underground project. A secondary gap regards the use made of the appraisal tools within the decisional process. At this point, further studies to alleviate them seemed needed. In fact, a better understanding of which factors are decisive in the implementation of underground solutions, while getting a better insight of how the decision-making evolves in practice, would represent a first step in developing theories and suggestions aimed at achieving a more informed, rational and also socially efficient decision.

1.4 The research objective Given the lack of literature which describes the practice of decision-making for MUPs, this research aims to develop an appropriate knowledge of how the decision-making process for multifunctional underground projects works in practice. Which means, acquiring knowledge on: (i) how the decision-making evolves and which are the relevant factors that determine it; (ii) whether among these factors the effects (both positive and negative) of the project are taken into account and how; and (iii) whether the ex-post perception on these impact matches their ex-ante evaluation. In other words, the aim is to make a full assessment of the practice of decision-making for MUPs evaluating the interrelations among effects of multifunctionality, relevant factors and evaluation methods, and highlighting the perception of decision makers towards these facts.

This knowledge would represent a base for the development of suggestions and theories aimed to improve the implementation process of these projects, since, as already proposed in the literature, they bring advantages regarding sustainability and liveability.

1.5 The scientific and social relevance of the research As explained in the previous paragraphs, so far many researchers have addressed the effects of building underground and explained its advantages regarding liveable and sustainable growth of the urban developments. All of them suggested to include these arguments in the decisional process from the first moment, but none provided substantial evidence to show whether this is already done or not. No literature was found on the factors that, in practice, determine the final decision of implementing a multifunctional underground project. Instead, authors mentioned that the construction of MUPs is mainly motivated by spatial constraints (Parriaux et al., 2006). Considering this context, this research, which aims to develop a descriptive knowledge by observing under which circumstances the multifunctional underground projects are selected and verify whether their effects are appropriately accounted, could be considered both scientifically and socially relevant.

Flyvbjerg (2006) cited Eysenck (1976) saying that we should look at the individual case in the hope to learn something from it. In fact, from the scientific point of view, observing the practice, one can generate the descriptive knowledge which represents the base for developing explanations and prescriptions; while the process is not possible in the opposite way (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2013). Thus an attempt of improving 20 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci the decisional process, also developing analytical tools would be vain, unless, we better understand how the decision-making evolves in reality. Therefore, for the scientific community, this thesis would represent a base, made of observations of practical cases, upon which suggestions can be developed. The base of theories or models that aim to steer the decisional process in favour of more sustainable and liveable projects.

Furthermore, this investigation can be considered socially relevant since its ultimate scope is aimed to promote a more aware and informed decision-making process, towards the implementation of public projects (the MPUs), which showed to be beneficial for liveability and sustainability.

1.6 The research questions As stated in the previous section, this research aims to fill the gap between the knowledge of the reality of decision-making for multifunctional underground structures and how the appraisal tools support it. The way to do it is investigating whether and to which extent the final decision is influenced by the lack of space (as stated by Parriaux et al. 2006), or by other factors. Among these, a rigorous evaluation of the effects of multifunctionality. Therefore, the following research question has been drawn:

“What are the relevant factors, and to what extent the effects of multifunctionality are considered and aligned to their ex-post perceptions, in the practice of decision-making process and appraisal for Multifunctional Underground Projects (MUPs)?”

The research question addresses the different elements described in the research objective: understanding which factors are relevant for selecting an MUP, how the benefits of multifunctionality are used and eventually included in the assessment methods and finally verify their proper assessment, which means comparing the perception of the realised effects with their ex-ante evaluation.

1.6.1 Sub-questions Given the research gap, the main research question is answered going through different steps that are represented by the following sub-questions:

1. Which are the main features and effects of Multifunctional Underground Projects?

Answering this question includes two steps. The first step is defining what is a multifunctional underground structure. That means determining whether an underground structure could be described as multifunctional, hence can be included in this investigation. The second step consists in making the “state of art” of the knowledge of this kind of projects and their predictable effects. Answering this question provides a first theoretical framework useful for understanding perception and expectation regarding MUPs.

2. Which is a suitable theory for highlighting the relevant factors and the role of the appraisal tools in the practice of decision-making for MUPs?

The reality of decision-making is particularly complex; therefore, it is necessary to make specific approximations for analysing it. The aim of this question is providing the researcher with a model, a suitable set of theoretical approximations, which allow him to frame the practice of decision-making highlighting the relevant factors, the role of the effects of multifunctionality and appraisal methods.

Questions 1 and 2 together form the theoretical base used for framing the decision making process and understanding which are the effects of MUPs.

21 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 3. What relevant common factors can be highlighted in the practice of decision-making for MUPs and what is the role of the appraisal tools?

Before addressing the effects of the multifunctionality, it is necessary to obtain a broader view of the decision-making process and understanding which are the relevant factors that influence the final decision. Thus, it provides the knowledge of decision-making practice necessary to identify, later, the role of multi-functionality effects within it.

In fact, the decision-making is influenced not just by data and knowledge, which are often incomplete or even erroneous (Flyvbjerg, 2007), but also by actors interactions, perceptions, values, resources and how they decide to use them, and by other possible circumstances (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008). Thus, seems logical to assume that the use of appraisal tools, which are supposed to be supportive in providing data and information in a structured and authoritative way, could result as sub-optimal. Therefore, by answering this question, the common factors that can be observed in the practice of decision-making for multifunctional underground structures and the role covered by the appraisal tools are highlighted. The theoretical framework selected answering to sub-question 2 will be instrumental to the empirical observations necessary for solving this third sub-question.

4. To what extent the theoretical effects of multifunctionality are used in the practice of decision- making and appraisal tools?

This sub-question aims to assess whether the theoretical knowledge on the effects of multifunctionality is used as support to make a final decision, highlighting whether they were quantified or qualitatively described in the appraisal tools. Hence, answering this sub-question consist of make a comparison between the theory and the practice, where the effects researched responding to sub-question 1 represent the theory, and the factors observed investigating the decision-making represent the practice. Therefore the aims of this analysis are providing indications on the degree of rationality and the awareness of these projects effects.

5. To what extent, ex-ante expectations and ex-post perceptions of the effects of multifunctionality are aligned?

This question aims to investigate whether the expectations of decision makers represent the ex-post perceptions of the realised effects. Hence, for this question, the appropriateness of the effects considered in the decision-making is calculated relating ex-post perceptions and ex-ante expectations. The results of this analysis can contribute to the understanding of how well-informed is the practice of decision-making.

1.7 The research approach and design In order to fill the gap described in the previous paragraph and answering the related research questions, this research approaches the problem looking at both, theory and practice. Therefore, the approach consists of 4 steps in total: (i) review of theory, a theoretical “state of the arts” regarding the MUPs and the decision- making; (ii) analysis of the practice of decision making, highlighting the dynamics that determine the MUPs implementation; (iii) analysis of the effects of multifunctionality in practice, highlighting if and how they are addressed in the decisional process and if they are perceived as properly addressed in relation to the ex-ante predictions; (iv) final conclusions.

The first step consists in researching which are the theories that explain: what are the multifunctional underground projects, which are their effects, how the decision-making evolves, which are the relevant

22 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci factors and how data and information are addressed in the analysis and the decisional process. From the theory, the necessary frameworks to apply for the analysis of the practice are derived.

Analysing the practice means researching how the elements studied, in theory, find a match in the real world. The analysis of this match between theory and practice represents the second step of the thesis, from there it will be possible to draw conclusions regarding the factors that most influence the decision-making of MUPs, the use of their effects in the process and the fitness of their ex-ante evaluation compared to the ex-post perception.

The investigation of the practice of decision-making is, therefore, a central part of the whole thesis project and will be done using six different case studies, 3 Dutch and 3 internationals. Case studying is indeed an adequate approach for investigating phenomena of real life using both qualitative and quantitative analysis (Yin, 1994), thus examining the practice of decision making. They are suitable also for falsification of theory (Flyvbjerg, 2006), so they represent a useful instrument for denying or confirming the conjecture of Parriaux et al. (2006), who stated that subterranean solution is considered just when there is no space for surface ones.

The multiple-case studies are considered a valid and suitable approach to establish which are the most influential factors because they allow obtaining a complete overview of the whole decisional process for different cases. Indeed, this approach permits to study examples with different characteristics, in different environments and all their phases and finally, discover or highlight eventual replication logics (Yin, 1994). However, considering limitations of resources, using this method was not reached and high level of details.

In order to cope with these limitations, the third step consists of selecting a case study from the ones already studied to analyse more in depth. From a single case study, it is expected to obtain a higher level of details but also new information, due to the more explorative nature of this approach (Yin, 1994). This method allows to discover more about the decisional process and the role of the appraisal methods, but principally, it makes possible to investigate also which are the perceptions of the stakeholders about the realised effects.

The combination of both approaches allows evaluating the whole decision-making process, including the role of the appraisal methods and the comparison of ex-ante expected and ex-post perceived effects. Thus, to elaborate guidelines for possible improvements of the decisional process and essential value to be taken into account in future projects. In the following sections, the case study selection and the methodology are explained. The whole process of this research can be visualised in Figure 1: Research design.

23 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci

Figure 1: Research design

1.8 Methodology The thesis approach requires different methods for answering each sub-questions. However, in general, the data input was gathered using desk research and interviews, while their processing relied mostly on qualitative analyses, in some cases (sub-questions 4 and 5) paired with analytical tools.

1.8.1 Data collection When constructing a theoretical framework for further investigations, desk research seems a suitable method; it allows to make an overview of the existing theories and select the appropriate ones for the researcher scope. In fact, the information about the effects of multifunctionality can be found in the current literature, which, however, would most likely not define an MUP in the same way of this research. For this reason, the effects of multifunctionality are researched analysing a wide variety of documents regarding underground structures, their direct and indirect effects. The literature research is conducted through the most common web databases (Google Scholar, Jstor, Elviser etc.), using relevant keywords (underground projects, building underground effects, etc.). Similar literature research is done for theories of decision-making, in this case, a previous knowledge of the subject would help to narrow the investigations.

Regarding the multiple-case studies, a combination of desk research and interviews is retained a suitable way for gathering the right amount and quality of data, considering the time and budget constraints. The literature investigated is various (official documents, policy notes, newspaper articles, books), mostly accessible online or in the archives of public administration offices. Also, the literature review is paired with interviews because, for logical reasons, not all the literature can be researched and not all the needed information can be derived from it.

Nevertheless, literature allows making a first screen of the cases and draw a preliminary list of actors to interview. Ideally, for obtaining a robust analysis, one should interview at least one representative for each actor, covering the whole range of point of views. However, this is not always possible, and acceptable results can also be obtained involving just the most important actors.

24 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Interviews are used for integrating the information about the case studies, examining more in-depth relevant aspects and discover new ones. Therefore, a certain degree of flexibility is necessary, which is achievable using a hybrid format of open and semi-structured questions. This approach, in fact, allows verifying the first hypothesis while giving freedom to the interviewee, so, it preserves a certain explorative inclination. Moreover, it helps to maintain a standard interviewing structure that can be quickly readapted to each case. Finally, it also allows conducting oral or verbal interviews, which allows approaching respondents without having any personal relationship by addressing their preferences. As may seem logical, face to face interviews are preferable since they allow a better communication, but, most of the times are not possible due to distances; consequently, it is necessary to use phone calls and written formats.

Interviews are also crucial for gathering data necessary to answer sub-question 5. Hence, to the respondents of the selected single case study are asked more questions aimed to investigate their ex-post perceptions of the realised effects. These questions can be asked in a separate interview or added to the same questionnaire.

Quality and quantity of data obtained through interviews are dependent on what the respondent is willing to share and the authenticity of his answers. The mix of semi-structured and open questions would help to cope with this limitation, by inducing the respondent to give specific answers. But, the genuineness of the answers still needs to be considered, especially when approaching people without having a personal relation. In this case, maintaining anonymity is considered a valuable strategy for the interviewer to obtain trust and consequently, truthful answers. Therefore, in this thesis, each respondent is indicated by a number linked to the organisation he represented; unless the interviewee explicitly authorised the use of his name.

1.8.2 Data analysis The gathered data represents the input for answering each sub-question. Therefore, considering their qualitative nature, their amount, and the time constraints, qualitative studies paired with simple calculations, is believed to be a suitable methodology for this research. Nevertheless, each sub-question would require different approaches.

Answering sub-question 1 would require a qualitative analysis of the researcher aimed to highlight and collect from each document the effects that relate to the MUPs. These effects can also be divided in negative and positive, and grouped into different categories, according to their typology. While answering sub- question 2 requires the researcher to arbitrarily select the theoretical model which retains suitable to study the MUPs and highlight the relevant aspects of the decision-making.

The answers to the previous two questions would form the theoretical framework for analysing the information about the case studies. In fact, for answering sub-question 3, the researcher needs to frame the data collected through interviews and desk research according to the theoretical decision-making model selected. Successively, he should perform a qualitative analysis aimed at highlighting common patterns and factors in the practice of decision-making.

Successively, the same information about the case studies can be qualitatively analysed for discovering whether the effects listed answering question 1, are considered and analytically addressed, in the practice of decision-making. This analysis is equivalent to reconstruct the match between a set of qualitative information regarding the theory and a collection of qualitative information regarding the practice. For this scope analytical methods have been already developed, however, considering the time and the coding skills necessary to implement them and the amount of data, it is preferred a qualitative analysis. The analysis consists in screening the collected information in search of mentions of the theoretical effects, hence determining which of them are addressed and which analytically estimated in the practice of decision- making. Once this operation is completed, applying some simple mathematical and statistical functions,

25 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci relevant aspects necessary to answer sub-question 4 can be calculated; for example the percentage of considered effects and the rate of estimated ones.

Once a single case study is selected, the related information collected would go through a different process to answer sub-question 5. This question aims to compare the ex-ante evaluation of the effects and their ex-post perceptions. Hence, similarly to what happened to the previous demands, the two set of qualitative data (ex- ante and ex-post) are scrutinised in order to understand, for each effect of the list, how it was considered and how it is perceived. Dividing them into 4 categories (positive, negative, neutral, no info), each with a certain score (+1,-1, 0, /), qualitative info are transformed into quantitative data. In this way, the differences between expectations and ex-post perceptions can be numerically estimated, answering the research sub-question.

The previously illustrated methodologies are going to be explained more in depth in the next chapters, including logical drawbacks which, anyway, were considered before their selections and tackled accordingly.

1.9 Case studies selection The relevant criteria used for the selection of cases to be studied in this research are 3: (in order of importance)

 Multifunctionality: the structure is built underground but also serves the goals of structures and facilities above the ground;  The sample represents a variety in size, characteristics and environment of the projects;  Feasibility in terms of number of case selected, accessibility and availability to documentation and possible respondents for the interviews;

In line with the definition of multifunctionality for this research, all the selected cases are built underground, with the scope of serving two or more different purposes, both under and above the ground, maintaining a strong connection with the built environment. The sample has to be various for guaranteeing sufficient representativeness, therefore in the selection, the researcher tried to embrace a variety of sizes, from €45 million to $16 billion, functions placed above and under the surface, sceneries (Dutch and international). Seen the advantages and drawbacks of the multiple-case study approach; the case study selection would ideally consist of a large sample which includes different sizes and different characteristics. However, the research has to be calibrated on the resources available and on the time and budget constraints, therefore, were selected 6 cases, 3 internationals and 3 Dutch. Moreover, for all of them was assessed a minimum accessibility to documents and respondents.

The results of the case study selection are visible in Table 1-1: Case studies summary, where are highlighted, aside from the name, location costs and functions so that can be given the proportion of the variety of the sample. More details and descriptions about each case can be found in chapter 0.

26 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Table 1-1: Case studies summary

Case Location Costs Functions  Highway Big Dig Boston, USA $15 billion  Park and recreational  Parking Post Office Square Boston, USA $75 million  Water storage  Park and recreational  Parking Lungomare di Riccione Riccione, Italy €50 million  Recreational  Parking Van Heekgarage Enschede, Netherlands €56 million  Social life and shopping enhancement €710 million  Highway A4, Kethel Tunnel Schiedam, Netherlands (highway and  Parking other facilities)  Sport and recreational  Tram rail Tram Tunnel Den Haag, Netherlands €234 million  Parking

1.9.1 Single case study selection Among the previously presented ones, the Lungomare of Riccione is selected as a single case study, because considered suitable thanks to its size and location, number of stakeholders involved and its age (it has been discussed, approved and completed between 2000 and 2014).

In fact, for its dimension and age, it is expected to provide replicable results. This case represents the “average”, a typical example that can be seen as representative of a more extensive sample, hence, it can provide valuable insights applicable to other cases (Gerring, 2009).

The feasibility is retained a further choice determinant, in fact, thanks to its age, size and location, it is still possible to contact actors and stakeholders to interview, and accessing the official documents with relatively small problems. Contributed to the feasibility also the absence of language barriers between the researchers and the people involved with the project, and the previous knowledge regarding local politics and projects approval procedures.

27 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci

28 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci II. Theoretical Background

The second section of this report will explore the theory related to multifunctional underground structures (chapter 0) and decision-making approaches and models (3). In other words, this section will provided the theoretical background and frameworks necessary for the next steps of the study and it will conclude by answering the sub-questions 1 and 2 (chapter 4) .

______

29 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci

30 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 2. Multifunctional underground infrastructures.

As the research focuses on multifunctional underground projects, and their evaluation in the decision-making process, it is essential to define which projects could be considered multifunctional and therefore included in the analysis and what effects they would involve, hence the subject of the research itself. Thus, this chapter will provide these essential conceptual elements for pursuing the research answering therefore to the sub- question 1.

“Which are the main features and effects of Multifunctional Underground Projects?”

The answer to this question would give a definition of multifunctionality valid for the whole research and a list of factors that the theory recognises. This list would represent a necessary, although basic, framework for assessing the whether these effects are taken into account in the practice of decision-making and appraisal tools (see chapter 0).

Before arriving at the answer of the question, this chapter will illustrate the definition of multifunctionality, in the literature, and in this research (section 2.1). Successively, the outcomes that a multifunctional underground project would bring along will be researched (section 2.2) and analysed (section 2.3). Finally, a framework for the effects of multifunctionality will be illustrated(section 2.4).

2.1 Defining “Multifunctionality” Looking for the definition of “multifunctionality” most of the academic refers to it as a simple aggregation of more functions in the same structures. However, according to the opinion of Bakker, van der Heijden, van Buren, Groffen, and van Engen (2016), multifunctionality is not a simple aggregation of functions. It is instead, about combining different goals and interests of different stakeholders, in a way that they can cooperate and reinforce one another, sharing a common mean. The results indeed would be enhanced when a shared mean would work for achieving different goals and therefore linking the interests behind these purposes as well (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Multifunctionality scheme (Bakker et al., 2016)

This concept could be applied to various categories, like housing, mobility, health, energy, water, culture, food, clothing etc. for the private and public sector. Moreover, it does have to be linked necessarily just to a single project, both to the development of a whole area.This research will adopt this definition of multifunctionality and apply it to the underground structures. Therefore, for the purposes of this thesis, are defined as multifunctional underground projects(MUPs) those structures built underground that combine different functions, but that principally represent a mean to achieve different goals and therefore could potentially link different interests. For this reason, the research will not analyse just the structure itself but will extend the system of study to the surface and the built environment, looking at the relation between these elements and the subterranean structure. Therefore, in this research, multifunctional underground 31 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci structures are constructed in the subsurface, they combine different functions in the same plan while having strong interrelations with the surface and the functions located above the ground. So that they represent the mean to achieve various goals in the way that they reinforce each other. In Figure 3 is illustrated how the concept of multifunctionality by Bakker et al., (2016) is going to be applied in this research.

Therefore, given this definition, it can be expected that most of the underground projects would have a potential for achieving multifunctionality by combining purposes and interests; especially when situated in the urban areas where the bounds with the built are stronger. Underground infrastructures indeed could represent a shared mean for various goals such as increased liveability, reduced land use, more efficient use of resources, reduction and easier control of noise and air pollution. These and other effects will be more extensively explained in the next section.

Figure 3: Multifunctionality in this research

2.2 The effects of underground structures and infrastructures Since the category of multifunctional underground structures as it is conceived in this research did not find an exact match in the literature, it has been impossible to find an existing framework that describes the effects of these projects. Therefore, in order to understand which effects can be expected while studying multifunctional underground project, literature that embraces different kinds of underground projects needed to be researched with the scope of generating a framework more generic and inclusive as possible.

The use of underground space is intended for various purposes: storage (including hazardous and radioactive waste); industry; transport (railways, motor roads, pedestrian tunnels, stations); utilities and communications (water, sewerage, gas, and electric cables); military (rocket launchers and command centres); public spaces (shopping malls, bars, restaurants, nightclubs, sport centres, and civil defence structures); and private and personal (parking lots, archives) (Admiraal & Cornaro, 2016b; Bobylev, 2007). This functions might be part of a stand-alone project, or of a complex underground network of structures and infrastructures; for example the Réso in Montreal or the Path in Toronto. Two networks of walking paths connecting underground shopping malls with subways and trains stations, office towers, hotels etc. (City of Toronto, n.d.; Morgan, 2016).

Therefore, given this broad variety inside the category of underground structures, it is necessary to address a wide range of literature, which should analyse the direct and indirect effects of the underground projects, as well as the consequences of the works built on the surface.

The research of the documents has been performed using the most common searching engines for academics such as Google Scholar, Jstor, Elviser etc. and relevant keywords such as “effects of underground” “underground constructions” “multifunctionality in underground construction” etc. The result of the research was a list of 10 papers which address the effects of using underground constructions in general or analysing specific case studies. The analysis of these documents is presented in the rest of this chapter

32 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 2.2.1 Effects of underground structures in existing literature The investigated literature includes works of different authors and typologies; in this section is given a small summary for each of the documents revised.

Godard and Sterling (1995), explained the factors that induce to direct and indirect advantages and disadvantages of underground projects. As direct factors are considered the factors related to the structure itself, so the construction costs, which vary according to the building environment, topography, condition of the surface, natural and climate risks, other risks. Are also considered the costs related to the maintenance and operation of the structure and the effects on users, such as accessibility, safety. Generally, the underground structures offer thermic, mechanic, acoustic protection. Other effects to be valued case by case are vibrations, visual impact, pollution (water, air, land), psychophysical comfort. During their construction, they represent a risk for the neighbouring buildings. Even though according to the writers, benefits and costs need to be assessed case by case, and they vary according to the view of the different stakeholders, they point some specific advantages like safety, reduction of noise, reduction of travel time, improved use of surface (for mobility infrastructures), better implementation of policy for urban transport communication.

Bobylev (2007), made an overview of benefits and drawback in the use of underground spaces, with particular attention to the ones placed in an urban area. One of the main points is the rational enhancement of natural resources, including land, use, that means developing the city more compactly, creating urban areas with high livability and quality of environment and landscape. Underground structures are also more efficient regarding energy and land consumption, in fact, more functions can be combined in the same plot of land, an important factor especially for crowded urban areas. Noise and the air pollutions are two relevant factors when talking about health and liveability of cities. Traffic is one of the first causes of urban air pollution when it is moved underground noise can be significantly reduced, and the emissions can be treated before arriving in the atmosphere. Moreover, enhancing traffic fluidity would indirectly reduce the emissions due to congestions. From the engineering point of view underground facilities can be considered more reliable, since due to soil qualities less maintenance is necessary, they are also more safe and resilient considering external factors such as earthquakes or another disaster, but more vulnerable to internal threat, such as terroristic attacks. Regarding drawbacks, aside from the already mentioned vulnerability, most the problems are related to constructions costs which vary accordingly to the technical challenges, like the necessity of expensive machinery, quality of soil, the presence of underground obstacles such as archaeological findings. These technical difficulties also cause temporary effects for the duration of the construction, like traffic disruption and congestion, thus higher pollution, the risk of chemical leakage and collapse of nearby buildings. Other disadvantages are the flexibility, in fact, a subterranean structure cannot be replaced, and the site cannot be restored to its initial state.

Later, the same researcher confirmed his view on benefits and drawbacks of underground structures. Moreover, addressing the problem of the necessity for a city master plan which includes the planning of underground space. The author highlights the problem of rivalry, that means the exploitation of one good or service from one individual preclude another from using it, and excludability, which means the possibility of regulating the access to a good or service. Looking at underground spaces in this perspective, the lack of planning could jeopardise and reduce the land usage because of the difficulties in reallocating the space. About the costs, it is confirmed the view of higher construction costs, counterbalanced by lower maintenance costs in the long term. The author address also the safety issues, indeed, often the underground infrastructures allow separating pedestrians from traffic, lowering the risk of accidents, however, experiences suggests that underground walking tunnels might attract micro-criminality (Bobylev, 2009).

More recently, Sterling et al. (2012), addressed the sustainability issue for the underground structures. For the authors, the use of subsurface spaces can enhance the livability and sustainability saving natural 33 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci resources, reducing air pollution, avoiding visual intrusion, developing compact cities, therefore requiring less energy use and covering less land with man-made structures. Moreover, putting more facilities together or closer can contribute to saving air pollution by promoting walking instead of vehicles. However, should be considered the interaction between the structure and the underground resources, groundwater, geothermal and the land itself. Indeed, without proper planning, the implementation of an underground project might preclude the future use of the subterranean space for other purposes.

The ITA working group addressed the role of underground projects in the urban environment (Thewes et al., 2012). In this document are confirmed the advantages of underground structures on noise, vibration and pollution, higher resilience on natural hazards and external shocks (including earthquakes), reduced need for resources for heating, longer durability of the structure, maintenance costs generally lower, faster connections and shorter travel times, improved safety and security (for particular uses such as manufacturing, laboratories, and scientific facilities). Moreover, these projects can represent a valuable mean to reduce the impact in case of floods, reduced visual obstruction and intrusion. Also, placing a structure in the subsurface would leave the surface free to be used other purposes, such as parks and recreational areas, which would significantly increase the value of the surrounding real estates and the revenue for retails, business and taxes. On the other side, these structures are more dangerous in case of hazards and attacks from the inside (like fires, smokes or terrorism). During the construction they might have a higher impact on soil, water, air, flora fauna and their living space, cultural and archaeological heritage, built environment, (all effects that would lead to a series of related problems) and indirectly might cause the loss of income for business in the area.

A summary of the advantages of building underground has also been made by the Italian researchers Soldo and Oreste (n.d.). In line with the other literature, they stated that subterranean infrastructures lead advantages thanks to a reduced visual intrusion on the landscape, cut travel time, reduced vibration and noise, reduced air pollution, increased thermic efficiency, protection from external agents (attacks, earthquakes, floods, fires), increased safety for road traffic. Moreover, the implementation of ambitious underground projects represents a novelty and a cultural stimulus for population, increasing quality of life and enhancing the consciousness of resources and environment-related issues.

Zargarian, Hunt, and Foss Rogers (2016) explained what could be the role of the use of the subsurface towards a more sustainable urban development. In doing that, they provide a list of advantages and disadvantages deriving from implementing underground structures and infrastructures generally in line with the findings of the other presented authors. However, among the benefits are mentioned new elements, such as the isolation to extreme weather conditions or the possibility of reusing the excavated material for other constructions (road and dykes for example) and that the underground structures can help in preserving the cultural and natural heritage. Among the drawbacks, are mentioned the cost of artificial lighting and ventilation and psychological problems which might occur in people who are spending a long time working in the underground. Moreover, the authors mention the subsurface as a resource with limited availability.

The use of multifunctional underground projects would also induce to indirect effect derived from the improved use of the surface. For example, Bakker et al. (2016), explain the concept of multifunctionality using, among other examples, the Spaarndammer Tunnel in Amsterdam. This tunnel will reallocate the highway underground, while the surface would provide a green roof for recreational and sports facilities. Therefore, its advantages for the neighbourhood are increased livability, better economic conditions thanks to the improved accessibility to the area, improved air quality, and noise reduction. Tajima (2003), investigate the indirect benefits that the open and recreational spaces above the Boston Big Dig brought to the city. This spaces helped in reconnecting the two sides of the city previously divided by the elevated highway, has improved its image and increased the value of the real estates. In his research, proximity to a

34 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci park is positively valued, while, the proximity to a highway is valued differently by different users. The same benefits are resultant from moving parking lots underground devoting the surface to recreational purposes (Thewes et al., 2012).

Ayalon, Shmueli, Koren, and Zerbib (2016), studied the economic advantages of transportation tunnels using the Carmel Tunnel, in Haifa, Israel, as a case study. In line with the findings of other authors, they identify, as direct benefits for the users, travel time and fuel consumption savings; while as indirect advantages there are improved air pollution, reduced greenhouse gasses emission and noise reduction.

The results of the review conducted on the researched literature about the benefits of multifunctional underground infrastructures are resumed and presented in Table 2-1. Please note that “+” or “-” represent a positive or negative effect on the related factor, if compared to the initial situation or the above-ground solution.

Table 2-1 Effects of underground constructions

Authors

2016

Effects

Ayalon et al., Bakker et al., 2016 Bobylev, 2007 Bobylev, 2009 Godard & Sterling, 1995 Soldo & Oreste, n.d. Sterling et al., 2012 Tajima, 2003 Thewes et al., 2012 Zargarian et al., 2016

Travel time + + + + + + + Fuel savings (€) + Implementation urban mobility policies + Use of natural resources + + + Energetic efficiency + + + + + + + Land consumption (surface) + + + + Noise + + + + + + + Vibrations + +- + + Visual impact mitigation + + + + + + + Soil pollution and disturbance +/- - Groundwater pollution +/- - - Air pollution and emissions + + + +/- + + + + Isolation against extreme weather conditions + (rain, heat, cold) Resilience and protection to external threats + + + + + + (earthquakes, floods, fires, etc.) Vulnerability to internal threats - - - - Safety (car/pedestrians accidents) + + + Safety (micro-criminality) - - Safety + + (manufacturing, laboratories, scientific facilities) Safety (limited access) +

35 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Accessibility (to the structure) + + - Psychophysical comfort - -/+ - (living/working underground) Buffer space for floods/floods mitigation + + Construction costs - - - - Structure durability and maintenance costs (ordinary) + + + Reparation costs (extraordinary maintenance) - Lighting and ventilation costs - Geomaterials reuse + Consumption underground resources - - (ground, water, geothermal) Underground space reallocation and - - - restoring the initial situation Liveability + + + Improved use of surface: + + +  Continuous space use/accessibility + +  Image of the city +  Real estate value + +  Revenue from commerce, business and taxes + +  Space for recreational activities + + + Temporary effects Travel time (disruptions, congestions) - - - Air pollution - - - Water pollution - - - - Soil pollution - - - Flora and fauna - Cultural and archaeology - - - Risks of buildings in proximity - - Income loss business and commerce -

2.3 Analysis of the literature Looking at the table above could be seen that there is considerable agreement on most of the effect of underground structures and infrastructures. Such as their energetic efficiency, reduction of air pollution and emissions, noise and visual impact, the resilience to external agents and threats opposed to the vulnerability to the internal ones, another common effect is the reduction of travel times and car accidents for mobility infrastructures. There are a few noticeable exceptions, like the psychophysical discomfort encountered by individuals who are working and living for a long time underground. It represents an obstacle for the implementation of housing in the view of Godard and Sterling (1995), while according to Thewes et al. (2012), this problem can be solved with particular architectonical solutions. Again Godard and Sterling, (1995) stated that effects of vibrations and pollution should be valued case by case, while more recent works point at beneficial effects of the underground structures on this factors.

Even though, during their use, the underground structures are performing better than the surface one, during the construction they would temporary aggravate the environmental and societal conditions. Indeed, due to 36 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci complexity and risks of the construction phase, they would: create disruption and congestion of traffic, increasing the travel time, increase the air pollution, water and soil would be more exposed to risk of contamination, flora, fauna, cultural and archaeological inheritance exposed to higher risks(Bobylev, 2007, 2009; Thewes et al., 2012), and the nearby buildings might suffer from excessive vibration (Godard & Sterling, 1995). This uncomfortable situation could finally lead to loss of income for the neighbouring businesses (Thewes et al., 2012). Should be mentioned the fact that, in the view of Zargarian et al. (2016) cultural and natural heritage could be better preserved using underground space. However, it is not better explained how; therefore in this research, this view will not be taken into account.

In terms of costs, it is common knowledge that the construction of underground facilities is often more expensive than its surface equivalent; due to risks and technical challenges (Bobylev, 2007, 2009; Godard & Sterling, 1995; Zargarian et al., 2016). However the project should be valued on the long term, because thanks to its durability, lower maintenance costs and secondary effects, the costs could be compensated on the whole life cycle (Bobylev, 2007, 2009; Thewes et al., 2012). Anyway, considering a long-term view must be taken into account that the subterranean space cannot be restored to its original conditions. That means that when the soil has been excavated, it is not possible to fill it with new material and obtain the same quality, neither it may be easily reallocated to different uses (Bobylev, 2007, 2009; Zargarian et al., 2016).

2.3.1 Sustainability and liveability In general, there is broad agreement on the fact that underground solutions, especially when multifunctional, are a valuable means of achieving sustainability and livability of the urban environment (Bakker et al., 2016; Bobylev, 2007, 2009; Parriaux et al., 2006; Sterling et al., 2012; Thewes et al., 2012; Zargarian et al., 2016). However, the different authors give different definitions to sustainability and liveability.

The World Commission on Environment and Development (as cited by Bobylev, 2007), defined as sustainable development, meeting the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of the future generation of meeting their ones. Thus, according to Bobylev (2007), underground infrastructures represent a valuable mean reducing energy and natural resources consumption and reducing pollution. Koo, Ariaratnam, and Kavazanjian (2009) approached the sustainability issue looking at three different aspects: environment, economy and society. Sterling et al. (2012) also considered local priorities and conditions, natural resources and governance. To clarify this subject, the United Nations develop 17 goals towards sustainable development; the use of underground space would contribute to achieving 7 of those; which are (Admiraal & Cornaro, 2016b):

 Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all  Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all  Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all  Built resilient infrastructures, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation, and foster innovation  Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable  Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts

The concept of liveability is recalled by different authors such as Admiraal and Cornaro (2016), Bakker et al. (2016), Bobylev (2007), Sterling et al. (2012), and mentioned as an advantage of the underground constructions. However, none of them gives an exact definition of it, neither explains the link with underground structures. Therefore the vocabulary has been used as a source for defining Liveable (2011) as suitable and comfortable for living in. Thus, could include all the effects that influence human life quality

37 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci perception, such as noise, vibration, safety, pollution, visual impact, accessibility, psychophysical comfort; all factors affected using underground structures.

It needs to be reminded that, the subterranean space is a limited resource itself, and contains other finite resources, geothermal energy, geomaterials and water (Parriaux et al., 2006; Zargarian et al., 2016). Thus, underground structures are not always positive in terms of sustainability and liveability, on the contrary, the use of underground space should be subject to planning and regulation, in order to be optimised avoiding chaos and unforeseen consequences while achieving sustainable development (Admiraal & Cornaro, 2016b; Bobylev, 2009; Zargarian et al., 2016).

2.4 Creating a framework for the effects of multifunctional underground structures Given the definition of sustainability and liveability in the previous paragraph, the rough list, resulting from the literature review showed in Table 2-1 Table 2-2has been further elaborated. The effects, already divided in to temporary and permanent, has also been dived in three categories according to their kind:

 Sustainability: effects that would help to achieve the goals of sustainability set by the United Nations as explained by Admiraal & Cornaro (2016).  Liveability: all the effects that have an impact on the quality of human life.  Other societal effects: effects which are not part of the two categories above, but still relevant for the society, are part of this class mostly effects related to costs.

Therefore liveability, which has been expressed as an effect by Bakker et al. (2016), Bobylev (2007) and Sterling et al. (2012), has been further divided into other effects. While the safety issue which appeared in 4 different forms has been reformulated in 2, road safety and limited access. Therefore, limited accessibility and micro-criminality have been merged since limiting or controlling the access is also a measure to control the criminality issue, while the safety derived from the isolation of specific facilities (laboratories or manufacturing facilities) is considered a special case that does not need to be included in this study. After these considerations, the list has been reduced to 41 factors classified as illustrated in the following Table 2-2.

38 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Table 2-2: Framework of effects of multifunctional underground structures

Permanent Temporary Use of natural resources (+) Energetic efficiency (+) Land consumption (surface) (+) Buffer space for floods/floods mitigation (+) Soil pollution and disturbance (-) Groundwater pollution (-) Air pollution (-) Air pollution and emissions (+) Water pollution (-) Sustainability Resilience and protection to external threats Soil pollution (-) (earthquakes, floods, fires, etc.) (+) Flora and fauna (-) Vulnerability to internal threats (-) Structure durability (+) Consumption underground resources (ground, water, geothermal) (-) Underground space reallocation and restoring the initial situation (-) Travel time (+) Noise (+) Vibration (+) Isolation against extreme weather conditions (+) Safety (traffic) (+) Safety (criminality) (-) Travel time (-) Liveability Accessibility of the structure (+/-) Cultural and archaeology (-) Psychophysical comfort (living/working underground) (-) Visual impact mitigation (+) Use of surface, continuous space use and surface accessibility (+) Use of surface for recreational activities (+) Fuel savings (€) (+) Implementation urban mobility policies (+) Construction costs (-) Maintenance costs (ordinary) (+) Repairing costs (extraordinary) (-) Risks of buildings in proximity Other societal Lighting and ventilation costs (-) (-) effects Geomaterials reuse (+) Income business and commerce Use of surface: (-)  Image of the city (+)  Real estate value (+)  Revenue from commerce, business and taxes (+)

The table above represents the framework used in chapter 0 for assessing to which extent the decision- making process of the multiple-case studies addresses the effects of multifunctionality. This framework is certainly showing intrinsic limitations, first of all about its completeness because based on a literature review of 10 documents. Therefore, it could be expected that new effect would be added later with the case studies. Secondly, its validity has been not tested, so the robustness not proven. For these reasons, this list represents a support valid just in the context of this research, that before being replicable should be further elaborated and validated.

39 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 3. Decision making and evaluation methods

The reality of decision-making is particularly complex to study. For this scope, a researcher would necessarily need to use a suitable set of approximations, in other words, a theoretical model, which allow him to simplify it (Teisman, 2000). Therefore, this chapter will present the most important approaches and theories and models that have been developed in the field of decision making, with the aim of selecting the most suitable one for framing the study cases. This theoretical framework will be successively used for highlighting the most relevant factors in the decision-making of the selected case studies and the role played by the appraisal tools. Moreover, this approach to the case study analysis simplifies the selection of the critical actors to be interviewed. In order other words, this section will answer the sub-question 2.

“Which is a suitable theory for highlighting the relevant factors and the role of the appraisal tools in the practice of decision-making for MUPs?”

Since the aim of answering this question is to define a theoretical framework for analysing the multiple-case studies, a literature review is considered the most suitable methods. The literature regarding decision-making is extensive and exhaustive thus finding an appropriate framework in the works of other researchers, also basing the study on previous knowledge of the subject, is not problematic. In this section will be provided just a summary of the review, which is visible in Appendix A: decision-making perspective and models.

Answering this question will be done presenting the differences between the rational and analytical approach to the decision making (Section 3.1) the models available in the literature (Section 3.1.1). Therefore introducing the approach and the model that are perceived as the most suitable for the chosen case studies (Section 3.2 and 3.3). Furthermore, will be explained more about the role and the use of the data and information, thus, appraisal methods in the decision-making (Section 3.4).

3.1 Rational, analytical or actors network approach to decision-making Decision-making presupposes a choice among different alternatives with reference to a goal (Allison, 1971), however, behind this final action, there are a series of steps, factors and interactions that contribute to the final selection. Currently, this process can be empirically explained using two different approaches: the rational and analytical and the actor's network.

The rational approach presumes that an individual, with a well-defined set of goals, reflecting his values, will rationally and analytically examine all the alternatives available for reaching them. This individual should be capable of defining all the possible options first, analyse which kind of consequences would they bring and finally chose the one that would maximise the expected results in relation to his objective. From this approach can be drawn a model where decision-making is defined as a chronological sequence of minimum 4 phases (March, 1994; Simon, 1997). In the real world, this approach showed various limitations.

In fact, rational and analytical capabilities of human beings demonstrated to be constrained, and decision makers operate under limited (or bounded) rationality. Consequentially, they tend to find solutions for “satisfying” a certain target, rather than “maximising” the outcome (March, 1994; Simon, 1997).

In fact, in reality, decision-makers need to act before having a full analysis, and their judgement can be influenced by emotions (Etzioni, 1989). It is almost impossible to gather the total amount of data and even assuming it is possible, would be difficult for a human being to process all of them together (Etzioni, 1989; Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993; March, 1994; Stone, 1988); leading to a possible paralysis on the process and no decision taken (Stone, 1988).

40 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Moreover, in reality, there is no single-minded actor with enough power for imposing his decisions; even governments are part of a society and therefore subjected to external influences. Political leaders, for example, make agreements and receive influences before taking decisions (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993). In fact, power is generally dispersed among many actors with different objectives, authority, influence and power; thus decisions are the results of interactions and negotiations of a group of interdependent actors belonging to the same network (Bachrach & Baratz, 1970; de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Kickert, Klijn, & Koppenjan, 1997; Klijn & Koppenjan, 2000; Stone, 1988).

An actors network is a flat and decentralised structure of social organisation, where control and power are dispersed among various actors mutually dependent and decisions are derived from their interactions (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Kenis & Schneider, 1991; Kickert et al., 1997; Klijn & Koppenjan, 2000). The actors of a network are many and different (public or private for example), with different values, owning different resources (money, influence, data etc.) which make them interdependent. They are aware of this dependency and therefore, decide to interact following a particular strategy, which could also lead them to create coalitions (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Kenis & Schneider, 1991; Kickert et al., 1997; Klijn & Koppenjan, 2000). Consequently, from the network perspective, the final decision is seen as the outcome of synergies and negotiations among different actors, according to their strategies; to a certain extent, their cooperation would determine the success or failure of the process (Kenis & Schneider, 1991).

While this approach to the decision-making, can help solve many wicked problems including many actors in the process, also increases the probabilities that the process would get stuck in conflicts or deadlocks causing delays and costs overruns. For this reasons, it is crucial to managing the network using appropriate techniques (Bueren, Klijn, & Koppenjan, 2003; de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Kickert et al., 1997; Klijn & Koppenjan, 2000).

However, reconstructing and analysing the decision-making process is done based on empirical observations that should stick on series of assumptions based on an apriori idea of the process, which composes a decision-making model (Teisman, 2000). Different models are available within the network approach; the following section will present main features, characteristics and logics of four of the most common models for decision making in networks.

3.1.1 Decision-making models in actors network approach Within the actors’ network approach there are 4 models recognised as the most common and suitable for framing a decisional process; should be mentioned that researching the literature more models can easily be found. However, they all appeared as adaptations and modifications of the 4 here presented, aimed to grasp a particular aspect of the decisional process. Therefore the selection has been limited to these four, which are believed to be the most robust and applicable to all the cases. These models are illustrated in Figure 4.

a. The phase model: this model assumes that the decision making is a structured sequence of distinct logical (and not chronological) stages (Enserink et al., 2010; Teisman, 2000). The process can be divided into minimum three: formation, adoption and implementation; each with its participants and characteristics (Teisman, 2000). Although these model required a central actor with a clear view of the problem, other players should be involved in reaching an agreement(Enserink et al., 2010; Teisman, 2000). Due to this features this frame can be seen as a derivation of the rational model (see Drucker, 1967; March, 1994; Simon, 1997) (Enserink et al., 2010).

b. The garbage can model: this model depicts the situations of “organised anarchy”, so decisions are taken without a precise definition of the goal and problem neither shared consensus. The number of participants may vary as their effort can change. It is not clear how the decisions are taken, often are the results of a trial-and-error procedure. Different canes can be present contemporaneously; each

41 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci participant would throw in his problem or solution that will be coupled unpredictably (Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972; Enserink et al., 2010; Mucciaroni, 1992). Thus this model can explain situations of ambiguity and unpredictable outcomes (Cohen et al., 1972; Enserink et al., 2010).

c. The streams model: this model illustrates the decision making as the interaction between three, almost parallel, current streams: problem, policy and political stream. They are independent but can touch each other opening a window, due to particular events such as an urgent problem that needs a solution (problem window) or political events that change the agenda (political window). However, just when all the streams match (policy window) and the policy entrepreneurs advocate for attaching the solution to the problem, definitive decisions are taken. The figure of the policy entrepreneur whom advocate for specific solutions is central to this model (Enserink et al., 2010; Kingdon, 1995; Mucciaroni, 1992).

d. The rounds model: The rounds model explains the decision-making process as a series of rounds rather than chronological phases. Here, different interdependent actors interact in order to arrive at a critical decision which terminates one round and open a new one. In this way, the process is seen as an endless sequence of rounds which can appear as reiterative; the same solution can be discussed in more rounds. Each actor would bring on the table his own perception of problems, solutions, interests, preferences and resources; they might clash or agree, negotiate and combine their ideas. (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Enserink et al., 2010; Teisman, 2000). The set of players can change from one round to another (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008).

Figure 4: Models for decision-making in networks; adapted from Enserink et al. (2010) and Teisman (2000)

3.2 Selecting an approach When applied to the cases of multifunctional underground projects, among these two approaches, the actor's network seemed the one that better represents the reality. In fact, decision-making for projects is nowadays becoming more complex. Supposing that to implement a plan would be sufficient the willing of a single organisation, acting authoritatively according to their own goals, and having the power of steering the process in the desired direction, can be considered restrictive. Indeed, the less successful projects derived from more authoritative choices (Priemus & van Wee, 2013). It is especially in the front-end phases that the projects show its governance complexity, due to risks, uncertainties, involvement of multiple interests etc.; their future failures are often linked to the bad management of these complexities (Priemus, 2010; Priemus & van Wee, 2013; Williams & Samset, 2010). Projects, especially in the field public urban policies, are developed in multi-actors environments, where power is shared and no single actor might be considered fully responsible for the final decision, therefore approaching them with an individual actor perspective would be reductive. (Altshuler & Luberoff, 2003; Kickert et al., 1997; Priemus & van Wee, 2013).

42 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Moreover, already from a first screening, the case studies showed many characteristics of the network. Due to their complexities, technical challenges, extension, these projects always involved the interests of many people beyond the only initiator.

The best example to explain the fit of the network approach is probably the CA/T Project. The ore of the project, burying the central artery, was conceptualised for the first time by the Boston Transportation Planning Review Authority Committee, but not immediately adopted. One of the committee members and anti-elevated activist, Frederick Salvucci, committed himself to the to its promotion, involving among the firsts Governor Dukakis. However, the realisation of a project of these proportions needed the approval of many authorities and actors, and the help of the central government for financing. Consequently, members of the Congress and the President were involved. Also, acceptance from local groups was necessary, business people, residents, environmental activists etc. all of them were involved. The project changed its shape different times during its approval procedure, trying to satisfy the needs of each actor and demonstrate to the central government its strategic value for the nation. Consequently, the final approved version included the depression of urban highway, open recreation spaces on the rooftop, a new tunnel under the harbour for connecting the airport and a total of 1100 mitigation measures of various nature (“Boston, beyond the Big Dig,” 2002, “Massachusetts Department of Transportation,” 2017; Flint, 2015; Gelinas, 2007; Huges, 1998; NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, n.d.; Tajima, 2003).

Therefore approaching this case according to the actor's network theory seemed the best way to highlight the negotiations and interactions among the variety of actors, hence understanding the decisions that shaped the CA/T Project from its initial concept to be the one we know today. These aspects would not be highlighted using the rational approach, which supposes that the process is a sequence of action of a single- minded, powerful, rational and analytical actor, looking for the best solution according to its goals. Hence this view seemed at least reductive.

3.3 Selecting a framework for the analysis of the decision-making process 3.3.1 The need for a model As explained at the beginning of the chapter, observing the decisional process, the researcher needs to make assumptions that allow him to cope with the complexity of the reality. These assumptions could be schematised in term of models. Selecting a model helps the comprehension of the reality by representing it in a simplified way according to arbitrary suppositions (Teisman, 2000).

Thus, in reality, the players do not intendedly act according to these standards. For example, describing the reality using the rounds model does not mean that people are aware of acting within rounds. The reality of decision-making is more complex and probably too chaotic to be represented without approximations (Teisman, 2000); nevertheless, a sequence of rounds is a valid empirical approximation to cope with these complexities.

Therefore, for the scope of this thesis, applying a model to frame the observations on the practice of decision-making for multifunctional underground projects was perceived as needed for two reasons. First, because the model is a simplification of the reality which facilitates its observation and description. Second, because using the same set of assumptions, it is possible to highlight the relevant factors regulating the decision-making practice while making proper comparisons among different cases.

3.3.2 The model selection As already explained, the actor's network approach seemed the best fit for the research objective and for these specific case studies. Nevertheless, within this approach, different models are available, as presented in the literature review of the previous section.

43 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Already from a first screening, the approval procedure of each case appeared far from being linear, but long and complex. The CA/T Project, for example, was discussed in different moments by different actors. In some moments the process progressed rapidly in other, it stagnated for a long time. Each time one or more players entered the process the project was influenced. Differently, the project changed and its approval was helped or obstructed according to their goals. Therefore, the researcher judged the rounds model as the one the suits best the characteristics of this decision-making for MUPs. Moreover, this model is the one that better focuses on actors’ characteristics and the interactions. A fundamental aspect of understanding how a nonlinear procedure, like in the case of CA/T, evolves, trying to highlight the actors perceptions towards the effects of multifunctionality and how they make use of it in the appraisal tools.

For this purpose, the other models are perceived as not exhaustive. Indeed, the “phase model” puts a focal actor at the centre, missing the fact that more players are necessary to implement an underground project. The “garbage can” model does not explain the actor's interactions, neither their perceptions or goals. The same holds for the “streams model”, which does not grasp the actor's interactions properly.

In order to provide a fully satisfactory analysis using the rounds model, different elements should be integrated into it, such as rounds, arenas and actor strategies (see Figure 5). These are used to explain, respectively, crucial decisions, discussion tables and topics, focal actors’ perceptions and actions. They are further described in the following sections

Figure 5: Rounds and arenas model; (adapted from Bueren et al., 2003; Enserink et al., 2010)

a) Rounds As already explained before rounds are perceived in the “rounds model” as a real boxing match where the actors meet and fight before reaching a decision or postpone it (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Enserink et al., 2010). A “round” is demarked by crucial decisions, and each of them represents the starting point for a new one. No decision could be considered as final or definitive, is just the outcome of the interactions between the players present. In fact, the actors would most likely be the same within the same round but would change in different ones, hence, winners and decisions would change accordingly. (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Enserink et al., 2010; Teisman, 2000).

In this thesis, each critical decision is going to delimitate the end one round and start of a new one. However, there is no authoritative definition of it which would apply to every case. So, the researcher will

44 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci establish them arbitrarily, individuating the decisions that according to his sensibility, represented essential and crucial steps for the evolution of the process.

b) Arenas Arenas a critical aspect to add at the rounds model, for this research they are needed for giving a more detailed description of each round; especially when more issues were discussed by a different set of actors within the same round.

In fact, an arena is a specific discussion table where a specific group of actors interacts and decides regarding a particular aspect of a bigger issue. A round might be characterised by one or more arenas which take place simultaneously or not. Consequently, an actor might be part more than one arena during the same round, depending on his goals and resources (Bueren et al., 2003).

Hence, arenas represent a central concept in decision-making for MUPs, because, given their complexity and variety of effects the process might take place in different “discussion tables” simultaneously before closing a “round”. For example, the CA/T project was discussed with local groups and NGO’s in order to tackle the in environmental issues. Meanwhile, the national parliament was debating about financing the works.

Moreover, should be mentioned that considering the network approach, the arenas might be linked one another; so what is happening in one area may affect the decision in another. Referring to the previous example, the support of local groups gave more chances of acceptance by the national parliament and other authorities.

c) Actors and Strategies As already explained, the network approach to decision-making and the “rounds model”, in particular, address the role of a group of interdependent actors and their interactions. Thus, analysing the actors covers a central role for understating the decision making nonetheless for selecting the right respondents to interview.

However, interactions are determined by actors strategies, which in turn are shaped according to their goals and characteristics, such as core values, interests, resources, relations. Two are the factors that help to understand the actor strategy: power positions and stances (see Table 3-1); which are not always positive and collaborative. In fact, actors might have three different types of power positions (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008):

 production power position, that means that the actor has power and means to steer the decisional process and positively contribute to it;  blocking power position, when the actor has only the power to stop or slow down the process:  diffuse power position, it is not clear how the actor can or want to use its resources;

Additionally, there are three possible stances positions:

 proponent, that means the player is supporting the initiator;  opponent, that means he opposes the initiator proposal; and  fence sitter, that means he prefers to keep the options open and not taking a side.

Also, resources are important since they defined the capabilities of a single actor to steering the process according to his willing; resources can be expressed in money, links and connections, influence, knowledge, among others (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008).

45 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Table 3-1: Actors stances and power (source: de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008)

Production Power position Blocking Power Position Diffuse Power Position

Positive contribution Halt power Unclear type of power Proponents Supports the initiator Supports the initiator Supports the initiator

Positive contribution Halt power Unclear type of power Opponents Opposes the initiator Opposes the initiator Opposes the initiator

Positive contribution Halt power Unclear type of power Fence Sitters “Keeps options open” “Keeps options open” “Keeps options open”

3.4 The role of information and evaluation methods in the decision-making Data and information are central when aiming to a rational decision-making procedure. Nevertheless, as illustrated at the beginning of this chapter, decisions are taken in conditions of limited/bounded rationality where is impossible to obtain the full data and process all of them contemporaneously (see Etzioni, 1989; Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993; March, 1994; Simon, 1997; Stone, 1988). The problem gets even larger when operating in multi-actor situations also affecting the data and information. Thus, data can be structured using evaluation methods (Flyvbjerg, 2007; Kornov & Thissen, 2000; Nilsson et al., 2008).

Using evaluation methods may help the decision-making; these tools are conceived then as rational and analytical support for the decisional process by presenting in a more structured way data and information. However, data can still be manipulated to a certain extent and used to promote a project, making it look better than another on paper (Flyvbjerg, 2007). Meanwhile, the rational use depends on the political context (Mackie et al., 2014), in fact in the everyday practice, appraisal tools are often used for strategical purposes, such as killing the debate or hidden a political trade-off (Mouter, 2017). Nonetheless, some of the appraisal tools are mandatory in many countries when implementing a public project, but qualitative assessment is still used (Bristow & Nellthorp, 2000; Odgaard et al., 2006).

MPUs link the interests of many people are technically challenging, expensive and often risky, so, logically are characterised by a large amount of data, and their implementation needs to be backed by powerful ex- ante evaluation methods. Hence, aiming to create a comprehensive knowledge about the practice of decision- making for MUPs, address the issue of the use of data and evaluation methods seems necessary. By doing that, it is highlighted, if and how these tools are used in the process and which type of data and information are incorporated.

3.4.1 Data and information issue As already said, obtaining all the data necessary for a fully rational-analytical decision is almost impossible. However, saying that, for reaching better results, decision-making needs more data, more reliable and earlier in the process, can be considered reductive, in fact, often the problem is related to the certainty about the data and information.

As long as there is uncertainty, there is also space for debating the data validity, the gathering methods, the system boundaries; thus no analysis can be decisive without an agreement on its settings. The correctness of data and analysis set-up can be indeed negotiated, and although this approach would still carry limitations and risks, seems more efficient than imposing a decision on the base of an authoritative analysis (de Bruijn & Leijten, 2007). Nonetheless, in these situations, when decisions are based on analysis, which is in turn derived from contested data, there is a real chance of creating a “conflict of report” instead of helping the process progression; same if an actor tries to impose the validity of the analysis (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 46 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 2008; Priemus & van Wee, 2013). In fact, it is often suggested to open the discussion about data to various players and enlarge their involvement when editing reports and analysis (see de Bruijn & Leijten, 2007; Kornov & Thissen, 2000; Priemus & van Wee, 2013).

3.4.2 Evaluation methods issue Data and info can be structured using the different tools available and often mandatory, in the front-end implementation phases of urban projects. Multi-criteria analysis (MCA) is probably the evaluation method mostly used on the strategical level, when the project is at the early stages and the effects still descriptive (Bristow & Nellthorp, 2000). This tool makes projects comparable on the base of many factors so that they can be ranked therefore can be said that MCA is making the decision rather than supporting the decision- maker it (Grant-Muller, MacKie, Nellthorp, & Pearman, 2001). The cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is used mostly for “go” or “no-go” decisions rather than selecting among projects (Annema, Frenken, Koopmans, & Kroesen, 2016; Mouter, Annema, & van Wee, 2013; Nyborg, 1996, 1998). Other common tools are the environmental impact assessment (EIA), social impact assessment (SIA), risk analysis, which are mostly used as a simple check in order to verify that the project complies with certain standards (Petts, 2009). Even though each of them represents a valuable support, they all have different limitations, which can affect the outcome of the decisional process (see Beukers, Bertolini, & Te Brömmelstroet, 2012; Mackie & Preston, 1998; Mackie, Worsley, & Eliasson, 2014; Petts, 2009; van Wee, 2012).

In practice, although afflicted by many limitations CBA is still one of the most widely used and appreciated tool (see section 1.2). CBA is often not considered a useful tool for strategical purposes, in fact, Norwegian politicians did not consider it decisive when it comes to ranking projects (Nyborg, 1996, 1998). Similarly, Dutch politicians although positive towards the use of CBA, showed to appreciate the method mostly for go/no-go decisions regarding a project, rather than for ranking different ones (Mouter, 2017; Mouter et al., 2013), and when it comes to transport policies, they expressed a preference for appraisal tools that shows clearly which are the political trade-off necessary in implementing a project (Annema et al., 2015). Other limitations regard the strategic use of data that makes this method being perceived as not transparent, not always complete neither impartial. Therefore, the cost-benefit analysis can itself be used as a strategic instrument to promote a certain project or to kill the political debate and hide trade-off (Flyvbjerg, 2007; Mouter, 2017; Mouter, Annema, & van Wee, 2015). Can be concluded that its rational use depends on the political environment (Mackie et al., 2014).

Not long ago qualitative analysis was still in use (see Bristow & Nellthorp, 2000; Odgaard et al., 2006). And, in 2008, Nilsson et al., showed in his research, that, although many sophisticated analytical tools were available and tested, politicians still appreciated qualitative and simplified analysis in policy-making. Seems legitimate, then, to speculate that treating case studies which were approved longer than ten years ago, not many advanced evaluation techniques were used.

To conclude, all the ex-ante appraisal tools show drawbacks and even basing decisions on data and information is often not sufficient for achieving a fully efficient decision making. Too many data would lead to a paralysis of the process, while their absence means irrational decisions; therefore are used appraisal methods as support. These tools one side helps to reach a more rational and socially efficient decision- making, presenting data in a structured way. On the other, they still leave space for debating and could be used as a strategic mean. Therefore seem legitimate to investigate which ex-ante appraisal tools were used, which role they had and how they addressed the effects of multifunctionality; in order to better understand to which extent the knowledge of these effects is used in the decision-making process.

47 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 4. The theoretical framework for future analysis

4.1 “Which are the main features and effects of Multifunctional Underground Projects?”

Answering this question was needed to defining what a multifunctional underground project (MUP) is and which effect would it bring after its implementation. Giving a sound definition of multifunctionality is fundamental for establishing which kind of projects can be included in the analysis. While researching the effects would provide the basis for further investigations and comparisons with factors addressed in the decision-making process and effects perceived ex-post. This process will be done in the next chapters.

Multifunctionality is defined, for the purposes of this research, as using a project as shared and common means to achieve multiple goals and interests rather than merely placing different functions together.

Hence, to study multifunctional underground structures, it is necessary to look at the different functions that the project includes besides at its interrelations with the surface and the surroundings. “Multifunctional underground structure” is, therefore, a definition that includes a wide range of different underground projects which serve more scopes and lead to various benefits. These MUPs can be expected to be found mostly in the urban context where the bond with the surface and the built environment is strong. Nevertheless, not all the underground infrastructures could be considered multifunctional.

No exact match of this definition was found in the existing literature, and therefore no rigorous description of the effects was available. Thus, the effects of multifunctionality, have been researched from 10 different literature references. The results would represent the base for understanding which are the effects we could expect later in the research.

The investigation showed that, in general, multifunctional underground infrastructures expected effects are related to the use of the underground space, but also to the intended use of the surface and to the relation of the project to the built environment (see Table 2-2, page 39). Therefore, the realised effects will vary case by case. Multifunctional underground projects are considered as valuable means to enhance sustainability and liveability of the cities; however, the use of underground space needs regulation and planning in order to avoid chaos and sub-optimal choices, especially considering that changes and reallocations are difficult and restoration of the initial situation impossible.

This literature review produced a list of 41 theoretical effects of multifunctionality, negative and positive which can be divided into three categories: sustainability, liveability, and other social effects. Additionally, they can be categorised into two types: permanent and temporary. The temporary effects are negative in their whole, while the permanent ones are mostly positive when the underground structure is compared with the corresponding above the ground, with substantial agreement among the different researchers. Two exceptions are the accessibility and psychophysical comfort of living in the underground space; these two negative factors can be turned positive if they are tackled with adequate technical solutions. Hence, temporary adverse effects and high construction costs, which anyway are dependent on many external factors and conditions, make multifunctional underground structures costly inefficient on the short term, while advantages in liveability and sustainability could give substantial benefits in the long run. This list, visible in Table 4-1, will form the framework used later in chapter 0 and 8. for comparisons with the considered effect (ex-ante) and the perceived one (ex-post) in practice.

48 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Table 4-1: List of effects

Permanent Temporary Use of natural resources (+) Energetic efficiency (+) Land consumption (surface) (+) Buffer space for floods/floods mitigation (+) Soil pollution and disturbance (-) Groundwater pollution (-) Air pollution (-) Air pollution and emissions (+) Water pollution (-) Sustainability Resilience and protection to external threats Soil pollution (-) (earthquakes, floods, fires, etc.) (+) Flora and fauna (-) Vulnerability to internal threats (-) Structure durability (+) Consumption underground resources (ground, water, geothermal) (-) Underground space reallocation and restoring the initial situation (-) Travel time (+) Noise (+) Vibration (+) Isolation against extreme weather conditions (+) Safety (traffic) (+) Safety (criminality) (-) Travel time (-) Liveability Accessibility of the structure (+/-) Cultural and archaeology (-) Psychophysical comfort (living/working underground) (-) Visual impact mitigation (+) Use of surface, continuous space use and surface accessibility (+) Use of surface for recreational activities (+) Fuel savings (€) (+) Implementation urban mobility policies (+) Construction costs (-) Maintenance costs (ordinary) (+) Repairing costs (extraordinary) (-) Risks of buildings in proximity Other societal Lighting and ventilation costs (-) (-) effects Geomaterials reuse (+) Income business and commerce Use of surface: (-)  Image of the city (+)  Real estate value (+)  Revenue from commerce, business and taxes (+)

This analysis strengthens the perception that the decisional process related to multifunctional underground projects (MPUs), due to their multi-purpose nature and due to the diversity of the possible realised effects, would involve a long list of actors and stakeholders with different interests and perceptions. However, this argument will be better explained in the next chapter.

4.2 “Which is a suitable theory for highlighting the relevant factors and the role of the appraisal tools in the practice of decision-making for MUPs?” 4.2.1 Framing decision-making practice Answering this question is necessary in order to obtain a set of assumption that would help to simplify the observations of the reality, thus the case studies, with a set of arbitrary assumptions. In this way, would also be possible to analyse the cases making comparisons among them and therefore find the relevant factors for

49 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci the final decision. In fact, the concepts and the model introduced in this chapter represent the theoretical framework of this research and will be used for analysing the multiple-case studies.

The literature analysis highlighted two different approaches to the decision-making: rational-analytical approach, which explains the decisional process as a step of chronological phases determined by a single- minded central actor, and actors network, which describes the decisional process as the outcome of the interactions among different actors all interconnected. Within this second approach there are four models available: the “phase model”, the “garbage can model”, the “stream model”, the “rounds model”. Each of them with its characteristics and peculiarities.

The actor's network approach is perceived as the most suitable for studying MUPs. Since “one cannot, of course, construct or fully appraise a theory of urban politics on the basis of any single-actor study” (Altshuler & Luberoff, 2003). In fact, MUPs involve many actors, all interrelated, which tries to influence the process according to their goals; as shown by briefly addressing the CA/T project.

Since the decision-making process of MUPs evolves not linearly but involves changes each time an actor leaves or enters the discussion table, the rounds model seems the one that can better explain these aspects. Essential concepts necessary to make the model functional for the purpose of this research are:

 Rounds, the stages of decision-making demarked by two crucial decisions;  Arenas, the discussion tables where a group of players meet for addressing a particular aspect of the problem;  Actors and strategies, each actor, is characterised by a particular power position (production, blocking or diffuse) and stance (proponent, opponent, fence sitter). These are central concept when looking into actors interdependencies and interactions, their ideas and goals would shape their strategy. Moreover, strategical moves may change the way how information and appraisal tools are handled;

4.2.2 Analysing the use of appraisal methods Data and information are the basis for the arriving at a rational and efficient final decision, however, not always there is agreement on their validity. Hence, they might lead to more discussion and debate. Nonetheless, data and information represent the basement upon which analytical tools are made. Thus it is important to look also at how information is used in the decision process. That means, to look at which appraisal tools are used, the role they play to understand better how the knowledge of the effects of multifunctionality is used.

In fact, as highlighted in the literature, there are different appraisal tools, each with its strengths and limitations, which can be used in different stages of the process. Although they help to make rational decisions, their validity is often debated, and their use leaves space for strategical purposes. Nonetheless, studies demonstrated that, due to the appraisal tools limitations, qualitative analysis is still appreciated and widely used in decision-making.

50 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci III. The Practice of Decision-Making

This section will present the review of the multiple-case decision-making process. Each case will be introduced and analysed according to the framework selected in the previous section; with the scope of highlighting the main factors determining a final decision in favour of MUPs. ______

51 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci

52 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 5. Analysing the multiple-case studies

The previous chapter has illustrated an overview of the decision-making theories, which will be applied to multiple-case studies in this chapter. The objective is to understand which are the drivers towards the implementation of a multifunctional underground project in the practice of decision-making and whether there are common patterns hidden behind it. As already explained in the introduction (see section 1.7) the multiple-case studies approach is retained valuable because it allows obtaining a full overview of the process by addressing cases with different features (Yin, 1994). Therefore, the aim of this chapter is answering to the research sub-question number 3:

“What relevant common factors can be highlighted in the practice of decision-making for MUPs and what is the role of the appraisal tools?”

In order to arrive at a satisfactory answer, this chapter will, one by one: introduce main features and stories of the six case studies, therefore provide an analysis of decision-making process based on the model introduced in section 3.3. This first investigation is be based on the desk research and interviews with the main actors, as explained in the methodology (see 1.8). Consequently, the outcome of this chapter is an analysis aimed to highlight which are the common factors and replication logics encountered in the practice of decision-making of this sample.

5.1 Case study selection and data gathering The case studies have been already briefly illustrated in the introduction, they all represent multifunctional underground examples as they can combine goals of the functions placed both under and above the ground, in a way that one reinforces the other. However, the sample is also various, in fact, of six cases, three are internationals and three Dutch, there is variety regarding dimensions (from €30 million the smallest to $15 billion the biggest) and functions hosted. An overview of the sample is proposed in the following scheme (Table 5-1):

Table 5-1: Multiple-case studies overview

Section Case Location Costs Functions Central Artery tunnel  Highway 5.2 Boston, USA $15 billion Or “Big Dig”  Park and recreational  Parking 5.3 Post Office Square Boston, USA $75 million  Water storage  Park and recreational  Parking 5.4 Lungomare di Riccione Riccione, Italy €50 million  Recreational  Parking Enschede, 5.5 Van Heekgarage €56 million  Social life and shopping Netherlands enhancement €700 million  Highway Schiedam, 5.6 A4, Kethel Tunnel (highway and  Parking Netherlands other facilities)  Sport and recreational Den Haag,  Tram rail 5.7 Tram Tunnel, Het Souterrain €234 million Netherlands  Parking

Data gathering methods for these cases were desk research and interviews. The first information was gathered is the desk research, investigating existing literature (policy notes, documents, books, journals and newspapers), available on the web, using relevant keywords in the most common research engines. Other 53 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci sources were the official websites (public administration, governmental organisations, cooperative and construction companies, etc.) and physical archives of public administrations and organisations when documents online were not sufficient. This phase of desk research was necessary, especially for the reconstruction of timeline, stages and actors; thus, it allowed the researcher to make first assumption and hypothesis regarding the process.

The information obtained via desk research was also integrated with the results of the interviews of actors involved. The first list of respondents tried to include at least one respondent for each actor, reflecting the whole range of point of views and interests involved (see Appendix B: Actors and possible respondents). However, not all of them answered positively to the invite. Therefore the list is reduced to the one showed in Table 5-2: List of respondents. Needs to be reminded that, in order to build a relationship of trust with a respondent, the interviews were kept anonymous; thus it is reported just the actor that the person represented except for whom explicitly agreed on using his name.

Table 5-2: List of respondents

Project Respondent Actor 1 Government of Massachusetts Big Dig 2 Artery Business Committee 3 Architecture contractor 4 Friends of Post Office Square 5 Friends of Post Office Square Post Office Square 6 Friends of Post Office Square 7 The Beacon Companies 8 Architecture contractor 9 Daniele Imola Mayor of Riccione 1999-2008 10 Dep. Urban Development and public works, Riccione 11 Hotel owners association Lungomare di Riccione 12 Beach Venues owners association 13 Beach Venues owners association 14 Contractor 15 Contractor 16 Municipality of Enschede Van Heek Garage 17 Municipality of Enschede 18 Municipality of Schiedam Kethel Tunnel A4 19 Rijkswaterstaat 20 Vlaardingen residents Tram Tunnel No interviews Based on Buisman (2017) and Leijten (2017) Thesis

As visible the number of interviews for each case is variable, logically this implies consequences on the analysis robustness. The promenade of Riccione was the case where the largest number of actors has been interviewed, almost representing the whole range of groups that participated in the process. Hence, it can be considered the most robust case (also for this reason it has been selected as the in-depth single case study). 54 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci For the Post Office square the number of respondents was satisfactory, but, the variety of perspective is lacking. Regarding the CA/T Project, 3 were the responses that could be collected. Therefore the robustness of the analysis was lower, however, but it was possible to balance thanks to the higher amount of literature available.

The number of interviews conducted for the Van Heekgarage and the A4 Kethel Tunnel are limited, two for the first, three the second. For this reason, the robustness of the analysis for these cases might be limited.

The Tram Tunnel of Den Hague was not backed by additional information, in fact, due to the difficulties of finding literature and respondents for this case, its analysis if entirely based on the work of Buisman (2017) and (Leijten, 2017). Therefore, should be considered limitations due to the different focus and objective of these sources. Thus some arguments might have been not touched by the other researchers, although addressed practically.

Once all the information regarding the cases has been collected, they have been analysed according to the model presented in section 3.3.2; therefore were highlighted rounds, arenas, actors and strategies. A critical decision, meaning a choice that was retained relevant for the final outcome according to the judgement of the researcher, demarks the rounds. Therefore, the critical decisions were arbitrarily fixed and represented the end of a round and the beginning of a new one. Whether, within one round there were different issues that were discussed in different places and moments, by different sets of players, then the round was divided into arenas. The analysis addressed the actors and their attitude, power and resources, so that can be better understood their strategy. Moreover, the analysis tried to highlight the role of data and appraisal tools and used the actors made of it during the process.

5.2 Central Artery/Tunnel Project (CA/T) or “Boston Big Dig” 5.2.1 Description and storyline The central artery tunnel (CA/T), mostly known by its unofficial name the “Boston Big Dig” is a mega- project which regards the replacement of the old elevated urban motorway, the I-93 which was running from Logan International Airport to the city centre, with a new underground motorway. The surface instead has been kept mostly free, with parks and some urban installations which has established a new landscape for the city, removing the barrier created by the old elevated highway, opening up the views of buildings that were once overlooking a congested highway while now have a park in front of their doors as visible in Figure 6. (“Boston, beyond the Big Dig,” 2002; Flint, 2015; Gelinas, 2007).

The project also included the extension of the I-90, constructing a new route between the airport and downtown, using a tunnel under the Boston Harbour, and the replacement of the bridge on the Charles River, on the north-west side of Boston Downtown. Moreover, a large package of various mitigation measures (1100) such as constructing swimming pools, improving the water quality of Charles River, building new ice-skating ring etc. were included in the plan. However, for the scope of the research, the analysis will focus mostly on the depression of Central Artery (I-93), a tunnel stretch of 5,6km. Thanks to this project, 40 acres of land have been created on the surface of Boston, the city, in collaboration with the community, decided to preserve 75% (30 acres) as open space and parks (the Rose Kennedy Greenway) and to allow 25% (10 acres) for modest development of housing, retail and commercial spaces (“Boston, beyond the Big Dig,” 2002, “Massachusetts Department of Transportation,” 2017; Huges, 1998; NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, n.d.; Tajima, 2003).

55 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Figure 6: Boston before and after CA/T Project

Therefore, although this project provides only one function in the underground, it can be considered an example of multifunctionality according to the definition given in this thesis (see figure Figure 7)

Figure 7: Multifunctionality in CA/T Project

The decision-making process for building this infrastructure started in the 30’s when the city needed to equip itself with new infrastructures for the growing vehicular traffic. The idea of building underground was mentioned for the first time but rejected in favour of the construction of an elevated highway. However, already during the development of the elevated motorway, the public opinion realised that the impact it would have on the city and its liveability. Consequentially after a few years arrived a new proposal, the underground solutions emerged as preferred and, not without problems, was finally built and completed already in the XI century (Gelinas, 2007; Huges, 1998; Leijten, 2017). The main steps in the history of this project are reported in Table 5-3: CA/T Project, Boston Big Dig Timeline. While for the full story, please refer to the Appendix C: Multiple-case studies presentation. 56 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Table 5-3: CA/T Project, Boston Big Dig Timeline

Boston Big Dig Timeline

During the meeting of the Boston city planning board, the idea of a vehicular subway is mentioned for 1920 the first time.

Change to the highway project of the Central Artery: the last section will be built underground and not 1954 on elevated.

1959 The elevated Central Artery is opened to traffic.

The Central Artery reaches the traffic saturation and is close to structural collapse, emerges the idea of 1969 replacing the infrastructure.

Frank Sargent, Governor of Massachusetts, put in charge the Boston Transportation Planning Review 1970 (BTPR) to develop a conceptual solution to the problem.

The report of the BTPR proposes the construction of an underground motorway. Sargent is more 1972 favourable towards a new special tunnel for buses and taxis between the airport and downtown. Dukakis, new governor of Massachusetts, appoints Salvucci as Secretary of Transportation. 1974 Salvucci begins the discussion with residents and stakeholders about possible effects of the projects and mitigations measures.

Presented the first environmental impact assessment report regarding the project of depressing the 1975 Central Artery.

Founding of Big Dig is inserted in a congressional blueprint for covering the costs to complete the 1976 Interstate Highway System. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) rejects the proposal.

1978 Edward King is elected Governor of Massachusetts.

Dukakis is re-elected, and Salvucci, appointed Secretary of transport, begins a new environmental 1982-1983 review process.

Massachusetts State present the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Report (FEIS/R) as a formal 1985 response to the rejection of FHWA; it is approved in the same year.

Bechtel and Parsons Brinckerhoff contracted as project manager contractor. 1986 The EIS is confronted and reviewed with public and stakeholders.

Reagan vetoes the bill for founding the CA/T; O’Neill and Ted Kennedy starts lobbying in the Congress 1987 for support

1988 Final design process underway. Exploratory archaeology digs begin.

Congress allocates 755$ million to the project; the approval has a conditional: acceptable balance of 1990 open space and real estate development areas must be created over the Big Dig.

State Secretary of Environmental Affairs approves downtown construction. The project-wide Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Report (FSEIS/R) received and formal approval from FHWA, mitigation measures are included as part of the construction plan 1991 Contracts begin to be advertised and awarded Construction starts on Ted Williams Tunnel and South Boston Haul Road "Boston 2000" plan by the BRA and Massachusetts Highway Department designates development or open space future for all parcels, the project is accepted by the State Secretary of Environmental Affairs

57 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 5.2.2 Decision making The decision-making process of the CA/T project can be framed according to the model selected in the previous chapter. Therefore, is this section, the principal rounds and arenas that emerged from the study of literature are illustrated.

Round I 1930-1949

The idea of equipping the city of Boston with a motorway suitable for the transit of modern vehicular traffic appeared on the agenda of the city council. The idea of building a subterranean motorway was mentioned for the first time. However, it was judged that this option “would interfere with sewage systems and rapid transit subways” therefore was decided to implement an elevated motorway. Although, it was recognised that it “would hurt some residents’ quality of life”. Due to the great depression and second world war, the process slowed down, but in 1949 the construction of the elevated central artery began (Gelinas, 2007).

Round II 1954

During the construction of the Central Artery people began experiencing and understanding the impact of the structure over citizens life, thanks to the initiative of John Volpe and the design Cranston Rogers was decided that the last stretch of the highway will be built underground (Duvergne Smith, 2013; Office of Technology Assessment, 1976).

Round III 1954-1972

After the construction completion, the problem of structural and traffic capacities of the central artery and impact of liveability of this and other urban motorways started. By the end of the 60’s, the BTPR was appointed by Governor Sargent with the scope of elaborating and proposing solutions for solving the traffic problem, after putting a moratorium on the highway construction. While among local communities Fred Salvucci (MIT researchers and activists against the elevated artery) and Bill Raynolds (highway contractor) elaborated the idea of depressing the highway. This idea appeared in the BTPR report of ’72, however, Governor Sargent did not approve it, but preferred the construction of a special purpose tunnel under the harbour, linking downtown to Logan International (Bearfield & Dubnick, 2009; Danigelis, 2004; Huges, 1998; NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, n.d.; Office of Technology Assessment, 1976).

Two arenas can be highlighted in this round:

 Liveability arena: this arena involved mostly local authorities and group that recognised the negative effects of the elevated central artery and of traffic on Boston life. The conclusions of this arena were the decision of Boston Mayor White to withdraw the support to the South End By-pass. Moreover, this influenced Governor Sargent to block the implementation of new motorways and reassess the traffic situation. Among the activists against the elevated highway started to be particularly active Frederick Salvucci, MIT professor and transportation advisor to Mayor White whom, together with Reynolds, conceptualised the underground motorway project.  Traffic arena: on the state level the governor seemed more concerned by the traffic congestion. Therefore he decided to progress with the idea of building a new link downtown-airport. However, this arena received the influence of locals in two ways: (i) the pressure to the governor for the moratorium against new highways and (ii) the idea of Salvucci and Raynolds (in this round they were the expression of the local communities willing) of depressing the central artery was included in the BTPR report

58 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Round IV 1972-1976

The discussion about what would have been the better solution for traffic problem continued. The idea of Sargent did not gain support, and later, the highway depression emerged as a favourite of Governor Dukakis and local groups. The idea, in the form of EIS report, was also proposed in the Congress for obtaining federal financing, the project inserted on a congressional blueprint but rejected by FHWA. (Bearfield & Dubnick, 2009; Huges, 1998; NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, n.d.)

In this round 3 different arenas can be highlighted:

 Environmental impact and traffic: on local a state level the players seemed concerned about improving the traffic situation and liveability of Boston city centre, from this arena, emerged as a conclusion the project of depressing the central artery. The citizens approved this idea, and Fred Salvucci was able to convince Governor Dukakis saying that the operation could have been combined with a railway, without displacing residents and business, while enhancing the economy of the city. However, the idea did not gain the consensus of some business groups more interested in a faster connection to the airport.  Financing: the project, too big for local finance was brought to the attention of the Congress and insert in a Blueprint for financing interstate infrastructures, thanks to the mediation of senator O’Neill.  FHWA: the Federal Highway Administration is an agency within the US Department of Transportation, its role is to provide general independent oversight of the projects. However, based on the base of its judgement this organisation could stop the project or approve it and disclose the finances, therefore, to a certain extent, it can be considered an arena of the decision-making process. In this arena, the EIS was rejected on the base of various problems, such as business and houses to relocate (97), risks of the operations, public parking lots that were going to disappear, but mostly the cost-benefit ratio was considered too low to justify national funding.

Round V 1976-1985

After the rejection of FHWA, the process slowed down, also due to the election of Edward King as governor, actor contrary to the project, but favourable to a new tunnel between the airport and the city centre and a new highway in the East Boston. However, he was opposed by local activists and residents who believe it would divide the neighbourhood. Later, with the re-election of Dukakis depressing the artery was re-discussed, leading to the end of the round, with the conceptualisation of a new project, the Central Artery and Tunnel (CA/T). This new plan included the depression of the central artery and the construction of a tunnel under the harbour; it broadened the consensus to local authorities, citizens and business groups, while giving to the project more importance on the national level, therefore eligible for federal funds. Consequently, the related Final Environmental Impact Statement Report (FEIS/R) was presented to the FHWA. (Bearfield & Dubnick, 2009; Danigelis, 2004; Gelinas, 2007; Huges, 1998; Leijten, 2017; NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, n.d.; Smith, 1979).

Round VI 1985-1987

With the editing of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS/R) was shaped the CA/T Project and it started to be discussed by FHWA, by locals and within the Congress. In spite of the favourable opinion of the first two groups, the round ended with President Reagan disliking the idea and vetoing the project financing (Bearfield & Dubnick, 2009; Gelinas, 2007; Huges, 1998; NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, n.d.). 59 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci The three arenas were:

 FHWA: holding valid the assumption already made for this arena in round III. This area took place in 1985 with the presentation of the FEIS/R, which included a better cost-benefit ratio compared to the one presented in 1976 and its approval by the organisation.  Environmental impact and liveability: this arena involved the state government, decision-making initiator and the local groups. This arena will be continuously held, till the project construction, in fact, the project went through the revision of numerous and various interest groups. The outcome was the approval of different mitigation measures, including avoiding traffic and services disruption during construction, minimising people and business displacement, reuse of free space created burying the central artery. This outcome helped the state to gain the consensus of all the local groups.  Financing: once again the project financing arena took place in the Congress. Even though the other arenas gave positive outcomes to the project in this one, the president used his power and vetoed the project.

Round VII 1987-1991

The presidential veto did not stop the process, in fact, the lobbying activity of Ted Kennedy and Tip O’Neill overturned it, in the same year. The decisional process rapidly restarted and ended with the beginning of the construction works, upon the inclusion of mitigation measures and proper re-use of the free space above the central artery (Bearfield & Dubnick, 2009; Gelinas, 2007; NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, n.d.).

Also, in this case, the arenas were 3:

 Financing: the project financing area was again held in the Congress, after the presidential veto the project promoters were able to overrun it. This can be considered the outcome of political lobbying by Congress members. However, should be mentioned that two executives members of Bechtel, already awarded as project manager contractor, were also heads of the Department of State and Department of Defence during Reagan’s administration. Therefore the company was capable of lobbying in favour of the CA/T project. Nevertheless, the discussion continued in the Congress and on the base of the new report $755 million was allocated to the project in 1991, holding the condition the condition of applying different mitigation measures, in particular, reusing the space above the central artery with a right balance between open space and building development.  Environmental Impact and Liveability: also in this round the local actors were more concerned about the project impact on the environment, and on their life, the outcome of this arena was the inclusion of several mitigation measures in the project design and the design of future open spaces above the central artery tunnel.

Needs to be mentioned that this arena became particularly harsh for the project initiators when Prof. Salvucci chose the scheme Z as a solution for crossing the Charles River, which was firmly disliked by the local players for aesthetical reasons. Contemporaneously to a new political environment, this event generated a series of discussions and involved many new actors. The decision-making process regarding this section emerged from the literature review as particularly complex and articulated so that could be considered almost an independent process. However, a more in-depth analysis of this issue would lie outside the scope of this thesis, since it did not generate oppositions to burying the central artery. Thus, it would be simplified as part of the Environmental Impact and Liveability Arena, which produced as an outcome the implementation of a bridge across the river.

60 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci  FHWA: this organisation received a new and larger version of the FEIS/R, this report included the implementation of all the mitigation measures and was approved by the agency.

5.2.3 Actors analysis From the storyline and the “rounds” and “arenas” analysis of the CA/T Project emerge a list of actors with different features, perceptions, goals and interests. In this section will be presented a review of the main ones according to the three different power positions and interests categories. The main factors that would influence the actor strategy during the project decision making (see page 46). Resources are also important for an actor because from his resources can be derived his power of steering the process according to his volunteer. Therefore the actors of Boston Big Dig can be classified according to three categories of resources (high, medium and low).

To give a sharp overview of the actor analysis, it has been resumed in the following table:

Table 5-4: CA/T Project, Boston Big Dig Actors Analysis

Production Power position Blocking Power Position Diffuse Power Position

Gov. John A. Volpe (R.II); Bill Reynolds (R.III); Frederik Salvucci; Local groups of citizens Gov. Dukakis (R.V); Proponents (R.III and IV); Tip O’Neill &

Ted Kennedy (R.IV-VI-VII); Bechtel and Parsons Brinckerhoff (R. VI-VII);

Gov. Frank Sargent (R III); Opponents Gov. Edward King (R.V); Local groups of Business (R.IV); President Ronald Reagan (R.VI);

Local groups of Business (R.III); BTPR Committee (R.III); Fence Local groups, citizens and Gov. Dukakis (Beginning of R.IV); Mayor White (R.III): Sitters business (R.V-VI-VII); Congress; FHWA;

The State of Massachusetts played a focal role in the decision making, in fact, the highways which are properties of the state and were managed by the department of transportation through the Turnpike Authority. Therefore, any actor operating within this organisation can be considered holding production power position, since they have the opportunity of making a positive contribution to the design and the founding. Furthermore, their level of resources can be considered high, since they have good lobbying possibilities in the Congress, while they can make funds available. However, within the state, not all the players maintained the same position, in fact, it changed accordingly to the governor’s perceptions and preferences.

The first governor to understand the importance of the underground construction was John A. Volpe. He decided to deviate the route of the last stretch of the I90 elevated highway underground, appointing Cranston Rogers to develop tunnel design. Reasons why he is cited as a proponent.

The next governor, Frank Sargent, can be considered and opponents of the project. Even if he recognised the traffic problem of Boston, he was favourable to the construction of a new tunnel under the harbour linking

61 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci the city centre to the airport for vehicles for special purposes but contrary to move the Central Artery underground. Similar was the position of Edward King, who succeeded the first Dukakis administration, putting on hold the central artery depression project and promoting more the possibility of a third and fourth tunnel.

Micheal Dukakis, governor twice, after Sargent and after King, played an essential role in the decision making. However, he changed its position during the process. At the beginning of its first mandate, Dukakis acknowledged the traffic problem, still being personally averse to the promotion transportations by private vehicles, hence, adverse to highways construction (as confirmed by respondent 1). Afterwards, he became one of the biggest promoters, thanks to the influence of his secretary of transportation Frederick Salvucci which proposed to connect the underground highway with the railway.

Frederick Salvucci is the editor and more significant promoter of the CA/T project; his action started in round III, when, together with Reynolds, conceptualised the first idea of depressing the artery as part of the BTPR report. Later he convinced Dukakis of the project benefits, and during the whole process, he was able to connect the interests of local groups (constructors, environmentalist, citizens communities traders etc.) with the project. Also conceptualising the CA/T and including more mitigation measures. For these reasons, Salvucci represents the actor that liked the interests of small and bigger groups, from locals to Congress politicians. Therefore he can be considered a critical actor, owing important resources thanks to his position, technical knowledge and lobbying capabilities.

Ronal Reagan, due to its position of president, is an outstanding actor and was clearly an opponent of this “highway beautification project” as he called it (Gelinas, 2007). However, his strategy based just on the exercise of power did not produce good results, since the veto was rapidly overrun thanks to the lobbying exercise of Kennedy and O’Neill.

These last two were main advocates of the project in the Congress. Thanks to their position high resources, Kenedy and O’Neill, were able to broaden the project consensus to influential Democrats (Joe Makley and Jhon Kerry for example) and Republicans (John Volpe and Silvio Conte for instance). The finances of the whole project depended on the Congress decision; therefore the Congress itself can be considered an actor with high resources. However, it is not clear how it was divided and which input could arrive from it, therefore is believed to hold a diffuse power position and being a “fence sitter” that means keeping its options open.

The BTPR and the FHWA were two authorities in charge of assessing the feasibility of the project in a rational way. Therefore their interest in the decision-making process should be neutral. In reality, they most likely were influenced by the perception of the people who composed the organisation and by the links they had with external actors; for this reasons, they are labelled as “fence sitters”. The BTPR can be considered in a diffuse power position since it could make active contributions, but it is not clear in which direction. While the FHWA can be considered holding blocking power because its contributions were limited to suggestions. In both cases, their resources level can be considered medium since the BTPR had the technical knowledge to shape the project while the Federal Highway Administration could suggest a modification. Even if formally was the FHWA to transfer the funding for the project, it represented the channel through where the money flows from the central government to the project.

Similar is the position of the Boston mayor, White; he could make some funds available and connect local groups to the interests of the state and Congress, therefore had a medium level of resources available, nevertheless, in the analysis, the role of the Mayor appeared secondary.

Bechtel and Parsons Brinckerhoff hold a high stake in the realisation of the project since it was the principal one commissioned to these companies. For this interest, and for its possibility of implementing technical 62 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci modifications, this contractor is considered a promoter with production power. However, it entered the decision-making just in a late stage, therefore can be viewed as a secondary actor for the scope of this analysis. However, both companies were two contractors particularly active in the field of public works and holding strong connections with the central government. For example, two executive members were also covering significant roles in the Department of State and Department of Defence during Reagan’s administration. Thus conferred to the consortium a strong lobbying power.

The local groups, both, citizens and business, were represented by many small associations. Today the main ones still exist and are the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy, for the citizens, and the “Allston-Brighton TMA”, former “A Better City”, former Artery Business Committee, for the business people. They demonstrated to have strong blocking power, therefore cover an important role in the decision- making process; while their interest position was variable, as also confirmed by Turner (2003). The citizens agreed on the harmful effects of the elevated highway and traffic congestion over liveability and sustainability of the city, therefore agreed on the finding a solution. Still, they maintained a fence sitter position, trying to obtain the most they could get in terms of mitigation measures, like new green spaces etc. The business group were less interested in sustainability and liveability but agreed on reducing the traffic problem. They were initially against the depression of the artery in favour the new link to Logan Int.; so after taking the opponent's side, they switched to the fence sitter trying to defend the interest of their business. Among the mentioned actors, these groups were the ones who, due to their blocking power, played a decisive role in the process despite limited resources. Their power position is derived from their limited possibilities of modifying the project, still representing the willing of the population. Therefore they could make demonstrations against the project or exercise pressure and influence on politicians in different ways trying to stop it. For this purpose needs to be reminded that Salvucci conceptualised the CA/T to link the goals of both groups and to obtain their support.

The relations among the main actors are showed in the following network map (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Actor’s Network map, CA/T Project 63 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 5.2.4 Considerations on the CA/T Project From the study of the CA/T Project can be already made some relevant considerations regarding the decision-making of the MUPs:

 Confirmation of the capriciousness and endlessly of the process (see de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Teisman, 2000);  Single individuals who committed to the project played a significant role (Fred Salvucci);  Obtaining the agreement with the multitude of actors involved was a central strategy of the promoters and factor that shaped the project;  Building a MUPs was not a driver but a mean for achieving consensus;  The principal appraisal method used was the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), used as base for discussion with the interest groups;

The Big Dig project appeared as a suitable example of a decision-making process capricious and without an end since decision that may look definitive can be discussed again later in time (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Teisman, 2000). In fact, the first time the underground option was mentioned was already in the 30’s; it was rejected, apparently because it would interfere with sewage and other underground systems. In 1954 Gov. Volpe, during the elevated highway construction decided to build the last stretch underground, apparently because he understood the impact on the liveability of the city.

Although would be interesting to discover more about these first steps of the process, they were left aside. Firstly for practical reasons, due to the distance in time, it is difficult to find related documents and people involved to interview. Secondly, because, again considering the distance in time, it is legitimate to retain the society of today and its core values changed substantially different for example, in the 30’s there was no sensibility about sustainability and environmental issues if compared to nowadays. Therefore, a deeper analysis of these rounds would not provide the insight necessary for the scope of this thesis.

This analysis, highlight a process seems centred more on the role of single individuals rather than power groups. Salvucci, in particular, appeared as a focal actor who conceptualised the project and resulted particularly committed to it (as confirmed by the interviews 1, 2 and 3). Moreover, independently from the membership to a specific political party, actors showed to be proponents or opponents. This fact could be linked to the fact that when a politician engages in a project of this scale, often, he also becomes emotionally involved and takes it as the focal point of his campaign (Priemus, 2010). More in detail, not all the Democratic party agreed on the project (Sargent and King dislike the idea) however, within the party Dukakis was a strong proponent which apparently created a coalition with Kennedy and O’Neill in the Congress and Salvucci on the technical side and stakeholders’ involvement, (other exponent of the same party) this alliance could, therefore, act on the different arenas. On the opponents side, seems that there were no clear, strong coalitions and it was left to the influence of single powerful actors, such as the governors and President Reagan.

Building underground came as a solution to the problem of traffic, unify the waterfront and minimise the demolition of existing properties (as also confirmed in the interviews 1, 2 and 3). The whole city transportation plan needed to be revised, the artery was getting close to the structural collapse and could not allocate the increasing traffic volume, while the I-93 was not giving the right connection to harbour and airport. Depressing the artery emerged as the best solution because the artery demonstrated immediately after its construction to have adverse effects on the city, creating a barrier and letting some neighbours like the waterfront isolated and in bad condition (respondent 1, 2 and 3), the respondent 2 called that area “decadent”. People started to rally against new urban highways already in the 60’s so the governor called for the BRTP.

64 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci The fact the final design of the project the CA/T, so central artery plus new tunnel under the harbour, was the result of a strategy of the coalition Salvucci-Dukakis that with this new concept could match the interests and therefore gain the consensus of all the local groups, business and citizens (also confirmed by the respondents 2 and 3). Indeed, these local groups, even though had limited resources appeared as decisive for the outcome of the process and played a major role, as also mentioned by the respondents 2 and 3, their support was a critical factor in favour of the project promoters.

The theme of liveability played a prominent role since the beginning, in fact, as mentioned in the literature and from the respondent 3, the engineers who worked on the elevated artery understand almost immediately its bad impact. Moreover, liveability was relevant for depressing the highway, in the sense of removing visual intrusion, eliminating noise, limiting displacement of people, these are the reasons that made depressing the artery looking like the only feasible option. Liveability was important also with regard to the use of the surface, I fact, was decided to leave it free as recreational space for obtaining the support from the interest groups of citizens (respondent 3). However, many mitigation measures have been bargained in order to get this political support. Salvucci, as a promoter of the project and opponent to the elevated highway, was perfectly aware of these issues since he experienced on his family. Moreover, as mentioned by the respondent 3 and in the literature (see Leijten, 2017) the possibility of using “slurry walls” or diaphragm wall for the construction helped in this sense allowing to construct the tunnel with minimum disruptions of traffic and demolitions.

Therefore can be concluded that multifunctionality played a role in the sense that was a mean for reaching the consensus necessary to implement the project, but not a driver of the project itself. The effects of multifunctionality were therefore addressed, but this point will be better explained in the next chapter.

The importance of people consensus and effects of multifunctionality is also reflected in the values that the authorities gave to the public meeting and discussion over the EIS they had with interest groups. The EIS was indeed a meaningful instrument to reach the censuses by using it as base for the mediation about the mitigation measures, such as hiding with proper architectural solution the ventilation systems of the tunnel, and the use of land above the tunnel, while citizens desired open spaces business groups were more in favour of developing new estates. Therefore the EIS, the only appraisal method used, was a valuable tool, which according to the respondents (2 and 3) have been used properly and truthfully. However, it is not clear to which extent the effects of multifunctionality were important in all the arenas. In fact, it is not clear how these effects were used in the financing arena and the FHWA. Although the same EIS have been presented in all the arenas, the Parliament, discussing the finances, had probably different views about the advantages respect to the local actors. The same is valid for FHWA, which reject the project one on the base of the cost- benefit ratio, since these actors were evaluating the importance of the project on the national scale and not on the local.

65 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 5.3 Post Office Square Boston 5.3.1 Description and storyline The Post Office Square is one of the oldest centres of social life in the Boston. Currently, it represents the middle of the financial district, and it is named after the US post office building erected on that site in the 19th century. It changed aspect many times during its life, and current shape is due to the real estate development from the beginning of the 20th century when the area was becoming the city financial centre. After the construction of a four floors parking lot, in 1954, thanks to the willing of a group of real estate investors, in the 80’s the area has been redeveloped. The ugly and degraded structure has been replaced by a seven floors underground garage and one of the most appreciated urban parks on its surface as visible in Figure 9 (Harnik, 1997; Norman B. Leventhal Park, 2016).

The overview of the project history is visible in Table 5-5: Boston Post Office Square Timeline, while the full story is reported in Appendix C: Multiple-case studies presentation

Figure 9: Boston Post Office Square before and after redevelopment

The underground garage opened in 1990 and can host up to 1400 vehicles for medium and short-term stays. The cars are allocated from the level -7 to the -2, while, level -1 is occupied by the lobby, toilets, car wash, car repairing, ATM, shoe shine stands and other facilities that make this venue a first quality garage. Moreover, to prevent floods the water from the 7th floor is pumped in well and used for the parking facilities saving a significant amount of drinking water. On the top of the garage, there is a public park, nowadays named after the promoter of the project “Norman B. Leventhal Park”.

This area of 1,7 acres offers a great recreational space for the workers of the financial district and other citizens, with bushes, flowers, trees, fountains, benches. It is also present a café and is offered a series of services for improving the quality of the permanence, like book rental, seat cushions, free Wi-Fi, yoga and gymnastic lessons, various events. The safety of the area is assured by a 24h keeping service and security cameras under and above the ground. This project had a profound impact on lives in Boston’s financial district, proven by the number of daily visitors and by the fact that the view over the Norman Leventhal Park represents a strength for real estates, while before, these buildings moved their main entrances from the square to secondary streets. Also, the number of parking spaces has been increased from 950 to 1400 (Edelenbos, van der Hoeven, & van der Krogt, 1998; Harnik, 1997; Norman B. Leventhal Park, 2016a; Padjen, 2014; Urban Land Institute, 1994; Wener & Farbstein, 1993).

66 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci These particular features make this project a right example of MUP for this research, as visible in Figure 10

Figure 10: Multifunctionality in Boston Post Office Square Redevelopment Plan

This plan is the outcome of public-private partnership, in fact, the plot is property of the municipality, but conceptualisation, financing and construction of the structure were promoted by the “Friends of Post Office Square” a group created by the initiative of Norman Leventhal and composed by 20 members, all investors with high stakes in the area and willing to improve its quality. The structure is still managed by the same organisation which after paying operating costs and loan interests, are redirected to the municipality the profits of the operation (Harnik, 1997; Norman B. Leventhal Park, 2016; Padjen, 2014; Urban Land Institute, 1994; Wener & Farbstein, 1993).

67 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Table 5-5: Boston Post Office Square Timeline

Boston Post Office Square Timeline

Beginning of the process that would lead the area around the Post Office Square to become the financial 19th-20th district of Boston. Meanwhile, different towers are built around the square shaping it with its current century form. On the square, it is built the “Parking Garage Unit 3”, four floors parking facility. The park area is 1954 relegated to a small portion of the square, the Angell Memorial Park.

1970’s Significant renovation of the towers around the Post Office Square.

Norman B. Leventhal, owner of Beacon Corp, inaugurate the new Hotel Le Meridien. During the 1981 celebration the investor mention for the first time the idea of replacing the “Parking Garage Unit 3” which was in poor maintenance conditions.

1982 Norman B. Leventhal begins to discuss his idea with other investors with interests in the area.

Norman B. Leventhal and other 19 chief executive members from companies operating in near the square form the Friends of Post Office Square Trust (FPOS). 1983 This organisation presents a preliminary design for replacing the “Parking Garage Unit 3” with a more spacious underground garage and a public park on the ground level. Begins the bargaining procedure with the owner of the parking lot for resolving the lease of the land. The municipality approves the preliminary design, the conditions of the approval include the formation of a public-private partnership, where, the private party would be in charge of funding and the public would 1984 provide tax discount and lease of land for 40 years. Following the project approval business and investors group starts lobbying the city council and the BRA for building a new tower on the square.

1985 The Friends of Post Office Square Trust sells 450 shares of the project, raising $30 million.

The option of building a new tower on the site is officially rejected also thanks to the rally of the Boston Greenspace Alliance. 1987 The legal issue with the owner of the old facility is solved with a payoff of $6million. The agreement between city and developers is signed, the project approved and the first contractor awarded.

1988 Demolition of the Parking Garage Unit 3

1990 Completion of the new underground garage and starts of operations

1992 Opening to public of the Norman B. Leventhal Park

5.3.2 Decision-making The decision-making process of Post Office Square project can be framed according to the model selected in the previous chapter, therefore in this section are illustrated the principal rounds and the arenas that form them; that emerged from the study of literature and the interviews conducted.

In the 50’s the retails businesses began to migrate in the periphery of the city and according to the perception the municipality that phenomenon was due to a scarcity of parking spaces in the city centre. Thus the city

68 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci council agreed on leasing the plot of land of the Post Office Square for 40 years to a local investor, Tom Sawyer, who built on it a four floors parking lot “Parking Garage Unit 3” (Harnik, 1997).

Round I 1954-1983

This round started with Boston City Council which issued the concession of building a parking garage on Post Office Square to Tom Sawyer. However, years after, the bad design of this structure was causing traffic congestions and the poor maintenance conditions made the area looking decadent and unsafe. This situation made people start thinking about replacing the structure; the first person with a vision and power to promote the idea was Norman Leventhal who started talking about it with the authorities other businessmen. Thus, together with other 20 members, he formed the Friend of Post Office Square with the scope of redeveloping the area. The final decision, of this round, consists of the formal presentation to the municipality of the idea of the Friends of Post Office Square of modernising the area by replacing the garage with an underground one for 1200 or 1400 cars and building a public park on the top of that (Harnik, 1997; Minot DeBlois & Maddison Inc., 1983; Wener & Farbstein, 1993).

To a certain extent, the formation of Friends of Post Office Square could be seen as a critical decision that terminated one round and started a new one. But, as the respondents 4, 6, and 7 explained, Norman B. Leventhal was already advocating for redeveloping the square with a parking garage and open space, therefore, when he formed the “Friends” was to find help of people who shared is vision and interests. Hence, FPOS did not represent a discussion table has it might seem at first sight, but rather a mean to gain consensus for Mr Leventhal, so in this analysis, it is considered as an actor.

Round II 1984

The third round took place in the municipality, in this period the organisation valued the proposal from the FPOS and decided to accept it. However, among the conditions, the full financing would have been provided by the company through its equity, shares sales, and limited liabilities; while the municipality would have granted a tax exemption for 40 years. Moreover, at the end of the lease duration (40 years) the land and the structure would have returned to the full public ownership (Harnik, 1997; Mitchell, 1984; Ryan, 1984).

Round III 1984-1988

This round began with the approval of the preliminary project and ended with the formation of the public- private partnership between the FPOS Trust and the municipality of Boston for the redevelopment of the square. The contract provides that the income from running park and garage would be used for paying costs, taxes and the investment of the shares holders, any profit would be redirected to the municipality. This crucial decision led therefore to awarding the contractors and start the construction (City of Boston, 1985, 1986b; Harnik, 1997; Wener & Farbstein, 1993). However, before arriving at this stage decisions have been taken in different arenas:

 Municipality: Following the approval of the preliminary project the discussion in the city council was not over. Indeed, some councillors did not agree on the benefits of the plan and were considering the construction of a tower more profitable for both investors and city. This possibility attracted real estate developers who proposed the construction of a new 70 floors tower with full glass structure that would have cast no shadow; matching the interest of the BRA who was concerned with the penetration of the sunlight in such a densely built district, and offering higher tax revenues to the city, if compared to the Friends’ proposal. However, the Friends of Post Office Square declared that would have further contributed in the future for developing and maintain other urban parks. Hence gained the support of the Boston Greenspace Alliance, which, also organising a

69 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci rally in the square, convinced the council to definitely accept the first proposal in 1987 (Respondent 4) (City of Boston, 1986a; Harnik, 1997).  Financing: To finance the project, the Trust had two possibilities: equity and debt. Thus, to raise money shares of the project have been sold starting from 1984. However, the investment expected return was regulated by the law for the “eminent domain” (8%) and was relatively low, order to increase the attractiveness has part of the deal has been added the long-term right to rent a monthly parking space at the prevailing monthly rate. This opportunity was considered interesting due to the need for parking in the district. In total, the equity reached the $30 million, while $48,5 million was provided with a ten years loan issued by the Bank of New England in 1988 (respondent 4, 5 and 7) (Harnik, 1997).  Land acquisition: The interests of the of the Friends of Post Office Square contrasted the ones of Tom Sawyer, owner of the Parking Garage Number 3. The owner had on his side a leasing contract for the land that was going to expire in 1994, besides that, the parking, in spite of the bad maintenance was providing high profits. Therefore Sawyer was not willing to accept any offer for selling of its contract. Therefore the FPOS decided to go through legal ways, appealing to the fact that the decadent conditions of the garage represented a danger to the community, while their initiative was a civic project beneficial for the community. Therefore the FPOS could appeal to the “eminent domain” (for this reason the return on the investment was limited to 8%) and Sawyer, after appealing to Supreme Court accepted an offer of $6million for terminating his contract in 1987(City of Boston, 1987; Harnik, 1997) (respondent 4).

5.3.3 Actors analysis As already happened in the study of CA/T project, from the analysis of the decision-making process of the project appears that different actors owned different features, perceptions, goals and interests. They are going to be presented in this section according to the three different power positions and stances; the main factors that would influence their strategies during the project decision making (see section c): Actors and Strategies). Since resources are also valuable, because can explain the capacity of steering the process, even in this case, the actors can be categorised according to three different levels of resources available.

In order to give a sharp overview of the actor analysis it has been resumed in the following table:

Table 5-6: Boston Post Office Square Actors Analysis

Production Power position Blocking Power Position Diffuse Power Position

Normal B. Leventhal; Boston Redevelopment Proponents Boston Greenspace Alliance; Friends of Post Office Square; Authority (BRA);

Real estate developers Tom Sawyer, First Franklin Opponents (unrelated to Boston); Company;

Greater Boston Real Estate Board; Fence Sitters Boston City Council; Boston Building Trades Union;

Norman B. Leventhal is the initiator of the process, real estate developer, owner of the Beacon Corp. and different buildings in the area. He held high stakes in its improvement, while being a very civic minded person (respondent 4, 6 and 7), therefore, he was the right person for raising the attention on the conditions of the old parking lot and promote the idea of replacing it with an underground garage beneath a public park 70 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci (respondent 4, 5, 7). His company was one of the most successful at the time, giving him economic resources and high influence towards business groups and public administrations, his power was also confirmed by the respondents 4, 6, 7. Thus Norman Leventhal is considered an actor with high resources. Despite his resources, Leventhal’s initiative was initially seen as impossible to realise due to legal aspects. Hence, it was necessary to obtain broad consensus (respondent 4). As seen from the story-line he started involving other actors with production power, such as the Mayor White and the other civic leaders, members of FPOS, and afterwards, the rest of the interest groups.

Friends of Post Office Square (FPOS) is the name of the organisation founded by Norman Leventhal with the scope of promoting his vision for the square, it was formed by a group of civic leaders, businessmen representatives of companies with his same stakes in the area of the Post Office Square thus interested in improving its quality. The project would have indirectly brought added value to their businesses and assets, but their main focus was to deliver a public asset (respondent 4). The group was formed by Fleet Bank, Olympia & York, NYNEX, Eaton Vance Management, Equitable Life Assurance Society, State Street Bank, Harvard Community Health Plan, and FMR Corporation (Fidelity Investments) and others. Due to the composition, this actor had an important level of resources in terms of lobbying power and funding. Forming this group represented the first step of Leventhal for enlarging the consensus. In a second moment, the Trust enlarged the approval by mediating with the Boston Greenspace Alliance, promising help in developing future projects for urban parks. When the consensus was broad enough, it has been possible for the FPOS to overcome legal problems, real estate developers concurrency and convince the Boston municipality about the public interest of the project (under Mayor Flynn) and accept it (interview 4, 5 and 6).

The Boston city council can be considered an actor with production power and high level of resources; they could propose modifications, new projects made finance available and moreover had the power of accepting and deny design proposals. In a first moment, the municipality seemed to keep a more favourable position, rapidly approving the preliminary plan and assessing that the parking garage was in degraded status, thus clearing the way for ending the leasing contract with the First Franklin Corp. However, in the same moment, the municipality stated that would make no funds available, if not indirectly through tax exemption. Moreover, in a second moment, the City Council took a position closer to the “fence sitter”. In fact, the PA could not directly promote the interests of any private party; its duty was to look for an ideal situation where the benefits for the city would be maximised without damaging other players. For this reasons, they also valued proposals, like erecting a new skyscraper and mediated between the requests of the First Franklin Corp and Friends of Post Office Square.

The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), as part of the municipality of Boston, could make a relatively small contribution but could block the project by rejecting the proposal. Therefore they can be considered as having a diffuse power position. Like the city council, the BRA is a public organisation, therefore, should make the interests of the community without damaging private ones. However, this actor was mainly concerned with leaving more natural sunlight and open space in a dense area such as the financial district and actively advocated against the construction of a new tower, clearing the way to the FPOS (respondent 4). So, it can be mentioned as a proponent of the Post Office Square project, the only condition imposed was an explicit agreement where the Trust was renouncing to every claim on the air rights.

The Boston Greenspace Alliance was the most active among the interest groups; this organisation had the scope of promoting the urban green areas, an interest linkable to the one FPOS project, therefore, can be added to the proponents. This organisation appeared as not capable of making strong proposals, but, at the same time, their rally resulted very important for the outcome of the decisional process, this is considered a clear example of their blocking power. This action was decisive, despite limited resources compared to the other actors involved. Norman Leventhal secured their help by promising support for the development of

71 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci other urban parks and giving them a participative and controlling position during the whole decisional process and construction (respondent 4).

Frank Sawyer, was the owner of the First Franklin Corporation and the old parking garage and his interest were opposite the initiator Normal Leventhal. The company was making profits from running the garage and therefore were interested in maintaining the status quo. Although this player had the high level of resources and possibilities for creating a prepositive impact, he decided to defend his interest, trying to keep the land lease by raising legal issues and trying to mediate a position in the management of the new garage. For these reasons, Frank Sawyer and the First Franklin Corp. are considered opponents in a blocking power position.

The real estate developers were, in principals, opponents of Leventhal’s initiative, the parcel of land was particularly attractive for developing a new building, and they held production power because could promote different solutions. However, as explained by the respondent 4, among the members of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, which represented the local investors there was the conviction that the best outcome would have been personally investing in the parcel and obtain a profit. While the second best result was building a valuable civic project so that the whole financial district would have shared a part of the benefits and none one would be advantaged compared to others; Leventhal’s proposal was guaranteeing this outcome while he was the right person to make it happen. Hence, with a little lobbying effort, the local developers maintain a neutral position, thus are included in the fence sitters. The same interviewee (4), said that developers from outside Boston did not share this view and one of them, made an attempt of proposing the construction of a tower, which was promptly rejected by the BRA.

Again from the interview number 4, emerged the Boston Building Trades Union, an association of contractors, carpenters etc. maintained a similar line as the Greater Boston Real Estate Board. They saw in the FPOS proposal the second best outcome possible when it was clear that there was no possibility of building a more remunerative project they became supporters of FPOS. For this reason, they are included in the fence sitters, with production power. How the actors related within the network has been mapped and illustrated in the following scheme (Figure 11).

Figure 11: Actor’s Network map, Boston Post Office Square 72 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 5.3.4 Considerations on the Post Office Square Project From the study of the redevelopment project of the Post Office Square of Boston can be already made some relevant considerations regarding the decision-making of the MUPs:

 Confirmation of the decision-making as capricious and endless process (see de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Teisman, 2000);  Single individual who played a focal role (Norman B. Leventhal) who tried to expand his consensus needed for the implementation;  Indirectly the multifunctionality was immediately seen as a solution, starting from different interests to combine (accessibility, financial feasibility, beautification of the area;  The appraisal tools (CBA and EIA) were used as support, so advocating for the viability of the project;

The decisional process regarding the use of this square began far in the past, before 1954 when it was decided to build an elevated garage, also in this case a proof of how the decisional process can capricious and should not be considered concluded forever (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Teisman, 2000). However, for the purpose of this thesis is retained too demanding and out of scope analysis this period, so the focus will be on what happened later.

The decision of building an underground parking with a public park on the top emerges as the vision of the project promoter, Mr, Norman B. Leventhal, rather than the conclusion of discussions between different actors. As confirmed by the respondent 4, before Leventhal’s intervention, there was already some attention on eyesore garage by the people who lived the financial district; the same believed that a park would be the right destination for that parcel. The respondents (4 to 7), said that Leventhal was the first influential person who adopted the idea and firmly committed to promoting it. His concept was never questioned, if not for the attempt of his opponents to develop a new skyscraper, which was rapidly rejected by the BRA. After talking with the mayor White, the same Leventhal understood that order to accomplish his goal, his vision should be shared with a large portion of people. With this purpose, he involved other businessmen and civic leaders, the FPOS members, the environmental groups, and assured the neutrality of the possible opponents. Hence, the decisional process can also be seen as the process of Norman Leventhal to gain the political and economic support necessary to implement the project.

The idea of replacing the old garage was derived by its bad conditions, poorly maintained and dirty, it caused the people to perceive the square as a decadent degraded area. Moreover, the bad planning of the structure and placing of the ramps cause constant traffic jams in front of the building. As stated by the respondent 4 and 6, Leventhal was not the first to feel the need for change but was the first who had a clear implementation plan, in addition to civic stature, power and resources to overcome the difficulties. Before him, people already acknowledged that a park would have been the suitable destination for this parcel (Respondent 4).

In fact, the park represented a beautification of the whole area, the square once covered by an ugly building became lush urban green areas (respondents 4 to 8). After its completion, the main entrances of the surrounding buildings were relocated to face the new park (respondent 8). Hence, the park brought advantages to the FPOS increasing the value of their assets and to the community, in general, enhancing the liveability of the district. However, as explained (respondents 4 to 7), the economic benefit for the FPOS was never a declared goal of the project, the board members were probably aware of it, but were not interested in selling their assets (respondent 4). Can be deducted that, the public park was the focal point of the project for the social values it created. In fact, the FPOS placed high-level of attention and details in the requirements for the park design (respondent 8)

73 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci However, it was necessary to maintain the accessibility of the financial district by car, and the parking spaces were vital for this purpose (respondent 4). Although building just a park would have been cheaper the financial district needed more parking spaces and a loose of them would have been unacceptable (respondent 4). Moreover, thanks to the garage could have been assured a certain return to the investors (respondent 5, 6, 7).

Hence combining these factors, building an underground parking garage with a public green park on the rooftop emerged as a logical solution. In fact, this civic project which allowed to couple the interests of all the parties and gave to the FPOS and Mr Leventhal the power to overcome the legal problem related to the previous owner.

From these dynamics can be seen that this project perfectly addressed the multifunctionality as defined in this thesis, “combining goals, sharing means linking interests”(Bakker et al., 2016). The linked interests were the ones of the community, of business people and municipality, the goals were delivery a nice and liveable area, accessible by vehicles and financially feasible, the shared mean the underground parking and park on its top.

It is not clear how CBA and EIA were used during the process. From the documents, it is visible that the CBA was merely a part of the business plan developed by the FPOS, it addressed construction, maintenance costs and cash-flow forecasts, but not social and environmental aspects (see Minot DeBlois & Maddison Inc., 1983), this was also confirmed by the respondent 4 and 6. Moreover, based on these forecasts was chosen to dig a number of floors that would provide the best C/B ratio for parking space (respondent 4 and 7). This decision was also supported by a study on traffic, since building more floors and parking spaces increased the traffic (Respondent 4).

The EIA was not really necessary to advocate for the improvement of the situation since there was already high participation of public which was aware of the benefits of a green area (respondent 4). In fact, were held public meetings to inform the public and was appointed a committee to encourage participation and control of the public since it was a civic initiative(respondent 4). This board, in fact, offered insight, during the design process, showing enthusiasm and cooperation (respondent 8). In general, people were aware of the environmental advantages and also to the BRA (Boston Redevelopment Authority) was favourable, without necessarily discuss on reports and documentation (respondents 4,5, and 7).

In conclusion, the advantages of a multifunctional project were definitely considered in the decisional process of this project. Just placing the garage underground and building a pleasant green park on the top would have been possible for Mr Leventhal to improve the environmental quality and liveability of the area. Thus gain a broad consensus which embraced interest groups, business people, public administration, necessary for overcoming legal challenges and opponents’ concurrency.

5.4 Lungomare di Riccione 5.4.1 Description and storyline The “Lungomare di Riccione” is how it is called the promenade of the Italian seaside of Riccione, which has been redeveloped creating a green line of public parks, that goes from South to North, and 1400 underground parking spots for a value over the €50 million. The completion of the whole plan covered a time span of 15 years approximately and was divided into three stretches: “Lungomare della Libertà” and “Piazzale Roma” (550m) depicted in Figure 12, “Lungomare della Repubblica and Piazzale San Martino” (1km) and “Lungomare della Costituzione” (1km) . The first two complete the south side of the seafront and host 975 parking slots under the surface of the whole promenade and the two squares; while the third stretch regards

74 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci the north side and presents two parking lots placed under the squares, for a total of 302 spaces (Comune di Riccione, 2014; Girardi et al., 2011; Romagna Gazzette, 2010).

Figure 12: Promenade of Riccione before and after redevelopment

This promenade has always been considered the core of the city life and one of the top touristic attractions; it is surrounded by hotels on one side and beach bars and restaurants on the other (see Figure 12). As visible in the photos, before the implantation of the project, it was a common street open to traffic with parking slots on both sides. During the summer cars, scooters, bikes and pedestrians crowded the place creating a chaotic and polluted environment. Thanks to this project, this street has been transformed into a park furnished with benches, trees, art installations and a cycle path, giving a safe and comfortable link from the beach to the hotels. The surface parking spots have been replaced with a subterranean parking garage easily accessible from the edge of the promenade. Moreover, for what concerns the south side, also the streets that give access to the promenade has been refitted, replacing surface parking space with trees, cycling and pedestrian paths. Overall the number of parking spots in the area has been increased by 30% (Comune di Riccione, 2014; Girardi et al., 2011; Rimini Today, 2012; Romagna Gazzette, 2010).

The whole project was built using the “project finance”, a particular contract for public-private partnership. Which, according to the Italian legislature prescribes that the Public Administration (PA) individuates a project of public interest and, following a tender, contracts a private party is in charge of design, built, finance and operate (DBFO) the asset. In this way, the PA is capable of providing goods of public interest transferring the risks and the costs to the contractor which, will repay his investment through the cash-flow obtained operating the asset. In this case, part of the parking slots was sold to other private subjects; other were rented for short periods. However, the contract includes a limit in time for the concession, after which, the assets will return under the full ownership of the PA, approximately 90 years in this case (Comune di Riccione, 2014; Grimsey & Lewis, 2007; Marasco, Piacenza, & Tranquilli, 2015).

This research will look more in detail at the first two sections since they represent the real revolution of the concept of promenade for the city, while the third can be considered almost a consequence. Therefore their implementation covered the crucial moments in the decision-making of this MUP. Moreover, the fact that this project involved different interests of different actors, thanks to what happened both on the surface and above the ground, make this project a suitable example of MUP as visible in Figure 13.

As said, this street has always represented the focal point of social life and attraction for both locals and tourists. Therefore its story, which has been resumed in Table 5-7, is strongly tied to the touristic industry, which over the years become the primary source of income in town.

75 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci

Figure 13: Multifunctionality in redevelopment of Riccione Promenade

The whole history of the Riccione promenade is visible in Appendix C: Multiple-case studies presentation, while in Table 5-7: Lungomare di Riccione Timeline, are resumed the main dates.

Table 5-7: Lungomare di Riccione Timeline

Lungomare di Riccione Timeline

Improvements in infrastructures lead to increase in the investment for touristic facilities, Riccione 1920 becomes a popular destination for the vacations of rich and aristocratic families. 1930 After the construction of villas of the seafront, the city builds the first promenade Following the end of the war and the reconstruction Italy entered the period called of the “economic 1950 miracle”, the new middle class began enjoying summer holidays at the beach. The promenade is shaped on the needs of this new type of visitors. Following the increase of mass tourism from all the Europe the traffic on the promenade is close to 1990 collapse and the parking slots are not sufficient anymore, causing a chaotic situation. People start to perceive that the infrastructure is not suitable anymore to the need of summer tourism. Following the election of the new city administration the modernisation of the promenade become a 1999 priority on the political agenda.

Conceptualised the idea of a promenade entirely pedestrian with parking in the underground. By the end 2002 of the year, the municipality received the first proposals. Approved the preliminary design for the first section of the promenade “Lungomare della Libertà”. The 2005 second and most extended stretch of the promenade is inserted in the program of the public works. Therefore started the procedure for tendering the works. Approved the preliminary design for “Lungomare della Repubblica and Piazzale San Martino” last part 2006 of the south promenade. The works for the first section starts, however, the discussion about the second one is still going on in 2007 the city council.

2008 The definitive design is approved for the second stretch; the works can start in September.

The refitting of the North promenade is on the agenda of the new city administration. Completed the 2009 first stretch (Lungomare della Libertà)

The city council approves the refitting of the north promenade with the construction of the underground 2010 parking. Lungomare della Repubblica and Piazzale San Martino are completed.

2011 The preliminary project is for the north promenade is contracted and approved

2012 The executive project for the north promenade is approved, and the works begin. 76 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 5.4.2 Decision-making Framing the decision-making according to the model explained in the previous chapter and already used for the other case studies can be highlighted the following rounds.

Round I 1920’s-1930’s

In these years Riccione became a famous seaside holiday destination for wealthy and aristocratic families. Following the construction of residents, hotels, parks, restaurants and other facilities on the waterfront, the city built the first promenade in order to regulate the access to the beach and the division between public and private land (Comune di Riccione, 2010; Edil Valmarecchia & Cooperativa Muratori Verucchio, 2003; Galavotti, n.d.; Lombardi, 2002; Mele, 2005; Mele, Castellani, Ricci, & Gaddi, 2011).

Round II 1941-1950

A new class of tourists were arriving in Riccione during the past war reconstruction, to cope with their needs, the promenade was modified. It was redeveloped as a street that would allow the flow of the increasing motorised traffic and the parking of vehicles in proximity to hotels and beach venues (Edil Valmarecchia & Cooperativa Muratori Verucchio, 2003; Galavotti, n.d.; Lombardi, 2002; Mele, 2005; Mele et al., 2011) (respondents 10 and 14).

Round III 1950-80’s

The mass tourism kept increasing in Riccione, the concept of the promenade remained the same, but gradually emerged as chaotic due to the crowd and lack of parking spots. Factors that made some locals perceiving this infrastructure as old and suitable for needs of the modern tourism industry. Among them, four hotel owners, which, with the prospect of being granted with public finance as part of the state investments for the FIFA 1990 World Cup, tried to promote the redevelopment of the stretch of the promenade in front of their venues. However, the plan was not granted with public finance and for this reason discarded (respondent 14 and 11).

Round IV 1990-1999

Even though the idea of the hotel owners had no future, the initiative enhanced the general awareness and was not forgotten, business groups operating in the area continued talking about it, encouraged by the growth of traffic flow. A crucial decision was taken just in 1999 when the new administration was elected, and the modernisation of the promenade was added on the political agenda (respondents 9,10,11 and 14).

Round V 1990-2002

The city administration, intentioned to find a solution for remodelling the seafront which should be suitable to needs of hotel and beach venues clients, as well as locals, called a competition with the aim of obtaining conceptual ideas for the project. This strategy did not give the expected result, so the city administration itself decided to build a new promenade conceived to be a park rather than a street, thus closed to motorised traffic. The idea was seen positively by the hotel owners, while residents and owners of beach restaurants and bars operators, accustomed to the old concept that allowed to reach the beach venues directly by car, did not see the idea in a positive way (Edil Valmarecchia & Cooperativa Muratori Verucchio, 2003; Municipality of Riccione, 2005) (respondents 9 and 11).

Round VI 2002-2005

Following the decision of building the promenade according to the new concept, the administration tried to reach consensus within the city council and among the stakeholders. The round ended with the decision of 77 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci building the first stretch and the design of Lungomare della Repubblica and Piazzale San Martino inserted in the planning of public works for the years 2006-2009 (Edil Valmarecchia & Cooperativa Muratori Verucchio, 2003; Mele, 2005; Municipality of Riccione, 2005). This round could be then considered as held in 2 arenas:

 Stakeholders: the main stakeholders of the project, hotels and beach venues owners did not perceive the new concept of promenade as positive for their business because concerned by the possible reduction of parking spots on the beach front. Before approaching stakeholders with public meetings and workshops, the city council decided to close to vehicular traffic part of the promenade adding urban furnishings and plants. This practical demonstration changed the perception of tourism operators also due to the positive feedback received from their clients who perceived the new arrangement as more liveable (respondents 9, 10 and 11).  City Council: Following the change of stakeholders’ perception also the other members of the city council agreed that removing vehicular traffic on the promenade would deliver a more liveable environment. Consequentially, the only feasible concept was building a garage under the surface of the promenade, to be contracted in project finance in order to cope with the need of parking slots, liveability and budget restrictions. As a result, the city council approved the decision of constructing the first section of the promenade (Lungomare della Libertà). However, the project was tendered and accepted, after adding to the plan 1.8 million of expenses for improving the surface, since this section is the most central geographically. Following the success of the first stretch and the consensus on the necessity of refurbishing the promenade, the mayor, initiator of the process, decided to insert the second stretch in the three-year program of public works (Mele, 2005; Municipality of Riccione, 2005) (respondents 9 and 10).

Round VII 2007-2008

After the approval of the preliminary project for the first section, its implementation proceeded without major discussion. At the same time, for the second section started the tendering procedure and the contractor was awarded (DBFO type of contractors). However, the process was not as smooth as the previous stretch. In fact, in this area there was no particular demand for parking spaces, hence, has part of the project, the streets linked to the promenade were refurbished, removing public parking slots. These would have created the demand and made the project economically feasible (respondent 15). Consequently, this plan involved also private residences and budget hotel, which could not afford to buy a parking space in the new underground garage (interviews 11 and 13), hence perceived it negatively. Despite this discussion, the administration was capable of pushing forward the whole project plan in the council. They obtained the consensus appealing to the shared goal of boosting tourism and on the fact that this project was recognised as the right mean, but to realise it was necessary to establish a profitable PPP. Hence, the definitive plan was approved and the construction started by the end of summer 2008 (Municipality of Riccione, 2007a, 2007b, 2008c).

Round VIII 2008-2012

With the start of the construction of the last stretch of the south promenade started a period relatively stable for the decision making, however, redeveloping the North promenade, appeared on the agenda of the new administration elected in 2009. The fact that the previous sections were in the meantime completed and accepted by the population made the decisional process for this last stretch flowing smoothly. Nonetheless, were implemented technical differences compared to the previous. The underneath parking was developed on two garages of two levels each under the squares. The round ended with the approval of the executive design and the beginning of the construction (Mele et al., 2011; Municipality of Riccione, 2009, 2010; Rimini Today, 2012). 78 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 5.4.3 Actors analysis As already happened in the review of the other cases, different actors with their features, perceptions, goals and interests emerge from the reconstruction of the decision-making process. They are going to be presented in this section according to the three different power positions and stances categories, the main factors that would influence the actor strategy during the project decision making (see section c): Actors and Strategies). Since resources are also valuable, because can explain the capacity of steering the process, in this case too, the actors can be categorised according to three different levels of resources available.

Due to the focus of the research on the underground solutions, in addition to constraints of time, budget and documents available, the actor analysis will focus just on the actors that intervened from the round four onwards.

In order to give a sharp overview of the actor analysis it has been resumed in the following table:

Table 5-8: Lungomare di Riccione Actors Analysis

Production Power position Blocking Power Position Diffuse Power Position

Municipality, (Office of public works and urban Opposition, coalition of right Proponents development); parties; City administration (PD); Contractors; Citizens; Opponents Small hotel owners; Opposition, Green Party; Fence Beach venues owners; Sitters Hotel owners (medium-big);

The initiator of the process is the city administration, role covered by the PD from 1999 to 2014, three mandates with two different Mayors. The vision that this group had the project makes possible to consider it as a single actor owning production power since they political power and position make this actor capable of proposing solutions, negotiate, providing finance etc. For the same reason, it can be considered an actor with a high level of resources. Being the proponent, this actor is the one who managed the network; its strategy was to promote the project based on a shared perception of the need for renovation of the promenade and making the other stakeholders perceiving the benefits of the project even before proposing it. In particular, blocking the promenade to vehicular traffic, while adding some elements of urban design was the technique used to create consensus among other actor and stakeholders, even before starting the debate (respondent 9). The perception of this party was that redevelopment was needed because a more liveable seafront would have boosted the tourism industry, therefore, to succeed, they had to accommodate the needs of tourism operators, city visitors, promenade users (respondents 9 and 10). For them, the underground solutions matched with a public park, was the only way to create added value while having shared consensus, moreover, the public-private partnership was the only mean available for achieving their goals due to budget constraints (respondents 9,10 and 14).

As visible in the reports of the city council meetings, the political opposition was mostly formed by a coalition of right side parties. As it happened for the majority party, their view seems to be shared, and therefore the whole coalition is treated as a single actor. Their power could be used for blocking or promoting the project, therefore are included in the diffuse power group. In fact, although they substantially agreed on the redeveloping the promenade for supporting the tourism industry, thus, can be considered 79 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci proponents, they did not agree to specific terms of the redevelopment plan and slowed down the process. For example, during the approval of the second stretch, they invoked the right of people to park as close as possible to the beach or their houses, before accepting the trade-off between a more liveable seafront and less free parking spaces (Municipality of Riccione, 2007b). The resource level of this actor can be considered high, although apparently lower than the majority party.

The Green party was part of the opposition; it showed agreement on the need for a redevelopment plan from the beginning. However, in its view the proposed solution was not the optimal one, for two reasons: (i) the goal of this party was to keep the vehicular traffic out of the city centre; (ii) the construction of an underground structure close to the sea might negatively influence the underground water. Anyway, this party did not block the process instead, in the city council, the members decided for the abstention (Municipality of Riccione, 2007b). For these reasons, it is included in the fence sitter group. The party also has limited possibilities to influence and steer the decisional process. Therefore it is considered holding blocking power and low level of resources.

The department of public works and urban development of the city is considered as an actor in production power position and proponent together with the administration. In fact, they provided positive technical and administrative advice to the proponents aimed to improve the plan and the approval procedure. This department represents almost all the technical knowledge available to the municipality. Therefore their resources are considered high.

Beach venues, together with the association of hotel owners are considered having just blocking power, in fact, while their abilities to propose solutions seem limited, as demonstrated by the proposal made in the 80’s (see Round III), they have a high lobbying power that could be used to block new projects. However, they shared the same objective, so implementing a new plan for the seafront that would help the tourism industry, but different interests. On one side the hotel owners, as confirmed in the interview 11, believed that safety was focal issue, so a promenade closed to traffic, still maintaining the parking spaces in a walking distance from the facilities would have been beneficial to their business. On the other side, the owners of beach venues had a more conservative approach, at least initially (respondent 12) and preferred the promenade open to traffic (respondent 9).The proposed solution represented a match between the two views (interviews 9 and 10), moreover, the as already explained, the administration secured their agreement with a “practical demonstration”. Therefore, their interest position can be considered as fence sitters, in other words, they agreed with the project as long as they see in it a mean for achieving their goals. Moreover, the influence of the local hotel industry on the political, economic and social life of the city can be considered high (as also explained by the respondent 15), therefore high are their resources.

The category of hotel owners appeared as heterogeneous, in principles, all of them would agree with a project as mean to boost their business. However, as confirmed in the interviews 11 and 15, the big and medium dimensions hotels located near the port had a high need for parking; therefore maintained a more collaborative position. While the hotel situated more in the periphery (from Piazzale Roma to Piazzale San Martino), had no particular need for parking spaces. The budget hotels were using the public parking spaces, and saw in their reduction a damage to their business, while the more luxurious structures were already equipped with parking spaces. Nevertheless, these players used their blocking power deciding to not buying the parking spaces under the seafront. In fact, from the interviews emerged that hotel owners, discouraged by high prices and adverse economic conjecture, applied a sort of cartel, deciding to not buying the underground parking spaces and using other areas, also unauthorised, as parking. It can be added a third group, the hotels on the North side (Lungomare 3), which are mostly budget ones, but were in need for parking spaces.

The citizens with no interest in tourism industry represented a small group, which anyway had a few representatives in the city council, as seen from the reports of the meetings, reason why they should not have 80 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci been neglected. To a certain extent they can be considered having similar characteristics of the budget hotels owners, their goal was maintaining the status quo, that is parking close to their houses. Therefore, these two groups were substantially opponents of the project.

The contractors seem to have a small influence in the whole process. Indeed, they entered the discussion just after a tender when the feasibility plan was already approved; they still could propose modifications based on these guidelines. In fact, drawing the preliminary, definitive and executive projects, in accordance with the municipality were their tasks (respondent 15), while they had ample freedom on the commercialisation side (respondents 9 and 10). Therefore their way to operate could influence the perception of other actors towards the project, as higher prices do not attract visitors. As example, as explained in the interviews 10 and 9 in the first stretch the decision of the firm was to sell all the parking spaces immediately, while in the second stretch they decide to wait and let the prices rise with the demand, however, this choice became negative when due to the economic crisis the demand collapsed, worsening the people perceptions about the project. However, if considered on the strategic level and not on the operational and implementation level, the resource level of these companies is limited since they were forced to stick to the municipality proposal. Needs to be reminded that as explained by respondent 15, for what concerns the second section, the contractor was a temporary consortium of construction companies composed of 4 local cooperatives and a private construction firm from Parma. Therefore, this actor was acting like a single player, but internally different interests were represented. Perhaps, local members were more connected and responsive to the political environment than the external one, because of more involved with local businesses.

The interrelations among the main actors in the network of Riccione have been mapped and illustrated in the following Figure 14.

Figure 14: Actor’s Network map, Lungomare di Riccione

81 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 5.4.4 Considerations on the Lungomare di Riccione Project From the study of the redevelopment project of the promenade of Riccione can be highlighted some relevant considerations regarding the decision-making of the MUPs:

 Confirmation of the decision-making as endless process (see de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Teisman, 2000);  Single actor who played a focal role, the mayor Imola and his administration in this case;  Building underground was seen as a mean for matching the needs of different players, so multifunctionality was indirectly addressed;  The appraisal tools (CBA and EIA) were used as support, so advocating for the feasibility of the project;

The Lungomare di Riccione, as well as the Boston Big Dig and Post Office Square, demonstrates that the decisional process cannot be really considered as definitively closed even though the process seems to arrive at a final decision (see de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Teisman, 2000). The discussion about this street started early, before the World War II, continued during the reconstruction and after a steady period came back in the 80’s, before being sleepy for ten more years and coming back again, at the beginning of the new century. Should be mentioned that what happened in the 30’s and 50’s is considered out of the scope and would be anyway irrelevant for the research since the society of the time is retained bounded to deeply different values.

To a certain extent also this decisional process, like the two previously presented, can be considered highly dependent on the actions of focal actors; in this case, the mayor Imola, representative of the centre-left administration elected in 1999. Although at that moment, the society had already recognised the need for renovation, this administration was the only actor who has been capable of pushing the whole process forward applying both, power and techniques of network management in order to gain a broad consensus among the players.

From the analysis of the official documents as well as from the interviews made with the involved actors, emerges that the real focal point of the project was the construction of the public park on the surface since this was seen as a strategical infrastructure for city tourism industry. Increasing liveability and sustainability was the way to provide added value to the tourism business on the seafront, hotels and beach venues, and also the rest of the businesses since they could have benefited from a renovated image of the city and increased attractiveness. The underground solution itself was seen by the public administration (respondent 9 and 10) as a mean for matching the needs of liveability and sustainability, while maintaining a good accessibility for vehicles, therefore matching the demands of every party involved. Nonetheless, the underground garage made possible to use private finances, therefore overcome the budget problems and deliver the project.

Although the decision makers demonstrated overall a good level of awareness towards the effects of building underground, the interviews confirmed that these effects were described during the political debates but not analytically addressed, this part will be better discussed in the next chapter. The CBA (as confirmed by respondents 10 and 15) was part of the documentation to be presented for the project finance bidding procedure; it contained a qualitative description of the social effects a financial plan. Its scope was demonstrating the feasibility and profitability for the contractor. Hence, it reported just monetisable benefits or costs such as construction and maintenance costs, operating cash-flow. The EIA as well was used to demonstrate the feasibility (respondent 10).

Overall, can be concluded that the analysis of the decision-making process of this case showed that the absence of space was a relevant factor, but not the decisive for implementing an underground solution. In 82 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci fact, as the respondent 9 explained this project was the first step in achieving the vision of city centre where the vehicular traffic can be gradually moved underground.

5.5 Van Heekgarage 5.5.1 Description and storyline The Van Heekgarage is an underground parking lot built in 2003 under the surface of Enschede city centre by the municipality. More precisely, the garage is extended beneath the Van Heekplein which has been unified interrupting the Boulevard 1945 (see Figure 15). Indeed, the garage has been built with the aim of improving the quality of the Van Heek Plain, reducing the nuisance and the “traffic barrier”, hence, strengthening the city attractiveness for commerce (respondents 16 and 17) (Rekenkamer, 2002). The area was the main retail centre of the city, despite the Boulevard 1945 which, physically divided it in two, already before the garage construction. Aside from hosting the weekly market, the square was prevalently used as a parking lot (as visible in Figure 15). After some problems and delays, the total cost of the construction was approximately €56million which have been covered using public and private funding from the business present on the square (ATELIER PRO, n.d.; Rekenkamer, 2002).

Figure 15: Van Heekplein Before and after the garage construction

This subterranean parking lots can host up to 1700 vehicles and 1000 bikes on two levels; the spaces are also divided into different lots meant to serve each of the different shops on the surface. In fact, in the area of the garage are present some of the largest and prestigious retail business and attractions of the country such as de Bijenkorf (from 2014 replaced by Primark), Holland Casino, V&D and others. Furthermore, the Van Heekplein hosts the weekly market and the hospital “Medisch Spectrum Twente” is in a walking distance (ATELIER PRO, n.d.; Rekenkamer, 2002).

The garage is accessible by the vehicles from the Boulevard 1945 from the East and West sides, and from the “Kuipersdijk” on the Southside, while stairs and elevators allow pedestrians to reach the different structures on the surface and the square; lately has also been added a rolling path for quickly connecting the hospital. Modern facilities and 24h surveillance guarantee the safety of the parking (ATELIER PRO, n.d.; Rooiman, 2017).

83 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci

Figure 16: Multifunctionality in Van Heekgarage

As said, the Van Heekgarage history is connected to another city infrastructure the Boulevard 1945, which from its side is linked with the post-war city development. The story has been resumed in Table 5-9, while in-depth information is visible in Appendix C: Multiple-case studies presentation

Table 5-9: Van HeekGarage Timeline

Van HeekGarage Timeline

60’s The construction of the Boulevard 1945, studied to be the shopping street of Enschede is completed.

The textile sector crisis slows down the city development and the retail businesses around the Boulevard 70’s 1945.

The population realise that the Boulevard 1945 is, in reality, a barrier that divides the city and hampers 80’s the development of the Van Heekplein as shopping square. The stretch of the Boulevard across the square was transformed. 1991 The municipality starts a partnership with MAB for planning the redevelopment of the area. 1993 The Masterplan for Enschede City Centre is presented to city council. After discussing the master plan, the city council decides that the redevelopment would have built a 1994 parking garage for 700 spots under the Van Heekplain and starts the confrontation with the stakeholders. 1995 The Multi Vastgoed takes the place of the MAB. Multi Vastgoed proposes a public-private partnership. However, the city has to take over the responsibilities of the planning procedures. 1996 After discussing with the various stakeholders is approved the Binnenstadsboek, a further elaboration of the City Centre Masterplan, to be used as a planning base. Following the pressure of the business groups, the new plan includes parking on two floors for 1400 vehicles; while the idea of depressing the Boulevard 1945 is rejected. Due to the increase of the costs for this new plan the city council begins a bargaining procedure with the 1997 business groups for financing the project. By the end of the year, Twynstra Gudde starts the exploration works. The city reaches an agreement for funding the project, in spite of confusions on whom should have conducted the bargaining procedure Holland Casino and the business groups. After being contracted as architecture and engineering firm, the Atelier PRO develop the first 1999 preliminary design for the garage, which does not comply with the financial feasibility studies. The city council is forced to increase by 20% the funding available for the project. 2000 The definitive plan is approved, and the construction begins. 2002 Opening of the Westside. 2003 Opening of the Eastside. 84 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 5.5.2 Decision-making Following the storyline of the project previously illustrated and the decision-making theory showed in chapter 3, the decisional process can be framed in the following rounds:

Round I 50’s-60’s

This round began with the decision of the city of Enschede of building a road that besides of allocating the vehicular traffic, should become the shopping street. Therefore, at the beginning of the 60’s the Boulevard 1945 was built (Municipality of Enschede, 1971; Stichting Historische Sociëteit Enschede-Lonneker, 2017).

Round II 60’s-80’s

The crisis of local textile industry in the 70’s threatened the development of the Boulevard 1945 as it was planned, not enough shops were present on the side of the street, and indeed it was splitting in two the Van Heekplein, the main shopping and market square of the city. Therefore, in the 80’s, the city authorities recognised that the Boulevard was not helping the city development but impeding it. Therefore actions were necessary (Municipality of Enschede, 1971, 2001; Rooiman, 2017; Stichting Historische Sociëteit Enschede- Lonneker, 2017).

Round III 80’s-1991

After acknowledging the fact that the Boulevard 1945 was not helping the city development, the focus of the discussion within the city council moved on how to develop a plan for the Van Heekplein. Therefore, at the conclusion of the round in 1991 the council decided to interrupt the Boulevard on the square and started the collaboration with MAB for studying a redevelopment plan of the area. Giving the redevelopment planning responsibility to a private party was a choice hardly debated in the city council, some counsellors were worried that the private would not have served the public needs at the best got, taking the advantages of such agreement while leaving the expenses to the municipality (Municipality of Enschede, 1996a, 2001; Rekenkamer, 2002; Rooiman, 2017).

Round IV 1991-1993

The MAB presented to the city council different possibilities aimed to increase the shopping business of Enschede centre, which included: (i) depressing the boulevard under the square, (ii) creating parking garages in strategic point at the edge of the city centre, (iii) building an underground garage under the Van Heek plain. In 1993, the city council approved the Enschede City Centre Masterplan, where was establish the goal of increasing the retail business in the city. This would have been done constructing an underground garage beneath the Van Heekplain for 700 cars on a single floor, depressing the Boulevard 1945 under the square and encouraging living in the area (Municipality of Enschede, 1996a, 2001; Rekenkamer, 2002).

Round V 1993-1996

After the approval of the masterplan, the discussion was not over. Indeed, from one side in the city council, some Aldermen did not agree with the proceedings of the project presented in the document, while on the other the discussions and the workshops with the business groups were providing new suggestions. Therefore, this round can be considered has held in two different arenas:

 City council: in the city council the discussion regarded the disruption of the Boulevard and study of an alternative route, the number of parking in the garage and its extension.  Stakeholders arena: the city invited all the stakeholders to cooperate for the development of the project; several adaptations were adopted, and the Multi Vastgoed was appointed in place of MAB.

85 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci From the debates of the two arenas, the conclusion was the adoption of the Binnenstadsboek by the city council, a new master plan, following the one of 1993, which included detouring the vehicular traffic on the new A35 motorway, in the south of the city (completed in 1993). Consequently, the Boulevard 1945 could have been disrupted without arming excessively the circulation, in addition, the public transport in the centre would be improved. Regarding the parking slots, there were two options, building a new garage on the edge of the city centre so that visitors could have parked and use the public transport, or building the Van Heekgarage so that visitors could park their cars and directly walk into the city centre (Municipality of Enschede, 1996a, 1996b).

Round VI 1996-1997

With the adoption of the Binnenstadsboek, the idea of an underground solution was clear, however, from this point started a series of discussion about administrative and management issue. Multi Vastgoed presented a master plan for the redevelopment of the whole area which was initially received enthusiastically by the council. Nonetheless, it found resistance from the private actors. Meanwhile, the city council understood that did not have the necessary internal expertise to manage a project of these proportions. Therefore, the round can be considered as held in 2 arenas:

 Plan approval: Multi Vastgoed presented a preliminary plan for the redevelopment of the Van Heekplain, which included the constitution of a public-private partnership. The idea was accepted positively by the council. However, the bargaining procedures with the private parties stagnated. In fact, these actors did not agree on the real added value of the investment and did not accept the municipality as integral project manager for the operations; as consequence Multi Vastgoed was dismissed.  Municipality: the city council accepted the Multi Vastgoed proposal. However, this actor was aware that was not in possession of the right expertise for managing the project, and there was no clear organisation and division of tasks. Therefore the private groups (Holland Casino and Bijenkorf in particular) could use their lobbying influence, leading to a change in the scope of the project. By 1997 was decided to construct a garage for 1400 vehicles on two levels, divided into two sides the West, under the ABP estates, and East, under the Casino. Holland Casino and Bijenkorf were threatening the municipality of not opening their Enschede branch (the opening was already planned for 2002) if the new garage would not match their requirements and be opened on time. Therefore, the changed of scope was approved with short time and debate.

Round VII 1997

The dismission of Multi Vastgoed lead to open another round. In 1997, was hired Twynstra Gudde which presented a new plan; in a first moment, it was hardly debated, especially on the financial feasibility, but successively approved. However, studies of this company on the previous proposals demonstrated that building a motorway tunnel under the Van Heekplain would not have been economically feasible and would encourage people to drive through the city centre instead of using the A35. A situation in contrast with the viability plan of the city for the period 1996-2005 which aimed to a traffic-free city centre. The round finished therefore by the end of 1997 with Twynstra Gudde starting the exploration works for the project (Municipality of Enschede, 1996a, 1997).

Round VIII 1997-2000

After the approval of the preliminary plan, the focus moved on the financing issue. Twynstra Gudde began the negotiations with the business groups without authorisation from the municipality which obtained a weakened contracting position from this move. This fact confirms the confusion about the organisation of the project management and division of tasks and responsibility between municipality and contractors. 86 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Moreover, after the contracting of Atelier PRO as architecture and engineering contractor, 1999, the firm presented a first definitive design for the garage. The plan showed to be not economically feasible, the company defended itself saying they did not receive any budget constraint indication from the municipality, so the city council was forced to approve an increase in the project budget of +20% before approving the definitive design starting the construction works in 2000 (Municipality of Enschede, 2000, 2002; Rekenkamer, 2002).

5.5.3 Actors analysis Also, in this case, is essential to highlight which are the different actors with their features, perceptions, goals and interests which emerged from the reconstruction of the decision-making process. They are going to be presented in this section according to the three different power positions and interests categories, the main factors that would influence the strategies during decision making (see section c): Actors and Strategies). Since resources are also important, because can explain the capacity of steering the process, also, in this case, it is specified the resource level of each actor. Due to the focus of this thesis, and the difficulties of finding documents of a long time ago, the actor analysis will focus on the parties involved in the decisional process after the second round, that means starting from when the underground solution has been considered for the first time.

In order to give a sharp overview of the actor analysis it has been resumed in the following table:

Table 5-10: Van HeekGarage Actors Analysis

Production Power position Blocking Power Position Diffuse Power Position

Municipality of Enschede; Twynstra Gudde; VCAH, management of Proponents Multi Vastgoed; weekly market; MAB;

Opponents

FCE, representative of Bijenkorf; Fence Sitters business groups; V&D; Holland Casino; Residents;

The municipality of Enschede is the initiator of the process; once the problem of redeveloping the Boulevard 1945 has been establishing, it can be considered as acting as one single actor with the final goal of redeveloping the Van Heekplein for boosting the local economy. It can be viewed as the most powerful actor involved in the project. The project was seen as a mean to reach their goal (respondent 17) while enhancing the compact development of the urban tissues (respondent 16). However, the municipality did not have the expertise so relied on external consulting (Twynstra Gudde, MAB and Multi Vastgoed) in order to arrive at a proposal and push it forward. Despite this lack of knowledge, the level of resources of the municipality can be considered high.

Twynstra Gudde, as well as MAB, before, and Multi Vastgoed, later, can be considered actors with production power, since they provided to the municipality with the expertise necessary to the implementation of the best project. They were also proponents since their position was to support the municipality in promoting the project. Even for them, the Van Heek redevelopment plan was a mean for achieving a goal which, however, was different from the municipality since they were just looking for a profitable business. Their resources can be considered high, probably as much as the municipality because they could provide money through a public-private partnership and knowledge. 87 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci The VCAH is the organisation managing the weekly market which took place on the Van Heekplein, it agreed substantially with the idea of redeveloping the square removing the Boulevard 1945. Therefore they can be considered proponents. Nonetheless, this association was not particularly interested in the underground parking, thus, when it was asked it to relocate the market for the duration of the construction works, it used its blocking power, refusing and causing delays. On the other hand, the resources of this player were limited and can be considered at a medium level.

Bijenkorf and Holland Casino, these two were the most important and prestigious business groups interested by the project. They had a high level of influence and resources that could have used positively, therefore, can be mentioned among the holders of production power. Despite, they did not take a clear position pro o cons the project, but used their power to get the most advantage they could (as confirmed by respondent 17), hence are considered fence-sitters. In fact, these two groups were planning to open in 2002 and lobbied the council for doubling the garage capacity, threatening them of abandoning the city, so obtained a reserved side of the garage each. They did not contribute in any way to the project, if not paying for the plot of land where their buildings were erected; money that the municipality reinvested in the project (as confirmed by respondent 17, this is a standard way of financing projects in the country). Given their prestige, finance availability, the importance of the city, they could create new jobs and attract more visitors, the influence towards the municipality is considered high as well as their level of resources.

The other business groups were mostly represented by the FCE, the organisation of entrepreneurs in the central Enschede, together with the groups of residents in the area, were substantially keeping their options open. They were favourable to redeveloping the square but wanted to get advantages for their business. Their power was limited to blocking power and therefore were kept informed with constant meetings with the city council. V&D, at the time one of the most important companies operating in Enschede and present in the Van Heek square, had a higher level of resources. It is not clear how did they decide to use it. Thus it is considered as having a diffuse power position. The residents saw the redevelopment and the construction of the garage positively since they could buy a parking place for their vehicles, nonetheless were continuously kept informed by the municipality.

As said these actors were part of a network, which is depicted in the following Figure 17.

Figure 17: Actor’s Network map, Van Heekgarage

88 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 5.5.1 Considerations for the Van Heekgarage project From the study of the decision-making process of the van Heekgarage is possible to make some relevant conclusions regarding the MUPs:

 Confirmation of the decision-making as a long and to a certain extent endless process (see de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Teisman, 2000);  Power and resources were shared and dispersed, the municipality was the process initiator, but could not complete the plan without the help of other actors;  The multifunctionality was a driver for the Municipality, which looking for external support tried to link also the interests of possible partners;  Qualitative methods were used for the social values, while CBA was used as support for showing costs and cash-flows estimation and forecasting;

Has it happen to the other cases the van Heek plein had to change its shape various times before arriving at the construction of the underground garage. The same Boulevard 1945, which, at the beginning was thought to be the best solution for boosting the city businesses later was seen as the main obstacle. For this reason started the process which led to remove and replace it with an underground garage. Nevertheless, the process needed decades before arriving at the final solution. Thus, this example can be seen as a confirmation of the decision-making as an endless process (see de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Teisman, 2000) and current solution although, considered definitive, would most likely be discussed again in the future.

The municipality was the Enschede was the only process initiator and the most powerful actor in the process. Nevertheless, its resources were not sufficient for the implementation of the project. This created a network where the power was dispersed. In fact, the city had no technical neither financial capabilities for implementing a plan of these dimensions and technically challenging; so needed to look for external support and supervision (Rekenkamer, 2002)(interview 16). These conditions created a situation where, firstly, it was difficult to get the consensus within the council because some councillors and civil servants did not see the PPP positively (interview 16) (Municipality of Enschede, 1996a; Rekenkamer, 2002). Secondly, shared power and resources mean also shared responsibilities, in fact, the cost overruns were caused by a lack of clear project organisation (Rekenkamer, 2002). Thirdly, reaching the consensus needed long negotiations with external partners (interview 16 and 17), the project was heavily dependent on these partners, with consequent changes in the scope of the project; this is the case of what happened with Holland Casino and Bijenkorf (Rekenkamer, 2002) (interview 16).

Different social values, going over the directly monetisable ones were considered in the process. The project drivers were improving the safety and liveability of the area while boosting the commerce and developing the city in a compact way. As confirmed by the respondent 16, when the perception that the Boulevard 1945 was not enhancing the development in these directions matured, at the beginning of the 90’s, the council, individuated in building underground the right solution relatively fast if considering the total length of the implementation process (see Municipality of Enschede, 1993). In the following years, the discussion focused on the realisation modalities. Therefore, can be concluded that the multifunctionality, as conceived in this thesis, constituted a driver of this project, although there was no awareness of multifunctionality as such. What seems different in this case, if compared to the previous ones, is that multifunctionality seems not to represent the mean for creating consensus by linking interests of various actors, but rather a mean of combining the goals of a single actor, the municipality. However, as said, this actor had insufficient resources and therefore tried to find the support of external partners which could link their interests, mostly commercial, to the project.

As explained, the values considered in the project went beyond the direct financial ones (interview 16). Nevertheless, they seem to be addressed just qualitatively; no evidence was found of analytically estimated 89 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci ones. The CBA was performed, but as it happened in other cases, it was seen mostly as an instrument to show the financial feasibility by showing the expected costs and operative cash-flows, without addressing indirect or not directly monetisable effects. Respondent 17 reported that none of these methods had important communication role, such as showing argumentations.

5.6 Kethel Tunnel, A4, Schiedam 5.6.1 Description and storyline The Kethel Tunnel is an underpass between the municipalities of Schiedam, in the East, and Vlaardingen, on the west. It is part of the A4, a highway which crosses the Delfland from Rotterdam to The Hague, and was

Figure 18: A4 Kethel Tunnel, construction and render of ultimate works completed in 2015 (RTV Rijnmond, 2015). Theoretically, this example could be considered an exception to the underground cases, in fact, this section of highway 2,5 km long, is, a semi-underground structure which runs between 2 and 2,5 meters lower than the ground level covered with a concrete roof (IenM Ministry, 2015).

The whole highway runs in a semi-underground position for limiting its intrusion in the environment and this section, due to the vicinity of the residential areas has been covered with a roof. The rooftop is currently used partially as a green park, with walking and cycle paths, playgrounds etc. partly as sports park with football fields, tennis courts etc. While under the canopies are hosted other indoor sports facilities ( athletic track, baseball practice etc.) and a parking lot. This recreational park also represents a comfortable and safe link between the two cities with continuity of the urban tissue and without visual intrusion. Hence this case, as much as the others analysed in this thesis, can be considered a multifunctional underground project, since, running on a shallow level, it hides the traffic from the surface, while it is capable of linking different interests and combining goals (see Figure 19).

Figure 19: Multifunctionality in A4 Kethel Tunnel

90 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci This tunnel and the facilities can be considered part of a larger mitigation plan necessary to build the A4, indeed parks cycling and walking paths have been extended from the rooftop till the city centre, while other mitigation measures have been taken to protect the environment of the whole Delfland. The cost of this highway stretch was approximately €700 million, including about 13 million devoted to the sports park. Of these, the majority was financed by the ministry, just a portion of the sports park by Schiedam municipality. (Arcadis, 2011; IenM Ministry, 2015; Municipality of Schiedam, 2011).

As explained at the beginning, this tunnel is part of the A4 highway, and the sports park is formally a separate project which was executed contemporaneously (respondent 18 and 19), their stories and decision- making processes are strictly connected. The main steps in the history of this project have been resumed in Table 5-11, for more detail, please refer to Appendix C: Multiple-case studies presentation

Table 5-11: Kethel Tunnel timeline

A4 Kethel Tunnel Timeline

‘50 The project of a new highway between The Hague and Rotterdam was planned

1962 The route was established 1968 Construction starts in Schiedam. The beginning of the construction in the Delfland cause protest of various stakeholders groups, 1972 which consequentially lead the local authorities to turn their back on the project. The parliament approved the suspension of the construction until a new national transportation 1976 masterplan would be ready. The national transportation masterplan is approved. The minister promises a route fully 1981 integrated and not harmful for the environment. 1989 The Parliament approves the new plan for the construction of the A4. After completing the first stretch the protest block the construction of the last section which 1992 needed particular care to the environment. Are presented different possibilities, the Ministry decides to build on the surface (the cheapest) 1997 but is stopped by the parliament, which, however, does not assign a budget for other solutions. 2001 Founded the IODS as discussion table and representative of the stakeholders The Ministry and local authorities approve the construction of the highway following the 2006 IODS guidelines The minister declares that the highway would be built, following the route alternative 1b. 2009 Among the different mitigation measures, the street would be built semi-underground, and the Kethel plain section would be covered with a roof The municipality of Schiedam approves the construction of the highway, including a green 2010 park and sports park to be built on the tunnel roof. 2012 Construction of both projects starts 2015 The tunnel is open to traffic 2016 The sports park is open

91 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 5.6.1 Decision-making Framing the decision-making process according to the model illustrated in the previous chapter can be highlighted the following rounds:

Round I 50’s-1972 The Dutch government started the investigation for the realisation of new highway between Rotterdam and The Hague. The best route was individuated on the Westside, crossing the municipalities of Schiedam and Delft. The implementation proceeded without significant problems until the construction in the Delfland started. At this point, the local groups began protesting because worried about the environmental impact of the project (IODS, 2001a).

Round II 1972-1976 This round was played in two arenas:

 Local arena: the stakeholders continued their protests against the highway, thus influenced the local authorities, once in favour of it, to reject it (IODS, 2001a; Rijkswaterstaat, 2010).  Parliament arena: following what happened in the other arena the government was left without support; thus the parliament approved the interruption of the construction until a new national transport masterplan would be approved (IODS, 2001a; Rijkswaterstaat, 2010).

Round III 1976-1981 This round was played just on the national level. The Ministry that was forced to review the project in a way that it would not be dangerous for the Delfland environment and well integrated within it. In 1981 the Parliament approved the new masterplan which included the construction of the A4 (IODS, 2001a; Rijkswaterstaat, 2010).

Round IV 1981-1989 After the approval of the national masterplan, a committee was also appointed with the goal of investigating the possible impact of the A4 and defining eventual mitigation measures. The project drawn by this board was approved by the Parliament in 1989 so that the construction could start (IODS, 2001a; Rijkswaterstaat, 2010)

Round V 1989-1992 The construction proceeded until 1992 when was the moment of building the last stretch, the one crossing the Delfland and more environmentally fragile. Once again the local stakeholders not happy with the risks forced the construction to stop (IODS, 2001a; Rijkswaterstaat, 2010).

Round VI 1992-2006 This round covered two arenas:

 On the national level, the government was forced to search for different technical solutions, in 1996 were presented three possibilities, building underground, semi-underground or on the surface. The minister, concerned with the costs chosen the surface solution. The parliament, despite considering the other opportunities too expensive, vetoed the decision and did not allocate funds to the A4 project; but rather incited the investigation of PPP possibilities (IODS, 2001a). Moreover, in 2004, the minister declared that the highway was going to be built.  Local arena: in the meantime, the local stakeholders and authorities, led by the Zuid Holland Province, decided to open a real discussion table that would have set the goals and the guidelines for

92 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci a sustainable development of the Delfland, the IODS. This organisation was also in charge of dialoguing with the central government representing its components. In fact, the round ended in 2006 when the Ministry and the local governments approved a plan for the construction of the A4 in line with the environmental requirements set by the IODS (IODS, 2001a, 2001b; Rijkswaterstaat, 2010).

Round VII 2006-2010

With the approval of the mitigation measures the government began investigating different alternatives for the route, but the municipalities and interest groups demonstrated to be still adverse to plan. The negotiation with the local authorities led the Ministry to adopt a semi-underground infrastructure, for limiting visual intrusion and nuisance. The minister justified this choice saying that it showed environmental impact similar to the full underground solution with a benefit-cost ratio of 3 (IenM Ministry, 2015; Ministry of Transport Water Housing Planning and Environmental Management, 2009; Rijkswaterstaat, 2009, 2010).

At the same time, the stretch between the urban areas of Schiedam and Vlaardingen would have been covered with a roof that the municipality of Schiedam (owner of the land) decided to furnish with a green park and sports facilities. The plan also included the integration of new noise barriers for the already existing urban highways and the possibilities for Schiedam to assign the sports park project to the same contractor in charge of the highway and tunnel construction (interview 18). Moreover, at the same time, a national law was approved giving higher power to the central government for the implementation of the project of national interests. Hence when the Ministry established the A4 route by the end of 2009 the city of Schiedam issued the construction permits a few months later allowing the work to be contracted and start afterwards in 2012 (IenM Ministry, 2015; Ministry of Transport Water Housing Planning and Environmental Management, 2009; Rijkswaterstaat, 2009, 2010).

5.6.1 Actors analysis While reconstructing the decisional process, different actors with their features, perceptions, goals and interests were encountered. They are going to be presented in this section according to the three separate instances and interests categories. The main factors that would influence the strategy during the project decision making (see section c): Actors and Strategies). Since resources are also important, because can explain the capacity of steering the process, also, in this case, they are reported for each actor. This analysis will focus mostly on the players that acted participated in the process starting from the 90’s since in this period the underground possibility was mentioned for the first time. The overview of these actors is reported in Table 5-12.

Table 5-12: A4 Kethel Tunnel actor analysis

Production Power position Blocking Power Position Diffuse Power Position

Ministry of Transport Water Housing Planning and Proponents Environmental Management; Rijkswaterstaat; Residents of Vlaardingen; Residents of Schiedam; Opponents Municipality of Vlaardingen; Environmental associations; Farmers associations; Province Zuid Holland; Municipality of Schiedam; Fence Sitters IODS;

93 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci The Ministry of Transport Water Housing Planning and Environmental Management is the initiator of the process already in the 50’s. Along the years the Ministry showed to have not lost the interest in this project retained necessary for the growth of the Port of Rotterdam (IODS, 2001a; Ministry of Transport Water Housing Planning and Environmental Management, 2009). It is an actor with high resources constituted by finance, and technical knowledge. The last was applied through the Rijkswaterstaat, which is the government agency in charge of managing infrastructures and waterways.

The interest groups were various and heterogeneous, among them the most important were, the environmental associations, the farmer associations, the residents of Schiedam and Vlaardingen. However, all of them shared the position of project opponents. Indeed, the project was seen as a danger for nature of the Delfland, and for the liveability of the urban areas due to the nuisance (IODS, 2001b) (respondent 18). In particular, the Kethel plein became a green park during the years, hence the residents were concerned about the loose of nature and wildlife, nuisance and parking problems derived from the sports park (respondent 20). They also share their power position since had insufficient possibilities of making positive contributions to the project but can block it, as they did on different occasions. The resources of these actors are limited if considered individually, but when united their lobbying power was sufficient to stop the road construction and change the position of the local authorities.

The municipalities of Vlaardingen and Schiedam are actors who changed their instances during the whole length of the process. Initially, they were supporting the project, before turning into opponents. In the final stages of the decision-making, the Municipality of Schiedam became a fence sitter substantially, trying to get the best deal as possible regarding mitigation measures. While Vlaardingen maintained the opponent position and just in a late stage was involved but in a control role. It is not clear how these cities decided to use their power, which potentially could be productive, so they are mentioned among the diffuse power owners.

The municipality of Vlaardingen had limited resources because touched just marginally from the road so its bargaining position relatively weak; meanwhile, it did not show a particularly active approach on the negotiation table (interviews 19 and 20). It maintained a non-collaborative position, trying to block the A4 project until it was decided to build the Kethel Tunnel and sports park, (respondent 20). In fact, the only mitigation measures obtained regarded the nuisance and parking problems derived from the road and the sports park (interview 18, 19 and 20). Overall, as emerged from the interview 20, this municipality can be considered a stakeholder which controlled the process and was kept informed during the project implementation, through a sounding board of citizens.

The municipality of Schiedam had higher resources, deriving from the fact, that the A4 cross its territory; for this reason, it was in charge of authorising the construction. As confirmed by the respondents (18, 19 and 20), this factor placed the actor in a good bargaining position allowing it to obtaining particularly advantageous agreement with the Ministry, including the permission and the budget for building the sports centre and the park and extra sound barriers for the existing highways (City of Schiedam, 2015).

The Province of Zuid Holland showed to have characteristics similar to the municipalities. It can be considered a fence sitter actor who was looking for consolidating its position. However, it had a slightly higher level of resources that could have been used positively.

In fact, is from the province that comes the initiative of starting the IODS, where converged all the interest groups and local authorities in the final stages of the decisional process. One of the objectives of this organisation was to contribute to a sustainable implementation of the A4 highway in collaboration with ministry and Rijswaterstaat. Therefore, as confirmed during the interview 19, its creation can be considered the factor that moved the local actor from opponents to fence sitters giving them production power and

94 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci higher resources. In fact, the organisation was capable of acting like a single player and have bargaining power on the national level. The amount and variety of mitigation measures adopted for the implementation of the A4 are an evidence of the power and resources owned by the IODS.

These actors interacted according to the links which bounded them within a network, following the analysis the situation can be illustrated in Figure 20.

Figure 20: Actor’s Network map, Kethel Tunnel 5.6.2 Considerations over the A4, Kethel Tunnel From the study of the decision-making process of the A4 and the Kethel Tunnel some relevant remarks can be made regarding the MUPs:

 The power was particularly dispersed among the actors of the network making difficult to reach the necessary consensus;  The multifunctionality was the final opportunity that made the project reach the agreement;  The use of the EIA was even preferred to the CBA for ranking alternatives;

The actor's network for the approval of this project was characterised by a high level of dispersion of power. In fact, the ministry, only actor with resources necessary to implement a plan of this scope, continuously clashed against smaller and apparently less powerful actors causing the highway construction delay for decades. Two are the factors that can be highlighted as keys for disclosing the situation. The first was the foundation of the IODS which opened up the discussion and the negotiation to the smaller actors, in this way was possible for Ministry and the Rijkswaterstaat to develop a plan with shared consensus (interview 19). However, also after the approval of the IODS guidelines (IODS, 2001b) appeared impossible to accommodate the request of all the stakeholders (Ministry of Transport Water Housing Planning and Environmental Management, 2009). Hence the second factor, the approval of the anti-crisis law, which empowered the ministry (respondent 18) thus concentrated the power and made the network more manageable.

95 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Nevertheless, the necessary degree of consensus was high and required a significant effort in terms of mitigation measures. The Kethel Tunnel, in fact, is one of these mitigation measures (respondent 18 and 19). Consequentially, the multifunctionality cannot be considered a driver of the A4 project, but a consequence. The decision of building semi-underground emerged as the most cost-effective, in relation to the three factors imposed by the stakeholders for accepting the A4, no visual intrusion, no noise, no smell (Ministry of Transport Water Housing Planning and Environmental Management, 2009) (interview 19). Them, the urban stretch was planned to be covered for limiting the nuisance and pollution; but the Municipality of Schiedam recognised in a second moment the potentiality of possible further developments on the tunnel roof (interviews 18, 19 and 20). Therefore began further negotiations between Rijkswaterstaat and municipality which led to changes in the design for allocating green and sports parks on the rooftop, parking lots and sports facilities under the canopies, also with monetary contribution from the Ministry (Municipality of Schiedam, 2011) (interviews 18 and 19). The tunnel and the facilities, therefore, were two entirely separate projects, with different clients, Ministry for the A4 and municipality for the facilities, which ran in parallel with mutual help from the two organisations (interviews 18 and 19). In conclusion, the multifunctionality came as the conclusion of a bargaining process, so for the ministry a monetary loss needed to achieve their objective, while, from the point of view of Schiedam represented a real added value.

As visible in the documents and confirmed by the respondent 19, the EIA was an important appraisal tool and decision support also for ranking projects. The environmental performance of each variant was indeed was set as the first selection criterion in more than one document (Ministry of Transport Water Housing Planning and Environmental Management, 2009; Rijkswaterstaat, 2010). It is also mentioned a CBA, which for the chosen alternative showed a benefit-cost ratio of 3 (Ministry of Transport Water Housing Planning and Environmental Management, 2009) as the second criterion of choice. The sum of these two led to the selection from the ministry of building semi-underground and not underground (best cost-benefit ratio and similar environmental performance). The respondent 19 mentioned that, according to his memories, this CBA contained just directly accountable effects, however, has not been possible to recover it for further examinations. For what concerned the sports park the respondent AN mentioned that the CBA addressed just directly accountable effects (construction costs and cash-flow).

Nevertheless, the municipality saw a set of indirect advantages in the project and its mitigation (Arcadis, 2011; Municipality of Schiedam, 2011). In its view, this project represented an opportunity to develop new and more liveable residential area, which would have attracted higher social classes. Consequentially the whole urban and social issues of Schiedam is expected to have high benefits, maintaining vitality and avoiding the risk of becoming a degraded suburb of Rotterdam. All of these consequences were considered but not were qualitatively assessed (respondent 18).

In relation to the implementation of the sports park, the board of Vlaardingen residents was informed about the proceedings using mostly qualitative analysis. The EIA did not constitute a discussion support, but rather a mean for the Schiedam Municipality to show that their operations were in line with the legal regulations. Therefore, the Vlaardingen citizens were not included in the decisions but just kept informed about it, with limited possibility of discussing the validity of the information and request adaptations. Hence, they perceive that Schiedam Municipality might have used it in a strategical way (respondent 20).

In general, the use of analytical data and analysis appeared quite extensive in this case. Nevertheless, in line with the opinion of de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof (2008) and Priemus & van Wee (2013), the only use of analytical data did not mean that the process was easy and the agreement could be reached without obstacles. In fact, till the stages of the decisional process, there were parties which did not agree with the traffic analysis and the traffic previsions carried out for validating the construction of the A4 (see Ministry of Transport Water Housing Planning and Environmental Management, 2009).

96 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 5.7 Tram Tunnel, Den Haag (Het Soutterain) Due to the difficulties in finding documents and most respondents for the interviews, this case is based on the work of Sebastiaan Buisman, a former student at TU Delft and intern at COB (see Buisman, 2017) and Drs. Martijn Leijten (see Leijten, 2017). Although there was no direct investigation on this case, it still represents a valuable addition to this thesis, allowing to make more, and more complete, comparisons between the international and Dutch practice.

5.7.1 Description and storyline Het Soutterrain is the name of the tram tunnel that runs beneath the Groote Marktstraat of Den Haag, connecting the central station to the Prinsegracht. It was built for the scope of reorganising the traffic on the street, making the city centre more accessible by public transport, and safer for cyclist and pedestrians, detouring the vehicular traffic and depressing the tram rail (see Figure 21).

Figure 21: Groote Marktstraat, before and after the Tram Tunnel construction

The project has a total length of 1,25km for two layers, the first one hosts a parking garage for up to 500 vehicles, while the tram rails run on the second floor and also include two stations, Spui and Grote Markt. The surface, the Groote Marktstraat, has maintained its commercial vocation and is now close to vehicular traffic. Since the opening the city tram lines 2, 3 and 6 used the tunnel and in 2007 have been added the lines 3 and 4 of Randstadrail, connecting the city to the neighbouring towns. The tram tunnel is owned by the municipality which is also responsible for the management of the structure and of the rails; while Q-park owns and manages the garage.

Figure 22: Multifunctionality in Tram Tunnel (Het Soutterain)

The construction has been realised with the wall-roof method for the purpose of reducing the noise, even though a flood was potentially leading to significant damages and caused the stop of the construction for 97 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci years. This inconvenient, among others, made the total costs, firstly estimated to €139 million, rise at €234 million. The works began in 1996 and the construction time, first expected to be four years has been delayed of four more ones (Buisman, 2017; COB, n.d.; Leijten, 2017).

The story of this infrastructure dates back to some decades. In fact, the idea of building an urban metro system in subsurface was mentioned for the first time in 1969. After this date, the problems and political environment slowed the whole process until its conclusion. The most important dates are reported in the following timeline (Table 5-13), the entire history is reported in Appendix C: Multiple-case studies presentation.

Table 5-13: Tram Tunnel, Timeline

Tram Tunnel Timeline

The city of The Hague decides to build the new tram system. For the first time, the idea of 1969 implementing a semi-metro system with a tram tunnel is mentioned.

After being put on hold for a long time the idea of building a tram tunnel start to be discussed 1980’s again due to public concerns about city accessibility and traffic issues.

The complaints of the citizens lead the municipality to discuss the possibility of developing the 1988 city in a more sustainable and liveable way. Within the discussion about the sustainable development, with the “Motion Bianchi”, the 1989 possibility of building a tram tunnel enters the political agenda of the municipality again. The municipality starts the financing of a feasibility study for the construction of a parking 1991 garage and tram tunnel under the Groote Marktstraat and an expedition street. The city approves the construction of the garage and tram tunnel, the idea of the expedition 1993 street is dropped. The ministry of transportation allocate budget to the project, therefore in the same year the 1996 construction starts. After a leak sand and water flood into the tunnel, in order to avoid damages to the surrounding 1998 buildings, the tunnel is left totally submerged, and the construction is stopped. 2000 Following political pressures, the construction is resumed. 2004 The construction is completed, and the tram tunnel is finally open and operative.

5.7.2 Decision-making Framing the decision-making process according to the model illustrated in the previous chapter can be highlighted the following rounds:

Round I 1969

After the approval of the construction of urban tram system, which should have been built partially underground, the city of The Hague decided to stop the process. The municipality preferred to not start the construction of large projects in the city centre, so the underground section was discarded.

98 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Round II 1969-1989

The Groote Markstraat was becoming the main shopping street of the city; it was opened to traffic and so particularly busy and chaotic. Citizens and business groups started to complain about this situation and for the fact that the city was hardly accessible from the suburbs and peripheries using the public transports. The local politicians embraced these complaints in the “Nota De Kern Gezond” addressing the sustainable and liveable future development of the city. Within this discussion, Wil Bianchi proposed a motion where the possibility of building a tram tunnel was again addressed and welcomed with large agreement among local politicians.

Round III 1989-1991

This round took place in separate arenas, from one side the municipality which was debating the goals of the “Nota De Kern Gezond”, meanwhile was trying to develop the RandstadRail in the city centre and negotiating with local business and chain stores to gain support for the projects.

 Municipality: after the “Motion Bianchi” the municipality of the Hague debated about the possibilities of the developing the tram tunnel as mean to reach the sustainable and liveable development goal. In the meantime, the municipality and HTM started to work assessing which were the possibilities and the eventual location for the construction. This round is considered ended in September 1991, when the city council approved the drafting of preliminary design for the tram tunnel and parking garage under the Groote Marktstraat and an underground expedition street under the Voldersgrach.  RandstadRail: the project of the tram tunnel was to connect the development of the Randstad Rail. However, it was put on hold since the ministry did not allocate any budget to it.  Business engagement: the municipality also started a bargaining process with the chain stores which were lamenting the possible nuisance derived from the construction of the tram tunnel in the city centre thus threatening to leave the city. The discussion in this arena led the municipality to add the development of a garage and an underground expedition street to the plan for assuring their presence in the city.

Round IV 1991-1993

After 1991 the discussion within the council and between the municipality and retails shops continued before arriving at the final decision of constructing the tram tunnel. Therefore, in this round two arenas can be highlighted:

 Business engagement: the stores demonstrated scarce interest and cooperation in the project. Accordingly, the construction of the expedition street was dropped but the garage maintained. The garage, in fact, was still desired by the businesses, while was seen as an opportunity by the municipality, since the excavation costs were shared with the Tram Tunnel.  Municipality: the discussion within the city council continued, and finally in 1993 the construction of the Het Soutterain and the underground parking lot was approved.

Round V 1993-1996

After settling local issues related to the approval of the project, the city began the discussion with the ministry about the possibility of being rewarded with national funding. The city argued that tram tunnel was a vital point for properly regulating the urban traffic, while the ministry claimed that other possibilities were available. However, in 1996, the minister decided to allocate €88,5 million for building the project, giving, therefore, the resources to the city necessary for starting the works in the same year. 99 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 5.7.3 Actors analysis Also for this case, from the reconstruction of the decisional process can be illustrated different actors with their own features, perceptions, goals and interests and they are going to be presented in this section according to the three different instances and interests categories. The main factors that would influence the strategy during the project decision making (see section c): Actors and Strategies). Since resources are also relevant, because can explain the capacity of steering the process, they are described for each actor.

In order to give a sharp overview of the actor analysis it has been resumed in the following table:

Table 5-14: Tram Tunnel Actors Analysis

Production Power position Blocking Power Position Diffuse Power Position

Municipality of The Hague; Proponents HTM;

Rover; Opponents De Kern Gewond; Property developers;

Residents; Fence Sitters Ministry of Transportation; Chain stores;

The initiator of the project was the municipality of The Hague; its goal was to improve: the accessibility of the city, the traffic situation and the spatial quality of the centre. In the view of the municipality improving the tram rail was a mean for achieving their goals. It was a powerful and essential actor with a high level of resources in terms of finances, but still insufficient for developing the whole tram tunnel project.

The HTM is a public-private company in charge of managing the urban public transport. They had a positive attitude towards the project since it would help to improve their transportation network, so providing a better service while expanding the revenues. They had production power since assisted the city in the design of the project, but limited resources.

The Ministry of Transportation is in charge of providing reliable and affordable public transportation to the citizens. It was an actor with production power since it had a high level of resource that could allocate to the project, in fact, their economic contribution allowed the construction to start. However, it can be considered a fence sitter since did not see the project always in a positive way, and the discussion between city and ministry went on for a long time before money was provided.

De Kern Gewond was an interest group representing the small and medium shop owners. Their primary goal was obtaining a suitable environment for their business thus a good traffic flow was one of their interests. Nonetheless, they were afraid that the traffic interruption and nuisance derived from the construction works would be deleterious, for this reason, this association turned to be an opponent of the tram tunnel. However, their resources were limited and could be applied just for blocking purposes.

The residents were interested in obtaining a liveable and well accessible neighbourhood still avoiding noise due to the construction. Their resources were small; they occupied a blocking power position because could not make positive contributions. They can be considered fence-sitters since did not interfere with the construction because using the wall-roof method the nuisance was controlled.

The chain stores, like the residents, wanted a well accessible city centre so that they could improve their business, still maintaining limited construction nuisance. Just when the construction of the garage was assured, they turned in favour of the project. For this reason, they can be considered fence-sitters. They had 100 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci useful resources, also in terms of money, but preferred not to use it in a productive way. For example, the expedition street project was abandoned because of the lack of their contribution. Consequently, they are mentioned as having a diffuse power position.

Rover was an association which represented the interests of public transportation travellers. As the ministry, this player was interested in achieving a reliable, fast and accessible transportation system. This actor is considered an opponent because believed that there was no need for the tunnel and the same results could have been achieved with a ground tram network. However, it was in a diffuse power position because it was not clear how used its resources; which anyway were limited.

The property developers were opponents in spite of their interest in improving the quality of the city centre so that new business opportunities would be created. In fact, they believed the construction nuisance would damage these chances. However, it is not clear how they used their resources for intervening in the decisional process, hence, are mentioned in a diffuse power position.

After analysing the actors and how they acted during the decisional process the actor’s network can be mapped and showed in the following figure The actor’s network can be mapped (Figure 23).

Figure 23: Actor’s Network map, Tram Tunnel 5.7.4 Considerations over the Tram Tunnel From the study of the redevelopment project of the promenade of Riccione can be highlighted some relevant factors regarding the decision-making of the MUPs:

 Confirmation of the decision-making as endless process (see de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Teisman, 2000);  At a certain point in time there is a single player that emerges as policy entrepreneur, Wil Bianchi;  Building underground was seen as the most effective solution for improving the accessibility and liveability of the city centre. Multifunctionality was a mean for obtaining support;  The CBA was used in a strategical way, as well as other reports and analysis;

101 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci As happened in the already analysed cases also in this one the decision-making appeared as a long process with no end, and no begin where each decision although significant cannot be considered definitive (see de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Teisman, 2000). In fact, the project was mentioned for the first time 1969 and put on hold for many years before being resumed; also the flood seemed a decisive point, but later the construction restarted. Hence, it can be expected that in the future it will be discussed again when new priorities would arise.

Compared to the international cases the tram tunnel process seems less affected by the operations of one focal player, although, when in 1989 the project reappeared on the political agenda the counsellor Wil Bianchi showed to have a high influence. To a certain extent, Wil Bianchi could be seen as a policy entrepreneur. Nonetheless, Buisman (2017), framed this moment of the process using the stream model (see Kingdon, 1995), individuating different streams (political, problem and policy) that thanks to particular events that came together in that period. These flows were represented by an increased awareness of the need for a more liveable and accessible city centre, possible available funds for strategical projects in the big cities from the ministry, the fact that other towns seen as examples, were already making use of underground networks with success. Leijten (2017) pointed at the expectation that the previously approved Randstad Rail would have lead more people and chaos on the Grote Marktstraat as a further factor influencing the decision.

Except for this part, the process seemed entirely ruled by the interactions of the actors in the network, with the municipality (process initiator) that tried to manage it making agreements and bargaining with other notable players such ministry and chain stores. Nonetheless, they built the garage in exchange for support and permanence in the city of these businesses. Moreover, as one of the respondents in the work of Buisman (2017) reported, a first bargain started among political parties with the VVD and the PVDA exchanging their mutual support for the construction of the new city hall for the Het Souterrain. Other actors, such as residents, Rovers and De Kern Gewond, with smaller resources, seemed to cover a more marginal role and being just kept informed and not consulted by the municipality (Buisman, 2017).

The first goal of the project was to deliver a more liveable and accessible city centre; the local politicians saw in the burying the underground the best solution. However, in order to obtain the support of the chain stores, the project included first the expedition street and the parking garage. Successively, when the support of the shops decreased, but they threatened to leave the city if the garage was not built (Buisman, 2017). Therefore multifunctionality could be seen as a consequence of a political debate and of the need for the administration of maintaining interest and support for the project.

Regarding the use of CBA and information in general, Buisman (2017) reports, based on various interviews, that a fast CBA was conducted. However, it was not possible to assess the validity of this analysis. According to one of the respondents, the estimation of the construction costs was optimistically revised in order to obtain a positive cost-benefit ratio. Other reports, analysis and studies were commissioned by different professionals and advisory groups, some of them showed that the tram tunnel was probably not the best choice, but this information was neglected on purpose. In conclusion, the data and information were not used a proper rational way, but rather in a strategic way, trying to support the approval of the project (Buisman, 2017).

102 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 6. “What relevant common factors can be highlighted in the practice of decision-making for MUPs and what is the role of the appraisal tools?”

Answering the question represent a first necessary step for a full assessment of the practice of decision- making for MUPs. This problem aims to obtain an overview on the process for MUPs, highlighting relevant factors and role of data and information, leading to the selection of MUPs. From this overview, would be possible to extract, in the next chapter, more precise analysis regarding the role of the effects of multifunctionality and to which extent do they influence the final decision.

Therefore, using the framework illustrated in chapter 3 has been investigated the whole decision process with the aim of analysing which are important factors and what is the role of appraisal methods and information. The relevant factors regarding the decision-making process that determine the final decision towards the implementation of an MUP:

 There is a certain awareness on the view of the MUPs as shared mean to combine goals and link interests, although this view, does not always represent a project driver except for two cases.  The power has different degrees of dispersion in the actor's networks comparing the international to the Dutch cases. However, consensus and stakeholders’ participation are critical factors for the approval of each case study.  For the international cases, the network seems more focused on a focal actor and often, on a central figure that plays a focal role in the project approval. This could be linkable to the character of the policy entrepreneur of the stream model (see Enserink et al., 2010; Kingdon, 1995; Teisman, 2000).  The decisional process is a capricious and endless process as declared by (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Teisman, 2000). In the view of the researcher, this can be explained by changes in the core values of the society which leads to perceiving projects as obsolete.  The more complex is the project, the more arenas are held contemporaneously.

Regarding the use of the appraisal methods and use of data and information, some common patterns can be highlighted from the cases:

 The EIA was a common method, adopted mostly to show the feasibility of the projects and used as a support for the discussion with stakeholders.  The CBA was also used, but it included just directly monetisable effects (construction costs, maintenance costs, cash-flow forecasts); it represented the instrument to show the financial feasibility of Post Office Square and Riccione Promenade.  EIA and CBA are principally used as support to the project implementation. While, in the strategical phases, the qualitative analysis emerged as the most used. Just in one case, the Kethel tunnel, the EIA was used for ranking projects and alternatives.  The American respondents mentioned their satisfaction with regards to how data and information were handled. The Italian case shows a lack of demand for parking spaces, which according to the respondents was forecasted but not appropriately tackled due to a miss-coordination among actors. In the case of the Tram, Tunnel has been mentioned a possible use of distorted data for advocating the project. In the case of the Kethel Tunnel, the respondent 19 suggested no problem; while the literature reports a discussion about the validity of specific traffic flows assumptions.

These findings are explained more in detail in the next sections.

103 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 6.1 Over the process Analysing the decision-making process, emerged four relevant aspects according to which the projects can be compared as showed in Table 6-1 and further explained in the section. These are the way how decision- makers arrived at multifunctionality as a solution; the characteristics of the network; length of the process and arenas held contemporaneously.

Table 6-1: Decision-making process main features comparison

Time (before Case Use of MUP Network set-up Arenas implementation) State Government had 70 years and 7 rounds resources for managing Up to 3 arenas Mean to obtain after the first proposal of CA/T the network. The actions simultaneously. For consensus. Consequence. the underground of Fred Salvucci was many rounds solution. central. The square changed Norman Leventhal was a aspect many times in its Up to 3 arenas Mean to obtain focal actor with life. Less than 10 years P.O.S. simultaneously, in the consensus. Driver. resources to effectively and 3 rounds after round III. manage the network. proposing the underground. The municipality and the 15 years and 4 rounds Up to 2 arenas Mean to obtain Imola administration had Riccione after acknowledging the simultaneously, in the consensus. Consequence. sufficient resources to promenade problem. round VI. manage the network. Mean for reaching two 15 years and 6 after Up to 2 arenas Van goals and successively The resources were acknowledging the simultaneously, in the Heekgarage linking interests. highly dispersed. problem of Boulevard round V and VI. Driver. 1945. Mean for reaching 40 years and 6 rounds Up to 2 arenas Kethel The resources were consensus. after rejecting the A4 simultaneously, in the Tunnel highly dispersed. Consequence. construction. round II and VI. 27 years and 5 rounds Mean to obtain Up to 3 arenas Tram The resources were after the first proposal of consensus. simultaneously, in the Tunnel highly dispersed. the underground Consequence. round III. solution.

Analysing the process from the literature, as well as from the interviews, it seems that in all the cases, there was good awareness of the MUP as a shared mean for combining goals and linking interests. Therefore multifunctionality as conceived in this thesis. However, just in the cases of the Boston Post Office Square Van Heekgarage, this view was a real driver, while for the remaining ones, it can be seen more as a consequence. What differentiates the van Heekgarage from the from the others is that in this case the goals and interests to link belonged to the same actor, while in the others the MUP combined goals of different actors. In fact looking at each case more in detail:

 The principal problem that the Big Dig had to tackle was the traffic, in fact, the old infrastructure was close to saturation. However, for accomplishing this goal was necessary to respect the interests of various actors (business groups, local communities, Congress etc.) hence, avoiding demolitions, relocations and new divisions of the urban tissues, but rather unify the decadent waterfront (respondents 1, 2 and 3). The CA/T project emerged as a logical consequence of these requirements.

104 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Therefore, multifunctionality can be considered as addressed “indirectly”, as result of the mediations and mean for gain support.  The redevelopment of the P.O.Square was conceived since the real beginning as an underground garage with a park on top because this solution linked the interests and needs of the people involved, and the plan has never been questioned (respondents 4, 5 and 7). Therefore, in this case, can be said that multifunctionality was a driver.  Regarding the Promenade of Riccione, the focal point of this project was the surface, which would have enhanced the city attractiveness the underground garage was the mean for matching it with the need of vehicular access to touristic structures (respondents 9 and 10). Thus, also, in this case, the multifunctionality came consequentially, as a response to the need for consensus.  The municipality of Enschede was looking for the possibility of enhancing the commerce in the city centre while developing the city in a compact and liveable way (respondent 16); thus decided to removing the Boulevard which represented a barrier and a source of nuisance and pollution, while keeping a sufficient amount of parking spaces in the underground (respondent 17). The multifunctionality, therefore, can be seen as a driver, because it combined the interests on the process initiator, who tried to attach to it the interest of different actors in a second moment.  The Kethel Tunnel is a mitigation plan itself, one of the conditions needed for the realisation of the A4 (respondent 18 and 19). Therefore the multifunctionality here as well came as consequence of negotiations required for reaching the census necessary to the Ministry of infrastructures to realise the A4 highway.  The scope of the Tram Tunnel was to improve the accessibility of The Hague city centre by public transport, alleviating the congestion of the Grote Marktstraat. In a second moment was added the garage as support to the chain stores and compensation for the construction nuisance (Buisman, 2017; Leijten, 2017). Therefore also in this case can be said that the full multifunctionality arrived as consequence of negotiations.

As said above, the multifunctionality was often seen as a mean for obtaining a shared consensus from stakeholders. Indeed, the agreement was a recurrent and essential factor in all the cases, irrespective of the degree of centralisation of the actor-network. Respondent 2 and 3 said that shared consensus with the various interest groups was a pivotal point for the approval of the Big Dig. The same conceptualisation of the CA/T was a way to expand the consensus to from residents to business groups and the federal government. From the answers of respondents 4, 5, 6 and 7 it is clear that the consensus was the key for Mr Leventhal to obtain the approval of the municipality, overcome the concurrency of other real estate developers and to win the legal challenge. Respondent 4 compared this procedure to a “poker game” where the shared consensus was the winning card. Also in the case of Riccione respondents 9 and 10 said mentioned the fact that without the participation of beach venues and hotel owner the project would not have been realised. The Van Heekgarage was highly dependent on the collaboration with external partners (Rekenkamer, 2002) (respondent 16). The Kethel Tunnel was the result of negotiations needed for developing the A4 (respondents 18 and 19). The chain stores were the leading proponents of placing a garage underground while building the Tram Tunnel of The Hague and threaten the city of leave if their wish was not respected (Buisman, 2017)

Therefore, stakeholders’ participation was important for the promotion of the projects, as can also be seen from the use of the various reports. Moreover, respondent 2, as well as the literature about the Big Dig mentioned many meetings between authorities and stakeholders. Respondent 4 mentioned public meeting to inform the stakeholders, and 8 said that the realisation of the POS project was supervised by many stakeholders’ committees, all of which were actively involved and informed. Regarding Riccione, respondent 9 stated that creating a pedestrian zone on the old promenade was the key to get the people have a sort of 105 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci preview of the project vision and agree on the goal; he retained this strategy more useful than promoting meetings. Meanwhile, it guaranteed the participation of prominent players such as hotel owners and beach venues owners, represented the key to the high success of the first stretch of promenade. On the other side respondent, 11 pointed the scarce participation of the hotel owners to the process for the second section as one of the reasons for its economic failure. Also in the Netherlands, respondent 19 said that when the stakeholders managed to get together in the IODS and collaboratively participate in the decisional process the whole project could proceed towards the approval. For the Van Heekgarage, the participation was necessary, in fact, the municipality needed to sell land parcels to finance the project (respondent 17) and the most powerful actors (Holland Casino and Bijenkorf) used this factor to their advantage.

The MUPS were, therefore, tools for achieving the consensus in the complex actor’s networks (as shown in the actors analysis of each case). In fact, as emerged from literature and interviews these projects were implemented after the interests of many of the actors involved were linked to it, making of them supporters; independently from the centralisation or decentralisation of the networks. This situation can be illustrated by connecting interests and actors, in the scheme of multifunctionality (see Figure 24 and Figure 25).

The actor networks showed to have different setups and degrees of centralisation for each example (see the actors analysis for each case study). In general, for the Dutch, the power was particularly dispersed, especially in the case of the Kethel Tunnel. In the international cases the network seems more focused on the role of a central actor, in fact, each case showed a focal actor which lead the process and managed the network, in fact:

 The Boston Post Office Square, in particular, appears as a procedure strongly influenced by the willing of one man: Norman Leventhal. Indeed, it has been confirmed by all the respondents of this case, that, although he was not the first to acknowledge the need for a redevelopment of the square, he was the first to promote it actively. Afterwards, once Mr Leventhal created his vision for the future of the area, he started a procedure to gain the necessary support to overcome the obstacles to achieving his goal.  Similar can be considered the position of Fred Salvucci regarding the CA/T Project. In fact, at the beginning of the process promoted the stop to construction of new urban highways as an anti- elevated activist and mayor counsellor. Afterwards, during the two mandates of Salvucci as secretary of transport, the project had a real boost, and decisive decisions towards its approval were taken. On the other side, the project was pushed aside while Salvucci was not in charge. The central role and decisiveness of Mr Salvucci have also been confirmed in the interviews (1, 2 and 3).  Also in the case of Riccione, the idea of redeveloping the seafront, although not entirely new, needed the intervention and the commitment of a new administration. In particular of the mayor Imola who as confirmed by respondent 4 adopted a vision for a city centre free from vehicles, saw in the promenade redevelopment the first steps towards the realisation of this concept and committed to pushing it forward during the length of his two mandates.

106 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci

Figure 24: Multifunctionality and actors, International cases 107 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci

Figure 25: Multifunctionality and actors, Dutch cases

Therefore, these cases, show that for MUPs the assumptions of the network approach and governance, where nobody is fully in charge for a decision, is still valid; especially looking at the network setup of each case emerged after the actors analysis (see Figure 8, Figure 11, Figure 14, Figure 17, Figure 20, Figure 23). However, arises a figure that is capable or powerful enough to lead the process and managing the network towards the approval of the project, which, to a certain extent can be linked to the policy entrepreneur of the stream model (see Enserink et al., 2010; Kingdon, 1995; Teisman, 2000). Although the example provides different degrees of importance for this central figure, high for Leventhal, medium for Salvucci and Imola, his presence and activity can be seen to a limitation of the validity of the round model (see Teisman, 2000).

108 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Moreover, should be mentioned that the decision-making appears as a long procedure without an end, and sometimes capricious, confirming the view of de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof (2008). In particular, from the analysis can be seen that:

 Regarding the CA/T Project, the first time it was proposed an underground solution was in the 30’s, it was decided to build an elevated motorway, the last stretch was constructed underground, and after its completion, the problem of traffic came back so that new solutions needed to be implemented.  The Post office Square of Boston changed totally its aspect three times during the XX century, before becoming the square we know nowadays.  The promenade of Riccione changed entirely from being an urban street to the public park.  The van Heekgarage changed its aspect and function entirely along the years.  The tram line of The Hague was buried decades this first solution was mentioned for the first time. The researcher sees these changes as reasonable consequences of the mutations in the cores values of the society. Seems legitimate to assume that, back in the 30’s, liveability and sustainability were not considered societal issues as much as they are today. Just when the public awareness towards these issues raised, these projects were re-discussed, and new ones with different features were implemented. For the same reason appear plausible to assume that in the future the societal core values would change again, making these project obsolete. Still, in the view of the researcher, these changes in values are reflected in the decision- making that becomes a process with no ends, even if a crucial decision has been taken and capricious since it could change rapidly (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Teisman, 2000).

Needs to be mentioned that anyway for the earlier rounds in decision-making the role of multifunctionality was not investigated. As said the different values would reasonably make the analysis not comparable, furthermore the distance in times makes difficult, if not impossible, finding documents and informed respondents.

Besides, different rounds the cases also showed that arenas are different, logically, in more expensive and technically challenging projects players are active in various arenas at the same time, while the smaller ones fewer arenas are held contemporaneously, one or two at the time. For example, the Big Dig, which is a mega project was discussed in the Congress in order to get funding, at the FHWA in order to be recognised as a strategic infrastructure for the nation and with local groups and authorities regarding the effects of the project itself. This last arena, could have been break down into other ones with a more detailed research, since within the local actors there were many players with different interests. The Post Office Square, the promenade of Riccione, the van Heekgarage, are projects of more modest proportions and although, they involved many actors they were discussed in max two arenas at the time.

6.2 Over the use of data and appraisal tools The analysis of the decisional process of each case study found that EIA, CBA and qualitative analysis were the three methodologies used for ranking decisions, and support them. An overview of how these tools were used in each case is visible in Table 6-2 and further discussed in this section.

109 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Table 6-2: Appraisal tools use, overview

Case Qualitative analysis CBA EIA

Stakeholder engagement and CA/T Strategical level Not clear negotiations

Demonstrating financial P.O.S. Strategical level Check requirements (Unclear) feasibility

Showing improvements, Demonstrating financial Riccione Strategical level Stakeholder engagement and feasibility of PPP negotiations

Van Demonstrating financial Strategical level Not clear Heekgarage feasibility

Ranking alternatives, 1st criteria Kethel Ranking alternatives, 2nd criteria (Ministry). Strategical level (Municipality) Tunnel (Ministry) Check legal requirements for the sports park.

Tram Demonstrating the feasibility of Demonstrating the feasibility of Not clear Tunnel the alternative the alternative

Some remarks can be highlighted regarding the use of appraisal methods. No one in the interviews mentioned a negative attitude towards the use of these tools. However, they were not used at the strategic level. Moreover, each case has different peculiarities in terms of methods and ways to use them. Each case belongs to different ages and different environment and has different dimensions. Consequently, the legal requirements implied the use of different methods. Thus, it is difficult to draw common lines among the three cases.

In general, the environmental impact assessment (EIA) was the most used because considered a useful instrument for a proper stakeholders’ engagement and communication, from this point of view the respondents from both American cases pointed a positive experience and satisfaction in the way the tool was used. In particular, in the case of the CA/T project, the EIA emerged from the literature, as a key element that allowed the promoters to get the support in a heterogeneous range of interest groups, a factor that they considered vital for the project approval. In the case of Riccione, the project had smaller dimensions, so the whole project was revised together with the interest groups and not the sole EIA.

Just in the case of the A4 and the Kethel Tunnel, the EIA was used on the strategical level. In this case, the environmental performance was the primary decision criterion (respondent 19); thus the EIA was used for comparing and ranking projects and alternatives (see Ministry of Transport Water Housing Planning and Environmental Management, 2009). However, when it comes to the sports park construction, the EIA was used just to show that the project was aligned to legal requirement (respondent 20). Regarding the POS project, the role of the EIA is not totally clear. Just one time (interview 4) was mentioned a traffic study to support the decision of increasing the number of parking spaces which had no communicative role. Therefore can be assumed that an EIA was executed within the terms established by the law to show that no particular problems would arise from the project.

The Cost-Benefit Analysis was mostly considered just an instrument to assess the financial feasibility (as said by respondent 4, 6, 10, 15, 16). Especially regarding the P.O. Square and the promenade of Riccione the CBA, both public-private partnerships. In these cases, the CBA addressed just the cash-flow that would 110 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci be generated by constructing and managing the project in order to show their financial performances and demonstrate the feasibility.

For the case of Riccione, as part of the feasibility study social costs and benefits were described but not addressed analytically; this has been confirmed by the respondents 10 and 15, and it is visible from the documents (see Edil Valmarecchia & Cooperativa Muratori Verucchio, 2003; Mele, 2005; Mele et al., 2011).

In general, all the respondents, when questioned about the use of the CBA answered that the projects were bringing social benefits which were not accountable; therefore qualitative methods were used while the CBA addressed direct costs and cash-flows.

In the case of the P.O. Square the respondent 4 explicitly said that there had been no need to demonstrate the social benefits of the square redevelopment since everyone was aware of it. However, a CBA was coupled with traffic studies in order to assess the feasibility of increasing the parking spaces in the area.

There are some cases where the use of the CBA is not fully clear. For what concerns the CA/T Project, the literature mentioned a rejection by the FHWA based on an unsatisfactory cost-benefit ratio, still not specifying which effects were monetised in this document, while respondent 2 said no CBA was performed and respondent 1 said the CBA was part of the process, unluckily, has not been possible to thoroughly investigate this document. Moreover, regarding this project, the two respondents 2 and 3 believed that it is too big that a proper and completed CBA, even if ex-post, it would be too challenging, almost impossible. Regarding the A4 project, the literature reports a B/C ratio of 3 for the chosen alternative based on social effects, however, respondent 19 mentioned that just directly accountable effects were analytically addressed. In the case of The Hague has not been possible to assess precisely which effects did the CBA accounted (Buisman, 2017).

For what concerns the use of data and information, all the American respondents mentioned no problem, just the respondent 4 says that the final return on investment promised to the investors of the Post Office Square was probably slightly lower than the realised one, however, the indirect benefits of the project made it still worthy. No problems were encountered also studying the Van Heekgarage. While, for the Het Souterrain, Buisman (2017) concluded that data were used in a strategic way favourable to the construction.

The case of the A4 seems conflictual from this point of views. While the literature mention disagreement on the data collected and the traffic forecasts, still in the late stages of the process (see Ministry of Transport Water Housing Planning and Environmental Management, 2009), the respondent 18 said that there was no disagreement. Moreover, respondent 20 told that Vlaardingen residents perceived that Schiedam might have used the information in a strategic way for facilitating the implementation of the sports park.

More complex is the situation in Riccione, where the second promenade stretch is showing financial troubles due to the lack of demand for parking spaces. Facing this problem was expected by the researcher a possible manipulation of the information to push forward the project. However, the interviews with contractors, public administration and business groups showed different perspectives, but all of them, when asked, denied that data were manipulated, obstructed or hidden in anyhow. Rather, they pointed to a lack of coordination among actors, coupled with unforeseen events like the crisis. Nevertheless, it is currently going a legal procedure for assessing the responsibilities of the failures. The contractors (respondent 15) believes that the PA did not respect the terms of the contract which included a new, more stringent, urban parking plan; the PA says that for commercial reasons the contractor decided to not include the business groups in the decisional process (respondent 10); while the hotel owners (respondent 11) said that neither municipality nor contractor involved them.

111 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci

112 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci IV. The Effects of Multifunctionality in Practice

This section will present the full analysis of the effects of multifunctionality. For each case study, two main points will be assessed. Firstly, was studied whether the effects of the project have been addressed in the decision-making process and the appraisal tools. Secondly, was studied whether the way the effects were assessed represents the ex-post perception of the same. ______

113 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci

114 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 7. The effects of multifunctionality in decision-making and the appraisal tools

In the previous chapter the multiple-case studies were presented; each one has been analysed according to a preselected model with the final aim of highlight eventual relevant factors and common patterns of the decisional process. In this chapter, the decisional process will be further analysed for understanding, among the factors, how the effects of multifunctionality have been addressed during the decision-making process and therefore in the appraisal methods. In other words, the aim of the chapter is answering to the research sub-question 4 (see section 1.6.1):

“To what extent the theoretical effects of multifunctionality are used in the practice of decision-making and appraisal tools?”

Answering this question would give an index about the awareness of decision-makers towards the effects of MUPs and indirectly provide suggestions about the level of rationality of the process. For this reason, it is relevant also to investigate if the effects were addressed analytically in the appraisal tools. Therefore the necessary approach to answering this question is making a cross-check between theory and practice; where the list of effects researched in chapter 0 represents the theory, (see Table 2-2: Framework of effects of multifunctional underground ) and the observations on the multiple-case studies represent the practice.

The methodology consisted in scrutinising literature and the interviews for each case, analysing whether the effects of multifunctionality mentioned in Table 2-2, plus new effects emerged from the multiple-case studies, were taken into account. Therefore, the analysis consisted is matching theoretical effects and practical ones. A further distinction was made between impacts analytically or qualitatively addressed.

Before presenting the answer, in this chapter will be illustrated the data gathering and processing methods (Section 7.1), the new effects emerged from the case studies (Section7.2), the reconstruction and analysis the match between theory and practice (Sections 7.3 and 7.4), and the role of the spatial constraints (Section 7.5).

7.1 Data gathering and processing For answering the question were used data derived from the theory review and literature and interviews conducted for the multiple-case studies. As explained the nature of the data was mostly qualitative and the approach of the research explorative, in fact, the interviews mainly consisted of open questions. As came logically, the analysis performed has mostly a qualitative character, and the use of excel was sufficient for the processing.

Regarding the information about the theory, in chapter 0 has been presented a review of different pieces of literature which lead to a list of 41 effects categorised according to sustainability, liveability and other societal effects, and according to their time-frame (short-term or temporary) (see Table 2-2, page 39). These impacts should be taken into account when implementing a multifunctional underground project. The list was used as the base for comparing theory and practice in this chapter. It needs to be reminded that, as already explained in chapter 2, this list has limitations regarding completeness and robustness.

Information about the practice of decision-making for the selected case studies was collected from the interviews and the narrative (project documents, journal articles, newspapers, books etc.).

The processing procedure itself consisted of checking one by one whether the theoretical effects have a correspondence in the literature and/or in the interviews. The operation was performed using the function 115 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci “search” available in all software, therefore applied to all the electronic documents, typing the desired keyword and successively analysing how and when the word was used. This method was applied to the oral interviews when they could be recorded, translated, if necessary, and finally reported on a file .doc. When the recording was not possible or when the documents were not searchable, the procedure consisted of marking the effects or taking note of a relevant keyword when mentioned by the respondent or encountered during the reading.

Using more sophisticated analytical methods was also possible, however, grasping all of these complexities requires advanced coding skills. In this case, the amount of information did not justify the implementation of these tools. A qualitative analysis matched with simple coding in Excel has provided valuable results at a convenient time with a comfortable effort. Nonetheless, this method leaves space to the researcher sensitivity, thus involves typical limitations, such as human error and limits in the amount of data analysable per unit of time. Moreover, it is difficult to give an objective prioritisation and hierarchy of the effects without further elaboration when using this method. However, this goal is out of the scope of the research, and it would require different approaches and tools (the Best-Worst Method, BWM, for example).

In spite of its limitations, this procedure is retained suitable for this research considering that it was used for analysing qualitative data (literature and open interviews). In fact, once that a keyword regarding the effects has been spotted in the narrative or mentioned in the answers, the researcher can quickly scan and evaluate in which context the word was used, therefore understand if the match is correct or not. Furthermore, it can be evaluated the perception of the effect that each actor had, and to which extent it was considered relevant. Moreover, not always the effect is described with the desired words, therefore with this type of analysis the researcher can rapidly spot links also when synonyms are used. For example, in the case of Riccione, in the interviews as well as in the official documents, one of the main project drivers was “creating a new postcard for the city”; a clear expression referring to improving the “image of the city” which could not be easily spotted using common keywords.

In conclusion, this methodology of analysis is suitable for the type and amount of data to analyse, while it helps to maintain a certain explorative character of the research. This last aspect is a particularly important since it is not available a complete, robust and already tested, theoretical framework for effects of MUPs; therefore, the one in use can be enriched with new results derived from the case studies.

7.2 New findings from the case studies As said, the list of effects represented just a base for the purposes of this research since it could not be considered 100% complete and was expected a probability to encounter new effects during the investigation of the case studies. In fact, while checking manually the effects discussed in the case studies, from both literature and interviews, new ones emerged, which were not included in the first list of 41 (see Table 2-2, page 39). These new effects are illustrated in extra costs for excavations.

Table 7-1 and explained in the rest of this section.

For the first effect (#42, extra costs for excavations.

Table 7-1), the respondent 2 mentioned that during the construction of the CA/T project many utilities had to be moved and many were replaced by new systems and facilities more modern and reliable, such as fibre- optics and a new power station. These replacements were considered an important side effect which brought further benefits to the city. The respondent 1 also mentioned that the project created an opportunity for a new rail link, although this chance was lost. This kind of side effects was relevant also in Riccione, as confirmed by the respondents 9 and 10 and by the documents (see Comune di Riccione, 2007b). For this case, together

116 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci with the redevelopment of the promenade, the subsystems such as telecom, sewage, gas and electricity were checked, moved and replaced when necessary without the need of extra costs for excavations.

Table 7-1: New effects observed in the multiple-case studies

Positive/ Effect Category Type Encountered in: Negative Opportunity for renewal of underground CA/T + Sustainability Permanent systems (#42) Riccione Promenade Riccione Promenade Noise (#43) - Liveability Temporary Tram Tunnel Riccione Promenade Accessibility (#44) - Liveability Temporary Tram Tunnel

Smell (#45) + Liveability Permanent Kethel Tunnel

For the new effects #43 and #44 ( extra costs for excavations.

Table 7-1), the temporary nuisance showed to be a critical factor for the Het Souterrain, residents and shops demonstrated to be very concerned about the noise and limitation to the accessibility during the construction; the construction method was selected in order to limit the nuisance (Buisman, 2017). Accessibility to beach venues during the building was a relevant argument also for Riccione as understood from the interviews (9, 10, 12 and 13). Moreover, the same respondents and the newspapers Rimini Today (2012) reported an agreement between the city and the owners of beach venues for maintaining fully accessible the beach during the construction; especially during festivities and summer in these periods, the works were stopped. Also in the documents related to the CA/T project the construction nuisance was mentioned, although in that case, the most important factor was the traffic disruption and people relocation (see Bearfield & Dubnick, 2009; NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, n.d.; Office of Technology Assessment, 1976).

For the effect #45 ( extra costs for excavations.

Table 7-1), the respondent 18 mentioned “avoiding the smell” as one of the 3 criteria that the stakeholders set for the acceptance of the A4 and which lead to building the Kethel Tunnel; this effect is also mentioned in the literature of IODS (2001b).

As happened to the initial ones, these new effects can be sorted according to their time influence and the category. Accessibility (#44, extra costs for excavations.

Table 7-1) and noise (#43, extra costs for excavations.

Table 7-1), were related to the construction time, therefore are with no doubt temporary problems associated to the liveability. For what concerns the opportunity for renovation of underground systems (#42, extra costs for excavations.

Table 7-1), the perception of the researcher, is that these systems are mostly related to improving sanitation and water supply and fostering the innovation (the fibre optics for example). Hence, considering the standards set by the UN (see 2.3.1) this is considered a long-term effect part of the sustainability category. The smell (#45, extra costs for excavations.

117 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Table 7-1) is clearly a matter of liveability connected to the function placed underground, or to the reduction of traffic congestions, therefore permanent.

Finally, adding the new four effects to the initial list, it can be updated to obtain a list one of 45 effects which are the base of the analysis that will be presented in the next section.

7.3 Recreating the match between theory and practice Applying the processing methodology described before for comparing the theoretical effects with the ones considered in the practice of decision-making, corresponded to checking whether subsists a link between the theory and the practice.

Therefore, placing in a table the 45 effects and the 6 case studies were obtained two matrixes of 45x6.One for the considered effects and another for the analytical estimated ones. In these tables, each cell represented a link between theory and practice (540 in total, 45*6=270 for each considered and analytically addressed effects), if the effect was mentioned in the documents or interviews the link was verified. In this case, the cell was filled with “Yes”, otherwise a “No” meaning the effect was not considered or not addressed analytically. The total results are visible in Table 7-2, while the details of each case study are reported in Appendix D: Analysing the effects of multifunctionality in decision-making and appraisal tools.

In an ideally, rational and analytical decision-making process, decision-makers are fully aware of all the consequences of their actions. Hence, each effect would have been properly scrutinised and analysed according to the goals of the project, before selecting a plan (see Allison, 1971; Drucker, 1967; March, 1994; Simon, 1997). Thus, translating this ideal situation in the matrix proposed in Table 7-2, there should be 540 “Yes”. However, as said, the process in practice is not entirely rational, and not all information is available for analysis.

Therefore, in the next section, the “Yes” or “No” connection obtained from each cell will be analysed, with the aim of understanding to which extent the effects of MUPS are considered in the decisional process.

.

118 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci

Table 7-2: Analysis of the effects addressed in the decision-making process2

Considered Analytically Addressed Cat. Type Effect 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sust. Perm. Use of natural resources (+) Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No No Sust. Perm. Energetic efficiency (+) Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Sust. Perm. Land consumption (surface) (+) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sust. Perm. Buffer space for floods/floods mitigation (+) No Yes No No No No No No No No No No Sust. Perm. Soil pollution and disturbance (-) Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Sust. Perm. Groundwater pollution (-) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Sust. Perm. Air pollution and emissions (+) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Resilience and protection to external threats Sust. Perm. No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No (earthquakes, floods, fires, etc.) (+) Sust. Perm. Vulnerability to internal threats (-) Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Sust. Perm. Structure durability (+) Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Sust. Perm. Consumption underground resources (ground, water, geothermal) (-) No Yes No No No No No No No No No No Sust. Perm. Underground space reallocation and restoring the initial situation (-) No No No No No No No No No No No No Sust. Temp. Air pollution (-) Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Sust. Temp. Water pollution (-) Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Sust. Temp. Soil pollution (-) Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Sust. Temp. Flora and fauna (-) No No No Yes No No No No No No No No Liv. Perm. Travel time (+) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Liv. Perm. Noise (+) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No Liv. Perm. Vibration (+) Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Liv. Perm. Isolation against extreme weather conditions (heat, cold, rain) (+) No No No No No No No No No No No No Liv. Perm. Safety (traffic) (+) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No Liv. Perm. Safety (criminality) (-) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No

2 The case studies are numbered: 1= CA/T 2=P.O.Square 3=Riccione 4= Kethel Tunnel 5=Van Heekgarage 6=Tram Tunnel

119 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Liv. Perm. Accessibility of the structure (+/-) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No Liv. Perm. Psychophysical comfort (living/working underground) (-) No No No No No No No No No No No No Liv. Perm. Visual impact mitigation (+) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Liv. Perm. Use of Surface, Continuous space use surface accessibility (+) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Liv. Perm. Use of Surface, recreational activities (+) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Liv. Temp. Travel time (-) Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Liv. Temp. Cultural and archaeology (-) Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No No Other Perm. Fuel savings (€) (+) Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No No Other Perm. Implementation urban mobility policies (+) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Other Perm. Construction costs (-) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Other Perm. Maintenance costs (ordinary) (+) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Other Perm. Repairing costs (extraordinary) (-) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Other Perm. Lighting and ventilation costs (-) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Other Perm. Geomaterials reuse (+) Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No No Other Perm. Image of the city (+) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No Other Perm. Real estate value (+) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Other Perm. Revenue from commerce, business and taxes (+) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Other Temp. Risks of buildings in proximity (-) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Other Temp. Income business and commerce (-) Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Sust. Perm. Opportunity for renewal of underground systems (+) Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Liv. Temp. Noise (-) Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No No Liv. Temp. Accessibility (-) No No Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No No Liv. Perm. Smell (+) No No No Yes No No No No No No No No Total “Yes” 36 22 31 37 24 18 8 6 5 10 6 7

120 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 7.4 Analysing the match between theory and practice For understanding to which extent the effects of MUPs are addressed in the practice of decision-making, it is necessary to make further analysis on Table7-2,obtained by reconstructing the match between theory and practice. This study has been facilitated by setting some simple, but relevant indicators. These can, all, be easily derived from the Table7-2 and are going to be explained in this section.

The first indicator, which has been arbitrary set, is the percentage of confirmed links over the total (see Table 7-3). Therefore the sum of “Yes” in relation to the total number of cells. Looking just at when a factor was considered, 168 links over the 270 possible were confirmed, meaning 62,2%, substantially more than the half.

Repeating the calculation for each case (see Table 7-3), the ones with the higher amount of effects considered are the Kethel Tunnel and the CA/T project (37 and 36 respectively). This observation could be easily explained by the fact that these are the most expensive, technically challenging and complex projects. These complications are reflected in the decision-making as the complexity of the actor's network; meaning a higher amount of actors involved thus more interests touched and considered.

On the other hand, the project with the smaller number of effects considered was the tram tunnel. However, this could be simply derived from the limitations of data gathering. The second for lower number of effects addressed was the Post office Square (22/44). This fact is probably due to the extension of the project and to the fact that it was initiated on a private initiative, while the actor’s network was highly focused on Mr Leventhal and FPOS. Therefore, following the same line of reasoning applied to the Kethel Tunnel and CA/T project, the network was relatively easier to manage, public interests were touched, but in a limited amount, hence, not many additional effects were addressed.

Table 7-3: Considered and analytically addressed effects, overview

PO Tram CA/T Riccione Schiedam Van Heek Tot Square Tunnel

Considered 36 22 31 37 24 18 168

% Considered 80.0% 48.9% 68.9% 82.2% 53.3% 40.0% 62.2%

An. addressed 8 6 5 10 6 7 42

% An. addressed 22.2% 27.3% 16.1% 27.0% 25.0% 38.9% 25.0%

7.4.1 Differences International Dutch cases Summing the effects considered in the international and the Dutch cases, they could be compared (see Table 7-4). The firsts considered more effects than the latest, 89 and 79 respectively, corresponding to 65.9% and 58.5% of all the total.

Nevertheless, the Dutch estimated analytically a higher amount of effects, 23 against the 19 of the internationals. Which, over the number of considered effects lead to a difference of +7.8% (23/79=29.1%; 19/89=21.3%).

Although the differences, especially with regards to the considered effects, are evident in this a simple qualitative analysis, they might be due to the already cited limitations in the study of the Tram Tunnel. For further clarity has been performed a statistical test on both indexes (see Appendix E: Statistical analysis of

121 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci differences between International and Dutch cases), considered and analytically addressed effects, which showed no statistical differences between the two International and Dutch samples.

This comparison leads to conclude that: the examined cases show that in the Dutch practice, there might be lower awareness of the effects of multifunctionality, there is a preference for analytically estimating them rather than relying on qualitative analysis. However, the differences in the international practice do not differ significantly, still considering the limitations of applying a statistical test on such a small sample.

Table 7-4: Considered and analytically addressed effects, differences International and Dutch cases

International Dutch Considered (#) 89 79 % Considered 65.9% 58.5% T-test 0.658 An. Addressed (#) 19 23 % An. Addressed 21.3% 29.1% T-test 0.199

7.4.2 Effects analytically addressed Looking more in detail at the analytically addressed effects can be readily understood that there is a clear preference for their qualitative description in all the cases. In fact, as visible in Table 7-3:

 Regarding absolute numbers; the one with the higher amount is the Kethel Tunnel (10), and the lowest is Riccione (5).  Calculating the percentage of analytically estimated effects in relation to the number of considered ones, the case with the higher rate is the Tram Tunnel (38.9%) and the one with the lowest Riccione (16.1%).

For understanding which ones are the most commonly analytically addressed factors is necessary to look back at Table 7-2. Here, for simplicity is reported just an extract of that table containing only the effects estimated at least one time analytically (Table 7-5).

122 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Table 7-5: Effects analytically addressed3

Cat. Type Effect 1 2 3 4 5 6 # yes

Sust. Perm. Land consumption (surface) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 6

Liv. Perm. Travel time Yes Yes No Yes No Yes 4

Liv. Perm. Noise No No No Yes No No 1

Liv. Perm. Safety (traffic) No No No Yes No No 1

Liv. Perm. Accessibility of the structure No No No Yes No No 1

Liv. Tem. Travel time Yes No No Yes No Yes 2

Other Perm. Construction costs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 6

Other Perm. Maintenance costs (ordinary) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 6

Other Perm. Repairing costs (extraordinary) No No No Yes Yes Yes 3

Other Perm. Lighting and ventilation costs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 6

Other Perm. Geomaterials reuse Yes No No No No No 1 Revenue from commerce, Other Perm. No Yes Yes No Yes No 2 business and taxes Other Temp. Risks of buildings in proximity Yes No No No No No 1

From the Table 7-5, it is visible that the most common effects, which are estimated for all the cases, are 4: land saved, construction costs, maintenance costs, lighting and ventilation costs. These are all effects that can be directly estimated, without particular effort or techniques.

From the same table (Table 7-5), can be noticed that the Post Office Square, the Riccione Promenade and the Van Heekgarage, accounted the revenues derived from the project. However, the analytical estimation was limited to the cash-flow, meaning, the direct revenues from managing the garages and the taxes due to the municipality (interviews 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15 and 16). No attempts of calculating the indirect income were found in the literature (see Edil Valmarecchia & Cooperativa Muratori Verucchio, 2003; Mele, 2005; Mele et al., 2011; Ryan, 1984). For the Big Dig, the A4 in Schiedam and the Tram Tunnel of The Hague, P.O.S. traffic studies were conducted; therefore the effects related to traffic, such as travel time, were estimated. Factors which were described only qualitatively in the other two cases. With regard of the P.O. Square, the respondent 4 mentioned that a study on the traffic impact was made in order to assess the traffic level after an increase of the parking spaces, but no mention was made about other factors such as fatalities, noise or pollution.

7.4.3 Commonly addressed and not addressed effects Also for understanding the commonly considered and not considered effects is necessary to look at the overview in. From that, it is visible that the 45.1% of effects related to sustainability were considered (46/102); while for liveability was considered the 64.6% (62/96) and for the other societal effects the 83.3% (60/72). This fact confirmed the first perception of the researchers, in fact, the issues of sustainability

3 The case studies are numbered: 1= CA/T 2=P.O.Square 3=Riccione 4= Kethel Tunnel 5=Van Heekgarage 6=Tram Tunnel 123 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci appeared from the interviews and the literature secondary to liveability. This impression is also confirmed by looking at the effects considered in all the cases and the one not discussed, which are reported in this section respectively in Table 7-6 and Table 7-7.

Table 7-6: Effect considered in all cases

Effect Category Type

Land consumption (surface) (+) Sustainability Permanent

Groundwater pollution (-) Sustainability Permanent

Air pollution and emissions (+) Sustainability Permanent

Travel time (+) Liveability Permanent

Safety (traffic) (+) Liveability Permanent

Visual impact mitigation (+) Liveability Permanent

Use of Surface, Continuous space use surface accessibility (+) Liveability Permanent

Use of Surface, recreational activities (+) Liveability Permanent Other societal Implementation urban mobility policies (+) Permanent effects Other societal Construction costs (-) Permanent effects Other societal Real estate value (+) Permanent effects Other societal Revenue from commerce, business and taxes (+) Permanent effects Other societal Risks of buildings in proximity (-) Temporary effects Effects added excluding the Tram Tunnel from the analysis

Noise (+) Liveability Permanent

Safety (criminality) (-) Liveability Permanent

Accessibility of the structure (+/-) Liveability Permanent other societal Maintenance costs (ordinary) (+) Permanent effects other societal Repairing costs (extraordinary) (-) Permanent effects other societal Lighting and ventilation costs (-) Permanent effects other societal Image of the city (+) Permanent effects

When looking at the effects considered in all the six cases, it can be noticed that 3 regard sustainability, 5 liveability and 5 other societal effects. Deleting from the pool the case of the Tram Tunnel, due to its already explained analysis limitations, no additional sustainability factors are added. This situation can be indicative of a decision-making practice, in general, more aware of liveability and other societal factors than sustainability ones.

It is important to mention that only 3 effects were not considered in any of cases (see Table 1-1Table 7-7). Looking at these three, lead the focus of the analysis on the discussion about the future of the subsurface at

124 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci the end of the life of the project, or in case it will be not needed anymore. In fact, all the plans were designed with a fixed lifetime arbitrary fixed. However, according to the researcher, how this time limit is set should be part of the discussions, since, as pointed by Bobylev (2007, 2009) and Zargarian et al. (2016), the use of subterranean space needs a long-term planning because the underground cannot be restored to the initial situation.

However, among these effects, psychophysical effects of living underground can be neglected, because this issue does not have an impact on these specific cases. In fact, none of the projects includes functions which required the presence of humans in the subterranean space (parking and driving) for periods long enough to cause psychophysical discomfort. This consideration raised the attention on the possibility that not all the effects are effectively relevant to the studied project.

Isolation against extreme weather conditions, from the point of view of the researcher, can be seen as secondary for these cases but not totally negligible. In fact, for motorways, railways and infrastructures in general, isolation against weather conditions means reducing the network vulnerability (Jenelius, Petersen, & Mattsson, 2006), while for the garages means to keep the vehicles in a protected location, reducing the risks of damages.

Table 7-7: Effects not considered in any case

Effect Category Type Underground space reallocation and Sustainability Permanent restoring the initial situation Isolation against extreme weather conditions Liveability Permanent (heat, cold, rain)

Psychophysical comfort (living/working underground) Liveability Permanent

7.4.4 Arbitrary data cleaning The fact that some effects are not relevant for the projects that have been analysed, in relation to their functions, lead to the possibility of arbitrary cleaning the data obtained. Hence, from the point of view of the researcher, some effects could be excluded from the analysis as they were not relevant to the practical case (effects listed in Table 7-8).

This type of validation has been executed just at this stage because, as said, the list of effects used was not tested previously, therefore it was preferred to keep it as broader and inclusive as possible. Nonetheless, this validation can also represent a test for the robustness of the list.

Table 7-8: Effects considered not relevant for the analysed cases

Effect Excluded from : Reasons:

Psychophysical comfort Not needed long presence of All (living/working underground) people underground

CA/T; P.O. Square; Riccione; Densely developed, already Flora and fauna Tram Tunnel; Van Heekgarage exploited, urban environments

National strategical Buffer space for flood/floods mitigation CA/T; Kethel Tunnel infrastructures

125 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci P.O. Square; Riccione; Van Energetic efficiency Not relevant for parking lots Heekgarage; Tram Tunnel After this validation, the percentages of effects considered can be revised slightly upwards as showed by the differences in Table 7-9 and Table 7-10.

Table 7-9: Considered and analytically addressed effects, before and after data cleaning

P.O. Kethel Van Tram Effects CA/T Riccione Tot. Square Tunnel Heekgarage Tunnel Relevant effects 42 42 42 43 42 42 253 % considered 85.7% 52.4% 73.8% 86.0% 57.1% 42.9% 66.4% % (before 80.0% 48.9% 68.9% 82.2% 53.3% 40.0% 62.2% cleaning) Δ 5.7% 3.5% 4.9% 3.8% 3.8% 2.9% 4.2%

Table 7-10: differences International and Dutch cases, before and after data cleaning

International Dutch

Relevant effects 126 127 % considered 70.6% 62.2% % (before cleaning) 65.9% 58.5% Δ 4.7% 3.7%

The differences after the data cleaning are noticeable after data cleaning the percentages of considered effects are significantly improved. Indeed, applying paired student T-test the obtained P value is 0.0002(< 0.05) (the analysis is visible in Appendix F: Statistical analysis of differences between before and after data cleaning). However, this has implication on the validity of the framework of effects used and its application to all the cases; but not on the results of the analysis.

Also after the cleaning emerges the picture of a decisional process relatively better informed in terms amount of effects considered for the international cases. However, even after cleaning the data do not show statistical difference (analysis in Appendix F: Statistical analysis of differences between before and after data cleaning).

7.5 The role of the spatial constraint So far, the spatial limitation has been taken out of the analysis. However, needs to be reminded the words of Parriaux et al. (2006), who stated that underground solutions are not chosen or their real added value, but just because the absence of free space impede the development of further projects. In fact, in most of the interviews, the space constraints was mentioned as one of the factors that influence the final decision, although, not the only one.

Concerning the A4 Kethel tunnel, the space constraint was particularly influential, since already two stretches of the highway were built and they needed to be connected, forcing the road to pass near the residential areas (respondent 18 and 19). These were the main factors which influenced the construction of an MUP.

126 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci The interviewees 1, 2 and 3 said that the main scope of the Boston Big Dig was to adjust the city road network to the increasing traffic without creating further obstacles in the city; so using the subterranean space was the logical solution for coping with these requirements.

In Riccione, the spatial constraint was the requirement of a parking area near the seafront, within a short walking distance from hotel and beach venues, which otherwise would have seen the project negatively (respondents 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14). Thus, as explained by the respondents 9 and 10, depressing the parking spaces was the only way to achieve their goal of making the seafront more attractive and liveable, while maintaining it accessible by car.

The case of the Boston Post Office Square presents a particularity, in this case, the lack of space was evident, as the square is located in the middle of the financial district. Despite the fact multifunctionality was directly addressed, it was the lack of space the one that pushed to build underground for feasibility reasons. In fact, the project aimed to improve the area in terms of liveability and attractiveness, while maintaining the needed number of parking spaces. Therefore the underground solution was the logical solution (respondents 4). And new construction technologies, allowed to build deep enough to reach a reasonable cost/benefit ratio per unit of parking space (respondents 4 and 7).

In Van Heekgarage case, space constraint appeared less stringent. The Council aimed to develop the city centre in a more compact way, for this reason, they were looking for the right location in proximity of the perimeter of the old town. Furthermore, as the van Heekplain was an area that needed redevelopment because of the nuisance created by the Boulevard 1945 (interviews 16 and 17), hence became the most and suitable for the final scope (respondent 16).

A similar situation occurred in the Tram Tunnel, indeed as the interviewees reported that space was seen as a constraint for the development of shopping. Therefore the scope was to free the Grote Markstraat for letting the shopping are to expand (Buisman, 2017).

To conclude, if not fundamental, the spatial constraint was without any doubt important for the international cases and building underground represented the mean for achieving the goals of the projects. For the three cases, if there weren’t spatial constraints, building underground would have been inefficient and economically unfeasible.

127 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 8. The effects of multifunctionality, expectations in decision- making and ex-post perceptions

In the previous chapter, the completeness of the practice of the decision-making has been assessed analysing how many theoretical effects were taken into consideration and how many quantified. In this chapter, the appropriateness of the effects considered in the decision-making (ex-ante) will be assessed, in relation to the ex-post perceptions. Thus the chapter will provide the answer to the research sub-question Error! Reference source not found. (see section 1.6.1):

“To what extent, ex-ante expectations and ex-post perceptions of the effects of multifunctionality are aligned?”

Answering this question will contribute to the insight into the decision-making process for MUPs that this thesis tries to give. In fact, assessing the ex-post alignment effects are perceived, considering their ex-ante expectations, represents a further measure of how well informed is the practice of decision-making and better estimate the gap between theory and practice. Therefore, to answer this question were assessed the perceptions of the realised effects regarding one single case study (Promenade of Riccione). These were compared with the impacts that the actors considered during the decisional phase. In other words, was checked the alignment between the of the actor's expectations and ex-post perceptions.

Before arriving at the conclusions will be illustrated the data gathering and processing methodologies relative to this chapter (Section 8.1), the procedures to make expectations and perceptions comparable (Section 8.2), and the analysis of the comparison (Section 8.3).

8.1 Data gathering For answering this sub-question, a single case study has been chosen: the Promenade of Riccione. The choice of a single case was made because limiting the investigation to one case allows having a more profound explorative approach of the case itself (Gerring, 2009). Therefore, would be easier to discover which are the perceptions of the realised effects without analysing an excessive amount of data.

Riccione was selected for a series of practical reasons. Firstly, its dimensions and age make it “common”, therefore observations and conclusions can be replicated in other situations (Gerring, 2009). Secondly, the number of actors and stakeholders involved made the case feasible considering the limits of the master thesis project, while drastically reducing possible miscommunication derived from language barriers between the researcher and the respondents. Finally, the project was completed a few years ago. Consequently, is expected that actors and stakeholders maintain still the memory of the previous situation and are capable of giving an ex-post judgement.

Following a similar procedure to the one used in chapter 0, the ex-ante expectations were framed according to the list of theoretical effects, before being compared with the ex-post perceptions. Therefore, the theoretical effects were represented by the list already used in chapter 0. The expectations were extracted from the information regarding the decisional process, used in chapter 0.

The information about perceptions was collected from the interviews only. The same respondents contacted for the analysis of the decision-making have been questioned regarding the ex-post effects of the project (Table 8-1: List of respondents, Riccione Promenade). The questions regarded their judgement and opinion about: what the project meant for the society, the eventual problems or benefits derived from it, and what would they have done differently. These questions were mostly open so that the explorative approach of the whole research could be maintained. 128 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci However, using this type of questions, the respondents did not touch every of the 45 effects; this can be considered a limitation of the analysis performed since not all of the effects found a correspondence. However, by asking the right questions, for example, “which are the benefits that you perceived as derived from the project?”; the respondent would focus on the effects (negative or positive) that he believes are more relevant, while omitting the ones that are neutral. Moreover, eventual lack of information can be filled using other sources, such as newspapers articles. The fact that none of the respondents mentioned certain effects might be indicative of a lack of awareness towards it. While, the fact that only one respondent is addressing or omitting a specific effect might indicate an attempt of providing biased info, like hiding something or discrediting the project; hence the importance of addressing the various point of views in the list of respondents.

On this purpose, it needs to be mentioned that all of the respondents, except for the number 15, are also residents of Riccione. Thus, to a certain extent, they can be considered decision-makers and stakeholders at the same time.

Table 8-1: List of respondents, Riccione Promenade

Respondent Actor 9 Daniele Imola, Mayor of Riccione 1999-2008 10 Dep. Urban Development and public works 11 Hotel owners association 12 Beach Venues owners association 13 Beach Venues owners association 14 Contractor 15 Contractor

8.2 Making perceptions and expectations comparable As might seem logical, the data obtained asking the questions as explained above, are qualitative, as qualitative was the info about the expectations. Therefore, like in the previous chapter, also in the case the processing phase has been done manually screening the interview reports and notes. This method was retained as the most suitable in relation to time availability and amount of data and allowed the researcher to classify both groups (expectations and perceptions) into four categories: positive, neutral, negative or no judgement.

However, to make them easily comparable was chosen to make them qualitative, therefore, to each category, an arbitrary value was assigned, as described in Table 8-2. This means that the scores were not awarded directly by the respondents, but based on the researcher interpretation of their perceptions. These method does include limitations, however, allowed to convert into numbers qualitative information easily. Summing them, it was possible to obtain a score for the ex-ante predictions and ex-post perceptions of the project.

Table 8-2: Perception categories and marks

Category Points Meaning Improvement perceived respect to the initial Positive +1 situation Neutral 0 No changes perceived respect to the initial situation Perception of worse situation respect to the initial Negative -1 one No info / No judgement was given or no perception 129 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Assessing the ex-post perceptions, however, was not direct. First of all, for avoiding biases due to the unequal distribution of respondents among actors, their perceptions were mediated among the respondents representing the same party. In this way, each actor was associated with a single score. For example, respondent 9 and 10 were both representing the municipality, therefore if 9 perceived an effect as positive, scored with +1, while 10 seen it as negative, scored with -1, the combined actor “Municipality” would have given a score of 0 to this specific effect.

If one respondent did not give a judgement of a particular effect, the score of the actor is represented by the score of the second respondent. For example, if 9 did not mention an effect (/) and 10 pointed to a positive perception, scored with +1, the score of the combined actor “municipality” for that determined effect would be +1.

Nevertheless, this method is based on the researcher’s assumption that each respondent and each actor has equal weight. This assumption would not be valid when considering the ex-ante analysis, because, as said in chapter 6, the power in this actor network is not equally shared. However, these ex-post perceptions are not used for predictions or for assessing the influences among actors. At the same time, most of the respondents are also residents of Riccione. Therefore they partially share the same point of view. Hence, the assumption is considered acceptable.

A similar procedure was applied to the ex-ante expectations. However, in this case, no distinction among different actors was made, but just the “official” expectations according to the decision-making outcome were considered and estimated following the same criteria explained above (Table 8-2). Considering that, decision-makers addressed some negative and positive effects, therefore implemented technical solutions or precautions to mitigate their impact, in these cases, the expectations were considered as neutral. For example, the underground garage represented a barrier for the exchange between underground fresh and salty waters, for alleviating the problem were implemented special filters that should have maintained the normal exchange; hence decision-makers expected the impact on this effect to be neutral.

At this point, summing the marks received by each effect in relation to (i) ex-ante decision-making expectations and (ii) ex-post respondents perceptions the scores representing the projects were obtained. The overview of this procedure is visible in Table 8-4.

More precisely, the project scored 17 points for its expectations and 11,38 points for its ex-post perceptions, meaning that the perceptions are lower than the expectations (Table 8-3). However, there were still 9 effects without a score for the ex-post perception and 14 among the ex-ante expectations (effects not considered in the decision-making), which made the results not fully comparable, this implicated that further considerations are required.

Table 8-3: Project scores before data cleaning

Project Score Effects not estimated

Ex-ante expectations +17.00 14

Ex-post perceptions +11.13 9

130 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Table 8-4:Ex-ante expectations and Ex-post perception, comparison

Ex

Expected Expected Respondents Actors

-

Considered

Theoretical

post perceived

Ex

Hotel Owners Hotel

Beach venues Beachvenues (total)

score

Municipality

Contractors

-

ante ante Cat. Type Effect Owners

score

10 11 12 13 14 15

9

Sust. Perm. Use of natural resources (+) 1 No / / / / / / / / / / / / No info Sust. Perm. Energetic efficiency (+) 1 No / / / / / / / / / / / / No info Sust. Perm. Land consumption (surface) (+) 1 Yes 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00 Sust. Perm. Buffer space for floods/floods mitigation (+) 1 No / / / / -1 / / / / / -1.0 / -0.25 Sust. Perm. Soil pollution and disturbance (-) -1 Yes 0 0 0 / 0 -1 0 / 0.0 / -0.5 0.0 -0.13 Sust. Perm. Groundwater pollution (-) -1 Yes 0 0 0 / 0 0 0 / 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 0.00 Sust. Perm. Air pollution and emissions (+) 1 Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00 Resilience and protection to external threats Sust. Perm. 1 Yes 0 / / / / / / / / / / / No info (earthquakes, floods, fires, etc.) (+) Sust. Perm. Vulnerability to internal threats (-) -1 No / / / / / / / / / / / / No info Sust. Perm. Structure durability (+) 1 No / / / / -1 / 0 / / / -1.0 0.0 -0.25 Consumption underground resources Sust. Perm. -1 No / / / / / / / / / / / / No info (ground, water, geothermal) (-) Underground space reallocation Sust. Perm. -1 No / 0 / 0 -1 -1 0 / 0.0 0.0 -1.0 0.0 -0.25 and restoring the initial situation (-) Sust. Temp. Air pollution (-) -1 No / 0 / / / / 0 / 0.0 / / 0.0 0.00 Sust. Temp. Water pollution (-) -1 Yes 0 0 0 / 0 0 0 / 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 0.00 Sust. Temp. Soil pollution (-) -1 Yes 0 0 0 / 0 0 0 / 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 0.00 Sust. Temp. Flora and fauna (-) -1 No / / / / / / / / / / / / No info Liv. Perm. Travel time (+) 1 Yes 0 1 0 1 1 / 0 0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.63 Liv. Perm. Noise (+) 1 Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00 Liv. Perm. Vibration (+) 1 Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00 Isolation against extreme weather conditions Liv. Perm. 1 No / / / / 1 / / / / / 1.0 / 0.25 (heat, cold, rain) (+) Liv. Perm. Safety (traffic) (+) 1 Yes 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.88

131 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Liv. Perm. Safety (criminality) (-) -1 Yes 0 1 / -1 -1 -1 0 / 1.0 -1.0 -1.0 0.0 -0.25 Liv. Perm. Accessibility of the structure (+/-) 0 Yes 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00 Psychophysical comfort (living/working Liv. Perm. -1 No / / / / / / / / / / / / No info underground) (-) Liv. Perm. Visual impact mitigation (+) 1 Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00 Use of Surface, Liv. Perm. 1 Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00 Continuous space use surface accessibility (+) Liv. Perm. Use of Surface, recreational activities (+) 1 Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00 Liv. Temp. Travel time (-) -1 Yes 0 0 0 / 0 / 0 / 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 0.00 Liv. Temp. Cultural and archaeology (-) -1 No / / / / / / / / / / / / No info Other Perm. Fuel savings (€) (+) 1 No / / / / 0 0 / / / / 0.0 / 0.00 Other Perm. Implementation urban mobility policies (+) 1 Yes 1 / 1 1 / 0 1 1 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.75 Other Perm. Construction costs (-) -1 Yes 1 0 1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 0.5 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -0.38 Other Perm. Maintenance costs (ordinary) (+) 1 Yes 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 0.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -0.50 Other Perm. Repairing costs (extraordinary) (-) -1 Yes 0 1 0 0 -1 -1 0 -1 0.5 0.0 -1.0 -0.5 -0.25 Other Perm. Lighting and ventilation costs (-) -1 Yes 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 0.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -0.50 Other Perm. Geomaterials reuse (+) 1 Yes 1 / / / 0 / / / / / 0.0 / 0.00 Other Perm. Image of the city (+) 1 Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00 Other Perm. Real estate value (+) 1 Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00 Revenue from commerce, Other Perm. 1 Yes 1 1 1 1 0 -1 1 1 1.0 1.0 -0.5 1.0 0.63 business and taxes (+) Other Temp. Risks of buildings in proximity (-) -1 Yes 0 / / / / / / / / / / / No info Other Temp. Income business and commerce (-) -1 Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 / 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 Opportunity for renewal of Sust. Perm. 1 Yes 1 1 1 / -1 -1 1 / 1.0 / -1.0 1.0 0.25 underground systems (+) Liv. Temp. Noise (-) -1 Yes 0 0 0 / 0 0 / / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.00 Liv. Temp. Accessibility (-) -1 Yes 0 0 0 / 0 0 / / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.00 Liv. Perm. Smell (+) 1 No / / 1 1 / / / / 1.0 1.0 / / 0.50 Total score 4 17 16 16 14 2 1 11 9 17.5 14.0 1.5 10.5 11.13

132 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 8.2.1 Data cleaning The effects that were not estimated, either because not considered in decision-making, or because the respondents did not give an ex-post judgement, or both, could not be compared. As said this issue was discussed in choosing the methodology, but it is expected that these effects are not relevant for the respondents or that they have no awareness of it. Nevertheless, in order to make a more robust comparison, the number of these cases needed to be reduced to the minimum. At the same time, judgements coming from a single player might be biased. Therefore, data from both ex-post perceptions and ex-ante decision making were cleaned.

Regarding the ex-ante expectations, the effects not considered in decision-making were accounted according to their theoretical score. Hence, if the effect was debated in the decisional process, was expected to be valid the theory as a general rule. For example, the vulnerability to internal threats was not addressed in the decisional process, but according to the theory, it is an adverse effect, so the value was adjusted with -1.

Cleaning the data from the ex-post perception required a more elaborate procedure, consisting of three steps, the outcome is visible in Table 8-6.

The first cleaning procedure consisted in eliminating from the analysis the effects considered not relevant for the specific case, as explained in the previous chapter (Table 8-5), providing that none of the respondents has made a judgement on these effects. For logical reasons, they have also been removed from the ex-ante expectations.

Table 8-5: Effects not relevant for the Promenade of Riccione

Effect Reasons:

Psychophysical comfort Not needed long presence of people underground (living/working underground)

Densely developed, already exploited, urban Flora and fauna environments

Energetic efficiency Not relevant for parking lots

The second cleaning procedure regarded the effects which not received an ex-post appreciation but could be adjusted based on other sources. Among them, the risks for the surrounding buildings were addressed in the planning phase. However, none of the respondents, neither online news or other documents reported damages due to the construction. Hence, it seems logical to consider this problem as tackled appropriately; so the score is adjusted with a 0.

Similar considerations are valid for the cultural and archaeological findings, a risk particularly low in this construction area. In fact, no news about archaeological or other particular discoveries was encountered; therefore the effect is considered neutralised (0).

For what concerns structure resilience, durability and vulnerability, during the design phase are factors which were probably accounted during the design phase but not discussed in the decision-making. Indeed according to the Italian legislature, the structures are designed considering certain solicitations and possible threats (fire, floods, earthquakes, snow etc.) based on the structure lifespan, location and function. Moreover, under normal conditions of operation of the structure, it is difficult to have a perception of the design effectiveness with regards to these agents. For these reasons, they were adjusted using the theoretical score. 133 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci The respondent 12 cited the use of Indian stones and wood for paving the promenade, as choices against the criteria of sustainability for the use of natural resources; this is not relevant to the underground construction, therefore not considered in the analysis. Hence for this factor is used the theoretical score.

The remaining effect, consumption of underground resources, which was not considered in the decision- making procedure neither perceived ex-post the score according to theory -1.

For further correctness was applied the third phase of data cleaning. This step, regarded the effects which received just one judgement and that therefore could be too biased by personal opinions. Among these the geomaterial reuse which was devoted to the beach nourishment according to the agreements of the planning phase (respondent 12). Looking at the news, in the last years Riccione has been the subject of many interventions of beach nourishment when needed (Municipality of Riccione, 2016; Rimini Today, 2014) therefore, this effect can be considered as positively verified.

The other two opinions, are considered based on sound judgment and therefore retained validly. Respondent 12 mentioned the subterranean structure as an immovable barrier for moving the beach venues in case of erosion and the underground space as favourable for keeping the vehicles protected from the natural agents.

Table 8-6: Data cleaning, effects with no ex-post perception and relative adjustment

Ex-post Effect Category Type Adjustment perception

Use of natural resources Sustainability Permanent No Info As theory (+1)

Energetic efficiency Sustainability Permanent No Info Not relevant Resilience and protection to external threats Sustainability Permanent No Info As theory (+1) (earthquakes, floods, fires, etc.) Vulnerability to internal threats Sustainability Permanent No Info As theory (-1) Consumption underground resources Sustainability Permanent No Info As theory (-1) (ground, water, geothermal) Flora and fauna Sustainability Temporary No Info Not relevant Psychophysical comfort (living/working Liveability Permanent No Info Not relevant underground) No problem Cultural and archaeology Liveability Temporary No Info recorded (0) other societal No problem Risks of buildings in proximity Temporary No Info effects recorded (0) other societal As expected Geomaterials reuse Permanent 0 effects (+1)

At this point, each effect obtained a score, and therefore all of them were completely comparable and analysable. The procedure full procedure, for each effect, is reported in the Appendix G: Ex-ante expectations and ex-post perceptions, data cleaning

134 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 8.3 Analysing the alignment of ex-ante expectations and ex-post perceptions After the data cleaning procedure, it was possible to give a score without interferences due to lack of data (see Appendix G: Ex-ante expectations and ex-post perceptions, data cleaning; the results obtained are shown in the following figure (Figure 26: Project scores).

20 18.00 19.00 18 Expected Theoretical 16

14 Ex-ante Expected 11.70 12 11.13 Ex-post Perceived 10

8 Ex-ante expected 6 (adjusted) 4.00 4 Ex-post Perceived (adjusted) 2 0

Figure 26: Project scores The scores before and after the cleaning (adjusted) are on purpose displayed and kept separate since the procedure of data cleaning were based on normative and arbitrary assumptions of the researcher.

As visible in the figure, the perceptions are conspicuously lower than the expectations. In both cases, the difference is approximately the 40%, meaning that the respondents perceived the project as an improvement compared to the initial situation, but not at the same level of the expectations.

This rate is the first index of the appropriateness of the of the effects considered in the decision-making, which clearly shows that not all the impacts were correctly addressed and therefore are needed further considerations. Logically seems relevant at this point to highlight which effects were perceived differently from their expectations; their overview is provided in Table 8-7.

135 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Table 8-7: Effects, differences between expectations and perceptions

Ex-ante Ex-post Category Type Effect expectation perception Not Sustainability Permanent Buffer space for floods/floods mitigation Negative considered Sustainability Permanent Soil pollution and disturbance Neutral Negative Not Sustainability Permanent Structure durability Negative considered Underground space reallocation and Not Sustainability Permanent Negative restoring the initial situation considered Isolation against extreme weather Not Liveability Permanent Positive conditions (heat, cold, rain) considered Liveability Permanent Travel time Neutral Positive

Liveability Permanent Safety (criminality) Neutral Negative other societal Permanent Construction costs Positive Negative effects other societal Permanent Maintenance costs (ordinary) Positive Negative effects other societal Permanent Repairing costs (extraordinary) Neutral Negative effects other societal Permanent Lighting and ventilation costs Positive Negative effects Not Liveability Permanent Smell Positive considered

Looking at the soil pollution and disturbance, the respondents 12 and 13, mentioned that they were sceptical on the fact that the excavation procedures were handled properly and the work would have no consequences on the layers of undisturbed ground and waters.

The decisional process did not address the structure durability. Respondent 14 said that the design simply followed the law instructions, for a specific structural lifetime. Hence his perception was considered neutral. However, respondent 12 showed to be sceptical about the durability. Thus his opinion was perceived as negative.

The reallocation of underground space emerged as a complicated issue to tackle. The interviewed 9 and 14, reported that, in the decisional process, the lifetime of the structure had been fixed arbitrarily to 90 years approximately, without particular attention to what will happen afterwards. In fact, respondent 14 mentioned the fact that “probably everyone had in the backup of their minds the fact that the seafront has been there for 100 years, has been the focal point of the city for all time, and it is going to be the same for longer”. Similar was the answer of respondent 9 which mentioned the fact the seafront has always been a focal point of the city so the underground space will be used anyway in the future. Moreover, regarding this assumption, the respondent 11 mentioned its satisfaction, while the 13 mentioned not full satisfaction especially from the commercial point of view; in fact, at the end of the period, the property of the garage will return to the municipality. Talking about the argument the respondent 12 said that this structure represents an immovable landmark for the seafront, therefore, in case of beach erosion, there will be no backup space for moving the beach venues. However, this factor seems more linked to the missing space for floods mitigation.

136 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci The garage would give shelter to the vehicles against natural agents such as heat, even if not mention about this factor was found in the ex-ante evaluations. The cars are kept clean and fresh also during the summer (respondent 12).

The travel time needs a particular remark. In fact, the qualitative ex-ante analysis of the municipality forecasted that closing the promenade would have eliminated the share of non-functional traffic constituted by people in search of a parking place and having car tours for fun. Meanwhile, the rest of the vehicles would have been redistributed on the whole city network and on Viale Milano, which runs parallel to the promenade. This assumption verified more than positively; the increase of traffic on Viale Milano is small enough not to be considered a problem (respondents 9 10 and 14). (see also Edil Valmarecchia & Cooperativa Muratori Verucchio, 2003; Mele, 2005; Mele et al., 2011).

The influence of the financial distress went beyond the failure of the contractors. In fact, the garage in San Martino Square, which is at the moment not controlled due to the bankruptcy of the managing firm, is sometimes occupied by drunk and homeless people. Respondents 12 and 13, mentioned this problem, saying that it could potentially expand to the whole second section of the Southside, considering that due to the financial issues the managing firm cannot always keep the area in the best conditions. Thus regarding the safety, the project did not entirely match the expectations.

Fuel savings in monetary terms have been not accounted. However, could be assumed that the project improving the availability of parking spaces has also made the research less costly regarding fuel. However, as mentioned by the respondents 12 and 13, parking a car is now more expensive and impacts the cost of a day at the beach negatively; hence fuel money might actually becoming parking money.

Among the effects which received negative judgements there are the ones related to costs, in fact, the second stretch of the promenade was a business failure for the investors and contractors. As explained by respondent 15, at the moment this project, although positive for the society, caused losses to the contractors. Indeed just one firm participating in the consortium did not declare bankruptcy. Moreover, it is currently going a legal procedure for determining the responsibilities. However, should be mentioned that the other stretches showed positive financial performances (respondents 9, 10, 12 and 14).

Finally the smell, which was not taken into account in the decisional process, but was reported as a positive effect by respondents 9 and 10.

8.2.2 Other remarks There are other effects which seem relevant to the research a are explained in this section.

When looking at the effects which did not give an entirely satisfactory perception, can be the opportunity for renewal. Indeed, regarding this factor was accounted by the city, which decided to implement a new sewage system together with the construction of the garage. However, respondents 12 and 13, reported some problem connected to the functioning of these systems.

Looking at the effects that not fully matched the expectations, the respondent 9 mentioned that this project was meant to be the first of more projects and policies aimed to free, at least partially, the city centre from parked vehicles. However, as he said these changes required times much longer than two administrative mandates, therefore the goal of a new urban mobility for the city cannot be considered entirely achieved if the next administrations do not share the same vision.

The topic of revenues deriving from the project appeared as particularly complicated. As said, the contractors, after a first stretch particularly successful felt under financial distress because of the unsold parking spaces in the second section. The beach venues owners specified that (respondent 13) the project has 137 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci brought them a small reduction in terms of clients because of the increase in the parking rates; the general city improvement of tourists presences cannot be linked to the promenade (respondent 12). Moreover, in their view, it is not clear whether more social activity on the promenade means new presences for the city or a simple switch of the meeting point. However, they appreciate the induced advantages to whole tourism industry due to the renovate promenade aspect. Similar the position of the hotel owners, the perceived benefits for the entire industry, the ones closer to the seafront were also encouraged to invest in their structures (respondents 10, 11, 12 and 14). Nevertheless, as all the interviewed agreed, the tourism industry in the last 10 years has been influenced by many factors, climate change, financial crisis, failure of the local airport and opening of new low-cost routes etc. therefore everyone would say that the promenade was beneficial to industry, but nobody would really estimate to which extent.

With regards to the investment of hotel owners in their structure need to be mentioned that this is a clear sign of an increase in the value of the real estate (respondent 11 and 14); while in turn improved the image of the seafront over the initial expectations (respondent 9, 10 and 14).

138 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 9. The effects of Multifunctionality in the practice of decision- making

The analysis aimed to understand: firstly, if and how the effects of multifunctionality are used in the decision-making, whether, they are analysed quantitatively or with the support of the appraisal tools; secondly whether the way they are investigated is appropriate with regards to the actor's perceptions ex-post. In other words, this section aimed to answer the research sub-questions 4 and 5 as follow.

9.1 “To what extent the theoretical effects of multifunctionality are used in the practice of decision-making and appraisal tools?” Answering this sub-question will give an overview of the awareness of decision-makers towards the effects of the multifunctionality by assessing to which extent these effects are used and how they are estimated.

In order to achieve this goal, has been checked whether the list of effects derived from the theory review (Table 2-2 at page 39), finds a correspondence in documents and interviews regarding the practice of decision-making, for the selected multiple-case studies.

The initial theoretical list was composed by 41 effects regarding sustainability, liveability, and other societal effects, both temporary and permanent derived. During the case studies, four new effects have been found, (see extra costs for excavations.

Table 7-1) and integrated into the list, reaching a total of 45.

Effects and the cases were placed in 2 matrixes 45x6, one for the considered and for the analytically addressed ones. Each cell of the matrix represented a possible fictitious link between theory and practice; when the link was found the corresponding cell was marked with a “Yes”, if not it was marked with “No”. From the analysis of the matrix obtained applying this procedure can be highlighted the following results:

 62.2% of all the effects are considered in the decision making of MUPs; percentage to be corrected of +4.2% if from the initial list are deleted some impacts which were arbitrarily considered not relevant for the cases (see 0).

 Of these effects, the 25.0% is analytically estimated.

 The international cases showed non statistically significantly higher numbers of considered effects (89 and 79) respectively. However, this gap can be potentially reduced considering the imitated analysis conducted on the Tram Tunnel case.

 The Dutch cases showed a non-statistically significantly higher number (23 and 18), and percentage (29.1% and 21.3%) of effects addressed analytically.

 All the case estimated the costs analytically and the land saved.

 Attempts of estimating other economic effects considered just the direct benefits and costs.

 Among the effects considered in all the cases, the majority is constituted by liveability and other societal effects. Just three sustainability factors all always accounted. In fact, 45.1% of impacts related to sustainability were considered (46/102); while, for liveability the 64.6% was examined (62/96) and for the other societal effects the 83.3% (60/72).

139 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci  The effects that are never considered are the reallocation of underground space and isolation against extreme weather conditions.

 The spatial constraint plays an important role, although with different degrees for each case.

In conclusion, although the lack of space is still a relevant factor, the practice of decision-making showed to be taken into consideration and be aware of more than half of the effects of multifunctionality. These effects are mostly addressed qualitatively, in general, just directly accountable and/or monetisable effects are accounted. In fact, the process seems to be more aware of effects related to liveability and “other societal effects” which are in general easier to observe and measure, rather than sustainability effects. The reallocation of the underground space appears to be a particularly relevant issue not addressed in the process. The International and Dutch case showed that presumably their difference in the degree of considered effect is not relevant but derived from difficulties encountered in the analysis of one case. On the other side, in the Dutch cases were analytically estimated more effects.

As showed sustainability is the factor less considered, while liveability and other societal effect present a higher rate of consideration. If looking at what is included in these categories is clear how the last two regards effect that more visible and more in the short term to all the stakeholders. Therefore can be assumed that the different awareness is due, at list partially, for political reasons. In fact, there is much more consciousness of the costs than the benefits of the underground project. Moreover, often there is a miss- match between the vision of politicians (thus decision-makers) and the time of the effects of underground projects, while the first is mostly focused on short-medium terms (length of their mandates) the second is needs various years to be fully appraised and visible. In particular, when looking at impacts on sustainability, these are generally visible only after a long term.

9.2 “To what extent, ex-ante expectations and ex-post perceptions of the effects of multifunctionality are aligned?” Answering this question would mean assess to which extent the ex-post effects, framed according to the respondent's perceptions, are in line with the theory and with the effects considered ex-ante. Therefore it adds a further step to the observation of the whole decisional process for MUPs, by assessing how well informed is it, in comparison with the ex-post reality.

However, assessing the correctness required a measure. Hence, the data obtained with the interviews, by asking the respondents their judgement and opinion about the project, have been cross-checked with the expectations of the decision makers. In order to make them comparable, they have been estimated if positive, neutral or negative and assigned a value to +1, 0 or -1 accordingly. After cleaning the data and summing the values of each effect, was possible to obtain a total score of the project for expectations and perceptions. Hence, the two categories were made comparable.

The results show that the project is perceived satisfactory for approximately the 60%, meaning that, although positive overall, there are still some effects which are seen not as satisfying as it was expected.

The demand for parking spaces was the most problematic part of this project, which led to financial troubles for the contractors, which in turn led the respondents, almost unanimously, to perceived all the effects related to construction, maintenance and managing costs as negative. Although the project had a small impact on the public finances because realised with a PPP (respondents 8 and 9), the financial distress is causing problems due to the lack of maintenance (respondent 12) which can be linked to criminality.

140 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Another conflictual effect was the possibility of reuse the subterranean space. The issue was not discussed in the decisional process; it was merely set an arbitrary useful lifetime for the structure. Afterwards, all the respondents demonstrated to not being particularly sensitive to this issue, except for the fact that it is perceived as not satisfactory but from the commercial point of view (respondent 13) and an immovable landmark for the seafront (respondent 12).

Other effects which are perceived as not completely satisfactory are:

 Renewal of subterranean systems;  Traffic savings;  Implementation of new mobility policies;  Use of natural resources;  Buffer space for floods and floods mitigation;  Soil pollution and disturbance;

Can be concluded that overall the perceptions towards the project are positive. Nevertheless, there are still issues open, which are spread equally around sustainability, liveability and other societal effects. The most critical issue is related to the cost and finances of the project, which brings to other potential failures in terms of liveability effects. As it was not discussed in the decisional process, the underground space reallocation and reuse at the end of the structure lifetime remains a concept with a not clear perception. In general, effects which were not considered ex-ante are also not strongly perceived ex-post, with a prevalence as logical, of sustainability effects.

141 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci

142 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci V. Conclusions

This section will present the answers to each sub-question, guiding the reader to the answer of the main research question. Successively will be presented the limitations of the research, a discussions about the observations of made and recommendations for the practice of decision-making which derive from them. Finally are presented some suggestions for possible further works.

______

143 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci

144 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 10. Research goal and relevance

In a world which is getting crowded and metropolises getting larger and busier (Angel et al., 2005; United Nations, 2014), new ways of developing more liveable and sustainable cities are needed. Many researchers pointed at the use of the subsurface as a viable solution, and various multifunctional underground projects have already been implemented. However, the perception of the COB is that these options are often not, or not in time, taken into account and therefore the full potential of the subterranean space is not fully exploited.

In fact, looking at the literature, it emerges that the reasons which, in practice, lead to the implementation of MUPs are not yet clarified. Meanwhile, the appraisal tools, conceived as a support for a more rational and analytical decisional process, are not always adequate or adequately used.

Given this context, this research aims to alleviate the gap providing a comprehensive descriptive knowledge of the decision-making for MUPs, based on observations of the reality. These observations are oriented, firstly, at the process in general, how the approval of the MUPs evolves and which are the common factors. Secondly, at the awareness of decision-makers towards the effects of MUPs, meaning if and how these effects are considered in the process.

The relevance of this research goes beyond filling a gap in the current scientific literature. In fact, the observation of the reality is the base of the descriptive knowledge, which, in turn, is the base of prescriptive one (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2013). Therefore, by observing the reality, it is possible to acquire the expertise necessary to the develop suggestions, theoretical frameworks and instruments aimed at a more aware, rational and efficient use of underground space via MUPs. Consequently, this thesis would have an impact on the scientific community as well as the society.

145 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 11. Conclusions

For achieving the goal explained above a research question has been established. This main question was then divided into five sub-questions, which are going to be answered in this section gradually guiding the reader to the final a conclusion.

1. Which are the main features and effects of Multifunctional Underground Projects?

Starting from the definition given by Bakker et al. (2016), Multifunctional Underground Projects (MUPs) are not simply structures which combines more functions underground. An MUP is a subterranean structure which represents a shared mean for combining the goals of different functions, placed both above and under the ground, in a way that one can reinforce the other. By combining goals, this structure is also capable of linking different interests, as illustrated in the following scheme.

Figure 27: Schematisation of multifunctionality

Hence for studying an MUP is necessary to enlarge the analysed system to the surface and the surrounding built environment. For these reasons, it should be expected that a large variety of projects falls into this group, mainly when located in an urban environment where the ties with the surroundings are stronger.

These features imply that MUPs bring along effects connected to the underground structure and to what happens on the surface. en different documents were reviewed for obtaining an overview of these effects. From this analysis, the first list of positive or negative impacts emerged, which can be short-term oriented thus temporary or long-term oriented thus permanent. They can also be divided into sustainability, liveability and other societal effects. Four new effects emerged in the analysis of literature and interviews related to the multiple-case studies, so obtaining a final list 45 effects, which are shown in the table below.

146 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Table 11-1: Effects of multifunctionality

Permanent Temporary

Use of natural resources (+) Energetic efficiency (+) Land consumption (surface) (+) Buffer space for floods/floods mitigation (+) Soil pollution and disturbance (-) Groundwater pollution (-) Air pollution (-) Air pollution and emissions (+) Water pollution (-) Resilience and protection to external threats Sustainability Soil pollution (-) (earthquakes, floods, fires, etc.) (+) Flora and fauna (-) Vulnerability to internal threats (-)

Structure durability (+) Consumption underground resources (ground, water, geothermal) (-) Underground space reallocation and restoring the initial situation (-) Opportunity for renewal of underground systems (+) Travel time (+) Noise (+) Vibration (+) Isolation against extreme weather conditions (+) Safety (traffic) (+) Travel time (-) Safety (criminality) (-) Cultural and archaeology (-) Liveability Accessibility of the structure (+/-) Noise (-) Psychophysical comfort (living/working underground) (-) Accessibility (-) Visual impact mitigation (+) Use of surface, continuous space use and surface accessibility (+) Use of surface for recreational activities (+) Smell (+) Fuel savings (€) (+) Implementation urban mobility policies (+) Construction costs (-) Maintenance costs (ordinary) (+) Repairing costs (extraordinary) (-) Risks of buildings in proximity Other societal Lighting and ventilation costs (-) (-) effects Geomaterials reuse (+) Income business and commerce Use of surface: (-)  Image of the city (+)  Real estate value (+)  Revenue from commerce, business and taxes (+)

2. Which is a suitable theory for highlighting the relevant factors and the role of the appraisal tools in the practice of decision-making for MUPs?

MUPs are often large, complex, technically challenging structures, which involve different interests. As such, their decision-making process is expected to be complicated too, including a variety of actors with different goals, which debate and negotiate before concluding. Furthermore, “one cannot, of course, construct or fully appraise a theory of urban politics on the basis of any single-actor study” (Altshuler & Luberoff, 2003). Consequently, after conducting a desk research, the actor's network is perceived as the most suitable theoretical approach for studying the decisional process. Moreover, among the models retained valid within the actor's network approach (phase, garbage can, streams and rounds model), the rounds model of

147 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Teisman (2000) is retained the best because of its capability of grasping the actor's interactions which characterise the decision-making processes for MUPs.

This model describes the reality as a consequentially set of rounds, demarked by crucial decisions, where actors meet for discussing and negotiating (Teisman, 2000). For making this model more complete, the arenas which represent the discussion tables where the actors meet to address a specific issue should be added. More arenas can be held at the same time and players may participate to more than ones; it is logical to suppose that what happened in one stage can influence another one (Bueren et al., 2003; de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Enserink et al., 2010). The actors would adopt strategies functional to achieve their goals. Therefore it is essential to understand which would be their power position (production, blocking or diffuse power) and stance (proponent, opponent or fence sitter).

For what concerns the use of appraisal tools, they are intended to be supports for reaching a more rational and analytical decisional process, by presenting data and information in a structured way. Nevertheless, they still leave space for contesting and debating their validity or can be strategically used by the actors for supporting to their goal (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Mackie et al., 2014; Mouter, 2017). Each appraisal tool has a different role. MCA to be used in the strategical phases (Bristow & Nellthorp, 2000; Grant-Muller et al., 2001); CBA is most used as support for demonstrating the feasibility of a decision (Annema et al., 2016; Mouter et al., 2013; Nyborg, 1996, 1998); EIA and SIA are mostly used for checking if the project complies with specific standards (Petts, 2009). Nevertheless, practical observations demonstrated that qualitative methods are still largely used in the strategical phases (Bristow & Nellthorp, 2000; Nilsson et al., 2008; Odgaard et al., 2006).

3. What relevant common factors can be highlighted in the practice of decision-making for MUPs and what is the role of the appraisal tools?

After framing the decision-making processes of the six case studies emerged the following common factors:

In four of the practical cases, the choice of a building a multifunctional underground structure derived from negotiations and bargaining for integrating the requests of stakeholders, rather than a real process driver. The decision-makers unanimously saw multifunctionality as a mean for achieving the level of agreement necessary for implementing the project since the plan could combine the interests of different parties. Indeed, combining goals and interests is one of the main features of MUPs; therefore, decision makers showed a certain awareness towards this aspect.

The consensus is a crucial factor for the implementation of these complex and challenging projects and obtaining it requires a particular effort in managing the network. The international cases showed a network more centralised on a specific figure, while for the Dutch ones are more dispersed. In the second case, there was the tendency to discuss more, also about the validity of data, but this did not mean that the final result was not reached.

The implementation of an MUPs is related to values of the society and therefore cannot be considered explicitly demarked by a beginning and an end. The studied MUPs came from pre-existent structures which, at a certain point of time were perceived as obsolete and inadequate to the modern needs of the society. For this reason, it seems reasonable to expect that they do not represent a definitive solution, but that later in the future the process would repeat, they would be perceived again as ineffective, and the decisional process will restart.

When it comes to deciding which project should be implemented, the qualitative descriptive methods are mostly used. Just in the case of Kethel Tunnel, the EIA was mentioned as a way to rank different alternatives. The most common appraisal tools are the EIA and the CBA. The first is principally used for 148 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci communication and stakeholder’s engagement, while the second for proving the financial feasibility accounting just directly monetisable effects (construction costs and cash-flow).

For the international cases, the respondents showed no problems in the way data and information were handled; while for the Dutch ones some contestations were encountered. In the view of the resercher, these are consequences of a network is more or less centralised.

4. To what extent the theoretical effects of multifunctionality are used in the practice of decision- making and appraisal tools??

To give an answer, the six multiple-case studies have been analysed. The information gathered through desk research and interviews with relevant actors were compared to the theoretical effects of MUPs (Table 11-1).

In this way has been calculated that more than the 60% of the effects of multifunctionality are considered in the decision-making. Although the international cases addressed more effects then the Dutch ones, the difference was found not statistically significant.

However, just the 24.4% of the considered effects were analytically addressed. In this case, the Dutch cases showed a higher rate, but the difference was statistically insignificant. It was confirmed a clear tendency to estimate analytically just directly accountable effects.

This data confirms that both groups of decision-makers prefer qualitative analysis, although the Dutch are slightly more prone to use quantitative ones. In general, the effects which influence liveability and costs are more likely to be considered (respectively 83.3% and 64.6% of considered effects), instead of the sustainability ones (45.1% of considered effects). This last category indeed includes results not always easy to perceive even considering long-time permanent ones.

In none of the analysed case was addressed or discussed the issue of reallocating and restoring the underground space. This fact shows a shortcoming in the decision-making, especially in the light of the finding from the previous question which expects the projects to be discussed again in the future, so would be advisable to consider the issue of reusing the underground space.

The fact that the impacts of the project are considered and in some cases estimated, as well as the answers of the respondents, lead to conclude that the spatial constraint is not the only factor influencing the outcome. Nevertheless, the lack of space still represents a relevant component.

5. To what extent, ex-ante expectations and ex-post perceptions of the effects of multifunctionality are aligned?

The answer to this question was based on a single-case study. The effects ex-post perceptions were assessed asking specific questions to the actors and analysing their judgement. Successively they were compared with the ex-ante expectations of the same effects.

Applying this methodology, the researcher found that the realised effects are aligned with the ex-ante expectations for approximately 60%. Meaning that overall the project was perceived as satisfactory and an improvement compared to the initial situation, but some outcomes differ from the expectations.

The most problematic effects were related to the costs, because, in this specific case the lack of demand as caused financial troubles to the contractor. On this purpose, some respondents mentioned that, in any case, the impact was on the contractor and not on the public money. However, others highlighted how this outcome, still without impacting the public money, may potentially decrease the perceptions for other effects like safety, due to lack of maintenance.

149 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Aside from this main issue other effects, appertaining to different categories did not match the expectations completely. Among these, attention should be paid to the consciousness of the subterranean space and its resources.

In fact, for what regards the reallocation and restoration of the space, the respondents confirmed that no discussion about it was made during the decisional process; a functional lifetime for the structure was merely fixed according to the legislation, without further questions on future perspectives. Also, the current perceptions about the argument are controversial; some respondents retain it insufficient from a commercial point of view, others believe that reallocating the space would not be a problem or would be easily tackled in the future.

Also, the perception about the underground resources is controversial, since, the only resource take into account in the decision-making and that is perceived as such is the groundwater.

“What are the relevant factors, and to what extent the effects of multifunctionality are considered and aligned to their ex-post perceptions, in the practice of decision-making process and appraisal for Multifunctional Underground Projects (MUPs)?”

In conclusion, this research has found that decision-makers use the MUPs as an instrument for linking goals and interests belonging to different players, although, this verify mostly as consequence of negotiations. In practice, multifunctionality is used principally for reaching the level of agreement necessary to implement the project, rather than as a decisional driver.

In fact, the decisional process evolves within a complex network of many different actors, that needs to interact with each other many times before coming to an agreement and deciding to implement a project. Even though, a process initiator particularly powerful and committed to managing the network was often observed.

The decisional process for the MUPs starts when a pre-existing structure is perceived as old and inefficient for the standards of modern society; this leads to the expectation that also MUPs would be in future viewed as obsolete and reconsidered when these standards would change again.

The effects of the MUPs are many and disparate; they can impact liveability, sustainability and other societal effects. Of these effects, more than the 60% is considered in the ex-ante decision-making with a predilection for the ones related to liveability and other societal effects. Nevertheless, spatial constraint represents a relevant factor.

Most of the effects are addressed just qualitatively, as confirmed by a small rate of analytically addressed ones (24.4%). In fact, the strategical decisions are mostly taken using descriptive analysis. Although, EIA and CBA still find broad application, the first mainly for communication and stakeholders engagement purposes, the second for supporting the decision by showing the financial feasibility.

In the realisation of the project, many issues are arising which lead the ex-post perceptions to not being totally aligned with the ex-ante expectations (60%). The most relevant shortfall was found in the effects related to costs and can also be linked to other impacts associated to liveability.

No evidence was found about the discussion of possibilities for reallocating the underground space, the only subsurface resource considered was the groundwater. This deficiency might be due to a lack of consciousness of the underground as a finite resource. This fact can be considered a particularly relevant weakness of the practice of decision-making, especially, in consideration of the fact that the project would likely be reconsidered in future.

150 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 12. Limitations

Conducting this research has been possible to arrive at a satisfactory answer to the main question. Nevertheless, this study, as any other, is based on determinate choices regarding approach and methodology, which the researcher has to do based on existing knowledge, time, resources and other constraints. These choices would necessarily bring to certain drawbacks and limitations that will be highlighted in this section.

12.1 Regarding the approach Theoretical framework

The first step of this research consisted of building a conceptual framework which defines multifunctionality, its effects and provides a model for the decision-making process.

Since the give definition of multifunctionality did not find perfect correspondence in the existing literature. This fact might have negative implications on the replicability of the results to different cases; for this reason, the given definition of MUP has been carefully selected. As said in chapter 0, using this definition, various underground structures can be elected as multifunctional, especially in the urban areas where the bond with the surroundings is stronger.

The second theoretical framework consisted of a model for analysing the decisional process. On this purpose should be reminded that a model represents a set of arbitrary assumptions to frame the observations of the reality. The players do not act according to rules of the model, the reality is much more complex, but the researcher needs to adopt a certain model that allows him to grasp just the aspect of the reality he considers relevant. In this case, the focus the of the research was on the actor's interactions and accordingly was selected the rounds model of Teisman (2000).

Multiple-case studies and single case study

This research approached the problem trying to be more generic, inclusive and explorative as possible. Therefore, the multiple case studies approach was selected. Nevertheless, the pool of chosen cases was reasonably limited to six because of time and resources constraints. This number would necessarily lead to question to which extent the results can be generalised maintaining its validity. Logically a larger sample would provide more robust results; however, in research already cases of three nations in 2 different continents were addressed, giving to the results sufficient wideness. Furthermore, the final part of the research is based on a single case this choice lead to questioning to which extent these findings are comparable with the rest. All these limitations have been considered by the researcher trying to balance their mitigation in consideration of time and costs constraints.

12.2 Regarding the methodology Data gathering

The primary data gathering methods used were the desk research and the interviews; these in methods would most likely be found the main drawbacks.

As the decision-makers need to operate before collecting all the information (Etzioni, 1989); the same concept applies to this research, in fact, the desk research although valuable cannot give all the info. Indeed, the theoretical review was based on a limited list of ten documents, providing apparent limitations to the list obtained. For this reason, this list, aside from being carefully revised by the researcher, was kept “open” and implemented with new effects emerged from the cases or reduced when not all the effects were retained

151 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci relevant. Equally limited is the desk research applied to the case studies, but the interviews helped to cover last points not addressed by the literature and highlighting the most salient points.

Interviews were indeed a largely used data gathering method. About this technique, it can be said that the validity is dependent on what the respondent is willing to say, therefore susceptible to personal biases and lack of trust, and dependents also to the number of interviews. The drawback of trust was alleviated by maintaining the interviews anonymous, paying particular attention to the way questions were asked, and issues presented. Moreover, asking the same question to more respondents (when possible), the answers were cross-checked validating their robustness.

Furthermore, not all the point of views involved in the decisional process could be addressed hence the analysis may results biased. Therefore, the robustness of some cases can be still questioned. For this reason, Riccione Promenade, where the view of the most important actors was covered, was chosen as the in-depth case.

Data analysis

The data collected via desk research and interviews were qualitative and based on perceptions, hence not measurable. The processing and analysis methods used were based on qualitative techniques as well. Therefore they left space for human error and cognitive limitations of the researcher. Meanwhile measurable results were not produced, for example, the importance of effects and factors considered is not quantifiable and classifiable in a ranking. Also for coping with limits were chosen six cases, in this way the amount of information to be processed was maintained within the cognitive limits, while still having a valuable overview of the reality. In fact, this research aimed to generate a descriptive knowledge of a subject, the decision-making, which, as repeated many times, is based more on actors perceptions rather than rational, analytical analysis. Therefore, to a certain extent, perceptions, which most of the time have a qualitative nature, are more relevant than incontestable measures of factors and effects.

152 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 13. Discussion and recommendations

This research has shown that the multifunctionality is a valuable way to solve wicked problems, by addressing the interests of more various actors and stakeholders. In fact, each time an actor enter the decisional process his interests can be linked to the project and new effects would be taken into account. The Kethel Tunnel represents the best example in this sense (chapter 5.6 and 0). However not all the effects of the MUPs are addressed, during the decision-making and even less are analytically valued; this situation highlights a new gap, which would lead to new inquiries. In fact, it seems legitimate to question what could be done addressing all the effects and estimating them analytically. This topic would need further research; however, some considerations can be done already.

With no doubt, when more effects are addressed, the decisional process would get more rational, with advantages for the society. However, as already explained by different researchers the human rationality is limited (March, 1994; Simon, 1997) and an information overload would make the process to slow and expensive and could even block it (Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993; Stone, 1988). Therefore, the problem which emerges from this situation is about finding the right number of effects to account.

In the analysed cases, no respondent has reported any experience of a process highly dependent on the strong strategical play; nevertheless, the fact that not all the effects were accounted and not analysed in any appraisal tool, still leaves space to strategical play. For example, one actor may be aware of a particular impact, but leave it out of the analysis on purpose since other parties are not aware of it. This situation can be even more accentuated by the fact that just the directly accountable effects entered the appraisal tools.

Moreover, chapter 7 and 8 showed that the effects related to sustainability are the ones that more often are left out of the discussion, in particular, the ones pertaining to durability, restoration of the initial situation in the underground space and consumption of the subterranean resources. Although, to which extent this due to lack of awareness or on purpose has not been proven. Anyway, effects are difficult criteria to analytically estimate using CBA or even EIA, hence hard to add to currently most used appraisal tools. However, there are already studies which pointed at which kind of impact they can have, as showed in chapter 0.

All these observations lead to the consideration and recommendation for politicians and urban planners looking for solutions for more sustainable and liveable cities development. The MUPs, with no doubt, are a suitable way of achieving these goals. Hence, decision-makers should look at the underground structures as mean for combining functions and linking interests from the beginning. In this way, they can obtain a decisional process relatively linear and can overcome hard challenges, by addressing the interests of various actors and stakeholders, as seen in the Post Office Square example.

However, for a more rational decision, addressing just the impacts that the actors perceive as urgent might be reductive. More effects, ideally all the 45 listed in this thesis, should be used systematically as decision criteria. Although the full rationality cannot be achieved, adopting a standardised approach, which addresses these requirements in a more structured and systematic way, would be beneficial for liveability and sustainability. The multi-criteria analysis (MCA) seems at this point the most suitable tool for this purpose, despite, in none of the analysed cases this method appeared.

Indeed, MCA is the method that at best can compare project when they are in the early phases and their impact still not clear (Bristow & Nellthorp, 2000). Therefore, a MCA as support to the choice can systematically and analytically address the 45 effects of MUP without necessarily need complex considerations and evaluations. In fact, most of the interviewees indicated that they perceived as difficult to analytically describe most of the effects related to sustainability and liveability. For example, reporting the impact of each effect with “-“ and “+” would be obtained a scorecard that allows to systematically address 153 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci each effect while individuating the strengths and the weaknesses of each choice, still in a qualitative way. The method can also be enriched adding weights and prioritisation of each effect. Furthermore, the use of MCA does not exclude the use of other appraisal tools, even better, coupling more methods in the successive steps would add strength to the decisional process. A further advantage of approaching the process using a framework of effects consists in forcing the decision-makers to think about impacts which, otherwise, they would neglect either on purpose or because of a lack of knowledge. Moreover, by highlighting the weaknesses, they can recognise, already in the first phases, eventual mitigation measures needed.

This factor seems to the researcher highly relevant, considering that no one showed to be fully aware, or take into account, the fact the ground itself is a limited space and that the initial situation cannot be fully restored once the functional lifetime of a structure is expired. The only perceived underground resource was the groundwater; the soil, the geothermal energy and space itself were neglected. A fact that may be symptomatic of a gap in the perception of decision-makers towards the subsurface as limited resources in line with the conclusions of Admiraal & Cornaro, (2016b), Sterling et al. (2012). This lack is perceived as severe, considering that as seen chapter 0, researchers empathised the fact that the incorrect use of the underground resources would hinder the sustainability and liveability for future generations. Meanwhile, as highlighted chapter 6, these projects are likely to be replaced in the future when they are going to be perceived as obsolete and inadequate.

This typology of approach would still leave space for discussions and consequently, strategical actions, since, as seems logical, not all the parties would immediately agree on the data, or on the weights, or they might ask for an in-depth analysis of specific aspects. However, in the view of the researcher, this methodology would guarantee a sufficient degree of rationality and awareness towards the impacts regarding liveability and sustainability already in the first steps of the decisional process.

Moreover, should be mentioned that the effects composing the theoretical framework can also be applied to other underground projects, and are not exclusive of the MUPs. In fact, the main strength of the MUPs is to combine interests and consequently effects, but not to create new ones. Hence, the same impacts are shared by “non-multifunctional” underground structures and MUPs; however, the MUPs has the advantage of addressing and linking more of them in the same project.

154 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 14. Further works suggestions

The goal of the research was to constitute a base of descriptive knowledge for successively determining a prescriptive knowledge aimed to a more rational decision-making for MUPs; as seen in the previous section, some prescriptive recommendations are already possible. However, limitations and drawbacks have to be taken into account, both in the research and the recommendations, hence, it seems necessary to give some suggestions for further researches.

On the basis of the knowledge here acquired, in the previous section, the researcher has suggested to consider the multifunctional option from the beginning and to use a standardised approach consisting of the evaluation the list of 45 theoretical effects of multifunctionality with a MCA. For making this recommendation an authoritative and valid prescription the suggestion is to research the validity of the effects list and to explore how decision-makers would react to the introduction of this systematic approach.

As said, the effect list is based on a limited literature study. It has been modified during this research so that it could adapt to cases examined, this might represent the first validation, but there are still effects which were retained not valid for the specific cases. Thus, further validations are needed before arriving at a robust framework; it can be done by letting experts assessing it or applying it to more cases. Enlarging the sample to more projects with different features, in different countries, would be possible validation strategy. Moreover, in the perspective of using this list as a standard framework is necessary also to evaluate how decision-makers would perceive it. For example, they might believe that 45 criteria are too many for the early stages of the process, therefore refuse to use this framework.

Obtaining a robust list can also be a base for further researchers aimed to evaluate the importance of factors and effects of decision-making. As said, ranking the effects and their importance was considered out of the scope of this thesis and almost impossible to do with the adopted methodology. This scope would require different data gathering methods such as structured and semi-structured interviews coupled with adequate processing tools like the BWM (Best-Worst Method). This approach would contribute to creating a deeper descriptive knowledge. A more structured research approach would also allow to better discern the lack of knowledge of the strategical actions. In fact, in this thesis has not been possible to precisely assess to which extent the effects were not accounted intentionally or because of lack of knowledge. Ranking and weighing the factors, while distinguishing from lack of awareness and opportunistic actions are retained by the researcher two highly relevant steps for developing a deeper knowledge which would make the recommendations to the decision makers stronger and more effective.

155 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci REFERENCES

Admiraal, H., & Cornaro, A. (2016a). Engaging decision makers for an urban underground future. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology Incorporating Trenchless Technology Research, 55, 221–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015.08.009

Admiraal, H., & Cornaro, A. (2016b). Why underground space should be included in urban planning policy – And how this will enhance an urban underground future. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 55, 214–220.

Allison, G. (1971). A Rigorous Model of Action. In Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (first, pp. 28–35). Little Brown.

Altshuler, A., & Luberoff, D. (2003). Mega-Projects: The Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment (Washington. In Mega-projects and Urban Theory (pp. 45–75). Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Angel, S., Sheppard, S. C., Civco, D. L., Buckley, R., Chabaeva, A., Gitlin, L., … Perlin, M. (2005). The Dynamics of Global Urban Expansion. Washington D.C.

Annema, J. A., Frenken, K., Koopmans, C., & Kroesen, M. (2016). Relating cost-benefit analysis results with transport project decisions in the Netherlands. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12076-016-0175-5

Annema, J. A., Koopmans, C., & Van Wee, B. (2007). Evaluating Transport Infrastructure Investments: The Dutch Experience with a Standardized Approach. Transport Reviews, 27(2), 125–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640600843237

Annema, J. A., Mouter, N., & Razaei, J. (2015). Cost-benefit analysis (CBA), or multi-criteria decision- making (MCDM) or both : politicians ’ perspective in transport policy appraisal. Transportation Research Procedia, 10(July), 788–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2015.09.032

Arcadis. (2011). Uitgangpuntenrapport Kostenraming Park A4 Schiedam (Estimate Report Park a4 Schiedam). Schiedam.

ATELIER PRO. (n.d.). Van Heek Garage. Retrieved from https://www.atelierpro.nl/nl/projects/81/van- heekgarage#.WPdNTdKLS00

Ayalon, O., Shmueli, L., Koren, S. F., & Zerbib, M. Z. (2016). Evaluating Market Benefits of Transportation Tunnels — The Carmel Tunnels as a Case Study. Journal of Environmental Protection, 7, 1259–1272. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2016.710111

Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1970). Decisions and Nondecsions. In Power and poverty : theory and practice (pp. 39–63). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bakker, M., van der Heijden, J., van Buren, N., Groffen, B., & van Engen, G. (2016). Reinventing multifunctionality. Combining goals, sharing means, linking interests.

Bearfield, D. A., & Dubnick, M. J. (2009). All Mega-Projects are Locals, Citizen Participation Lessons from the Big Dig. Journal of Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 21(3), 393–426.

Beukers, E., Bertolini, L., & Te Brömmelstroet, M. (2012). Why CBA is Perceived as a Problematic Tool. Transport Policy, 46, 68–78.

Bobylev, N. (2007). Sustainability and Vulnerability of Critical Underground Infrastructure. In I. Linkov, R. J. Wenning, & G. A. Kiker (Eds.), Managing Critical Infrastructure Risks (1st ed., pp. 445–469). Springer Netherlands. 156 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Bobylev, N. (2009). Mainstreaming sustainable development into a city’s Master plan : A case of Urban Underground Space use. Land Use Policy, 26, 1128–1137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.02.003

Boston, beyond the Big Dig. (2002). Retrieved from http://archive.boston.com/beyond_bigdig/

Bristow, A. L., & Nellthorp, J. (2000). Transport project appraisal in the European Union. Transport Policy, 7, 51–61.

Bueren, E. M. Van, Klijn, E., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2003). Dealing with Wicked Problems in Networks: Analyzing an Environmental Debate from a Network Perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 13(2), 193–212.

Buisman, S. (2017). Spatial effects in the ex-ante evaluation of urban underground transportation infrastructure projects. TU Delft.

City of Boston. (1984). Legal challenges. Boston.

City of Boston. (1985). Air rights archive. Boston.

City of Boston. (1986a). First Amendment to the Report on Post Office Square 121A Corporation. Boston: Boston Public Library.

City of Boston. (1986b). Settlement proposal. Boston.

City of Boston. (1987). Settlement agreement, Archive. Boston.

City of Schiedam. (2015). Nieuwsbrief Schiedam in beweging (Newsletter Schiedam in motion). Schiedam.

City of Toronto. (n.d.). PATH – Toronto’s Downtown Pedestrian Walkway. Retrieved January 1, 2017, from http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=f537b454b35a2410VgnVCM10000071d60f 89RCRD&vgnextchannel=04708b7a29891410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

COB. (n.d.). Tramtunnel. Retrieved from https://www.cob.nl/over-ondergronds- bouwen/voorbeeldprojecten/den-haag-tramtunnel.html

Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.

Comune di Riccione. (2010). La Storia (The History). Retrieved from http://www.comune.riccione.rn.it/Engine/RAServePG.php/P/56642RIC0316/T/La-Storia

Comune di Riccione. (2014). Lungomare della Libertà e Lungomare della Repubblica. Retrieved from www.comune.riccione.rn.it

Danigelis, A. (2004). The Man Behind the Big Dig. MIT Technology Review. de Bruijn, H., & Leijten, M. (2007). Transportation Planning and Technology Megaprojects and Contested Information. Transportation Planning and Technology, 30(1), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060701208050 de Bruijn, H., & ten Heuvelhof, E. (2008). Management in Networks, on multi-actors decision making. London: Routledge.

Drucker, P. F. (1967). The effective decision. Harvard Business Review, (January).

Duvergne Smith, N. (2013). Who Shaped Boston’s Central Artery and Big Dig? Slice of MIT. Boston.

Edelenbos, J., van der Hoeven, F., & van der Krogt, R. (1998). Strategic Study on the Utilization of Underground Space in the Netherlands. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 13(2), 159– 157 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 165. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0886-7798(98)00043-1

Edil Valmarecchia, & Cooperativa Muratori Verucchio. (2003). Realizzazione di parcheggi interrati nel Lungomare. Studio di fattibilità. (Realisation of parking lots underneath the promenade. Feasibility study).

Enserink, B., Hermans, L., Kwakkel, J., Thissen, W., Koppenjan, J., & Bots, P. (2010). Policy Analysis of Multi-Actor Systems. The Hague: Lemma.

Etzioni, A. (1989). Humble Decision Making. Harvard Business Review, July-Augus, 122–126.

Flint, A. (2015). 10 years later, did the Big Dig deliver? Boston Globe.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 21– 245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363

Flyvbjerg, B. (2007). Policy and planning for large-infrastructure projects: problems, causes, cures. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34, 578–598. https://doi.org/10.1068/b32111

Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. K. S., & Buhl, S. L. (2005). How (In)accurate Are Demand Forecasts in Public Works Projects? The Case of Transportation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2), 131–146.

Galavotti, E. (n.d.). Grido ad Manghinot. Politica e Turismo a Riccione (1859-1967).

Gelinas, N. (2007). Lessons of Boston’s Big Dig America’s. City Journal. Retrieved from https://www.city- journal.org/html/lessons-boston’s-big-dig-13049.html

Gerring, J. (2009). Case Selection for Case‐Study Analysis: Qualitative and Quantitative Techniques. In J. M. Box-Steffensmeier, H. E. Brady, & D. Collier (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford University Press.

Girardi, U., Lenzi, S., Maccaferri, L., Salvi, R., Attili, C., Sacchini, E., … Zironi, A. (2011). Governance and Marketing territoriale nel Turismo, Rapporto 2010. Bologna.

Godard, J., & Sterling, R. L. (1995). General considerations in assessing the advantages of using underground space. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 10(3), 287–297. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/0886-7798(95)00018-T

Grant-Muller, S. M., MacKie, P., Nellthorp, J., & Pearman, A. (2001). Economic appraisal of European transport projects: The state-of-the-art revisited. Transport Reviews, 21(2), 237–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640119423

Grimsey, D., & Lewis, M. (2007). Public Private Partnerships : The Worldwide Revolution in Infrastructure Provision and Project Finance. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Harnik, P. (1997). The Park at Post Office Square. Urban Parks and Open Space.

Huges, T. (1998). Coping with Complexity:Central Artery/Tunnel. In Rescuing Prometheus (1st ed., pp. 156–197). New York: Vintage Books.

IenM Ministry. (2015). A4 Delft-Schiedam.

IODS. (2001a). History A4 Delft - Schiedam. Schiedam.

IODS. (2001b). Kansen benutten, impasses doorbreken(Taking advantage of opportunities). Schiedam.

Jenelius, E., Petersen, T., & Mattsson, L. G. (2006). Importance and exposure in road network vulnerability analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 40(7), 537–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2005.11.003 158 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Kenis, P., & Schneider, V. (1991). Policy networks and policy analysis: Scrutinizing a New Analytical Tools. In B. Marin & R. Mayntz (Eds.), Policy networks: Empirical evidence and theoretical considerations (pp. (pp. 22–59). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (1997). Managing complex networks strategy for the public sector. SAGE.

Kingdon, J. (1995). The Policy Window, and Joining the Streams. In Longman (Ed.), Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies (2nd ed., pp. 165–195). New York.

Klijn, E., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2000). Public Management and Policy Networks. Public Management, 2(2), 135–158.

Koo, D., Ariaratnam, S. T., & Kavazanjian, E. J. (2009). Development of a sustainability assessment model for underground infrastructure projects. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 36(5), 765–776. https://doi.org/10.1139/L09-024

Kornov, L., & Thissen, W. A. H. (2000). Rationality in decision- and policy-making implications for strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(3), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154600781767402

Leijten, M. (2017). What lies beneath Bounded manageability in complex underground infrastructure projects. TU Delft.

Lindblom, C. E., & Woodhouse, E. J. (1993). The Challenges Facing Policy Making. In P. Hall (Ed.), The Policy-making Process Prentice-Hall foundations of modern political science series (3rd ed., pp. 2–21).

Liveability. (2011). In American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (Fifth). Retrieved from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Liveability

Lombardi, F. (2002). Storia di Riccione (History of Riccione). Cesena: Il Ponte Vecchio.

Mackie, P., & Preston, J. (1998). Twenty-one sources of error and bias in transport project appraisal. Transport Policy, 5, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(98)00004-3

Mackie, P., Worsley, T., & Eliasson, J. (2014). Transport appraisal revisited. Research in Transportation Economics, 47, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2014.09.013

Marasco, P., Piacenza, P., & Tranquilli, M. (2015). Il project Financing per la realizzazione delle opere pubbliche in Italia (project financing for the realisation of public works in Italy). Rome.

March, J. G. (1994a). Limited rationality. In J. G. March (Ed.), A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen (1st ed., pp. 1–23). New York: Simon & Schuster Ltd.

March, J. G. (1994b). Limited rationality. In J. G. March (Ed.), A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen (1st ed., pp. 1–23). New York: Simon & Schuster Ltd.

Massachusetts Department of Transportation. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/TheBigDig/FactsFigures.aspx#utility

Mele, P. (2005). Relazione di Fattibilità Parcheggio Lungomare 2 (Report feasibility Lungomare 2). Riccione.

Mele, P., Castellani, I., Ricci, C., & Gaddi, B. (2011). Studio fattibilità P.F. Lungomare Costituzione (Feasibility Study “Lungoamre della Costituzione”). Riccione: Municipality of Riccione.

Ministry of Transport Water Housing Planning and Environmental Management. (2009). Brief van de Ministers van verkeer en Waterstraat, en van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke ordening en Milieurbeheer (Letter from the Minister of Transportation, Water,Housing and planning and environmental

159 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci management). The Hague.

Minot DeBlois & Maddison Inc. (1983). Post Office Square Development Feasibility Analysis.

Mitchell, B. (1984). City council Concerns. Boston: City of Boston, Office of the Mayor.

Morgan, L. (2016). Finding art and history among the malls of Montreal’s underground city. Montreal Gazette. Montreal.

Mouter, N. (2017). Dutch politicians’ attitudes towards Cost-Benefit Analysis. Transport Policy, 54(May 2016), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.11.001

Mouter, N., Annema, J. A., & van Wee, B. (2013). Attitudes towards the role of Cost-Benefit Analysis in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects : A Dutch case study. Transportation Research Part A, 58, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.006

Mouter, N., Annema, J. A., & van Wee, B. (2015). Managing the insolvable limitations of cost-benefit analysis : results of an interview based study. Transportation, 42, 277–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9539-0

Mucciaroni, G. (1992). The Garbage Can Model & the Study of Policy Making: A Critique. Polity, 24(3), 459–482.

Municipality of Enschede. (1971). Binnenstadsboek Gemeente Enschede “City masterplan Municipality of Enschede.” Enschede.

Municipality of Enschede. (1993). Binnenstadsboek Gemeente Enschede “City masterplan Municipality of Enschede.” Enschede.

Municipality of Enschede. Binnenstadsboek Gemeente Enschede “City masterplan Municipality of Enschede” (1996). Enschede.

Municipality of Enschede. (1996b). Exploitatie van gronden van Heekplein (Ground excavation van Heekplein). Enschede.

Municipality of Enschede. (1997). Exploitatie van gronden van Heekplein (Ground excavation van Heekplein). Enschede.

Municipality of Enschede. (2000). Ontwikkeling van Heekplein; Parkeergarage concept VO (Heekplein development. Parkign garage concept). Enschede.

Municipality of Enschede. (2001). Ontwikkeling van Heekplein, projectorganisatie (Development of Heekplein, project organization). Enschede.

Municipality of Enschede. (2002). Parkeergelegenheden: Parkeergarages (Parking plan: Parking garages). Enschede.

Municipality of Riccione. (2005). Meeting of the City Council.

Municipality of Riccione. (2007a). Meeting of the City council.

Municipality of Riccione. (2007b). Meeting of the City Council.

Municipality of Riccione. (2008a). Declaration City Council, Start of construction.

Municipality of Riccione. (2008b). Declaration City Council approval definitive project.

Municipality of Riccione. (2008c). Declaration of City Council, Approval of definitive project.

Municipality of Riccione. (2009). Meeting of the City Council.

160 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Municipality of Riccione. (2010). Meeting of the City Council.

Municipality of Riccione. (2012). Declaration of accounting office acquisition urbanization works.

Municipality of Riccione. (2013). Meeting of the City Council.

Municipality of Riccione. (2016). Maxi ripascimento, sopralluogo della Regione Conti “ entro maggio lavori ultimati” (maxi nourishment, inspection from the Region Conti “works completed within May”).

Municipality of Schiedam. Business case A4 Park (2011). Schiedam.

Nilsson, M., Jordan, A., Turnpenny, J., Hertin, J., Nykvist, B., & Russel, D. (2008). The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making : an analysis of three European countries and the European Union. Policy Sci, 41, 335–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-008-9071-1

Norman B. Leventhal Park. (2016). History of Boston’s Post Office Square. Retrieved from http://www.normanbleventhalpark.org/about-us/history-of-post-office-square/

Nyborg, K. (1996). Kanne Nyborg Some Norwegian Politicians’ Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis. Statistics Norway Research Department, 169.

Nyborg, K. (1998). Some Norwegian politicians’ use of cost-benefit analysis. Public Choice, 95, 381–401. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005012509068

NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management. (n.d.). The Central Artery / Third Harbor Tunnel Project (“The Big Dig”) Boston, Massachusetts.

Odgaard, T., Kelly, C., & Laird, J. (2006). Current practice in project appraisal in Europe. Online.

Office of Technology Assessment. (1976). Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit: Boston Case Study.

Padjen, E. (2014). An alternate park Universe. Landscape Architecture Magazine.

Parriaux, A., Tacher, L., Kaufmann, V., & Blunier, P. (2006). Underground resources and sustainable development in urban areas. Nottingham, UK: IAEG.

Petts, J. (2009). Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment. Volume 2 Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice: Impact and Limitations. John Wiley & Sons.

Priemus, H. (2010). Decision-making on Mega-projects: Drifting on Political Discontinuity and Market Dynamics. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 10(1), 19–29.

Priemus, H., & van Wee, B. (2013). International Handbook of Mega-Projects (1st ed.). United States: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Rekenkamer. (2002). Onderzoek naar de oorzaken van de overschrijding in het project Van Heekplein gemeente Enschede. (reserch on the causes of the costs overrun for the van Heekplein project of Enschede). Enschede.

Rijkswaterstaat. (2009). Trajectnota/MER Stap 2 A4 Delft-Schiedam Deelrapport Verkeer (EIA Route A4 Delft-Schiedam Area Traffic Report). Schiedam.

Rijkswaterstaat. (2010). Tracébesluit A4 Delft-Schiedam (Route Decision A4 Delft Schiedam). Schiedam.

Rimini Today. (2012). Riccione, sul lungomare della Repubblica arrivano due parcheggi sotterranei (Riccione, on Lungomare della Republica two underground parkings are coming). Rimini Today. Rimini. Retrieved from http://www.riminitoday.it/cronaca/riccione-sul-lungomare-della-repubblica- arrivano-due-parcheggi-sotterranei.html

161 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Rimini Today. (2014). Riccione, il sabbiodotto produce i primi effetti: ricostruito il primo tratto di spiaggia (Riccione, the “sabbiodotto” produces the first effects: rebuilt the first beach section).

Romagna Gazzette. (2010). I nuovi lungomare della Repubblica e ple S.Martino (The new Lungomare della Repubblic and Piazzale San Martino). Retrieved from http://www.romagnagazzette.com/2010/06/25/i- nuovi-lungomare-della-repubblica-e-ple-s-martino/

Rooiman, J. (2017). Ondergronds bouwen, bestuurlijk waardevol of waardeloos? (Building underground, added value or worthless?). Saxion University of Applied Sciences.

RTV Rijnmond. (2015). A4 vanuit Schiedam open voor verkeer 3.

Ryan, R. J. (1984). Application Post Office Square Redevelopment Corporation. Boston.

Salling, K. B., & Banister, D. (2009). Assessment of large transport infrastructure projects: The CBA-DK model. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, A(43), 800–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2009.08.001

Short, J., & Kopp, A. (2005). Transport infrastructure: Investment and planning. Policy and research aspects. Transport Policy, 12, 360–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.04.003

Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-making Processes in Administrative Organizations (Fourth). New York: The Free Press.

Skou Nicolaisen, M., & Driscoll, P. A. (2014). Ex-Post Evaluations of Demand Forecast Accuracy: A Literature Review. Transport Reviews, 34(4), 540–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2014.926428

Smith, E. M. (1979). Artery Renovation Still Under Debate. The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved from http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1979/4/11/artery-renovation-still-under-debate-pa/

Soldo, D. L., & Oreste, I. P. (n.d.). The Use of Underground Spaces for Environmental Protection Purpose. Retrieved from http://www.altratecnica.it/indicemiscellaneanuova/indiceacquedotti/sottosuolo/risorsesottosuolo/vantag gi-opere-sott.pdf

Sterling, R., Admiraal, H., Bobylev, N., Parker, H., Godard, J., Vahaaho, I., … Hanamura, T. (2012). Sustainability issues for underground space in urban areas. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers.

Stichting Historische Sociëteit Enschede-Lonneker. (2017). Stadsgeschiedenis (City History). Retrieved from http://www.shsel.nl/canon/

Stone, D. (1988). Decisions. In Policy Paradox and Political Reason (pp. 184–206). New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Tajima, K. (2003). New Estimates of the Demand for Urban Green Space: Implication for Valuing the Environmental Benefits of Boston’s Big Dig Project. Journal of Urban Affairs, 25(5), 641–655.

Teisman, G. R. (2000). Models for research into decision-making processes: on phases, streams and decision making rounds. Public Administration, 78(4), 729–992.

Thewes, M., Godard, J. P., Kocsonya, F. P., Nishi, J., Arends, G., Broere, W., … Sterling, R. (2012). Report on Underground Solutions for Urban Problems.

Turner, R. (2003). Beyond the Big Dig. New England Journal of Public Policy, 18(2), 53–71.

United Nations. (2014). World Urbanization Prospects. New York.

Urban Land Institute. (1994). Park and Garage at Post Office Square. Project Reference File ULI, 24(3).

162 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci van Wee, B. (2012). How suitable is CBA for the ex-ante evaluation of transport projects and policies? A discussion from the perspective of ethics. Transport Policy, 19, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.07.001

Verschuren, P., & Doorewaard, H. (2013). Designing a Research Project. Eleven International Publishing (Second, Vol. 53). The Hague: Eleven International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Wener, R., & Farbstein, J. (1993). The Park at Post Office Square. In Rebuilding Communities: Re-creating Urban Excellence : 1993 Rudy Bruner Award for Excellence in the Urban Environment (pp. 71–86). Bruner Foundation.

Williams, T., & Samset, K. (2010). Issues in Front-End Decision Making on Projects. Project Management Journal, 41(2), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj

Yedis, A. (1979). Post Office Square building gets under way. Boston Globe. Boston.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research. Design and Methods. In Sage (Ed.), Case Study Research. Design and Methods (pp. 1–5). Thousand Oaks.

Zargarian, R., Hunt, D., & Foss Rogers, C. D. (2016). The Role of Underground Space in a Sustainable UK Urban Environment. In Zhou, Cai, & Sterling (Eds.), Advances in Underground Space Development (pp. 930–942). Research Publishing. https://doi.org/10.3850/978-981-07-3757-3

163 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci APPENDIXES

Appendix A: decision-making perspective and models

The Rational and analytical approach to decision-making Decision presupposes a decided that makes a choice among different alternatives with reference to a goal (Allison, 1971). Therefore, the concept of decision making reminds of a sequence of actions and decisions towards the achievement of a goal. Presuming that the decision maker has clear goals, a clear set of values and he is capable of evaluating the consequences of his decisions according to his set of values; in other words an actor would rationally decide among all the possibilities depending the references for expecting return they would give (March, 1994; Simon, 1997).

This idea of decision making presumes a process executed by a single decision maker which act according to rationality and analytical investigation. Moreover, he will have full information and perfect knowledge about alternatives and consequences. So that the actor would set his goal, individuate all the possible options, evaluate all of them according to their expected outcome and finally select the one which would maximise the return (March, 1994; Simon, 1997). Can be therefore derived a decision model based on a minimum of 4 phases (March, 1994).

In this model information’s, knowledge, analytical capabilities and capacity of fixing a unique, clear goals play a decisive role. However, In fact, the real world is characterised by a series of uncertainties and complexities, too large to include them in a satisfactory analysis. (Etzioni, 1989; Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993; March, 1994; Stone, 1988). Even supposing that a decision maker would obtain full and complete information, it would be too difficult for him to process all of them together due to limits of communication, comprehension, memory, attention (March, 1994). This info overload would cause a paralysis of the analytical process, and consequently, no decision would be taken (Stone, 1988). Moreover, the analysis has always to comply with resources and time available, in reality, waiting for a decision until all the information are collected and analysed would result in a process too slow and expensive to be feasible (Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993), therefore decision makers need to proceed just knowing and analysing part of the information (Etzioni, 1989). Rationality is also influenced by emotions, taking decisions means taking risks, it is, therefore, a situation which would provoke anxiety in the decision makers as human beings consequentially influencing his behaviour (Etzioni, 1989). It can be concluded that rationality and analytical capabilities of human being demonstrated to be constrained and decision makers operate under limited (or bounded) rationality and that therefore, decision-makers tend to find solutions for “satisfying” a certain target, rather than “maximizing” the outcome (March, 1994; Simon, 1997).

Besides the decision maker rationality and analysis capabilities which are limited, the rational decision- making model suffers from the fact that data necessary for the decision could be biased for strategical and political reasons. This second reason in particular lead to questioning whether rational models, which are can be considered mostly individualistic and centred on the view of a single focal actor (an individual, an organisation, a firm etc.), which lead the process through different phases before arriving at the final decision (Stone, 1988), would be suitable to describe real decisional process which involves various stakeholders with different beliefs and ideas.

164 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci The network approach to decision-making In reality, the modern society is composed of a multitude of actors and everyone depends on everyone else to reach his goals, therefore, when dealing with public issues, the power of making or influencing decisions is shared among different stakeholders; and just a few of them are so powerful to impose their decisions unilaterally (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008). Decisions are often the results of force, influence and authority imposed by the decision maker (Bachrach & Baratz, 1970). However, we are often in the environment that Stone (1988) calls “polis”, so a situation where the power is generally dispersed and not concentrated on a single actor, therefore there are different points of viewing the issues, giving space to possibilities for negotiation, coalitions, cooperation and contestation. Also the governments cannot be seen as superior actors, they are part of a society and therefore need the support of other actors to perform their tasks (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008); even looking at the action of a single actor such as political leader or a functionary, his decisions, would be the consequences of agreements, conflicts, influences and pressures previously received (Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993). Can be concluded that decisions are therefore the consequence of interactions between interdependent actors part of the same network, with different objectives, power, resources and strategies (Kickert et al., 1997; Klijn & Koppenjan, 2000).

The network could be defined as “decentralized concept of social organization and governance” (Kenis & Schneider, 1991); a situation where control and power is dispersed among multiple actors mutually dependent on each other’s resources and the final decision is the results of their interaction (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Kenis & Schneider, 1991; Kickert et al., 1997; Klijn & Koppenjan, 2000); hence a network could be seen as a flat structure and not a hierarchical one (Kenis & Schneider, 1991; Kickert et al., 1997).

Networks are characterised by a large number and variety of actors (public, private and semi-public), with different value and interests, which are interdependent to one another resources. The resources could be various, such as money, authority, influence, information or land; however, actors cannot be fully aware of other’s resources and their interdependency would be established based on their perceptions(de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Kickert et al., 1997). Therefore in order to mobilise and exchange others resources would be necessary consulting and negotiation, while each actor would adopt its strategy (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Kickert et al., 1997). Nonetheless, rules would emerge in order to regulate resources distribution, relations and behaviours within the network (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2000). Even though, during the decisional process interests, perceptions, resources, links and consequentially strategies could change frequently; the set of actors would tend to stay relatively stable (Kenis & Schneider, 1991). Moreover actors would be characterized by a certain closedness, that means they are not sensitive to external inputs, this could be seen as a drawback, because when an input does not comply with the actor core values this will tend to reject it; however, on the other side, closedness could be considered the core for creating strong and lasting bonds between actors (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Kickert et al., 1997). In conclusion, using a network approach to decision making, the final decision would be seen as the result of interactions, negotiations and strategies among different actors; therefore, success or failure of the process could be explained on the basis of the degree of cooperation achieve among the actors (Kenis & Schneider, 1991).

Decision-making and governance following the network theory would help to solve wicked problems expanding the participation. However, this could lead to inconveniences such as deadlocks and conflicts, with consequent increase of costs and times; moreover, the process, overall, could be seen as less transparent from the outside, since would be not clear who is participating and which interests is representing (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Klijn & Koppenjan, 2000). Anyway, these negative effects could be limited implementing proper network management techniques (Bueren et al., 2003; de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Kickert et al., 1997).

165 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci In order to reconstruct and analysing the decision-making process, one should reconstruct the process based on empirical observations that should stick on series of assumptions based on an apriori idea of the process, which composes a decision-making model (Teisman, 2000). Different models are available within the network approach; the following section will present main features, characteristics and logics of four of the most common models for decision making in networks.

1. Phase Model The phase model assumes that the decision making is a structured sequence of distinct stages. Thus the process can be divided into minimum three stages, formation adoption and implementation; each one with his own participants and characteristics (Teisman, 2000). This model is problem-oriented and presumes the presence of powerful focal actors capable of determining in a structured and clear way which is the problem, successively lead the process individuating a solution and implementing it (Teisman, 2000). The problem formulation stage represents a crucial moment, and in order to achieve the final success, the perception of all the actors should be taken into account in order to obtain shared consensus (Enserink et al., 2010; Teisman, 2000).

Given these characteristics these model could be seen as a derivation of the rational and analytical approach (see Drucker, 1967; J. J. March, 1994; Simon, 1997); indeed, decision-making is often more unstructured and unpredictable, however, the phases are meant to be logical rather than chronological and include feedbacks and iterations (Enserink et al., 2010).

Analysts agree that this model does not allow to reflect all the complexity of the reality and problem would arise when an actor impose this structure decision-making sequence in a situation when nobody is in charge (Teisman, 2000). Can be concluded, therefore, that the application of this model, even though recognised and used by researchers and analysts results limited in situations of shared and distributed power.

2. Garbage Can Model The garbage can model applies to decision making in organisations in the situation when there is no clear preference; the decisional process is unstructured, unclear and often reduced to the simple trial-and-error procedure; moreover, participant are not fixed, they vary in number, time and effort they put into they devote to the procedure. Therefore, in this type of situations, called “organised anarchies”, decisions are taken in absence clear shared goals, clear problem definition and without shared consensus. (Cohen et al., 1972; Enserink et al., 2010; Mucciaroni, 1992).

The decisional process is schematized as a series of garbage cans where participants deposit their problems and solutions. More cans are available in at the same point of time, so that actors, solutions and problems, would converge in one can according to its label and the outcome of previous cans. A can would be emptied just when a solution is taken. However, the process is unpredictable, therefore, cannot be foreseen how problems and solutions are going to be coupled. (Cohen et al., 1972; Enserink et al., 2010; Mucciaroni, 1992). This model would, therefore, allow explaining how choices are made in situations of ambiguity and conflicts on goals and problems (Cohen et al., 1972) and explain unexpected or unanticipated outcomes of the decision making (Enserink et al., 2010).

3. Streams Model The streams model depicts the decision making as the interaction between three, almost parallel, current streams: problem, policy and political streams. The combination of these streams is not due to temporal sequences (Kingdon, 1995), changes in each stream are independent one another (Mucciaroni, 1992). However, streams can be seen as dependent on political events and to actors actions. Problems cannot be 166 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci isolated from people (Kingdon, 1995). Therefore actors are within and between the streams, articulating problems and solutions (Enserink et al., 2010).

When a problem is pressing and therefore is generated a solution, problem and policy stream match, is opened a “problem window”. In other cases, political and policy stream could match, for instance with a change of administration new proposals are brought on the agenda, so a “political window” is opened. However, decisions are taken just when the three streams are combined opening a “policy window”. In this case, advocates of solutions and problems have the opportunity to raise the attention on their interests; problems and solutions can be coupled, and the political sphere is willing to add it to the agenda and take decisions. Nevertheless, policy windows are limited in time, a decision as to be taken before the window closes or it will wait till the next one (Kingdon, 1995).

In this model the figure of the policy entrepreneur is central, there are advocates of solutions, looking for the right problem to address to it. Advocates are observant of changes that might denote the propensity to open a window; they are ready to propose their solution in the right moment, in order to let the decision happen before the window is closed (Enserink et al., 2010; Kingdon, 1995). Hence, this model supposes that solutions are attached to problems and therefore turn the concept of the rational decision-making, where solutions are the results of a clear problem definition (Enserink et al., 2010)

4. Rounds Model The rounds model explains the decision-making process as a series of rounds rather than chronological phases, where different interdependent actors interact in order to take a conclusive decision; the focus of the decisional process is on the governance rather than government (Enserink et al., 2010; Teisman, 2000). The actors are the focal point of the process; a solution is the outcome of strategic interactions among different players involved, each bringing his perception of problems and solutions, interests, preferences and resources; they might clash or agree, negotiate and combine their solutions (Teisman, 2000).

Start and conclusion of rounds are not linked to time. Each round begins with a particular decision-making retrospect and ends with a crucial decision that would represent the start of new round; therefore it is up to the analyst to individuate the rounds forming the decisional process (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Teisman, 2000). However, no solution should be considered definitive or permanent; it should rather be considered as the answer to needs of the actors involved in a specific round. In fact, the process could be seen as iterative; the same solution could be discussed again and not necessarily further developed in the next round. New players can appear, and others might leave between one round and the other; thus the winners may change, and the outcome may not be clear until the end. (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Enserink et al., 2010; Teisman, 2000).

This model, focusing on the governance, can grasp the complexity of decision making in all the situation when there are multiple, interdependent actors involved. In fact, they would bring to the discussion table different perceptions, different goals, therefore, different personal interests, moreover, each has different resources, thus, capabilities of steering the process. In this scenery, the decision is not the outcome of a single-minded analytical process, but rather the result strategies, negotiations, confrontations and combinations of interests and resources (Teisman, 2000).

167 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Appendix B: Actors and possible respondents

From the first screening of the actors involved in the project has been possible to draw a list of people, associations, companies to interview in order to embrace the full variety of views and perception that were part of the decisional process. The following table reports the actors that consequently were contacted requesting for an interview; when was possible to contact a specific person representing that actor has been reported directly the role he covered when there were not specific people has been contacted the organisation and therefore is no specific role is reported. Need to be noted that this table does not represent a full list of actors since already from the first scan some of them resulted not reachable, for instance, individuals reported death or organisations dissolved with no successors, and therefore not included here.

As maintaining the anonymity, as already explained, was part of the agreement with the respondents, no names are shown on the list, while the reported role is reported that should be informative, but not reconduct to the name of the individual.

Table B-1: List of actors and people to interview

Actor Role CA/T Project Legal counsel and risk manager for Big Government Dig Governor Vice Governor Massachusetts State Secretary of Transportation Secretary of Transportation Mass Dot

Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) Board member Artery Business Committee, Director (now “A better city") Boston City Council

Boston Planning & Dev. Authority

Architecture Responsible for masterplan Contractors Landscape architecture Director urban design and architecture Project Management Member Boston Transportation Planning Review Member Rose Kennedy Greenway

Representative 1 Irish and Italian community Representative 2 Post Office Square City Council Mayor's Development Advisor Board member Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) Director Landscape Design Beacon Corporation Engineer Friends of Post Office Square Director

168 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Manager Manager Member 1 Member 2 Member 3 Conceptual plan Preliminary Design Contractors Garage Design Landscape architecture Boston Green Space Alliance

First Franklin Corporation

Riccione Mayor 1 Mayor 2 Opposition 1 City council Opposition 2 Opposition 3 Green Party Public works and urban dev. officer 1 City Public works and urban dev. officer 2 Hotel owners association

Board member 1 Beach venues owners associations Board member 2 Small hotel owners and residents Association “Riccione Abissinia” Architecture Construction and management Contractors Construction and management Construction and management Van Heekgarage Responsible for parking spaces City council Urban development officer Business groups Residents Kethel Tunnel Rijkswaterstaat Municipality Schiedam Municipality Vlaardingen Residents Kethel Tunnel IODS

169 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Appendix C: Multiple-case studies presentation

Story of the Central Artery Tunnel “Boston Big Dig” The process which led to the construction of the Boston Big Dig started already in the 30’s, when, deciding how to allocate the vehicular traffic in the city, the idea of an underground solution was rejected in in favour of the construction of an elevated highway. This Big Dig “ancestor”, the elevated artery ran along Boston waterfront, where the city business district, once centred on shipping, was located. But the Artery stopped pedestrians from reaching the waterfront; it overwhelmed low-rise streets, historic outdoor fruit and vegetable market, and even the historic Faneuil Hall with traffic, noise, and shadow. It erased swaths of the working class Italian North End, displacing 573 between small shops, trading firms’ other business, and hundreds of families. Many buildings even if not demolished, were afterwards facing the Artery. Nonetheless, it construction caused 36 city blocks to be demolished. Boston understood the Artery’s impact so quickly that in 1954 was decided to bury the last stretch in a tunnel (Gelinas, 2007; Leijten, 2017).

When the infrastructure open in 1959 its capacity was of 75000 vehicles a day, meanwhile Bostonians were concerned its impact on the urban tissues and formed groups of anti-artery activists. The Governor Francis Sargent was forced to look for a solution, so appointed Alan Altshuler from MIT and other researchers to develop a conceptual plan for the traffic. They would, later, publish the so-called Boston Transportation Planning Review Committee (BTPR). In the meantime, following the pressures, the construction of other urban highways, which should have formed the already planned “Inner Belt”, was stopped. This decision made the whole traffic growth flowing in the Artery, which just 10 years after its opening, was carrying 170000 vehicles/day with a significant increase of nuisance and risks of structural collapsing. (Gelinas, 2007; Huges, 1998; Leijten, 2017; NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, n.d.; Office of Technology Assessment, 1976) (Respondents 1, 2 and 3).

In the meantime, in ’71, during a meeting, Bill Reynolds, a highway contractor, and Frederick P. Salvucci, an anti-highway activist and transportation advisor to Mayor Kevin White, conceived the idea of burying the Artery. The BTPR formally considered the idea including it in the report of 1972. Among the other possibilities advised by the BTPR, there was a two-lane bus tunnel option that would be open only to public and special vehicles, under the harbour. This solution would have relieved the congestion in the existing roads and saw the support of Governor Sargent and the business groups, but was never implemented because of construction restrictions (Bearfield & Dubnick, 2009; Danigelis, 2004; Gelinas, 2007; NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, n.d.; Office of Technology Assessment, 1976).

In 1974 Michael Dukakis was elected governor, and Frederik Salvucci appointed as secretary of transportation. The Governor was personally sceptical about the central artery depression project since he disliked cars as transportation mean. However, he changed his attitude when Salvucci showed how the project could have been coupled with a railway (respondent 1). Moreover, Salvucci was promising that the realisation would not displace people, the Italian neighbourhood would be unified to the rest of the city and the economic development of the city boosted.

Depressing the elevated highway became the main point of Dukakis administration transportation plan and, hoping for federal funds, was presented the first Environmental Impact Statement related to the project. In fact, the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) of 1969, required that an EIS be prepared for all federally funded transportation projects. Although the Massachusetts delegation to the US Congress (led by Tipp O’Neill) argued that Congress should finance the project and added it to a congressional blueprint, in 1976, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) decided to reject the project on other grounds. In 1978 Dukakis lost the elections in favour of Edward King, an opponent of the idea of burying the artery and

170 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci favourable to the harbour tunnel. The reason why the central artery project was pushed aside during his mandate (Bearfield & Dubnick, 2009; Danigelis, 2004; Gelinas, 2007; Huges, 1998).

In 1982 Dukakis was re-elected, and Salvucci re-appointed Secretary of transports and the project of the CA/T was conceptualised, which meant unifying the projects of depressing the central artery (CA) and building a new artery tunnel (T) in the direction of Logan International. In this way were coupled the interests of citizens and business groups in the same project, increasing the support and the possibilities of obtaining federal finances. The studies for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) began, and the first report was released in 1985; this could be considered the begins of the conceptual design phase of the project (Gelinas, 2007; Huges, 1998; Leijten, 2017).

The EIS was approved by US Environment Protection Agency, and presented to the FHWA in response to the rejection of ’76, showing better cost-benefit ratio, leading to its approval. However, the President Reagan disliked the project and vetoed the funding, therefore began a series of discussions in the Congress where the Democrats lead by O’Neill, and Ted Kennedy managed to override the presidential veto. Finally, the US Congress approves funding and scope of the project, through a public works bill, although the federal funding for the railway was never approved (respondent 1). (Gelinas, 2007; Huges, 1998; NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, n.d.).

For the whole period (1985-1990), the conceptual design was going under the public stakeholder's revision and improvement through publication and distribution in libraries of the EIS, as well as, numerous public meetings (Bearfield & Dubnick, 2009; Huges, 1998; NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, n.d.).

In 1986 the joint venture Bechtel and Parsons Brinckerhoff were contracted as project manager contractor, and in 1988 the final design process and exploratory archaeology digs began, while the scheme Z was selected as a solution for crossing the Charles River, raising the opposition of public opinion. In 1990 the Congress allocated $750 million to the project and the year later the final EIS was approved on the conditions that a proper open space and construction development would have been created on the surface of the downtown tunnel. The construction, including all the mitigation plans, was finally approved in 1991 by state secretary of environmental affairs and FHW; the works contracted and awarded, so that started in the same year, while plan for the future surface open space “Boston2000” was approved by secretary of state of environmental affairs (“Boston, beyond the Big Dig,” 2002; Gelinas, 2007; Huges, 1998; NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, n.d.).

Story of the Boston Post Office Square The Post Office Square is one of the oldest centres of social life in Boston. The area, after being the centre of ropes production in the 19th century, gradually turned into shopping and baking and got it shape through the real estate development of the first years of the 20th century(Norman B. Leventhal Park, 2016).

In the 50’s, the retail businesses from the city centre were migrating in the peripheries, apparently, due to the scarce accessibility, given the lack of parking spots in the district. Thus, in 1954, the city of Boston, owner of the plot, leased it for 40 years to the First Franklin Corp. of Frank Sawyer which erected a four-storey elevated garage for 950 vehicles. The “Parking Garage Unit 3”, as it was called, covered almost the whole extension of the square, leaving just a small portion as of free space, named Angell Memorial Park(Harnik, 1997; Norman B. Leventhal Park, 2016).

In the 70’s new towers have been erected around the Post Office Square, but, the Parking Garage Unit Number 3 was in degraded conditions. Dirty and bad maintained, the garage was also causing traffic in the area because of the erroneous planning of the access ramps; hence the main entrances of the buildings have 171 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci been moved from the square to the secondary streets. Later, in 1981, the Beacon company, owned by Norman Leventhal, after building the One Post Office Square, inaugurated the new Hotel Meridien. It was during this event that, for the first time, Leventhal mentioned to the mayor Kevin White the necessity of improving the quality of the area by replacing the garage. Although the mayor agreed on the view of the of the tycoon, the plot was leased until 1994 to the First Franklin company of Mr Sawyer, which had no reason to cease his right. In fact, due to the high demand for parking slots in that area, the garage was making profits in spite of its poor maintenance (Harnik, 1997; Norman B. Leventhal Park, 2016; Urban Land Institute, 1994; Wener & Farbstein, 1993; Yedis, 1979).

The bad quality of the area was perceived by the Bostonians already before the intervention of Norman Leventhal, however, as confirmed in the interview 4, was Mr Leventhal the first capable of really promoting a change. Thus, in 1983, founded the Friends of Post Office Square Inc (FPOS)., putting together 20 chief executives members of the neighbouring companies and investors with the scope of discussing the redevelopment of the square. This group was capable of financing the preliminary studies and presenting to the municipality the plan for constructing an underground garage of six or seven floors for 1200 or 1400 spaces respectively, with a public park on the ground level to be built on the Post Office Square. At the same time, the organisation began the legal conflict against Sawyer (Harnik, 1997; Minot DeBlois & Maddison Inc., 1983; Norman B. Leventhal Park, 2016; Urban Land Institute, 1994; Wener & Farbstein, 1993).

In 1984 the municipality approved the preliminary project proposal for a garage of 1400 cars, with a public park at the top, in a public-private partnership, for a total estimated value of $43million. To be fully financed by the private party (Friends of Post Office Square Trust) by issuing shares of the project and requesting a loan, the city would have contributed just with a tax exemption. Therefore the Friends of Post Office Square (FPOS) began raising funds by selling shares of the project for $65,000 each, repayable in 40 years, with an interest rate of up to 8%. Not a particularly interesting return rate for the time, if not that “each share included the guaranteed right to lease one parking space, at market rate, forever, in the best location in Boston, in the best garage in the city, maybe in the world” (Weinberg has cited by Harnik, 1997). In this way 450 shares were sold, raising $30 million, while and the remaining $48,5 million were procured with a loan (Harnik, 1997; Ryan, 1984; Urban Land Institute, 1994).

In spite of the preliminary project appraisal, the discussion about the redevelopment of the plot continued. From one side with the owner of the current lease Frank Sawyer and his First Franklin Corp. which were running a profitable business and therefore not willing to cease the land right. Moreover, some councillors were concerned with the financial feasibility and the legal aspects of the plan. But principally, they did not want to allocate one of the most valuable parcels of the city to public park use, losing potential higher revenues deriving from building an office tower. For the same reason, the area caught the attention of different real estate investors who proposed the construction of a 70-floor tower. However, FPOS, together with other interest groups such as the Boston Greenspace Alliance, was lobbying for a green space the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) which was concerned with the overcrowding of the financial district and the presence of sunlight in that zone, thus in favour of the park (City of Boston, 1984, 1985, 1986a; Harnik, 1997; Mitchell, 1984).

Finally, thanks to the support of the project promoters and the Boston Greenspace Alliance the Mayor Flynn approved the definitive design in 1987. Meanwhile, an agreement was reached with the First Franklin Corp to sell its surface right for $6 million, due to the bad conditions of the garage which made it a dangerous structure for the collectivity. Following this event started the tendering procedure for the garage and the park, although the parking contractor was hired and started his work first, the promoters gave priority to the park, and its contractor (Halvorson design) was considered the main one. The construction was completed, and the

172 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci garage started operating in 1990, followed two years later by the Norman B. Leventhal Park(City of Boston, 1986b, 1987; Harnik, 1997).

Story of the Promenade of Riccione The promenade has always been the focal point and attraction for tourists and locals in Riccione, so that can be considered the centre of day and nightlife. Hence, its story is strongly tied to the development of the city’s touristic industry, which nowadays still represent the main source of income.

During the 20’s, thanks to substantial improvements in the transportation network, Riccione was elected as the favourite holiday destination of rich families from Northern and Central Italy such as Mussolini, Campari, Borsalino and Nuvolari. Consequence money started to flow in the town in the form of investments in villas and recreational facilities for rich tourists, so that, already in the 30’s, this small town became one of the most popular beach destination of rich Italian families. Among the many facilities that were built in these years the first promenade, a small street for regulating the access to the beach from the many private villas and residences on the seafront. (Comune di Riccione, 2010; Edil Valmarecchia & Cooperativa Muratori Verucchio, 2003; Galavotti, n.d.; Lombardi, 2002; Mele, 2005; Mele et al., 2011).

Following the war and the reconstruction, the city began benefiting from the new Italian middle class that could finally afford summer holidays. Therefore along the city waterfront summer houses and villas were replaced by large hotels for accommodating the increasing flow of tourists. The promenade was modernised accordingly to the needs of these new tourists class, which wanted to reach the accommodations and the beach by car. It became a Boulevard open to traffic, large enough to host motorsport events, interrupted by squares, mostly used as parking slots (Comune di Riccione, 2010; Galavotti, n.d.; Lombardi, 2002) (respondent 9, 11, 14).

Riccione became each year more focused on the mass tourism for both families and youngsters. But, together with the flow of tourists, the traffic on the promenade grew year by year, resulting in a chaotic, polluted and unsafe situation for cyclists and pedestrians by the end of the 80’s. The promenade, at that point in time, could not offer anymore a sufficient number of parking spaces, while becoming old, it started to lose its charm and attractiveness so that locals began perceiving that was the moment for a new modernisation of this strategic infrastructure for the tourism industry. As mentioned by the respondent 11 and 14, is dated to that period, the first proposal of 4 hotel owners who wanted to refurbish the stretch of the promenade in front of their venues, which, however, had no success for financial reasons. Nonetheless, this proposal had the effect of enhancing the general awareness. Hotels and beach venues owners, in particular, agreed on the necessity of increasing the number of parking spots. However, while the firsts preferred to limit the traffic so that their clients would leave their car parked for the whole duration of the holiday and walking safely to the beach, the second wanted to maintain the street open to traffic so that also occasional clients would easily reach them (Comune di Riccione, 2010; Galavotti, n.d.; Girardi et al., 2011; Lombardi, 2002) (respondent 9).

When 1999 a new administration was elected, its program was centred on increasing the touristic attractiveness of the city. Hence, the seafront was the focal point. With a competition, architects, students and citizens were called to propose their ideas for a new liveable promenade, many various concepts were presented, as an elevated walkway, or a promenade with climbs to resemble the shape of the hilly countryside. However, no concept was suitable for coping with the need of tourism operators while providing a liveable facility. Moreover, the cost of the works would have been over the city possibilities (Girardi et al., 2011) (respondent 9 and 13).

Considering the needs of hotels and beach facilities the city administration proposed it a tendering for a “project finance” (public-private partnership), the concept of a new seafront with a parking slot beneath the promenade which would be dedicated to pedestrians and cyclists. The public-private partnership was chosen 173 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci to cope with budget restrictions and while the city already gained experience with the firm of the “project finance” constructing other facilities. After building a strong consensus among the different stakeholders first (hotel owners, beach venues owner, residents) and city counsellors successively, the city council contracted the first stretch of the promenade (from the port to “Piazzale Roma”). Immediately after, the second and last stretch of for the south side “Lungomare della Repubblica”was contracted (Municipality of Riccione, 2005, 2005, 2007a).

The implementation of the first section took relatively small time and effort for the promoters since it involved just the interests of tourism operators which looked favourably at the new plan (respondents 9, 10, 11 and 12): in 2003 the final preliminary proposal was approved, and in 2005 the works started. Therefore, the administration started after a short time the decisional project for the second stretch; in this case, the process obtained slightly more resistance, because, arriving in a more peripherical area of the city it touched the interests of locals not involved in tourism. In particular, complementary to the promenade project, there was a contingency plan, paid by the municipality, for refitting the connection streets to the promenade which included: renovating the underground utilities and removing some of the public parking spots, giving more space to pedestrians and bicycles also placing benches and vegetation. This plan was, therefore, involving private houses and cheaper hotels which, until that moment benefited from the public parking. The preliminary plan was approved in 2006, its definitive version of the project was accepted in 2008, and the construction started (Municipality of Riccione, 2005, 2005, 2007a, 2007b, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c)

Following the election of a new administration in 2009 also the North Promenade “Lungomare della Liberazione” has been restored following the same concept, although, in this case, the parking slot has been placed just underneath the squares at the intersection of the promenade and the streets. The project entered the policy agenda in 2009, the preliminary design approved in 2011 and the definitive in 2012 without particular obstruction (Comune di Riccione, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013).

Story of the Van Heekgarage The history of the Van HeekGarage is embedded with the recent history of Enschede and its reconstruction after the war. In fact, following the city destruction of second world war, to cope with the growth of the 50’s and the forecast of future demographic growth was decided the construction of the Boulevard 1945, which was completed in the 60’s and crossed the city East to West. However, Enschede economy, based mainly on the textile industry, entered into crisis in the early 70’s, due to the Asian concurrency. The economic growth slowed down so that the plan of filling the Boulevard with shops and retails got did not materialise (Municipality of Enschede, 1971; Stichting Historische Sociëteit Enschede-Lonneker, 2017).

During the 80’s, the city, helped by national funding, started an investment plan for industry and shopping development of downtown. However, the perception of the city authorities was that the Boulevard 1945 was not helping, but hampering the town possibilities of development and its competitiveness and attractiveness compared with other Dutch and German cities in the region. However, according to the municipality, the Boulevard was not complying with its initial concept of being a shopping route, in fact, it was splitting the city in two and obstructing its development. In particular, the Van Heekplein, originally conceived to be the largest square and the city shopping centre, was divided in two by the Boulevard. Although, during that period, the square was used as a parking lot, hosting around 700 cars, and twice a week (Tuesday and Saturday) was closed to traffic and used as a location for the city market. This situation made the idea of redeveloping the whole are maturing in citizens and city councillors(Municipality of Enschede, 2001; Rooiman, 2017).

Therefore, at the beginning of the 90’s, the problem was finally addressed, deciding to split in two the Boulevard 1945 and that its stretch across the Van Heekplein would have been a normal street so that the

174 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci square could have been unified. In the meantime, not without reserves, was contracted a private company, the MAB, for elaborating a redevelopment plan of the area; a task that was concluded in 1992 with the drafting of the master plan for downtown Enschede, the document that influenced all the future concepts for the area development (Municipality of Enschede, 1993, 1996b; Rekenkamer, 2002).

The master plan, approved in 1993 included different possibilities for improving the liveability of the city centre, such as the construction of an underground parking, or as alternative different garages around the centre, the depression of the boulevard, with the purpose of promoting of new stores in the city centre and housing around the VanHeekplain. In 1994 the city council decided that a parking lot of 700 places would have been beneath the square, on a single level, while the Boulevard detoured around the V&D and PTT buildings. It also called all the citizens and stakeholders to collaborate in order to delineate a better definitive plan (Municipality of Enschede, 1993, 1996b; Rekenkamer, 2002).

For this reason, in 1995 were held numerous workshops and meetings, while Multi Vastgoed took over the role of MAB continuing the discussion with local actors and the municipality decided to use the “Binnenstadsboek”, a further development of the downtown master plan, used as a normative basement for the development of the city centre. This report set of possible policies aimed to a achieve a traffic-free city centre, such as building a safe underground parking garage in the city centre or, in alternative, different parking lots outside the city centre, redeveloping the urban buses connection and redirecting the traffic to the new highway A35. In 1996 Multi Vastgoed proposed a new redevelopment plan which was meant to be a public-private partnership with the businesses operating on the square. However, the agreement was not reached. Therefore the municipality decided to take over the process (Municipality of Enschede, 1996a; Rekenkamer, 2002).

The year later, following the pressure of the business groups (Holland Casino and Bijenkorf mostly), a new decision was taken, the parking garage would have allocated 1400 vehicles, therefore two levels were necessary, and would have been divided into 2 sides East and West (under the casino and the BTT properties). This modification caused, according to Twynstra Gudde, consultancy contractor of the project, an increase in the total cost over the budget of the city, but was still possible to lower the costs just elaborating more the project. Despite this, the idea of a depressing the Boulevard 1945 under the square was definitively dropped, on the basis of two points. The cost, and the fact this tunnel would still convey the traffic inside across the city centre, a situation considered against the city mobility plan for the period 1996- 2005 which was aiming to a traffic-free city centre. Finally, by the end of 1997, while Twynstra Gudde started the exploration works, the city council began bargaining the financial support of the stores in the city centre for the redevelopment of the square. Holland Casino and Bijenkorf contributed for the soil acquisition (Municipality of Enschede, 1997, 2000; Rekenkamer, 2002).

In 1999 Atelier PRO was contracted as architecture and engineering contractor, their preliminary design of the garage was presented during one of the stakeholder's meetings. However, the project was found not financially feasible, and the firm defended itself saying that they did not receive any budget restraints from the municipality. This event leads the city to increase the budget for a new design, reaching a total of 123 million guldens (€56 million) (ATELIER PRO, n.d.; Municipality of Enschede, 2002; Rekenkamer, 2002).

Therefore, the final plan was approved in 2000, so the construction works could begin in the same year and finally, the West side of the casino was opened in 2002 while the East side in 2003 (ATELIER PRO, n.d.; Rekenkamer, 2002; Rooiman, 2017).

Story of A4 and Kethel Tunnel The history of the Kethel Tunnel is strictly linked to the history of the A4 motorway. The idea of building this highway as substitution of the old street date back in the 50’s, the route was established in 1962, and the 175 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci construction started in Schiedam 1968. However, when was the moment to build the last stretch between Schiedam and Delft, crossing the Delfland local group began protesting, concerned about the environmental impact of the infrastructure. Following the protests also the local governments abandoned the project and in ’76 the parliament declared the stop of the works until the whole national transportation masterplan would have been reconsidered. The project was therefore revised within the guidelines of the new masterplan, approved in 1981, promising a route integrated with the environment and not harmful for it (IODS, 2001a; Rijkswaterstaat, 2010).

The Parliament approved the new plan in 1989, the first part was built, but the second needed special attention the environment. Therefore, the works slowed down again, looking for the best solution. In 1996 was presented a report on the environmental impact of 3 possibilities for the highway (surface, semi- underground, underground). The Ministry was in favour of a surface solution, which was rejected by the Parliament. The same Parliament, however, decided to not allocate budget for the construction of a more expensive solution (IODS, 2001a, 2001b).

Therefore, in order to find an integrated solution capable of accommodating the needs of the various stakeholders, in 2001, after the initiative of the Zuid Holland Province, it was founded the De Integrale Ontwikkeling tussen Delft en Schiedam (IODS); an organisation with functions of discussion table for all the stakeholders of the Middel-Delfland (authorities, environmental associations, farmers etc.) and representative of them in discussing with the Ministry. The IODS elaborated in the following years their guidelines for the development of the region addressing the construction of the A4 and mitigation plans (IODS, 2001a, 2001b).

In 2004 the Ministry made a firm statement declaring that the road was going to be built, two years later was reached an agreement with local authorities for the construction following the mitigation plan developed by the IODS. In the meantime was approved a law which gave more power to the central government in the implementation of the national strategical project and the highway was considered one of these since functional to the good connection to the Port of Rotterdam. Therefore, in 2009, minister approved the A4 variant 1b, a semi-underground road with a roof in correspondence of the Kethel Plein in Schiedam (IenM Ministry, 2015; Rijkswaterstaat, 2010).

In this way the route was finally established, Schiedam in the meantime developed a plan for the use of the tunnel roof as green park and sports centre. In 2010 the municipality approved the construction, thus in 2012, the works for both, highway and sports facilities started. The highway was finally opened in 2015 and the sports park the year later (IenM Ministry, 2015; Ministry of Transport Water Housing Planning and Environmental Management, 2009).

Story of The Hague Tram Tunnel The decision of the city of The Hague of implementing an urban tram rail to connect the periphery to the city centre is dated 1969. At the time the idea was to build a semi-metro system. Therefore the rails should have been separated from the street, also using tunnels, but the ground crossing was still allowed. Within this plan, HTM conceived the idea of building the tram tunnel, but the city placed the project on hold for a long time.

Just during the 80’s, following the complaints of business owners in the city centre, because of the scarce accessibility and connect the idea of the tram tunnel was recovered. With a motion (Motion Bianchi), the councillor Wil Bianchi proposed to construct the tunnel under the Groote Marktstraat. The main shopping street of the city, at the time, opened to vehicular traffic and particularly busy and chaotic, consequentially also dangerous (see Figure 21). In the same years was approved the project of the Randstad Rail, which was expected to bring more people in the city centre of The Hague, therefore worsen the chaotic situation of the Grote Markstraat. For these reasons, the possibility of investigating the feasibility of the tunnel under the boulevard was added to the “Nota De Kern Gezond” (1989) which included a masterplan for the 176 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci development of The Hague centre in a more liveable and sustainable way, also removing the vehicular traffic from the Groote Marktstraat.

In September 1991 the city allocated budget for the investigation of feasibility and preliminary design of tram tunnel, and parking garage beneath the Groote Markstraat and an expedition street (to stock the chain stores underground) under the Voldersgracht. On June 1993 the city approved the construction of the tunnel and the garage, while the expedition street was rejected due to lack of cooperation from the shops and chain stores.

On January 1996 the Ministry of Transportation granted €88,5 million to the city for the building of the tunnel and, on March of the same year, the construction started. During the construction, in 1998, a major leakage occurred, forcing to submerge the tunnel with water and sand for counteracting the pressure of the ground avoiding damages to the surrounding buildings. The works were blocked for two years, before restarting in June 2000 due to an increased political pressure. In 2004 the construction was finally completed so that in the same year the tunnel opened and the tramway started operating.

177 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Appendix D: Analysing the effects of multifunctionality in decision-making and appraisal tools

In this appendix is showed and explained the full analysis of the effects of multifunctionality and the procedure for assessing the existence of a link between theoretical effect and practice of decision-making.

The starting point of the analysis was the list of effects as obtained in chapter 0, so each effect, negative or positive was sorted by category: (i) sustainability, (ii) liveability, (iii) other societal effects; and type: permanent or temporary. Successively the list has been inserted into an Excel table so that with a simple programming input has been possible to make new investigations on the data.

In the second step, for each effect, the relative keywords have been searched for the literature, and the documents of each case of study using the function search when the document was searchable or simply reading when not possible. Each time a correspondence was found, meant that the related effect was taken into account in the decision-making process of the case. In other words, there was a link between theory and practice, in this case, the relative cell corresponding to the effect was marked with a “Yes”. Otherwise with a “No” in the case that the match was not found or the text did not refer to the consideration of that effect in the decisional process. Thus, verify the link consisted of searching the match and evaluating its correctness. The procedure has been repeated for the interviews, and for the appraisal tools.

In the third step has been set an arbitrary scale of importance. It has been given “High” importance to the factors that appear both in interviews and literature “Medium” to the factors appearing just in the interviews and “Low” to the ones appearing just in the documents, finally “No” when to the factors not found and thus not considered. This scale is purely arbitrary and used just for facilitating the analysis, not to be intended as a real ranking of importance of the factors.

The results of these procedures can be seen in the following tables.

178 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Table D-1: CA/T Project, considered effects

Literature And Analytically Cat. Type Effect Interviews Importance Documents Estimated Sust. Perm. Use of natural resources (+) Yes No No Low Sust. Perm. Energetic efficiency (+) Yes No No Low Sust. Perm. Land consumption (surface) (+) Yes Yes Yes High Sust. Perm. Buffer space for floods/floods mitigation (+) No No No No Sust. Perm. Soil pollution and disturbance (-) Yes No No Low Sust. Perm. Groundwater pollution (-) Yes No No Low Sust. Perm. Air pollution and emissions (+) Yes Yes No High Resilience and protection to external threats Sust. Perm. No No No No (earthquakes, floods, fires, etc.) (+) Sust. Perm. Vulnerability to internal threats (-) Yes No No Low Sust. Perm. Structure durability (+) Yes No No Low Sust. Perm. Consumption underground resources (ground, water, geothermal) (-) No No No No Sust. Perm. Underground space reallocation and restoring the initial situation (-) No No No No Sust. Temp. Air pollution (-) Yes No No Low Sust. Temp. Water pollution (-) Yes No No Low Sust. Temp. Soil pollution (-) Yes Yes No High Sust. Temp. Flora and fauna (-) No No No No Liv. Perm. Travel time (+) Yes Yes Yes High Liv. Perm. Noise (+) Yes No No Low Liv. Perm. Vibration (+) Yes No No Low Liv. Perm. Isolation against extreme weather conditions (heat, cold, rain) (+) No No No No Liv. Perm. Safety (traffic) (+) No Yes No Medium Liv. Perm. Safety (criminality) (-) Yes No No Low Liv. Perm. Accessibility of the structure (+/-) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Psychophysical comfort (living/working underground) (-) No No No No Liv. Perm. Visual impact mitigation (+) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Use of Surface, Continuous space use surface accessibility (+) Yes Yes No High

179 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Liv. Perm. Use of Surface, recreational activities (+) Yes No No Low Liv. Temp. Travel time (-) Yes Yes Yes High Liv. Temp. Cultural and archaeology (-) Yes No No Low Other Perm. Fuel savings (€) (+) Yes Yes No High Other Perm. Implementation urban mobility policies (+) Yes No No Low Other Perm. Construction costs (-) Yes Yes Yes High Other Perm. Maintenance costs (ordinary) (+) Yes No Yes Low Other Perm. Repairing costs (extraordinary) (-) Yes No No Low Other Perm. Lighting and ventilation costs (-) Yes Yes Yes High Other Perm. Geomaterials reuse (+) Yes Yes Yes High Other Perm. Image of the city (+) Yes Yes No High Other Perm. Real estate value (+) Yes No No Low Other Perm. Revenue from commerce, business and taxes (+) Yes Yes No High Other Temp. Risks of buildings in proximity (-) Yes Yes Yes High Other Temp. Income business and commerce (-) Yes Yes No High Sust. Perm. Opportunity for renewal of underground systems (+) No Yes No Medium Liv. Temp. Noise (-) Yes No No Low Liv. Temp. Accessibility (-) No No No No Liv. Perm. Smell (+) No No No No

180 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Table D-2: Boston Post Office Square, considered effects

Literature And Analytically Cat. Type Effect Interviews Importance Documents Estimated Sust. Perm. Use of natural resources (+) No No No No Sust. Perm. Energetic efficiency (+) No No No No Sust. Perm. Land consumption (surface) (+) Yes Yes Yes High Sust. Perm. Buffer space for floods/floods mitigation (+) Yes No No Low Sust. Perm. Soil pollution and disturbance (-) No No No No Sust. Perm. Groundwater pollution (-) Yes No No Low Sust. Perm. Air pollution and emissions (+) Yes Yes No High Resilience and protection to external threats Sust. Perm. No No No No (earthquakes, floods, fires, etc.) (+) Sust. Perm. Vulnerability to internal threats (-) No No No No Sust. Perm. Structure durability (+) No No No No Sust. Perm. Consumption underground resources (ground, water, geothermal) (-) No Yes No Medium Sust. Perm. Underground space reallocation and restoring the initial situation (-) No No No No Sust. Temp. Air pollution (-) No No No No Sust. Temp. Water pollution (-) No No No No Sust. Temp. Soil pollution (-) No No No No Sust. Temp. Flora and fauna (-) No No No No Liv. Perm. Travel time (+) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Noise (+) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Vibration (+) No No No No Liv. Perm. Isolation against extreme weather conditions (heat, cold, rain) (+) No No No No Liv. Perm. Safety (traffic) (+) No Yes No Medium Liv. Perm. Safety (criminality) (-) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Accessibility of the structure (+/-) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Psychophysical comfort (living/working underground) (-) No No No No Liv. Perm. Visual impact mitigation (+) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Use of Surface, Continuous space use surface accessibility (+) Yes Yes No High

181 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Liv. Perm. Use of Surface, recreational activities (+) Yes Yes No High Liv. Temp. Travel time (-) No No No No Liv. Temp. Cultural and archaeology (-) No No No No Other Perm. Fuel savings (€) (+) No No No No Other Perm. Implementation urban mobility policies (+) Yes Yes* No Low Other Perm. Construction costs (-) Yes Yes Yes High Other Perm. Maintenance costs (ordinary) (+) Yes Yes Yes High Other Perm. Repairing costs (extraordinary) (-) Yes No No Low Other Perm. Lighting and ventilation costs (-) Yes Yes Yes High Other Perm. Geomaterials reuse (+) No No No No Other Perm. Image of the city (+) Yes Yes No High Other Perm. Real estate value (+) Yes Yes No High Other Perm. Revenue from commerce, business and taxes (+) Yes Yes Yes High Other Temp. Risks of buildings in proximity (-) Yes No No Low Other Temp. Income business and commerce (-) No No No No Sust. Perm. Opportunity for renewal of underground systems (+) No No No No Liv. Temp. Noise (-) No No No No Liv. Temp. Accessibility (-) No No No No Liv. Perm. Smell (+) No No No No

182 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Table D-3: Lungomare di Riccione, considered effects

Literature And Analytically Cat. Type Effect Interviews Importance Documents Estimated Sust. Perm. Use of natural resources (+) No No No No Sust. Perm. Energetic efficiency (+) No No No No Sust. Perm. Land consumption (surface) (+) No Yes* Yes Medium Sust. Perm. Buffer space for floods/floods mitigation (+) No No No No Sust. Perm. Soil pollution and disturbance (-) Yes Yes No High Sust. Perm. Groundwater pollution (-) Yes Yes No High Sust. Perm. Air pollution and emissions (+) Yes Yes No High Resilience and protection to external threats Sust. Perm. Yes No No Low (earthquakes, floods, fires, etc.) (+) Sust. Perm. Vulnerability to internal threats (-) No No No No Sust. Perm. Structure durability (+) No No No No Sust. Perm. Consumption underground resources (ground, water, geothermal) (-) No No No No Sust. Perm. Underground space reallocation and restoring the initial situation (-) No No No No Sust. Temp. Air pollution (-) No No No No Sust. Temp. Water pollution (-) Yes No No Low Sust. Temp. Soil pollution (-) Yes No No Low Sust. Temp. Flora and fauna (-) No No No No Liv. Perm. Travel time (+) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Noise (+) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Vibration (+) Yes No No Low Liv. Perm. Isolation against extreme weather conditions (heat, cold, rain) (+) No No No No Liv. Perm. Safety (traffic) (+) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Safety (criminality) (-) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Accessibility of the structure (+/-) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Psychophysical comfort (living/working underground) (-) No No No No Liv. Perm. Visual impact mitigation (+) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Use of Surface, Continuous space use surface accessibility (+) Yes Yes No High

183 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Liv. Perm. Use of Surface, recreational activities (+) Yes yes No High Liv. Temp. Travel time (-) Yes Yes No High Liv. Temp. Cultural and archaeology (-) No No No No Other Perm. Fuel savings (€) (+) No No No No Other Perm. Implementation urban mobility policies (+) Yes Yes No High Other Perm. Construction costs (-) Yes Yes Yes High Other Perm. Maintenance costs (ordinary) (+) Yes Yes Yes High Other Perm. Repairing costs (extraordinary) (-) Yes Yes No High Other Perm. Lighting and ventilation costs (-) Yes Yes Yes High Other Perm. Geomaterials reuse (+) Yes Yes No High Other Perm. Image of the city (+) Yes Yes No High Other Perm. Real estate value (+) Yes Yes No High Other Perm. Revenue from commerce, business and taxes (+) Yes Yes Yes High Other Temp. Risks of buildings in proximity (-) Yes No No Low Other Temp. Income business and commerce (-) No Yes No Medium Sust. Perm. Opportunity for renewal of underground systems (+) Yes Yes No High Liv. Temp. Noise (-) Yes Yes No High Liv. Temp. Accessibility (-) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Smell (+) No No No No

184 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Table D-4: A4, Kethel Tunnel, considered effects

Literature And Analytically Cat. Type Effect Interviews Importance Documents Estimated Sust. Perm. Use of natural resources (+) Yes Yes No High Sust. Perm. Energetic efficiency (+) No No No No Sust. Perm. Land consumption (surface) (+) Yes Yes Yes High Sust. Perm. Buffer space for floods/floods mitigation (+) No no No No Sust. Perm. Soil pollution and disturbance (-) Yes Yes No High Sust. Perm. Groundwater pollution (-) Yes Yes No High Sust. Perm. Air pollution and emissions (+) Yes yes No High Resilience and protection to external threats Sust. Perm. Yes No No Low (earthquakes, floods, fires, etc.) (+) Sust. Perm. Vulnerability to internal threats (-) No No No No Sust. Perm. Structure durability (+) No No No No Sust. Perm. Consumption underground resources (ground, water, geothermal) (-) No No No No Sust. Perm. Underground space reallocation and restoring the initial situation (-) No No No No Sust. Temp. Air pollution (-) Yes Yes No High Sust. Temp. Water pollution (-) Yes Yes No High Sust. Temp. Soil pollution (-) Yes Yes No High Sust. Temp. Flora and fauna (-) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Travel time (+) Yes Yes Yes High Liv. Perm. Noise (+) Yes Yes Yes High Liv. Perm. Vibration (+) No Yes No Medium Liv. Perm. Isolation against extreme weather conditions (heat, cold, rain) (+) No No No No Liv. Perm. Safety (traffic) (+) Yes No Yes Low Liv. Perm. Safety (criminality) (-) Yes No No Low Liv. Perm. Accessibility of the structure (+/-) Yes Yes Yes High Liv. Perm. Psychophysical comfort (living/working underground) (-) No No No No Liv. Perm. Visual impact mitigation (+) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Use of Surface, Continuous space use surface accessibility (+) Yes Yes No High

185 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Liv. Perm. Use of Surface, recreational activities (+) Yes Yes No High Liv. Temp. Travel time (-) Yes Yes Yes High Liv. Temp. Cultural and archaeology (-) Yes Yes No High Other Perm. Fuel savings (€) (+) Yes No No Low Other Perm. Implementation urban mobility policies (+) Yes No No Low Other Perm. Construction costs (-) Yes Yes Yes High Other Perm. Maintenance costs (ordinary) (+) Yes Yes Yes High Other Perm. Repairing costs (extraordinary) (-) Yes Yes Yes High Other Perm. Lighting and ventilation costs (-) Yes Yes Yes High Other Perm. Geomaterials reuse (+) Yes No No Low Other Perm. Image of the city (+) Yes Yes No High Other Perm. Real estate value (+) Yes Yes No High Other Perm. Revenue from commerce, business and taxes (+) Yes Yes No High Other Temp. Risks of buildings in proximity (-) Yes Yes No High Other Temp. Income business and commerce (-) Yes Yes No High Sust. Perm. Opportunity for renewal of underground systems (+) Yes No No Low Liv. Temp. Noise (-) Yes Yes No High Liv. Temp. Accessibility (-) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Smell (+) Yes Yes No High

186 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Table D-5:Van Heekgarage considered effects

Literature And Analytically Cat. Type Effect Interviews Importance Documents Estimated Sust. Perm. Use of natural resources (+) No No No No Sust. Perm. Energetic efficiency (+) No No No No Sust. Perm. Land consumption (surface) (+) Yes Yes Yes High Sust. Perm. Buffer space for floods/floods mitigation (+) No No No No Sust. Perm. Soil pollution and disturbance (-) No Yes No Medium Sust. Perm. Groundwater pollution (-) No Yes No Medium Sust. Perm. Air pollution and emissions (+) No Yes No Medium Resilience and protection to external threats Sust. Perm. No Yes No Medium (earthquakes, floods, fires, etc.) (+) Sust. Perm. Vulnerability to internal threats (-) No No No No Sust. Perm. Structure durability (+) No No No No Sust. Perm. Consumption underground resources (ground, water, geothermal) (-) No No No No Sust. Perm. Underground space reallocation and restoring the initial situation (-) No No No No Sust. Temp. Air pollution (-) No Yes No Medium Sust. Temp. Water pollution (-) No No No No Sust. Temp. Soil pollution (-) No No No No Sust. Temp. Flora and fauna (-) No No No No Liv. Perm. Travel time (+) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Noise (+) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Vibration (+) No No No No Liv. Perm. Isolation against extreme weather conditions (heat, cold, rain) (+) No No No No Liv. Perm. Safety (traffic) (+) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Safety (criminality) (-) No Yes No Medium Liv. Perm. Accessibility of the structure (+/-) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Psychophysical comfort (living/working underground) (-) No No No No Liv. Perm. Visual impact mitigation (+) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Use of Surface, Continuous space use surface accessibility (+) Yes Yes No High

187 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Liv. Perm. Use of Surface, recreational activities (+) Yes Yes No High Liv. Temp. Travel time (-) No No No No Liv. Temp. Cultural and archaeology (-) No No No No Other Perm. Fuel savings (€) (+) No No No No Other Perm. Implementation urban mobility policies (+) Yes Yes No High Other Perm. Construction costs (-) Yes Yes Yes High Other Perm. Maintenance costs (ordinary) (+) Yes Yes Yes High Other Perm. Repairing costs (extraordinary) (-) Yes Yes Yes High Other Perm. Lighting and ventilation costs (-) Yes Yes Yes High Other Perm. Geomaterials reuse (+) No No No No Other Perm. Image of the city (+) Yes Yes No High Other Perm. Real estate value (+) Yes Yes No High Other Perm. Revenue from commerce, business and taxes (+) Yes Yes Yes High Other Temp. Risks of buildings in proximity (-) No Yes No Medium Other Temp. Income business and commerce (-) Yes Yes No High Sust. Perm. Opportunity for renewal of underground systems (+) No No No No Liv. Temp. Noise (-) No No No No Liv. Temp. Accessibility (-) No No No No Liv. Perm. Smell (+) No No NO No

188 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Table D-6: Tram Tunnel, considered effects

Literature And Analytically Cat. Type Effect Interviews Importance Documents Estimated Sust. Perm. Use of natural resources (+) No No No No Sust. Perm. Energetic efficiency (+) No No No No Sust. Perm. Land consumption (surface) (+) Yes Yes Yes High Sust. Perm. Buffer space for floods/floods mitigation (+) No No No No Sust. Perm. Soil pollution and disturbance (-) Yes No No Low Sust. Perm. Groundwater pollution (-) Yes No No Low Sust. Perm. Air pollution and emissions (+) Yes Yes No High Resilience and protection to external threats Sust. Perm. No No No No (earthquakes, floods, fires, etc.) (+) Sust. Perm. Vulnerability to internal threats (-) No No No No Sust. Perm. Structure durability (+) No No No No Sust. Perm. Consumption underground resources (ground, water, geothermal) (-) No No No No Sust. Perm. Underground space reallocation and restoring the initial situation (-) No No No No Sust. Temp. Air pollution (-) No No No No Sust. Temp. Water pollution (-) No No No No Sust. Temp. Soil pollution (-) No No No No Sust. Temp. Flora and fauna (-) No No No No Liv. Perm. Travel time (+) Yes Yes Yes High Liv. Perm. Noise (+) No No No No Liv. Perm. Vibration (+) No No No No Liv. Perm. Isolation against extreme weather conditions (heat, cold, rain) (+) No No No No Liv. Perm. Safety (traffic) (+) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Safety (criminality) (-) No No No No Liv. Perm. Accessibility of the structure (+/-) No No No No Liv. Perm. Psychophysical comfort (living/working underground) (-) No No No No Liv. Perm. Visual impact mitigation (+) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Use of Surface, Continuous space use surface accessibility (+) Yes Yes No High

189 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Liv. Perm. Use of Surface, recreational activities (+) Yes Yes No High Liv. Temp. Travel time (-) Yes Yes Yes High Liv. Temp. Cultural and archaeology (-) No No No No Other Perm. Fuel savings (€) (+) No No No No Other Perm. Implementation urban mobility policies (+) Yes Yes No High Other Perm. Construction costs (-) Yes No Yes Low Other Perm. Maintenance costs (ordinary) (+) No No Yes No Other Perm. Repairing costs (extraordinary) (-) No No Yes No Other Perm. Lighting and ventilation costs (-) No No Yes No Other Perm. Geomaterials reuse (+) No No No No Other Perm. Image of the city (+) No No No No Other Perm. Real estate value (+) Yes Yes No High Other Perm. Revenue from commerce, business and taxes (+) Yes Yes No High Other Temp. Risks of buildings in proximity (-) Yes No No Low Other Temp. Income business and commerce (-) Yes Yes No High Sust. Perm. Opportunity for renewal of underground systems (+) No No No No Liv. Temp. Noise (-) Yes Yes No High Liv. Temp. Accessibility (-) Yes Yes No High Liv. Perm. Smell (+) No No No No

190 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Appendix E: Statistical analysis of differences between International and Dutch cases

To understand whether the differences for considered effects and analytically addressed ones which are visible in the analysis are also significant it is necessary to use statistical tests. In both cases, the purpose of the test is to verify if the averages between the two samples are equal or not. Since they are two independent samples, the unpaired independent student T-test appeared as the most suitable. Nevertheless, this test is based on the assumption that the values are normally distributed around a mean, which is almost impossible to verify in this specific case where the sample is composed of 6 cases (3 each). Therefore, this calculation is based on this assumption from the researchers. Nonetheless, more studies on would be necessary before arriving at a sound conclusion.

Considered effects

The purpose of this test is to verify if the mean in the percentage of effects considered in the decision-making process for the international cases (μ1) is statistically different from the same percentage for the Dutch ones

(μ2). Therefore the null hypothesis is H0: μ1 = μ2.

The test is double tailed since there is no assumption on which sample should have and higher or lower mean and independent because the two samples are not correlated, and it is set a confidence level of 95% therefore P=0.05. Therefore, given the two samples:

International Dutch 0.800 0.822 0.489 0.533 0.689 0.400

The two-tailed P value can be calculated using the dedicated Excel formula. The results is: P = 0.656 > 0.05

Therefore, H0 is rejected, and the two samples are not statistically different

Analytically addressed effects

The same procedure is reiterated considering the percentage of analytically addressed effects for international and Dutch cases. The same assumptions are considered:

 H0: μ1 = μ2  Two-tailed test  Confidence interval 95% (P=0.05)

The values of the two samples are:

International Dutch 0.22 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.16 0.39 P=0.199 > 0.05

Therefore, H0 is rejected, and the two samples are not statistically different 191 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Appendix F: Statistical analysis of differences between before and after data cleaning

Testing whether the percentages of considered effects over the total is statistically different before and after cleaning the list from effects considered not relevant for the analysed case studies, may help to determine whether the improvements are significant or not.

Before and after

Calculating the differences before and after the data cleaning may also point to a possible lack of robustness of the used framework of theoretical effects.

The problem consists in checking whether the average of considered effects is equal before and after data cleaning, hence: H0: μ1 = μ2.

The paired student T-test seems the most suitable for this case since the two samples are represented by maturations reiterated on the same population before and after.

The test is double tailed since there is no assumption on which sample should have and higher or lower mean and independent because the two samples are not correlated, and it is set a confidence level of 95% therefore P=0.05. Therefore, given the two samples:

After Before 0.857 0.800 0.524 0.489 0.738 0.689 0.860 0.822 0.571 0.533 0.429 0.400

The P value, calculated using the Excel function is equal to 0,0002 (<0.05) therefore the two samples are statistically different.

International and Dutch cases

After data cleaning, it seems relevant to observe whether the observations made on the differences between the Dutch and International practice are still valid. Therefore is checked the statistical significance of the difference between their means.

Is applied the independent student T-test, because the two samples are independent; the null hypothesis is H0:

μ1 = μ2. The confidence interval 95% and the test double tailed. The two samples are:

International Dutch 0.857 0.860 0.524 0.571 0.738 0.429

The obtained P value is 0.620 (>0.05) meaning that the difference is not statistically relevant.

192 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Appendix G: Ex-ante expectations and ex-post perceptions, data cleaning

As explained in chapter 8, the data regarding ex-ante expected effects and the and ex-post perceived ones have been cleaned so that the two groups can be compared. Here, the full procedure which leads to the calculations of the adjusted score after data cleaning for ex-ante expected and ex-post perceived effects is visible in Table G-1 and Table G-2 respectively.

193 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Table G-1: Ex-ante expected effects, data cleaning

Ex-ante Expectations Cat. Type Effect Actions-precautions expectations adjusted Sust. Perm. Use of natural resources (+) - / 1 Sust. Perm. Energetic efficiency (+) - / / Sust. Perm. Land consumption (surface) (+) Project driver 1 1 Sust. Perm. Buffer space for floods/floods mitigation (+) - / 1 Sust. Perm. Soil pollution and disturbance (-) Technical solutions 0 0 Sust. Perm. Groundwater pollution (-) Filters for exchange fresh and salt water 0 0 Sust. Perm. Air pollution and emissions (+) Project driver 1 1 Resilience and protection to external threats Sust. Perm. - 0 0 (earthquakes, floods, fires, etc.) (+) Sust. Perm. Vulnerability to internal threats (-) - / -1 Sust. Perm. Structure durability (+) - / 1 Sust. Perm. Consumption underground resources (ground, water, geothermal) (-) - / -1 Sust. Perm. Underground space reallocation and restoring the initial situation (-) - / -1 Sust. Temp. Air pollution (-) - / -1 Sust. Temp. Water pollution (-) - 0 0 Sust. Temp. Soil pollution (-) - 0 0 Sust. Temp. Flora and fauna (-) - / / Liv. Perm. Travel time (+) - 0 0 No vehicular traffic allowed on the Liv. Perm. Noise (+) 1 1 seafront No vehicular traffic allowed on the Liv. Perm. Vibration (+) 1 1 seafront Liv. Perm. Isolation against extreme weather conditions (heat, cold, rain) (+) - / 1 No vehicular traffic allowed on the Liv. Perm. Safety (traffic) (+) 1 1 seafront, bikes and pedestrians divided Constant monitoring of garage, limited Liv. Perm. Safety (criminality) (-) 0 0 access Liv. Perm. Accessibility of the structure (+/-) The ramps and stairs strategically placed 1 1 Liv. Perm. Psychophysical comfort (living/working underground) (-) - / / 194 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Liv. Perm. Visual impact mitigation (+) Project driver 1 1 Liv. Perm. Use of Surface, Continuous space use surface accessibility (+) Project driver 1 1 Liv. Perm. Use of Surface, recreational activities (+) Project driver 1 1 Liv. Temp. Travel time (-) Construction on hold during peak season 0 0 Liv. Temp. Cultural and archaeology (-) - / -1 Other Perm. Fuel savings (€) (+) - / 1 Other Perm. Implementation urban mobility policies (+) Project driver 1 1 Other Perm. Construction costs (-) Use of PPP, Project Financing 1 1 Other Perm. Maintenance costs (ordinary) (+) Use of PPP, Project Financing 1 1 Use of PPP, Project Financing and tech Other Perm. Repairing costs (extraordinary) (-) 0 0 solutions Other Perm. Lighting and ventilation costs (-) Use of PPP, Project Financing 1 1 Other Perm. Geomaterials reuse (+) Reused for beach nourishment 1 1 Other Perm. Image of the city (+) Project driver 1 1 Other Perm. Real estate value (+) Project driver 1 1 Other Perm. Revenue from commerce, business and taxes (+) Project driver 1 1 Other Temp. Risks of buildings in proximity (-) - 0 0 Maintained accessibility to beach in peak Other Temp. Income business and commerce (-) 0 0 season Sust. Perm. Opportunity for renewal of underground systems (+) New systems 1 1 Liv. Temp. Noise (-) Construction on hold during peak season 0 0 Liv. Temp. Accessibility (-) Construction on hold during peak season 0 0 Liv. Perm. Smell (+) - / 1 Tot. score 18 19

195 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci

Table G-2:Ex-post perceived effects, data cleaning

Cat. Type Effect Ex-post perceived no info (#) Validation ex-post adjusted Sust. Perm. Use of natural resources (+) No info 7 No info 1.000 Sust. Perm. Energetic efficiency (+) No info 7 not relevant not relevant Sust. Perm. Land consumption (surface) (+) 1.00 1 1.000 1.000 Sust. Perm. Buffer space for floods/floods mitigation (+) -0.25 6 -0.250 -0.250 Sust. Perm. Soil pollution and disturbance (-) -0.13 2 -0.125 -0.125 Sust. Perm. Groundwater pollution (-) 0.00 2 0.000 0.000 Sust. Perm. Air pollution and emissions (+) 1.00 0 1.000 1.000 Resilience and protection to external threats Sust. Perm. No info 7 No info 1.000 (earthquakes. floods. fires. etc.) (+) Sust. Perm. Vulnerability to internal threats (-) No info 7 No info -1.000 Sust. Perm. Structure durability (+) -0.25 5 -0.250 -0.250 Sust. Perm. Consumption underground resources (ground. water. geothermal) (-) No info 7 No info -1.000 Sust. Perm. Underground space reallocation and restoring the initial situation (-) -0.25 2 -0.250 -0.250 Sust. Temp. Air pollution (-) 0.00 5 0.000 0.000 Sust. Temp. Water pollution (-) 0.00 2 0.000 0.000 Sust. Temp. Soil pollution (-) 0.00 2 0.000 0.000 Sust. Temp. Flora and fauna (-) No info 7 not relevant not relevant Liv. Perm. Travel time (+) 0.63 1 0.625 0.625 Liv. Perm. Noise (+) 1.00 0 1.000 1.000 Liv. Perm. Vibration (+) 1.00 0 1.000 1.000 Liv. Perm. Isolation against extreme weather conditions (heat. cold. rain) (+) 0.25 6 0.250 0.250 Liv. Perm. Safety (traffic) (+) 0.88 0 0.875 0.875 Liv. Perm. Safety (criminality) (-) -0.25 2 -0.250 -0.250 Liv. Perm. Accessibility of the structure (+/-) 1.00 0 1.000 1.000 Liv. Perm. Psychophysical comfort (living/working underground) (-) No info 7 not relevant not relevant Liv. Perm. Visual impact mitigation (+) 1.00 0 1.000 1.000 196 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci Liv. Perm. Use of Surface. Continuous space use surface accessibility (+) 1.00 0 1.000 1.000 Liv. Perm. Use of Surface. recreational activities (+) 1.00 0 1.000 1.000 Liv. Temp. Travel time (-) 0.00 3 0.000 0.000 Liv. Temp. Cultural and archaeology (-) No info 7 0.000 0.000 Other Perm. Fuel savings (€) (+) 0.00 5 0.000 0.000 Other Perm. Implementation urban mobility policies (+) 0.75 2 0.750 0.750 Other Perm. Construction costs (-) -0.38 0 -0.375 -0.375 Other Perm. Maintenance costs (ordinary) (+) -0.50 0 -0.500 -0.500 Other Perm. Repairing costs (extraordinary) (-) -0.25 0 -0.250 -0.250 Other Perm. Lighting and ventilation costs (-) -0.50 0 -0.500 -0.500 Other Perm. Geomaterials reuse (+) 0.00 6 As expected 1.000 Other Perm. Image of the city (+) 1.00 0 1.000 1.000 Other Perm. Real estate value (+) 1.00 0 1.000 1.000 Other Perm. Revenue from commerce. business and taxes (+) 0.63 0 0.625 0.625 Other Temp. Risks of buildings in proximity (-) No info 7 As expected 0.000 Other Temp. Income business and commerce (-) 0.00 1 0.000 0.000 Sust. Perm. Opportunity for renewal of underground systems (+) 0.25 2 0.250 0.250 Liv. Temp. Noise (-) 0.00 3 0.000 0.000 Liv. Temp. Accessibility (-) 0.00 3 0.000 0.000 Liv. Perm. Smell (+) 0.50 5 0.071 0.071 Tot. score 11.13 Tot. score adjusted 11.70

197 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci 198 Master Thesis Maurizio Mattiacci