Sustainability, creativity, resilience: toward new development strategies of port areas through evaluation processes

Int. J. Sustainable Development, Vol. 13, Nos. 1/2, 2010 161

Copyright © 2010 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Sustainability, creativity, resilience: toward new development strategies of port areas through evaluation processes

Luigi Fusco Girard Department of Conservation of Architectural and Environmental Assets, University of Naples Federico II, Via Roma, 402 – I – 80132 Naples, Italy E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: Industrial-commercial and tourist ports areas are spaces of difference, rich in potential opportunities but also in contradictions and conflicts. The conservation of their particular landscape is very important for the city/region development, founded on a new metabolism. Port areas will become new spaces where creativity can be practised. Creative and resilient solutions are to be identified at a strategic, planning, design and management level to implement sustainability. Architecture can play a specific role, improving landscape quality and thus producing new values. The paper discusses how and under what conditions port areas can become an opportunity for the whole city development. Effective evaluation processes are suggested at the level of strategic, implementation and management planning to be able to combine tangible (hard) and intangible (soft) values.

Keywords: port areas landscape; complex systems; innovative governance; sustainability; creativity; resilience; high quality architecture design and evaluation.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Fusco Girard, L. (2010) ‘Sustainability, creativity, resilience: toward new development strategies of port areas through evaluation processes’, Int. J. Sustainable Development, Vol. 13, Nos. 1/2, pp.161–184.

Biographical notes: Luigi Fusco Girard is a Professor of Economics and Environmental Evaluation at University Federico II, Naples. His research interests encompass sustainable conservation of cultural and environmental heritage and the role of evaluation in planning and urban design. He has published numerous works in specialised journals and books.

1 Introduction: creativity, resilience and sustainability

Port areas offer a particular landscape that is the product of a complex system in which socio-cultural, economic and ecological systems are dynamically intertwined.

Ports are the connection between the city and the sea. Here the processes of economic globalisation started early. It is here that most of the flows of the globalised economy arrive and leave. Ports are the key elements connecting Europe, Asia and America in a mutual competition process, aimed at improving the benefits of their strategic localisation.

162 L. Fusco Girard

In fact, a port is a driver of economic wealth, because commercial, industrial, logistic, tourist and fishing activities are localised here. It is a ‘magnet’ for induced activities and, in its turn, it can also be an ‘incubator’ of new services/activities.

Ports, because of their central urban position, have a very high economic and real estate potential.

Many of the most beautiful urban landscapes are port areas: Amalfi, Venice, Genoa, Naples, Syracuse, Malta, Liverpool, Bergen, Istanbul, Saint Petersburg, Oporto, etc. In these cities the historical centre often reaches out to the seaport. Port areas contribute to the particular beauty of the landscape, which expresses the combination of human and natural creativity and characterises the true identity of a city: its unique image, but also its lifestyle and culture.

It is here, in the port areas, that the maximum conflict between hard values (economic development etc.) and soft values (landscape conservation etc.) is concentrated.

Many paradoxes characterise port areas. They are often affected by environmental deterioration and pollution processes. The production of their economic wealth implies very high ecological, and also social and cultural costs. The port becomes a driver of environmental deterioration and reduced well-being for urban life: a place to avoid rather than a place where to go.

Our thesis is that port areas, as the main spaces where these contradictions/paradoxes come into being, are also the most suitable sites where to reduce conflicts and transform them into synergies, provided that innovative approaches of governance, at strategic, planning and management level are introduced. They can become the entrance point for the sustainable development of the all urban system if creativity and resilience are really promoted in managing this particular complex system.

In fact, port areas are the sites where ‘differences’ among cultures, architectures, ethnic groups, etc. have always been the deepest. These ‘differences’ have fostered a favourable atmosphere to ‘openings’, to creativity and innovation in different fields: artistic, scientific, management, etc. (Van Hooydonk, 2007).

The potential of creativity, which is higher in port cities compared to other cities, is the element that can help to overcome conflicts/contradictions.

The aim of the paper is to discuss how and at which conditions port areas can become an opportunity for the whole city: the most suitable places to start from in order to really implement city sustainable development strategies, capable of integrating economic growth, ecological preservation and social opportunities in a win-win design. They can become the most attractive city areas by introducing a new urban metabolism, through an innovative, eco-industrial (Ayres, 2002) and energy policy (Nijkamp, 1976; Nijkamp and Perrels, 1994).

Green profits, green jobs, green energy and good environment are produced through reuse and regeneration of materials, together with the production of high-technology equipments, man-made capitals and services with a low environmental load (see below, par 3, 3.1 and 3.2)

The really ‘creative’ projects are the ones, which realise a strict integration between different aspects, usually considered in conflict.

It is not by chance that all over the world ports have become the areas where actual creative actions aimed at promoting sustainability are being implemented the most. Investments in the urban regeneration of waterfronts – in Rotterdam, Barcelona, Liverpool, Valencia, Vancouver, Tokyo, Hamburg, Malmo, Amsterdam, Genoa, Glasgow, Antwerp, Copenhagen, etc. – are well-known experiences (Roseti, 2007). They

Sustainability, creativity, resilience 163

can be interpreted as ‘transition experiments’ (Rotmans and Loorbach, 2008). They express the creativity and also resilience of cities against the pressures of change, highlighting the capability of cities to transform themselves and to maintain their identity.

A positive image of port areas, as creative and resilient areas, should be promoted and spread through a reflective, adaptive and participative governance, able to regenerate not only physical-tangible components but also rich relationships and the life in these areas.

The general conditions of success of this governance are examined in the paper. Effective evaluation processes are suggested at the level of strategic, implementation and management planning to go beyond the ones based on a mere quantitative calculation of cost/benefit analysis and to be able to combine tangible (hard) and intangible (soft) values to effectively manage conflicts, contradictions and paradoxes, checking creative and resilient initiatives.

2 The conservation/development conflict

In port areas, hard and soft values are strictly intertwined; but more and more the hard ones are the winners. Soft values should become stronger for a really sustainable development implementation. How is it possible? Which new sustainable strategies?

2.1 Soft values

A port is not only a work of engineering but also of architecture. Ports have been the object of careful design and maintenance. Through history, the

port itself has become a ‘monument’, where people meet, communicate and enjoy the site etc.

The induced economic development has fostered the implementation of high quality architecture, shaping a particular landscape. Landscape is an important economic resource within the global competition, as acknowledged by the European Union (Council of Europe, 2000).

Beauty is a soft value that characterises urban and coastal landscape to a great extent.

Beauty of the landscape depends on the form of artefacts, on colours and signs. It depends on the multiplicity of heterogeneous elements that combine in a unitary way, generating a sense of fulfilment. It depends on relationships and then on ecological, economic and social processes. The beauty of port areas landscape is connected to its architectures, shapes, values, local materials, colours, microclimate, light and life: it builds the real image of a city, its ‘places’, and its soul (Norberg Shulz, 2007). The ‘spirit of places’ is often linked to port areas. Beauty is an attribute of ‘places’, which are the result of a creative process through time: they express what survives, in the continuous transformations of urban structures (Fusco Girard, 2008), that is the element of continuity in the ever faster dynamism of cities. Beauty reflects the real life in the system, all the relationships, correlations and interdependences. It is a source of aesthetical emotion, but it also has a social and economic value (Fusco Girard and Nijkamp, 2004). It promotes correlations/links,

164 L. Fusco Girard

making a city more liveable. Beauty has also an economic value, because it becomes one of the most important conditions to attract activities, investments, inhabitants, and tourists. It is an even stronger motivation in localisation choices. But beauty opens up new multiple dimensions: it is the entrance point to other intangible values. Other soft and intangible values characterise the atmosphere of these areas, producing new added values.

Nowadays, these positive values are strongly threatened in port areas.

2.2 Hard values

Port areas are strongly specialised areas through which goods travel, materials and people pass. More and more new technologies are being added to increase their productivity. Here, old and new industrial activities have been localised: steelworks, chemical industries, shipyards, oil refineries, assemblage, transformation, construction activities, power plants, gas conversion plants, waste management equipments, etc. They are all connected through material (roads, rails, etc.) and immaterial infrastructures. They need to process huge and increasing fluxes of information that are transferred and revised there. Logistic revolution, with ICT innovations, with automation and new technologies, has multiplied the quantity of goods and people in transit.

The centrality of port areas increases land values and therefore residential and tertiary real estate.

Overtime, a vision of ports as drivers of economic wealth has prevailed. Economic and functional aspects have prevailed over the others. But the consequence of this approach has been the multiplication of port externalities onto the city/territory: congestion, air, water, soil and acoustic pollution, decay of the physical-spatial scenario, unemployment, deterioration of social bonds and cultural decline (i.e., of the architectural/cultural/monumental heritage but also of the immaterial, symbolic, cultural values).

These forms of deterioration tend to increase progressively, thus reducing general living conditions. Poverty, social marginality, illegality, hidden economy often intertwine within a physical scenario without any aesthetical, environmental quality and therefore without any attraction capability.

In order to improve the accessibility and functional efficiency of ports, architectural/industrial buildings of environmental value have often been destroyed, further impoverishing the physical/spatial scenario. Through progressive de-industrialisation processes ports have sometimes become abandoned areas where all kinds of waste are dumped.

2.3 Some externalities

Ports produce a lot of waste resulting from harbour industries, from maintenance, dredging, ships, etc. The negative externalities resulting from industrial/trade activities in ports do not just cause environmental damages, but interconnect with the economic and social system in a negative way: they are a source of new economic (and social) damages for the whole city system.

Different kinds of externalities can be identified:


• climate changing effects

• pollution effects

• congestion impacts.

Climate change management represents the greatest challenge of our times (IPCC, 2007). Climate change affects health, agricultural production, water cycle, biodiversity, coastal areas, the risk of natural catastrophes, etc. (Stern, 2007).

These effects can be reduced by improving, at a local level, energy efficiency and by introducing renewable energy sources: wind, geothermic, solar ones. The initiatives of some Baltic ports are very interesting in this perspective (Wilske, 2008).

Ports should increase energy efficiency and, at the same time, produce the energy they need through renewable energy sources.

Sea transportation is a source of chemical pollution and particulate matter, resulting from the fuel used by ships. They damage human and ecosystem health, but also man-made infrastructures.

Sulphur and nitrogen oxides, the VOC, etc. are the main responsible for pollution caused by port activities and traffic, affecting human and ecosystem health.

These impacts, which intertwine with the ones produced by the city, can be reduced by using cleaner fuels.

Traffic congestion causes time waste, higher transportation costs of assets and further air pollution.

Many examples can be proposed. In the Italian ports of Portomarghera, Priolo and Taranto, the negative impacts of

(especially chemical) activities on their inhabitants’ health have caused very strong conflicts.

The result is that a port often ‘oppresses’ the city, discharging further congestion, pollution, and noise onto it.

On the other hand, the city slows down the economic/trade rhythm of port activities, thus becoming an element of inefficiency. Ports and cities tend to recede from each other.

‘Greening’ port areas become a real investment for making the same areas more sustainable and not an activity that increases costs. New profits, employment and quality of environment are produced.

3 Towards sustainable development strategies of ports areas: the ecological economic approach

Ports, as ‘logistic machines’, aim more and more at ‘withdrawing into themselves’ away from the city, to gain more efficiency and competitiveness. Port activities and trade operators prefer to disregard everything that is ‘beyond’ the harbour walls.

The conflict between the port and the city tends to grow because of two different organisational/managerial strategies. The city – due to its extraordinary complexity, which is more and more difficult to manage – delegates a specific area of the city to the harbour authority. The port organises itself in an autonomous way to improve efficiency in its different activities. Efficiency is achieved by ‘rationalising’ choices. As for the

166 L. Fusco Girard

ports, the economic quantitative assessment prevails, disregarding soft (non-economic) values: symbolic, qualitative and cultural ones. But this approach worsens the intensity of negative externalities.

The development of the port/city system becomes less and less sustainable. The economic benefits of port activities, once the ecological/environmental and social costs are subtracted – i.e. the ‘net benefits’ – are much less than they would seem. Moreover, they do not benefit city inhabitants, but only few trade/industry/tourism agents, that is the benefits are not distributed equally among the various subjects.

The above-mentioned situation determines an imbalance between the efficiency of port organisation and the comprehensive efficiency of city organisation.

How may the imbalance between the port and the city be made more sustainable? How can the port/city ‘system’ be improved?

Port and city should be considered as a complex adaptive system (Gell-Mann, 1994), opened to the territory, characterised by mutual positive and negative interdependences, with non-linear processes, able to transform itself under the pressures of internal(logistic innovations etc.) and external (international competition etc.) forces.

A new cooperative management between the city and the port should be identified. A new dialogue among all stakeholders and inhabitants should be implemented, through innovative governance. This means ‘re-linking’ the city to the port in a polycentric reticular pattern. Within the network, each element inter-depends with every other element. The network incorporates differences and turns them into complementarity. It moulds itself on external circumstances, in a continuous, dynamic, co-evolutive process. The network is an organisational structure that multiplies the relationships among sites, areas, activities, and functions and in this way it increases the whole productivity.

The value of every node depends on the number of connections. The port-city system – organised by multiple networks (of private enterprises,

organisations, public authorities) – becomes dynamic and vital, able to self-organise over time. Each node receives and transmits: it can be a centre. Material and immaterial infrastructures should connect port with other nodes: rail stations, airports, road-rail hubs, waterways, ancient and new places, squares, industrial districts, commercial poles, cultural nodes, etc. Every node is a multiplier of new connections, in a neural network. This internal and external (to port areas) neural model can improve existing performances and regenerate the economic, social and ecological system. It behaves as an unique system.

In the global economy – which is more and more a knowledge/cultural/intangible economy – the organisation of ports should be less linked to traditional industry and real estate economy and much more to ecological economics, to attract new activities because of a healthy metabolism that improves the quality of landscape.

An ecological economic strategy planning/management is reflexive, integrated, adaptive, interactive, circular, based on a vision opened to long term, to participation, to innovative experiments, to new options; it is based on the best practices (Fusco Girard and You, 2006). It must stimulate economic development without producing, meanwhile, ecological poverty and social poverty, saving and recycling materials.

A strategy/organisation/management shaped by ecological economics recognises long-term use values and non-use values, and not only hard (market) values. It stresses cooperation toward a cluster-model (De Lange, 2003) at a local level to better become competitive at higher levels. Its attention is to improve resilience. It is in conflict with the traditional engineering-enterprise management.


3.1 Innovative integrated development strategies for industrial/trade port areas

The Mediterranean Sea has been taking on a new role within both Far East and European commercial inter-exchanges, due to its geographical position (Commissione della Comunità Europea, 2007; Gazzetta Ufficiale dell’Unione Europea, 2008). Free exchange zone (European Union, 1995) will allow a greater increase in goods/passengers movement from 2010 on.

This new perspective will increase the role of ports as economic engines, but also the necessity for a really sustainable regional development. The risk of negative environmental, social, landscape impacts and of a separation between the city and the port is growing.

The first result of the integration of activities would lead to imagine that maritime and harbour industry will take on the responsibility of reducing water, soil and air pollution, while increasing their commercial traffics.

To compete in the international markets, ports should change also (where it is possible) into areas of waste re-use, recycle, reutilisation, i.e., the place where all kinds of waste are imported, managed, regenerated and transformed into products that, in turn, are exported for their added new value.

The green industry of environmental renewal should substitute the traditional industry of ports, that is iron, steel, cement, oil refinery industries… This ‘green industry’ should become the leading industrial activity, with the production of low environmental loads goods and technologies (for monitoring, analysis, check of environmental impacts; equipments to recycle materials and so on).

The core of this ecological transformation of port economy is represented by green energy production.

Wind turbines, photovoltaic panels, geothermal, biogas, hydrogen production become the symbols expressing the new image and ‘vision’ of ports, whose development strategy is founded on the energy strategy.

Ports were realised imagining an indefinite and unlimited availability of oil: they are ‘dependent’ on oil. The new development strategy of ports requires to be based on new energy strategies, on the opportunity of self-reproducing the energy needed within the ports to fulfil their functions, starting from transportation.

Land use should minimise movements and therefore transportation costs, promoting moving about and travelling on foot, by bicycles or electric public transports.

It is necessary to reduce systematically the use of traditional energy sources and therefore of climate change emissions, through the maximum energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy.

These energy strategies require that every existent public and private building become more efficient as to the energy perspective and that new buildings use alternative energy sources.

Public and private buildings still to be built should have ‘zero emission’. The organisational model of port activities should be the eco-industrial park, essential

in order to promote a new metabolism. The list of recycling activities is very rich, starting from the use of exhaust

fumes from the production of electric energy that can be used to produce plaster boards, to the re-use of ICT devices (computers, cellular phones, etc.) to be put back on the market.

168 L. Fusco Girard

Mechanical, chemical and especially biological treatments, also by means of biotechnologies, can transform waste into marketable resources and into new materials. Plastic, for instance, can be re-used as a source of fuel converting it into crude oil and not only recycling it into packaging or vessel. Used tyres can be employed as fuel in cement kilns, etc. Chemistry and biology can make waste products harmless, and help to produce new materials from slag, ash etc.

An intensive research activity is required, which might find its best localisation in port areas.

Even the localisation of activities marketing ‘green’ products within ports is coherent with the new ‘vision’ aiming at reinforcing the ‘green consumers community’.

Waste treatment can induce further economic activities: production of machinery for polluted water filtering and recycling, for the treatment of different materials, for the re-use of the heat resulting from waste incinerating in order to produce compost, etc. Then the new development strategy of ports should be characterised by the capability to reduce negative environmental impacts, rebuilding a new economic ‘green base’ able to produce added value, i.e., wealth and new jobs, and at the same time able to contribute to the solution of the environmental problems of wider areas.

The eco-park activates networks of interdependency among the different activities localised within it, and ‘cast’ them also beyond the harbour area, that is toward the whole city/region. It is the starting point for the ‘eco-city’.

The third sector and the civic economy system sustain this eco-industrial strategy from the bottom, promoting the market of eco-bio goods and services, and stimulating a virtuous circle.

Nonetheless, a critical element of this strategy is the implementation of strong coordination and co-operation among public subjects, enterprises and research centres. New university departments and laboratories should characterise more and more port areas landscape. Knowledge complexes localised in abandoned areas can represent the entrance point of creative cultural economy.

This strategy can integrate hard and soft values/objectives – both economic and social/environmental, as well as landscape preservation – in a win-win game. It can contribute to city resilience, that is the capacity of the city to react to change, maintaining its comprehensive organisation and structure.

Clearly, it is not based on traditional industry and real estate economics (as it often happens for ports areas) but on ecological economics: on use and no-use values, with a long-term perspective, with the aim of realising a circular metabolism in the port areas and spread it to the whole urban system.

It is a ‘creative’ strategy because it integrates the economic wealth production (business) with ecological preservation and social promotion starting from the ancient historic roots, in a win-win game. It transforms a problem into an opportunity, ‘integrating’ industrial, commercial, tertiary activities with the ones relating culture and knowledge and then it improves the landscape, the ‘atmosphere’, the identity: in a word, the image of ports areas.

3.2 Innovative development strategies for tourist port areas

Nautical tourism demand is growing in the Mediterranean region.


For example, in Italy a comprehensive number of 39,000 boat mooring places are required for the next few years. New landing places and ports are going to be built, while the existing ones are going to be restored.

But will these transformations of the coastal landscape be really sustainable? Often ancient city boundaries coincide with the port areas, where old warehouses, silos, wharfs, industrial archaeology heritage and lighthouses are situated and contribute to build the particular character, image, landscape. Often port areas are particular urban places, that should be carefully maintained and transformed (ICOMOS, 1999).

The mono functional approach should be avoided by integrating tourism, leisure, sport, and culture, as well as knowledge, production (Fusco Girard and Nijkamp, 2009). The risk is that of a tourismscape: port areas become the localisation only of hotels and trade centres, the spatial scenario of entertainment events or of real estate business, in a self-referential game (Ashworth and Tunbridge, 1990; Russo, 2002).

Many concrete experiences, which propose solutions (typologies, functions, technologies) extraneous to site, are in conflict with the spirit of the place (Ceccarelli, 1991; Benvenuto, 1991; Hoyle et al., 1988a; Martellucci and Rosselli, 2006).

Too often, tourist port areas are designed to produce only economic business, disregarding the achievement of more general interests, such as the conservation of the existing cultural/natural landscape. These are not really creative solutions.

Knowledge activities, with creative industries, play a role in promoting new strategies that combine cultural fruition with production and communication (Fusco Girard, 2008).

The model of neural networks can be proposed to connect ports with other urban and territory nodes and axes: squares, places, ancient and art sites, museums, sacred areas, etc., are linked together with rural and agri-tourism areas, with bio livestock areas, with bio itineraries, bird watching areas, natural eco parks, viewpoints and artistic production sites etc. New networks should be extended also to food networks, in a virtuous circle.

Port areas become spaces where not only economic relations but also social and cultural ones are improved.

The ‘experience economy’ (Pine and Gilmore, 1999) aims at shaping implementation strategies, in particular in tourist port areas. These spaces become the support of the ‘experience economy’, the stage where a set of events takes place, where use values and exchange values multiply and surplus values are produced.

The risk of the tourist approach is the ‘spectacularisation’ as an end in itself, and not as a process for valorisation of local physical, social, and cultural resources: the production of empty and ephemeral images, not rich of meanings experiences.

In general, the ancient centre of the city includes the port area, with historic towers, lighthouses, industrial-archaeological heritage etc. As a matter of fact, many tourist port areas are listed as UNESCO sites (or they will be in the near future) because of their particular values.

The multifunctional perspective of tourist port planning should use ICT infrastructure to improve management and business, through data and information processing, but also to produce new knowledge. ICT improves the accessibility of port areas, their efficiency and effectiveness, besides reducing the costs of work. But it can also improve the involvement of people, their learning experience: the comprehension of meanings, sense, and culture of a site. ICT can be used to communicate the multiple values of a space, the identity of an area, the ‘spirit of a place’ (ISAAC, 2008) or of a territory: aesthetic, historical, artistic, cultural ones, to increase benefits for the users. ICT can multiply not

170 L. Fusco Girard

only data and information, but it can produce new knowledge, comprehension, and awareness: it can produce new values.

This means that the tourist/nautical offer can be opened up also to a perspective based on ‘cultural experiences’; not only entertainment, business, but also knowledge and education, to fix and transmit the cultural memory of a particular site overtime, regenerating the cultural heritage through networks.

Port areas can become the starting point for new experimental forms of consumption and production, which emphasise personal creativity and development of creative tourism, in which tangible and intangible elements are offered: tourist services, and also cultural services, events, stories, etc., reflecting the identity of specific areas.

The port area strategy is oriented to manage connectivity, diversity, and not only to improve efficiency, economic productivity, and economies of scale: to stimulate the perception that tourists are not only costumers but also guests that are interested to learn, to understand, to cultural exchange. This strategy should be inspired to the ‘slow’ model approach, to promote new production and consumption models, linking producers with consumers, industrial production with agro-food and craft made processes, shortening the chains.

All these are important elements that can make the ‘difference’ among alternative port areas offering the same tourist services/performances. They enhance the quality of landscape, producing new values.

A sustainability strategy, besides being adaptive, flexible, interactive, participative, requires also the strengthening of the ecological base of tourist economy.

Even in this case, it is necessary that the economic processes can be circular, thus promoting a new metabolism, less linear and more ‘closed’. Also tourist ports are organised as ports of fossil cities.

Traditional energy – used in a more efficient way, though – should be integrated/substituted by renewable sources, to contribute to decarbonise urban economy and reduce the climate change impacts.

The improvement of accessibility and connections, together with the production of wide green and permeable spaces, can contribute to reduce congestion and pollution. Materials, waste, drain waters should become object of recovery, re-use, recycling.

The impacts on environment and landscape have to be minimised by resorting to eco-friendly infrastructure and architectural solutions.

A good design of port areas is absolutely required; it must be able to find the most creative solution between conservation and economic development. Throughout the project the area becomes a ‘catalyst’ and attracts new activities, investments and jobs. In this way also resilience is enhanced.

3.3 The role of architectural project for the regeneration of port areas: port areas as laboratories

The solution to the complex crisis of port areas seems to be more and more entrusted to ‘architectural solutions’.

In industrial/commercial/tourist ports, the architectural project can become an essential element within the new development strategies (Bruttomesso, 2006; VEGA, 2008).

Harbour areas are vital when they act as dynamic, complex systems, capable of transforming and adapting to the continuous pressure of change from the outside. They


are able to modify their physical structure as to space, organisation and functions, by combining endlessly infrastructures, facilities, installations, etc., yet maintaining their own identity.

Architecture can contribute in this perspective. Architecture can improve the ‘atmosphere’ and the landscape because it gives a

characterising image to ports, able to become a brand for the whole city. At stake is the relationship between the old and the new, between tradition and modernisation, resulting in the capability to make the whole city ‘more attractive’. The relationship between the ancient and the new is very delicate: the impacts of new constructions can seriously damage cultural landscapes, existing ecosystems, etc.

There are many proposals of projects for port areas that are strongly creative. They produce added-value in multiple dimensions.

Water has always been a fundamental element able to multiply real estate value, landscape value and contribute to the value of ‘places’, against anonymous spaces, which promote social malaise and discomfort.

The project of architecture localised in port areas can be seen as a catalyst of wider processes of urban development and as an ‘attractor’ of new activities and investments.

Well-known examples are the project by Jacques Herzog for Hamburg, the one by Steven Hall for Copenhagen, the project by Zaha Hadid for Antwerp, etc.

But is the spectacular, amazing, design architecture – which improves the aesthetic dimension of urban scene – really able to solve the complex problems of port areas? On which conditions?.

By means of high quality architecture project, landscape is preserved, enhanced, re-built. Real creative architecture produces ‘places’ and not only marketing tools to multiply real estate value and business. It preserves the character and the atmosphere of a place without twisting it for commercial, functional, economic needs. It stimulates real-life, not odd events: for communication among people, for face-to-face relationships, for symbolic values which stimulate aggregation capability, sense and feeling of belonging, collective identity. An emotional link between physical spaces and people characterises places architecture.

Here private and public dimensions match strictly. Port areas as places (see below, Section 5) can become the starting point for

innovative local development strategies, if architecture enters planning and management, in a systemic perspective.

4 Toward innovative governance and evaluation

Sustainable development strategies of port areas require a unifying governance perspective able to increase resilience and creativity through specific actions and initiatives. This governance should manage the port and the city as a dynamic system in an uncertain, changing and complex environment, promoting innovative networks towards efficient and effective mutual interactions, thus arriving to higher order of organisation and complexity (van den Bergh and Bruinsma, 2008).

New governance is a process of value creation in a multidimensional space, characterised by a decentralised, participative and constructivist approach, oriented to a win-win perspective.

172 L. Fusco Girard

Examples of values linked to creativity are: competitiveness, attractiveness, entrepreneurship, reduction of unemployment and poverty (through new knowledge activities, culture and arts investments, green economy and renewable energies).

Examples of values linked to resilience are: cohesion, sense of identity and belonging, self organisation capacity, trust, safety.

Harbour areas contribute to urban development by providing employment, economic wealth, facilities and services, spaces for outdoor activities, energy and natural settings, whilst the city offers infrastructures, facilities, specialised labour, culture, research, educational services, available to harbour areas.

New governance is required at strategic, tactical and operational level to stimulate innovations. A characteristic of innovative governance is the importance recognised, in particular at operational level, to experiments, to pilot-project, to specific catalyst actions, that are to be carefully assessed in their short, medium and long time impacts, to produce new knowledge and to adjust choices.

The achievement of economic, ecological and social values in a win-win perspective requires a complex value theory (Fusco Girard, 1987) that goes beyond traditional economic approach. It requires also new tools as multicriteria evaluation processes that go beyond economic and financial goals and able to grasp all the concerned hard and soft values (like landscape, symbolic, environmental values, etc.) and the distribution of net benefits among all agents and groups.

Ex-ante, on-going and ex-post evaluations should be proposed in order to overcome traditional trade-offs and identify creative solutions, to promote participation of all the stakeholders (Fusco Girard and Nijkamp, 1997). Their participation within new networks and their cooperation attitude are founded on trust. Trust depends on – inter alia – ‘good’ (impartial, rigorous, critical) evaluations by public institutions, and not on formal ones.

4.1 Different levels for evaluation

A complex of values exists in port areas: instrumental values, use values, no-use values, ‘intrinsic’ values. These values, which can be increased (or not) through new actions/projects of transformations and management, are to be assessed.

Evaluation means interpreting, forecasting, and comparing impacts of different actions in relation to specific goals. The richness of values of port areas allows multiple interpretations by different agents or users. Therefore forecast and comparison are more complex.

We can distinguish different levels of the evaluation process: strategic, port regulatory master plan and management level (Fusco Girard and Nijkamp, 1997).

For example, at a strategic level the problem is, first of all, evaluating the competitive capacity and the attractiveness of the harbour area taking into account its position and characteristics in a dynamic and evolving market context: the existing infrastructure system of accessibility, efficiency, services provided, user service costs, opportunities opened to alternative uses-choices, the time taken to supply and carry out services, the existing logistic platforms, the performance of ICT infrastructure, the quality of the links with urban knots and city networks, the area is connected with.

This first step to improve competitiveness requires a participative, iterative and interactive process, with different actors (public bodies, companies, knowledge institutions, civil society associations, financial and intermediary agents) to build a comprehensive vision and different transition paths.


As to the port master plan (i.e., the planning level), evaluations are linked firstly to land use choices, among multiple possible alternatives, such as the identification of the best combinations for commercial, industrial, refining uses, green areas, service production, tourism, areas for fish production, public spaces and private spaces. Land is an ever more scarce resource that can be used to improve economic productivity and/or social utility.

Evaluation highlights the ‘net’ value of economic benefits, which are often over-assessed. With the growth of ports productivity, there is a new distribution of benefits and costs. Many benefits tend to go further onto the local system, and even spread onto the regional system, because of lack of localisation constraints of many activities (Musso et al., 2004). At the same time, in port areas employment is going to be reduced and negative externalities appear.

The evaluation refers also to different foreseeable hard impacts (economic impacts, direct and indirect employment etc.) of a new project to be compared with soft ones, related to the existing cultural and environmental landscape of harbour areas.

This impact assessment reveals whether the new man-made capital is compatible with the ‘spirit of the place’ and whether such ‘spirit’ has been interpreted as an engine of creativity, able to contribute to local development.

Evaluation refers to urban-architectural choices between memory/tradition and innovation/modernisation.

Improving the cultural landscape, its values and managing them through specific landscape plans should be also fundamental for preserving and reconstructing harbour areas.

During the management phase, evaluation is a tool for coordinating the choices of many actors on the basis of a comparison between acquired and lost benefits (Gupta and Rashmi, 2005; Peris-Mora and Diez Orejas, 2005).

Improving governance – achieving a consensus among different actors – requires the capacity to coordinate actions in directing the system of formal and informal networks towards a desired direction.

The identification of a priority is possible even within diverse heterogeneous and conflicting objectives or criteria, by using multi-criteria, multi-group, quantitative and qualitative methods of evaluation, which may complement economic/financial/real estate assessments. These methods are also ‘open’ to participation and inter-subjective communication. They allow the laying out of a decision-making support system – valid for the transformation of harbour areas – useful in categorising priorities when faced with several alternatives.

Evaluation not only helps to compare ‘given’ solutions, but above all it is a stimulus for developing new design solutions/alternatives. In short, evaluation is an engine of creativity in planning, design and management.

Ex-post evaluations are very important to select the best and worst practices, and therefore to learn lessons from experiences.

4.2 Evaluation criteria at a strategic level

‘Net’ benefits are considered in relation to economic, social and environmental criteria. A strategic environmental assessment should consider not only environmental but also economic and social criteria (Dublin Docklands Development Authority, 2003; ODPM, 2006; Liverpool City Council, 2006; Brady Shipman, 1999).

174 L. Fusco Girard

At a strategic level they can be summarised as in Table 1. Table 1 Evaluation criteria and indicators

Economic criteria

• Improvement of economic attractiveness and competitiveness • Regeneration capacity of economic activities • Attractiveness capacity for green industrial activities • Attractiveness capacity for creative people • Multifunctional and efficient use of harbour areas • Diversification of the existing economic activity and rise in new productions • Localisation of new creative activities (micro-businesses, small companies,

medium-sized enterprises) • Reduction of informal sector economy • Localisation of essential specialised services to enterprises • Localisation of ‘clean’ industrial production activities • Development of a flourishing tourist industry • Non-profit services/activities • Localisation of services for tourism, culture and leisure • Increase of the attractiveness of harbour areas for financial reinvestment • Increase of market values of areas/spaces • Localisation of innovative research activities • Cooperation networks among enterprises, public institutions and research centres • Improved interconnections of underground, railway and airport networks Social criteria

• Direct, indirect, induced employment • Percentage of employed people that live in the city area • Increase of social cohesion sense • Availability of residential areas (at affordable prices) • Availability of commercial areas (at affordable prices) • Availability of tertiary areas (at affordable prices) • Perception of belonging to a specific community • Perception of specific motivation of people • Promotion of social safety • Implementation and upgrading of existing public spaces • Conservation of elements expressing the area’s cultural identity • Integration between workplaces and leisure places • Community infrastructure (schools, culture and sport, etc.) localisation • Percentage of people involved in forums,participative processes etc. • Involvement of the III sector in specific programs/projects/activities • Density of cooperative and partnership networks • Protection of the ‘spirit of the place’ • Involvement of local people in planning


Table 1 Evaluation criteria and indicators (continued)

Environmental criteria

• Conservation, management and increase of green areas (planting and maintenance) • Promotion of green roofing and green façade technology • Percentage of local materials used in productive processes • Preservation of biodiversity • Implementation of cycling paths and pedestrian networks • Conservation and improvement of landscape quality • Conservation and enhancement of existing cultural landscape(cultural assets, places) • New high quality architecture • Reduced car travel demand and reduction of motor traffic • Soil decontamination • Air pollution reduction (reduction of CO2 emissions etc.) • Water pollution reduction • Noise pollution reduction • Recovery/recycling/regeneration of waste material (plastic, tyres, slag, cans, glass,

paper, etc.) • Water recycling (rain water recovery, etc.) • Waste reduction (self-organised waste management) • Treatment of toxic waste into non-injurious products • Percentage of local renewable sources (new electric power plants localisation, based on

energy innovation) • Localisation of new industries with a low environmental load

Table 2 Some additional indicators

• Square metres of pedestrian and cycling surface/total road surface• Square metres of commercial surface in the area/total square metres • Square metres of contaminated land/inhabitants • Number of detractors of landscape quality • Number of innovative activities in the area/total number of activities • Variations over time of the number of innovative activities localised in the area • Number of modern eco-compatible buildings/total number of buildings • Number of cooperatives enterprises/total number of enterprises • Number of micro-businesses/total number of enterprises • Number of crimes committed in the area (such as the ones connected to social

corruption)/total number of illegal undertakings • Capacity for coordination of the various operators within specific plans/projects • Density of networks among public authorities, enterprises and research centres

(university, etc.) • Level of interpersonal trust • Number of events, festivities, ceremonies in the year, as an expression of the spirit of the

place, of collective/social memory • Number of connections for each node of the neural network

176 L. Fusco Girard

The indicators to assess the achievement of creativity and resilience in port areas should include not only per-capita planted surface, the use of renewable sources in the total amount of energy use, new jobs in the year ,but also qualitative indicators expressing the landscape impacts, the self-organising capacity through cooperative networks, the ‘glue’ or inherent value of the site, etc.

Table 2 proposes some additional indicators. Qualitative scales are to be also introduced in the evaluation process. Alternative options should be assessed in relation to ‘do nothing’, using multicriteria

decision support systems (Nijkamp, 1979; Jansenn, 1992; Munda, 2005, 2008; Nijkamp and Vreeker, 2000) to identify solution that might improve economic competitive capacity of port areas, reducing negative environmental and social impacts, moving towards new ecological urban economy.

The above indicators can also be used for Environmental and Territorial Assessment (European Commission – Committee on Spatial Development, 1999), which is especially required in the transport sector (Fusco Girard and Nijkamp, 2004). Territorial impacts are not only related to natural and man-made capital, but also to all the activities that take place on the territory system.

4.3 Evaluation at urban/building design level

At the urban planning level, evaluation has been used to compare alternatives in particular in terms of economic costs and benefits. Environmental/ecological and social-distributive impacts have not in general really deepened, as well as landscape, territorial, architectural impacts.

A comprehensive multidimensional evaluation of all kinds of impacts related to different land uses (industrial, commercial, tertiary, residential, recreational, cultural etc.) becomes absolutely necessary (Fusco Girard and Nijkamp, 1997; Nijkamp et al., 1990; Nijkamp and van Delft, 1977).

At this level, surveys can be used to elicit the preferences of different actors for alternative uses of port areas (Alberini et al., 2006; Bateman and Willis, 1999).

People are asked to react to different land use characteristics, on the base of a set of attributes, or to choose between two or more conditions, each characterised by specific attributes.

Priorities about different land use alternatives (transformation industry, offices, housing, hotel, research centres, cultural activities, offices, commercial uses, etc.) can be deduced, by asking different stakeholders (users, entrepreneurs, public institutions, banks, etc.) to react on a scale (for example) from one to five. In effect, each actor is interested in particular impacts of the plan: financial/economic revenues, productivity of activities, economic regeneration, employment, real estate plus-value, pollution, image/brand, etc.

Creative participation of people, third sector associations, ONGs, etc. add new alternative solutions to the initial ones, to be again assessed.

In any case, the tools for evaluating architectural projects towards sustainability are characterised by a multidimensional approach.

For example, the design quality indicator (Spencer and Winch, 2002) is founded on a multi-criteria approach, able to compare costs with performances.

Figure 1 shows the general relationship between design and evaluation process.


Figure 1 Evaluation for design

More in depth, the first step is chaotic and turbulent, because criteria are changing over time, weights are multiple, alternatives are dynamic and evolving. At this level, conflicts are first of all in the mind of the architect/designer: between what he would design and what he is able to do in the specific normative, institutional, spatial context (Figure 2). Through the evaluation process it is possible to reduce the number of alternatives, design criteria, variability of weights and then the conflict between what the architect/designer would achieve and what he is really able to do.

Some specific tools have been also proposed to support this complex process oriented to sustainability.

LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; USGBC, 2007), GBtool (US Green Building Council, 2006; Green Buiding Challenge, 2000), BREAM (Anderson et al., 2009), DGNB (Green Sustainable Building Certification) are examples of specific methods. They are assessment tools which promote a new way of thinking in design/planning towards sustainable development, because they assess the ‘quality’ of architecture in term of energy uses, waste management, local materials, indoor quality, local economy etc. LEED is more concerned with preserving climate stability and in general to sift out values creation from negative environmental impacts. The restoration of architectural and cultural heritage should be realised by using these procedures so as to make it truly sustainable.

Figure 2 Evaluation process in designing

Source: Adapted from Zeleny (2005)

Design of alternatives

Evaluation of

alternatives

Identification of new design

alternatives

Selected solution

178 L. Fusco Girard

5 Architecture, creativity, ‘spirit of the place’ and evaluation

Architectural projects in port areas can be considered as a relevant practical example of ‘innovative experiment’ in the perspective of new governance toward comprehensive city sustainability. It should be able to stimulate in its turn creativity and resilience in the spatial and socio-economic context. It should be carefully assessed to understand if the experience – experiment can be repeated in other scale and context. Ex post evaluation allows feedback processes that characterise creative governance and urban management.

In port areas the architectural design has to creatively combine change/movement with stability/permanence. Water is a key dynamic element in architecture design: it multiplies lights, colours, images and sounds.

‘Real’ creative architecture must not only surprise, because of its diversity, but should also reveal a social responsibility in satisfying objectives of a collective nature, stimulating a sense of community. Moreover, it is producer of meanings, values and identity.

‘Real’ creative architecture achieves the best compromise between private and public interests. It preserves, valorises and re-builds landscapes, producing new places that are spaces able to stimulate the creativity of people living there. Often, ancient ports areas are urban places.

Places are spaces characterised by high levels of values and meanings, with interconnections in time and space of different components (tangible and intangible) that determines a sense of unity and wholeness.

If the main objective of architecture is to produce and re-produce places, an architectural genuinely creative design is one capable of promoting both hard and soft values, public and private benefits, real estate capital gains and the general interests.

The ‘spirit of the place’ is very often the result of an age-old creative process. In a globalised economy, it distinguishes itself as an element of identity, authenticity and uniqueness. It expresses the structure of interdependency of multidimensional elements linked to each other at different levels in a latent order that represents its ‘intrinsic’ value. The spirit of the place is what survives over time notwithstanding continuous changes of urban assets: it is the element of continuance in the increasingly accelerated dynamics of the city/territory (Fusco Girard, 2008; Fusco Girard and Nijkamp, 2009).

This ‘intrinsic’ value depends on the relationship between physical elements and people’s lifestyle. It is an intangible value capable of determining certain choices, behaviour, actions, as it expresses the link existing between space and people, between the past and the present.

The ‘spirit of the place’ expresses the sense/significance that certain material factors acquire in shaping people’s lives: the relationship between the material and the immaterial. Therefore, the spirit of the place is the ‘inherent’ value of a certain area.

It becomes a glue value that reflects and stimulates cultural resilience. Conservation, regeneration and production of ‘places’ means to contribute to city

cultural resilience, because places are identity symbols of a group or a community that promotes sense of belonging, collective consciousness and memory.

So, a project of transformation can strengthen or contradict the ‘spirit of the place’ as it happens in some tourist port areas. Here, in renovation and revitalisation has often prevailed a design approach turned into a spectacle, a showcase for tourists; or, on the contrary, it has been conceived as a banal and poor adaptation to local environment.


Creative architecture is capable to integrate opposite elements: old and new elements and components. It can take the shape of a legible sign in a certain space, meaningful for recollection. It can enhance the relationship between public and private spaces, encouraging a multiple-use of the land, in order to respond to real local needs; it can foster a sense of liveability, vitality, the continuity of tradition, a sense of community: the perception of connections/relationships. It can contribute to urban resilience (CSIRU, Arizona State University, Stockholm University, 2007).

Figure 3 The search toward a creative and resilient design solution

Source: Zeleny (1982)

180 L. Fusco Girard

Consequently the design process could alter the design features, through an iterative approach (with feedbacks and loops) based on a continuous evaluation process.

The new project may be successful/innovative from an economic point of view as a producer of positive external effects on businesses and real-estate market, but it may be in conflict with the ‘spirit of the place’. It might be a generator of new congestion, pollution, etc. It can determine a sense of estrangement, of remoteness or refusal. On the contrary, it may happen that the spirit of place is exalted by a new project, but it may also occur that such a project is not innovative from an economic point of view.

This process is indicated in Figure 3, in which the conflict between development and conservation is interpreted as the one between economic creativity (that promotes productivity) and preservation/enhancement of the sense of place (that expresses identity and memory, contributing to resilience).

The hatched area reflects the distance between the ideal solution (the star point) and specific alternatives (A, B, C, D, E, F), that stimulates the search for new solutions (G and H). H is recognised as the most satisfying alternative, after subsequent and converging new steps.

In practice, the spirit of place cannot be evaluated in a single dimension but rather through several aspects, as economic innovation.

They cannot be carried out only on the basis of the willingness to pay but it is necessary to use also non-monetary indicators and ordinal (or even nominal) rating scales. They can be assessed through the ‘complex social value’ approach (Fusco Girard, 1987).

Some indicators can complement the monetary ones to assess the intangible values of places and their change, as proposed in Table 3. Table 3 Sense of place additional indicators

The presence of historical and cultural landscape values Symbolic values in harbour areas the whole community identifies itself with The existence of rules and traditional conventions in port areas Public spaces in port areas traditionally considered as meeting places (places where to hold celebrations, etc.) Existence of specialised professional skills traditionally related to port areas Number of monumental buildings/total number of buildings Number of cultural events in the port area/year Number of historical events linking port areas with the city Perception of wholeness Level of safety perception by people User satisfaction level for the services provided Satisfaction level achieved in the relationship harbour/city

Evaluations of the values of places reflect the interdependence, relationships, and connections. A qualitative approach is also required. The complex value includes bottom up evaluations that are interpretations of values by people (considering for example the frequency through which some values are recognised by different groups) (ISAAC, 2008).


Multi-criteria methods of evaluation should be adapted and applied to compare successfully different alternative hypotheses (Nijkamp et al., 1990; Nijkamp, 1976; Nijkamp and van Delft, 1977). These indicators can also be used for ex post evaluations, in selecting best and worst practices.

6 Conclusions

Sustainable development of port areas can become the entrance point to urban regeneration process, founded on a new metabolism, if a complex dynamic systems approach is adopted.

Industrial-commercial and tourist ports areas are spaces of difference, rich in potential opportunities but also in contradictions and conflicts. Their landscape is very important for the city/region development. Ports, maritime transports, logistic division as well as pleasure boating are all characterised by increasing growth. Their sustainable development depends on the valorisation of their many differences, in the growing standardised general context.

Port areas will become more and more new spaces where creativity is and can be practiced. Creative and resilient solutions are to be identified at a strategic, planning, design and management level to implement sustainability.

A sustainable development can start from their new circular metabolism that should be extended to the whole city/region, thus modifying the land and space use. It contributes to city ecological resilience. Also conservation-recreation of city cultural heritage contributes to resilience, insofar as it stimulates cultural identity. In its turn, enhancing cultural landscape promotes the general milieu that stimulates urban creativity.

Creativity, resilience and sustainability are strictly linked together. Innovative and cooperative networks among different places/areas, institutions and

actors (enterprises, research institutions, public bodies, civil society associations, financial institutions etc.) should be identified and implemented to improve sustainability, creativity and resilience.

New governance multiplies alternatives and produced values. A characteristic of creativity is its ability to synthesise different (and often opposite) elements producing new values in a multidimensional space.

Architecture and planning can play a specific role in this perspective, improving landscape quality and thus producing new values.

Laboratories and independent (third part) observatories on city creativity and resilience, localised in port areas, can become the starting point for knowledge centres for sustainable urban futures.

Evaluation and creativity are closely intertwined. Evaluation stimulates the production of new solutions aimed at improving the original alternatives (or design hypotheses).

Evaluation allows assessing economic, social and environmental feasibility by interpreting, forecasting and comparing different impacts.

Evaluations promote new partnerships, new management and competitive capacity. Through an integrated evaluation it is possible to identify a ranking of various

alternatives considering multiple, multidimensional and conflicting criteria. A fundamental element to stimulate creativity is the availability of adequate knowledge: not

182 L. Fusco Girard

only data, information, GIS, etc., but critical knowledge (Zeleny, 2005) deduced from concrete experiments and generalised.

The evaluation of the best (and the worst) practices is fundamental for a better knowledge to elaborate a vital and innovative project, which aims at transforming port areas into new ‘places’.

Through adapted evaluative processes it is possible to interpret the complex landscape of harbour areas and to propose new plans, projects and management programs, trying to transform the ‘spirit of the place’ in a local sustainable development engine.

References Alberini A., Longo, A. and Riganti, P. (2006) ‘Using surveys to compare the public’s and decision

makers’ preferences for urban regeneration: the Venice Arsenale’, Working papers, p.137, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Venice.

Anderson, J., Shiers, D. and Steele, K. (2009) The Green Guide to Specification, 4th ed., BRE Press.

Ashworth, G.J. and Tunbridge, J.E. (1990) The Touristic Historic City, Behaven, London. Ayres, R. (2002) A Handbook of Industrial Ecology, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Bateman, I.J. and Willis, K. (1999) Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practices of

Contingent Evaluation, Oxford University Press, New York. Benvenuto, E. (1991) ‘La ricerca di identità’, GB Progetti, pp.8–9. Brady Shipman, M. (1999) Strategic Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area, Dublin

Corporation, Dublin. Bruttomesso, R. (2006) Città porto, Mostra Internazionale di Architettura a Venezia, Marsilio,

Venezia. Ceccarelli, P. (1991) ‘Una nuova frontiera interna’, GB Progetti, pp.8–9. Commissione della Comunità Europea (2007) ‘Comunicazione ‘Una politica europea dei porti’’,

Com, p.616. Council of Europe (2000) European Landscape Convention, Bruxelles. CSIRU, Arizona State University, Stockholm University (2007) Urban Resilience, Resilience

Alliance, Canberra. De Lange, P.W. (2003) ‘The performance of seaport cluster’, ERIM PhD, Serial Researches in

Management, p.34, Rotterdam. Dublin Docklands Area (2003) Strategic Environmental Assessment of Draft Master Plan, Dublin. European Commission – Committee on Spatial Development (1999) ESDP European Spatial

Development Perspective. Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the European Union, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

European Union (1995) Final Declaration of the Barcelona Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference of 27 and 28 November 1995 and its work programme.

Fusco Girard, L. (1987) Risorse Architettoniche e Ambientali, FrancoAngeli, Milano. Fusco Girard, L. (2008) ‘Cultural tourism: from cultural fruition to cultural communication and

production, International Journal of Services Technology and Management, Vol 10, p.1. Fusco Girard, L. and Nijkamp, P. (1997) Le valutazioni per lo sviluppo sostenibile della città e del

territorio, FrancoAngeli, Milano. Fusco Girard, L. and Nijkamp, P. (2004) Energia, Bellezza e Partecipazione: le Sfide della

Sostenibilità, FrancoAngeli, Milano.


Fusco Girard, L. and Nijkamp, P. (2009) Cultural Tourism and Sustainable Development, Ashgate, Aldershot.

Fusco Girard, L. and You, N. (2006) Città attrattori di speranza, FrancoAngeli, Milano. Gazzetta Ufficiale dell’Unione Europea (2008) Politica europea dei porti, (2008/c–172/06). Gell-Mann, M. (1994) The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex,

ABACUS, London. Green Buiding Challenge (2000) GBTool Assessment Manual, Ottawa. Gupta, A.K. and Rashmi, S.P. (2005) ‘Environmental management plan for ports and harbor

projects’, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policies, p.71, Springer, Heidelberg. Hoyle, B., Pinder, D. and Husain, M. (1988a) Aree portuali e trasformazioni urbane, Mursia,

Milano. Hoyle, B.S., Pinder, D.A. and Husan, M.S. (1988b) Revitalizing the Waterfront, International

Dimensions of Docklands Development, Belhaven Press, London. ICOMOS (1999) The Bursa Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places, Victoria. IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007), Fourth Assessment Report: Climate

Change, p.200, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISAAC (2008) Interpretative Strategies for the Cities of Amsterdam, Leipzig and Genoa,

Suderland. Jansenn, R. (1992) Multi Objective Decision Support for Environmental Management, Kluwer,

Dordrecht. Liverpool City Council (2006) 2003/06 Best Value Performance Plan, available at

http://www.liverpool.gov.uk. Martellucci, S. and Rosselli, A. (Eds.) (2006) Il sistema dei parchi portuali della Toscana, Alinea,

Firenze. Munda, G. (2005) ‘Multicriteria decision analysis and sustainable development’, in

Figueira, J., Greco, S. and Ehrgott, M. (Eds.): Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, Springer Science, New York.

Munda, G. (2008) Social Multicriteria Evaluation for Sustainable Development, Springer Verlag, Berlin.

Musso, E., Ferrari, C., Benacchio, M. and Bacci, E. (2004) Porti, Lavoro, Economia, Cedam, Padova.

Nijkamp, P. (1976) Theory and Application of Environmental Economics, North Holland, Amsterdam.

Nijkamp, P. (1979) Multidimensional Spatial Data and Design Analysis, Wiley, New York. Nijkamp, P. and Perrels, A. (1994) Sustainable Cities in Europe, Earthscan, London. Nijkamp, P. and van Delft, A. (1977) Multi-Criteria Analysis and Regional Decision-Making,

Interprint, Leiden, Netherlands. Nijkamp, P. and Vreeker, R. (2000) ‘Sustainability assets of development scenario: methodology

and application to Thailand’, Ecological Economics, p.33. Nijkamp, P., Voog, H. and Rietveld, P. (1990) Multicriteria Analysis for Physical Planning,

Elsever, Amsterdam. Norberg Shulz, C. (2007) Genius Loci, Electa, Milano. ODPM (2006) A Practical Guide to Strategic Environmentral Assessment Directive, ODPM

Publications, London. Peris-Mora, E. and Diez Orejas, J.M. (2005) ‘Development of a system indicators for sustainable

port management’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, p.50, Elsevier, Amsterdam. Pine, J. and Gilmore, J. (1999) The Experience Economy, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Roseti, C. (2007) Waterfront, Iirti, Reggio Calabria.

184 L. Fusco Girard

Rotmans, J. and Loorbach, D., (2008) ‘Transition management: reflexive governance of societal complexity through searching, learning and experimenting’, in van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. and Bruinsma, F.R. (Eds.): Managing the Transition to Renewable Energy, Chapter 2, pp.15–46, Edward Elgar.

Russo, A.P. (2002) ‘The vicious circle of tourism development in heritage cities’, in Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29, p.1.

Spencer, N. and Winch, G. (2002) ‘How buildings add value for clients’, Thomas Telford, London. Stern, N. (2007) Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, Stationery Office Books,

London. United States Green Building Council (2006) Foundations of the Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design, Environmental Rating System, A Tool for Market Transformation. USGBC (2007) A National Green Building Research Agenda, Fort Collin. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. and Bruinsma, F. (2008) Managing the Transition to Renewable Energy:

Theory and Practice from Local, Regional and Macro Perspectives, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Glos, UK.

Van Hooydonk, E. (2007) Soft Values of Seaports, Garand, Antwerp. VEnice GAteway for Science and Technology (VEGA) (2008) The Venice Waterfront, Venice. Wilske, Å. (2008) Port Perspective, Goteborg Hamn. Zeleny, M. (1982) Multiple Criteria Decision Making, McGrow-Hill, New York. Zeleny, M. (2005) Human System Management, SOS, Amsterdam.

Sustainability, creativity, resilience: toward new development strategies of port areas through evaluation processes

Documents