Rethinking Brownfield Redevelopment features Fuzzy Delphi Method Brano

Rethinking Brownfield Redevelopment features: Fuzzy Delphi Method Brano Glumac

Intro • Two basic ways to extract the data • Database collected from final users • Database collected from experts 12/5/2020 PAGE 1

Method • Delphi Method helps the group thinking process • From (Dalkey and Helmer, 1963) • Procedure: Brainstorming, Narrowing Down, Ranking 12/5/2020 PAGE 2

Research task • What are the most important features for Brownfield Redevelopment? • Features • Brownfield (Alker, 2000) 12/5/2020 PAGE 3

Fuzzy Delphi • What is it? • Derived from the traditional Delphi technique and Fuzzy Set theory (Murray, Pipino, and Gigch 1985) • Fuzziness lack of definite or sharp distinctions • Benefits • Incorporate uncertainty due to human factor • Less questionnaires 12/5/2020 PAGE 4

Fuzzy Delphi Procedure PHASE 1 • experts as individuals not panelists Brain storming • features from the literature • remove duplicates and unify terminology • Questionnaire 1: Send consolidate list to experts for validation • refine final version PHASE 2 • Questionnaire 2: Experts rate features Ranking • calculate with Fuzzy Delphi Method • final result is list of important features

Fuzzy Delphi Calculation Steps • Steps: 1. Validate features 2. Collect evaluation score for each feature 3. Set-up fuzzy number (Klir and Yuan, 1995) 4. Defuzzification S 5. Setting a threshold α 12/5/2020 PAGE 6

Survey Results W = (a, b, c, d) Aspect Place Legal Finance Code - Feature S Rank a b c d A 1 - Proximity 1, 00 6, 94 8, 09 10, 0 6, 51 6 A 2 - Accessibility 1, 00 6, 97 8, 00 10, 0 6, 49 7 A 3 - Usage 1, 00 6, 12 7, 29 10, 0 6, 10 13 A 4 - Embedded into the urban fabric 2, 00 6, 89 7, 89 10, 0 6, 69 3 A 5 - Contamination level 1, 00 6, 55 7, 52 10, 0 6, 27 11 A 6 - Skyline 1, 00 4, 03 5, 53 10, 0 5, 14 21 A 7 - Land Relief 1, 00 3, 34 4, 46 10, 0 4, 70 22 A 8 - Soil properties 1, 00 4, 89 5, 97 10, 0 5, 46 20 A 9 - Flora & Fauna 1, 00 5, 51 6, 51 10, 0 5, 76 19 A 10 - Heritage 1, 00 6, 50 7, 50 10, 0 6, 25 12 A 11 - Archeological site 1, 00 5, 83 7, 00 10, 0 5, 96 18 A 12 - Existing neighborhood image 1, 00 5, 91 7, 03 10, 0 5, 99 17 A 13 - Ownership 1, 00 6, 73 7, 85 10, 0 6, 39 9 A 14 - Administrative support 4, 00 7, 54 8, 63 10, 0 7, 54 2 A 15 - Approval process 1, 00 6, 82 7, 97 10, 0 6, 45 8 A 16 - Support of local residents/users 1, 00 6, 69 7, 80 10, 0 6, 37 10 A 17 - Support of surrounding residents/users 2, 00 6, 77 7, 74 10, 0 6, 63 4 A 18 - Governmental incentives 1, 00 6, 03 7, 29 10, 0 6, 08 14 A 19 - Potential for different land-use 3, 00 8, 29 9, 17 10, 0 7, 61 1 A 20 - Value capturing 1, 00 6, 03 7, 17 10, 0 6, 05 15 A 21 - Liquidation option 1, 00 6, 11 7, 00 10, 0 6, 03 16 A 22 - Current Real Estate Value 2, 00 6, 57 7, 60 10, 0 6, 54 5

Survey Results Ratings of Independent developers 1 - A 14 - Administrative support - 8, 20 2 - A 4 - Embedded into the urban fabric - 8, 02 3 - A 2 - Accessibility - 7, 75 4 - A 19 - Potential for different land-use - 7, 61 5 - A 17 - Support of surrounding users - 7, 50 6 - A 12 - Existing neighborhood image - 7, 39 7 - A 15 - Approval process - 7, 16 Overall Rating 1 - A 19 - Potential for different land-use - 7, 61 2 - A 14 - Administrative support - 7, 54 Rating Of Contractors 1 - A 19 - Potential for different land-use - 7, 69 2 - A 14 - Administrative support - 7, 52 3 - A 10 - Heritage - 7, 23 4 - A 13 - Ownership - 7, 17 Rating of Governmental Agencies 1 - A 19 - Potential for different land-use - 7, 96 2 - A 14 - Administrative support - 7, 33 3 - A 2 - Accessibility - 7, 21 4 - A 10 - Heritage - 7, 04 5 - A 16 - Support of local users - 7, 00

Discussion • The selection procedure and importance of the Brownfield redevelopment features • Different priorities for different expert groups