Modeling actor decisions in the context of Brownfield redevelopment

Several important changes have recently influenced urban planning and redevelopment process. At first, the scope and scale of urban redevelopment projects increased. Secondly, a traditional linear planning process from government to the building industries has been replaced by public-private collaborations that changed the characteristics of the developer and governmental agencies; their roles play now the major influence in urban development processes. Therefore, an important cause for stagnation in redevelopment of Brownfield is the lack of consensus amongst key actors due to shared, overlapping concerns or individual conflicting interests. In particular, this research focuses at possible stagnation in relation to: (a) the features of a Brownfield, (b) the preferences of actor’s groups (c) the characteristics in the negotiation process between the two groups of actors. To structure the features a Fuzzy Delphi Method is used. Conjoint analysis provides an insight in the individual preferences of actor groups. The outcomes of the decision-making process are not only depending on an individual choice made, but also including the influence of the choices of an actor’s opponent. Therefore, we focus specifically on biding games (Game Theory) aiming on finding possible strategies in negotiations concerning Brownfield redevelopment. Based upon these findings, interaction between the selected actors will be simulated, calculated and modeled. The final outcomes of the research project will assist decision makers to predict possibility of stagnation and to overcome the challenges of conventional negotiation. The construction of alternative plan proposals within these models is a relative unstructured process. Little work has been done to develop models that systematically relate the characteristics of the Brownfield areas and redevelopment plans to the behavior of actors thereby giving an insight in the most important points of interest and in possible sources of conflicts.

[1]  Richard B. Peiser,et al.  Real Estate Development , 2001 .

[2]  I. Ajzen.  Attitudes, Personality and Behavior , 1988 .

[3]  van Whw Doorn,et al.  ProRisk:risk analysis instrument : developed for William properties , 2005 .

[4]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of games and economic behavior , 1945, 100 Years of Math Milestones.

[5]  J. Innes.  Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal , 1996 .

[6]  Ta Theo Arentze,et al.  Multi-agent models of urban land development : theory and numerical simulation of retail location decisions , 2004 .

[7]  Q. Xu.  Risk analysis on real estate investment decision-making , 2002 .

[8]  Zhong-Ren Peng,et al.  Internet GIS for Public Participation , 2001 .

[9]  Judith E. Innes,et al.  Information in Communicative Planning , 1998 .

[10]  S. Arnstein,et al.  Ladder of Citizen Participation , 2020 .

[11]  Folke Snickars,et al.  Adapting GIS Technology to the Needs of Local Planning , 2000 .

[12]  Kristen R. Yount.  What Are Brownfields? Finding a Conceptual Definition , 2003 .

[13]  Kou Xiaodong,et al.  Growth,Innovation,Scaling and the Pace of Life in Cities , 2011 .

[14]  N. Noorderhaven.  Strategic decision making , 1995 .

[15]  Judith E. Innes,et al.  Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems , 1999 .

[16]  Habib M. Alshuwaikhat,et al.  Visualizing Decisionmaking: Perspectives on Collaborative and Participative Approach to Sustainable Urban Planning and Management , 2002 .

[17]  D. Kolb,et al.  Planning in the Face of Power. , 1988 .

[18]  Igor Mayer,et al.  Combining GDSS and Gaming for Decision Support , 2004 .

[19]  E. Rasmusen.  Games and Information: An Introduction to Game Theory , 2006 .

[20]  Chen-Tung Chen,et al.  Aggregation of fuzzy opinions under group decision making , 1996, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[21]  D. Andersson.  The spatial nature of entrepreneurship , 2005 .

[22]  E.W.T.M. Heurkens.  The urban decision room - application and evaluation of an urban management instrument , 2008 .

[23]  P. P. Van Loon,et al.  An Urban Decision Room Based on Mathematical Optimisation - A pilot study supporting complex urban decision questions , 2006 .

[24]  P. Healey.  Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning theory , 1992 .

[25]  John F. Nash,et al.  The Essential John Nash , 2001 .

[26]  Egj Erik Blokhuis,et al.  A sustainable approach for industrial area redevelopment in the Netherlands , 2007 .

[27]  M. Batty.  The Size, Scale, and Shape of Cities , 2008, Science.

[28]  Yannis Veneris,et al.  Reliable Design under Conflicting Social Values , 1993 .

[29]  Kheir Al-Kodmany,et al.  Using visualization techniques for enhancing public participation in planning and design: Process, implementation, and evaluation , 1999 .

[30]  Erik Louw,et al.  Land assembly for urban transformation—The case of ‘s-Hertogenbosch in The Netherlands , 2008 .

[31]  Tom Gilb,et al.  Interactive Decision Making: The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution , 1994 .

[32]  A. Ishikawa,et al.  The Max-Min Delphi method and fuzzy Delphi method via fuzzy integration , 1993 .

[33]  Mojca Golobič,et al.  Developing an Integrated Approach for Public Participation: A Case of Land-Use Planning in Slovenia , 2007 .

[34]  Martin J. Osborne,et al.  An Introduction to Game Theory , 2003 .

[35]  N. Kaza.  Planning Support Systems for Cities and Regions , 2009 .

[36]  Claus Rinner,et al.  Argumentation Maps: GIS-Based Discussion Support for On-Line Planning , 2001 .

[37]  Jonathan P. Doh,et al.  Reassessing Risk in Developing Country Infrastructure , 2003 .

[38]  M. Lewis,et al.  Evaluating the risks of public private partnerships for infrastructure projects , 2002 .

[39]  Igor S Mayer,et al.  Collaborative Decisionmaking for Sustainable Urban Renewal Projects: A Simulation – Gaming Approach , 2005 .

[40]  Erwin van der Krabben,et al.  A game theory approach to the analysis of land and property development processes , 2010 .

[41]  Leo L. Pipino,et al.  A pilot study of fuzzy set modification of Delphi , 1985 .

[42]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Identifying Software Project Risks: An International Delphi Study , 2001, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[43]  Stan Geertman,et al.  Participatory Planning and GIS: A PSS to Bridge the Gap , 2002 .

[44]  Ian Dobson,et al.  Risk Assessment in Complex Interacting Infrastructure Systems , 2005, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[45]  Claudia Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Actor based analysis and modeling approaches , 2005 .

[46]  Charles Leake.  Interactive Decision Making: The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution , 1993 .

[47]  Peter Roberts,et al.  The Definition of Brownfield , 2000 .

[48]  P. Healey.  The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory and its Implications for Spatial Strategy Formation , 1996 .

[49]  D. Helbing,et al.  Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[50]  Roger B. Myerson,et al.  Game theory - Analysis of Conflict , 1991 .

[51]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[52]  P Healey,et al.  Building Institutional Capacity through Collaborative Approaches to Urban Planning , 1998 .

[53]  Setha M. Low,et al.  The Edge and the Center: Gated Communities and the Discourse of Urban Fear , 2001 .

[54]  J. Bryson.  What to do when Stakeholders matter , 2004 .

[55]  P. Hartmann,et al.  What Is Systemic Risk Today? , 1999 .