Clicca qui per scaricare

Partecipazione e cognizione multi-agente nella strategia territoriale per Taranto: note prodromiche al nuovo piano
Titolo Rivista: ARCHIVIO DI STUDI URBANI E REGIONALI 
Autori/Curatori: Pasquale Balena, Domenico Camarda, Dino Borri, Maria Giustozzi 
Anno di pubblicazione:  2020 Fascicolo: 127 Lingua: Italiano 
Numero pagine:  24 P. 148-171 Dimensione file:  234 KB
DOI:  10.3280/ASUR2020-127007
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più:  clicca qui   qui 


Il percorso di ricerca per il nuovo piano di Taranto si è originariamente orientato verso modelli di costruzione e gestione partecipata della conoscenza. Dopo decenni di apatia organizzativa e problemi socio-ambientali, un processo di coinvolgimento strutturato ha indagato scenari di sviluppo futuri. Il modello mostra risultati di ricerca interessanti, con grandi potenzialità strategiche legate ad una coscienza ambientale caparbia e resiliente, prodotto cognitivo di una cittadinanza millenaria.


Keywords: Strategia territoriale; sviluppo socio-ambientale; scenari futuri; modelli di supporto decisionale; conoscenza multi-agente.

  1. Arentze T. and Timmermans H. (2006). Multi-agent models of spatial cognition, Learning and complex choice behavior in urban environments. In: Portugali J., ed., Complex Artificial Environments. Berlin: Springer., DOI: 10.1007/3-540-29710-3_1
  2. Bai X. (2011). Predicting consumer sentiments from online text. Decision Support Systems, 50: 732-742.
  3. Bai X., McAllister R.R.J., Beaty R.M. and Taylor B. (2010) Urban policy and governance in a global environment: Complex systems, scale mismatches and public participation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2: 129-135.
  4. Banini T. (2011). Identità territoriali e processi partecipativi a Roma. In: Banini T., a cura di, Mosaici Identitari. Dagli Italiani a Vancouver alla Kreppa Islandese. Roma: Edizioni Nuova Cultura, 45-69.
  5. Basari A.S.H., Hussin B. and Ananta I.G.P. (2013). Opinion mining of movie review using hybrid method of support vector machine and particle swarm optimization. Procedia Engineering, 53: 453-462.
  6. Bennett B. (1994). Spatial reasoning with propositional logics. In: Doyle J., Sandewall E. and Torasso P., eds., Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proc. 4th Intl. Conf. (KR’94). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, 51-62., DOI: 10.1016/B978-1-4832-1452-8.50102-
  7. Besio M., Brunetta G. e Magoni M. (2013). Valutare i piani: efficacia e metodi della Valutazione Ambientale Strategica. Milano: Bruno Mondadori.
  8. Bifulco R. (2010). Democrazia partecipativa e democrazia deliberativa. In: Allegretti U., a cura di, La democrazia partecipativa in Italia e in Europa: Esperienze e prospettive. Firenze: Firenze University press.
  9. Booth P. (1996). Controlling Development: Certainty and Discretion in Europe, the USA and Hong Kong. London: UCL Press.
  10. Borri D., Camarda D. and De Liddo A. (2005). Mobility in environmental planning: An integrated multi-agent approach. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3675: 119-129.
  11. Borri D. e Scandale L. (2005). Aspetti cognitivi e organizzativi di campagne politiche come strumenti di visioning e pianificazione strategica. Evidenze dal caso dei “Forum per Bari”. In: Bruzzo A e Occelli S., a cura di, Le Relazioni tra Conoscenza e Innovazione nello Sviluppo dei Territori. Milano: FrancoAngeli, 100-121.
  12. Chilvers J. and Kearnes M. (2016) (eds.). Book Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics. London: Routledge.
  13. Conrad F.G. and Schober M.F. (2007). Envisioning the Survey Interview of the Future. London: Wiley.
  14. Davidoff P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31: 331-338., DOI: 10.1080/0194436650897818
  15. De Cindio F. and Aurigi A. (2016). Augmented Urban Spaces: Articulating the Physical and Electronic City. London: Routledge.
  16. Ernstson H. (2013). The social production of ecosystem services: A framework for studying environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109: 7-17.
  17. Ferber J. (1999). Multi-Agent Systems: An Introduction to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. London: Addison-Wesley.
  18. Forester J. (1998). Pianificazione e potere. Pratiche e teorie interattive del progetto urbano. Bari: Dedalo.
  19. Forester J. (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
  20. Forester J. (2009). Dealing with Differences: Dramas of Mediating Public Disputes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  21. Friedmann J. (1993). Pianificazione e dominio pubblico. Dalla conoscenza all’azione. Bari: Dedalo.
  22. Friend J. and Hickling A. (1997). Planning Under Pressure: The Strategic Choice Approach, London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  23. Giordano R., Pluchinotta I., Zikos D., Krueger T. and Tsoukiàs A. (2020). How to Use Ambiguity in Problem Framing for Enabling Divergent Thinking: Integrating Problem Structuring Methods and Concept-Knowledge Theory. In: White L., Kunc M., Burger K. et al., eds., Behavioral Operational Research: A Capabilities Approach. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 93-117., DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-25405-6_
  24. Gray S., Chan A., Clark D. and Jordan R. (2012). Modeling the integration of stakeholder knowledge in social-ecological decision-making: Benefits and limitations to knowledge diversity. Ecological Modelling, 229: 88-96.
  25. Habermas J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
  26. Heft H. (2013). Environment, cognition, and culture: Reconsidering the cognitive map. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 33: 14-25.
  27. Jelokhani-Niaraki M. (2018). Knowledge sharing in Web-based collaborative multicriteria spatial decision analysis: An ontology-based multi-agent approach. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 72: 104-123.
  28. Jungk R. and Mullert N. (1996). Future Workshop: How to Create Desirable Futures. London: Institute for Social Inventions.
  29. Khakee A. (1982). Planning and structural reform in municipal government. International Journal of Public Administration, 4: 1-22., DOI: 10.1080/0190069820852442
  30. Khakee A. (1985). Urban models and municipal planning. Urban Geography, 6: 48-68., DOI: 10.2747/0272-3638.6.1.4
  31. Khakee A., Barbanente A., Camarda D. and Puglisi M. (2002a). With or without? Comparative study of preparing participatory scenarios using computer-aided and traditional brainstorming. Journal of Future Research, 6: 45-64.
  32. Khakee A., Barbanente A. and Puglisi M. (2002b). Scenario building for Metropolitan Tunis. Futures, 34: 583-596., DOI: 10.1016/S0016-3287(02)00002-
  33. Krumholz N. and Forester J. (1990). Making Equity Planning Work: Leadership in the Public Sector. New York: Temple University Press.
  34. Lindgren M. and Bandhold H. (2003). Scenario Planning: The Link Between Future and Strategy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  35. Mazza L. (1993). Attivista e gentiluomo? Archivio di Studi Urbani e Regionali, 48: 29-62.
  36. Özveren E. and Faist T. (2017). Transnational Social Spaces: Agents, Networks and Institutions. London: Routledge.
  37. Pereira G., Prada R. and Santos P.A. (2016). Integrating social power into the decision-making of cognitive agents. Artificial Intelligence, 241: 1-44.
  38. Pluchinotta I., Esposito D. and Camarda D. (2019). Fuzzy cognitive mapping to support multi-agent decisions in development of urban policymaking. Sustainable Cities and Society, 46: 101402.
  39. Rafael V.L. (2003). The cell phone and the crowd: Messianic politics in the contemporary Philippines. Philippine Political Science Journal, 24: 3-36., DOI: 10.1080/01154451.2003.975424
  40. Rickards L., Ison R., Funfgeld H. and Wiseman J. (2014). Opening and closing the future: climate change, adaptation, and scenario planning. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32: 587-602.
  41. Ringland G. (1998). Scenario Planning: Managing for the Future. London: John Wiley & Son Ltd. Rish I. (2001). An empirical study of the naive Bayes classifier. IJCAI 2001 Workshop on Empirical Mmethods in Artificial Intelligence. New York: IBM, 41-46.
  42. Roche S., Mericskay B., Batita W. and Bach M. (2012). Wikigis basic concepts: Web 2.0 for geospatial collaboration. Future Internet, 4: 265-284.
  43. Sanoff H. (1999). Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning. London: Wiley.
  44. Schön D.A. (1983). The Reflexive Practitioner: New York: Basic Books.
  45. Silavi T., Hakimpour F., Claramunt C. and Nourian F. (2016). Design of a spatial database t o analyze the forms and responsiveness of an urban environment using an ontological approach. Cities, 52: 8-19.
  46. Simon H.A. (1988). Le scienze dell’artificiale. Bologna: il Mulino.
  47. Skulimowski A.M.J. and Kacprzyk J. (2016) (eds.). Book Knowledge, Information and Creativity Support Systems: Recent Trends, Advances and Solutions. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  48. Susskind L. and Cruikshank J.L. (1987). Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. New York: Basic Books.
  49. Swaminathan R., Sharma A. and Yang H. (2010). Opinion mining for biomedical text data: Feature space design and feature selection. The Nineth International Workshop on Data Mining in Bioinformatics, BIOKDD. Washingtom DC. Turban E., Aronson J.E. and Liang T.P. (2005). Decision Support Systems and Intelligent Systems. New York: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
  50. Underdal A. (2010). Complexity and challenges of long-term environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 20: 386-393.
  51. Wachs M. (1985). Ethics in Planning. New Jersey: Rutgers.



  1. Impossibile comunicare con Crossref: The remote server returned an error: (404) Not Found.

Pasquale Balena, Domenico Camarda, Dino Borri, Maria Giustozzi, in "ARCHIVIO DI STUDI URBANI E REGIONALI" 127/2020, pp. 148-171, DOI:10.3280/ASUR2020-127007

   

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association associazione indipendente e no profit per facilitare l'accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche