Seismic–Energy Retrofit as Information-Value: Axiological Programming for the Ecological Transition

Abstract

The research deals with the issue of the seismic and energy retrofit of historic building fabrics having as reference a historic district of Syracuse (Italy). The prospect of the ecological transition on the one hand and the public support funding on the other claim for a valuation programming approach implying the creation of multiple scenarios, each of which is inspired by a different and complementary degree of “saliency and urgency”. These two dimensions of “being worth” by a building aggregation having an its own shape and belonging to a larger and more complex urban system need to be addressed according to some axiological reference, in this case, the concerns of the efficiency and fairness of public spending. This experience concerns the creation of a value-based programming pattern of the seismic–energy retrofit process framed in a Building Information Modelling (BIM) environment aimed at identifying the best intervention strategy among the several ones that can be generated in the logic of the parametric design. Both seismic and energy retrofit expected performances, in fact, can be scaled, complementing the extension and intensity of the interventions. This experiment takes advantage of the BIM multidimensional logic in line with the multiple scales and purposes implied by the relationships between individual/communal axiological profiles and present/future prospects. The experiment consists of the creation of an additive cost-oriented design platform based on which the different and progressive combinations of intensity and extension of the interventions can be compared and selected.

1. Introduction

1.1. Disciplinary Issues

This experiment inspires the commitment that the economic appraisal discipline aims at project and plan evaluation. As such, the science of valuation is engaged in making explicit the axiological components of goods and processes coming from decision-making paths supported by the consciousness of the values involved and by the broadest consensus. These beliefs outline the contours of an “axiological approach” to the project, the scientific relevance of which depends on how and to what extent the whole of its motivation is recognisable in its outcome [1,2].

The public relevance of planning has been progressively supported by an increasingly widespread recourse to robust methods, articulated criteria, and powerful tools, through which it is possible to retrace the choices and retroact on them according to the relevance of the motivations of the player involved and the degree of irreversibility of the transformations implemented.

The redevelopment of historic urban fabrics is one of the privileged design contexts of the iterative and interactive search for solutions capable on the one hand of mediating between conflicting needs, and on the other of generating added value by overcoming the logic of trade-off.

“Science of value and practice of valuations” recognize the double axiological dimension of the built heritage, being at the same time the “bearer of value contents” and the “recipient of value attributes” [3]. The former can be measured by the “reproduction value cost”, comprising all the natural, artificial, and social components sacrificed for “shaping and placing” the product. The latter can be measured according to the market value whose relevance for the public comes from the impersonal and unintentional interaction between the supply capacity of facing production cost and the demand preferences’ entire spectrum that on the one hand include practical and symbolic values and on the other hand are constrained by the income of individuals [4].

1.2. Value Theory and Information as a Mean and Aim

An axiological approach to a project assumes as the original content of the “valuation statement” (in the broad spectrum ranging from estimate up to assessment) a “value substance”, which is the attribute changing objects (and performances) into goods (and services) across the economic, social, and political communication [5,6]. Value substance is the source of wealth; is the cause of value; and establishes the exchange ratios [7]. Starting from the value–labour theory, economics has been developing the value theory assuming as value substance utility, energy, (neg-)entropy, and nowadays the “creative combination of matter, energy and information” [7,8]; the value theory from Rizzo identifies information in a different and original sense compared to the surface widespread meaning, thus not as a “notion” but in the sense defined within the semantic information theory. In fact, while mathematic information is measured according to “a structural theory of the statistic properties of a source”, semantic information is measured according to a “structural theory of generative properties of s-code”. According to this dichotomy, the following aspects are noted:

• concerning information as an aim, “information-value is the result of a productive process, and then information should be connected to the “shape” as outcome, where valuations based on this theory assume as value substance the “shape attribute”, a measurement of the internal and external consistency of an artifact as for its components, as well as for the relation to its space-time context [9]; information as shape is the output of the production process having also a market value more or less significant compared to the shape attribute;
• concerning “information as a mean”, thus considering information as the input, it should be considered as the sum of the previous shape loss over the transformation process and the overall knowledge, expertise, organization, etc., needed for the creation of the new shape;
• as a consequence, the valuation of a conservation/transformation process must be taken in terms of the surplus (output minus input) of information.

This experiment focuses on the programming valuation tool structured as an information modelling system aimed at representing, measuring and comparing the creation of the information surplus production of a set of scenarios generated within a consistent set of rules and according to a defined logic and calculation functions [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19].

1.3. Valuation and Project

A further issue characterizing the “axiological approach” to the project in the field of integrated conservation of the built heritage is the transversality of its value between private and public spheres and due to its age.

The collective value of the urban building heritage is by definition a cultural value: the older this heritage, the mode it has consolidated as an experiential imprint in collective imaginary, in many cases even regardless of its architectural relevance.

The value of heritage, especially in a climate of profound modification of the current normative axiological arrangement, today is increasingly oriented to ecological transition; in this field, tools like Minimum Environmental Criteria, Life Cycle Analysis, and Life Cycle Costing have changed the economic value profile of the built heritage, once mainly based on the cost value—by definition “artificial”—it also has a “natural value” represented and measured in terms of “embodied energy” and “residual performance” [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32].

However, the aspects mostly outlining the socio-territorial, environmental and ecological profiles of the built heritage go beyond the artificial and natural dimensions, looking at the cultural and social ones in terms of the ability to endure, thus to be a legacy for the future, polysemy, and the capacity of multiple interpretations. These dimensions redefine the practices of reuse, redevelopment, recovery, restoration, protection conservation, and valorisation, thus involving the multiple disciplines that support, apply, and validate them.

The present–future dialectic has been addressed by an impressing literature in economics, as well as in appraisal and valuation. It arises in the deepest context of valuation of land assets and pervades the entire area of valuation practice, which identify the dialectics between land value and streams of value as an overall unitary bearer of value [33,34].

The comparison and coordination of temporally heterogeneous economic magnitudes and the related fundamental categories that are inextricable in the prospects of the generational continuity of orderly communities imply some aspects of intertemporal solidarity, which shift the issue of the project evaluation from the “positive” level of the technical–economic feasibility (cost-effectiveness and financial sustainability) to the “normative” level of the welfare progressive reform. In this prospect, a project becomes a conservative/transformative process having, in addition to its own technical–scientific dimension, a further economic–political responsibility [35,36].

Finally, issues of intragenerational (spatial preferences, i.e., between areas to be redeveloped) and intergenerational (the preferences, i.e., between present and future benefits) solidarity constitute the thematic and problematic contexts within which this research is placed, developing with further explorations also the tools by means of which the two dimensions of building heritage protection and people safety—as expressions of urban/human capital—are coordinated within the entire spectrum of project justification [37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45].

1.4. Contents and Aims

This experience of project valuation consists of the creation and application of a valuation programming model for the seismic and energy retrofits of the historic building fabrics process and is developed within a unitary modelling environment where the whole spectrum of representation, valuation, and scenario generation functions is implemented and managed [46,47,48,49,50,51].

The concern for seismic risk and its differentiated distribution in the territorial and urban context creates asymmetries in the map of spatial and temporal disadvantages, respectively, due to the different conformations of the built heritage and to the diversified perception of risk by residents and administration [52,53,54,55,56]. Similarly, the energy issue, especially in the background of its double dimensions—the general one, concerning the reduction of the climate change effects, and the specific one, the issue of the energy-building poverty—creates further aspects of urban imbalance, triggering filtering down processes in the disadvantaged districts [57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65].

The proposed model and its application display on an intermediate building–urban scale the value map of the different strategies, as first concerning the sole seismic retrofit and as second both seismic and energy retrofit interventions. The model operates over two different dimensions: the seismic vulnerability reduction model is the more complex and complete one, since it manages multiple parameters related to the calculation of the vulnerability of the buildings involved [66,67], selecting the related mitigation work packages, providing multiple scenarios combining different extension and intensity degrees, and calculating the costs [68,69,70]; the energy retrofit dimension has been integrated in the abovementioned original information platform in the prospect of two complementary and converging aspects, the first strategic and the second tactical. The strategic value of the integrated retrofit can be traced back to the main goals of the ecological transition and the SDGs, in particular Goal 11, “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable”; accordingly, the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRP) in force in Italy, for the purpose of financing integrated retrofit projects, implies this combination. The tactical value of this integration is linked to the former insofar as a single construction site creates economies of organization and scale, which are important both in the individual interest and for the efficiency of public expenditure.

A further and general implication of the ecological–environmental and landscape relevance of reducing seismic vulnerability is the close connection between the extensive and articulated effects of the damage chain associated with an earthquake. In fact, due to the evacuation of entire cities (remember the Italian case of the 2009 Abruzzo earthquake), the relocation of thousands of inhabitants, many of whom are housed for several years in temporary dwellings, creates an extensive waste of land due to the construction of new low-rise dwellings that are widespread throughout the territory.

This paper is divided into five sections. Section 2 provides a synthetic description of the study area within the urban district of reference; moreover, some normative reference from the detailed plan currently in force are listed with the view of the retrofit prospects outlining the creation of economies of organization of the two retrofit dimensions, as well as the general aspects of the seismic proactive policies on an urban scale such as the Emergency Limit Condition (ELC) and its aims, normative reference, and operational paths. Section 3 describes some of the most relevant issues of the BIM structure performed within the three-dimensional Revit modelling environment; the “Dynamo for Revit” plug-in used for implementing the calculation functions for identifying the connection between each elementary component properties and the associated works and costs; the seismic vulnerability assessment model of the Architectural Units included in the sample; and the relation between the characteristics of the building components current state and the interventions envisaged also in the prospect of an integration of the two types of retrofit. Section 4 presents the steps of the application and the main findings with reference to the scenarios generated. Section 5 discusses the findings and highlights the potential of the model proposed for the further dimensions it is able integrate. Section 6, after a brief synthesis of the work, highlights the connection between premises and results, and presents the limits and the prospects of this research.

2. Materials

2.1. The “Borgata di Santa Lucia” in Syracuse

2.1.1. Historic Background and Urban Development

The “Borgata di Santa Lucia” (Figure 1) is the most recent part of the historic centre of Syracuse (Italy). The ancient nucleus is the well-known Ortigia, founded as a result of the first Greek colonization of the Magna Graecia in 734 B.C. The identity of Ortigia depends on its location within an islet connected to the mainland with two bridges and surrounded by wall belt built and reinforced up to the XVI century; the walls were demolished between 1865 and 1885 in the prospect of the post-unitary modernization of the town. In the meantime, in the first half of the XIX century, the valuable “Umbertino neighbourhood” was developed over the part of the mainland closest to Ortigia. Between the last two decades of the XIX century and the middle of XX century, the Borgata of Santa Lucia developed in a large area in the north. The neighbourhood was inhabited mostly by the small middle class and was expanded according to a settlement principle with orthogonal street axes (Figure 1).

2.1.2. The Building Heritage

The Borgata extends over 76 hectares and is home to 8.325 inhabitants. The building stock consists of 1.825 buildings grouped in 104 blocks arranged according to an orthogonal grid settlement principle. Santa Lucia Square, a large (1.4 ha) green rectangle located in the eastern part of the neighbourhood, comprises the most significant historic cultural heritage, the complex of the Church and Sepulcher of Santa Lucia (1695–1703), below which are the catacombs.

The neighbour’s building volume is 1,361,246 cm; the dwellings consist of a total surface area of 427,090 m²; the crowding rate is 1.94%, that is, 51 m²/inhab. The building stock was 11% between 1850 and 1900; 32% between 1900 and 1945; 30% between 1945 and 1970; 24% between 1970 and 1990; and 3% after 1990 [71].

The prevalent construction system is load-bearing masonry (79%), and the remaining buildings (21%) are reinforced concrete. The architectural quality, assessed by considering both the historic–testimonial value and the formal façade layout, the richness and articulation of the linguistic apparatus, and the value of the materials significantly represent the original urban policy aimed at creating a worthy district for the emerging middle class. In summary, the building Types are basic dwellings 47%, minor mansions 28%, major mansions 3%, and contemporary buildings 22%; the architectural value is low 16%, low–medium 18%, medium 26%, medium–high 33%, and high 7%.

2.1.3. The Case Study

The study area has been identified with reference to the aims of this experiment: (1) the first concerns a specific sense of seismic retrofit, in this case covering both building and district scales; and (2) the second concerns the tool we assumed as a unified modelling environment where different types of works have been implemented and multiple axiological dimensions have been explored in order to optimize the intervention strategy.

1. According to the seismic retrofit, in particular on a district scale, the sample was selected to include 16 blocks facing a street connected to Santa Lucia Square, a part of the district identified as an important area for the management of seismic emergency.

The urban planning tool granting a minimum level of safety in the phase of seismic emergency is the Analysis of the Emergency Limit Condition (ELC), introduced by the Ordinance of the Prime Minister n. 4007/2012, according to which fundings are ruled [72].

ELC [73,74,75] is the capacity of an urban settlement to keep—in spite of the earthquake and the consequent physical damages and functional hindrances—the functionality and operativity of almost all the activities crucial for emergency [76,77], including accessibility and connection to the territorial context, also in case of urban functions’ interruption, including the dwelling one [78,79,80,81,82,83].

An ELC analysis is conducted together with seismic microzoning at the municipal or inter-municipal level; it complements the Emergency or Civil Protection Plan by supporting its decision-making process. Once the strategic buildings (city hall, hospital, and fire brigade headquarters) and emergency areas (massing areas and refuge areas) have been identified, the connection and access infrastructures are traced, and the interfering building aggregates are identified and characterized by means of special sheets. The whole dataset is managed by the SoftCLE software v.3.2.1, allowing the elaboration of the general map and the related excerpts [83].

A further seismic proactive policy approach, the Minimum Urban Structure (MUS) [84,85], extends the care for people, building fabrics, and life activities to the post-emergency period. MUS is a crucial tool for urban resilience because it concerns functions, paths, and strategic places that ensure the urban response to the earthquake in the emergency phase, also allowing the maintenance and recovery of ordinary activities in the short–medium period after the earthquake; it also considers the possible concatenation of collateral events triggered by the earthquake: fires, landslides, hydrogeological phenomena, etc.

The MUS is both an analytical and planning category: it analyses and interprets the urban context and considers the transformations foreseen or allowed by the planning tools, thus integrating the Masterplan according to the Sicilian Regional Law 19/2020 [86].

The MUS strategic aspects in the emergency phase concern the following systems:

• mobility and accessibility;
• safe open spaces;
• buildings and structures of strategic importance;
• main technological networks.

The MUS strategic aspects in the post-emergency phase concern the following systems:

• cultural heritage and relational places;
• economic-productive activities and main urban functions.

2. According to the second concerns, the study area has been identified according to the possibilities of the Building Information Modelling environment within which analysis, valuation, and programming have been integrated [87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98].

BIM is a design environment that assumes the reference to discrete objects, typical of three-dimensional modelling, as a platform of referents that allows internal sharing, i.e., between skills and expertise in the professional field, and external collaboration, i.e., between disciplinary and scientific areas in the field of research [99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109].

The use of this platform by Evaluation Science subordinates the level of “communication between knowledges” to the level of “communication between powers”, making explicit of the multiple axiological dimensions in whose interdependence the dialectic between social sub-systems develops [110,111,112,113]. Each of these, in fact, according to its own “communicative code” (the particular set of social values), has a specific relationship to the development processes: the overlapping of the different areas of interest outlines a “socio-technical prospect that develops in a BIM governance” (G-BIM) framework [114,115,116,117,118].

Moreover, the joint advances in computing and digital technologies offer important opportunities for development of constructions, as well as in the specific field of retrofit, with reference to the efficiency of construction and management efficiency [119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127], even in the field of safety and health related to hygrothermal well-being [128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151].

The tool used here for this integration is the Revit + Dynamo Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) for the creation of a relational database capable of integrating the functions of representation, query, evaluation, and scenario generation [152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171].

The study area comprises 16 blocks with a total of 106 building units (BUs), of which 79 are characterised by the load-bearing masonry structural system, identified as suitable for the analysis by building elementary components—the ones related to seismic and energy retrofit—and its use for the valuations based on which multiple scenarios have been generated (Figure 2).

3. Methods

In order to create a value-based seismic and energy retrofit programming tool, a method was outlined integrating the functions of analysis, representation by objects and values, and programming in a multidimensional modelling environment. This method goes through four levels—of detail (LoDt), of development (LoDv), of planning (LoP) and OD evaluation (LoV)—coordinating the following functions:

• Virtual construction of the BUs. In the Revit environment, according to a rigorous hierarchical structure of the elementary objects (unambiguously identified), as information unit bearers at the different levels of detail (LoD_t), this phase required the setting up of a set of Work Breakdown Structures unambiguously linking components and parameters to each other. Moreover, within the Dynamo environment, the BUs are characterized by the evaluation (LoV) and programming (LoP) functions, providing specific parameters describing the outcomes of the planned transformations of the elementary units, façades, fixtures, and roofs.
• The vulnerability assessment. At the LoV, each FU of all the BUs included in the interfering building aggregates (Bas) is characterized by the parameters measuring the seismic vulnerability, that is, the ground acceleration capable of triggering the overturning of the façades. To this end, this model integrates the information on the current state of the buildings (constructional, dimensional and material, and structural integrity characteristics—LoD_t).
• Programming vulnerability mitigation. At the LoD_v, the parameters measuring the vulnerability select the UFs needing retrofit works according to the vulnerability degree. At the LoP, programming functions generate different seismic retrofit scenarios by combining different levels of the two main requirements—the extent (the amount of UFs to be retrofitted) and intensity (the completeness of the work packages) of the retrofit.
• Extension of the LoDv. Once outlined the “bearing strategies”—the above seismic retrofit ones—the energy retrofit works concerning other building components (roofs and fixtures) can be integrated in order to verify possible operational management economies.
• Extension of the LoV: Individual Estimates and Global Assessment. Prioritizing the seismic retrofit, the valuations supporting the overall programming process have been carried out at two levels. At the single BU level, construction information (works—LoDv) and economic information (unit prices—LoV) were selected from the Bill of Quantities for Public Works to estimate the costs of the created scenarios. At the level concerning the selection of the preferable scenario, cost-effectiveness indices have been defined in order to compare them.

3.1. 3D Modelling: Revit–Dynamo Environment

The modelling of the BUs involved has been carried out within the Revit–Dynamo environment. Revit 2023.1.10.4 is a BIM software known for the efficiency and accuracy it guarantees throughout the project cycle, from conceptual design, visualisation, and analysis to production and construction through the creation of parametric models [172,173,174].

In Revit, all elements are organised into families, i.e., sets of related elements that vary in size or configuration. The families used in this experiment are walls, roofs and fixtures. Within each family, “types” define object characteristics, dimensions, materials, and other specific properties, allowing different configurations of a family to be defined to suit specific project requirements; “instances” are the specific specimens of an object type within a family and can be modified independently of each other.

The creation, modification, and dynamic representation of these elements is controlled by “parameters”, i.e., input values of a function that provide the corresponding outputs.

The “shared parameters” are the parameter definitions added to multiple families, allowing access to them from any family.

The “project parameters” are the containers for information defined and added to multiple categories of elements in the project.

The “global parameters” are specific to the individual project file assigned to elements, not categories, that can be values assigned, results of equations, or derived from other global parameters.

Figure 3 displays the relation between the abovementioned items.

A typical feature of the parametric design is the representation of the instances by means of parameters that could have no direct relation to the component but rather to the planned work. In this case, it can be noticed that some parameters concerning the façade, such as “Back room dept” and “Back façade/Single façade”, are not typical wall features, while they are relevant for the calculation of the finishes’ works related to the tie rod applications. In this case, LoD_t merges with LoD_v.

Table 1. The main project parameter structure.

Structure of the Project and Shared Parameters for the Type and Instance
Walls	Façade	Size features	Length
			Area
			Volume
			Storeys
			Back room dept
		Topologic features	Back façade
			Single façade
		Constructive features	Building system
			Ceiling warp direction
		Earthquake equipment	Existing tie rod
		Existing cracks	Surface cracks
			Running cracks
	Plug walls	Existing cracks	Surface cracks
			Running cracks
Roofs	Pitched roof	Size features	Slope
			Thickness
			Volume
			Area
			Ridge height
			Eave length
			Downpipe length
			Attic wall
			Scaffolding area
	Flat	Size features	Perimeter
			Area
			Volume
			Upper height
			Lower height
			Scaffolding area
Fixtures		Materials	Materials
		Sizes	Width
			Height

displays the main project parameters of the three families of components.

Building components and related parameters at any level (of detail, development, valuation, and programming) are connected according to the logic of the relational databases. The multiple variables of the project and their interconnection give rise to a wide information system whose complexity is reduced and ruled by means of the Work Breakdown Structure. This logic map creates a concise representation of the project that is comprehensive, flexible, and capable of evolving as the information flow progresses. The project is subdivided hierarchically from top to bottom into components (sub-objectives, specific tasks, and so on), in increasing detail, on a number of levels, depending on its complexity.

The WBS structure of the project consists of two location levels, the block and the building unit, and four levels under the standard UNI-8290 “Residential Building. Technological system”:

-

WBS1_Block;

-

WBS2_Building unit;

-

WBS3_Classes of technological elements;

-

WBS4_Technological elements;

-

WBS5_Technical element classes;

-

WBS6_Technical elements.

Based on the observations and evaluations carried out and considering the two main objectives of planning, seismic risk mitigation and energy retrofit interventions, the breakdown of the project from level 3 onwards concerned the following:

-

Vertical elevation load-bearing structures—Façade units (FUs);

-

Vertical closures—Vertical external frames—Doors/Windows;

-

Upper Closures—Roofs—pitched and flat.

Each WBS level is marked with an alphanumeric code that allows for a certain and unambiguous identification of each Working Breakdown Element.

The six levels of the generated WBS were embedded within the 3D model as shared parameters associated with the wall element and filled in at the same time as the graphic representation (Figure 4).

Figure 5 displays the graphic identification an elementary technical unit: Façade Unit 5 belonging to Building Unit 7 included in Block 30.

Figure 6 displays three 3D models of the sample for the main components separately: façades, roofs, and fixtures.

3.2. Vulnerability Assessment

The modelling environment outlined so far is the platform for the information flow development at the LoV, in this case, the early stage of the valuation process, concerning the vulnerability assessment.

The vulnerability assessment was carried out on an urban scale and according to the Civil Protection Plan, aiming at the safety of people and thus preventing the BU façades included in the interfering blocks from overturning the access and connection infrastructures [175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185].

This kind of assessment is consistent with the analysis of the Emergency Limit Condition (ELC) introduced above.

According to the model by C. Tocci [186], it is possible to calculate a numerical indicator for individual façades in relation to the level of acceleration capable of triggering elementary overturning (out-of-plane) kinematics. This indicator is defined, in accordance with the Technical Standards for Construction [187,188,189,190], as the multiplier for triggering overturning motion ${\alpha }_o$ of the façade, taking into account (i) the presence and extent of tapering, (ii) the direction of the floor texture (parallel or orthogonal to the façade), (iii) the presence of storey ties, and (iv) the effectiveness of the anchoring with orthogonal walls.

The calculation of the motion trigger multipliers identifies the dependence of the above indicator in a limited number of significant geometric and typological parameters:

• $S_1$ wall thickness at the ground floor level;
• $H$ total wall height;
• $L$ distance between retaining walls;
• $N$ total number of storeys;
• $p$ number of floors without chains (counted from above);
• $k$ direction of the floor texture ($k=1$: floor parallel to the façade; $k=3$: floor perpendicular to the façade);
• $r$ interlocking with the retaining walls ($r=0$: interlocking absent).

The expression of the motion triggering multiplier differs between the “basic” and variant configurations: the former relates to (1) the absence of tie-rods ($N=p$) and (2) slabs woven parallel to the façade ($k=1$); the latter is defined by the absence of one or both of the above circumstances ($N>p$) and/or ($k=3$); for both, the contribution of the bracing with the retaining walls acts with an additive term.

The expressions are as follows:

Base configuration (${\alpha }_{ob}$: $N=p$; $k=1$) (Equation (1))

$${\alpha }_{ob}\approx \left(1+r\right)·\frac{S_i}{H}$$

(1)

Varied configuration (${\alpha }_{ov}$: $N>p$; $k=3$) (Equation (2))

$${\alpha }_{ov}\approx \left(1+r\right)·0.3·{\left(\frac{S_i}{H}\right)}^{\left(1-\frac{n}{100}\right)}$$

(2)

where $r$ is (Equation (3))

$$r=0.01·\left(9-L\right)·\frac{{\left(p+l\right)}^2}{k}$$

(3)

and $n$ is (Equation (4))

$$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}n=72& \mathrm{if} N=p \\ n=83-2lp+l3·\left(p+1\right)·{\displaystyle \frac{k-1}{2}}& \mathrm{if} N>p\end{array}\right.$$

(4)

Figure 7 displays the Dynamo script structure for the modelling of the calculation of ${\alpha }_{ob}$ and ${\alpha }_{ov}$. The figure shows the nodes (performing calculations) and the arcs (connecting inputs and outputs of multiple nodes); the change of an initial input is reflected in the associated output that becomes an input in subsequent functions whose outputs vary accordingly.

3.3. Urban Seismic Vulnerability Mitigation Programming

The value of the acceleration coefficient is the parameter on the basis of which interventions are associated with the FUs. Each FU is enabled for an intervention when the value of ${\alpha }_{ov}$ is lower than a threshold value prescribed by the Technical Standards for Constructions, and only for those façade units that present particular dimensional characteristics and a defined state of conservation.

On the basis of the characterisation (LoD_t) and the vulnerability assessment (LoV) of the BUs, different levels of intervention were prefigured in order to generate a finite set of intervention strategies, each of which is defined by combining intervention levels ranging over two directions: (1) the completeness of the interventions to be implemented for each building and (2) the safety of the overall urban context studied.

The rationale behind this graduation relates to the principle of substitution in economy, and the criterion of surrogate value in appraisal and valuation. In economics, several baskets of good or services can be considered substitutes whether they express the same overall utility; in appraisal and valuation, an “atypical” asset (for which there is no active market) can be valued by reference to the price of a different but substitutable (typical) asset whose market price is known.

The first direction of the trade-off relation is explained in

Table 2. Intervention completeness degree for each typology of intervention.

	Completeness Degree for Each Intervention Typology
	Interventions	1	2	3	4	5
Intervention typology	Basic	70%	100%	100%	100%	100%
	Spread		50%	50%	100%	100%
	Public interest	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
	Private interest		30%	50%	70%	100%
	Local reinforcement	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
	Seismic Enhancement			30%	60%	100%
	Limited Seismic Adaptation	70%	70%	100%	100%	100%
	Total Seismic Adaptation			30%	60%	100%

, reporting in each column the different degree of intervention completeness for each typology measured as a percentage of the full cost for every single typology.

The second direction of the abovementioned trade-off is the overall safety degree in terms of the extent of the interventions, i.e., the amount of the building to be secured; to this end, five different threshold levels have been defined: the lowest threshold level triggers interventions only for those buildings with such vulnerability that more urgent action is needed. At the other extreme, the choice of a maximum threshold level will determine instead a more extensive intervention that will affect a large portion of the built environment. The threshold is related to the value of ${\alpha }_{ov}$ and according to the Technical Standards for Construction that identify the range of the different safety levels here applied.

The different combinations of the two abovementioned sets of degrees of completeness and safety—respectively, work intensity and intervention extension—generate 25 work packages, each of which is characterized by a different level of cost and benefit.

The final aims of this study are as follows:

• to select the best scenario out of the 25 generated;
• the define the optimum global intervention scale.

3.3.1. Cost Calculation

The planned works include the insertion of tie rods, the filling of surface cracks, the integration of masonry where needed, the introduction of reinforcing masonry, and all the external and internal finishing works relating to both walls and ceilings.

Eight work packages (WPs) were therefore arranged to estimate the cost of seismic risk mitigation works for the 301 façade units included in the sample.

Each WP includes the works necessary to implement the specific project action assigned.

The chosen works are taken, as already mentioned, from the bill of quantities for the public works of Emilia-Romagna updated to 2023 and of which the items and relative unit prices are reported in

Table 3. Items and unit prices of the seismic retrofit elementary works.

Project Action	Code	Short Description	Unit of Measure	Unit Price (€/m2)
Scaffolding	F01.052.020.a	assembly	m2	10.98
	F01.052.020.b	higher freight	m2	2.20
	F01.052.020.c	disassembly	m2	4.22
Tie rods: structural works	B02.004.005.b	masonry perforations	m	41.93
	B02.004.020	plates niches	m2	557.23
	B02.004.025	plates	kg	8.16
	B02.004.035	implementation	kg	12.16
	B02.004.040	stake	kg	10.38
	B02.004.045	re-stringing	each	155.38
	B02.004.055.a	injection pressure drilling	m	22.47
Tie rods: finishing works	A09.004.005.b	suspended ceilings	m2	32.69
	A20.001.005	ceiling painting preparation	m2	2.33
	A20.010.010.b	ceiling painting	m2	9.31
	A20.001.005	painting preparation	m2	2.33
	A20.001.010.a	grouting	m2	4.61
	A20.010.010.b	painting	m2	9.31
Shear walls	A05.034.010.a	reinforcement of masonries	m2	233.87
	A05.004.005.a	new masonry	m3	792.08
	A20.001.005	wall preparation	m2	2.33
	A20.001.010.a	wall grouting painting	m2	4.61
	A20.010.010.b	painting: wall preparation	m2	9.31
Masonries integration	B02.001.030.a	deep crack masonry integration	m3	670.64
	A08.004.010.d	external plaster	m2	26.82
	A20.001.035	external painting: wall preparation	m2	14.86
	A20.016.060.b	external painting	m2	20.94
	A08.004.005.d	internal plaster	m2	26.16
	A20.001.005	internal painting; wall preparation	m2	2.33
	A20.001.010.a	internal painting; wall grouting	m2	4.61
	A20.010.010.b	internal painting	m2	9.31
Injections	B02.001.045	injections	m3	164.02
	A08.004.010.d	external plasters	m2	26.82
	A20.001.035	external painting: wall preparation	m2	14.86
	A20.016.060.b	external painting	m2	20.94
	A20.001.005	internal painting: wall preparation	m2	2.33
	A20.001.010.a	internal painting: grouting	m2	4.61
	A20.010.010.b	internal painting	m2	9.31

.

3.3.2. Benefit Calculation

The benefits have been accounted in monetary terms as well. Three different kinds of benefits have been considered according a cost–benefit analysis-based approach [191,192,193].

1. 

Direct benefits. This class includes the following: a. the “secondary benefits” and b. the “the imputed expenditures”.

• The secondary benefits are the capital gains coming from the increase in the technological characteristics concerning the seismic retrofit estimated based on the literature in the field. The overall technological characteristics regressor is about 0.3; thus, in this experiment, just 0.05 (the safety related one) has been prudentially accounted. Based on the estimate of each BU of the sample, 5% of the present real estate market value has been considered for the percentage of the volume behind the FUs out of the total volume in order to take into account of the part of the BU retrofitted [194,195].
• The imputed expenditures depend on the intensity of the intervention, which is the over-expense with respect to the basic completeness level. For each BU, the difference between the completeness level (C2-C1, C3-C1, C4-C1, and C5-C1) was calculated as the basis for the calculation of the imputed expenditures and was prudently assumed as a percentage of 60% of this difference.

2. 

Indirect benefits. In the ACB literature, the indirect benefits come from the recognition of the social impact of the public expenditure on national yield. In this prospect, part of the intervention cost can be assumed as the indirect benefit, usually including the derived and induced ones. The percentage of the cost assumed as an indirect benefit prudently excludes the latter, thus considering just the forms in as much as they are connected to the added value in terms of the payments for the primary inputs: labour, land, and capital used in the building process. As a further prudent assumption, just the cost of labour has been accounted as a 44–55% percentage of the total building cost. Moreover, ACB theoretical assumptions connect the percentage of the building cost to be considered to the unemployment level, which is currently low in Italy as well as in Europe, especially in the building sector due to the relevant post-COVID government support in the prospect of the ecological transition. In this experiment, the indirect benefit is 60% of the building cost.

3.4. Energy Retrofit LoD_v Extension

As mentioned above, the energy retrofit is here considered an extension of the multi-dimensional modelling environment, concerning the big issue of sustainability as for the NZEB prospect [196,197]. In this sample application, roof insulation and fixture substitution are considered as a significant verification test of the easy integration of further development features in the basic and more extensive modelling platform.

The supply and installation of insulated slated sheathing is considered for pitched roof insulation. For flat roofs, the insulation is considered installed above the waterproof membrane. In both cases, the works also include the replacement of the rainwater disposal system. Lifelines were considered on a case-by-case basis.

With regard to fixtures, replacement with high-quality wooden doors and frames in accordance with the original configuration was considered, i.e., with new shutters or interior doors even where they are no longer existing.

In all cases, all the necessary works have been drawn up for the completion of the interventions. Below is a table with the work and unit prices (

Table 4. Items and unit prices of the energy retrofit elementary works.

Project Action	Code	Short Description		Unit of Measure	Unit Price (€/m2)
Pitched roofs	B01.025.035	Removal of downpipes and gutters	*	m	8.10
	B01.025.015.c	Removal of roof covering	***	m2	11.71
	B01.028.005.a	Removal of waterproofing layer	**	m2	3.42
	A11.004.020.c	Vapour barrier		m2	4.15
	A10.007.085.d	Insulation (slated insulated sheathing)		m2	39.10
	B02.007.125.a	Removing the roof covering		m2	22.23
	A07.037.010.c	Eave channels		m	29.31
	A07.037.040.a	Eave channel supports		each	6.44
	A07.037.050.c	Downpipes		m	21.16
	A07.037.060.a	Support collars		each	5.64
Flat roof	B01.025.035	Removal of drains and gutters	*	m	8.10
	B01.025.045	Manhole drain removal	**	m	11.41
	B01.028.010	Drain trap removal	**	each	5.70
	B01.016.020	Demolition of floor + subfloor		m	11.35
	B01.028.005.a	Removal of waterproofing layer	**	m2	3.42
	B01.016.070	Demolition of screed	**	m3	178.31
	A04.001.015.a	Slope screed		m2	31.19
	A11.004.020.c	Vapour barrier		m2	4.15
	A10.004.065.a	Insulation layer		m2	23.30
	A15.001.015.a	Finishing screed 2 cm		m2	16.86
	A15.016.055.g	Floor		m2	70.31
	A07.037.050.c	Downspouts		m	21.16
	A07.037.060.a	Supporting collars		each	5.64
	A07.037.085.c	Manhole		each	20.81
	A07.037.070.a	Manhole drain		each	7.82
Fixtures	B01.034.005	Dismantling of wooden frames		m2	20.54
	B01.034.025	Iron and aluminium frame disassembly		m2	23.96
	A18.028.005.b	Counterframes	*	m	11.98
	B01.034.015	Wooden door disassembly		m2	17.11
	B01.034.030	Iron and aluminium door disassembly		m2	29.18
	B01.034.020	Wooden door disassembly		m2	41.07
	A18.016.011.a	Wooden windows and doors (WWD): window, fixed frame	*	m2	552.00
	A18.016.011.e	WWD: 1-sash window, casement	*	m2	816.00
	A18.016.011.f	WWD: 2-sash window, casement	*	m2	736.00
	A18.016.011.n	WWD: 1- or 2-sash window, casement	*	m2	733.93
	A18.001.005.d	WWD: Doors and entrance doors	*	m2	377.10
	A18.019.006.a	WWF: Wooden shutters: 1 or 2 leaf window	*	m2	496.77
	A18.019.006.g	WWF: 1- or 2-sash window	*	m2	441.46
	A18.022.005.a	Wooden counter flaps or shutters: 1- or 2-sash window	*	m2	407.68
	A18.022.005.g	Wooden counter flaps or shutters: 1- or 2-sash window	*	m2	381.46
	B01.061.030.b	Pulling up or dropping down of materials		m3	35.98
	B01.061.010	Transport to public landfills		m3	71.27

* Pull up and drop down are not included and calculated separately. ** Transport to landfills are not included and calculated separately. *** Pull up and drop down and transport to landfills are not included and calculated separately.

) for the cost calculation.

The benefits coming from these additional works have been calculated as previously explained, except for the imputed expenditures, given that the completeness degree does not concern the energy retrofit.

3.5. Global Valuation and Best Strategy Selection

The basic research question of the integrated retrofit programming concerns the preferable strategy out of the 25 generated and the best intervention scale.

3.5.1. Selection of the Best Strategy

The basic assumption of the first question matches the economic principle of the isocost frontier, according to which the selection of the best strategy has been carried out within the ones having similar costs, i.e., comprised within an established range. The pattern we arranged allows us to define the cost range within different levels, for example between the first and second, or second and third quartiles; more generally any other range recognised as significant can be assumed. Once the cost range is established, the $n$ strategies ($n<25$) included can be compared to each other according to four criteria interpreting costs and benefits; $n$ changes for each of the cost ranges selected.

The first criterion index $C^{\ast }$ is the ratio between the average cost of the $n$ strategies selected and the cost of the $i$th strategy $S_i$ (i = 1, 2, …, n) to be compared to the other $n-1$ ones.

The second criterion index $B^{\ast }$ is the ratio between the benefit of each $S_i$ and the average benefit of the $n$ strategies selected.

The third criterion index is the ratio between the net benefit ${\pi }^{\ast }$ (benefit–cost) of $S_i$ and the average net benefit of the n strategies selected.

The fourth criterion index $r^{\ast }$ is the ratio between the cost-effectiveness index (B-C)/C of the $i$th strategy and the average (B-C)/C index of the n strategies selected.

Each strategy is assessed according to two synthetic indexes:

• The first one, $a^{\ast }$, is the average of the four abovementioned indices.
• The second one, $g^{\ast }$, is the score of the placement of each $S_i$ in each of the four rankings of the abovementioned criteria indexes. The score $g_i^{\ast }$ of the $i_{th}$ strategy $S_i$ is (Equation (5)):

$$g_i^{\ast }=\sum _{k=1}^{h-1}{t}_{ki}\left(h-k\right)$$

(5)

where

• $t_{ki}$ is the number of times $S_i$ is in $k_{th}$ position in each of the ($t$) rankings, considering the four abovementioned criteria ($C^{\ast }$, $B^{\ast }, {\pi }^{\ast }$ and $r^{\ast }$);
• $h-1$ is the maximum value of $k$, i.e., the maximum number of $S_i$ selected in all the queries of this experiment;
• $h=16$ according to the aim of selecting just the strategies included in a limited cost range;
• $k=1, 2, \dots , h-1$.

Finally, the synthetic performance index $p^{\ast }$ was calculated by averaging $a^{\ast }$ and $g^{\ast }$ once it was z-standardized.

3.5.2. Definition of the Best Intervention Scale

The amount of the BUs to be secured is defined according one of the basic principles of the ELC, identifying the access and connection roads, and the corresponding interfering building aggregates (BAs). This experiment has both a theoretical aim and an ethical prospect. The first one concerns the hypothesis of prioritizing the BUs of the interfering BAs so that the best scale of the intervention depends on the comparison of the cumulated benefit and cost. The second one concerns the prospect of extending as much as possible the safety area by combining safety (extension) and completeness (intensity) of the urban proactive policy.

According to basic business theory, once a priority order of the BUs to be secured with reference to their distance from the safety areas is defined, the cumulated cost and benefits are calculated. According to the first concern, the theoretical aim, the best size is the number of BUs maximizing the net benefit; according to the second concern, the ethical prospect the best size is given by the maximum number of BUs for which the net benefit is 0. The first approach is based on cost-effectiveness and is typically restrictive, and the second one is based on solidarity and is therefore typically expansive.

According to the aims of the ELC, the hypotheses of a progressively lower importance of the BUs farer from the safety area defines a decreasing marginal benefit function. The lower this importance, the lower the spatial solidarity and the smaller the cost-effective area secured.

Moreover, according to the possible scale diseconomies coming from a massive seismic vulnerability mitigation programme, inflating the building costs defines an increasing marginal cost; the higher the inflation rate per BU, the smaller the cost-effective area secured.

4. Application and Results

4.1. Observations, Measurements and Representations

All logic, query, and calculation functions briefly described so far were performed in the Revit–Dynamo environment. Figure 8 exemplifies the description, evaluation, and programming process for the allocation of work packages to each of the 301 FUs.

The report of the outcomes of this modelling step is displayed in the GIS environment. Figure 9 shows the map of vulnerability measured by the ground acceleration coefficient triggering the turn off of each FU. The lower the coefficient, the higher vulnerability.

4.2. Monetary Valuations for Programming

4.2.1. Costs

Further elaborations concern the comparison of the costs of the 25 strategies generated by combining the five degrees of security (S1, S2, …, S5) and the five degrees of completeness (C1, C2, …, C5). The graphs in Figure 10 compare the costs of the 25 strategies for the following: (a) seismic retrofit; (b) energy retrofit; and (c) integrated retrofit. In particular, the surface graphs below highlight the isocost functions and then the areas of the strategy map in which the ones with similar costs fall.

Spatial information on the allocation of interventions within the sample area is now displayed in the synopsis of Figure 11, with reference to the lowest (a), intermediate (b) and highest (c) strategies, as for the safety and completeness degrees.

Similarly, the integrated strategies are compared in Figure 12, displaying in addition the percentages of expenses to be incurred for the different families of components.

4.2.2. Benefits

The benefit estimate is based on retrofit costs and real estate market surpluses coming from seismic and energy retrofits [198].

A real estate market analysis carried out over the neighbourhood provided the significant unit prices for the housing segment prevailing in this district and the coefficient of the four regressors (

Table 5. Real estate market survey basic report.

Typical Unit Prices (€/m2)	Minimum	First Quartile	Median	Third Quartile	Maximum
	713	845	870	912	1245
Regressors	Location	Intrinsic quality	Technology	Architectural quality
	0.19	0.23	0.43	0.15

) [199,200].

According to the methodological addresses, the benefits have been calculated. Figure 13 separately displays the ones associated with each strategy.

Figure 14 shows a global comparison of costs and benefits in the two cases of a simple seismic retrofit and integrated retrofit.

4.3. Valuation Supporting Decision Making

In order to provide a programming tool supporting decision makers, two kinds of valuation have been addressed.

4.3.1. Selection of the Best Strategy

According to the basic principle of decision making, the choice of the best strategy can be made only between comparable options. In this experiment, the cost level has been assumed as the most robust term of comparison of the different strategies given the consistency of the relation between costs and benefits. Therefore, the choice of the best strategy has been proposed here according to three different cost ranges: (a) medium–low, (b) medium, and (c) medium–high.

As previously experienced, the valuation concerns both the basic and the extended retrofits—seismic and integrated—as shown, respectively, in Figure 15 and Figure 16.

The valuative comparison highlight the cost-effectiveness of strategy S5 (except for the lowest strategy of the integrated retrofit); this outcome depends on the greater difference between benefits and costs in these strategies compared to the other, as can be observed in Figure 14.

4.3.2. Valuation Supporting the Best Scale of the Intervention

The last finding of this experience concerns the definition of the cost-effective extension of the area to be secured, identifying the BUs to which seismic retrofit interventions should be applied. All the BUs of the sample have been ranked based on their Manhattan distance from Santa Lucia Square. Figure 17 displays four different solutions, each of which depends on different hypotheses of the diseconomy increase index and space solidarity index.

5. Discussion

The findings concerning the two programming–decision-making platforms suggest some remarks highlighting on the one hand the potential and on the other some limits.

5.1. Selecting the Best Strategies

The design approach based on strategy generation implies a meta-design attitude based on the motivational substance (values) with respect to which different alternatives are provided for choice. In the case of the seismic retrofit, two dimensions of this substance have been identified, safety and completeness.

This made it possible to generate a wide field of choice, in particular, as many as 25 strategies so diverse that several clusters could be selected according to their level of cost. Within each cluster, it was possible to choose consistent with the constraints of the incentive system and the extent to which it can target the component of public values or private interests.

A limitation of this experiment is that energy retrofit interventions were not scaled with respect to the energy profile of the buildings, and therefore the energy retrofit is implemented only in buildings eligible for the seismic retrofit. As a result, the overall cost per strategy does not vary with respect to the completeness of interventions but only according to the percentage of buildings secured.

The reason for this simplification is the widespread low energy profile of the studied building stock, likely in need of an energy retrofit. An operational consequence of this simplification is the preferability of the strategies involving the maximum extension (S5) characterized by the widest net benefit (Figure 14).

Further studies and in-depth analyses can support the extension of the level of values (LoV) towards the wide range of energy–environmental valuations able to envelope also quantitative monetary parameters.

Through applications of predictive statistics, the model can be extended to a broader context. From some attempts in this direction, we have experienced that the character most correlated with the cost of the seismic retrofit is the volume of the rooms behind the façades to be secured, because it also takes into account the interior finishing works; therefore, the variability of the expected results is modest. A similar investigation will also be made later in the case of the energy retrofit.

5.2. Sizing the Most Efficient Retrofit Area

The scaling of the optimal area of intervention is one of the most sensitive aspects as to political–administrative responsibility in terms of public safety in the face of poor compliance on the part of property owners. The implementation of coordinated seismic retrofit interventions on the basis of the ELC is not mandatory to date, although its urgency, extent, and comprehensiveness are evident. Recognising that the optimal scale corresponds to the maximum net benefit is, therefore, only an evaluative assumption aimed at showing the minimum degree of reasonableness related to an economic monetary benefit, albeit expressed with reference to secondary and indirect benefits.

Again, further investigation of additional, though monetizable, values, such as personal injuries, temporal losses due to the stop of productive activities and real estate income streams, and discounted future reconstruction costs, can provide additional rationale to support choices, but require financial/economic- and risk analysis-based valuation models.

The proposed experiment defines the efficient scale of intervention based on an individual rationality criterion, according to which the net benefit is maximum; its extension to the collective value sphere considers the dimension in which the net benefit is zero to be optimal. Based on Figure 17, the results of the two hypotheses can then be compared (

Table 6. Comparison of the two hypotheses.

	Hypothetic Index Combinations
	(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)
Diseconomy increase index	0.000	0.010	0.015	0.020
Space solidarity index	0.000	−0.010	−0.015	−0.020
	Building units secured
Individual approach	79	43	28	22
Solidarity approach	79	79	58	48
	0%	84%	107%	118%

), showing the extent to which the prevalence of collective intelligence produces benefits in terms of security, inclusion, and sustainability.

Table 6 shows the extent to which (number of BUs that it is cost-effective to secure) the gradual lowering of the degree of solidarity reduces the optimal scale of the program under both an individual (maximum net benefit) and solidarity (zero net benefit) approach, going overall from 79 to 22 BUs secured.

6. Conclusions

This paper is an early stage of experimenting on the contribution of an axiological approach to the reform of the home–city–landscape system [201,202] in the sustainability prospect. This experience frames within the constant progress of parametric design, which has broadened the horizon of tools integrating different dimensions of the project [203].

The BIM environment proved to be suitable to handle the analysis, evaluation, and planning steps necessary to deal with a building retrofit design and optimization problem.

The cognitive, evaluative, and design process was developed in the Revit–Dynamo environment for the modelling of the building sample and the calculation of the design parameters on the basis of which 25 scenarios of both seismic and integrated (seismic–energy) retrofits were generated, the costs of which were calculated in real time.

In the same modelling environment, information deduced from the local real estate market was implemented for the estimation of monetary benefits so that each building unit was finally characterized by a more extensive axiological profile. On this basis, the strategies generated were clustered according to three cost ranges (low, medium, high) and compared to each other in order to select the most cost-effective strategy for each cluster.

The simulation showed that the preferable scenarios are those involving the retrofitting of the largest number of buildings for the three different cost ranges defined, whether only a seismic retrofit is considered; a similar result is also obtained in the case of the integrated retrofit, but with less evidence. In fact, in the case of a medium–low cost range, the best scenarios are those involving more comprehensive interventions, since the market significantly rewards the energy retrofit and functional quality.

A further dimension of this axiological approach to the integrated retrofit concerned the best size of the intervention (as previously for each cost range), and in the more extensive layout (the highest level of safety and completeness) by comparing the cumulative cost and benefit trends, such as the net benefit one, and then defining the number of buildings to be secured. The findings of this ultimate experiment are consistent with the more authentic and ultimate end of the urban retrofit from the disciplinary perspective of evaluation science, aimed at contributing to spatial–temporal justice. Therefore, once the cumulated cost–benefit functions of the whole programme are defined, different scaling hypotheses are associated with different combinations of the spatial solidarity degree and scale diseconomies index.

The axiological dimension of this cognitive design experience has been the main topic of this study. The main challenge of the expansion of the BIM environment towards the realm of values is the integration of the cognitive areas of description, involving the ontology of the object (the building–urban context studied) and the epistemological potential of the analytic tools. The ultimate stage of this ascension concerns the subject as an “agent”, whose “agency” involves the degree and the effectiveness of the social communication. This degree measures the integration between the axiological profile of individuals (people and business), addressing the sphere of willing, and the normative apparatus of institutions, addressing the ethics of living together, and then extends to the sphere of rights and duties.

The study has explored this potential in the double sphere of individual interest and common responsibility, which is the double dimension of energy (involving natural environment) on a global scale, and safety, involving the human environment, on a local scale. In this prospect, a joint modelling environment can become the privileged cognitive-communicative space for “people and the city”, as well as for “communities and the earth”.