Urban Demolition: Application of Blight Elimination Programs and Flood Buyout Programs to the Italian Case

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper makes use of two programmes in the United States (US) that use demolition as the main tool for urban planning and evaluates whether such programmes can be applied to the Italian context. Why and how can the practice in the US can be benchmarked with the European practice? The authors admit that ‘no comparable initiatives exist.’ How to ensure the validity of the American practice to be applied to the European context? Why is it important to apply the concepts underpinning the two programmes to Italy? Is it feasible and practicable to consider the programmes given the territorial policies and constraints? More explanations on similar terms in the context should be given such that their relationships can be identified, such as demolition, repair, contraction, regeneration, restauration, building replacement, etc. How is contraction governance related to demolition and urban subtraction? More justifications should be provided to explain why the two case studies in Italy are used. Under what circumstances do the selected cases resemble the two programmes in the US? How to address the criticism – how to compare an apple with an orange? The authors claim that ‘not every decommissioned or obsolete real-estate asset can be regenerated’. Is redevelopment a preferred option instead of demolition or contraction? Although ‘some ecogenesis management strategies are outlined’, how to strike a balance between ‘ecological value to the abandoned real-estate assets’ and ‘preserving its residual value’ since the latter always overrides the former? The authors assert that ‘in productive districts that suffered a loss of competitiveness due to the economic recession.’ How is it related to demolition? More elaborations should be given to explain ‘These differences strongly affect the strategies, practices, and economic demands of decommissioning policies’ to complete the study. What is the basis, such as literature support, of the ‘classification that ranges from P1 – Low risk; to P4 – Critical Risk’? Why is the condition of the national real-estate assets rather fragile which makes that ‘mitigation policies cannot be postponed’? How is the BEPs effective to ‘counteract the deleterious effects of the US housing crisis’? Is there any concern that ‘the program can be accessed by Non-Profit Organizations and Lank Banks’? are there any implications from the study for those countries without flooding attack? Is there any literature support for the simulation in the Italian scenario? Are there any limitations of the study? A whole review of the paper is recommended to eliminate errors in the paper, such as “the maintenance of the redevelop” in line 300 and “…, which is characterize by…” in line 381, and the comments as mentioned above should be addressed to ensure that the paper is of the required quality standard to be considered for publication by Sustainability.   

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 1

We thank you for the reviews and considered the remarks and suggestions proposed very interesting, as well as useful to improve the quality of the our work. We tried to the best of our ability to address all the observations and provide changes in the paper where necessary.

The main points highlighted by the reviewer hold a particular interest and were extensively discussed in the revised version of the paper. We tried to address the comments in the order that they were recieved, however, some points that were mentioned had relations with others, so we took to our discretion to group them where possible. In the following, we address them point-by-point:

Why and how can the practice in the US can be benchmarked with the European practice? The authors admit that ‘no comparable initiatives exist.’ How to ensure the validity of the American practice to be applied to the European context? Why is it important to apply the concepts underpinning the two programmes to Italy? Is it feasible and practicable to consider the programmes given the territorial policies and constraints?  How is contraction governance related to demolition and urban subtraction?  The authors claim that ‘not every decommissioned or obsolete real-estate asset can be regenerated’. Is redevelopment a preferred option instead of demolition or contraction?

We thank you for these comments. Given the major nature of the proposed questions, we made a significative restructure of the introduction section in order to address them.

More explanations on similar terms in the context should be given such that their relationships can be identified, such as demolition, repair, contraction, regeneration, restauration, building replacement, etc.

Thank you for this request, The terms extensively used in the paper and their mutual relationships have been briefly explained in section n. 2;

More justifications should be provided to explain why the two case studies in Italy are used.

We made additions to the text. The criteria adopted to identify the case studies have been explained in section n. 4

Under what circumstances do the selected cases resemble the two programmes in the US? How to address the criticism – how to compare an apple with an orange?

To fulfil the precise observation of the reviewer, the following text has been introduced in section n. 4:

“The selected case studies, while recalling the fundamental conditions for the simula-tion of the aforementioned US programs, represent the scenarios most likely to be in line with the implementation of demolition policies within the Italian context. Therefore, they were selected to pursue the primary objective of this work, which is to propose a prelimi-nary assessment of the applicability of these demolition policies to the "case of Italy", without wishing in any way to propose a comparison between Italy and the US."

What is the basis, such as literature support, of the ‘classification that ranges from P1 – Low risk; to P4 – Critical Risk’?

A comprehensive description of these ranges is made in the lines 238-263, and makes reference both the following bibliography, in short the ranges are established by ISPRA, the Italian entity that establishes the methodology for assessing hydrogeological risk:

29. Trigila, A., Iadanza, C., Bussettini, M., & Lastoria, B. (2018). Dissesto idrogeologico in Italia: pericolosità e indicatori di rischio - Rapporto 287/2018. ISPRA, Roma.
30. European Commission - Copernicus Global Land Service (2018). CORINE Land Cover (CLC) inventory – reference year 2018. Available at https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover/clc2018

Why is the condition of the national real-estate assets rather fragile which makes that ‘mitigation policies cannot be postponed’?

A majority part, at least in terms of territorial diffusion, of the Italian real-estate assets finds itself, due to dynamics of depopulation and economic marginalization (what can be referred to the broad concept of contraction), in scenarios where it is not sustainable, both from an economic and a social point of view, the commitment of resources (financial as well as human) for the reuse in a medium-long term horizon that is characterized by the scarcity of any type of capital.

Since the remark of the reviewer is very interesting, the introduction have been modified to make this aspects to arise.

How is the BEPs effective to ‘counteract the deleterious effects of the US housing crisis’?  Is there any concern that ‘the program can be accessed by Non-Profit Organizations and Lank Banks’? Are there any implications from the study for those countries without flooding attack?

We thank you for the comments suggestion and concern with the impacts of the research, yet these points go beyond the scope of our work. The theme can be analyzed in a further and developed in successive essays.

-

The paper was furthermore modified to take advantage of the other suggestion of the reviewer, with particular reference to the intelligibility of findings and assertions. As a result, the paper was expanded and extensively revised, including two new figures, specifically to fulfil a precise observation of the reviewer.

Summarizing, we took in consideration most if not all the suggestions of the reviewer, making the proposed key-concept to more clearly arise, as well as improving the overall quality of the proposed work.

Minor spell revisions of the language were introduced throughout the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

• The research aim is unclear. Why / what for is necessary to evaluate the applicability of the two given American programs in Italy?
• The two first sections are mainly focused on the American milieu, rather than the European and more specifically the Italian ones. Actually, urban regeneration prevails in the EU policies over urban demolition.
• Because the urban patterns of the two geographical areas examined differ significantly (compact city in Europe/Italy versus disperse urbanization in the United States), it is debatable why authors shortlisted two American programs to be appraised. Introduction should place the study in a broad context which underlines why it is relevant in the field.
• Section 3 is extremely descriptive in nature by merely comprising the census of decommissioned/obsolete real-estate assets and those located in areas under environmental hazards, and the introduction of the two selected programs. However, Italian demolition policies in the frame of the European Union along with implications in the American urban realm (planning) of the application of the programs were omitted.
• Criteria to select the two American programs to be studied are unknown. In particular, it is ambiguous why a specific program oriented to assets under flooding risk was chosen. Why not seismic risk? In the same vein, the selection of a neighborhood of Tagliaferro (9 buildings, line 491) and a historical site of Lecce nei Marsi (17 buildings, line 428) as an exponent of the Italian case is very controversial. Both issues should be addressed.
• A new section that briefly depicts the methodology posed by authors is greatly necessary. A later section should serve to apply it to the two case studies. Conditions to determine the successful applicability of the two programs were not termed.
• The connection between equations (1) and (2) and the American programs was not disclosed. The concepts of demolition, waste disposal and greening costs included in Tables 3 and 6 should be accurately defined and linked to variables of the mathematical expressions. Bases to define and apply both equations are questionable. Some of them are very simplistic. For instance, how was the volume to be demolished calculated? Acquisition cost from the Real Estate Market Observatory is disputable. The demolition cost used for slabs, partition walls and shell was the same, but in reality is not so. Indeed, there are many aspects to be considered that were ignored.
• Since equation (2) considers an additional variable than equation (1), difference between estimated costs of the two programs (lines 518-520) is obvious.
• Discussion of findings is lacking.
• The last Section should summarize main conclusions based on results in a concise manner. Theoretical and practical contributions in the field should be also emphasized. There is no room in this section for hypotheses and author´s opinions.
• Miscellaneous comments. Literature deemed is very poor, i.e. 4 and 11 out 40 references are older than 20 years and pertain to institutional websites, respectively. With the purpose of creating a degree of continuity with the editorial line of the journal, the number of references to articles published on Sustainability must be increased. None were found. Citations (i.e. line 203) and references must be aligned to the guidelines for author of the journal.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 2

We thank you for the reviews and considered the remarks and suggestions proposed very interesting, as well as useful to improve the quality of the our work. We tried to the best of our ability to address all the observations and provide changes in the paper where necessary.

The main points highlighted by the reviewer hold a particular interest and were extensively discussed in the revised version of the paper. We tried to address the comments in the order that they were recieved, however, some points that were mentioned had relations with others, so we took to our discretion to group them where possible. In the following, we address them point-by-point:.

The research aim is unclear. Why / what for is necessary to evaluate the applicability of the two given American programs in Italy? The two first sections are mainly focused on the American milieu, rather than the European and more specifically the Italian ones. Actually, urban regeneration prevails in the EU policies over urban demolition. Because the urban patterns of the two geographical areas examined differ significantly (compact city in Europe/Italy versus disperse urbanization in the United States), it is debatable why authors shortlisted two American programs to be appraised. Introduction should place the study in a broad context which underlines why it is relevant in the field.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. Due to the nature of the requests, we significatively restructured the introduction to address these points

Section 3 is extremely descriptive in nature by merely comprising the census of decommissioned/obsolete real-estate assets and those located in areas under environmental hazards, and the introduction of the two selected programs. However, Italian demolition policies in the frame of the European Union along with implications in the American urban realm (planning) of the application of the programs were omitted. Conditions to determine the successful applicability of the two programs were not termed.

We thank you for the comment. The section 3, by nature, is descriptive since it if focused into highlighting the particularities of each program. Further descriptions in the merit, regarding Italian demolition policies and the applicability of the programs to the Italian case, were made in the introduction section.

Criteria to select the two American programs to be studied are unknown. In particular, it is ambiguous why a specific program oriented to assets under flooding risk was chosen.

Why not seismic risk? In the same vein, the selection of a neighborhood of Tagliaferro (9 buildings, line 491) and a historical site of Lecce nei Marsi (17 buildings, line 428) as an exponent of the Italian case is very controversial.

We understood the request. The criteria adopted to identify the case studies have been explained in section n. 4, that was refashioned to address these questions.

A new section that briefly depicts the methodology posed by authors is greatly necessary. A later section should serve to apply it to the two case studies.

A wide methodological explanation has been introduced in section n. 4.

The connection between equations (1) and (2) and the American programs was not disclosed.

The parametric sums (equations) are not connected, each equation refers to an individual analysis related to (1) Blight Elimination Program and (2) Flood Buyout Program.

 The concepts of demolition, waste disposal and greening costs included in Tables 3 and 6 should be accurately defined and linked to variables of the mathematical expressions.

Suggestions were taken in consideration and a short description was added after the parametric sums (equations) definition.

Bases to define and apply both equations are questionable. Some of them are very simplistic. For instance, how was the volume to be demolished calculated? Acquisition cost from the Real Estate Market Observatory is disputable. The demolition cost used for slabs, partition walls and shell was the same, but in reality is not so. Indeed, there are many aspects to be considered that were ignored.

The demolition costs comprise the aggregate sum of slabs, partition walls and shell, and other components as defined by the official price list published by the Abruzzo region. The values from Real Estate Market Observatory (OMI), besides the fact that they are supported by a research methodology by the Italian Agency of Revenue and Customs, are the only general analysis for real-estate prices in the country. In general all the data used in the research are derived from public and institutional sources.

Since equation (2) considers an additional variable than equation (1), difference between estimated costs of the two programs (lines 518-520) is obvious.

Since the parametric sums (equations) are unique, as they are related to individual programs, the differences are natural, even though similar parameters are considered.

Discussion of findings is lacking.

We have added a section to further discuss the findings – Section 6.

The last Section should summarize main conclusions based on results in a concise manner. Theoretical and practical contributions in the field should be also emphasized. There is no room in this section for hypotheses and author´s opinions.

While agreeing with the reviewer that the conclusions must be based on objective data extrapolated from the results of implemented analyzes and simulations, the authors believe that, given the specific topic dealt with in this paper, it is necessary to provide some interpretative considerations, which, however, do not have the purpose to influence the reader. All that being said, changes have been made to the last paragraph, introducing a more extensive discussion of results, also useful to reach a better distinction between results and authors' considerations, in order to take advantage of the suggestion of the reviewer.The paper was furthermore modified to take advantage of the other suggestion of the reviewer, with particular reference to the intelligibility of findings and assertions. As a result, the paper was expanded and extensively revised, including two new figures, specifically to fulfil a precise observation of the reviewer. Summarizing, the authors took advantage of the suggestion of the reviewer, making the proposed key-concept to more clearly arise, as well as improving the overall quality of the proposed work.

Miscellaneous comments. Literature deemed is very poor, i.e. 4 and 11 out 40 references are older than 20 years and pertain to institutional websites, respectively. With the purpose of creating a degree of continuity with the editorial line of the journal, the number of references to articles published on Sustainability must be increased. None were found. Citations (i.e. line 203) and references must be aligned to the guidelines for author of the journal

Citations were added following the guidelines of the journal.

-

The paper was furthermore modified to take advantage of the other suggestion of the reviewer, with particular reference to the intelligibility of findings and assertions. As a result, the paper was expanded and extensively revised, including two new figures, specifically to fulfil a precise observation of the reviewer.

Summarizing, we took in consideration most if not all the suggestions of the reviewer, making the proposed key-concept to more clearly arise, as well as improving the overall quality of the proposed work.

Minor spell revisions of the language were introduced throughout the paper

Reviewer 3 Report

• What is stated on lines 195-199 cannot have a general meaning, rather in some cases the building recovery, with appropriate reuses, can create the conditions for a resettlement of the areas examined. It is necessary to clarify this aspect.
• On line 199, specify in more detail the effects verified in the U.S. cases
• Line 378. Piemonte Region, not Lombardy Region
• Line 439. The hypothesis formulated by the authors of zero real estate value of buildings in ruins should be better illustrated taking into account the possibility of demolition/reconstruction and therefore the intrinsic building and economic potential of the site.
• Line 448 and line 452. Km or Krn? There is no correspondence between the term in formula (1) and the description in the text
• Line 480. level of.....?
• Line 512. Km or Krn?
• Changes to be made as a result of suggested revisions should also be noted in the introduction and conclusion
• The bibliography should be expanded with other relevant citations.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 3

We thank you for the reviews and considered the remarks and suggestions proposed very interesting, as well as useful to improve the quality of the our work. We tried to the best of our ability to address all the observations and provide changes in the paper where necessary.

The main points highlighted by the reviewer hold a particular interest and were extensively discussed in the revised version of the paper. We tried to address the comments in the order that they were recieved, however, some points that were mentioned had relations with others, so we took to our discretion to group them where possible. In the following, we address them point-by-point:

What is stated on lines 195-199 cannot have a general meaning, rather in some cases the building recovery, with appropriate reuses, can create the conditions for a resettlement of the areas examined. It is necessary to clarify this aspect.

We thank you for pointing out this. The programs are aimed at areas where the conditions for reuse are not sustainable. It is therefore agreed with the auditor that what has been stated does not have a general meaning but is true for all those areas in which the assumptions expressed are met, as is the case of the territorial areas covered by the case studies, as well as of all the numerous similar areas present in the Italian scenario. Some modifications have been made in the introduction in order to better highlight the author’s assumptions.

On line 199, specify in more detail the effects verified in the U.S. cases

Thank you for pointing out. Some modifications have been introduced to fulfil the reviewer suggestion.

Line 439. The hypothesis formulated by the authors of zero real estate value of buildings in ruins should be better illustrated taking into account the possibility of demolition/reconstruction and therefore the intrinsic building and economic potential of the site.

The absence of a residual value of the disposed assets is an assumption of the proposed work, consistent with the specific conditions of impracticability of reuse policies. As for other considerations, also in this case there is no general validity referable to all the disused asset, but it is limited to the specific, but widespread in Italy, conditions for implementing demolition policies. In many cases, in fact, not only is there no residual value of the disused buildings, but they can even represent a cost, due to the need for maintenance activities and the risks related to safety for things or people.

Some modifications have been introduced in order to better highlight the author’s assumptions.

Line 378. Piemonte Region, not Lombardy Region;  Line 448 and line 452. Km or Krn? There is no correspondence between the term in formula (1) and the description in the text; Line 480. level of.....?; Line 512. Km or Krn

We thank you for signaling those points, we promptly corrected these and made an extensive review to assure there are no further problems.

Changes to be made as a result of suggested revisions should also be noted in the introduction and conclusion The bibliography should be expanded with other relevant citations.

As suggested, an extensive revision was made in the introduction; the citations were expanded to meet the journal’s criteria.

-

The paper was furthermore modified to take advantage of the other suggestion of the reviewer, with particular reference to the intelligibility of findings and assertions. As a result, the paper was expanded and extensively revised, including two new figures, specifically to fulfil a precise observation of the reviewer.

Summarizing, we took in consideration most if not all the suggestions of the reviewer, making the proposed key-concept to more clearly arise, as well as improving the overall quality of the proposed work.

Minor spell revisions of the language were introduced throughout the paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

..

Reviewer 3 Report

The integrated paper may be accepted for publication.