Valuation of Public Urban Space: From Social Value to Fair Value—Mind the Gap

Abstract

Urban public spaces function as complex social and spatial systems, serving as fundamental elements in preserving cultural heritage and fostering democratic participation and urban stability. The dominant valuation methods depend on economic principles that prioritize financial returns and property values over social, ecological, and cultural aspects. This study examines the distinction between social value, which is based on personal experiences and social connections, and fair value, which relies on market operations and financial regulations. The research investigates how valuation practices affect spatial justice and urban governance through a conceptual framework and four empirical case studies: Syntagma Square in Athens, the metro station areas, the city of Barcelona, and waterfront redevelopment projects in Thessaloniki, London, and Mumbai. The official valuation systems we studied conceal the political elements of space while preserving social inequalities and forcing out the requirements of local communities. The proposed solution establishes an integrative, pluralist valuation system that incorporates qualitative, temporal, and ethical elements, supporting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the New Urban Agenda. The framework transforms public space discussions from commercialized urban resources into communal civic systems, creating sustainable cities for all.

1. Introduction

1.1. Public Urban Space as a Multidimensional Asset

The term “public space” is commonly used to describe areas that are open and accessible to the public [1]. In the literature, it is often confused or used interchangeably with the term “urban public space”, which focuses specifically on the manifestations of these spaces within the urban fabric [1]. For the purposes of this study, and in line with the economic analysis of urban real estate that follows, the term “public space” will be used to refer to urban public space explicitly. These areas (roads, squares, parks, and the coastal regions) are places of manifestation of urban life, where social cohesion is cultivated and built. They are not merely residual voids between construction sets, but instead constitute meeting places for meetings, gatherings, political expression, and the exercise of democratic rights. They contribute to daily interaction and preserve collective memory, thereby strengthening cultural identity [2,3,4]. According to [2], pedestrian streets are one of the most vital elements of a city, having a fundamental impact on urban life. Jacobs [2] emphasizes that sidewalks facilitate opportunities for public interaction. These foster a cohesive urban community, predicated on trust; they constitute places for local organizations to develop, environments where children can engage in play, and they also contribute to the city’s diversity by improving its economic and social well-being. Finally, urban security is sustained by the constant surveillance of the people. As he pointed out in particular, “a well-used city street is apt to be a safe street. A deserted street is apt to be unsafe” [2]. He also stresses that the well-known expression that parks are “the lungs of the city” is incorrect, and the reality lies in understanding the dynamic relationship between parks and the broader characteristics of cities. In a similar vein, Lefebvre’s [5] definition of the «right to the city» situates public space as a prerequisite for urban citizenship and inclusivity [5].

In addition to their social and cultural role, public spaces in urban environments also have an ecological character, enhancing the resilience and sustainability of the cities. These functions include mitigating the urban heat island phenomenon, regulating stormwater runoff, and maintaining urban biodiversity [6,7]. These functions of the public spaces eventually give them a double identity. On the one hand, they act as communal spaces and are accessible to everyone, and on the other, as assets that can produce economic value, through property purchases and financial returns [8]. This duality, which leads to simultaneous recognition as collective goods and as resources of economic systems, creates difficulties in their governance and valuation.

To guide the research, the following hypotheses were formulated:

• The present economic systems, which measure public spaces through monetary values, do not account for their social and environmental value.
• The solution of a pluralist and ethically grounded valuation framework enables the combination of diverse perspectives to create an inclusive approach for urban development.
• Informal or ambiguous urban areas create barriers against commercialization because they support different ways of creating value.

These hypotheses are tested through a review of the literature and an analysis of case studies, forming the basis for the development of the proposed framework.

1.1.1. The Problem of Valuation

Despite the multifunctional importance of public spaces, modern approaches to their valuation continue to focus mainly on economic rationales. Urban planning decisions, as well as investment strategies, are primarily based on financial indicators such as land values, real estate market indicators, and fiscal projections, thereby prioritizing measurable financial results [9]. Therefore, features such as inclusivity, safety, community cohesion, cultural heritage, and environmental quality inherent in the social and ecological dimension of public spaces are either marginalized or rarely recognized in formal economic assessment frameworks [10,11]. Finally, this imbalance results in the creation of blind spots at both the regulatory and operational levels, with the consequence that the benefits to urban communities are not adequately recognized in mainstream economic assessments.

This phenomenon is often referred to as a “valuation gap” and concerns the divergence between social value, which is based on experience, relational practices, and collective well-being, and fair value, which is expressed through standard economic measurements inextricably linked to market transactions and accounting procedures [12]. The prevalence of fair value frameworks ultimately leads to an increase in exchange value over use value, encouraging the prioritization and prevalence of short-term economic benefits in accordance with the capitalist imperative of profit, while concealing the long-term social and ecological dimensions [13,14]. The result is the devaluation of public spaces through governance processes, by exposing them to underinvestment, commodification, and exclusionary redevelopment pressures.

1.1.2. Why “Mind the Gap”

The phrase “mind the gap” was originally used as a safety warning on mass transit systems. However, it serves as a proper metaphor to describe the persistent gap between the two competing epistemological examples of valuing urban space: On the one hand, the economic aspect underlying the concept of fair value, and on the other, the collective dimensions of social value [15]. This gap is not merely a technical differentiation, but a predominantly political distinction as it reflects conflicting priorities of urban governance. It defines who has the right to determine the value, what interests are considered, and what measures are triggered in order to legalize planning, policy, and project decisions.

Therefore, because of the systematic underestimation of social value, there are significant consequences. Spatial, social, and economic inequalities are being reinforced; processes of gentrification and displacement are intensifying, as informal settlements, camps, and slums are being created, while the democratic role of public spaces is being undermined, due to the nature of neoliberalism, which is opposed to all kinds of collective strategies [4]. In the absence of such an assessment, the Commission considers that it is appropriate to examine the compatibility of the aid with the internal market. The need to recognize, address, and eradicate this phenomenon is therefore crucial in order to create urban environments characterized by social justice, inclusion, and resilience.

1.2. Aim, Contribution, and Structure

The aim of this study is to critically explore the divergence between social and economic approaches to valuing public spaces and to identify strategies and practices for addressing and bridging this gap.

The following three objectives are defined as follows:

• To clarify the nature of the valuation gap, in the light of theoretical, historical, and political parameters and approaches.
• To explore how modern valuation systems weaken and marginalize aspects of public space that have no economic basis, such as social, cultural, and environmental values.
• Promoting a multidimensional and unifying framework that combines economic, social, ecological, and cultural parameters.

In essence, through this document, it is proposed to shift to more morally oriented forms of valuation, which are in line with the context of international strategies, such as the New Urban Agenda and SDGs. The morally oriented valuation system gives precedence to justice, inclusion, and well-being instead of market efficiency. It seeks to establish ethical design principles that evaluate the long-term effects on beneficiaries and victims, as well as the values that emerge from the process. The system of valuation draws inspiration from Raworth’s [16] “doughnut economics” and Ostrom’s [17] research on the commons to establish urban areas as relational and ecological assets rather than commercial commodities. The proposal demands three main components, which include ethical auditing, participatory budgeting, and legal protection of space rights for both marginalized communities and ecological systems. Thus, the concept of public space will be redefined as a communal political and ecological resource, necessary for social justice, sustainable development, and strengthening of democratic life in cities.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 analyses the relevant literature on the valuation of urban space, highlighting the sharply differentiated tensions between social value and equality. Section 3 describes the methodological framework of the study. Section 4 describes a theoretical framework for how to conceptualize the valuation gap and integrate it into urban studies analyses. Module 4 presents existing cases that demonstrate how this gap is created in practice in urban environments. Section 5 explores the results of previous findings on equality, spatial justice, and urban governance models. On the basis of this analysis, Section 6 promotes a multi-faceted evaluation model, which describes governance mechanisms aimed at integrating pluralistic perspectives in policy development. Finally, Section 6 summarizes the overall contribution of the study, emphasizing the prospects for future research activity and the development of innovative policy practices.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Literature Review

The valuation of public space is a multifaceted interdisciplinary field. It is formed at the intersection of urban theory, economics, urban planning, and social geography. This review examines the key contributions of social and economic valuation of urban space, critically analyzing existing models and highlighting the persistent challenges that arise from the need to integrate heterogeneous forms of value in contemporary urban governance contexts.

2.1.1. Social Value in Urban Space

The social value of public spaces relates to the collective, interpersonal, and experiential benefits that communities derive from everyday interaction, cultural practices, and shared identities. Various fundamental theorists have highlighted aspects of this dimension. Jacobs [2] characteristically described pedestrian streets as the “lungs of the city”, emphasizing their important role in maintaining the dynamic activity of the urban environment, safety, and relations of trust. Lefebvre [5], introduced the concept of the “right to the city”, defining public spaces as centers of social justice and access to democratic rights. Harvey [13] also considered these spaces as fields suitable for political debate and citizen participation, while Mitchell [4] noted their value, characterizing them as spaces of citizenship, social inclusion, and equitable spatial distribution. More recent scholarships have broadened knowledge in this area and link social value to well-being outcomes while incorporating factors such as physical and mental health, social inclusion, sense of security, and opportunities for recreation [11,18].

Empirical research has demonstrated that public spaces foster social capital by promoting social cohesion and integration among diverse social groups [19]. Markets, parks, and cultural spaces are places of intercultural encounter, socialization, and a sense of belonging. In this way, urban resilience is enhanced, and quality of life is improved [18,20]. The importance of such places on a social and cultural level is also manifested through stories, memories, as well as the collective memory and identity of the community against pressures of commodification that undermine their public character [21]. However, the nature of social values, as intangible and relational, makes it complicated to capture them based on conventional measurement methods, a phenomenon that ultimately leads to difficulties related to their integration into planning, evaluation, and policy frameworks.

2.1.2. Fair Value and Economic Logics

Fair value represents a market-oriented monetary valuation of urban assets that is based on financial accounting standards and the science of real estate economics [22]. It is usually estimated by applying several methodologies, including hedonic pricing models, which use location and access characteristics of amenities [23] cost–benefit analysis, which weighs expected returns against investment costs [24], and a fiscal impact analysis, which forecasts tax revenues and economic growth [20]. Techniques such as those mentioned above enable the creation of standardized, comparable, and legally defensible valuations, which support the municipal budget and guide investment decisions and regulatory frameworks.

However, these approaches have been widely criticized for their preference for exchange value over use value, thereby limiting urban space to its capacity to generate economic returns while ignoring its social, cultural, and ecological significance [10,14]. This reasoning promotes processes of neoliberalism, through which cities are increasingly treated and managed as places of capital accumulation, often at the expense of the commons, spatial equality, and democratic participation [25]. The result is the systematic marginalization of non-economic benefits—such as inclusion, prosperity, and environmental resilience—which are fundamental elements of sustainable and equitable social development, from fair value frameworks.

2.1.3. Bridging Attempts

Multiple quantification models have emerged through the implementation of complex values in planning frameworks during the last few decades. The two methods have different restrictions that apply to each. Social Return on Investment (SROI) provides organizations with the ability to show their social impact, but it may simplify complex social effects into basic numbers. The process of ecosystem service valuation measures environmental functions, but it does not incorporate affective or symbolic values in its assessment. The Multicriteria Analysis (MCA) enables the evaluation of multiple performance indicators, yet it remains vulnerable to the influence of powerful stakeholders and their personal assessments [26].

The current conflict between standardized indicators and participatory and narrative tools demands that researchers develop new assessment methods that combine these assessment tools. The method ensures that public space value is represented in a balanced way, which goes beyond what economic indicators can measure.

• Social Return on Investment (SROI)

This approach aims to translate social benefits, such as improved welfare, reduced healthcare costs, and enhanced community cohesion, into financial terms to inform investment decisions [26]. While SROI increases the visibility of social value in decision-making processes, it nevertheless risks reductionism due to the complex compression of complex, qualitative phenomena into simplified financial proxies.

• Ecosystem Services Valuation

This method assesses the economic contribution of ecological functions such as air quality improvement, climate regulation, and recreational activities offered by urban green spaces [25,26]. Although the assessment framework is broadening with the inclusion of environmental dimensions, it often remains confined to economic cost–benefit models, which may overshadow the social and relational aspects of ecological value.

• Multicriteria Analysis (MCA)

In the case of a multi-criteria analysis (MCA), quantitative and qualitative measures are combined to simultaneously assess different urban impacts [27]. It also enables more balanced estimates, considering multiple and sometimes conflicting data. However, the method primarily relies on the weighting of individual indicators, which may reflect institutional biases and reproduce existing power asymmetries [28].

• Participatory Valuation

According to Ostrom’s [17] theory of the governance of the commons, participatory approaches directly involve communities in defining, hierarchizing, and interpreting value. Such methods contribute to the democratization of valuation processes by highlighting experiences that are often sidelined by “top-down” economic models [17,29]. However, significant challenges remain in scaling up these approaches and incorporating their results into official design and policy-making frameworks.

These methodologies represent substantial efforts to bridge the valuation gap by integrating economic, social, cultural, and ecological dimensions. At the same time, they highlight the epistemological and policy complexities inherent in attempts to capture the full range of value of public space.

2.1.4. Valuation Divide

Despite the increasing availability of different methodological approaches, there remains a significant gap between social value and fair value in formal urban governance and planning systems. This gap highlights a deeper scientific divide: social value is inherently relative, subjective, and time-bound, emerges through lived experience, and simultaneously evolves. In contrast, fair value is based on the principles of standardization, objectivity, and immediacy [12]. The valuation processes are therefore structured with such a political background to privilege stakeholders, allowing economic agents to dominate in setting the agenda, while marginalizing communities that rely on urban commons for social and environmental functions [15].

The prevalence of monetary measurements is more consolidated by institutional practices and the wide availability of financial data, which reinforce the logic of accountability based on market rationalities [9,20]. Efforts to integrate different values often involve the transformation of social benefits into economic representations, a process that risks leveling their qualitative complexity and cultural significance [26]. In contrast, approaches that emphasize qualitative or participatory valuation methods often lack institutional legitimacy in policy environments where economic justification predominates [17].

Valuation frameworks need to incorporate a clear pluralistic orientation, considering the social, ecological, cultural, and economic dimensions on their own terms. If this does not happen and they are subjected to procedures of degradation, the social value of public spaces will remain marginalized. However, this neglect undermines not only the pursuit of urban justice but also the broader goals of sustainability and democratic governance [16].

2.1.5. Theoretical Framework: Conceptualizing the Valuation Gap

The valuation of public space cannot be regarded as a neutral or exclusively technical procedure. On the contrary, it constitutes a practical, socially and politically designed approach, which actively determines the course of urban development as well as what is considered valuable and for whom [12]. It explicitly addresses the paradox of valuation by examining the competing logics of social and fair value, and by illuminating the persistent divide that separates them. In addition, this gap is contextualized across epistemological, temporal, and political dimensions by emphasizing the underlying dynamics of equality, legality, and power that shape and define the decision-making processes in urban governance.

2.1.6. Valuation as a Social and Political Act

Valuation can act as a mediating mechanism between the different forms of value that make up urban space, such as social relations, culture, ecology, and the economy. According to Espeland and Stevens [12], valuation is not a neutral process. It is often presented as technical and objective, but in practice, it is influenced by institutional priorities, power relations, and cultural contexts, resulting in the reproduction of dominant ideologies. This process requires critical reflection and participatory methods to limit technocratic bias, and at the level of civic governance, it must be recognized as a political act requiring transparency, public consultation, and institutions of challenge [21,30]. The tools and measurements used often operate as mechanisms for legitimizing interests, while marginalizing others. In the context of urban reality, such valuation systems often tend to favor factors aligned with the demands of the market and capital. In other words, they give priority to assets that generate economic returns, based mainly on property ownership and investment potential.

Based on the critiques of Marx and Lefebvre [5,10], it is essential to distinguish between use value—the benefits, the socially embedded practices, and everyday functions offered by public spaces—and exchange value, i.e., market value expressed in monetary terms. Public spaces, understood as infrastructures that support democracy, social integration, and community prosperity, are often subject to valuation models that focus primarily on exchange value. However, this dynamic contributes to the commodification of urban communes and the marginalization of their social functionality [4]. In the absence of such information, the Commission considers that it is not appropriate. This is followed by increased spatial inequalities and accelerated processes of commodification and social exclusion [14].

2.1.7. Defining Social Value and Fair Value

By their very nature, social values are collective, interconnected, and usually intangible. They constitute a dynamic aspect, which is founded on local histories, identities, and social networks [1,31]. Therefore, features such as trust, sense of security, cultural relevance, social inclusion, and opportunities for democratic participation are integral elements [18,19]. It is also very crucial to emphasize that social value not only benefits the immediate users but also broadens the urban community, often generating cross-generational benefits [6,11]. However, its qualitative and relative nature poses challenges to its direct measurement and complicates its integration into economics and politics [25].

In contrast, fair value indicates the standardized, economic, and comparable economic valuation of urban assets, based on accounting practices and financial market principles [22]. It contributes to enhancing clarity and accountability in intergovernmental market-oriented schemes, with tools such as hedonic pricing models, cost–benefit analyses, and fiscal impact assessments [23,24]. However, fair value, as it diminishes the complex and multidimensional benefits of individual economic items, tends to choose the immediate, exchangeable, and accumulated capital over the long-term, relative, and collective dimensions [10,14].

2.2. The “Valuation Gap”

The gap between social and fair values arises when the prevailing valuation methods fail to capture the qualitative, collective, and time-bound benefits of public spaces [12,25]. This distinction can be understood through three interrelated dimensions.

First, the epistemological gap arises as a result of the incompatible relationship between the subjective, relational, and contextual nature of social value and the apparently objective and standardized measurements necessary for fair value. Consequently, the diversity of social benefits often goes unnoticed or is distorted when translated into mainstream economic contexts [16,26].

Secondly, the time gap reveals the varied timelines that govern the accumulated value. At a gradual and prolonged time, through the preservation of cultural heritage, the enhancement of Community cohesion, and the promotion of ecological resilience. In contrast, fair value emphasizes immediate or short-term economic returns and market valuations [4].

Finally, the political gap reveals the structural imbalances of power inherent to valuation practices. The logic of fair value often tends to promote the interests of investors, developers, and property owners, while marginalizing the needs of social groups whose quality of life depends on the social and community functions of the urban fabric. In this way, they contribute to perpetuating spatial inequalities and consolidate processes of exclusion through urban governance [4,15,20].

Overall, the above dimensions demonstrate that the valuation gap is not merely a technical or methodological challenge, but a fundamental structural problem, linked to knowledge systems, time hierarchies, and political power relations in urban governance.

2.2.1. Conceptual Matrix of Urban Space Valuation

This paradox is also illustrated in

Table 1. Conceptual matrix of urban space valuation: short-term and long-term economic and social dimensions.

Dimension	Short-Term	Long-Term
Economic	Property Values, Taxes, Fiscal Benefits	Investment Multipliers, Public revenue from taxation
Social	Accessibility, Public Safety, Civic Events	Cultural Heritage, Democratic Governance, Social Trust and Cohesion

by placing the valuation forms on the two axes. One axis includes the type of valuation (social versus economic) and the other the duration of the period (short-term versus long-term).

Modern urban planning and policy focus on either short-term or long-term economic dimensions, while social values, both immediate and extended, remain insufficiently recognized and integrated. However, this structuring and prioritization lead to the maintenance of the valuation gap, whereby public goods that are fundamental to civic justice, resilience, and collective well-being are sidelined by decision-making mechanisms.

2.2.2. Implications of the Valuation Gap

• Shaping Planning Priorities: Projects with measurable economic returns are selected from the investment flows, while initiatives leading to the production of social or cultural improvements are marginalized [9,25].
• Increased Privatization Risks: It is a given that commodification is accelerated by the dominance of market logic, thus leading to the undermining of accessibility and social inclusion as democratic commons [4,14].
• Deterioration of the Spatial Inequality of Justice Issues: Marginalized communities are disproportionately affected as their quality of life, which depends on social infrastructure, is not taken seriously in official decision-making, thus reinforcing exclusion and displacement patterns [1,15]. Finally, the one-dimensional focus of valuation on economic data leads to a risk to the legitimacy of governance. In other words, it undermines social trust while exacerbating social conflicts and ultimately weakening the institutional foundations of democracy [12,20].

These dynamics therefore demonstrate that the valuation gap, in addition to being a technical deficiency, is a structural situation with wider-ranging implications for equality, inclusion, and the democratic viability of cities.

3. Methodology

The methodology we developed focuses on identifying and bridging the gap in the valuation of public space, combining analysis of social and fair value concepts, case studies, and a proposed methodological framework that incorporates equity, inclusion, and innovative valuation tools. At the same time, it takes into account the multiplicity of values (economic, social, ecological) and the time dimension, considering both short-term and long-term benefits. The process is strengthened by the institutionalization of hybrid forms of reference (legal and institutional tools, mixed indicators) and enriched by the use of artificial intelligence and data such as GIS, sentiment analysis, and community mapping to support informed decision-making. This methodological path leads to the achievement of inclusive and ethical civic governance, as summarized in the final conclusions. The methodological framework in question is presented below in the Figure 1.

Toward an Integrative Valuation Paradigm

In order to bridge the gap between social and fair value, it is not sufficient to simply convert social values into economic equivalents. Standardization of urban indicators through quantitative tools becomes possible for measures like accessibility and pollution levels. However, many social aspects, including trust, identity, symbolic value, and belonging, cannot be attributed to measurements of this type. The process of converting public space into numerical values threatens to diminish its fundamental nature, which exists as a dynamic and disputed relational environment.

For this reason, this study analyzes a multidimensional valuation model that highlights the complex and multifaceted nature of the phenomenon [16,29].

First, it is very important to recognize incommensurability: Some forms of value that resist economic quantification can be effectively attributed through qualitative, narrative, and participatory approaches [17,26].

Secondly, in terms of valuation frameworks, it is necessary to integrate temporal layering. This can be implemented through the recording of direct economic returns as well as the long-term social and ecological benefits, which contribute to the formation of a more sustainable and fair future [6,16].

Thirdly, the assessment should be guided by the criteria of equality and power, i.e., focusing on who benefits, who bears the costs, and how the marginalized social group can ultimately lead to more democratic forms of decision-making [3,4].

The aforementioned method of evaluation requires a number of conditions to be met in order to be implemented, such as the cooperation of different interdisciplinary fields, the development of participatory governance mechanisms, and the alignment with international policy frameworks. The inclusion of the Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda is a key prerequisite, since inclusion, equity, and sustainability are the guiding principles of urban development

The following conceptual matrix of valuation illustrates how the valuation gap is perpetuated. The different forms of value are placed in two intersecting dimensions: the mode of valuation (economic versus social) and the temporality (short-term versus long-term). This table aims to clarify how the different types of valuation contribute to the design, measurement, and operation of urban governance. This helps identify both synergies and tensions between social and economic perspectives easily.

Explanation and Consequences:

In

Table 2. Matrix of urban space valuation: temporal economic and social perspectives.

Dimension	Short-Term	Long-Term
Economic (Fair Value)	- Real estate prices - Income from rents - Taxation receipts	- Returns on investment multipliers - Fiscal expansion - Increase in property values
Social (Use Value)	- Spatial Accessibility - Public safety - Participation in community events	- Preservation of cultural heritage - Social trust and cohesion - Environmental sustainability

, the horizontal axis refers to the valuation method. It includes social values, which are based on lived experiences, the dynamics of interpersonal relationships, and cultural practices, as well as economic values, which are structured around economic and market data. The vertical axis relates to the duration of benefits and is divided into short-term and long-term effects.

Today’s dominant systems of urban governance and planning do not attribute equal weight to all the quadrants of the matrix. As regards Quadrants 1 and 2, where immediate and medium-term economic indicators predominate, measurements related to land value, property tax revenues, and expected tax returns are often used as evidence for the implementation of urban investments. On the other hand, Quartiers 3 and 4, which include social, cultural, and ecological values, are steadily marginalized. The characteristics of urban space, such as social inclusion, democratic engagement, cultural identity, and environmental sustainability, emerge gradually over long-term horizons, often in opposition to processes of commodification.

This structural imbalance leads to a systematic underestimation of social and ecological benefits, facilitating market-oriented development agendas and simultaneously intensifying social exclusion and environmental degradation [3,4,13,19,25]. The need to address the valuation gap, therefore, requires the adoption of alternative and diverse valuation models that have the potential to recognize the non-comparability of different forms of value and to integrate diverse and multi-scalar temporal frameworks into planning and policy frameworks [6,16].

4. Results

4.1. Valuation Gap Through Empirical Examples

The research in this chapter demonstrates how social value and fair value diverge in different urban settings. The evaluation of economic dominance in relation to social, cultural, and ecological elements in particular situations demonstrates how this inequality impacts urban community dynamics and governance systems. The chapter illustrates how the valuation gap has tangible effects on urban inclusion, spatial justice, and democratic decision-making processes in cities. This is accomplished through a comparative analysis of four case studies selected based on their potential to demonstrate different mechanisms of urban exclusivity, coverage of diverse geographical contexts to illustrate the universality of the phenomenon, and the possibility of direct empirical observation (Greek cases).

4.1.1. Syntagma Square, Athens

The main public area of Athens, known as Syntagma Square, demonstrates how valuation gaps create epistemological problems. Throughout history, the square has functioned as a vital location for political demonstrations, public events, and national celebrations, which represent essential social worth regarding democratic principles and shared historical memories and cultural identity [4,5]. For instance, during the Hellenistic period, the public squares served as areas for the conduct of political, cultural, and economic activities [32]. In Rome, forums functioned as meeting places, where people met for various activities. A further example is Wenceslas Square in Prague, which holds particular significance to its citizens as it constituted the Velvet Revolution [33]. Also, the Place de la Concorde, where the French Revolution took place, Tiananmen Square in China, Red Square in Russia, and Beyazit and Taksim squares in Turkey, are squares that have served as places of meeting and communication and have been associated with various social events [32]. The events within the story create a single storyline that connects various locations to demonstrate democracy’s struggle against national fragmentation. The square design, which faces parliament, creates an ongoing exchange between people and government institutions that strengthens both national and civic identity.

The redevelopment initiatives mainly focus on using fair value indicators, which include tourism potential, retail activity, and commercial attractiveness. The planning documents and investment frameworks focus on raising land and commercial property worth while disregarding the democratic common function of the square. The commercial focus leads designers to choose business-oriented aesthetics, which limits free assembly spaces and generates social segregation [21]. The formal valuation system lacks the ability to identify social factors, which results in decisions that damage public accessibility and public sphere operations. To improve this, the valuation framework should incorporate qualitative indicators such as the historical frequency of political gatherings in order to quantify the public importance of the site [34].

Public spaces function as active spaces that experience constant competition between different activities for their right to occupy space and gain public attention. The regulatory systems and spatial adaptability between Syntagma Square and other areas determine how political protests, state ceremonies, and tourist activities will coexist peacefully or generate conflicts in the space. The square becomes inaccessible to spontaneous bottom-up activities when high levels of securitization or commodification occur through state event fencing.

4.1.2. Public Spaces Adjacent to Metro Stations

Multiple cities show the political nature of the valuation gap through their metro station precincts. The construction of new urban transportation systems through public area development attracts real estate developers who start gentrification processes [35,36].

Research indicates that properties situated near metro stations experience increased value appreciation because of their proximity to these transportation hubs. The planning valuations fail to properly assess how better accessibility and more relaxed social connections, and equal transportation options benefit disadvantaged groups [37]. The increasing prices of housing and commercial leases result in the forced relocation of vulnerable groups, who then experience increased social isolation and urban segregation [38]. The political gap emerges from power differences between owners of capital and people who lack economic power.

The commercialization of metro station precincts results in the physical separation of informal and community-based activities from the rest of the area. The system follows an emergent hierarchy because profit-making activities receive greater importance than social and cultural activities [31]. The operational elements of these frictions exist within historical contexts that planning systems, together with institutional decisions, have created. The framework can be improved by introducing equality criteria, such as the mandatory commitment of a percentage of social housing to new developments, to offset displacement pressures [26].

4.1.3. Waterfront Redevelopment: Thessaloniki, London Docklands, and Mumbai

The conversion of coastal areas reveals how social and economic values create opposing forces that become apparent through delayed economic impacts. The transformation of industrial port areas into high-end multi-use developments focuses on maximizing economic performance while promoting global business interests [39].

Thessaloniki’s waterfront renewal has dominated discussions, focusing on economic development and tourism expansion, while overlooking the informal social structures and cultural heritage of the area [40]. In the Docklands area of London, a similar process of extensive privatization, serving the real estate market, restricted public access while altering its historical appearance [41]. The commercial development of Mumbai’s waterfront area has led to environmental damage and health issues for locals, while also resulting in a degree of denial of rights to the disadvantaged groups who lack privilege and economic resources [42]. The failure to consider long-term social and environmental values indicates a time lag, with short-term economic benefits overshadowing long-term social advantages and environmental issues. The transformation in this case must include the introduction of mandatory life-cycle costing, which includes the cost of loss of social cohesion and cultural heritage [43].

4.1.4. Holiday Rentals in the Historic Place of Barcelona

The increasing conversion of dwellings into accommodation for visitors, particularly in tourist destinations, involves various forms of displacement [44]. Holiday rentals represent a new business opportunity for investors, companies, and owners, resulting in higher rental prices due to a reduction in the housing stock, with the consequence that long-term residents become an obstacle to capital accumulation, making the area accessible only to wealthy social classes [44]. According to residents of Barcelona’s Gòtic neighborhood, examples of this situation in the neighborhood include evictions, harassment, rent increases, accessibility problems, pressure from tourist investors, and daily disturbances. This process has been termed “collective displacement”, meaning the replacement of residential life by tourism that intensifies the phenomenon of social exclusion [44]. This case study demonstrates the value competition between the use of housing as a marketable product and as a residential and community space [44]. To address this, the improved assessment framework should adopt dynamic indicators, such as the vacancy rate of dwellings, which trigger automatic mechanisms to monitor tourist pressure.

4.2. Synthesis of Illustrations

In all these various cases, a consistent pattern emerges:

• Economic metrics (such as property prices and commercial activity) direct the discussion about valuation methods and planning strategies. In particular, real estate prices form the basis of valuation methods, transforming intangible urban characteristics into monetary terms and highlighting the behavior of the market [42]. At the same time, cities adopt planning strategies determined by measures of competitiveness in investment, tourism, and commercial activity, enslaving the redesign of public spaces to the demands of the service economy.
• Social and environmental values are marginalized, since notions such as democracy, social cohesion, or environmental management are not reflected in valuation calculations.
• The existing valuation system has adverse effects, driving vulnerable groups into social and spatial isolation and turning public spaces into virtual private ones.
• The valuation methods used do not accurately reflect the experiences and institutionally enshrined interests of the community, leading to a lack of public trust and frequent public disputes over valuation procedures.

These cases demonstrate how the valuation gap affects governance systems at various levels, creating socio-spatial inequalities that require new integrated methods to value diverse urban assets [4,14,20].

5. Discussion

This chapter uses theoretical framework analysis and case study evidence to determine which structural components maintain the evaluation gap between social value and fair value in public areas. The research examines the effects of digital inequality on civil justice operations and its resulting governance problems, which threaten system stability and universal access. The chapter further illustrates how to address these conflicts through different valuation methods, which work together with governance improvements that unite urban policy and urban planning.

5.1. “Non-Conforming” Spaces

The evaluation of urban spaces requires recognition of informal areas, as well as peripheral and ambiguous zones, which most valuation systems fail to include. These spaces include abandoned lots, spaces under overpasses, temporary community gardens, and informal gathering areas that do not fit into standard land use categories. Despite their lack of official recognition and economic value, they function as essential social spaces [45].

These areas facilitate casual socializing and short-term activities, serving as safe spaces for excluded populations who resist spatial commodification. The environments use the urban concepts of “terrain vague” [46], “loose space” [45], and urban commons [8] to challenge established urban governance systems. The concept of “terrain vague” describes areas in cities that lack a clear definition through their uncertain boundaries and multiple possible uses and undefined purposes [46]. The theory of critical urbanism now recognizes these locations as active spaces of opposition against neoliberal urban development models, rather than viewing them as vacant or unproductive territories. The ambiguous nature of their status enables people to use them in various ways while creating informal groups that develop new practices that fight against established rules about ownership, market worth, and productivity standards.

Ref. [8] describes these areas as “thresholds of commoning” which allow urban residents to create new approaches for shared space management and spatial perception. Planners need to create planning systems that enable flexibility and multiple design interpretation approaches, as they must understand the subversive nature of their work.

The lack of informal spatial practices in formal valuation systems reveals the valuation gap and requires pluralist assessment methods that account for the latent value of informal spatial practices.

5.2. Structural Factors of Valuation Gap

The persistence of the value gap is therefore indicative of more general structural changes in urban governance shaped by neoliberal political-economic agendas. As numerous theorists have noted [10,14,20], in contemporary cities, land and urban space become objects of contention for capital accumulation and, to a lesser extent, for their usage. Valuation practices have been aligned with this logic, prioritizing market-based indicators such as land prices, rental yields, and tax revenues, which offer measurable figures that facilitate investment and justify development interventions.

The predominance of economic logic in valuation tends to sideline social, cultural, and ecological dimensions, which are characterized by intangible, relational, and long-term elements. As a result, social value is often ignored or reduced to monetary indicators that fail to capture its complexity. This one-dimensional approach obscures the collective benefits of public spaces and perpetuates inequalities in urban development and governance.

5.2.1. Urban Justice Implications

The ongoing deterioration of social and environmental advantages leads to major obstacles for achieving urban justice. The concept of fair value serves as a basis for institutional support of restructuring measures that drive gentrification and displace low-income residents, as noted by Freeman and Braconi [37] and Fields [47]. These practices work against the purpose of public areas, which represent spaces for social interaction, democratic participation, and collective identity development [4]. The reduction of public life, together with limited community involvement in urban space management, creates spatial injustice, which intensifies existing social inequalities between different economic groups and ethnic communities [15]. The process results in more severe social exclusions, cultural heritage loss, and ecological system instability, which demonstrates a general political indifference toward urban common values.

5.2.2. Governance and Legitimacy

Social value faces complete exclusion from dominant valuation systems which endanger the foundation of bourgeois governance. When planning decisions are heavily based on economic criteria that are oftentimes disconnected from real-life experiences, public trust may be undermined, and public participation may be eroded [9]. The lack of community involvement in urban planning creates a gap between residents and developers, which frequently results in neighborhood opposition to new development projects throughout the world. A notable example is the 1961 New York City zoning regulation, which provided developers with additional buildable areas as an incentive to create public plazas [48]. However, this regulation remained vague as to the qualitative characteristics that private individuals were required to offer in exchange, limiting themselves to purely quantitative exchange logic [48]. The lack of participatory planning and the absence of an assessment of the real needs of users ultimately led to the creation of spaces that remained underutilized and lacked vitality.

Participatory valuation methods, together with multiple value recognition, enhance the legitimacy and responsiveness of governance systems. Such strategies serve to open space for participatory decision-making and promote a more equitable and sustainable urbanization procedure [11,17]. The initiatives encounter obstacles because of institutional barriers, market rules, and dominant power systems. The integration of multiple valuation practices into standard urban governance requires institutional reforms, according to this finding.

5.2.3. Methodological Challenges and Risks

The process of closing the valuation gap encounters major challenges related to methodology. Tools such as Social Return on Investment (SROI) calculate financial equivalents of social benefits and, as such, increase the salience of social benefits in economic decision-making. However, by simplifying complex social relationships into simplified economic replicas, SROI can be said to risk mirroring the reductionism which it purports to dismiss [26].

In the same way, Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA), through a broader overview that aims to include various dimensions of value/purpose, is also subject to subjective weighting and, therefore, institutional prejudices, which usually support the primacy of economic factors [49].

The task becomes more challenging due to existing data asymmetries. Economic data provides easy access to standardized, detailed information, yet social and ecological data exists only as qualitative, fragmented information which commercialization cannot reach. This disparity creates challenges for consolidation efforts and prevents the development of assessment tools that can measure all public space advantages [38].

The answer to these challenges needs a complete change in our current approach to valuation methods. The process of valuation operates as an ethical system which handles multiple forms of value through ethical methods because different values remain incomparable to each other [16,25]. This new orientation entails several fundamental facets:

• First, the evaluation framework needs modifications to handle different time spans because it needs to achieve short-term financial benefits while building social value, cultural heritage, and environmental sustainability in the long run.
• Second, emphasis should be placed on equality and inclusion, bringing the voices and experiences of marginalized people to the forefront and fostering more democratic forms of governance.
• Third, successful implementation of policies needs governance systems that establish mechanisms for participation, transparency, and accountability and that incorporate pluralistic values into actual decision-making processes.
• Ultimately, the capabilities of innovative technologies and data sources, including crowdsourcing platforms, participatory mapping, and sentiment analysis, enable the collection of social value dimensions that were previously unmeasurable.

The established principles form a diverse system which supports international sustainability targets, including the New Urban Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The method establishes urban policy development through justice, inclusion, and resilience to achieve alignment between valuation practices and sustainable, fair city development.

5.3. Toward an Integrative Framework

The following chapter develops an entire integrated valuation framework for public areas based on the previous section’s concepts and methods. As such, it establishes a connection between social values and fair values, which have been lacking for an extended period. The framework recognizes that urban space consists of various connected components, which demand multiple analytical methods to study its development through time while treating all components with equal importance. It is based on ethical issues and operates in relation to substantive means through which it can facilitate their implementation in planning and governance.

The proposed valuation framework uses pluralism as it keeps a flexible core structure that combines economic, ecological, social, cultural, and political values. The method requires specific conditions for its use. The process of participatory co-definition of valuation indicators ensures local relevance because it allows the inclusion of heritage values and informal uses and spatial memory that are specific to each place. The framework operates globally because its modular structure allows it to work with different power systems, resource availability, and social structures. Plural valuation is thus both a normative and procedural commitment to democratic planning. The operational logic of the plural valuation framework is presented in Figure 2.

Further development of the inclusive framework requires an approach that understands public space not as a neutral or static container, but as a social production that is constructed through relationships, interactions, and confrontations [3]. Space does not exist merely as a physical form, but as a dynamic process where different time rhythms, historical memories, and usage practices intertwine, creating multiple levels of meaning [50]. At the same time, the complexity of urban experiences is highlighted through the integration of the bodily dimension and the emotional bonds that define the sense of belonging and identity [50]. In this context, public spaces are emerging as fields of conflicting visibilities and political practices, where institutions and users constantly negotiate the boundaries of legitimacy and access [3,51]. In the absence of such information, the Commission may decide to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of the product concerned [50,51].

The “Layers of Value in Urban Public Space” (as shown in Figure 3) presents the public space as a multilevel and dynamic field of values. At the core are the fundamental categories—economic, social, cultural, ecological, and procedural—that constitute public value. Around them are mediation dynamics, such as time differences, relational connections, sensory and emotional experiences, as well as the material and symbolic aspects that alter the assessment. The outer layer highlights the political and institutional dimensions of space, with governance mechanisms, access control, informal uses, and challenges that reveal its confrontational character. In this way, the framework goes beyond static categorization and recognizes public space as an experienced, multiple, and conflicting field, theoretically linking the social production of space, spatial plurality, and informal urbanity.

5.3.1. Principles of the Integrative Framework

The proposed framework is based on three interrelated principles:

• Plurality of Value

The public area generates multiple essential values, which include economic aspects, social elements, ecological considerations, and cultural dimensions that cannot be measured against each other, but all hold equal importance. The world requires more than financial value assessment to recognize its complete diversity. The framework maintains both human experience depth and diversity, and cultural identity integrity and essential ecological functions, which form the basis of urban resilience.

2.

Temporal Depth

The process of valuation requires analysis of both immediate and extended time periods. Economic benefits appear within a short timeframe, but social and ecological advantages, together with climate adaptation benefits, require numerous years to become apparent. The time stratification parameter stops the economy from achieving short-term financial benefits that would harm the long-term success of the community.

3.

Equity and Inclusion

The framework depends on distributional impact analysis to determine which groups benefit from urban development and valuation practices and which groups bear the expenses. The framework works to achieve spatial justice through its analysis of marginalized communities and their involvement in valuation activities, which help fight against neoliberal governance inequalities.

5.3.2. Valuation Dimensions and Indicators

The integrated framework organizes the assessment around four interrelated dimensions, each of which is accompanied by quantitative and qualitative indicators, as well as relevant methodologies/tools:

Table 3. Framework of indicators and methods.

Perspective	Quantitative Factors	Qualitative Factors	Tool and Method
Economic	Property Value, Rental Income, Investment Cash Flow	Views on Affordability, Economic Opportunities	Hedonic Pricing, Cost–Benefit Analysis, Econometric Models
Social	Accessibility Indexes, Crime Statistics, Mobility Flows	Sense of Belonging, Safety, Inclusivity, Trust	Surveys, Ethnography, Social Mapping, Participatory Valuation, SROI
Ecological	Biodiversity Indices, CO2 Sequestration Rates, Stormwater Absorption	Environmental Quality Perceptions, Ecological Narratives	Ecosystem Services Valuation, GIS, Environmental Modeling
Cultural	Number of Cultural Events, Heritage Site Preservation Status, Visitor Numbers to Museums/Sites	Cultural Narratives, Identity, Collective Memory	Content Analysis, Oral Histories, Storytelling Workshops, Historical Documentation

Table 3. Framework of indicators and methods.

Perspective	Quantitative Factors	Qualitative Factors	Tool and Method
Economic	Property Value, Rental Income, Investment Cash Flow	Views on Affordability, Economic Opportunities	Hedonic Pricing, Cost–Benefit Analysis, Econometric Models
Social	Accessibility Indexes, Crime Statistics, Mobility Flows	Sense of Belonging, Safety, Inclusivity, Trust	Surveys, Ethnography, Social Mapping, Participatory Valuation, SROI
Ecological	Biodiversity Indices, CO2 Sequestration Rates, Stormwater Absorption	Environmental Quality Perceptions, Ecological Narratives	Ecosystem Services Valuation, GIS, Environmental Modeling
Cultural	Number of Cultural Events, Heritage Site Preservation Status, Visitor Numbers to Museums/Sites	Cultural Narratives, Identity, Collective Memory	Content Analysis, Oral Histories, Storytelling Workshops, Historical Documentation

This multidimensional approach, as shown in Table 3, develops a full understanding of public spaces through physical measurements, lived experiences, and cultural meanings, which remain distinct from numerical values.

5.3.3. Governance Mechanisms and Tools

The framework requires implementation within governance systems that promote both inclusive practices and transparent operations with complete accountability. The system operates through several vital operational mechanisms.

• The participatory valuation forums establish official meeting spaces for community members to work together on value definition and priority setting and direct valuation process involvement. The forums both implement equity principles and enhance democratic governance systems in urban areas.
• The valuation reports combine economic evaluations with assessments of social elements and cultural and environmental factors (hybrid valuation). The reports accomplish this through the combination of various evaluation approaches within planning and policy documents, which allow decision-makers to select options based on full value assessments.
• Legal and institutional anchors are essential for consolidating plural valuation principles. The implementation of these values within legal frameworks and municipal planning rules establishes procedural authority that protects non-economic values from being excluded in practice.
• AI-augmented monitoring systems combined with big data, GIS mapping, and mobile tracking and sentiment analysis of social media content allow for real-time evaluation of urban space usage and public perception.

These technologies enhance valuation methods by enabling the identification of intricate and dynamic aspects of public life. The operational structure of plural and ethical valuation systems needs these mechanisms to establish institutional and technical bases that support governance systems that adapt to different urban public space realities.

5.4. Advantages and Opportunities

This unified framework contributes significantly to improving both urban governance and urban planning.

• Comprehensiveness

Considering the entire range of values associated with public space, recognizing and including social and ecological benefits, the framework is less liable to diminish or marginalize other types of values.

• Legitimacy

The framework establishes trust in governance through its implementation of diverse stakeholder perspectives and permanent participatory processes, which enhance democratic decision-making in urban areas.

• Resilience

The framework operates as a tool for cities to achieve sustainability through its identification of ecological processes and enduring social cohesion patterns, which enable urban systems to adapt to climate change, demographic shifts, and other systemic transformations.

• Justice

The framework promotes spatial and social justice through its method of centering marginalized groups in valuation activities to distribute urban resources and benefits fairly.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Summary

This research critically analyzed the persistent and institutionally embedded divergence between social value and fair value in the valuation process of public spaces. Although these spaces generate multidimensional benefits—enhancing social cohesion, preserving cultural heritage, and facilitating the exercise of democracy, while also providing material ecosystem services—the primary method of valuation remains fragmented, limited to economic criteria that promote metrics based solely on stock market values and market trends.

The central thesis developed argues that this divergent valuation does not represent a simple methodological bias but embodies a fundamental political issue. This situation incorporates the prevalence of neoliberal discourse in urban governance, which prioritizes short-term economic gains—such as real estate appreciation, increased public revenue, and private capitalization—while minimizing the relative, cultural, and bio-ecological aspects of public value, which manifest themselves over an extended time horizon. The consequences of this practice are intense: the distortion of development goals, the acceleration of gentrification processes, the further marginalization of vulnerable groups, and the systematic degradation of the city’s common resources.

The research uses conceptual analysis together with empirical examples from Syntagma Square redevelopment conflicts and gentrification effects on metro areas and waterfront privatization to show how the valuation gap appears in three connected ways. The measurement of social value faces an epistemological gap because it cannot be easily quantified, and its advantages emerge across multiple time periods (temporal gap) while political power imbalances decide which values receive recognition and priority (political gap). The valuation gap exists as a result of institutional biases and governance systems that give preference to exchange value over use value.

Addressing this challenge requires an ethical system that accepts multiple perspectives to transform our current value system. Such a framework has to:

• Recognize the different values of economics, society, nature, and culture as separate entities that cannot be combined into a single measurement system.
• Implement short-term economic requirements alongside sustainable community development and environmental protection through time-based implementation.
• Integrate an equity perspective which gives priority to marginalized voices while performing cost–benefit assessments to benefit all stakeholders for spatial justice purposes.
• Employ a variety of methodological tools, which include participatory valuation, multi-criteria analysis, ecosystem service assessments, and advanced data analytics.
• Institutionalize through governance systems that protect inclusion and transparency and accountability through legal frameworks, hybrid valuation reports, and continuous monitoring systems which use emerging technologies.

The integrative strategy supports global initiatives, including the New Urban Agenda, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the European Green Deal. The framework transforms public areas from economic resources into essential civic and ecological spaces that stand as the basis for building democratic cities that include all people and remain resilient.

Bridging the valuation gap is, ultimately, both a methodological and a political and ethical necessity. The initiative demands that urban scholars, planners, policymakers, and community members collaborate.

• Current system needs to overcome its reliance on basic economic logic.
• Valuation should be recognized as a governance method which cannot be separated from values and power dynamics and competing urban development perspectives.
• The project requires experts from economics, urban sociology, environmental science, and critical planning to work together in a transdisciplinary manner.
• The development of operational frameworks should focus on creating systems which adapt to specific contexts whilst understanding social and cultural and ecological relationships and producing results that can be applied directly to real-world governance.

The emergence of public space as a cornerstone of social justice, cultural vitality, ecological resilience, and democratic life is crucial. Plural valuation systems must be implemented in cities to develop sustainable urban futures because they enable assessment methods to measure the enduring shared values which support urban life.

6.2. Implementation Challenges

Organizations must develop new operational systems, institutional frameworks, and methodological structures to implement pluralistic valuation approaches.

The first requirement involves teaching planners, valuers, and policymakers to integrate ethical thinking with numerical assessment during their work activities. Secondly, the implementation of institutional reforms serves as a required process to create plural valuation systems for planning and investment, which will integrate multiple perspectives into core decision-making activities. Moreover, the protection of non-monetary values from corruption requires methods which enable their application within governance systems to function effectively. Lastly, the development of theoretical and practical solutions requires ongoing interdisciplinary collaboration between urban studies and economics, ecology, and community engagement.

The following cases exemplify this point:

A notable instance can be found in the construction incentive policies that were implemented in Italy. An attempt to create economic, environmental, and social value for the benefit of society, the environment, and urban areas [52]. Research has shown that various tax reliefs, acting as economic levers, alongside the action of private operators, succeeded in creating added value. For example, interventions such as the ‘Architectural Barrier Bonus’, which included elements such as ramps and lifts to facilitate mobility for people with disabilities, foster inclusion and social equality, ensuring equitable access for all individuals across urban spaces, and ultimately creating social values [52]. At the same time, however, it creates economic value, as it becomes more accessible and appealing to a broader spectrum of potential buyers [52]. Methodologically, this case was based on the analysis of tax policies and the assessment of social inclusion indicators (e.g., accessibility rates, use of space by people with disabilities) and was combined with property market data to assess the economic and ecological value. Possible weaknesses of the methodology include the reliance on state incentives, the risk of uneven application in different regions, and the restriction of the analysis to measurable data, leaving out more intangible social values.

A further case that illustrates this is a study by [53] in Stockholm that combined two assessment methods on urban green. Through hedonic pricing, he investigated how the characteristics of green influenced property prices, while through Sociotope mapping, he recorded the use and valuation of public green spaces [53]. In this way, he succeeded in linking the market with the socio-cultural value of the product. The integration of different valuation methods to create multiple valuation systems that simultaneously represent all three dimensions—social, monetary, and ecological—can provide a more comprehensive analysis for interpreting the results [53]. The methodological framework here was based on a combination of quantitative analysis (hedonic pricing) and qualitative mapping of use (SoftGIS), allowing for a multidimensional picture of the value of green space. However, a potential weakness is that hedonic pricing focuses on market values and may underestimate social or cultural dimensions, while mapping may be influenced by subjectivity in data collection. Finally, another example is the active involvement of the community in decision-making. It is considered an essential prerequisite in attaining effective and comprehensive planning, with the aim of addressing human needs and ensuring a sustainable environment, through optimal spatial arrangement. For instance, a case of successful urban development is the Vauban district in Freiburg, Germany, which used the PCP (Public–Community Partnership) process [54]. The government has been entitled to a Community Organization and, through continuous cooperation with candidate residents, eventually determined the plans for the roads and green areas. In this way, an enhanced quality of urban design was attained with innovative reforms in sustainability and social goals [54]. This approach was based on participatory governance, where residents had an institutional role in determining the design through continuous consultations and workshops. A weakness of the method is that it requires a high level of organization and time, and can lead to conflicts of interest between different groups of citizens. In addition, the transfer of the model to other cities may prove difficult due to different institutional and cultural frameworks

The implementation of a pluralistic valuation framework entails methodological, institutional, and policy difficulties, which make it necessary to develop flexible tools combining narrative, spatial, and economic approaches. Future research should focus on the creation of open data environments, the design of adaptive platforms that enhance stakeholder engagement, and the development of value-sensitive indicators capable of supporting a cross-sectoral and inclusive urban governance.

Although this study challenges the primacy of economic criteria, it does suggest a practical approach: the integration of social and environmental values into existing economic frameworks. Through incentives and investment criteria, the proposed strategy does not convert social goods into monetary values but sets limits on the market so that capital can also serve the public good [26].

6.3. Research Directions

Future research should focus on empirical case studies that apply this framework in diverse urban contexts, testing and refining tools that balance methodological rigor with ethical sensitivity. The research will prove the framework’s usability while developing a new understanding of plural valuation systems that improve urban governance through fair, inclusive, and adaptable practices. In addition, future studies should include specific methodological proposals and pilot test scenarios in order to evaluate in practice the effectiveness of the framework and to identify its limits in real urban contexts in a timely manner.