Argumentation schemes for urban decision support
Résumé
Decision-making in urban planning and design is inherently complex, involving a plurality of actors, interests, dimensions and uncertainties. In this context, evaluation assumes a crucial role in supporting decisions, guiding priorities based on data obtained from analysis, measurement and estimation. The paper explores the potential benefits of argumentation theory, which offers specific tools to manage the complexity of information and knowledge related to the situation under consideration. Argumentation-based approaches not only facilitate the identification of the most justified choice but also make it possible to formulate a final recommendation through a logical formalism, graphically represented and easily understood by all actors involved. In this sense, the research explores the application of argumentation theory to the urban and architectural context through the analysis of an emblematic case study of the city of Turin, which has seen numerous actors, interests and critical points in its decision-making process, proposing some argumentation schemes a posteriori. The intention is to observe the potentialities and criticalities of this approach in decision support in the urban context and to abstract potential recommendations with respect to future skyscraper projects.