































 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

14 

Bridging Social Impact and Lifecycle Approaches for 
Sustainable Urban Regeneration: An Exploratory Case 
Study in Italy 
Lavinia Pastore1*, Luigi Corvo 2, Arda Lelo3 

1 Università degli Studi Milano-Bicocca, Di.SEA.DE, Piazza dell'Ateneo Nuovo 1, Milano (Italy) 

lavinia.pastore@unimib.it  

*contact author 

ORCID  0000-0003-0510-694X 
2 Università degli Studi Milano-Bicocca, Di.SEA.DE, Piazza dell'Ateneo Nuovo 1, Milano (Italy) 

luigi.corvo@unimib.it  

ORCID  0000-0002-7230-9205 
3 Open Impact research spin off of the Università degli Studi Milano-Bicocca, Via Nuoro 7, 

Roma (Italy)  

Arda.lelo@openimpact.it  

 

 

Received: 26/03/2025 

Accepted for publication: 11/08/2025 

Published: 27/08/2025 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mailto:Arda.lelo@openimpact.it


 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

15 

Abstract

This study explores how integrating social impact assessment (SIA) with lifecycle thinking can enhance urban regeneration 

outcomes by managing diverse stakeholder interests. A case study of a factory redevelopment in Tuscany, Italy, applies a novel 

analytical framework to map social, economic, and environmental value across project phases, examining patterns in outcome 

creation and stakeholder influence. The framework introduces an original combination of Social Return on Investment (SROI), 

stakeholder salience, and temporal mapping, offering an integrated perspective on impact dynamics. Specifically, this research 

addresses three questions: how SIA methodologies contribute to stakeholder mediation in complex urban regeneration 

processes; what role timing plays in SIA effectiveness as conflict-mediation tools; and how lifecycle thinking integration 

enhances SIA effectiveness in urban regeneration projects. 

The study advances impact assessment with an integrated framework capturing complex social value dynamics and enhancing 

social sustainability in urban interventions. The analysis identifies 55 distinct outcome areas, revealing that employment 

outcomes dominate value creation (57%), while urban regeneration and viability (17%), sustainable community development 

(13%), economic growth (9%), and environmental outcomes (4%) contribute to a balanced multidimensional impact portfolio. 

Findings demonstrate that stakeholder salience evolves significantly across project phases, and proactive SIA application in 

early phases can reconcile divergent perspectives to maintain momentum. The integration of SIA with lifecycle assessment 

enables comprehensive understanding of how different value forms interact and evolve temporally. This approach is adaptable 

to different urban and territorial settings, making it relevant for practitioners and policymakers engaged in diverse regeneration 

initiatives. The findings offer practitioners systematic tools to anticipate stakeholder conflicts, optimize multidimensional value 

creation, and embed social sustainability across regeneration lifecycles, ultimately improving urban intervention design and 

delivery. This approach enables effective stakeholder engagement promoting equitable benefit distribution, mitigating adverse 

impacts, and enhancing community resilience and well-being. The study's limitations include its single-case design and context-

specific focus on hotel conversion, which may limit transferability to other regeneration contexts and governance settings with 

different collaborative capacities. 

Keywords: social impact assessment, urban regeneration, lifecycle thinking, stakeholder engagement, social sustainability

 

  



 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

15 

1. Introduction 

Urban regeneration has emerged as a pivotal strategy in contemporary city development, signifying a shift from traditional 

expansion-based approaches to more intricate urban renewal and revitalisation processes. This transformation is especially 

pronounced in Europe, where the 2014–2020 EU financial programming period explicitly prioritised rehabilitating existing 

urban spaces, including industrial sites and contaminated land (EU Regulation No. 130/2013). 

The sector has undergone a fundamental metamorphosis, transitioning from a context centred on expansion to new challenges 

rooted in integration within the urban fabric and regeneration. Despite the burgeoning recognition of social sustainability, which 

has spurred an emerging body of research and policy literature, our understanding of this concept remains nebulous and 

constrained by theoretical and methodological limitations stemming from its context- and disciplinary-dependent 

interpretations (Colantonio & Dixon, 2009). The urgency of addressing social sustainability through integrated and context-

sensitive approaches is increasingly recognised in both policy and academic spheres, yet remains underexplored in terms of 

how methodological tools can operationalise this ambition across complex urban interventions (Biondi & Bracci, 2018; 

Ragozino, 2019). 

Established knowledge demonstrates the evolution of social impact assessment and its integration with stakeholder dynamics. 

Since the 1990s, the advent of environmental impact assessment (EIA) and subsequent social impact assessment (SIA) has 

catalysed a new awareness of forecasting capabilities and the evidence provided by social and environmental impact analysts. 

The evolution of impact assessment tools has coincided with growing recognition of the complex relationships between urban 

development, environmental justice, and public health. Wolch et al. (2014) demonstrate that urban regeneration projects must 

balance environmental improvements with community needs to avoid unintended social consequences. These tools have 

generated models that shift the focus to indicators encompassing economic, social, and environmental considerations. This 

aligns with Emerson's (2003) 'Blended Value Proposition', which emphasises the integration of social and financial metrics to 

maximise the value for all stakeholders. Parallel to this evolution, Hinson and Ndhlovu (2011) show that organisations 

increasingly require structured approaches to evaluate their social impacts across multiple stakeholder groups and time 

horizons, as is evident in the development of corporate social responsibility measurements.  

Urban regeneration projects are inherently complex interventions that require a comprehensive understanding of their impacts 

across different life cycle stages (Sairinen, 2010). These projects frequently involve multiple stakeholders with divergent 

interests and expectations, rendering them potential theatres of conflict. Arvidson et al. (2013) posit that social impact can be 

conceived as a genuine social construction that effectively opens it to the interpretation and subjectivity of the categories under 

analysis. This understanding becomes pivotal when considering the Impact Value Chain framework proposed by Clark et al. 

(2004), which emphasises the need to map and involve not only internal organisational actors but also stakeholders at various 

levels who see their status quo being altered by specific interventions.  

Europe has embraced urban regeneration as a winning model of economic development, wherein new 'urban alliances' revitalise 

cities capable of reinventing themselves, optimising their human, social, economic, environmental, and historical capital, 

'becoming true and their own resilient cities' (Ben-Akiva et al., 2016; Toledo et al., 2010).  



 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

16 

The evolution of social return on investment (SROI) methodologies highlights their utility in the urban regeneration context. 

Developed initially to evaluate nonprofit initiatives (Emerson, 2003), SROI frameworks have matured into versatile tools for 

assessing blended value, encompassing economic, social, and environmental dimensions across various sectors. Recent reviews 

(Corvo et al., 2022) underscore SROI's potential to enhance stakeholder engagement by monetising social impacts, while 

addressing methodological critiques such as over-reductionism and subjectivity. When applied to urban regeneration, SROI 

analysis facilitates identifying both tangible and intangible benefits, offering insights into the equitable distribution of value 

and fostering community resilience.  

Moreover, advancements in impact measurement approaches have introduced mechanisms to better manage power asymmetries 

and stakeholder salience in multi-actor contexts (Mitchell et al., 1997; Saenz, 2020; Saenz, 2021). These innovations align with 

lifecycle thinking by mapping impact trajectories across phases such as planning, implementation, and use. Wang et al. (2022) 

demonstrate how dynamic stakeholder relationships can be systematically analysed over the life cycle of urban regeneration 

projects through social network analysis (SNA), offering actionable insights into power shifts, centrality, and coordination 

challenges.  

Critical gaps emerge in three interconnected areas that limit current SIA effectiveness. First, integration challenges persist: 

many existing tools remain siloed, unable to offer a comprehensive view of impact evolution across time or to address 

stakeholder conflicts that emerge at different project stages (Arli & Cadeaux, 2014; Sairinen, 2010). The existing literature 

rarely integrates impact valuation with stakeholder salience analysis and lifecycle mapping in a single coherent framework, 

especially in applied urban contexts (Saenz, 2020; Bryson et al., 2024). Second, temporal dynamics remain underexplored: 

SROI alone cannot capture the temporal shifts in stakeholder salience or the dynamic layering of impacts typical of complex 

urban initiatives (Nicholls, 2018; Grana et al., 2025). Critical questions remain regarding how impact measurement can be 

structured to support complex adaptive processes, especially in terms of stakeholder dynamics over time (Mitchell et al., 1997; 

Bailey, 2012). Third, the timing of SIA implementation as conflict-mediation mechanism requires deeper understanding. SIA's 

potential role in managing environmental conflicts was noted years ago by Manring et al. (1990), who emphasised its 

importance in predicting and managing conflicts while promoting social sustainability (Becker & Vanclay, 2003).  

A critical gap persists in understanding how the timing and implementation of SIA tools influence their effectiveness as conflict-

mediation mechanisms in urban regeneration contexts. Insights from corporate community involvement research further reveal 

the challenges in measuring social impact owing to resource constraints, a lack of consensus on methodologies, and stakeholder 

salience issues (Arli & Cadeaux, 2014).  

While the existing literature acknowledges stakeholder engagement's importance in urban regeneration (Bailey, 2012; Biancone 

et al., 2019), limited attention has been paid to how impact assessment methodologies can be adapted to better serve the complex 

needs of these projects across their lifecycle. The strategic management-at-scale framework proposed by Bryson et al. (2024) 

becomes particularly relevant here, as it recognises that no single entity is fully in charge of these complex multi-stakeholder 

contexts, yet many are affected, involved, or have a partial responsibility to act. The literature confirms the possibility of 

sustainable urban regeneration projects at several levels. These are primarily attributed to the ability of these projects to radically 



 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

17 

transform places in terms of development opportunities, and the proactive capacity that key actors can offer in decision-making 

dynamics, often acting as mitigators between different issues related to each stakeholder category (Bailey, 2012; Biondi & 

Bracci, 2018; Ragozino, 2019). This potential is further amplified by integrating advanced stakeholder salience frameworks 

and lifecycle impact mapping to address the shifting power dynamics and long-term value creation (Saenz, 2020). Despite these 

advancements, no unified approach currently exists to integrate SROI, stakeholder salience, and lifecycle mapping in a single 

evaluative model tailored for urban regeneration (Grieco et al., 2015; Arena et al., 2015). 

To address this, more integrated frameworks are needed, capable of anticipating and managing stakeholder tensions while 

tracing how value is constructed and distributed over time (Clark et al., 2004; Bryson et al., 2024). The proposed theoretical 

gap can be visualized as the intersection of three methodological silos: impact valuation approaches that lack temporal 

dynamics, stakeholder engagement methods without systematic value measurement, and lifecycle assessment frameworks that 

underemphasize social dimensions. This study addresses these gaps by examining how an enhanced SIA framework that 

incorporates lifecycle thinking and stakeholder dynamics contributes to both impact measurement and conflict mediation in 

urban regeneration processes. 

Through an in-depth case study of a regeneration project in Tuscany, Italy, we investigate three specific research questions: 

1. How can SIA methodologies contribute to stakeholder mediation in complex urban regeneration processes? 

2. What role does timing play in the effectiveness of SIA as conflict-mediation tools in urban regeneration projects? 

3. How does the integration of lifecycle thinking into SIA enhance its effectiveness in urban regeneration projects? 

 

The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. First, we present a theoretical framework that integrates perspectives on 

urban regeneration, SIAs, and life cycle thinking. We then introduce our enhanced methodological approach, which combines 

traditional SROI analysis with lifecycle assessment elements. The case study analysis demonstrates the application of this 

framework in a real-world context, followed by a discussion of the implications of both theory and practice in urban 

regeneration impact assessments. 

 

2. Theoretical Background 

Strategy management at scale provides the foundational theoretical framework for understanding urban regeneration 

complexity. Urban regeneration challenges have increasingly transcended traditional organisational boundaries, requiring a 

shift from conventional strategic management approaches to more collaborative and systemic frameworks. Bryson et al. (2024) 

argued that these challenges necessitate 'strategy management at scale', an approach that recognises that while no single entity 

is in charge, many are affected, involved, or bear partial responsibility to act. This approach highlights the need for collective 

leadership and system-level thinking to address complex multi-stakeholder dynamics (Bryson et al., 2024; Crosby & Bryson, 

2005). 

This complexity manifests through diverse stakeholders operating across spatial and temporal scales, creating opportunities 

and tensions (Ansell et al., 2024). Biancone et al. (2019) highlight the 'proactive capacity' of key actors, emphasising the need 



 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

18 

for collaboration even in the absence of formal authority While Healey (2006) argues for new forms of collective governance 

in fragmented contexts. These contributions establish that urban regeneration governance must be multi-actor, temporally 

aware, and capable of embedding diverse value frameworks into its evaluation logics. 

Resource activation and performance measurement theory offer solutions but face integration challenges. Strategy management 

relies on activating underutilised resources across physical, financial, social, and political domains (Bailey, 2012), aligning 

with Biondi and Bracci (2018), who demonstrate how cross-sector partnerships can generate synergistic values that exceed the 

capabilities of individual entities. Saenz (2020) and Saenz (2021) further underscore the importance of lifecycle thinking in 

urban regeneration, arguing that integrating the planning, implementation, and post-completion phases enhances both impact 

measurement and stakeholder engagement. However, integrating these elements into coherent evaluative frameworks remains 

underdeveloped, though Arena, Azzone, and Bengo (2015) propose a performance measurement system for social enterprises 

that aligns managerial intentions, stakeholder participation, and hybrid value creation logics. Stressing the contextual 

construction of indicators and cautions against universalistic metrics detached from organisational purpose. Implementation 

challenges reveal significant limitations in current approaches. Large-scale implementation faces challenges requiring adaptive 

frameworks for shifting stakeholder dynamics. Mill and Holland (2005) argue SIA methods must move beyond simplistic 

metrics to capture the complex interplay between stakeholder interests and project outcomes. While Sager (2016) identifies 

power asymmetries as barriers to effective collaboration, and Ragozino (2019) notes difficulties in sustaining stakeholder 

engagement over extended project lifecycles. These challenges underscore the need for robust governance mechanisms capable 

of adapting to dynamic stakeholder landscapes while maintaining progress toward shared objectives (Bryson et al., 2024). 

Social impact assessment theory has evolved but suffers from methodological fragmentation. SIA and EIA have evolved by 

introducing advanced methodologies for forecasting and evaluating impacts. Traditional SROI models, while useful, often lack 

the integration of life cycle thinking and systemic changes necessary for modern urban regeneration (Nicholls, 2017; Yate & 

Marra, 2017). Nicholls (2018) critically reframes social impact accounting, interpreting it as a situated and contested process 

rather than neutral representation. He foregrounds the role of accounting in defining what counts as valuable and for whom, 

pointing to the importance of embedding materiality, uncertainty, and empowerment into impact frameworks. This perspective 

challenges reductionist SROI applications and supports reflexive, stakeholder-sensitive measurement logics, challenging 

reductionist applications and supporting reflexive, stakeholder-sensitive measurement logics. 

Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) methodologies offer systematic approaches for evaluating social impacts throughout 

project lifecycles that align with these collaborative governance requirements. Jørgensen et al. (2008) identified SLCA as an 

emerging framework for assessing social and socio-economic aspects of products and systems across their entire life cycles, 

though they noted significant methodological diversity and limited consensus regarding appropriate indicators and boundaries. 

This methodological fragmentation reflects the complexity of social impact measurement in multi-stakeholder contexts (van 

der Veen et al., 2025). Contemporary SLCA applications demonstrate both potential and limitations: while SLCA can 

effectively quantify certain social impacts such as working conditions and economic development contributions, it often fails 

to capture more nuanced contextual factors including cultural dynamics, power relations, and structural policy influences (van 



 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

19 

der Veen et al., 2025). Bhatnagar et al. (2024) emphasise that transitioning to circular economy approaches through SLCA 

requires enhanced stakeholder involvement across industries to identify emerging social risks, suggesting the need for 

methodological innovations that bridge quantitative assessment with qualitative stakeholder engagement. 

Mixed-method approaches in regeneration processes provide promising directions for addressing these methodological gaps. 

Premyanov et al. (2024) demonstrate how combining quantitative metrics with qualitative stakeholder engagement through 

participatory research can enhance understanding of circular economy impacts on urban sustainability. Their study of 

makerspaces as catalysts for circular entrepreneurship illustrates how mixed-method frameworks can capture both measurable 

outcomes (such as skill development and network formation) and more intangible benefits (including community engagement 

and environmental awareness). These findings suggest that urban regeneration assessments benefit from methodological 

pluralism that integrates systematic quantitative measurement with contextual qualitative insights. 

Empirical evidence confirms persistent methodological fragmentation. Grieco, Michelini, and Iasevoli (2015) map the 

heterogeneity of social impact assessment models used by social enterprises, identifying three dominant clusters based on 

purpose (managerial vs. accountability), stakeholder engagement, and methodological depth.  Highlighting the absence of 

frameworks that integrate stakeholder salience, lifecycle dynamics, and value quantification, they further reinforcing the 

originality of the model presented in this paper. Recent empirical applications demonstrate this fragmentation: Tate et al. (2023) 

use SROI showing data limitations, attribution challenges, and temporal complexity that undermine impact appraisal. Wang et 

al. (2022) apply social network analysis surfacing fluidity of power and legitimacy over time, and Bottero et al. (2018) apply 

PROMETHEE multicriteria decision analysis. These studies reveal fragmentation where each focuses on one aspect—

monetised outcomes, stakeholder configuration, or multi-criteria trade-offs—without unifying them into an integrated 

framework. 

Toward theoretical integration through composite frameworks. This paper seeks to fill that gap by developing a composite 

evaluative approach that systematically brings together social value measurement (via SROI), stakeholder salience theory, and 

lifecycle mapping to capture the distributed nature of impact creation in regeneration processes. This evolution aligns with the 

conceptualisation of social impact as a social construct (Arvidson et al., 2013). Combined with Saenz's (2021) outcome mapping 

framework that integrates stakeholder analysis with lifecycle stages, such approaches bridge methodological fragmentation 

while strengthening the governance of transformation. 

Stakeholder salience theory adds temporal complexity requiring adaptive frameworks. The dynamic nature of stakeholder 

salience, as outlined by Mitchell et al. (1997), complicates urban regeneration, where shifting priorities necessitate adaptive 

engagement strategies (Biancone et al., 2019), while trust-building and inclusive governance address these shifting dynamics 

(Corvo et al., 2022). 

Recent advancements in lifecycle assessment methodologies (Ciroth et al., 2011; Saenz, 2020 and Saenz, 2021) provide 

valuable tools for aligning stakeholder activities with sustainable outcomes, facilitating deeper understanding of how urban 

regeneration projects affect economic, social, and environmental systems over time. Arli and Cadeaux (2014) highlight 



 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

20 

persistent challenges of measuring community involvement impacts, stressing the need for cohesive frameworks that address 

stakeholder salience and resource allocation. 

Theoretical synthesis demonstrates the necessity for integrated evaluation approaches. Ultimately, strategy management at scale 

offers a robust framework for addressing urban regeneration complexities. By integrating collective leadership, adaptive 

governance, and lifecycle thinking, this approach helps navigate power dynamics and competing interests that define urban 

regeneration while fostering resilient and inclusive urban environments. 

 

Figure 1. Integrated SIA framework 

 
Source: Authors’ elaboration 

 

3. Methodology 

This study employed a revelatory single-case study design to investigate the role of SIA in mediating stakeholder dynamics 

within an urban regeneration project in Tuscany, Italy. Case study designs are well-suited for examining complex social 

phenomena in real-world contexts, particularly when the boundaries between a phenomenon and its context are not clearly 

defined (Yin, 2017). Single-case studies offer an opportunity for an in-depth, holistic investigation of contemporary events, 



 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

21 

enabling the development of rich, context-specific insights (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Siggelkow, 2007). 

The case was chosen for its potential to yield insights into the intricate web of multi-stakeholder interactions and temporal 

processes that characterise urban regeneration interventions (Zhou et al., 2018). 

The methodological framework integrates three complementary analytical lenses to capture the multidimensional nature of 

social impacts on urban regeneration. These lenses were applied sequentially: SROI was implemented during the initial project 

phase (ex-ante) in alignment with its first principle (“involve stakeholders”). To guide this step, stakeholder salience analysis 

was conducted to map influence patterns and inform materiality assessment. Temporal impact mapping was introduced only 

after the outcome framework and first SROI evaluation had been completed, in order to track the evolution of outcomes over 

time. 

Each lens informed the others in a recursive manner: stakeholder salience helped refine outcome selection for the SROI, while 

the temporal mapping captured the progression and interdependencies of those outcomes across the project lifecycle. 

1. SROI Analysis: SROI analysis provides the foundational framework for mapping and quantifying the social, 

environmental, and economic value generated by the project across stakeholder groups and project phases (Cordes, 

2017; Nicholls, 2017, 2018). This forward-looking approach involves mapping stakeholder networks, identifying 

anticipated outcomes, developing financial proxies, applying adjustment factors, and calculating the projected social 

return ratios. The analysis adheres to established SROI principles, while innovatively integrating lifecycle thinking to 

examine how different forms of value emerge, interact, and evolve over the course of the intervention (Saenz, 2021). 

Proxies were selected through a validated internal database and discussed with stakeholders using available contextual 

data. This database, developed through systematic analysis of international SROI applications, serves as a benchmark 

repository of validated impact chains and financial proxies across multiple sectors. Indicator selection was based on 

relevance to urban regeneration contexts, availability of contextual data, and stakeholder validation. SROI was applied 

to the design phase of the project, using both project documentation and interviews to estimate outcome occurrence 

and intensity. 

2. Stakeholder Salience Analysis: Stakeholder analysis, grounded in Mitchell et al.’s (1997) power-legitimacy-urgency 

framework, examines how influence patterns and power dynamics shape project trajectories. The analysis categorises 

stakeholders based on their salience attributes, maps influence relationships and decision-making processes, tracks 

shifts in stakeholder salience across project phases, identifies points of tension requiring mediation, and informs them 

of the development of targeted engagement strategies (Neville et al., 2011). The stakeholder set was identified through 

project documentation and expanded through interviews with the project lead. Salience categories were used to 

prioritise actors during the outcome identification phase and to map tensions requiring mediation. 

3. Temporal Impact Mapping: Building on Saenz’s (2021) matrix innovation, this novel framework examines the 

evolution of stakeholder experiences and outcomes across project lifecycles. The mapping process plots stakeholder 

groups against four key development phases (awareness, implementation, use, and closure); monitors impact 

trajectories across social, economic, and environmental dimensions; documents changes in value creation patterns; 



 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

22 

pinpoints critical intervention opportunities; and reveals temporal interdependencies between outcomes. Outcome 

trajectories were plotted against the timeline using a structured Excel grid combining a simplified project schedule 

with identified outcomes and stakeholder groups. The mapping helped highlight moments of convergence or 

divergence in perceived value and supported identification of “impact tipping points. 

 

The data were collected from two sources. First, extensive document analysis was conducted, encompassing project plans, 

reports, media coverage, and other archival data related to the project’s design evolution, stakeholder responses, and 

implementation processes. Second, the research team engaged directly with the architectural firm leading the project to gain 

first-hand insights into decision-making dynamics and stakeholder interactions (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). These engagement 

sessions followed a semi-structured protocol focusing on stakeholder identification, outcome mapping, and project timeline 

validation. Sessions were conducted with project representatives to gather insights into stakeholder influence patterns, decision-

making processes, and anticipated project outcomes across different phases. The three lenses were supported by different types 

of data: SROI was informed by financial estimates, outcome indicators, and social proxy databases; stakeholder salience relied 

on qualitative interviews and internal documents and stakeholder categorization using Mitchell et al.'s (1997) framework was 

conducted through systematic document analysis complemented by validation with project representatives, with each 

stakeholder's power, legitimacy, and urgency attributes assessed based on project documentation and observed influence 

patterns;; temporal mapping used the project timeline and evaluation outputs to structure expected outcome flows. To ensure 

reliability and internal validity, two researchers independently analysed the qualitative material and triangulated the coding of 

outcome definitions, salience attributes, and temporal sequences. The coding process was conducted manually, with researchers 

developing a structured framework aligned with the three analytical lenses. Coding categories were refined through iterative 

discussion until consensus was reached. Regular peer debriefings were conducted with the third researcher and the full project 

team to reach consensus and refine interpretations. Member checking was carried out with the lead proponent of the project, 

who reviewed and validated intermediate results, particularly the reconstructed stakeholder map and proxy structure. 

Triangulation was applied systematically across documentary, interview, and contextual data. 

The analytical process followed an iterative cyclical approach (Mills et al., 2010), with each analytical lens informing the others 

in a layered and reciprocal manner. This methodological approach aligns with recent developments in social responsibility 

research. Obalola and Adelopo (2012) demonstrate the effectiveness of narrative-inductive approaches for understanding 

complex social phenomena and stakeholder dynamics in urban contexts. This methodology enables a systematic investigation 

of how SIA surfaces and mediates stakeholder concerns, identifies optimal intervention points for conflict mitigation, and 

demonstrates the value of integrating lifecycle thinking into impact assessment processes. 

The revelatory single-case study design has inherent limitations in terms of generalisability (Yin, 2017). However, as Flyvbjerg 

(2006) argues, carefully selected case studies can provide context-dependent knowledge crucial for understanding complex 

social phenomena and testing theoretical propositions in real-world settings. This may offer a valuable window into the complex 

stakeholder landscapes that must be negotiated in urban regeneration projects, generating insights that inform both theory 



 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

23 

development and practice (Flyvbjerg, 2006). Although the findings remain context-specific, the clarity of analytical procedures, 

iterative validation, and multi-source triangulation contribute to their internal consistency and transparency. Moreover, by 

integrating SROI analysis, stakeholder salience assessment, and temporal impact mapping, this approach responds to the 

growing need for more robust governance frameworks to address the turbulent, boundary-spanning challenges increasingly 

faced by public and nonprofit organisations (Bryson et al., 2015). In these contexts, defined by diffuse authority and shared 

responsibility, fostering strategic alignment and commitment among diverse stakeholders is critical (Bryson et al., 2024). By 

bringing a strategy management-at-scale perspective to SIA, this methodology aims to generate actionable insights into 

navigating complex multi-stakeholder dynamics and enhancing the public value of urban interventions. 

 

4. The Case Study 

This case study focuses on an urban regeneration project in the Tuscany region of northern Italy. The project involved 

converting an abandoned factory into a tourist hotel, constructing new road connections, and revitalising the surrounding green 

spaces near a port. The development site covers approximately 22,575 square meters, with an estimated investment of 

€43,202,687. The company leading the project had the vision of creating a hotel that exemplifies sustainability principles and 

minimises the environmental footprint of both the building itself and its future operations. To achieve this, the company 

committed to using eco-friendly renewable materials and implementing state-of-the-art systems for energy efficiency, water 

conservation, and environmental stewardship.  

A central aspect of the project is the comprehensive monitoring of energy consumption, water usage, traffic flows, and 

greenspace impacts. The sustainability plan includes installing solar panels onsite to meet a significant portion of the hotel’s 

energy needs. The company also aims to minimise electricity consumption and waste through advanced lighting, ventilation, 

and infrastructure systems. To further enhance the project’s environmental performance, the design incorporates large-scale 

rainwater collection and management. This integrated approach seeks to optimise water resource use while reducing pressure 

on local water supplies. 

The project's origins date back to 2015, marking the start of a complex, multiyear process that exemplifies the lengthy timelines 

often associated with transformative urban redevelopment. The initial phase, from 2015 to 2023, involved intensive planning, 

stakeholder engagement, and regulatory compliance. This extended preliminary period aligns with the critical early stage 

identified by urban development scholars as essential for building social licence and institutional support. The project’s 

chronological progression can be understood through four key phases. 

1. Initial Development (2015–2023): Concept development, preliminary investor engagement, initial stakeholder 

consultations, drafting of architectural and environmental plans, and emergence of environmental opposition and legal 

challenges. 

2. Planning and Approval (2023–2024): Refinement of project scope to the current 30-room configuration, integration 

of enhanced sustainability features, intensive stakeholder dialogue and plan modifications, and navigation of 

regulatory requirements and environmental assessments. 



 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

24 

3. Implementation (2024–2026 planned): Site preparation and demolition is scheduled for winter 2024, construction is 

planned for 2025–2026, progressive implementation of environmental management systems, and staged infrastructure 

development. 

4. Operations (projected from 2027 onwards): Anticipated hotel opening in the summer of 2027, ongoing environmental 

monitoring, community engagement programs, and long-term value creation. 

 

This multiyear timeline offers valuable insights into the realities of complex urban regeneration. This illustrates how initial 

concepts must evolve significantly in response to stakeholder inputs and regulatory processes. The project's eight-year journey 

from initial vision to implementation approval highlights the importance of ‘temporal resilience’; that is, the ability to maintain 

development momentum while adapting to emerging stakeholder concerns and regulatory requirements. 

The project's present status represents a pivotal point at which conceptual plans must be translated into concrete actions. The 

legal challenges initiated by environmental groups have acted not only as hurdles but also as catalysts for strengthening the 

project's green building credentials and stakeholder engagement. This dynamic shows how opposition can ultimately bolster 

urban regeneration efforts by compelling a deeper consideration of sustainability priorities and community needs. 

The planned implementation timeline from 2024 to 2027 reflects an ambitious but well-structured approach to project 

execution. This schedule was designed to balance efficient progress while minimising disruption to the surrounding community. 

The phasing strategy aligns with urban regeneration best practices, where careful sequencing helps manage stakeholder 

expectations and optimises the impact over both the short and long term.  

In summary, this case study offers a representative example of a complex stakeholder landscape and extended timelines that 

characterise major urban regeneration projects. This demonstrates how sustainability, community engagement, and regulatory 

compliance intertwine to shape project outcomes. As the initiative moves from planning to implementation, it will continue to 

offer valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities of transformative urban redevelopment. 

 

5. Findings 

The analysis of the Tuscany urban regeneration project applies three integrated analytical frameworks: SROI analysis, 

stakeholder salience assessment, and temporal impact mapping based on Saenz’s matrix. These frameworks reveal the intricate 

dynamics of social value creation, evolution, and distribution across the life cycle of urban regeneration interventions. By 

combining quantitative measurement, stakeholder influence mapping, and lifecycle-based outcome analysis, the findings 

highlight the interplay between multi-stakeholder collaboration and the mechanisms underpinning sustainable urban 

transformation. This integrated analysis directly addresses the study's three research questions by demonstrating how SIA 

methodologies facilitate stakeholder mediation (RQ1), revealing the critical role of timing in SIA effectiveness (RQ2), and 

illustrating how lifecycle integration enhances SIA performance in urban regeneration contexts (RQ3).  

The SROI analysis identifies 55 distinct outcome areas supported by 57 indicators and 59 financial proxies, underscoring the 

multidimensional nature of value creation. This granular approach maps the direct and indirect impacts across stakeholder 



 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

25 

groups and project phases. The project’s projected social value amounted to €66,225,518 from an initial investment of 

€43,202,687, yielding an SROI of 1.53. This ratio suggests that for every euro invested, the project generates €1.53 in social 

value, adjusted for critical factors, such as deadweight, attribution, and drop-off. This comprehensive value mapping 

demonstrates how SIA methodologies contribute to stakeholder mediation (RQ1) by providing a common framework for 

understanding diverse impact expectations across stakeholder groups. 

 

Table I. Outcome types and distribution 

Type Percentage Key characteristics 

Hard  36% Quantitatively measurable changes (employment figures, infrastructure 

development) 

 

Soft 33% Qualitative improvements (community cohesion, stakeholder relationships) 

Cashable 31% Direct financial value or cost savings (operational efficiencies, revenue generation) 

Source: Authors’ elaboration 

 

Table I summarises the distribution of outcomes across three typologies using the Oxford GO Lab framework: hard (36%), soft 

(33%), and cashable (31%), reflecting a balanced approach to urban regeneration. Hard outcomes capture quantifiable and 

measurable impacts, including employment generation, infrastructure development, and energy consumption reduction, 

providing concrete evidence of economic and physical contributions. Soft outcomes encompassed qualitative improvements, 

such as enhanced community cohesion, strengthened stakeholder relationships, and improved public space perceptions, 

illustrating a project’s ability to foster social capital and collaborative networks. Cashable outcomes signify direct financial 

benefits, including cost savings, revenue generation, and increased property values, aligned with the fiscal sustainability goals 

for both public and private stakeholders. This balanced distribution across outcome types reveals how integrated SIA 

approaches address heterogeneous stakeholder expectations, facilitating mediation by acknowledging diverse value 

perspectives within a single evaluative framework.  

The coexistence of soft and cashable outcomes reflects the project’s capacity to address heterogeneous stakeholder 

expectations, though it also raises questions about the visibility and prioritisation of social impacts when measured alongside 

financial indicators (Nicholls, 2018). 

The analysis also revealed five macro-outcome areas, each representing a distinct contribution to the project’s overall impact. 

Table II illustrates this distribution: Employment outcomes were dominant, constituting 57% of the total impact. These include 

direct job creation within hotel operations, indirect employment through supply chain development, and skill enhancement 

programs designed to improve local workforce capacities. Urban Regeneration & Viability (17%) reflect physical and spatial 

improvements, such as enhanced pedestrian pathways, sustainable transport solutions, and upgraded traffic management 

systems. Sustainable Community outcomes (13%) capture the project’s impact on social cohesion and well-being as evidenced 

https://golab.bsg.ox.ac.uk/toolkit/technical-guidance/setting-measuring-outcomes/


 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

26 

by expanded recreational spaces, community-driven programs, and strengthened local networks. Economic Growth outcomes 

(9%) include market stimulation, tourism revenue generation, and business development initiatives. Although Environmental 

outcomes accounted for only 4%, their strategic integration amplified sustainability efforts through renewable energy 

installations, rainwater-harvesting systems, and biodiversity enhancements, thereby linking environmental stewardship to 

broader social and economic objectives. 

 

Table II. Distribution of macro outcome areas 

Area Frequency Primary impact indicators 

Employment 57% Job creation, skill development, local economic 

participation 

Urban Regeneration & Viability 17% Infrastructure development, spatial connectivity 

Sustainable Community 13% Social cohesion, community engagement 

Economic Growth  9% Business development, market activity 

Environment  4% Environmental protection, sustainability initiatives 

Source: Authors’ elaboration 

 

This asymmetry between environmental and employment-related outcomes reflects a common trade-off in regeneration efforts: 

economic imperatives tend to dominate in early implementation phases, potentially overshadowing long-term environmental 

commitments (Ciroth et al., 2011; Bottero et al., 2018). This temporal imbalance illustrates the critical importance of timing in 

SIA effectiveness (RQ2): early-phase stakeholder engagement prioritised employment concerns, shaping the overall value 

distribution and demonstrating how the timing of SIA application influences which outcomes receive emphasis. The cross-

analysis between SROI outcomes and stakeholder dynamics reveals how different value types align with stakeholder power 

configurations. Stakeholder salience analysis guided by Mitchell et al.’s (1997) framework revealed the complex power 

dynamics and evolving roles of key actors. Project development companies have emerged as definitive stakeholders, leveraging 

their substantial investment capacity (€43,202,687), regulatory legitimacy, and project timelines to shape outcomes across 

dimensions. Municipal authorities and regional governments acted as dominant stakeholders, exercising influence through 

regulatory oversight and democratic mandates and ensuring alignment with public infrastructure and accessibility goals. 

Environmental agencies, also classified as dominant stakeholders, have extended their roles beyond regulatory enforcement to 

proactive advocacy for sustainability, shaping outcomes such as greenspace preservation, energy efficiency, and biodiversity 

protection. This stakeholder configuration directly correlates with the SROI outcome distribution: definitive stakeholders 

(development companies) drove employment outcomes (57% of total impact), while dominant stakeholders (municipal and 

environmental authorities) influenced infrastructure and environmental outcomes, demonstrating how stakeholder salience 

determines impact materialization. Table III presents the full stakeholder categorisation. This layered configuration of power 



 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

27 

and legitimacy underscores how stakeholder positioning directly affects which impacts materialise, and how priorities evolve 

in contested phases of project implementation. 

 

Table III. Stakeholders according to salience mode. 

Stakeholders Role Power Legitimacy Urgency Salience 
level Category 

Private company created for the project by an 
international investment company Investor x x x On hold Definitive 

Municipalities Enabler x x   On hold Dominating 
Residents Target     x Latent Applicants 
Hotel guests Target     x Latent Applicants 
Hotel employees Workers     x Latent Applicants 
Tuscany region Enabler x x   On hold Dominating 
Environmental superintendence Enabler x x   On hold Dominating 
MIBAC – Ministry of Cultural Heritage and 
Activities Enabler x x   On hold Dominating 

Associations Interest group     x Latent Applicants 
Company that manages the port Enabler x x   On hold Dominating 
Engineering company Designer x x x Important Definitive 
Architecture and design company specialised in 
complex buildings Designer x x x Important Definitive 

Designer team Designer x x x Important Definitive 
Source: Authors’ elaboration 

 

As the project evolved, the latent stakeholders, including residents and future hotel employees, experienced significant shifts 

in salience. Initial concerns about environmental and social disruptions transitioned into active engagement and the co-creation 

of outcomes, such as employment opportunities and improved community amenities. Environmental associations, which were 

initially latent, demonstrated their capacity to drive significant changes through legal interventions that led to key environmental 

design modifications, highlighting the fluidity of stakeholder influence. Enabling stakeholders such as port management 

companies facilitates the integration of transport and connectivity solutions and amplifies economic and social outcomes 

through collaboration. Definitive stakeholders, including design and engineering firms, play pivotal roles in integrating 

technological innovation with local cultural elements and sustainability priorities, ensuring that project outcomes are aligned 

with regional identity and values. 

Temporal impact mapping provides the clearest evidence for addressing RQ2 and RQ3. Temporal impact mapping 

contextualised these dynamics across the awareness (2015–2023), implementation (2024–2026), and use (2027 onwards) 

phases, revealing how the outcomes emerged and evolved over time. Table IV shows the phase-wise distribution of outcomes.  

This temporal analysis demonstrates that timing plays a decisive role in SIA effectiveness (RQ2): early-phase application during 



 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

28 

the awareness stage generated 23 outcomes and enabled project modifications, while later implementation would have reduced 

SIA's conflict-mediation potential. During the awareness phase, intensive stakeholder engagement generated 23 outcomes, 

including 12 social impacts, which shaped the project trajectory through modifications, such as reduced hotel capacity and 

enhanced environmental features. These modifications illustrate how lifecycle thinking integration enhances SIA effectiveness 

(RQ3) by enabling adaptive responses to emerging stakeholder concerns across project phases. The implementation phase 

recorded the highest concentration of economic outcomes (15), driven by construction activities, supply chain engagement, and 

activation of investment flows. In the use phase, the project exhibited a more balanced distribution of outcomes, with social 

(10), economic (12), and environmental (5) impacts reflecting operational maturity and sustained multidimensional value 

creation. The relative delay in environmental outcomes reflects both planning constraints and the subordinate position of 

ecological priorities in stakeholder negotiations—a finding aligned with Saenz’s (2021) observations on outcome sequencing 

and institutional inertia. 

 

Table IV. Distribution of outcomes across project lifecycle stages 

Lifecycle stage Social impact type Number of outcomes 

Awareness 

Social 12 

Economic 8 

Environmental 3 

Implementation 

Social 8 

Economic 15 

Environmental 4 

Use 

Social 10 

Economic 12 

Environmental 5 

End 

Social 5 

Economic 6 

Environmental 2 

Source: Authors’ elaboration 

 

 



 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

29 

Although environmental outcomes were numerically fewer, their integration with other value dimensions amplified their 

impact. Features such as energy-efficient systems and rainwater harvesting provide operational cost savings, environmental 

conservation benefits, and community acceptance, demonstrating Emerson’s (2003) concept of blended value creation in which 

distinct value streams mutually reinforce and magnify. The relatively constant presence of environmental outcomes across 

phases highlights a project’s commitment to sustainability, supporting Ciroth et al.’s (2011) emphasis on lifecycle-integrated 

environmental considerations. 

Stakeholder relationships evolve dynamically across project phases. Environmental associations, initially adversarial, 

transitioned to collaborative roles, influencing sustainability features and aligning themselves with broader project goals. To 

ensure community-centric outcomes, municipal authorities expanded their influence from regulatory compliance to active 

participation in infrastructure design. Collaboration between design firms and local stakeholders generated innovations, such 

as expanded rainwater systems, that supported both operational needs and community green spaces, fostering shared value 

creation across social, economic, and environmental dimensions. These collaborative innovations illustrate how stakeholder-

led adjustments can simultaneously serve operational efficiency, environmental resilience, and social acceptance—key 

components of integrated regeneration (Arena et al., 2015; Nicholls, 2018). 

The integration of these analytical frameworks reveals the sophisticated mechanisms that drive social value creation in urban 

regeneration. The project’s ability to balance diverse stakeholder interests, adapt through temporal insights, and generate a 

broad spectrum of impacts underscores the transformative potential of strategic urban interventions. However, the concentration 

of value in certain dimensions (e.g., employment) at specific phases also suggests the need for stronger institutional mechanisms 

to rebalance attention across social, environmental, and financial priorities over time. 

This analysis highlights the importance of life cycle thinking, multi-stakeholder engagement, and systemic alignment in 

maximising public value and fostering sustainable urban regeneration. This multidimensional approach to value assessment 

reflects emerging trends in social responsibility measurements. Das and Uma Rao (2013) highlighted that performance 

evaluation in socially oriented projects requires frameworks that can capture both quantitative and qualitative social impacts 

across different stakeholder groups. 

 

6. Discussion: Advancing Urban Regeneration Evaluation 
This study addressed three research questions concerning the role of social impact assessment (SIA) in urban regeneration: how 

SIA can support stakeholder mediation; how timing affects its ability to do so; and how integrating lifecycle thinking enhances 

its relevance. The most important findings demonstrate that: SIA, when operationalised through stakeholder salience analysis 

and temporal mapping, does more than quantify outcomes—it functions as an infrastructure for negotiation and realignment. 

First, SIA's mediation potential is evidenced by the project's early application which surfaced latent conflicts and supported 

iterative redesign, illustrating its mediating potential. Second, timing emerged as the most critical factor: the shifting salience 

of actors and outcomes across project phases confirmed the need for adaptive engagement strategies, with early-phase 

application generating 23 outcomes and enabling project modifications that prevented conflicts. Third, lifecycle thinking 



 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

30 

integration proved essential: by embedding lifecycle thinking into SROI, the study captured how social, economic, and 

environmental value unfold and interact over time, enabling a longitudinal and multidimensional perspective on impact creation 

that revealed temporal interdependencies previously invisible in static approaches. 

 

Theoretical Contribution 1: Dynamic Stakeholder Salience Integration. 

This research makes a multifaceted contribution to urban regeneration literature by emphasising the dynamic interplay between 

stakeholder salience, lifecycle thinking, and social value creation. 

However, unlike traditional stakeholder theories, which treat stakeholder influence as relatively static (Freeman, 1984), this 

study highlights the evolving salience of power, legitimacy, and urgency attributes across project phases. This dynamic 

perspective aligns with Crosby and Bryson's (2005) concept of a 'shared-power world', underscoring the need for flexible 

governance structures in complex, multi-stakeholder interventions. 

 

Theoretical Contribution 2: Temporal Value Construction Framework. 

Building on Arvidson et al.'s (2013) conceptualisation of social impact as a social construction, this study demonstrates how 

value interpretations shift temporally across life cycle stages. For instance, stakeholder groups initially focused on potential 

risks during the awareness phase and transitioned to emphasising tangible benefits during the implementation and use phases. 

These findings align with Dentoni et al.'s (2016) assertion that cross-sector partnerships must adapt over time to maintain 

strategic alignment and collaboration. Furthermore, the interplay of hard, soft, and cashable outcomes reflects Emerson's (2003) 

blended value proposition, providing empirical evidence of how different forms of value interact to reinforce each other across 

temporal dimensions. 

 

Theoretical Contribution 3: Lifecycle-Informed Impact Assessment. 

The research also advances lifecycle assessment principles (Jørgensen et al., 2008; Weidema, 2006) by offering a framework 

that systematically captures temporal interdependencies among outcomes. By integrating life cycle thinking with stakeholder 

salience analysis, this study bridges a critical gap in traditional SROI methodologies (Nicholls, 2017, 2018), offering new 

pathways for evaluating complex social interventions. 

 

Practical Contribution 1: Process-Oriented Evaluation Framework. 

This contribution gains further nuance when contrasted with recent empirical literature. Tate et al. (2023), for instance, 

demonstrate the promise of SROI for evaluating regeneration outcomes in real settings, but also document its fragility when 

confronted with sparse or fragmented data. Unlike their study, which emphasises final outcomes, our framework brings into 

focus the processual dimension—how salience and value attribution co-evolve—thus offering a dynamic rather than static 

reading of social return. 

 



 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

31 

Practical Contribution 2: Integrated Stakeholder Analysis Tools. 

Wang et al. (2022) apply social network analysis to map stakeholder influence in urban regeneration. While effective in tracing 

relational dynamics, their approach lacks a normative frame for evaluating which actors matter and when. In contrast, the 

salience-based method adopted here not only maps actors but qualifies their roles over time through the integration with impact 

trajectories.  

 

Practical Contribution 3: Dynamic Governance Architecture. 

Bottero et al. (2018) use PROMETHEE to expose the difficulty of managing trade-offs between economic, environmental, and 

social priorities. While insightful in supporting decision-making, their framework remains decision-centric and lacks the 

backward link to stakeholder dynamics. The current study complements this by situating trade-offs within governance processes 

and stakeholder configurations, making distributional tensions both visible and accountable. In sum, this study moves beyond 

technical or descriptive applications of SROI by showing how value can be structured and interpreted within a dynamic 

governance environment. This contributes both to theory (integrating lifecycle thinking and salience) and to practice (designing 

more reflexive evaluation architectures). Moreover, this work reinforces the insights of Arena et al. (2015) on aligning 

measurement systems with organisational logics, and complements Grieco et al. (2015) by advancing toward a cluster-crossing 

framework that combines stakeholder participation, monetisation, and lifecycle orientation. 

Based on these theoretical and practical contributions, the case study evidence provides actionable insights for practitioners 

implementing integrated SIA frameworks in urban regeneration contexts. In Appendix A there are implementation guidelines 

that synthesise the key findings into operational protocols that address timing, stakeholder salience management, and conflict 

mediation strategies across project phases. 

 

7. Conclusion, Limitations and Future Directions 

This study's central contribution lies in demonstrating that integrated SIA frameworks can effectively mediate stakeholder 

dynamics in urban regeneration through three key mechanisms.  

Returning to the three research questions that guided this study: SIA methodologies contribute to stakeholder mediation through 

comprehensive value mapping that addresses heterogeneous priorities (RQ1). Timing proves critical, with early-phase 

application generating 23 outcomes and enabling project modifications that prevent conflicts (RQ2). Lifecycle thinking 

integration captures temporal interdependencies and enables adaptive responses unavailable to static approaches (RQ3). 

Study limitations and their implications for future research require careful consideration. As a single-case design situated in a 

specific regional and institutional context, its findings are not immediately generalisable. The framework's transferability faces 

significant risks in contexts with less collaborative governance structures. The Tuscan institutional environment features 

established multi-stakeholder dialogue traditions and regional development frameworks that facilitate the salience-based 

approach. In contexts with more adversarial stakeholder relations, fragmented municipal authority, or limited participatory 

democracy traditions, the framework's conflict-mediation effectiveness may be substantially reduced. Power imbalances may 



 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

32 

prevent meaningful stakeholder engagement, while weak institutional capacity could undermine the temporal mapping essential 

to the approach. While triangulation across document analysis, stakeholder interviews, and proxy modeling increases 

robustness, the central role of one lead actor may introduce narrative bias. Additionally, the focus on a single project type (hotel 

conversion) limits transferability to other regeneration contexts such as mixed-use developments or social housing projects. 

Future research should pursue three specific directions to advance this field. First, comparative studies across different urban 

contexts (post-industrial cities, developing urban areas, historic districts) would test the framework's applicability and reveal 

context-specific adaptations needed. Second, longitudinal tracking of regeneration projects from conception to post-completion 

phases would provide deeper insights into how stakeholder salience and value creation evolve over extended timeframes, 

potentially revealing cycles or patterns not visible in single-phase studies. Third, methodological innovations should focus on 

developing digital tools and platforms that can support real-time stakeholder engagement and adaptive evaluation, potentially 

incorporating artificial intelligence to identify emerging stakeholder concerns and predict conflict points before they fully 

materialize. 

Roadmap for Comparative Multi-Case Research. A systematic research programme should prioritise: (1) Cross-contextual 

validation across governance regimes—comparing collaborative versus adversarial municipal environments to establish 

boundary conditions and adaptation requirements; (2) Sectoral diversity testing—applying the framework across hotel 

conversions, mixed-use developments, social housing, and infrastructure projects to identify sector-specific modifications; (3) 

Institutional capacity assessment—examining how varying levels of municipal expertise, stakeholder organisation capacity, 

and participatory democracy traditions affect framework implementation; (4) Temporal scaling—tracking multiple projects 

through complete lifecycles to establish patterns of stakeholder salience evolution and value creation trajectories; (5) 

Methodological refinement—developing standardised protocols for stakeholder identification, salience assessment, and 

outcome mapping that maintain contextual sensitivity while enabling cross-case comparison. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

33 

APPENDIX A: Implementation Guidelines for Policy‑makers and Urban Developers 

Phase 1: Early Stakeholder Mapping (Awareness Stage) 

● Conduct comprehensive stakeholder identification using power-legitimacy-urgency analysis 

● Prioritize engagement with high-salience actors (municipal authorities, environmental associations, community 

groups) 

● Apply SROI outcome mapping during project design phase to surface latent conflicts early 

● Establish baseline stakeholder expectations across social, economic, and environmental dimensions 

 

Phase 2: Adaptive Engagement Strategy (Implementation Stage) 

● Monitor stakeholder salience shifts as project progresses through lifecycle phases 

● Adjust engagement intensity based on evolving power-legitimacy-urgency configurations 

● Implement iterative project modifications based on stakeholder feedback mechanisms 

● Track outcome distribution to ensure balanced value creation (target: ~35% hard, 30% soft, 35% cashable) 

 

Phase 3: Temporal Value Tracking (Use Stage) 

● Establish monitoring systems for long-term impact measurement across stakeholder groups 

● Document value attribution evolution through systematic data collection protocols 

● Maintain stakeholder dialogue platforms to capture changing priorities and concerns 

● Use lifecycle thinking to anticipate and manage temporal interdependencies 

 

Critical Success Factors: 

● Early-phase SIA application generates 40% more outcomes than late-phase implementation 

● Municipal leadership capacity essential for coordinating multi-stakeholder dynamics 

● Environmental integration requires dedicated technical expertise and community liaison 

● Conflict-mediation effectiveness depends on transparent value distribution mechanisms 

 

APPENDIX B: Outcome (55) 
Increased quality and usage of water Decreased noise pollution 
Rainwater reuse for green areas Decreased wasted time to find a parking spot 
Reduction in consumption and energy waste Better access to alternative transport service 
Reduction in energy waste consumption Decreased incidents and road rage 
New trees and green areas near the hotel Increased tourists in the port during the summer 
Hotel waste treatment People can walk and be healthy 
CO2 reduction from a reduction in room waste People and tourist can know better the place in which they are 
CO2 reduction due to better air-conditioning Increased access to information about local events 
Collective savings due to resource scarcity Increased capacity to promote educational activities near the hotel area 
CO2 reduction from a reduction in food waste Promotion of respectful behaviour about the environment 
Reduction in carbon emission and km for food transit Increased social inclusion and customer satisfaction 
CO2 reduction due to reduced oil consumption Increased capacity to practice sports and other physical activities 



 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

34 

New seasonal workers for managing the info point Being more relaxed and healthier 
Working positions permanently opened Change perception in green spaces 
New seasonal workers for managing the building site (full-time) Better home-work route 
New seasonal workers for managing the building site (part-time) Events and activities in the park 
Reduced public expenditure on unemployment subsidy Cultural activities in the park 
Young workers entering the job market Being more relaxed when outside in appropriate places 
New seasonal workers for managing the restaurant Schools can promote outdoor activities and lessons 
Working positions permanently opened (restaurant) Feeling safe outside lead to increased outdoor habits 
Working positions permanently opened (bar) More equilibrated lunch at the workplace 
New seasonal workers for managing the bar Better perception of the hotel's objectives 
Increased possibility to work near home Increased consciousness about food waste 
Young workers entering the job market Increased consumption of fruits and vegetables 
Working positions permanently opened for managing the hotel Increased spending in the local market 
New seasonal workers for managing the hotel Reduced spending for not biological food 
Working positions permanently opened for managing the shuttle service 

Increased financial value of properties Decreased time and costs to transport materials 
Source: Authors’ elaboration 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

35 

8. References 

Ansell, C., Boon, W., Bryson, J., Crosby, B., Ferlie, E., Grotenbreg, S., Jukić, T., Kitchener, M., Meijer, A., Ongaro, E., 

Pluchinotta, I., Sancino, A., Sørensen, E., Torfing, J., Van Gestel, N., & Williams, H. (2024). Strategic management of 

the transition to public sector co-creation. Policy Press. 

Arena, M., Azzone, G., & Bengo, I. (2015). Performance measurement for social enterprises. Voluntas: International Journal 

of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(2), 649–672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9436-8 

Arli, D. I., & Cadeaux, J. (2014). Drivers of corporate community involvement and challenges in measuring its impact. Social 

Responsibility Journal, 10(1), 161–183. DOI: 10.1108/SRJ-10-2012-0116. 

Arvidson, M., Lyon, F., McKay, S., & Moro, D. (2013). Valuing the social? The nature and controversies of measuring social 

return on investment (SROI). Voluntary Sector Review, 4(1), 3–18. DOI: 10.1332/204080513X661554. 

Bailey, N. (2012). The role, organisation and contribution of community enterprise to urban regeneration policy in the UK. 

Progress in Planning, 77(1), 1–35. DOI: 10.1016/j.progress.2011.11.001. 

Becker, H. A., & Vanclay, F. (2003). The international handbook of social impact assessment: Conceptual and methodological 

advances. Edward Elgar Publishing. 

Ben-Akiva, M. E., Toledo, T., Santos, J., Cox, N., Zhao, F., Lee, Y.J., & Marzano, V. (2016). Freight data collection using 

GPS and web-based surveys: Insights from US truck drivers’ survey and perspectives for urban freight. Case Studies on 

Transport Policy, 4(1), 38–44. 

Bhatnagar, A., Harri, A., Levanen, J., & Niinimaki, K. (2024). Exploring the role of social life cycle assessment in transition 

to circular economy: A systematic review. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 207, 107702. 

Biancone, P., Secinaro, S., Brescia, V., & Iannaci, D. (2019). The popular financial reporting between theory and evidence. 

International Business Research, 12(7), 45–56. DOI: 10.5539/ibr.v12n7p45. 

Biondi, L., & Bracci, E. (2018). Sustainability, popular and integrated reporting in the public sector: A fad and fashion 

perspective. Sustainability, 10(9), 3112. DOI: 10.3390/su10093112. 

Bottero, M., D’Alpaos, C., & Oppio, A. (2018). Multicriteria evaluation of urban regeneration processes: An application of 

PROMETHEE method in Northern Italy. Advances in Operations Research, 2018, Article 9276075. 

https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9276075 

Bryson, J. M., Barberg, B., & Crosby, B. C. (2024). The future of public service and strategy management-at-scale. Policy 

Quarterly, 20(1), 50–59. DOI: 10.26686/pq.v20i1.9052.  

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: Needed and 

challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647–663. DOI: 10.1111/puar.12432. 

Ciroth, A., Finkbeiner, M., Hildenbrand, J., Klöpffer, W., Mazijn, B., Prakash, S., Sonnemann, G., Traverso, M., Ugaya, C., & 

Vickery/Niederman, G. (2011). Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment: Making informed choices on products. 

eBook edition, UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2011%20-

%20Towards%20LCSA.pdf 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9436-8
https://doi.org/10.1332/204080513X661554
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2011.11.001
https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v12n7p45
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093112
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9276075
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9276075
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9276075
https://doi.org/10.26686/pq.v20i1.9052
https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432


 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

36 

Clark, C., Rosenzweig, W., Long, D., & Olsen, S. (2004). Double Bottom Line Project Report: Assessing social impact in 

double bottom line ventures. University of California Berkeley. 

Colantonio, A., & Dixon, T. (2009). Measuring socially sustainable urban regeneration in Europe. Oxford Institute for 

Sustainable Development. 

Cordes, J. J. (2017). Using cost-benefit analysis and social return on investment to evaluate the impact of social enterprise: 

Promises, implementation, and limitations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 64, 98–104. DOI: 

10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.11.008. 

Corvo, L., Pastore, L., Mastrodascio, M., & Cepiku, D. (2022). The social return on investment model: A systematic literature 

review. Meditari Accountancy Research, 30(7), 49–86. DOI: 10.1108/MEDAR-05-2021-1307. 

Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2005). Leadership for the common good: Tackling public problems in a shared-power world. 

John Wiley & Sons. 

Das, P. K., & Uma Rao, S. P. (2013). Performance evaluation of socially responsible mutual funds using style analysis. Social 

Responsibility Journal, 9(1), 109–123. DOI: 10.1108/17471111311307840. 

Dentoni, D., Bitzer, V., & Pascucci, S. (2016). Cross-sector partnerships and the co-creation of dynamic capabilities for 

stakeholder orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(1), 35–53. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-015-2728-8. 

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. DOI: 

10.2307/258557. 

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of 

Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2007.24160888. 

Emerson, J. (2003). The blended value proposition: Integrating social and financial returns. California Management Review, 

45(4), 35–51. DOI: 10.2307/41166187. 

Ferris, S. P., & Rykaczewski, K. P. (1986). Social investing and portfolio management. Business and Society, 25(1), 1–7. DOI: 

10.1177/000765038602500101. 

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. DOI: 

10.1177/1077800405284363. 

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman. 

Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 897–920. DOI: 

10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015. 

Grieco, C., Michelini, L., & Iasevoli, G. (2015). Measuring value creation in social enterprises: A cluster analysis of social 

impact assessment models. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(6), 1173–1193. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014555986 

Grana, F., Arena, M., & Busco, C. (2025). Addressing systemic challenges: The role of accounting and accountability practices. 

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2022-

6175 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.11.008
https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-05-2021-1307
https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111311307840
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2728-8
https://doi.org/10.2307/258557
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888
https://doi.org/10.2307/41166187
https://doi.org/10.1177/000765038602500101
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015
https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2022-6175
https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2022-6175


 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

37 

Healey, P. (2006). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. MacMillan International Higher Education. 

Hinson, R. E., & Ndhlovu, T. P. (2011). Conceptualising corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social investment 

(CSI): The South African context. Social Responsibility Journal, 7(3), 332–346. DOI: 10.1108/17471111111154491. 

Jørgensen, A., Le Bocq, A., Nazarkina, L., & Hauschild, M. (2008). Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. The 

International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(2), 96–103. DOI: 10.1065/lca2007.11.367. 

Lumpkin, G. T., Bacq, S., & Pidduck, R. J. (2018). Where change happens: Community-level phenomena in social 

entrepreneurship research. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(1), 24–50. DOI: 10.1111/jsbm.12379. 

MacCallum, D., Moulaert, F., Hillier, J., & Vicari Haddock, S. (2009). Social innovation and territorial development. Ashgate 

Publishing. 

Manring, N., West, P. C., & Bidol, P. (1990). Social impact assessment and environmental conflict management. Environmental 

Impact Assessment Review, 10, (3), 302–310. 

Mill, G. A., & Holland, L. (2005). Socially responsible investment, information and the myth of underperformance. Social 

Responsibility Journal, 1(1/2), 91–97. DOI: 10.1108/eb045799. 

Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (Eds.). (2010). Encyclopedia of case study research. Sage Publications. DOI: 

10.4135/9781412957397. 

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the 

principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. DOI: 10.2307/259247. 

Neville, B. A., Bell, S. J., & Whitwell, G. J. (2011). Stakeholder salience revisited: Refining, redefining, and refueling an 

underdeveloped conceptual tool. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(3), 357–378. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-011-0818-9. 

Nicholls, A. (2018). A general theory of social impact accounting: Materiality, uncertainty and empowerment. Journal of Social 

Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 132–153. DOI: 10.1080/19420676.2018.1452785. 

Nicholls, J. (2017). Social return on investment-development and convergence. Evaluation and Program Planning, 64, 127–

135. DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.11.011. 

Obalola, M., & Adelopo, I. (2012). Measuring the perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility in financial services: 

A narrative-inductive approach. Social Responsibility Journal, 8(3), 418–432. DOI: 10.1108/17471111211247992. 

Premyanov, N., Roma-Athanasiadou, E., Metta, J., Tsoniotis, N., Angelidou, M., & Tsolakis, A. C. (2024). Circular 

entrepreneurship via makerspaces towards fostering sustainable cities: A mixed-method approach with case studies. 

Journal of Circular Economy, 2(3), 1-31. 

Ragozino, S. (2019). Navigating neo-liberal urbanism in the UK. Could a social entrepreneur be considered an activist planner?. 

In Calabrò, F., Della Spina, L., & Bevilacqua, C. (Eds.), New metropolitan perspectives (pp. 625–634). Springer 

International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-92099-3_70. 

Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2021). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological (2nd 

ed.). Sage Publications. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111111154491
https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.11.367
https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12379
https://doi.org/10.1108/eb045799
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397
https://doi.org/10.2307/259247
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0818-9
https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2018.1452785
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.11.011
https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111211247992
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92099-3_70


 
 

 
 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/11830 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

38 

Saenz, C. (2020). A framework proposal for regional sustainability assessment: The case of the mining industry. Environmental 

Development, 34, 100513. 

Saenz, C. S. (2021). A new mapping outcome method to measure social return on investment: A case study in Peru. Social 

Responsibility Journal, 17(4), 562–577. DOI: 10.1108/SRJ-04-2018-0097. 

Sairinen, R. (2010). Special issue: Conflict mediation and social impact assessment. In Environmental conflict mediation and 

social impact assessment: Approaches for enhanced environmental governance? (Conference held on 14–15 February 

2008 organised by Helsinki, Finland). Elsevier. 

Sager, T. (2016). Activist planning: A response to the woes of neo-liberalism? European Planning Studies, 24, 1262–1280. 

DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2016.1168786. 

Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24. DOI: 

10.5465/amj.2007.24160882.  

Tate, C., O’Neill, C., Tran, N., Heron, L., Kee, F., Tully, M. A., ... & Hunter, R. F. (2023). The social return on investment of 

an urban regeneration project using real-world data: The Connswater Community Greenway, Belfast, UK. Cities & 

Health, 7(5), 699–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2021.1929411 

Toledo, T., Ben-Akiva, M., Santos, J., Cox, N., & Zhao, F. (2010). Urban freight tour models: State of the art and practice. 

Proceedings of the Commodity Flow Survey Workshop. Irvine, CA. 

van der Veen, S., van Rechteren Limpurg, E., Asveld, L., & Chandrasekaran, S. (2025). Strengthening social life cycle 

assessment for a just bioeconomy: Insights from Namibia's bush-based value chains. Sustainable Production and 

Consumption, 45, 1-16. 

Wang, Y., Yao, Y., Zhang, Y., & Xiang, L. (2022). A framework of stakeholder relationship analysis for an urban regeneration 

project based on social network analysis: A dynamic perspective. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 148(4), 

04022035. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000861 

Weidema, B. P. (2006). The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. The International 

Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(S1), 89–96. DOI: 10.1065/lca2006.04.016. 

Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of 

making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244. DOI: 

10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017. 

Yates, B. T., & Marra, M. (2017). Social return on investment (SROI): problems, solutions . . . and is SROI a good investment? 

Evaluation and Program Planning, 64, 136–144. 

Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications. 

Zhou, J., Love, P. E., Matthews, J., Lavender, M., & Olatunji, O. (2018) Enhancing sustainability through understanding 

stakeholder perspectives on urban regeneration projects. Sustainability, 10(9), 3155. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-04-2018-0097
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1168786
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160882
https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2021.1929411
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000861
https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.016
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017

