In decision-making processes for urban planning and design, evaluation can be considered a relevant tool to build choices, to recognize values, interests and needs, and to explore the different aspects that can influence decisions. Evaluation can be considered a process to integrate approaches, methods and models, able to support the different needs of the decision-making process itself. According to Trochim and Donnelly (2006), it is possible to define a planning-evaluation cycle with various phases requested by both planners and evaluators. The first phase of such a cycle, the so-called planning phase, is designed in order to elaborate a set of potential actions, programs, or technologies, and select the best ones for implementation. The main stages are related to (1) the formulation of the problem, issue, or concern; (2) the broad conceptualization of the main alternatives to be considered; (3) the detailing of these alternatives and their potential implications; (4) the evaluation of the alternatives and the selection of the preferable one; and (5) the implementation of the selected alternative. These stages are considered inherent to planning, but they need a relevant evaluation work, useful in conceptualization and detailing, and in assessing alternatives and making a choice of the preferable one. The evaluation phase also involves a sequence of stages that includes: (1) the formulation of the major goals and objectives; (2) the conceptualization and operationalization of the major components of the evaluation (program, participants, setting, criteria, measures, etc.); (3) the design of the evaluation, detailing how these components will be coordinated; the analysis of the information, both qualitative and quantitative; and (4) the utilization of the evaluation results. Indeed, evaluation is intrinsic to all types of decision-making and can take different meanings and roles within decision-making processes, especially if it is related to spatial planning (Alexander, 2006). ”Evaluation in planning” or ”evaluation within planning” seems to better interpret the concept of planning-evaluation proposed by Lichfield (1996) where the binomial name makes explicit the close interaction and reciprocal framing of evaluation and planning: evaluation is conceived as deeply embedded in planning, affecting planning, and evolving with it (Cerreta, 2010). Indeed, the evolution of evaluation methods reflects their evolving relationship with the planning process and the way in which they interact with the diversity and multiplicity of domains and values. To identify an analytic and evaluative structure able to integrate different purposes and multidimensional values within the decision-making processes means to develop evaluation frameworks not focusing only on the environmental, social and economic effects of different options, but also considering the nature of the stakes, selecting priorities and values in a multidimensional perspective. It is crucial to structure complex decision-making processes oriented to an integrated planning, that can support the selection, the monitoring and the management of different resources, and the interaction among decision-makers, decision-takers, stakeholders and local community
