Public–Private Partnerships in Urban Regeneration Projects: The Italian Context and the Case of “Porta a Mare” in Livorno

Abstract

Urban regeneration projects have been used in urban planning in different cities to recover strategic areas and combat new land consumption. Often, Public–Private Partnership (PPP) agreements are signed to meet the demands of these projects. In the Italian case, PPP arrangements can be one of three types, namely, contractual, institutionalized, and negotiable. Urban regeneration, in the Italian context, aims to increase the value of the existing infrastructure. Despite this, there are several obstacles to how these practices are developed, which demand more attention to be paid to the enabling environment and the Critical Success Factors (CSFs) that can improve the performance of these practices. Based on this, this study aims to analyze the Italian context of PPP arrangements in urban regeneration projects and the specific case of the Livorno “Porta a Mare”. To this end, the study adopts a previously established CSFs framework. The data analyzed are derived from secondary sources obtained through documentary collection and primary sources obtained through interviews. Regarding the PPP process, the results indicate the commitment of the public and private sectors, despite limitations in the selection process and the lack of public participation. Concerning urban regeneration, although not yet completed, the project allocates a significant area of waterfront to urban use.

1. Introduction

Urban regeneration has been included in the urban planning of different cities, either as a response to observed urban degradation and decline or as part of an attempt to give new functions to obsolete areas and control urban growth [1].

Notwithstanding its enormous importance in today’s urban contexts, urban regeneration is not a simple task, and, in many cases, urban regeneration projects are complex, involving different types of risks and high investments. Furthermore, it is known that the public sector, as the provider of several types of infrastructure and public services, does not have the resources to meet all of today’s urban demands. In this sense, the actions of the private sector through Public–Private Partnership (PPP) agreements can be strategic in the context of urban regeneration and the development of urban regeneration projects.

In Italy, urban regeneration is often associated with the enhancement of existing infrastructure [2]. In the Italian context, PPP arrangements can be one of three types: contractual PPPs, institutional PPPs, and negotiable PPPs [3].

However, implementing PPP arrangements in urban regeneration projects is controversial, and the initial objectives are not always achieved. Despite sounding good in theory, in many cases, these projects do not meet their initial objectives, do not achieve the public service objectives proposed, and have negative consequences, both in financial and social terms. In addition, the literature on PPP agreements in urban regeneration focuses mainly on topics related to public policy, projects and governance issues. Issues related to contracts and management constitute a gap in the literature [1].

Based on this, the present study focuses on PPP arrangements in urban regeneration projects from a perspective not restricted to urban planning but including important contract and management aspects of these practices. The study starts with the assumption that it is important to understand the best practices for these partnerships to work effectively, which would contribute to the achievement of better results from an urban planning perspective as well.

Best practices can be observed if the Critical Success Factors (CSFs) are followed [4]. CSFs are elements, conditions, events and activities that must be considered so that an organization or a project can achieve its goals, ensuring its success [5,6].

Despite this, studies on CSFs in PPPs in urban regeneration projects are limited. Studies that analyze specific contexts or cases, which could benefit the understanding of these practices, are also limited.

In this sense, this study aims to analyze the Italian context concerning PPP agreements in urban regeneration projects and a specific case of an urban regeneration project carried out through a PPP agreement—the Livorno Port project, called “Porta a Mare”, which is responsible for regenerating a sprawling industrial area and giving it new urban functions.

The analysis aims to identify which critical success factors are observed in the Italian context and in the specific case study, and which factors can be improved. Meeting the proposed objective, the study also aims to answer the following research questions:

• How are PPP arrangements understood and applied in urban regeneration projects in the Italian context?
• Which CSFs are most relevant in the Italian context? Which factors could be better addressed?
• Which CSFs are most relevant in the “Porta a Mare” case study? Which factors could be better addressed?

To this end, the study uses a previously established framework, which considers clusters related to the external environment related to the PPP projects—a country’s enabling environment that facilitates or does not facilitate the implementation of partnerships and exogenous factors found in that country—and the internal environment of the PPP projects—referring to the partnership itself and its different phases [7].

Using that framework and analyzing the country’s context and a case study, this research contributes to the literature on PPP arrangements in urban regeneration projects, increasing knowledge on the subject via a critical analysis of a real context. Furthermore, from a practical point of view, the study provides an interesting example of how the framework can be used to identify points of success and critical points in a specific context. Through the identification of these points in a specific context, the study makes it possible to identify the best practices that can be incorporated into PPP agreements in urban regeneration projects. In this sense, this research can be useful for academics involved in the topic and for professionals in both the public and private sectors.

The study consists of five sections, namely, this brief introduction, Section 2 on the research methodology, Section 3 on the analysis of the Italian context and the analysis of the case study, Section 4 on the discussion of the results obtained and Section 5 on the conclusions drawn from the research.

2. Materials and Methods

The study aims to analyze the Italian context of PPP agreements in urban regeneration projects, also delving into a specific case of a PPP agreement for the urban regeneration of a waterfront area—the case of the Port of Livorno and the “Porta a Mare” partnership. The analysis focuses on the CSFs observed in the Italian context and the PPP analyzed, and the issues that could be improved.

To this end, the study uses a previously established framework of CSFs in PPP agreements for urban regeneration projects [7]. The framework considers five distinct clusters; two relate to the external environment, and three to the internal environment of the partnership. The external environment includes the enabling environment and exogenous factors. The internal environment includes the three phases of the partnership: the preparation phase, the procurement phase, and the contract management phase (Figure 1).

The enabling environment consists of the entire environment external to the PPP projects, but which can be controlled in such a way as to facilitate the development of partnerships. Concerning the enabling environment, six factors were identified, as follows:

• Favorable legal and regulatory framework. Laws and regulations that follow the country’s legislation at different levels and that facilitate the development of partnerships, protecting the rights and interests of all parties;
• Government support and guarantees. Government support in the form of guarantees to ensure the financial viability and creditworthiness of the project;
• Leadership focus. The capacity of the public sector to exercise its leadership role in implementing the partnership;
• Political support and stability. Political stability at different levels beyond the period of a political mandate that can guarantee the continuity of the partnership;
• Standardization procedure for PPP projects. The standardization of the process to assure the public sector that the partnership is carried out in accordance with governmental and local objectives and to facilitate the private sector to prepare the partnership;
• Well-organized and committed public agency. An organized and committed public body, with technical capacity and experience in partnerships.

Exogenous factors include factors that cannot be controlled, but which also influence the development of PPP projects. The following factors were identified:

• Available financial and capital markets, which allow for low financing costs and offer a diversified range of financial products;
• Community support. Acceptance, understanding and participation from the community are important to ensuring the smooth running of the PPP, avoiding delays, facilitating the hiring of local labor, providing projects valued by citizens, managing expectations, and mitigating disagreements;
• Favorable socio-economic factors. A favorable socio-economic scenario in which the public sector and the population have a robust payment capacity, creating an environment that encourages partnerships;
• Stable macroeconomic condition and sound economic policy, capable of creating a stable and growing economic environment, allowing for a low cost of capital and greater certainty in the market, thus reducing risks.

For the preparation phase, the following factors were identified:

• Availability of resources and a skilled and dedicated team of professionals. Because these are long processes, it is necessary to guarantee resources for the PPP during the transition. Furthermore, it is necessary to have a dedicated and competent team of professionals to accompany the entire PPP;
• Clear definition, already in the preparation phase, of the different roles and functions of the actors involved;
• Clear project scope definition and documentation. Clear definition, already in the preparation phase, of the project documentation, including objective, scope, geographical area, technical project, functional responsibilities, and previous experience in similar projects;
• Comprehensive and business viability-orientated project feasibility study A comprehensive business feasibility study of the project, including technical feasibility studies, financial and socio-economic analyses, and realistic assessments of costs and benefits;
• Good governance. Managing the relationships between the different actors involved is important at all stages of the PPP, including the preparatory phase.

For the procurement phase, the following factors were identified:

• Availability of resources and a skilled and dedicated team of professionals. Just as in the preparatory phase, the availability of resources and a team to accompany the PPP is fundamental during the contracting phase;
• Competitive and standardized bidding process. A standardized process must define the rules a priori and present them to bidders, facilitating the preparation of bids and allowing them to be fairly compared. The competitive process, in turn, guarantees the best cost–benefit ratios;
• Transparent procurement process. A transparent procurement process that makes it possible to reduce transaction costs and shorten negotiation and contracting times;
• Trust and openness. Openness between the parties to create trust and a solid relationship, increasing their willingness to cooperate.

Finally, regarding the contract management phase, the following factors were identified:

• Commitment and responsibility of public and private sectors. The commitment of both parties to the objectives of the partnership and the project, including the allocation of their best resources;
• Effective conflict management. Effective and efficient management of the conflict, as early as possible and involving those responsible in both sectors, to avoid aggravating the conflict and compromising the partnership;
• Effective contract management. Effective and efficient contract management by controlling costs, time, security, materials, techniques, and skills so as to avoid renegotiations and compromising the partnership;
• Good governance. Managing the relationships between the different players involved is important at all stages of the PPP, including the contract management phase.
• Open and constant communication among stakeholders. Openness and communication between all the actors involved, not just the public and private sectors, ensuring that the interests and concerns of all parties are managed, increasing trust in and commitment to project management.

The external environment will be used to analyze the Italian context in general, while the PPP’s internal environment will guide the analysis of the specific case study. The data collected for analysis were initially secondary data extracted from documentary analysis. The data include different types of documentation found, including laws on the subject (national, regional, and local), regulations and technical documents, scientific articles, and publicity material about the project. While most documentation is available online, official documents were requested and received directly from the Municipality of Livorno.

To complement the case study analysis, primary data were extracted from interviews conducted with stakeholders involved in the case study. Five interviews were conducted with stakeholders or experts in the Porta a Mare partnership and project in January 2025 (

Table 1. Interviews—interviewee profile.

Interviewee 1	Architect—Autorità di Sistema Portuale del Mar Tirreno Settentrionale (North Tyrrhenian Sea Port System Authority)
Interviewee 2	Architect—Former Head of the Urban Regeneration Sector-Municipality of Livorno
Interviewee 3	Engineer—Former Head of the Urban Planning Sector-Municipality of Livorno
Interviewee 4	Engineer—Engaged in the Participatory Process “il futuro è dietro la Porta! (a Mare)” (the future is behind the Door to Mare, in English), concerning the Porta a Mare area and its surrounding areas.
Interviewee 5	Journalist and writer—Author of a Book About the Porta a Mare area

). The interviews were conducted online in a semi-structured format based on open-ended questions (

Table 2. Interviews—open-ended questions.

How was the Livorno Porta a Mare area before the project?

What was the context of the Orlando Shipyard crisis and the creation of the Porta a Mare PPP?

Which external entities were involved?

How do you evaluate the urban results obtained through the regeneration of the area? What aspects do you see as positive, and what aspects could be better addressed?

How do you evaluate the partnership between the Municipality of Livorno and Azimut Benetti (Livorno, Italy)? What aspects do you see as positive, and what aspects could be better addressed?

Were there any conflicts observed during the development of the Porta a Mare partnership and project? How were these conflicts managed?

How did the local population respond to the partnership and the Porta a Mare project? Was there support or opposition?

If the process was done again, what could be done differently?

).

3. Results

3.1. Italian Context

To analyze the Italian context based on the clusters identified previously, the study focused first on the enabling environment and, subsequently, on the exogenous factors that influence the Italian scenario of PPP arrangements in urban regeneration projects.

3.1.1. Enabling Environment in the Italian Context

The Italian legal framework on PPP arrangements is related to the “Green Paper on Public–Private Partnerships and Community Law on Public Contracts and Concessions”. Concerning the Green Paper, the European Commission defines Public–Private Partnerships as “forms of cooperation between public authorities and the world of business which aim to ensure the funding, construction, renovation, management or maintenance of an infrastructure or the provision of a service” [8]. The paper also defines two types of PPP arrangements: purely contractual PPPs and institutionalized PPPs.

Purely contractual PPPs are based on contractual relationships between public and private partners. These relationships can cover one or more tasks, such as the design, financing, building, renovation, operation, and maintenance of a work or service, but are always based on a clear division of tasks for both sectors [8].

Institutionalized PPPs involve the creation of a separate entity (joint venture) for cooperation between the two sectors, which will be responsible for delivering the infrastructure or service to be provided. An institutionalized PPP can be carried out either through the creation of an entity jointly owned by the public and private sectors, or through the transfer and private control of an existing public entity through a change of shareholders [8]. Concerning institutionalized PPPs, in 2008, the European Commission also developed the “Commission Interpretative Communication on the Application of Community Law on Public Procurement and Concessions to Institutionalized PPP (IPPP)” [9].

The Italian legal framework is aligned with the European level, considering contractual PPPs and institutionalized PPPs. In addition to the two modalities, the Italian national framework also considers negotiable PPPs [3].

Pure contractual partnerships are regulated in the Italian legal system by Legislative Decree no. 36/2023, called the “Codice dei contratti pubblici” (Public Contracts Code) [10]. This document replaces Legislative Decree no. 50/2016, called “Codice degli appalti pubblici e dei contratti di concessione” (Code of public procurement and concession contracts) [11] and Legislative Decree no. 163/2006—“Codice dei Concontractti Pubblici di Lavori, Servizi, Forniture” (Code of Public Contracts for Works, Services, Supplies) [12].

The code dedicates Book IV to Public–Private Partnerships and Concessions. The document defines a PPP project as an economic operation in which the following characteristics coexist: a long-term contractual relationship is established between a contracting authority and one or more private economic operators to achieve a result in the public interest; the financial requirements related to the implementation of the project are largely covered by resources provided by the private partner, due to the operational risk assumed by it; the private partner is responsible for the implementation and management of the project, while the public partner is responsible for defining the objectives and monitoring their implementation; the operational risk associated with the deployment of works or the management of services is allocated to the private partner [10].

The document also refers to the types of PPP contracts, including concessions, financial leases, and availability payment contracts. In addition, the document refers to any other type of contract concluded between the public administration and a private operator, as long as they have the characteristics mentioned above.

Although it refers to institutional PPPs, the “Codice dei contratti pubblici” emphasizes that institutional PPPs are governed by the Legislative Decree no. 175/2016, known as the “Testo unico in materia di società a partecipazione pubblica” (Consolidated law on publicly owned companies) [13]. The “Testo unico in materia di società a partecipazione pubblica” replaced the “Testo unico delle leggi sull’ordinamento degli enti locali” (consolidated law on the organization of local authorities) (Legislative Decree no. 267/2000) [14] regarding the regulation of public companies.

The document states that “public administrations can only participate in companies, including consortiums, set up as public limited companies or limited liability companies, including cooperatives” [13]. Companies can be publicly controlled, publicly owned, in-house, or mixed Public–Private. Institutionalized PPPs are thus used to manage public services to produce goods and activities aimed at achieving social objectives and promoting the economic and civil development of local communities. In the Italian context, the most common type of institutionalized PPP in the urban context is the Urban Transformation Society, introduced in 1997 [3].

Negotiable PPPs, conversely developed mainly through the so-called Complex Programs, which were implemented from the 1990s onwards. From the 2000s onwards, regional initiatives began to carry out negotiable PPP initiatives in the urban context [3].

The topic of urban regeneration, in turn, has been gaining prominence in urban planning concerning the need to contain land and enhance existing land. At the national level, some documents refer to the issue, such as the following: Law no. 10 of 2013, called “Norme per lo sviluppo degli spazi verdi urbani” [15]; Decree-Law No. 133 of 2014, called “Decreto Sblocca-Italia” [16]; Disegno di legge C-2039 [17]. However, it is at the regional level that the issue has been effectively dealt with. In this sense, some stand out, such as Regional Law of Veneto No. 14/2017 [18]; Regional Law of Abruzzo No. 24/2014 [19]; Regional Law of Lazio No. 7/2017 [20]; Regional Law of Toscana No. 65/2014 [21]; Regional Law of Lombardia No. 31/2014 [22]; Regional Law of Umbria No. 1/2015 [23]; Regional Law of Emilia-Romagna No. 24/2017 [24]. Finally, there are also some initiatives at the municipal level, such as regulations for collaboration between citizens and public administrations for the healing and regeneration of common goods [25] and regeneration experiments through temporary reuse [26].

The Italian context includes public agencies committed to PPP arrangements. It is interesting to note the roles, at different times, of the two agencies responsible for supporting the development and implementation of PPP arrangements in the country. The first agency is the Unità Tecnica Finanza di Progetto—UTFP (Technical Unit Project Finance—UTFP), established by Law No. 144 of 17 May 1999 [27], which operated until 2015. In 2015, Law No. 208 of 28 December abolished the UTFP and transferred the relevant functions in terms of PPP arrangements to the Dipartimento per la programmazione e il coordinamento della politica economica—DIPE (Department for Planning and Coordination of Economic Policy—DIPE) [28].

In the field of PPP projects, DIPE’s competencies include supporting contracting authorities by providing technical, legal, and financial assistance at all stages of the processes; collecting data and monitoring PPP operations; promoting and disseminating PPP models; activating collaborative relations with institutions, including at the international level, with bodies and associations operating in sectors related to the DIPE’s action in the field of PPP projects [29].

Another relevant aspect when developing PPP agreements in Italy is the Standard PPP Contract Model under Legislative Decree No. 50/2016. This document deals with important points related to PPP arrangements; in addition to the general conditions, it addresses the obligations of both parties, the different phases of design, construction and management, economic and financial balance and rebalancing, guarantees, and resolutions to different conflicts. However, it is important to note that the model is aimed at contractual PPPs. For institutional PPPs, no standard model was identified—only an explanatory circular refers to Urban Transformation Societies, a specific type of institutional PPP.

Finally, it is important to note that the National Anti-Corruption Association (ANAC) has a document with guidelines for monitoring by contracting authorities on the economic operator’s activity in PPP contracts. The latest edition of this was updated in 2023.

3.1.2. Exogenous Factors in the Italian Context

The exogenous factors analyzed include the availability of a financial and capital market, community support, favorable socio-economic factors, and a stable macroeconomic condition and sound economic policy.

The Italian scenario remains unsatisfactory regarding the availability of a financial and capital market. According to a report by Cassa Depositi e Prestiti, a company controlled by the Ministry of Economy and Finance, Italy’s public and private capital markets are not favorable for the economy. On the one hand, the public market is undersized compared to those in other European countries; on the other hand, the private market is too fragmented. The credit system is still largely dependent on bank loans with limited recourse to the capital market. The limited diversity of funding sources restricts the private sector’s ability to invest in riskier projects or those with long payback periods, as well as making companies more vulnerable to possible shocks [30].

Concerning community support, in Italy, as in many other countries, a series of criticisms made of different PPP arrangements have led to a deterioration and politicization of the relationship between public and private actors. Despite this, in recent years, the country has once again opened up to the possibilities of partnerships to respond to social, digital, environmental, and economic challenges [31]. However, PPP arrangements will only be successful if the public sector can use PPP projects strategically and if the private sector understands the need to generate public value [31].

In terms of socio-economic factors, since the country’s unification in 1861, Italy has been characterized by socio-economic disparities and a strong division between north and south. In general, the southern regions of Italy have less favorable socio-economic conditions. Some aspects influence the less favorable conditions in the southern regions, such as deindustrialization, demographic imbalances, the inability to develop an advanced tertiary sector and resist the pressures of emerging markets, and the collapse of public investment [32]. In general, the south of Italy has a lower level of industrial development, fewer public services, less territorial infrastructure, a reduced number of companies and lower employment [33]. Nevertheless, the division between north and south does not constitute two homogeneous parts. In fact, we can identify four different scenarios for the country—four different “Italies”: two Italies (which include the north and part of the center) perform better than the national average; one Italy represents the average (and includes regions in the center and part of the south); and one Italy is below the national average (and includes mostly southern regions) [32].

The most recent trends for the country reflect the difficulties of the 2008 financial crisis, considered the worst recession in recent Italian history, and the COVID crisis. Concerning the current situation, important socio-economic factors were identified, as follows: globally renowned centers in the north and the capital region drive economic development; economic advantages come at a cost in the north and the capital region, with high levels of continuous immigration leading to rising living costs; vast but less populated areas of central Italy are characterized by average living standards and average conditions for economic development; the regions of southern Italy lag behind the national average economically, with limited employment continuing to cause emigration and demographic decline [32].

Finally, to understand the country’s macroeconomic scenario, some indicators relating to annual GDP per capita growth as a percentage and inflation were analyzed, based on the data obtained from the World Bank over the last twenty years.

Concerning annual GDP per capita, the World Bank data show negative peaks in two years—2009 with −5.7% and 2020 with −8.5%. Despite strong growth in 2021 (+8.9%), growth in 2023 was only 1.2%. In terms of GDP per capita growth, the macroeconomic scenario does not indicate a robust economy, but rather an economic slowdown.

Concerning inflation, the country has had considerable inflation peaks in recent years, particularly in 2022, with 8.2% inflation. In 2023, inflation stood at 5.6%, representing a high and unfavorable inflation rate for the country’s macroeconomic scenario.

3.2. ”Porta a Mare” Case Study

After a general overview of the Italian context, this study focuses on the case of “Porta a Mare” in Livorno. To this end, the study begins with an initial contextualization of Livorno and its port. Then, it presents the proposed urban regeneration project. Finally, the study focuses on the PPP responsible for developing the project.

3.2.1. Context of Livorno and the Port

Livorno is a municipality in Tuscany, a region located in central Italy. With a population of around 160,000, it is the third largest city in the region. Its geographical position is favorable since it is in the middle of Italy and the Mediterranean (Figure 2).

Livorno, together with the municipalities of Pisa and Collesalvetti, form the so-called “industrial triangle” [34]. Furthermore, from a strategic point of view, the port of Livorno is part of the coastal logistics platform, together with Pisa Airport and the Guasticce Interport, and is also linked to the Gonfienti Interport in Prato and Florence Peretola Airport, as well as the other ports on the Tyrrhenian Sea [35]. In this sense, considering its large territorial scale, the port area of Livorno is strategic for the whole region and is easily accessible by main roads (Figure 3).

The city of Livorno was founded at the service of the port, which was the central element of the city until then [35]. From 1421, the small fishing village began to develop as a defensive port, leading to an international commercial port of call that reached its peak in the mid-18th century. Buontalenti’s project in 1577 marked the city’s founding, which encompassed the preexisting village and reinforced its character as a port city [35].

On an urban scale, the port is placed in an interesting pedestrian context, close to the historic center, important monuments, streets, squares, areas of commercial and public activities, and educational facilities [34]. In this sense, the Livorno port area and the waterfront have been receiving greater attention from the municipality, including major urban intervention projects.

The area currently subject to urban regeneration on Livorno’s waterfront is part of the original port, located in the central area of the city. The area was subsequently called Porta a Mare. The area was previously occupied by the Fratelli Orlando shipyard, which began its activities in 1866, producing merchant ships and warships, acting as a strong element in Livorno’s economy and history. However, due to foreign competition, the shipyard fell into crisis. In 1984, the Orlando shipyard was passed to the Fincantieri Group, a company with state participation. Finally, in 1993, the company was announced as for sale [36].

To avoid a complete shutdown, the shipyard was managed through a cooperative during 1996–2002. However, due mainly to mismanagement and economic and financial issues, the cooperative’s activities were also closed down [36].

During the crisis, in 1995, the Municipality of Livorno started thinking about alternatives for the area at a project level, including the possibility of new urban uses—services, shops, residences, and a tourist port. In this context, the 1997 Structural Plan presented the project proposal and new functionalities for the Porta a Mare area [36].

With the demise of the Orlando Shipyard and the Cooperative, the search began for a private company interested in taking over the area, mainly seeking to guarantee the employment of the workers from the old shipyard and, at the same time, releasing part of the area for urban uses.

It was then proposed that the area be divided into two different uses: one part is still for industrial use and another part is for urban use. The regenerated area destined for urban use constitutes the Porta a Mare project and was the objective of the PPP arrangement. The industrial area was bought by the company Azimut Benetti, which was also a private partner in the Porta a Mare PPP arrangement.

3.2.2. Porta a Mare Project Proposal

As mentioned, the initial area was divided between industrial and urban parts. The industrial part continued to be privately owned and managed (by the Azimut Benetti company), while the part for urban use was the subject of urban regeneration and the PPP arrangement, called Porta a Mare.

The urban regeneration project for the area, covering more than 10 ha, aims to transform Livorno’s waterfront and port into a “waterfront of excellence” through a multifunctional hub that brings together commercial, office, residential, and service spaces linked to tourism, as well as new mooring areas [37].

The entire project is made up of five zones—Piazza Mazzini, Officine Storiche, Molo Mediceo, Arsenale, and area LIps, each with its own identity and specificity (Figure 4). Piazza Mazzini and the Officine Storiche are dedicated to developing residences, offices, retail spaces, shops, restaurants, and parking spaces, while Molo Mediceo and Arsenal are intended for tourist facilities and accommodations (Molo Mediceo, especially because of its relationship with what was to be the future tourist port). The LIps area—connected by a bridge to the Molo Mediceo and the Arsenal area—is dedicated to leisure and recreational activities, as well as residences and tourist facilities [34,37].

The development of the project was divided into two phases; the first phase focuses on Piazza Mazzini and the Officine Storiche. The second phase involves the Molo Mediceo, the Arsenal area, and the LIps area, with completely autonomous development of the works due to their geographical positioning and the possibility of exclusive access [34].

Thus, the project aims to restore historic buildings with industrial architecture and former shipyards, proposing new functionalities and creating a relationship of continuity between the past and present of the area. The hope is to give the waterfront and the city itself a new image, as has happened in other European cities that have regenerated their waterfronts (Figure 5). The entire project was initially scheduled for completion in 2022.

3.2.3. STU Porta a Mare

As mentioned before, the designation of the Porta a Mare area and the possibility of its regeneration were presented following the 1997 Structural Plan in the context of the crisis of the Orlando shipyards [39].

Although it was first mentioned in 1997, the partnership responsible for regenerating Livorno’s waterfront was only established in 2003 [38]. In this case, it was a “Società di Trasformazione Urbana” (STU), i.e., an institutionalized PPP between the public and private sectors.

The former head of urban planning for the Municipality of Livorno (interviewee 03) has referred to the use of the STU to develop an area that had already been considered in the Structural Plan, stating that “the STU is a tool, but the idea arises from traditional urban planning, of urban planning studied as early as 95, according to the classical canons of tools at the time, supported by considerable economic studies and studies also regarding the activities” (translated from Italian).

The creation of the STU went through different stages, starting back in 2001 [39]. At the end of 2001, faced with the Orlando shipyards crisis and the cooperative trying to manage the area, the Municipal Administration proposed an STU for the area. In this context, pre-feasibility plans were put in place, under the responsibility of Europrogetti e Finanza, which later formed the basis of the proposed company [39].

The real process of setting up the company began during the first months of 2002. The process of setting up the STU has progressed through several different deliberations made by the Municipal Council [40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52].

In this context, the first relevant document was formalized in April 2002, and was responsible for setting out the general guidelines for the area’s transformation and delimiting a preliminary perimeter [40]. The document formed the basis for the feasibility study, which was requested in September, and its preliminary version was delivered in the same month [53].

The document also refers to two important aspects—the municipality’s renunciation of a majority participation in the company that will be formed, and the private partner’s obligation to own buildings and areas within the delimited perimeter [39].

Following this document, the situation of the Orlando shipyard became increasingly difficult until it filed for bankruptcy. In July 2002, the shipyard went into receivership, and the search began for a buyer who, using the proceeds from the sale of the shipyard, could make an offer to creditors and restore the company’s profitability. The entire complex was put up for sale at a price estimated by the judicial authorities at EUR 50 million [39].

Given this scenario, negotiations for the sale of the shipyard took place between September 2002 and June 2003. At the end of this period, a preliminary sale contract was signed with Azimut Benetti, a world leader in the production of large yachts. The effective purchase of the area took place in December 2003, when Azimut Benetti paid the full amount requested with an increase of EUR 600,000.00 [39].

During this period, a definitive feasibility study was also drawn up, and it was delivered in April 2023. Also, in April 2003, the mayor of Livorno publicly presented the STU Porta a Mare project, which was approved by a majority of the city council. The administration has committed itself to moving ahead quickly with setting up the STU, and even has a dedicated group within its staff [54].

In July 2003, the document presenting STU’s detailed plan was released, both for the industrial area (the responsibility of the Amizut Benetti company exclusively) and for the real estate area, which is the object of the STU [42,43]. Once the feasibility study had been finalized, negotiations for the sale had taken place and the detailed plan had been drawn up, a resolution was adopted in July approving the incorporation of the STU [44]. In October 2003, the previously drawn up detailed plan was approved [45,46].

Also, in October 2003, the tender document for private partners was published [48]. It is important to note that the document makes it clear that the private partner must own areas within the perimeter or be in the process of acquiring areas within the perimeter, as is the particular case of the Azimut Benetti company [53].

With the purchase of the shipyard, Azimut Benetti has become the largest owner in the area designated for the STU, and has been chosen as the company’s private partner [49]. The company was established on 11 December 2003, with very different shareholdings between the public and private partners; while the Municipality of Livorno contributed EUR 50,000.00, Azimut Benetti contributed EUR 250,000.00 [39].

Regarding the luxury yacht company Azimut Benetti and its involvement as a private partner of STU Porta a Mare, the interviewees have positive opinions. Interviewee 02 stated that “We have been very fortunate to have found a developer like Azimut Benetti, which has grown since then, and so the industrial activity on Livorno has grown together with this interlocutor, this private partner who is one of the few large Italian companies that continues to be growing, is a world leader of the luxury yachts. So, it is a reliable partner”. (translated from Italian). Interviewee 05 stated that “as a partner, I think you couldn’t have found a better one. Because a company of this level is hard to find in the market. It seems to me that actually the result that was to be achieved through them was secured” (translated from Italian).

The private entities SPIL and LIPS, owners of land within the delimited area, decided not to participate in the partnership, and put their land up for sale. The capital needed to buy these areas (around EUR 40,000,000) was paid by the private partner, reducing the municipality’s holding in the company to symbolic participation, as planned at the start of the operation [39]. The constitution of the STU includes the following documents (Figure 6).

The STU’s obligations include purchasing the areas and buildings involved in the transformation operations; obtaining the necessary authorizations and concessions, both for the buildings and the bodies of water used for the construction of the tourist port and related infrastructures; taking care, directly or indirectly, of the preliminary, final and executive design of the necessary buildings and infrastructures; carrying out the planned operations, either directly, through its partners, individuals or associates, or by awarding construction and management contracts or works contracts. It is also possible to cede areas or parts of them to third parties, who are committed to respecting the project constraints already defined. It must also market and manage all or part, directly or indirectly, of the building and infrastructure works carried out, also through its partners, individuals, or associates. The company may take part, directly or indirectly, in any other operation related to its corporate purpose, including the study, design, execution, and construction of specific facilities [50].

As can be seen, at the time the STU was established, almost all the land was owned by Azimut Benetti. In 2004–2006, Azimut Benetti sold all the areas included in STU Porta a Mare, except those affected by the new Benetti shipyard. On 4 April 2007, the Municipality sold to STU two areas that are part of the Molo Mediceo subdivision and one area that is part of the Arsenale subdivision, as well as the building indexes of Piazza Mazzini [54].

In June 2007, building licenses were obtained for the subdivisions of Piazza Mazzini, Officine Storiche, Lips area, Molo Mediceo, and urbanization works. In December 2008, building licenses were obtained for the last subdivision, Arsenal [54].

Also in 2007, an important document was established—the Accordo di Programma per lo svilupp e la trasformazione urbanistica dell’ex Cantiere Navale Orlando di Livorno e delle aree portuali limítrofe (Program Agreement for the development and urban transformation of the former Orlando shipyard in Livorno and surrounding port areas). The document includes all the entities involved in the tourist port area, establishing the role of each one [55]. The agreement was an important step towards the division of tasks between the entities, but no progress was made in terms of developing the tourist port. Regarding the agreement, interviewee 03 stated that “this program agreement in which objectively were clearly defined not only at the initial stage, but also afterward, what each did. However, this is a defect of public bodies… you should have these agreements, twenty years pass, updated” (translated from Italian).

On 20 March 2008, Porta a Mare transferred to Società Porta Medicea srl all the areas involved in the real estate project, with the obligation on the part of the purchaser to respect all the urban planning and contractual restrictions stipulated between the Municipality of Livorno and STU Porta a Mare. At the time of the purchase contract, Società Porta Medicea was 80% owned by IGD. On 30 March 2009, Azimut Benetti sold its shares in Porta Medicea Srl (20%) to Cooperare Sviluppo S.p.A. [54].

Two of the five phases of the project initially proposed have been completed. The Piazza Mazzini area was opened in 2014, while the Officine Storiche was opened in 2023 [56]. The other three areas—the Molo Mediceo, Arsenale area, and the Lips area—are still in the development phase and under review due to the pandemic period (IGD SiiQ, n.d.A).

Although the urban project, now under the responsibility of Porta Medicea—and therefore under the responsibility of IGD—has not yet been completed, the interviewees give the company a positive evaluation. Interviewee 05 states that “IGD is a great structure of cooperatives in the world of Italian cooperatives… although IGD has not yet finished doing what it is supposed to do, because what has been accomplished is still a part of the total real estate operation and it will continue along with the construction of the Tourist Port” (translated from Italian).

3.2.4. STU and Project Porta a Mare

Although not completely finished yet, the STU process and the urban regeneration carried out were evaluated positively by the interviewees, despite the presence of some aspects that could be improved. Interviewee 01 stated that “it still hasn’t gone, it’s going well… in such a heavy process, however new activities have come into being because in any case, it has entered new inductees in those areas, so it has produced a by side of richness and redevelopment…” (translated from Italian). The interviewee also referred to the importance of the opening of the waterfront for the city, stating that “the Livornese slowly got to know more of the port side and was thus able to become known, to appropriate even a part of the territory from which he felt rejected… It was difficult to reach … had few desirable activities to take a walk that little went into the port. Instead now so many times they go for walks there” (translated from Italian).

Some important criticisms were pointed out, especially regarding the urban and architectural results. Concerning the urban results, the connection between the regenerated area and its surroundings was pointed out as an aspect that could be better addressed, with reference to some urban mobility issues. Interviewee 03 referred to this aspect, stating that “the main idea was valid, but if there was one thing that we needed to deepen, it was to frame it, in a more coherent way, with the external urban fabric, that is. I mean because of the rush to do it … but for example the relationship with the Waterfront, the minor boating, Mazzini Square, the city layout, the waterfront … make a more valid master plan on the waterfront” (translated from Italian). Regarding the mobility, interviewee 04 pointed out that the area “became a new polarity that wasn’t there before… and this has impacted the viability” (translated from Italian).

The architectural style adopted for the new buildings has been criticized, as it does not correspond to or relate to the historic buildings in the area, which feature very different styles and materials. On this point, interviewee 03 said that the project “was quite innovative as an overall design, even as a destination of use. What I don’t agree with is really the architectural choice and the execution” (translated from Italian).

The amount of new construction, the number of new functions concentrated in a single area, and the absence of green spaces have also raised criticism. On this issue, interviewee 04 demonstrated concern about the issue, stating, “I think there’s too many functions all at once, too much density of functions and volumes… and I’m also a little afraid of whether it will continue to work or not… or whether at some point it will open up something somewhere else and no one will go there anymore” (translated from Italian).

The absence of the tourist port is another important element, since the port would give more significance to the transformation that has taken place, as well as the new functions. Interviewee 05 strongly emphasized this issue: “What is it that is not working? What is not working is the fact that, as of today, year 2025 open, the foundation stone has not yet been placed to build the tourist port, which is one of the essential components of this whole project. This project made sense because it was supposed to free up the Mediceo port, the older part and put in this big Marina that has been talked about in Livorno for 50 or 60 years, but the rhythms of this city and Italy are like that … that is, it takes years and years for any project and we are going through it” (translated from Italian).

Finally, concerning the STU process, a very relevant criticism refers to the lack of involvement of the local population, for example, through participatory processes. The participatory process related to the Porta a Mare area was only carried out in 2015, when decisions about the STU and the project were already established and ongoing. The participatory process, called “Il futuro è dietro la Porta! (a Mare)” (The future is behind the Door! at sea), encouraged the citizens of Livorno to begin formulating strategies and operational projects for the development of the Porta a Mare area and the surrounding neighborhoods.

Interviewee 04 described the main moments during the participatory process, which included “two walks, two workshops in the schools, the site survey, and then workshops—some reserved for technicians, so architects, engineers, geometers, and some reserved for citizens. And then the last ones were brought together, citizens and technicians” (translated from Italian). The interviewee also summarized the objectives of the process: “The initial claim was to understand what was happening in that area. The final one was instead to be able to make proposals” (translated from Italian).

The results of the participatory process included 41 proposals, which were handed over to the municipality. Concerning the proposals and whether any changes were observed in the area as a result of the participatory process, the interviewee stated “A little something, however, it is hard to say this came from that participatory path. I have in mind a very small and punctual intervention that is very significant, though, which restored the continuity of a pedestrian path. Now, I don’t want to say that this is the impact, because it’s actually a little more than that” (translated from Italian).

Despite this, the interviewee highlighted an important impact of the process, stating that “however, there has been a positive impact on citizens instead, because that pathway has given rise to many other small initiatives, even from the bottom up, of activities in the neighborhoods” (translated from Italian).

4. Discussion

The analysis considered the external environment and the internal environment of the PPP project. The clusters and factors related to the external environment—enabling environment and exogenous factors—were used to discuss the Italian context concerning PPP arrangements. The clusters and factors related to the internal environment—preparatory phase, procurement phase, and contract management phase—were used to analyze the specific case of the urban regeneration project Porta a Mare and the STU Porta a Mare, the institutionalized PPP responsible for the project.

From the analysis, it was possible to identify the CSFs in the Italian context and in the case of the Porta a Mare PPP project, as well as the critical points that could be better developed to facilitate and improve the implementation and development of PPP arrangements and provide better value for money.

4.1. Italian Context

In the Italian context, the legal framework for PPP arrangements aligns with the European level regarding contractual and institutionalized PPPs. Additionally, a third category of PPP arrangements can be found in Italy—negotiable PPPs. In the field of urban regeneration, the legal framework is mostly developed at the regional level, which makes it difficult to achieve homogeneity at the national level.

Also concerning PPP arrangements in the Italian scenario, some elements are particularly noteworthy, as follows: the Department of Planning and Coordination of Economic Policy, as the agency responsible for ensuring support and assistance to the public sector in the development of PPP arrangements; the availability of a standard model for PPP contracts, and finally, the guidelines made available on the monitoring of PPP contracts. These elements assist the public sector in developing and implementing partnerships and strengthening its leadership.

However, it is important to note that the PPP standardization model is only designed for contractual PPPs. The lack of standardization of the process for institutionalized and negotiable PPPs is a weakness in the Italian context that deserves attention to improve these practices.

Regarding exogenous factors, the Italian financial and capital market is still limited, offering no diversified options. In addition, socio-economic factors differ greatly between Italian regions, especially in the north and south of the country. Community support, in turn, needs to be strengthened through the commitment of the public and private sectors. Finally, GDP per capita growth and inflation rates do not currently point to a macroeconomic scenario that favors the development of PPPs. In this sense, the scenario concerning exogenous factors is not favorable for the development and implementation of PPP arrangements and could hinder these practices.

4.2. “Porta a Mare” Case Study

Concerning the STU Porta a Mare and the different phases—the preparation phase, the procurement phase, and the contract management phase—some aspects should be highlighted.

As a result of the shipyard crisis, the public sector considered that a PPP agreement could be a solution for the area. In other words, the PPP arrangement proposed and established was clearly aimed at solving the problem of the crisis and the underutilized area resulting from the crisis.

Furthermore, with the division of the area into an industrial part (privately owned and managed) and an urban part (the object of the PPP arrangement), it was possible to return a waterfront area to the city. It should also be noted that the proposed division and new urban functions for the area were already under study and planned by the public administration, i.e., the use of a PPP arrangement was the means found to carry out previously planned intervention.

In this sense, the public sector was committed to the preparation phase. This commitment led to the dedication of professionals and a series of deliberations responsible for defining responsibilities and roles, the scope of the project, etc. Also important were the pre-feasibility studies carried out during the preparation phase, which later formed the basis of the company established.

Furthermore, the public sector’s commitment is also reflected in the contracting phase and the speed with which the process was carried out. Despite this, it is important to note that the public sector has limited the private sector selection tender to only companies that own land within the perimeter of the project, or to companies in the process of acquiring land. This limitation compromises the transparency and competitiveness of the process.

In fact, the luxury yacht company Azimut Benetti was already established as a private partner before the selection notice, which was a mere formality as far as the process was concerned. Despite this, the selected private sector was also committed to the partnership, which reflects a good relationship between the parties.

The commitment of the public and private sectors is also evident in the contract management phase. The company Azimut Benetti solved the shipyard and jobs crisis in the industrial part (i.e., outside the STU area). The urban part, however, was transferred from the STU Porta a Mare to the STU Porta Medicea, under the responsibility of IGD. Although the entire project has not been completed, Porta Medicea and IGD remain committed to completing the regeneration of the area.

Public and private partners are very committed to its development concerning the PPP arrangement responsible for the Porta a Mare project. However, a critical point in the PPP process analyzed is the limitations regarding the choice of the private partner, which reduced the possibilities for other companies to participate and practically pushed for the choice of the Azimut Benetti company. Another important criticism is the lack of public participation, since public participation was only enabled in 2015, when the STU and the project were already well-defined.

From a project perspective, criticism has been expressed about the lack of connectivity and relationships between the new area and its surroundings, the new buildings’ architecture, the excessive construction and new functions, and the absence of urban green space. Finally, the absence of the tourist port, which has not yet been built—and which would give more meaning to the whole proposed urban area—is also a critical point.

Despite this, overall, the STU and the Porta a Mare project have achieved important results. Firstly, the problems related to the shipyard crisis and the maintenance of jobs were solved, which was only possible with the selection of an economically strong private partner. A second positive aspect was the opening up of the city to the waterfront area, which until then had been reserved exclusively for industrial activity and closed in on itself.

5. Conclusions

Focusing on PPP arrangements in urban regeneration projects, this study analyzed the topic in the specific Italian context and the specific case of the Porta a Mare partnership in Livorno. Furthermore, it aimed to understand the CSFs in the Italian context and the case study, as well as the issues that could be improved.

To this end, the research was based on a pre-established framework of CSFs for PPPs in urban regeneration projects. The framework divides the external environment of the PPP arrangement and the internal environment, considering the different phases of the PPP project. Thus, this framework facilitates the analysis of the Italian context concerning PPP arrangements and the specific case study concerning the Porta a Mare partnership. To carry out the study, data were collected from official documents, laws and decrees, available academic literature, and promotional information. In addition, interviews were conducted with actors involved in the Porta a Mare PPP and project.

This study analyzes a specific context and case to better understand the best practices associated with PPP arrangements in urban regeneration projects. From a practical point of view, the analysis of the Italian context and the case of Porta a Mare emphasizes some elements that can be recommended to political decision-makers regarding PPP arrangements in urban regeneration projects.

Clear legal frameworks are important for developing an enabling environment for PPPs in urban regeneration projects. Specific agencies and documents that guarantee process standardization can also enhance the enabling environment. A clear legal framework, specific agencies for this purpose, and standardized processes help guarantee the public sector’s leadership position.

Regarding PPP arrangements and the projects resulting from the partnership, it is important that there is a clear delimitation of the area to be managed and that there is in-depth knowledge of the area—even at a pre-contractual phase, it is important to understand all the needs to be addressed. Choosing a private partner that is strong enough to meet the needs of the project is crucial. Moreover, the leadership of the public sector in these processes is also crucial.

Strong public sector leadership must be attentive to the different interests of the parties involved and affected. The local population’s involvement is important from the start of the process, helping understand the real needs of the area to be regenerated and producing benefits for everyone. Involving the different stakeholders also helps avoid conflicts. In the case of conflicts, there must also be effective management to prevent further damage to the process and the development of the project.

Finally, it is important to highlight that the success of a PPP arrangement in urban regeneration projects refers to different elements, including not only the management of the contract and its fulfillment, but also the urban, economic, and social outcomes resulting from this process and the urban regeneration carried out. It is, therefore, a complex process, involving different areas of study that must be planned and developed by multidisciplinary teams.

Despite meeting the initial objective, the study has limitations. The first limitation concerns the availability of data that can be used for analyzing the different factors identified by the framework. Some factors are particularly difficult to analyze since not all the data are fully available or easy to identify. More subjective factors, such as good governance or open and constant communication among the stakeholders, are also not easily analyzed.

A second limitation refers to the analysis of only one partnership, which does not represent the entire country’s context. Furthermore, using only one case does not effectively validate the pre-established framework, and it is necessary to apply it to other case studies.

Another limitation is the lack of quantitative data to reinforce the results obtained. The inclusion of quantitative data would be an asset to the analysis of the case study and the application of the framework.

A last limitation is that the project has not yet been fully completed. Nevertheless, so far, the case of Porta a Mare presents very interesting elements regarding PPP agreements in urban regeneration projects.

In this sense, future studies could apply the proposed framework to explore other partnerships or even other contexts, including using quantitative data or other qualitative data. The analysis of other contexts and specific cases will further expand knowledge about the implementation and management of this type of partnership, contributing to the achievement of better results from both a financial and a social point of view.