*A.6 Description of the asset to be enhanced*

At this point, the cognitive investigation focuses attention on the asset to be valued, starting from a brief description. Then, the main identification data are reported: Name; type of asset; year of construction; the presence of constraints; public or private property; location; photos; level of decay; usability; reachability by public transport; availability of information (in the case of cultural heritage).

## *A.7 Recognition of already completed projects*

In this sub-section there is a recognition of the projects already carried out on the asset considered for the redevelopment initiative, but also the general program to which the enhancement project must be coherent and, hopefully, helpful to achieve its objectives.

## *A.8 The stakeholders' point of view*

Every investment has an impact beyond the finalized goods or services produced. Therefore, stakeholders have a specific role, and also interests, in the project implementation, helping future scenarios. The model foresees interviews with institutional stakeholders, such as local administrators, but also entrepreneurs, professionals, municipal technicians, associations. Interviews are useful to analyze perceptions and expectations from all categories of stakeholders involved. Following some examples:


### *A.9 Identification of Best Practices*

Once the cultural object of the simulation has been chosen, it can be useful to identify and describe a best practice, or an experience of success comparable to similar assets, in order to highlight those positive elements that allowed to obtain the best result, with respect to the contexts and the set objectives, taking into account previous cases of enhancement projects and projects to improve accessibility. It can also be useful to analyze management models and kinds of PPPs.

The best practices analysis not always provide the expected results: Solutions and models are often designed for completely different contexts and situations, not always useful for specific projects. In any case, the knowledge of how similar cases could provide some useful indications, as long as there is awareness of the limits of this methodology.

### *A.10 Identification of problems and vocations*

The cognitive analysis conducted allows the identification of main issues, but also the territory vocation and the assets to be enhanced.

### *6.2. Section B—Reuse Hypothesis*

### *B.1 Project strong-point*

In this first sub-section the idea that the project intends to pursue according to the resources of the territory, the economic fabric, etc., must be briefly described.

### *B.2 Project objectives*

In detail, a strong idea of the project should be explained, describing the specific objectives, specifying which needs the project intends to satisfy through the asset development project.

## *B.3 Intervention hypothesis*

Considering the cognitive investigations carried out, and the outcomes analyzed the first hypothesis of intervention can be drawn, referring to those activities to be localized, and the subjects to be involved (profit and not-for-profit, private individuals, institutions, etc.).

### *B.4 Functional schemes and consistency*

The meta-design idea drawn by the intervention hypothesis must be graphically depicted through plan diagrams, on adequate scales, describing the functions to be added, by attaching a legend to match the assigned surfaces with the given functions.

### *6.3. Section C—Financial Economic Plan (FEP)*

As already explained above, the FEP is divided into 4 phases:

Phase C.1. Investment costs assessment (Works for the recovery and re-functionalization of buildings; Hardware and software furniture and equipment for the usability of buildings; communication and marketing; etc.).

Phase C.2. Revenues assessment (Identification of goods to be produced or services to be provided; estimate of their unitary sale price; identification of the target audience; demand assessment revenues assessment).

Phase C.3. management costs assessment (management model and manager description; human resources plan, management costs appraisal, such as consumables, services, workers, etc.).

### Phase C.4. Project economic feasibility and/or sustainability.

### 6.3.1. Phase C.1. Investment Costs Assessment

Preliminarily, it is necessary to identify all the investment items, possibly subdivided by macro-category of works (masonry, consolidation, parking, etc.) and by type (furnishings, equipment, software, technical expenses). The estimate will be made through the synthetic procedures for the estimation of the construction/production cost, as concern the building works, and the equipment and furnishings too, that will have to be carried out according to the building re-use hypothesis, with respect the different rooms it is composed by.

Then, the capital composition has to be analyzed, establish public and private investment shares; as concern the private share, it the equity the debt share has to be established, to calculate a possible annual loan installment, to be added to the Discounted cash flow analysis.

At the end of this phase, it is necessary to hypothesize the residual value of the building at the end of the life cycle, that will be added among the revenues, in the case of the profit management entity, jointly to the public investment shares.

### 6.3.2. Phase C.2. Revenues Assessment

After the investment costs assessment, the private subject has to be established, if profit or not-for-profit entity of management, to proceed with the subsequent f costs and revenues assessments.

The revenues appraisal requires, first of all, the identification of goods to be produced, or the services to be provided, and the estimate of their unity sale price.

Then, it is possible to figure out the demand, through the definition of the reference target of the proposed project.

Among the revenues, in the case of no-profit management entity, membership fees have to be considered; other private contributions and fundraising; any government grants for management.

### 6.3.3. Phase C.3. Management Costs Assessment

To assess management costs, the management model has to be established in advance. In order to identify the optimum management model for the proposed project, its sustainability has to be verified, both with a private for-profit entity and a not-for-profit one, also specifying the additional subjects eventually involved in the management phase. The management model is based on the use of an organization chart to list the activities, the foreseen functions and the role assigned to each human resource involved, specifying the taken legal form (consortium, partnership agreement, etc.)

Consistently with the management model, the different items of management costs (consumables, services, maintenance etc.) are evaluated, identified through synthetic procedures and surveys, clarifying the reference sources (national labor contracts, best practices, etc.).

### 6.3.4. Phase C.4. Project Economic Feasibility and/or Sustainability

Basing on the revenues and costs assessments, the economic sustainability of the intervention can be verified in the management phase (non-profit subject), or the investment feasibility in terms of profitability (profit subject) by alternatively drawing up one of the two economic accounts exposed before (Scheme of Cash Flow Analysis and Scheme of Discounted Cash Flow Analysis).

### **7. Conclusions**

The SOSTEC model was conceived as a tool. Even though it was still experimental in character, it was intended for public administrations needs to re-develop unused real estate, not for residential use, with the involvement of private entities.

The model, can be helpful for existing buildings enhancement, also of historical and architectural value, and suitable for development projects of areas susceptible to transformation, and allows to:


The identification of the type of private entity involvement, through the SOSTEC model, takes place by reiterating the evaluation, in order to identify feasible and/or sustainable solutions and to exclude those that do not possess these requirements.

One of the SOSTEC model objectives is also the homogenization of those items included within the different cash flow analysis methods: In detail, the article aimed at highlighting the main differences introduced by the cash flow analysis scheme, updated or not, focused to assess the urban projects feasibility and sustainability, in compliance with the company accounting, such as the Balance Sheet.

Therefore, the model will be conveniently tested through the case studies application.

Moreover, by these tests, it is expected:


The research activity will also continue toward the integration of monetary techniques, used in the model described above, with qualitative criteria that improve the capacity of the hypothesized solutions in order to respond to the citizens' real needs and the territories socio-economic dynamics.

**Author Contributions:** 1. Introduction, 3. Monetary evaluations of projects in the PPP, and 7. Conclusions, L.D.S.; 2. The cooperation between public and private subjects, 4. Evaluation techniques and project profitability, and 5. The Financial Economic Plan of a project, F.C.; 6. The SOSTEC model, F.C. and L.D.S.

**Funding:** The present study has not received any type of financing.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest with regard to the present study.
