Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Evaluation of Eff (an example)_
| Eff9 | Indicators | Score | Weighting % | Eff value | Influence Index In | Leverage effect VEffn/3.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| strengthening safety and security | improving safety in public spaces | 1.5 | 50 | 1.50 | 1.74 | 2.61 |
| reducing vulnerability by the creation of new spaces | 2.5 | 25 | ||||
| creation of new urban security services | 0.5 | 25 |
Components of the structural matrix_
| Urban regeneration targets | Checklist of emblematic facility effects (Eff) |
|---|---|
| 1. Integration of municipality development into the met- ropolitan renewal project. | 1. Creation of a new pole of attractiveness. 2. Training of a new urban landscape. |
| 2. Enhancement of local attractiveness for better visibility of the city. | 3. Development of proximity. 4. Appearance of new nuisances. |
| 3. Close proximity. | 5. New Urban icon. |
| 4. Permeability of the locality and strengthening of links with the city. | 6. New Model of partnership governance. 7. Training of an urban intruder. |
| 5. Repositioning of the locality in the system of territo- ries creating economic values. | 8. Promotion of diversity. 9. Strengthening safety. |
| 6. Locality specialisation. | 10. Promotion of residential attractiveness. |
| 7. Adapting urban planning to the new needs of the modern economy. | 11. Initiated gentrification phenomenon. 12. Increase in economic value. |
| 8. Enhancing heritage and recycling of existing build- ings. | 13. Revitalisation of the land and real estate market. 14. Promotion of tourist attractiveness. |
| 9. Enhancing cultural diversity. | 15. Contribution to the territory specialisation. |
| 10. Conserving natural resources and reducing nuisances. | 16. Green transport. |
| 11. Improving safety and risk management. | 17. Preservation of resources. |
| 12. Cleanup of the degraded territories. | 18. Creation or increase of nuisances. |
| 13. Setting up a local tool the RU strategy at the various phases. | |
| 14. Creation of establishment to federate all the actors around the RU project. | |
| 15. Reconsidering approaches and knowledge for more effective territorial management and greater flexibility. |
Rating scale_
| Score | Qualitative assessment |
|---|---|
| 0–0.5 | insignificant |
| 0.5–1.5 | not very important |
| 1.5–2.5 | important reference value = 1.5 |
| 2.5–3.5 | very important |
Economic and social indicators comparing El Madania to other Sidi M’Hamed municipalities_
| Municipality | Area (ha) | Population | Population density | Wealth ratio | Commercial activity rate | % apartments of small | Occupancy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alger-Centre | 370 | 75,541 | 9.78 | 22,310 | 4.66 | 32.4 | 1.8 |
| Sidi M’hamed | 218 | 67,873 | 16.50 | 08,610 | 3.15 | 39.4 | 2.1 |
| El Mouradia | 190 | 22,813 | 5.58 | 12,107 | 1.00 | 36.7 | 2.0 |
| El Madania | 217 | 40,301 | 5.91 | 03,076 | 1.06 | 60.0 | 2.8 |
| Algiers average | 12,604.37 | 1.75 | 34.6 | 2.1 |