The increasing need to regenerate public housing stock highlights the importance of adopting integrated evaluation tools capable of supporting transparent, sustainable, and public value-oriented investment decisions. This study compares two alternative intervention strategies—renovation with extension and demolition followed by reconstruction—by applying a Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) model developed in two phases. In the first phase, the analysis focuses on social benefits, with the aim of assessing their contribution to collective well-being. The second phase incorporates potential energy-related benefits, estimated on the basis of performance improvements associated with the two design scenarios. The results demonstrate that the integrated consideration of economic, social, and energy–environmental dimensions affects the relative performance differences between the examined strategies, offering a more comprehensive evaluation framework than conventional approaches based solely on monetary costs. The proposed model, which is replicable in Mediterranean contexts, contributes to the ongoing international debate on ex ante evaluation tools and provides operational insights to support urban regeneration policies oriented towards more effective, equitable, and policy-consistent solutions, in line with the objectives of the European Green Deal and the 2030 Agenda. The two-phase structure allows decision-makers to distinguish between short-term social effects and long-term energy-related benefits, offering a transparent support tool for public investment choices under fiscal constraints.
Spina et al. (Wed,) studied this question.