## 4 Results and Discussion
### Loop 8 Dynamic Openings, Loop 9 Dynamic Closing and Loop 10 Urban Regeneration  
The analysis of dynamic parking management cycles (Figure 7) reveals contrasting dynamics. Loop 8 \"Dynamic openings\" is configured as a balancing loop. In this mechanism, an increase in the parking occupancy level (or the \"Level of consumption of parking areas,\" as defined in the context of space optimization, indicating increased pressure on the parking resource) triggers a dynamic opening of new spaces to meet demand. This mechanism aims to bring occupancy back to a desired level, acting as a regulator. Its balancing action is crucial for preventing saturation and maintaining availability. Conversely, the Loop 9 Dynamic closing operates as a negative reinforcing loop, where a low occupancy level leads to the reduction in parking spaces, potentially increasing the utilization rate of the remaining ones but risking a spiral of supply contraction if demand does not adjust. Crucially, the Loop 10 Urban Regeneration represents a long-term reinforcing loop that pushes towards the optimization of underutilized urban spaces, including parking lots, converting them for more efficient uses. While Loop 10 \"Urban Regeneration\" strongly propels a continuous optimization of urban spaces through the strategic reallocation of parking areas to alternative functions, such as pedestrian zones or green spaces, it is crucial to recognize that even such a reinforcing process cannot proceed indefinitely. Its positive momentum inevitably encounters concrete limitations. The availability of suitable and truly redundant parking spaces for conversion is finite, and an excessive, unbalanced reduction could compromise essential mobility and accessibility for residents and businesses, creating problems rather than solving them. Furthermore, the conversion of these spaces into green or pedestrian areas (with associated urban furniture, drainage, lighting, etc.) involves significant design, construction, and subsequent maintenance costs, imposing economic constraints. Lastly, and perhaps most critically, the removal of parking often faces considerable social and political resistance from those who depend on it, effectively limiting the scope and speed of such transformations. All these factors act as balancing forces that, once they emerge, tend to slow down or even redefine the boundaries of the regeneration process, pushing it towards a new and more complex equilibrium between spatial efficiency and socio-economic needs.  
Effective dynamic management requires a thorough analysis of parking demand, aiming for an optimal occupancy level. The introduction of dynamic pricing can function as a mechanism for regulating demand flow, incentivizing the use of less saturated parking and discouraging concentration in specific areas. Simultaneously, dynamic opening and  
Figure 7: Loop 8 Dynamic opening (balancing loop); Loop 9 Dynamic closing (reinforcing loop); Loop 10 Urban regeneration (reinforcing loop).  
closing decisions should be informed not only by current occupancy levels but also by demand forecasts and long-term urban space optimization goals. From this perspective, the closure of low-demand parking areas should not be seen as a simple reduction in supply but as a strategic opportunity for the temporary or permanent reallocation of space for more priority uses, contributing to a broader vision of urban efficiency and liveability.